Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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.

  • This page is not for simple vandalism or material which can easily be removed without argument. If you can, simply remove the offending material.
  • Familiarize yourself with the biographies of living persons policy before reporting issues here.
  • You can request a revision deletion on IRC using #wikipedia-en-revdel connect, where only administrators will be able to see your concerns.
  • Important: Do not copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard. Link to a diff showing the dispute, but do not paste the information here.

Sections older than 7 days archived by ClueBot III.


Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:



Arvin Vohra[edit]

There are several incomplete or out of context quotes on this page, which is the page for the potential Libertarian Party presidential nominee in 2020. Examples:

1. Rather that quoting the original person, quotes are coming from people quoting the person. The original quotes are easily accessible in the articles referenced on the page. I have fixed one of these, but there seem to be quite a few. 2. Opening sentences of satirical articles are placed as if serious, without including relevent information of the rest of the article. 3. Relevant information missing, literally including political views! Why are a candidate's political positions missing? These are easily available through project votesmart and other sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.195.214 (talk) 02:29, March 17, 2019 (UTC)

Brian Wong[edit]

There's an ongoing court case concerning Brian Wong's indictment of sexual assualt, but there appears to be a WP:SPA continually adding a growing expanse ff language that appears in clear violation of WP:BLPBALANCE. Earlier edits have already been flagged and addressed as such, but similar edits continue to be added (eg. [1], [2])-- User:GatoradeFrost

I don't know whether the material belongs in the article (Wong has not been convicted), but I do know that the section about it is WAY too long, too detailed, and full of inappropriate material, e.g., court case numbers. It's seriously WP:UNDUE. I'm tempted to remove all of it and let someone responsible add it back in if they think it doesn't run afoul of WP:BLPCRIME. There are some IPs in a specific range whose handiwork all this is. Other stuff about Wong's company, Kiip, being sued have also been added/edited by the same IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Agreed on the WP:UNDUE and noticed the same trend with the IP range(s) making these edits. Considering the same IP ranges already had edits flagged & removed under WP:BLPBALANCE--rather than removing the whole section, perhaps the best course of action would be to revert to one of those revisions where editors already corrected the issues (eg. 1, 2). Also, not sure if it'd be premature to resort to WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE for those IP ranges, considering the ongoing BLP/vandalism issues? --GatoradeFrost (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
At the very least we need to ensure all content is properly sourced. I've just removed some content exclusively sourced to court records or similar per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Some of the other sources like some ad news sources also seem questionable Nil Einne (talk) 06:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)s
In the light of day, I've reviewed the section and removed it entirely. Large pieces of it are WP:COPYVIO. Other parts are repetitious. The whole thing bares no resemblance to good encyclopedic writing. And many parts, if not all of it, smack of BLP violations. I consider what I've done to be an administrative action.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Removed parallel IP edits from a Wong-related page. If it is a BLP violation in one place, it remains a BLP violation elsewhere. Collect (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The IP added back the material. It was an improvement as he appears to have eliminated the copyright violations. However, it still leaves us with BLP issues that must be addressed. I undid the IP's edit, citing WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:BLPCRIME and referring the IP here. It's also very poorly drafted, cited, and messy, and I have no interest in fixing those aspects. It would really help if experienced editors addressed the policy issues. The initial question is quite simply should the alleged sexual assault be included in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Original IP here. Just saw this page. it seems what was flagged as BLP issues were fine with editors at least from a sourcing perspective and no mentions of it previously while there were specific issues today regarding it. I had researched and consolidated the various sources who provided the information as well as the well known news entities. Seems like no editors cleaned it up on what was or was not relevant. I'm still learning how this works so learning the rules along the way. Ad exchanger is considered reputable source within the advertising space Wong was in but not that well known outside of the advertising community (think more industry specific publications).

Thoughts on whether or not sexual assault allegation (in this case a grand jury indictment should be included): If it was a normal executive or CEO running a company, the answer likely should be no. However, Brian Wong made himself continuously relevant to the media within the last 10 years across hundreds of media outlets, exposed to millions of people, speaking around the world, doing book tours, etc which is representative of someone who is a celebrity and considered semi well known figure.

Many actions were taken as a result of the sexual assault allegations including being removed and replaced as CEO of Kiip, various entities deleting any association with him and distancing themselves, so without this context, it is very difficult to explain any of this result.

Regards to use of primary sources like Travis county records and court documents: As I mentioned, still learning the rules along the way and learning about the sensitivities of such issues. Primary sources were mostly used to supplement and provide more details and support the info the reputable secondary sources has mentioned through media reporting.

What is the reason allegation or conviction of sexual assault or criminal charges are included in such biographies? Is it to provide a neutral stance on the person that is true good and bad? To warn the public so they can make a more informed decision, etc?

At least for now, won't make any more edits regarding this and leave it to the editors to decide.

"If it is a BLP violation in one place, it remains a BLP violation elsewhere." Could you judge based on the actual writing and evidence presented. The original information on Kiip was written by a PR company or internally and outdated. This has led to various inaccuracies some entities uses wikipedia as a starting source for research or info and cite the info (everything from funding quoting from $15 million to wikipedia $32 million to Brian confirmed $40 million etc). Most recent corporate valuation of $25 million posted by 1800-junk founder via twitter and confirmed by Brian. Additional information added were those presented by Kiip or Wong confirmed himself. Corporate lawsuit is irrelevant to BLP as it is the actions of the corporate entity and not a specific individual. Any information if added would have been before any announcement of sexual assault allegations. The corporate lawsuit issue dealt with user data privacy collection without consent even while the app is turned off and should be considered relevant to the corporate entity.

":I don't know whether the material belongs in the article (Wong has not been convicted), but I do know that the section about it is WAY too long, too detailed, and full of inappropriate material, e.g., court case numbers. It's seriously WP:UNDUE." It is very hard at this point to get a balanced view because much of the details presented is from the State of Texas as the plaintiff, and the details from the sexual assault victim. The information from Wong's side has only been his legal counsel proclaiming it was consensual sex (which is what happens in most cases whether or not one is guilty) so there is not much info to go on from the defense side other than the legal counsel quote. The whole issue falls on whether or not it is consensual sex. However, to have an indictment and court dates means that there is at least some credible evidence to go on vs. just a sexual assault allegation without evidence. More info was added so that what is irrelevant could be removed and edited out and there is enough info to be summarized. As time passes, some of the sources get pushed down in the search engine and become harder to find making it harder to put together a complete and hopefully accurate picture.2001:569:7E43:7900:6487:DFEC:8CC7:10E2 (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

"However, Brian Wong made himself continuously relevant to the media " I can deal with. WP policy states that material violative of WP:BLP is not allowed on any page at all. Next, WP is not here "to right wrongs". Lastly all articles must meet WP:NPOV and, intrinsically, being personally involved in any article makes it difficult to follow that imperative. Too many articles have people seeking "to right wrongs" and "tell the naked truth" (far too many), but that violates the very basis of Wikipedia. "Indictments" are not the criteria which mean "truth." Clay Shaw and other cases attest to that. By the way, if you are personally involved in any way at all, WP:COI is "must reading". Collect (talk) 05:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Admin Bbb23 told me to shorter my response significantly so will only respond to address the relevant points as well as to make my case that Brian Wong is a public figure and BLP: Crime does not apply.

No conflict of interest: I don't have a conflict of interest as per the wiki definition pointed to by user Collect. Currently it is very hard to get a neutral point of view without much information from the defense to go on and much of the public information is provided by the plaintiff which is the State of Texas.

Brian Wong is considered to be a public figure and thus would not fall under BLP:Crime which covers non-public figures.

Relevant Definitions: "(WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN" Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#People_accused_of_crime

"A public figure is a person, such as a politician, celebrity, social media personality, or business leader, who has a certain social position within a certain scope and a significant influence and so is often widely concerned by the public, can benefit enormously from society, and is closely related to public interests in society.[1]" Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure

Brian Wong is between the boundary of portrayed business leader and media personality or both. What evidence can we show that this might be true?

Quantitative evidence:

Brian Wong is a Linkedin influencer given exclusively to 500+ people in the world and has over 715,800 followers: In addition to the hundreds of media interviews and news articles which I won't list, his Linkedin is followed by over 715,800 people. These are professionals with real profiles and linkedin considered him a business leader and influencer. Source: https://www.linkedin.com/in/wongbrian

Linkedin definition of an influencer: "LinkedIn Influencers are selected by invitation only and comprise a global collective of 500+ of the world's foremost thinkers, leaders, and innovators. As leaders in their industries and geographies, they discuss newsy and trending topics such as the future of higher education, the workplace culture at Amazon, the plunge in oil prices, and the missteps of policymakers.Our list of Influencers includes Richard Branson, Bill Gates, Arianna Huffington, and Mary Barra." Source: https://www.linkedin.com/help/linkedin/answer/49650

What does this mean: It means the media helped to establish his credibility and has built trust not only within the advertising industry but also with the general public as well. To professionals, he would be a business leader while to the general public, it would be a social media personality (analogy: think of the dragons in the dragons den show). The media reports briefly what happens but fails to provide some of the evidence behind what they say so people don't have an opportunity to judge for themselves. Moreover, his legal counsel specializes in cases where public figures including sports stars or politicians are accused of sexual assault and defends them.

Brian Wong meets the Instagram definition of a public figure with a blue check mark: Instagram has a "Verified badges help people more easily find the public figures, celebrities and brands they want to follow. Learn more:" What is a verified badge? "A verified badge is a check that appears next to an Instagram account's name in search and on the profile. It means Instagram has confirmed that an account is the authentic presence of the public figure, celebrity or global brand it represents." Source: https://help.instagram.com/1080769608648426

Brian Wong's instagram account was public which he used to promote himself which was later made private due to the criminal investigation. Even though it is now private, the account has the blue check mark given to public figures, celebrities and brands. Please see: https://www.instagram.com/brianwong/

Summary: The question is would you consider Brian Wong a public figure based on some of the information presented, the media, and other sources point him to be such or it is something he is trying to establish as his image. If you consider him a public figure based on the definitions and information presented, then BLP: Crime would not apply and the criteria for well known would apply meaning the indictment information would be included after the editors take out some of the info which may not meet wikipedia guidelines or BLP. Without a place for such information to provide a middle ground and for people to look at the primary evidence and judge for themselves, you would get many more instances of people basing their opinion on speculation vs. presented evidence up to the point the public knows. 2001:569:7E43:7900:443E:87E7:5889:412A (talk) 07:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Getting a "blue check mark" is not listed as a basis for notability in any of the notability guidelines. If you would like it added as "proof of notability" then I suggest you post on the guideline talk pages and see if you can get this new "notability standard" utilized. I rather suggest that this proposal would not be accepted, but you are welcome to propose it. Collect (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
@Collect: This has nothing to with notability guidelines. The IP is clearly saying that a blue checked Instagram account means that the person is a "public figure", not that a blue check means the person meets our notability guidelines. We wouldn't even be arguing over this if the Wong article doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. I'm not very knowledgeable about social media. I know that a blue-checked Twitter account means only that the person has been verified to be who they say they are. Is Instagram different? Even assuming it means something more at Instagram, I don't see how that's relevant to whether the public figure prong of WP:BLPCRIME is met. Our standards matter, not a third-party's. What needs to be done here - and probably better on the Wong Talk page - is a discussion (RFC?) as to that issue. If there's a consensus that Wong is a public figure, there still has to be a discussion about what material/how much material may be included in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
My response was specifically aimed at the "he is notable ergo he is a public figure" conflation. Apologies if my answer was not sufficiently clear. Having a "blue check mark" does not mean one is a "public figure". More clear? Collect (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Exactly, my understanding that the checkmark on instagram works just like with Twitter, it means that they have verified that the person behind the account is the name the account presents. While these favor public figures, they are not exclusive to public figures and thus have no impact on our notability considerations. --Masem (t) 14:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

As best as I can tell, Wong has been replaced as CEO at Kiip due to the charges (not convictions) of sexual assault, and that's well sourced in RSes [1], [2]. This clearly qualifies as a career-affecting issue, so it should be covered, just not in as much detail eg "In March 2019, Wong was indicted on charges of sexual assault that were claimed to have occurred during the 2016 SXSW Festival. Kiip has denied the event occurred. Kiip's board replaced Wong as CEO after these charges were made public." (I would readily add Kiip is a public figure, due to his past success, so this is not a question of victimizing some non-notable person). --Masem (t) 14:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Masem here. If he's been replaced as CEO because of these charges, then that's fair to put into the article. Language above looks fine, although I think it should read "Wong has denied..." rather than "Kiip has denied..." BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
also agree with Masem. He is no longer CEO, (and there is good sourcing on that) so that should go in, but one or two sentences is plenty enough detail. And put it at the end of the section on Kiip...I think giving it it's own section is giving it to much weight as at present its only an indictment. Curdle (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes I mean "Wong has denied...", my typo :P --Masem (t) 14:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@ user Collect. What I originally pointed out is that Instagram blue check mark is only one small piece of evidence and cannot be taken alone as an indicator and that this information has to be taken along with his hundreds of media appearances, interviews, live talks, etc. I also mentioned Linkedin promoting him as a trusted business expert and giving him Influencer status which is only given to 500+ people in the world as I mentioned in my reply above (and much more exclusive than Instagram blue check mark which can be given even to minor public figures e.g. C lister actresses. Instagram indicates someone is a public figure but not how prominent they are as a public figure.) as well as over 700,000 Linkedin followers which are real people and significantly more than most public figures. These evidence when taken together should be addressed instead of addressing selective evidence that Instagram blue check mark does not mean public figure and therefore he is not public figure. Moreover on Brian Wong's public Facebook page which he manages himself with over 10000 followers, he listed himself as a public figure. Source: https://www.facebook.com/pg/brianwongkiip/about/?ref=page_internal

The question is: is Brian Wong a public figure based on these evidence as well as the hundreds of media mentions, his personal interview, giving life and success tips, etc taken together. Whether or not he is will help to build a case law justification like insurance company paper trail for future situations and if others challenge the decision. The second is if he is a public figure how much in depth he should be covered. The more popular and famous a public figure, the more in depth the coverage. Then links to the relevant sources. For someone to appear on Inc magazine and BNN Bloomberg business section front cover online, and sent to over 10 million people (including 2x for BNN Bloomberg's 5+ million twitter followers) that sexual assault indictment occurred is a big indicator for notability. If someone is not notable, then they would not be worth mentioning in the major news publications and may only appear in minor local news. Brian Wong didn't get removed from the company due to the sexual assault indictment but due to the fact that he hid this critical information from the board which they only learned due to it coming out in the news and put the company at risk which warranted being removed as CEO.2001:569:7E43:7900:1D50:E8D7:9B40:7034 (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Another issue I wanted to bring up is editor revival of dead links via archive.org for Brian Wong page and others which are no longer valid: I'm not sure if it is always something done or dependent on circumstances because some organisations, newspapers remove the article in question due to it no longer being accurate, wanting to distance themselves from potential negative news, no longer promoting the person. I don't know if these should be included or each verified as to the purpose it is removed. E.g. not archived correctly vs. deliberate removal. Something minor which could be clarified 2001:569:7E43:7900:1D50:E8D7:9B40:7034 (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

If reliable sources are used in an article, we do prefer that these get archived ASAP. I can see a situation where a paper pulls a story, with an official errata, before it has any impact, in which case yes, we should not include the archived version. But for example, when the initial report creates the incident (ala the January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation situation) we should keep the archived versions of the original archives. But this is a case-by-case situation. If it is otherwise an acceptable RS, it should be archived. --Masem (t) 01:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification on the link matter. A few more clarifications: Brian Wong didn't say that he was innocent even though he may think this way. It was his lawyer talking to the media that it was consensual sex and the lawyer has experience with high profile media cases so it is standard language whether or not they are guilty. This is what you are supposed to do which is to remain silent and let the lawyer handle it for you because anything you say can be used against you. Proposal for public person as well as notability: Public person: If the social media account is controlled by the person and they self identify as a public person publicly in addition to a blue check mark, I believe this should be good enough to fit the public person criteria. Whether they are famous or warrant mention aka. notability is another matter. Notability: user:collect talked about this a bit so I would discussion my thoughts on notability a bit. I think if one can be a Linkedin Influencer given only to 500+ people AND remain there for 2+ years (first year could be testing if it is a good fit, there is interest in their content) can be one of many indicators to seriously consider that someone is notable and warrants further investigation into their background for more evidence. The criteria is more objective because it is not a paid membership one signs up for and there has to give evidence to be top or widely known in their field and appeal to Linkedin audience to quality. To get this Linkedin status means that the person is 1) top of their field and has authority or perceived authority to speak on the matter and other people would listen 2) produce content which either/and promotes the field or advances some of its understanding. 3) wider appeal which is relevant to a more general audience and higher chance of overlap with being a public figure. There is being notable among the general public e.g. Dr. Oz from his own show vs. a specialist known for being top in their field and being widely respected among their peers but unknown to the general public (only seen in university websites/industry publications). I'm not proposing this as a criteria for notability but as an indirect indicator of notability that if someone has this influencer status, further investigation to prove notability is warranted (basically high chance that the time spent to collect evidence and to prove the person meets the Wikipedia notability guidelines would not be wasted).2001:569:7E43:7900:14C0:761:1FFE:584C (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

User: Collect wanted more information that Brian Wong is a public figure. I included quote from Brian Wong UBC interview back in 2011 of his intention to become a public figure. “At UBC, Wong majored in Marketing, with a minor in Political Science. He says his decision to pursue business studies was influenced by his father, an accountant who started his own firm. “He showed me what was possible in this mysterious, elusive business space,” Wong says, “and it became very intriguing to me.” And as for his Political Science studies? “I always wanted to be a public figure, so I wanted to have that formal educational experience.”" [1]2001:569:7E43:7900:74C1:EE4F:280B:91FA (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Marek Jan Chodakiewicz[edit]

At what point description of someone as right-wing activist, and accusations of anti-semitism (in lead) become a BLP issue? See [3]. Comments appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes, he looks like "a controversial historian" based on the publication by SPLC [4]. However, I would not put this claim by SPLC to the lead of the BLP page because SPLC is an advocacy group. My very best wishes (talk) 21:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Rafał Pankowski is a professional left-wing activist, not any more reliable than Chodakiewicz.Xx236 (talk) 09:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    So can we write that Chod. is a right-wing activist? François Robere (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Clearly lede due. Chodakiewicz is active in writing, publishing, and political rallies - in Polish. He was profiled by the Southern Poverty Law Center twice - 2009, 2017 (and SPLC is generally lede due). Covered in media as such - e.g. DID A POLISH FAR RIGHT ACTIVIST HELP DONALD TRUMP WRITE HIS SPEECH IN WARSAW?, Newsweek, 2017. Academic works - e.g. Marlene Laruelle and Ellen Rivera, “Imagined Geographies of Central and Eastern Europe. The Concept of Intermarium,” IERES Occasional Papers, no. 1 (March 2019). His published work (recently, not so much in English - so this dates back a bit) - has been criticized in a review for : "In fact, there are conspiracies everywhere in this book, but the author offers no names, no institutions, no objectives, and no strategies. Whoever these apparent evildoers are, they are undermining the Intermarium’s return (and he stresses a return following the example of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth before 1772)[5] or in this WP:RS on historiography: "Chodakiewicz's work represents the most extreme spectrum in what is considered the contemporary mainstream ethno-nationalist school of history writing[6], "Chodakiewicz is perhaps the first historian in the postcommunist period who consistently casts Polish-Jewish relations in terms of conflict and uses conflication as an explanation and justfication of anti-Jewish violence in modern Poland" [7]. A preponderance of WP:RSes covering Chodakiewicz as a subject, in English, focus on these aspects in his proffesional writing and/or on his political activism in the Polish far-right (writing, rallies). Icewhiz (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Due. Critiques that appear in our article (my own summary in parenths):
    • Jan T. Gross: ideologue of the far right, antisemitic
    • Piotr Wrobel: visible political agenda, doesn't like Jews
    • Antony Polonsky: clichés of old-fashioned nationalist apologetics
    • Joanna Michlic: ethno-nationalist historiography, attempts to erase the "dark past" by showing only a "good past", prejudicial views towards Jews and other minorities
    • Łukasz Kamiński: doesn't accept Polish responsibility for the Kielce pogrom
    • Karl A. Roider: (presents right wing narratives), "conspiracies everywhere"
    • Laurence Weinbaum: "pseudo scholarly screed", "contextualizes" (justifies?) Polish violence against Jews
    • Dovid Katz: nationalist polemic, implicitly calls for disenfranchisement of Russian-speaking minorities, comes out again “homosexual frolic” and feminism, disguises Polish nationalism and anti-Jewish sentiment as objective historical research
    • Maciej Janowski: (ideologically-motivated writing)
    • Rafal Pankowski: denies Polish responsibility to antisemitic attacks, claims Jews were responsible for the hostility of their Polish neighbours, repeatedly connects Jews with Communism
François Robere (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Due, per coverage in RS. SPLC is generally reliable & due for their coverage of right-wing and far-right personalities. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • BLP vio - can't put that in the lede. Maybe in the source. And Francois Robere, I indicated to you earlier already that repeatedly referring to this individual as "Chod" can be seen as an attempt at insult and a BLP vio itself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    Jeez - I seem to recall a particular editor, commenting above, who IIRC has advocated for SPLC designations in a whole raft of white supremacists designated by the SPLC. In this case this designation is further covered in a secondary fashion in WP:NEWSORG and academic sources as well. What pray tell is different with this individual that makes mentioning the SPLC (profiled twice (2009, 2017), one must note) designation UNDUE for this particular US-based individual? As summarized in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources - the SPLC is generally considered reliable - definitely for an attributed statement. In relation to coverage in independent sources of this individual - the SPLC designation is quite significant in terms of breadth of coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Kellie Maloney[edit]

At the article Kellie Maloney, TellyShows (talk · contribs) is persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced information, particularly birth dates. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Does nobody else care for WP:BLP? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Next time that TellyShows (talk · contribs) does this I will block them, unless somebody here gives me a really good reason why I shouldn't. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Request to desist ignored, so blocked. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Ilhan Omar arrest[edit]

There is a dispute over whether or not to mention that Ilhan Omar was arrested for trespassing at a hotel in 2013. The arrest is briefly mentioned in a 2018 article from The Minneapolis Star Tribune about her House campaign. The authenticity of the arrest and mugshot (though not the arrest report itself) were confirmed by Snopes in a May 3rd article. The charges were apparently dropped. I have not found coverage of the incident in other reliable sources beyond those two. and Omar herself has not commented on the arrest.

Should this be included in the article? Thanks Nblund talk 21:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Editor seeking to add the material here (someone else initially asked about it). I'd also like to hear opinions on the claim that inclusion of this information, which is reliably sourced, constitutes a BLP violation, as was raised by another editor. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Looks like there are additional sources - e.g. AP from Oct 2018. Omar was (and is) a WP:PUBLICFIGURE at the time of the publications - so there is no BLP issue here - only a question of DUE, though given multiple sources spanning some time.....Icewhiz (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that AP story was brought up on the talk page: it's a WP:SYNDICATED reprint of the Star Tribune story - exact same title and byline, so it doesn't really add anything to weight. I don't know if i'd call it a "BLP violation", but WP:BLP applies to any material related to a living person. Nblund talk 21:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Seems to me there is more of a WEIGHT problem than BLP when it comes to someone briefly held for a misdemeanor charge resulting from a demonstration with charges dropped. As she is a politician, I don’t have a BLP problem if it is stated in the context of a demonstration along with her explanation and the fact that this was used against her by detractors. But, it doesn’t weigh much. O3000 (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
That's how it was presented before the info was removed. From the prior version:
In 2013 Minnesota police arrested Omar for trespassing after she refused to leave a hotel lobby where the Somali president had delivered a speech; the charges were subsequently dropped. Omar's political opponents would later utilize a mug shot from the arrest in attack ads against her during her 2018 run for Congress.

I agree it weighs only enough to warrant a brief mention. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, if it doesn't have WP:WEIGHT, it is a BLP issue to bring up an arrest in addition to WEIGHT. O3000 (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't believe that's what I said, and something would only have no weight if it wasn't covered in reliable sources (which would indeed be a BLP issue—and is not the case here). Do you believe the above text conforms with your suggestions? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
"BLP issue" just means it applies to a biography of a living person. WP:BLP, in essence, just says that we have to strictly adhere to the content policies (including npov) when editing material related to a living person. The edit in question doesn't include Omar's response,because we don't have that. It can't say whether she was part of a demonstration, because we don't have an RS for that either. It probably also can't say the mugshot was used in attack ads, because the Tribune just mentions a single website.* The edit gives the impression that this was a major issue in a contentious campaign, but it clearly wasn't. The batshit crazy brother-marriage claim has more coverage. *total side note I really doubt the MN 5th Republican party had the money for multiple ad buys. If they did, they should have spent it on a Go Pro for Zielinski instead of making her film this hostage video Nblund talk 23:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)WP:WEIGHT is entirely about fairly representing what reliable sources say in proportion to those very reliable sources. We can certainly give no weight to claims made in a small number of reliable sources. Let's look at a hypothetical example. Say that 10 sources state A and 10 sources state B. You would expect our coverage to be roughly even in prominence. If there were 11 sources stating A and 9 stating B, our coverage would still be roughly even but A would have marginally more prominence. Now if 15 sources stated A and 5 stated B, we could clearly give preference to A but acknowledge that B is a minority position. But let's say that 18 or 19 sources stated A and only 1 or 2 stated B. At that point, we really need to ask ourselves if we should cover B at all. It is an extreme minority position getting very little coverage. B could simply be an error that made it to print. BLP requires that we write conservatively, and in most cases this means ignoring claims from an extreme minority as well as coverage from only a very small number of sources. Woodroar (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Let's not compare apples and oranges. Those other claims about her marriage have been debunked based on what I've read. This, on the other hand, has been confirmed by reliable sources (see above). In response to the other point, it is, again, an improper reading of WP:DUE to say that a biographical fact that has been covered in multiple reliable sources has "no weight" because it's been addressed by two instead of three or four. The sources that have addressed it include Minnesota's largest paper (The Star Tribune) and a reliable and widely read fact-checking cite (Snopes). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I would say the sources provided are inadequate to establish sufficient WP:WEIGHT to warrant any mention at all. VQuakr (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Are you arguing that the provided sources are unreliable? WP:RSP shows established consensus for Snopes's reliability, and the Star Tribune is the largest, most reputable state-wide paper in Minnesota. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
VQuakr referred to weight, not reliability. Having a reliable source for something is only one of the requirements for inclusion. Zerotalk 02:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Clearly had no long term effect on career, and coverage was rather small nor created a large controversy. It should be omitted. --Masem (t) 01:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Masem. People who attend demonstrations and sit-ins are routinely arrested and released. Zerotalk 02:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
So only large controversies warrant mentioning? I struggle to see the logic in that reasoning. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
It's a combination of BLP and UNDUE/WEIGHT. IF this was something only picked up by a few sources, and found no legal liability, then this has zero impact on the person's long-term importance and can be safely ignored. --Masem (t) 03:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
There is no BLP issue when the information is factual and the wording is neutral and adheres to the sources. Second, not every fact of an individual's bio, particularly facts on an already-light section (this was under early career but could also fit under early life) requires "long-term significance." I'm not buying into we should whitewash this article because of fuzzy, subjective standards. WP:PUBLICFIGURE requires that we document events like these (arrests, convictions, etc.) positive or negative if they receive mention in multiple reliable sources. Also, to Zero's point above: Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources... The reliability of a source is probably the most important criterion for determining weight. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Our BLP policy is designed around a "do no harm" type thing, meaning we should use care and other considerations of what material to include and not to make a mountain out of a molehill. Just because this even can be documented doesn't mean it should be included, as WP is a summary work, not a full-blown biography. PUBLICFIGURE does not require us to include it, only that when someone is a public figure we should not be considered to victimizing relatively unknown persons. --Masem (t) 04:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
"We consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources", not mere existence. This story is covered in one local news source and one source that, as WP:RSP#Snopes notes, has limited utility for assigning weight because it specializes in fact-checking fringe beliefs. Considering that Omar gets national coverage that is on par with a mid-tier presidential primary challenger, that's extremely minimal. Nblund talk 12:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
"The reliability of a source is probably the most important criterion for determining weight." — Absolutely not!! This is 100% wrong. Zerotalk 12:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@Zero0000: Actually, it is absolutely 100% correct. This is directly from WP:WEIGHT: Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
That doesn't say that just because a source is reliable that we include it. Basically, we're looking at how many reliable sources picked this story up and how long it lasted in the news cycle. There's only been show a couple bits of local coverage, and that's simply not prevalent in all bodies of reliable sources we'd usually consider for figures in national politics. --Masem (t) 16:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
That does not say what you think it says. nableezy - 16:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
No we should not, if she was not charged she did nothing wrong in the eyes of the law.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree with most here, not needed at all. She wasnt charged and it has had no impact and is barely covered in later sources. nableezy - 16:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC) ───────────────────────── Clearly the coverage is limited, and this is certainly not a major scandal. However, BLP does not require that we omit negative information simply because it is negative ("cause harm"). WP:HARM#TEST lays out some helpful, far more specific guidelines, asking editors to consider 1) whether the information is public, 2) whether it is factual and verifiable (definitive), and 3) whether it is given due weight. In this scenario, 1) and 2) are clear: the information is public and has been fact-checked by reliable sources. There is clearly disagreement on 3), and while I acknowledge that this arrest received less coverage than say, the legal issues of Beto O'Rourke to name an example, it still carries enough weight for simple inclusion when a national fact-checking site and a state-wide paper both make note of it. I think that the ill-defined criteria being argued for here about weight and "BLP" are dangerous, because they are too easily stretched or contracted to fit editors' personal opinions about politicians and what information about them should be presented. Weight is not a simple "include or don't" test, it's an analysis of how much attention should be given to something. Based on the admittedly limited coverage, I do not think this content should be addressed with more than two brief sentences, but I believe it would be a mistake to leave it out entirely. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

BLPs today tend to end up attracting lists of everything negative that happened to the BLP that is reliably sourced, adding that information as it happens. This is basically the equivalent of WP:PROSELINE, a natural result of an open wiki that is under constant improvement. But with BLP in play, we do have to consider how this fact matters in 5-10-20 years down the road, and barring any weird trajectories with her career, I fail to see how a arrest for trespassing that was ultimately cleared up as something of a notable point of her career to be documented years from now. A compariable example: we rarely include celebrities getting things like speeding tickets or similar minor law infractions, unless that has impact on their career. This is the same sort of thing. Ask yourself if this is something that is essential in a summary about her, and at the present time, I think that answer is clearly "no". (You are absolutely right that there's nothign about the BLP or sources to otherwise stop this from being added.) --Masem (t) 16:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree with the prevailing trend: even a mention of this is undue weight. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Guy McPherson[edit]

Green C. removed copious amounts of information but left potentially libelous content.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guy_McPherson&diff=896997148&oldid=896994688

Green C continues to vandalize my edit corrections to a previous and incorrect edit that does not represent the facts of what Guy McPherson does, says or believes. Green C also continues to restore potentially libelous material from questionable links. Green C also removed a photo of a shirt with the logo of Guy McPherson's website stating it was potentially COI and promotional, which is nonsense. Photos of individuals in Extinction Rebellion Tshirts abound.

His edits are arbitrary and suspicious and he changed information that was corrected by Guy McPherson himself. 68.129.132.213 is Guy McPherson. How do I know? I'm his partner, PESchneider, and was sitting next to him editing the site when Green C began to vandalize the site. Who knows best what Guy McPherson means than McPherson himself. Please stop Green C from changing these edits anymore. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=896994688&oldid=896992738&title=Guy_McPherson

Green C. removed copious amounts of information but left potentially libelous content. And now that ass has permalinked it so it will only show his incorrect edits.

PESchneider (talk) 04:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I informed this editor multiple times about WP:COI but they continue to edit war adding promotional material and deleting critical POVs in total disregard for our rules and how Wikipedia works. I've add a COI tag to the top of the article. I'll be reporting it to the COI noticeboard as well. -- GreenC 04:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Followed up at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Guy_McPherson. -- GreenC 05:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I suspect the only WP:COI is Green C's for refusing to allow corrective edits, for removing photos from Guy McPherson, and for not having a conversation with me about the edits he was concerned with. He did not "talk" to me. He did not ask me about my edits. He began an editing battle that I was not even aware of at first. However, when my edits did not stick, I became perplexed. And lo, a vandal was at the gate. It would seem that Green C has a vendetta against Dr. McPherson and will not allow any positive, scientific articles to be posted. Now there is evidence of true WP:COI by Green C. He is very quick with removing them and keeping the defamatory and libelous, unscientific, articles on the BLP. Is that Wikipedia's idea of neutrality? Only negative articles? I hope not. I will regret all my donations to the Wikster over the years.

PESchneider (talk) 06:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC) 14 May, 2:26am New York.

Frankly much of that material reads like puffery.Slatersteven (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I admit I am new to this editing of Wikipedia and am still learning much about how this even works. All the cute code is darling. Still learning. I was unfamiliar with this three-revert-rule and did not understand why my edits were not sticking. The warring was begun by Green C, who, having more experience as an editor and knowing the rules better than I do, and without contacting me at all to talk about my edits, removed my valid, and cited edits which were not promotional. The critical POV was not from a reliable source and is potentially libelous. A critical POV by Michael Mann that I attempted to add was also removed by Green C. It seems Green C broke the The_three-revert_rule. Now, how about a team of actually neutral editors to assess this situation objectively? Is Wikipedia capable of that? I keep asking for a team to help with this, and not just someone's opinions, or references to "puffery", which is an unhelpful comment by Slatersteven. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule PESchneiderPESchneider (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC) 2:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC) New York.

An article should not be a list of everything they have done, from the fact they tweet to they have published a lot of stuff. Before I fetched up it might have well have been a CV.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

PESchneider, you're a new user, but you need to be very careful about making comments like "This could become a legal issue as it seems Wikipedia promotes the misrepresentation of an individual on his BRP" as you did on your talk page. You're risking a block, per WP:NLT. If you believe that something in the article rises to the level of "libelous," then you should contact info-en-q@wikipedia.org. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Category:Climate change deniers[edit]

(I don't know where this should go, but I went with this board because it relates to the BLP policy.)

Category:Climate change deniers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) In December 2015, this category was deleted as a result of a CfD and a parallel discussion at BLPN (Archive 231). There was consensus to delete the category on grounds of being "contentious", but was this decision appropriate? –LaundryPizza03 (d) 04:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean, its clearly true it is conscientious, but that (in and off itself) should not be grounds for deletion. The problem would be inclusion, and that maybe grounds for deletion.Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Having waded through much of the prior discussion, the only valid difficulty in having such a category AFAI can see, is the name. This is one of those situations (like pro-life/pro-choice) where the commonname is unfortunately somewhat 'loaded'. I obviously agree with Slater above that inclusion criteria need to be clear and might be difficult to enforce, but that in itself is not a reason to NOT have the category.Pincrete (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
When I started the BLP discussion I put a notification on all affected BLPs and pinged all participants in the CfD, and I explained what event had caused me to start it. The BLP participants were Peter Gulutzan MastCell Masem N-HH Prhartcom RevelationDirect JBL NorthBySouthBaranof TPX KarasuGamma M.boli Niteshift36 Milowent Anythingyouwant JRPG Jonathan A Jones alanyst Bonewah Zaereth Jess Bluerasberry Ssscienccce Marcocapelle agr Collect Softlavender Ryk72 AusLondonder Govindaharihari Sphilbrick Guy Macon Mangoe The Anome. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pinging me. I suppose this is related tangentially to post-1932 American Politics, from which I am indefinitely topic-banned by User:NeilN (who has not been around to respond to my unbanning request at his user talk), but I do stick with what I said before about this category, FWIW. Cheers! Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Opposed to "denier" category. Denier is often flung as an insult, it sounds like the person is being accused of having a psychological problem, i.e. in denial. That makes it a BLP issue. The other problem is that there is no clear definition, you can find people with opinions all over the map labeled "deniers." Bjørn Lomborg for example appears in somebody's list of Top 10 Climate Deniers. What he denies are the economic benefits and urgency of addressing climate change. In my own practice I've stopped using the term except for a few unambiguous cases, since "denier" too often means somebody who fails the speaker's purity test. Thanks for the ping, Peter Gulutzan, and thank you for being a fair-minded and generous-spirited person in Wikipedia discussion. M.boli (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support restoration but it would be very recommendable to add "activist" or something similar that stresses the definingness of the characteristic. So Category:Climate change denial activists or Category:Climate change scepticism activists. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    Your suggested "activist" has caused me to re-think my opposition. The inclusion criterion–what people would have in common–would be opposition to addressing climate change. I still don't like the "denier" label, but you have have captured a crisper definition of what would make this a useful category. M.boli (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose anything with "denier" in it. It is a term invented by the opposition specifically to imply that it is like Holocaust denial. Using a loaded category that the proponents of a position use is nothing new; both "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" were chosen to imply that the opposition is against choice or against life -- and we use the more neutral and descriptive Anti-abortion movement and Abortion-rights movements. Climate change denial is not only loaded, but it is a term used only by detractors. Nobody calls themselves or their group Anti-life, Anti-choice or Climate change denial. (Strange that we disambiguate Anti-life as a pejorative term, but Anti-choice redirects to Anti-abortion movement. Seems a bit POV to me.) Oddly enough, Holocaust denial is used by many holocaust deniers, who see it as an accurate description based upon them (correctly, in their view) denying that Hitler killed millions of Jews. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    Actually very few holocaust deniers self-describe thus (as the page will confirm). 'Historical revisionists', 'truth-tellers' or simply 'historians' is how they self-describe. It's a detail, but the idea that we can't categorise people by terms used by their critics is not borne out. There are other good reasons for using something other than the rather crude term 'denier' IMO though. Pincrete (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    I should point out that in some places Holocaust denial is a crime, and the fact that many holocaust deniers have in fact lost libel actions about being called a holocaust denier. The courts (in many cases) have said these people are holocaust deniers.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support restoring - the term is used extensively by sources, hence not "POV". Of course whether or not it is included in a particular article can be POV. That does not make the term unencyclopedic or not useful.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not getting involved in this again. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw)  09:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Denier" is a pejorative term, not merely descriptive, and open to interpretation. Our article on Climate change denial defines it as "... part of the global warming controversy. It involves denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific opinion on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions." That is very broad and subjective. Who decides what doubt is unwarranted, for example? Are people who say it may already be too late then to be labeled climate change deniers based on the last prong of the definition? In addition we do not have a good way to cite sources for inclusion in a category, and BLP demands strong sourcing for controversial claims. And who is important enough to be included? Does the category cover every politician who has a Wikipedia article and is on record as expressing doubt about the reality of human-induced warming or has opposed measures to stop it? That might include most members of the U.S. Republican party and quite a few on the growing European right. That would make the category too broad to be useful. The decision to remove this category was correct and should stand.--agr (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support in principle I recognise the sentiments of those who object to the word 'denier', despite it being a commonly used term - however it shouldn't be beyond us to find a) a more neutral descriptor b) to establish objective criteria for inclusion and c) as with all cats, inclusion criteria should include that this is a significant defining feature of the individual, which is covered in the text of the article in some depth. I endorse that this would be a useful cat and am somewhat surprised that it was deleted.Pincrete (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I never thought this category was a BLP concern worth much consideration. If someone is of the opinion that climate change does not exist, why would this category addition be considered anything but simply descriptive, if not positive? The primary reason we fret about this is not because of the use of the term denier, but because we think it labels such people as having significant deficits in knowledge and/or cognitive abilities. Surely we can come up with something like Category:Flat Earth proponents that would get consensus?--Milowenthasspoken 13:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    The problem is that you can spend all day searching and fail to find a single peeson who is labeled a climate change denier and is of the opinion that climate change does not exist. You will instead find the following (listed in order from most unreasonable and unscientific to most reasonable and scientific)
    [1] Conspiracy theorists who think all climate scientists are lying (but who, in general, accept that the climate changes from natural causes).
    [2] People who don't deny the existence of climate change but believe that the magnitude is smaller than the climate scientists say it is.
    [3] People who don't deny the existence or magnitude of climate change but believe that human activity is a smaller factor than the climate scientists say it is.
    [4] People who don't deny the existence or magnitude of climate change or how big a factor human activity is but believe that it is beneficial instead of being harmful.
    [5] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that we are on the brink of a naturally-caused ice age prevented only by human-caused warming.
    [6] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that geoengineering can reverse human-caused climate change.
    [7] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that humans can adapt to changing climate.
    [8] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that the computer simulations are flawed. Pretty much everyone agrees that previous computer simulations made predictions that turned out to be wildly wrong. People in category 8 believe that the same is true about current simulations. Climate scientists say that they have fixed the problems and the simulations are now accurate. But of course they said that the last time too.
    [9] People who don't deny [see list above] and accept the climate change simulations but reject the economic simulations -- again pointing out that no economic simulation has ever been able to successfully predict the future economy.
    [10] People who don't deny [see list above] but doubt that increasing the size and power of the government is the solution, arguing that those with the most money generally get the government to do what they want done.
    [11] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that it isn't enough for North America and Europe to reduce CO2 emissions while not putting any limits on Asia, India, Africa, and South America
    [11] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that it isn't enough for the US to reduce CO2 emissions while not putting any limits on the rest of the world.
    [13] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that it isn't enough for California to reduce CO2 emissions while not putting any limits on the rest of the country or the rest of the world.
    [14] People who don't deny [see list above] but believe that it isn't enough for Los Angeles to reduce CO2 emissions while not putting any limits on the rest of the state, country or world.
    All of the above views are regularly called "climate change denial" in the popular press. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    I think you have strengthened Marcocapelle (talk · contribs)'s point above. The common thread is do nothing about climate change. A category tying them all together could have utility. (Your assertion about not finding any flat-out deniers is wacky however.) M.boli (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    They also often switch from one of those positions to the next when too many people see that the first one is untenable. This is because they only care about doing nothing about climate change and not about the reason for doing nothing - it is only a pretend reason anyway. The underlying cause is market fundamentalism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Guy Macon, there are gradiations like this all over wikipedia regarding categories. Climate change is not unique. We are tying to create categories that help our readers, and no category is perfect. Indeed I just found out about and wrote Orlando Ferguson after chiming in here earlier with my reference to Category:Flat Earth proponents. Doctor Ferguson (who was not really a doctor) did NOT believe the earth was completely flat, instead, he thought there was some elevation change topping out at the north pole, and that the earth was SQUARE. But I still put him in Category:Flat Earth proponents and he definitely should be there. Here, if the consensus of mainstream news reporting is that someone is a climate change denier, some category seems appropriate, because it can help our readers. Nuance can be shown in article content. Indeed, it can be the case that someone falling in your category [14] (the "most reasonable" in your hierarchy) is just making an argument to support his general opposition to any intervention steps, although he actually believes like US President Trump that China invented global warming as a hoax. [8]. But if some comedian makes a random joke about global warming one day, that doesn't merit inclusion.--Milowenthasspoken 19:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
      Orlando Ferguson died over a century ago. The category we are dealing with primarily involves living people and, under BLP, our standards are much higher. Indeed, dealing with people who expressed doubts 5, 10, 15, or 20 years ago about humans causing global warming and then died presents yet another problem. The further back you go, the less certain the science was. Are they all deniers?--agr (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Newspapers definitely thought Orlando Ferguson was nuts, but they were always polite. That's also our goal.--Milowenthasspoken 16:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As I just tried explaining to an editor who can't seem to grasp the issue....... Aside from the word "denier" being loaded with implications, it's not really accurate. For example, I have a userbox that says I am skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. According to him, I'm a "climate change denier". Skeptic means I am not convinced and have doubts. Not denial, doubts. And Anthropogenic means man-made, not all. Do I deny that there is climate change? No. Do I have doubts that it is primarily manmade? I do. But labels like "climate change denier", regardless of how many media sources recklessly use the term, is not necessarily accurate. As an encyclopedia, I think we should strive for accuracy. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The whole problem with categories that include WP:LABEL language is that we cannot provide a source at the category page as required by BLP. Yes, on the main page of a categorized BLP that should be sourced, but we're still using labeled language, so factual inclusion may not be there, just the perception from a few members of the press or the person's peers. We should not have these types of categories where inclusion is based on a subjective evaluation of the person by other sources. --Masem (t) 13:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I was a significant contributor to both discussions above, which I suggest people read, and I haven't changed my mind. I don't like BLP categories which are controversial or can be considered as derogatory, and I especially don't like them when the criteria for inclusion seemed to be subjective, ill-defined and poorly implemented. For example the orginal list included a "lead author of Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,' of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Third Assessment Report on climate change" and also included a minor UKIP politician where the sole reference in support of the categorisation was some retweets (not even tweets) an account in his name had made. As far as I can tell the whole category seemed to be little more than a list of individuals whom some editors didn't like. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose "denier" label support other neutral categorization to be decided Wikipedia has challenges tagging people who support fringe ideas. This proposal is similar to many others I have seen. We look for third-party verification of these things, which is a bias of Wikipedia which has benefits and drawbacks. I like that Wikipedia maintains its quality control; I regret that we do not have good systems for helping researchers identify obvious information like "who has published a paper confirming a certain concept". The longer term solution to this problem that I see is modeling this kind of issue in Wikidata, probably through the meta:WikiCite project. There are maybe 500 people who have contributed significantly to that project and many more would do more if it were more developed. I think there is community consensus within that project that people want to be able to query Wikidata to generate lists of things like who affirms or rejects various positions in publication. Lists like this are likely to become part of Wikidata culture because that project has so much more power to quickly verify these claims than Wikipedia. I like that Wikidata makes it relatively easy for people to enrich data for such purposes; I regret that we currently lack training materials and that anyone wanting to do this will have to be patient and persistent as they ask questions to human for support in an environment without sufficient documentation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Support restoration (until a more neutral term is found). Understanding that the term Denier may be used subjectively, Climate change denier is a useful descriptive category when applied correctly and it is a term that is used extensively by reputable third-party sources. Until such time that a more clearly objective neutral name for the category is chosen the category and its title Climate change denier should be restored. ~ BOD ~ TALK 15:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC) (~ add I think I have a problem in that I dont see the label as 'pejorative' as others do here, i just considered it as a environmental position.)
  • Alternative suggestion. Since one mother category would be Category:Climate change skepticism and denial, why not call it Category:Climate change skeptics and denialists? That way, it would also contain scientists who rejected the concept before there was a consensus. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    Since the opposition seems to be based on the perception that the category itself is "perjorative", surely there is some title that won't be seen that way? Perhaps Category:People who've decided humans had a good run.--Milowenthasspoken 19:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose As the title is obviously pejorative in nature, and intended to be so, and is not a self-ascribed attribute to those who would be in such a group, it violates several policies and guidelines. Sort of like having a category for "Self-Hating Gnarphists" or "Gnarphist Nazi-Fascists" or the like. Collect (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • oppose Since this is a pejorative label, it's a problem (as I said last time) that it tends to be stuck on anyone who deviates from a certain political orthodoxy, even if they agree with the core thesis of anthropogenic climate change. It's not a clear binary like "did a certain even occur" is. I doubt the will of the community to police the category even if it is very narrowly construed. Mangoe (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. SemiHypercube 16:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Alternative suggestion: {{Category:Climate action skeptics}} The criterion would be opposition to addressing global warming, as described by the scientific consensus. It doesn't sound pejorative, it seems to cover most of the varieties without arguing who is in and who is out. This category would apply to people where that is a substantial part of what makes them notable. -- M.boli (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • As I said 3 years ago, I tend to agree with Masem that this probably shouldn't be a category (under any name). --JBL (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose My two cents: From a neuropsychological standpoint, categorization is a natural reaction. It's really hard-wired into the brains of any animal with an amygdala, and in particular, occurs in the area here the amygdala connects to the hippocampus. This area acts like a filter of information based upon emotional saliency, before storing it as memories in the hippocampus. No information is cognized (comes into consciousness) until it passes through this area for filtering. The purpose of it is manifold, but primarily it serves as a form of file-compression (not too unlike compressing a computer file) for faster processing and easier storage. For example, when you drive through a forest, you could not possibly remember every single tree along the way. Only those things that grab your attention --that have some importance or significance (salience) to you-- are committed to memory. Everything else is erased and simply stored as generic categories, ie: spruce tress or birch trees, etc... The processes in your brain which determine what is salient and what is not are your emotions, thus what you commit to memory depends solely upon whether it invokes an emotional response or not, and therefore this area of the brain is also our emotional center.
The purpose of categorization is to allow us to focus on the details which are important to us while discarding all of the info that we feel is unimportant, so it doesn't bog us down in the moment. That's what makes it so useful but also what makes it so dangerous. The same processes that cause us to categorize plants and animals into different taxonomical groups is exactly the same thing we use to categorize people. Thus, the emotional center of the brain is also the area where racial or other forms of hatred, prejudices and stereotypes form (all forms of categorization). When you can reduce something as complex as people to a simple label or title, it causes others to ignore all of the information involved and treat the individual as having all the characteristics placed upon that label. This is what makes it an extremely effective propaganda tool, because it turns a discussion into an us against them thing, rather than a collaboration or healthy debate of ideas, by creating an "in-group" in which "we" are all complex and individuals, and an "out-group" where "they" are all the same and (predominantly) bad. That's the way it has been used since the dawn of history to incite hatred or violence against others, from Babylon to the Romans to the Nazis to todays modern-world of political hatred.
We need to be really --extremely-- careful when categorizing people. Categories can be a great and very useful thing, when used properly, but they can be a terrible tool for both the nefarious and those with nothing more than good intentions, alike. This is one of those categories that is made to be divisive and does more harm to the debate than good. Zaereth (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson[edit]

Tommy Robinson (activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Over at Tommy Robinson a dispute has arisen over the use of this source [[9]] over claims he had headbutted a man. The claim is this is not an RS (and thus is a BLP violation [[10]]). Now as far as I know the Mirror has not been declared not reliable, and thus there can be no objection to using it as a source. I would like further input.Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The Mirror is one of those irritating sources where there's no consensus on reliability (at WP:RSP for example) so it needs to be used with caution. For that reason, I'd be wary of using it as the sole source in a BLP, but in this case there are other sources for the same incident, from the BBC and the Independent for example, so it's probably OK. But then again, since those other sources are cited, is including the Mirror one actually necessary? It doesn't seem to say anything the other sources don't. Neiltonks (talk) 12:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Neiltonks - there are already two good RS sources (three, really), so why bother with including the Mirror if there isn't a need? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I would agree, except (as I said) it is being objected to on vociferous "its a BLP violation" (see my talk page) grounds. Except (as far as I can tell) its not. If it were the only source I could understand the strength of the opposition to its use, its not though.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Aha, hadn't seen that rationale on your talk page. Agreed, BLP isn't an issue here... BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure the source adds much, but I agree including it isn't a BLP vio since the material is sourced elsewhere and the Daily Mirror hasn't yet been found to be equivalent to Daily Mail. If people want to remove it because of citation overkill they should, but not for dumb reasons. Nil Einne (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

And now they are edit warring over it, which is why I brought this here. They seem to be unduly desirous to remove this.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I agree with you that there's really no good reason why this source shouldn't be included. However, the statements in the article have other, undeniably reliable, sources and I just wonder whether it's time to WP:LETITGO - the article isn't seriously diminished by a lack of this source, and there are probably more important things for us all to do on Wikipedia. I'm not criticising your actions at all, incidentally, it's just that I sometimes find walking away from an argument like this one is the best thing to do. Neiltonks (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Because I cannot see why this user has reverted three separate edds unless it is to establish a precedent (I note he has used similar arguments on other pages as well). Because it seems to be a user is trying to circumvent RSN and impose (by edit warring and hectoring) their own RS polices. At first I just assumed it was a user who did not understand BLP, now I am less sure. I am not sure this is going to go away, sure they will get their way at Tommy Robinson, in this instance. But I am sure this is not going to be the last of this users war against the tabloids. They need to be told (and learn) they are wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Slatersteven there is a serious issue. The source itself may not be needed, but it's completely and utterly unacceptable to WP:CRYBLP to remove a source without justification. I'm a stronger supporter of BLP and so utterly hate it when people misuse BLP to try and get their way. It's extremely harmful for actual BLP problems when people do that, so yes it's a very serious thing, not something trivial. Nil Einne (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC) 20:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

BTW, it should be clear there are cases when tabloid sources, in addition to other supporting sources are important even in BLPs. One example would be some cases where a something originated in a tabloid, but was widely covered in other sources. Examples where this may arise could be John Higgins and Mazhar Majeed which includes the defunct News of the World. Ted Cruz 2016 presidential campaign, Tiger Woods which includes the National Enquirer. And Paul White, Baron Hanningfield which includes, yep you guessed it, Daily Mirror.

To be clear, I'm not saying it's necessary to include the original source in all cases, or in any of these cases but rather there are definitely cases where their inclusion is fully justified in accordance with level of coverage and other sources. (Such things are hard to search and demonstrate given WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but one possible example is Profumo affair. While not a BLP, Christine Keeler only passed in 2017, and it is a FA which uses/used [11] at least one direct case of Sunday Mirror.)

Other possible examples may be that in rare cases, it may also be better to include tabloid sources in addition to other sources when the level of coverage is different or the number of non tabloid sources is limited or are so spread out it's easier to use a tabloid source in addition to other sources rather than 10 different sources. (To be clear, consideration needs to be made of the appropriateness of including the sources, or covering the material in all such cases. But there are definitely cases when it does arise.)

If someone wants to change policy to completely ban the use of tabloid sources in BLPs, they are of course welcome to try although likely they'll want to explain how to address the issues I mentioned. WT:BLP is thataway and WP:RfC outlines how to start an RfC. In the mean time, we'll go with the policy we have which heavily restricts the use of tabloid sources in BLPs notably basically forbids us from including something only covered in tabloid sources, but doesn't forbid their use in every and all instances.

Again, it's perfectly fine to discuss whether this source adds anything or it's inclusion is harmful considering the specifics of the case. In this case, there has been zero explanation for why the inclusion of this source is harmful in BLP terms considering it doesn't seem to really cover more than is in the other sources. As already said, this may mean there needs to be due consideration of whether to exclude it, not because such sources are forbidden, but because it adds nothing. But it is utterly unacceptable to claim that policy forbids the use of all tabloid sources in all cases related to BLPs. I don't think I can emphasise enough that claiming BLP supports something which it doesn't or BLP concerns arise when they don't is incredibly harmful to real, actual BLP concerns.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I still find the way this was handled incredibly harmful to BLP given the insistence and edit warring, with no real discussion in a meaningful place (i.e. not user talk pages) or from what I can tell no actual policy supported outline of why there were BLP concerns anywhere. But I withdraw and apologise for the WP:CRYBLP claim. When I made it, I was under the impression a bright line violation had been made which IMO pushed it over the line onto cryBLP territory, but it seems there was no bright line violation. Nil Einne (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It's absolutely a BLP violation. You are mistaken. --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    Then explain why in accordance with policy. You still haven't done so despite a large number of editors pointing out it isn't, based on actual policy including the policy you keep citing. And heck this process started before this discussion even began. It's unacceptable and as I said, incredibly harmful to actual real BLP problems to keep claiming something is a BLP-vio when you can't outline why. If it were acceptable, I could delete all the text in Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump claiming BLP and citing some part of BLP policy that doesn't actually support my actions. When questioned I could demand someone else opens a discussion before the material is restored. When the discussion is opened, I could largely ignore it and finally just say "It's absolutely a BLP violation. You are mistaken." and expect people to take me at a word. Clearly this isn't how things work. Actually I'll probably be blocked if I try that. Nil Einne (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    Is three a large number? I guess it's a larger number than two... It's fairly simple, and Neiltonks has already figured it out above. This article is right down the middle of tabloid journalism, which is quite rightly prohibited on articles on living people. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    As already outlined by multiple people, BLP sources explicitly does not say tabloid journalism sources are prohibited. It clearly says that material solely source to tabloid journalism is prohibited which does not apply here, since it's not the case. So far the people who say it's not a BLP concern are User:Neiltonks, User:BubbaJoe123456, User:Slatersteven, User:Emeraude and myself User:Nil Einne all of these from the time of my first revert, as well as User:Ianmacm and User:The Four Deuces. The only editor who find BLP problems is you. For what is ultimately a minor issue, yes this is a lot of people. Nil Einne (talk) 07:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    That is a fair and succinct summary. Emeraude (talk) 08:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I decline to discuss further with people who think restoring a poor source to a BLP to make a procedural point advances our project. I've escalated this as it has now become a behavioural issue. Thanks for your time. --MarchOrDie (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    Enough, you are not the arbiter of what is and is not a BLP violation, you have been told it is now, now drop the matter. If you satart up after the page is unprotected I will take it to ANI, you have now enters the realms of wp:tendentious and wp:disruptive.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    I have now started an ANI, enough is enough.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    Fill your boots. We've got a much better source at the article now. Live and learn, eh? --MarchOrDie (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Kevin O'Brien (Newfoundland and Labrador politician)[edit]

There is a reference to allegations of treats made against the Gander and Area Chamber of Commerce but no reference to a report by the Commissioner For Legislative Standards for the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly in April 2014 that finds that the allegations were unfounded and false..?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.boli (talkcontribs) 14:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

(No the preceding unsigned comment was NOT made by me! Signing bot's mistake. My only intervention was to copy-edit the section title. M.boli (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC))
Do you have a source?Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I edited the article to include the fact that O'Brien denied the allegations, which is supported by the RS. If there's an RS stating that they were unfounded and false, that should be included. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
If they were found to be untrue there would be an argument for removal. It would depends on the degree of controversy caused.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

John Smelcer[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Smelcer (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have some concerns about the nominating statement Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Smelcer (2nd nomination) in the AfD for John Smelcer, an author who may, or many not, be a member of a native American tribe, as he claims to be. Nom, User:Dennis Bratland calls Smelcer "a pathological liar or suffer of Narcissistic personality disorder/megalomania" accuses him of "crimes" and listed the page [12] as a "Crime-related deletion discussion. I BOLDLY removed the "crime" listing. Smelcer is a poet and writer who claims to be a native American - his father denies it, but a tribe has registered him. His "crime" is to have published work that claims to have been written by a native American author. The reasons I bring this here are 1.) I cannot find that any sort of criminal charges have been laid agiainst him, let alone a conviction, and 2.) labeling a living person "pathological liar" with "Narcissistic personality disorder/megalomania" seems slanderous.— Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talkcontribs)

Looks like a BLP violation to me, I would report this at ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
will do. Thanks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Amy Sequenzia[edit]

Amy Sequenzia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm seeking advice regarding the appropriateness of including an alleged claim about autism activist Amy Sequenzia and, by extension, other notable non-speaking autistic self-advocates. Many of these people use facilitated communication, which is considered by skeptics to be a psuedoscience. However, FC has also been the subject of many studies discussing best practices and confirming authorship (i.e., Syracuse University). Sequenzia herself has talked about establishing best practices for FC.

Previous edits to the article have included skeptic Steven Novella's claims that, essentially, whoever is facilitating her words is influencing them. He has never met Sequenzia, and I don't believe that simply making a claim means it is worth considering. This one in particular, I feel, is WP:GRAPEVINE or at least WP:BLPGOSSIP; it accuses her of being a fraud. (Information about FC which only provides studies about it being debunked also occurs on Sue Rubin's page.)

Is there a policy regarding people whose authorship over their words is being challenged? The area is a particular interest, and I'd like to know the proper way to move forward for articles like these. --Anomalapropos (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I am going to post this elsewhere to get some input from people who might know some of the scientific background. My gut feeling is that whilst this is tragic, if there is an issue of pseudoscience we do not get to ignore it on BLP grounds. I think care should be taken with calling anyone a fraud. But I am no expert on this, and have never even heard of it before.Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
This is easy: do not include per WP:BLPSPS. The only source for the criticism is a self-posted blog post by the skeptic person. That's a no-go. Even if it was the case that Novella's claims were published by a reliable third-party source, one critic about here doesn't have the weight to include on a BLP. --Masem (t) 17:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
The article asserts, in Wikipedia's voice, that Sequenzia in an author who has "typed" a book and numerous articles. Is "facilitated communication" what's being described with those assertions?
Because, if so, the article absolutely needs to make that clear up front. "Facilitated Communication" is very different from the non-fringe definition of "typed" that a reader would naturally imagine. Not just mechanically different, but different because it carries built-in questions about authorship. ApLundell (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
She has described herself as being able to type independently for short periods of time, and can also use Rapid Prompting Method, which is... not as controversial, but the method is more independent than FC is considered to be. I think Masem got to the heart of it, though; use an RS. I believe that answers the question for the time being! --Anomalapropos (talk) 02:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, the facilitated communication article describes the technique as "discredited," saying "There is widespread agreement within the scientific community and multiple disability advocacy organizations that FC does not work, and that the facilitator is in fact the source of most or all messages obtained through FC." I don't know if this applies to Sequenzia's case. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not FC is discredited, the specific text added [13] still raises BLP questions about Sequenzia herself. Its still a BLPSPS issue, and it starts to get into coatracking skeptic aspect of whether FC is legit or not (a broad issue) onto a BLP. --Masem (t) 21:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
It's really a fundamental issue, though. If FC is discredited, then essentially everything about Sequenzia in this article (other than the fact that the person actually exists) becomes highly questionable, at best. The Sue Rubin page handles this very differently (although there's lots of RS about Rubin in particular and FC. Not sure which approach is best. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
It's part of a bigger problem with the article.
If "her" writings come from FC, then even "her own" writings are actually disputed third party assertions about her, and should be treated as such. It's weird that Wikipedia presents them as factual, undisputed first-party sources. ApLundell (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
We have to use what the RSes are repeating as her words. The sources that quote her appear to be RSes, but are not putting asterisk or the like to say "we question if this is what she actually said due to FC." It is not our place to put that into question; the RSes have to. --Masem (t) 23:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Well put, I'm convinced. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
But we cannot totally ignore WP:FRINGE. This is like Channeling - we do not write as a matter of fact that Ramtha wrote this and Ramtha wrote that because there is no evidence that channeling actually works. Same with FC. I do see the problem here: I could also find only one source with a scientific attitude that mentions Sequenzia in connection with FC - Novella's blog. But heaps of gullible rags like PuffHo which accept FC at face value.
So I do not know what to do. But this article is still not acceptable the way it is. I guess we'll have to wait until reliable sources notice this. For instance, until Novella republishes his article on Science-Based Medicine.
Until then, we should at least add "discredited" in front of the FC link, the way we write "pseudoscientific" in front of "Intelligent Design" in articles about ID proponents. --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
The Fringe aspect deals with FC. Unless multiple non-SPS sources are stating that Sequenzia is contributing to the disputed aspects of FC, her article should not be used to continue the debate about the fringe nature of FC. What I've seen in the RSes with what we are considering to be her words do not bring up anything about trying to prove FC is valid or contest those that dispute it. (Whereas in intelligent design, most of those are involved in the advocacy and debate about its nature. --Masem (t) 03:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
That is weird. If Ramtha says something, do we just accept it too when he is not talking about channeling? Do you know that people have been accused of rape because of autistic persons' alleged statements under FC?
With "The Fringe aspect deals with FC", you did not exactly address my suggestion of adding "discredited". Should we replace "facilitated communication" by "the discredited technique of facilitated communication"?
Also, all the self-sourced statements should go: one, because they are self sourced, and two, because they are generated by the unreliable method of FC. Two reasons why they are not RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
We are not going to question statements that she has made (with the help of FC) that have been published by RSes, assuming the RSes have not questioned those sources. That's a non-starter, regardless if FC is considered discredited. We are not going to use a BLP page to continue the debate about the problems of FC, unless the BLP's specific role in that discussion is documented. --Masem (t) 04:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
"Questioning" is one thing, but stating, as fact, in Wikipedia's voice, that she "typed" those articles is irresponsible. If a BLP subject claims to have ridden the Loch Ness Monster, we don't state that as fact, even if no RS has bothered to dispute it, we state that they claim to have ridden the mythical beast.
This article doesn't even mention FC until halfway through (And then, only in passing), even though the reader's interpretation of the entire article hinges on their understanding of this fringe practice. ApLundell (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
WP:V has a mantra, "verifyability, not truth". I recognize that due to FC, there may be doubt by some as to whether she actually was the "author" of the words these interviews us, but per WP:V and other policies, it is not the place of a WP editor to ask that question. It would have to come from the RSes that are publishing her words. And this issue with FC is that it is not a universal farce like the Loss Ness Monster, but that there's evidence to support that a fair number of the facilitators are actually authoring what these ppl type, but which leaves open the reasonable possibility that there are facilitators that are not influencing the person typing. In other words, the claim that Sequenzia is typing these words with the help of FC and not influenced by them is well within the realm of possibility and not immediately a bunch of BS, even given the discredited nature of FC. If the RSes talking with her do not bring this up, nor can we. It is fine to make sure it is clear that she does use FC before getting into any statements about what she wrote, because it becomes clear then that its not the traditional "writing" that one usually thinks of. --Masem (t) 13:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I never said that the article should "question statements that she has made (with the help of FC) that have been published by RSes". Did anybody else? If not, why did you invent that non-starter and call it a non-starter?
I also never wanted to "use a BLP page to continue the debate about the problems of FC". I just wanted to add a few words that put FC in perspective. You still have not answered my question about that. Neither have you addressed my suggestion about removing self-sourced statements. Instead you talk about new stuff which you invented and which you reject. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Asking to add the "discredited" term of FC in this article about a person is putting in language that questions how reliable her own words are, which is something WP editors cannot do under BLP and NOR, without other sources that specific state they question her words being her own can be found. You have one such source, but that is a BLPSPS and that's not sufficient, it has to be RSes. And unless other RSes talking about her specifically put doubt into the veracity of her own words, we have no reason to start to doubt her own SPS sources; we have to take that as verifyable information. Now, its fair to say in these statement to be clear that these are how she wrote in her blog or the like, which, having established she uses FC, allows the reader to come to their own conclusion. --Masem (t) 13:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Readers are always allowed to come to their own conclusion. There is no way to force them to think one way. The most you can do is consciously omit relevant information, thus leading the reader into one specific conclusion. And that is exactly what you are doing.
So you want to keep the citation "Sequenzia, Amy. "Amy Sequenzia". www.facebook.com. Retrieved July 1, 2017." and you defend it using strawmen and other non-sequiturs. I wash my hands of this. EOD as far as I am concerned. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Actually, in that facebook post, which is criticism of someone else, I would delete it the same reason not to use the source that prompted this section that questions her writings as being her own. It's a BLPSPS, but in this case, towards one of her critics. We do have the immediately source before that from a third-party that covers it and avoids the BLPSPS issue.
But the other SPS sources from her that are from her blog, as long as they aren't speaking out about others and only describing her own case, those are fine. Those don't fail BLPSPS. --Masem (t) 16:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I removed that line, FYI. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

These are all good points. I will try to find more sources which question Sequenzia's use of FC and report back. Ylevental (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

This is really a tough case. If the subject of an article was quoted in RS stating that they had climbed a mountain called K6, which is the tallest in the world, but we had multiple RS stating that K6 didn't exist (but without mentioning the article subject), then putting those two pieces together might be a WP:SYNTH issue, but could probably be managed. This seems more like a case where there were several RS interviews with "Bob Smith, ambassador to the US from XYZland," and there was a Wikipedia article about Bob Smith. At the same time, there was an RS-based article on XYZland that said it didn't actually exist, but none of the RS in the XYZland article specifically mentioned Smith. Agree that the right approach is to see if we can find RS that both mention Sequenzia and FC. This article mentions both, but doesn't say that Sequenzia uses FC. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
The case I think is here is that there is strong debate whether FC is legit or not with the current consensus falling on "not". But the consensus does not seem to eliminate that FC can be legit in some circumstances. Unlike the case of K6 here or the Lock Ness Monster, where there is universal conclusions they don't exist, there is not a universal conclusion that FC cannot work - there actually might be legitimate FC cases. Its just that proving FC is wholly discredited is near impossible due to the types of studies that can be done. That's why I've said that WP cannot take the stance that it is considered 100% fringe, and need to find sources specific to her case here that question if she is really saying what others have said she has. --Masem (t) 17:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure the case for FC is that strong. In fact as far as I can tell all tests have shown it to be false.Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Wrong. They showed it to be unreliable. The issue I have is that all of the users who think it is required to be on her page have already decided that facilitated communication is a hoax. The fact of the matter is that there are non-speaking autistic people who can now type completely independently and who got their start by using FC or RPM. The studies proved FC to be unreliable in scientific tests. They didn't prove that every single person who uses facilitated communication is a liar, and there are no reliable sources saying that Sequenzia herself (or any other prominent FC user) is a liar. --Anomalapropos (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Actually as far as I can find all studies found that in all cases some or all of the facilitated communications where actually partially or wholley the work of the facilitator. Can you find one peer reviewed double blind test where this was not the case? Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm still doing the research. However, I don't need a "peer-reviewed double blind test" to believe someone who now types on their own when they say that facilitated communication helped them get to that point. This is my issue. The claims are all "where's the science," "where's the science." You need evidence-based studies to be able to justify providing FC as a therapy. I don't need a study to tell me what I can see with my eyes. Studies have gotten it wrong before. --Anomalapropos (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
But again, we're at "verifyability not truth". It's clear that FC is questionable, but in context of anyone that is talking about what Sequenzia, no one (yet) has thrown out the question in a usable source if the words they published from her are legit or not due to the debate about the validity of FC. We can say, broadly, that the words of the class of people that use a facilitor may actually be more likely the words of the facilitor; that's fine to explain the fringe issue. But we cannot say, without specific reliable sources, that the words claimed to be from Sequenzia herself, who otherwise does fall into this class, are likely influenced by the facilitator. Thats the BLP problem. It is BLP and SYNTH to apply the aspect that applies to the broad group down to the individual without sources to specifically apply to the individual. --Masem (t) 18:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Then we say "she has made use of the discredited FC, but is able to type without assistance".Slatersteven (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I added her responses to criticism of FC. I re-added the Steven Novella criticism right before, but if it's still not okay, feel free to remove it. Ylevental (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I removed the "without evidence" bit as that casts doubt of her statement in WP's voice, but the rest seem fine. I would encourage to find more though. --Masem (t) 19:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I thought it was established that Novella's blog isn't an RS? WP:NOR --Anomalapropos (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
How about "according to", then its not in our voice.Slatersteven (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I fixed it accordingly Ylevental (talk) 11:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

And my mind has now wholly been changes, this is a discredited fringe practice that has not been demonstrated to have an validity. Thus anything that is acquired by it cannot be considered reliable in any way shape or form. Given the universal (not even almost) condemnation of this practice by all the studies done on it it is not down to us to prove anything. It is down to those who wish to use statements acquired through it to prove they are not fraudulent. We do not have to disprove eyewitness sightings of UFO's or Nessie, so why this? People really do need to see when they are being given leeway.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that thirdparty sources that have interviewed/quoted her (eg not her blog) do not put any question of doubt that she is responsible for the words they link to her. That's the issue here is that while FC is clearly questionable in that field, there's nothing directed towards how Sequenzia's use of FC is bogus or not. It is fine to establish fairly early that her communications are through FC, and that should give the reader a bit of red flag to question things, but WP cannot directly put that issue without violating BLP. --Masem (t) 18:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Irrelevant, we do not say "ahh but maybe this medium has communicated wit Elvis, prove she has not". If the method has been disproved we do not have to prove that an individual practitioner is in fact achieving the results the method has been shown cant achieve. We should not be using words that may not be hers, as they cannot be shown to be hers, and the science has disproved the method used to acquire those words.Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
If we were talking about a medium, I would agree. We're talking about someone with a severe communication handicap. It is a lot more nuanced than "this is bad science". Remember, FC is a matter on the facilitator, not the person with the handicap. --Masem (t) 20:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Frankly (and this is the reason for my change of heart) they are disturbingly similar, except that whereas they both involve someone claiming to be passing on someone elses messages only one involves the possible exploitation (and abuse in someone cases) of another human being. Indeed your statement is exactly why it should be down to the facilitator to prove they are in fact passing on the facilitateds message, and not down to us to prove they are not. These may not (and we have very good reason, the same reason we have to doubt any medium (even untested ones) to think these may well be the facilitators words.Slatersteven (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
But here, we're talking with a person with a disability, and not the person that would be committing the "fraud" (the facilitator). If we were talking the case of the medium, either the argument would be for using the medium's statements on the dead person's bio page, which we'd never do, or we'd be talking about the medium on their BLP page, at which point we'd likely include the criticism raised about their methods. This is a different situation, in that we're talking about a living person of which there are valid questions about the words attributed to her got there. Its a fair-enough question, but it should be one that we are repeating that question from reliable sources, and not trying to question her words ourselves, unless it is clearly bogus. I am not even sure after reading literature on her if she still uses FC or can type for herself, and lacking any clear evidence to suggest that any of her writings are coming from a facilitator, we have to treat it as an "innocent before proven guilty" case, and assume that as long as the RSes trust that these are her words, then we have to trust that these are her words to. I'm all fine with identifying that she had used FC, which an informed reader can make a distinction that there may be some doubt, but we cannot positively express any doubt unless the sources do so as well. --Masem (t) 14:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
But the issue is the same thing the word of a practitioner of a discredited fringe practice. We do not know these are her words, and someone has refused to be tested, so it cannot (and they refuse to allow it) to be confirmed. Fringe is clear we do not give equally weight to finger theories as to mainstream ones. Thus an expert saying"X is the situation" even in a blog out weighs the Fringe practitioner saying the opposite, even in an RS. So until it can be shown thee are her own words, in proper scientific studies we do not have to (and should not) give the claim they are as much weight as a claim (and we have a source saying just that) they are not. You are correct, this is a BLP and as such we cannot attribute words to the subject unless we are sure they were said or written by the subject, if there is any doubt we must not attribute them to the subject.Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
The weight of respecting BLP per BLP policy I think takes much stronger precedence here. We have to have some reason to doubt for Sequenzia's specific case that the words claimed to be hers are not hers (again, under BLP). No RS at this point has suggested this about Sequenzia's work. And it is OR to say "FC is discredited sot Sequenzia's words may not be her own." because we don't exactly know if she used FC in all her communications or not. We don't question what interpreters say that their foreign speaker is saying. We don't question what published say that a person said in a private interview (Unless we're talking the Daily Mail). BLP's spirit would say to give them the benefit of doubt until its clearly a lie (riding the Loch Ness Monster) or if reliable sources give us the reason we should throw doubt at the situation. BLP outweights FRINGE here without the sources for arguing about the specific person here. --Masem (t) 13:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Does BLP policy forbid the use of sources noted for tabloid journalism as the only source for something involving living persons?[edit]

WP:BLP currently says:

This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.

We have consensus that certain sources noted for tabloid journalism like Daily Mail and The Sun are so bad at fact checking etc that there are very few things they can be used for especially on BLPs per WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. But for other sources primarily known for publishing tabloid journalism things are less clear cut. (I will refer to such sources as tabloids for brevity, please don't confuse this with the tabloid format.) For example for Daily Mirror and New York Daily News, the summary in our perennial sources guidelines says "is a tabloid newspaper that publishes tabloid journalism." (Editors may disagree on whether these descriptions are accurate so I'm not talking about any specific source only the general concept.) It seems clear per the wording of our policy and what editors are saying at #Tommy Robinson, that their inclusion isn't precluded by BLP when we do have other sources. And IMO there would be a few cases when they would be useful despite simply repeating what is said in some other source we use.

But the number of cases relating to living persons is likely to be fairly small if we can't use them as the sole source of information. A simplistic reading of our policy suggests this is the case. But is it the correct interpretation? I found Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 39#Clarification question on the policy which is slightly old now and predating even the deprecation of Daily Mail, that seems to have come to a different conclusion. The intention of the policy is to forbid tabloid journalism wherever it occurs. Mostly this came up in relation to tabloid journalism from source not mostly known for it. However some editors also opinioned that sources known primarily for tabloid journalism are not forbidden per se, only when they engage in tabloid journalism. (Nowadays, this wouldn't apply to deprecated sources like Daily Mail etc.)

Do people feel this is right?

Nil Einne (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not intending this to be a RfC or something needed a formal close, nor am I suggesting the policy needs clarification. I'm asking because when composing a reply for the Tommy Robinson discussion, I originally was going to mention that tabloids are also sometimes useful to flesh out details of something covered in better sources. But when reading our policy carefully I wasn't sure this is allowed. Yet IMO from previous discussions I've been in this is still how the policy is generally applied. Tabloid are sometimes also accepted for simple statements of fact. (To be clear, all of this is only for sources not deprecated.)

We still need to consider whether it's appropriate based on editorial judgement etc. So actual tabloid stuff still stays out e.g. whatever random person someone 'hooked up with', how they cheated on their spouse with 30 sex workers in one night or that they ate a hamster. Likewise a real name or birthdate only covered in tabloid sources should generally be excluded.

But it may be appropriate to mention a significant award someone received even if the sole source is a tabloid. It's a legitimate question whether the award is actually significant if it was only mentioned in a tabloid, but I would suggest it can happen. Another example a court case receives a lot of attention, maybe even the verdict. Sometimes this coverage is enough for us to mention it in some article. But by the time an appeal succeeds, no one cares any more. Even if available, we aren't supposed to use court records. However it may be appropriate to include limited info on the appeal even if the sole source is a tabloid. We would need to consider the possible effect on other living persons etc.

In case it isn't obvious, I chose these examples because they IMO illustrate a problem with completely banning tabloids from BLPs, there is the potential to harm subjects.

I'm putting aside op-eds or columns by the living individual concerned, as well as interviews or responses only mentioned in such sources. I think at a minimum the principles for self published sources apply. I.E. Limited use if they aren't unduly self serving, taken our of context and don't affect others etc. (They aren't self published, but I don't think it's sensible that when someone says something on their website we can use it, but not if it's in some tabloid even when we have confidence the source didn't make it up.)

Nil Einne (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

In general no, but I can see allowance in the case if the tabloid's coverage creates a controversial that is then well-sourced by the RSes, then including the original article by the tabloid to provide readers a mean to flesh out the details for themselves. --Masem (t) 18:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
No, policy is clear we cannot use only a tabloid source for a BLP claim.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
This should be the case. Tabloids are not reputable sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

vallancien guy[edit]

Guy Vallancien [fr]

guy vallancien is a french surgeon, honorary professor of urology, member of the french academy of medicine, member of the parliament office of evaluation of scientific and technological choices, president oh CHAM ( convention on health analysis and management He is a pionier in robotic surgery and has published 350 scientific papers, served as adviser of different ministers of health and wrote books on the relation beetween humanity and artificial intelligence— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Baeny (talkcontribs) 17:05, May 15, 2019 (UTC)

This is a noticeboard for issues related to BLP articles. If you think that Vallancien should have an article in the English wikipedia, you're very welcome to create one. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

A. Wallace Hayes[edit]

At the page on the Séralini affair, there are BLP issues about how the page refers to A. Wallace Hayes, the editor of a scientific journal. Among other things, editors disagree about whether it is appropriate to describe him as a former tobacco industry executive when that was only a brief part of his career and the page is not about tobacco, and the degree to which it is appropriate to describe accusations that were made against him without also presenting his rebuttal. There is a discussion at Talk:Séralini affair#Wallace Hayes. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Fact-check: his denial printed in the NYT article is presented in the article and has been for a long time unless I'm mistaken. You added a direct quote from it recently. You cannot not know this. IMO, since everything in the entry concerning Hayes is carefully sourced to RS, the real problem with the original post -- which misrepresents whether or not Hayes' rebuttal is in the WP entry on the Séralini affair -- lies elsewhere. What about Séralini's BLP rights? Hm?? SashiRolls t · c 23:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Vladimir Kuzov[edit]

During the AfD for this article, some pretty serious BLP concerns were brought up in regards to this article. The consensus ultimately was to keep it, but given the nature of the allegations, some more eyes wouldn't hurt here. If anyone is particularly familiar with the reliability of Bulgarian sources, that would be especially useful. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

John R. Bolton[edit]

User talk:82.207.187.7 has been repeatedly introducing defamatory content to the page. Toa Nidhiki05 12:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Conrad Black's hagiography of Trump[edit]

Is it a BLP or NPOV vio to note that Conrad Black wrote a hagiography of Trump a year before he was ultimately pardoned by Trump? Virtually every RS that is covering Trump's pardon of Black note that Black wrote a hagiography of him, often in the headline itself about the pardon. Here are how some RS are describing Black's book about Trump:

  • "glowing" book[14][15][16][17][18][19][20]
  • "flattering" book[21][22][23][24][25][26][27]
  • "hagiography"[28]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    It seems per your own source list above that "glowing" or "flattering" are more common in usage in RSes and are more reserved and cautious in tone. If you have WaPo saying "hagiography" I don't think this is a BLP vio, but NPOV would have us use the more common usage here. Icewhiz (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    I was not arguing that we should use the term "hagiography" per se (I'd personally opt for not using the term for the mere reason that most readers won't know wtf a hagiography is) - I was more broadly inquiring whether we can note that he wrote a favorable book about Trump in the context of the pardon. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    Other than terminology/wording (and possibly attribution for the conjunction) - I do agree that mentioning the two close to one another and possibly tying them together with some appropriate wording (I'd suggest following wording used in 2-3 mainstream sources) - would seem DUE for inclusion. Icewhiz (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) So, the only one of those sources that includes "hagiography" is the WaPo Analysis (read: opinion) piece, which has the term in context as Trump pardoned billionaire Conrad Black, who a year ago published a book called “Donald J. Trump: A president like no other.” The book is more hagiography than biography. Concur with Icewhiz, with respect to the use of that term explicitly, this is a question which answers itself. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • If RSes are making the connection between the hagiography and Trump's pardon, then its fine to say that with some type of attribution since this is a somewhat contentious claim that the book caused the pardon. "Several journalists observed that Black had written a "glowing"(sources) and "flattering"(source) hagiography-like(sources) work about Trump a year before he was pardoned." or something to that extent. --Masem (t) 14:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    Would tend to agree, its out there but its not proven.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Jos B[edit]

Jos B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

His article states that he's the prime suspect in the Death of Nicky Verstappen (no source for this), and also a YouTuber. The article relating to the murder is very interesting, but I don't think this alleged murderer is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. The editor who created this article is fairly new and stated this is their first of many articles about Youtubers "who have been arrested and/or convicted concerning for example child sexual abuse".

  • WP:CRIME - There's already an article about the murder itself, and it seems like Jos B is only known for this alleged murder. According to the editor (with no source), he also has a history of child abuse.
  • WP:PERP - Despite there being an article, the article fails this PERP as well. The victim is only famous because of the case, and the motivation/execution seems pretty standard. The event itself however, is notable because it's a very interesting cold case.
  • This is an article about an alleged perpetrator.
  • The Dutch Wikipedia doesn't have an article about him, only about the case.
  • There are four (?) other suspects, do they deserve their own Wikipedia page as well?

Alex.osheter (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The claim of being a suspect is sourced, just not in the lede. But I think there are serious notability issues here. He seems to be notable for a crime he was not prosecuted for. But even if he is, last time I checked being guilty of a crime did not make you notable.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Seems to have been dealt with.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Yep. I'd suggest keeping an eye on the editor, since they stated they plan on making similar articles in the future. Alex.osheter (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Well I no longer know who it was.Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
This is the user, User:PhotoandGrime (Pieke Roelofs). I went through their contributions and there seems to be a similar-type article on Steve B. Is there a template for new users that explains the rules about notable persons? Alex.osheter (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I should mention that the Steve B article and another Julie Van Espen (all by the same editor) could be combined into a new article titled something like "Death of Julie Van Espen", since there's a case to be made on the notability of the event itself. here and here.

Alex.osheter (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Amir Tessler[edit]

Amir_Tessler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Amir is an Israeli child actor. He played the lead role in a popular movie and there's some of coverage on him on RS. However, I don't think he's notable enough to have an article written about him. When I first found the article I marked it as a stub, but I'm beginning to think this article shouldn't exist right now. Maybe in the future, he'll be successful and notable - but not now. Would it be okay to nominate as AfD? Alex.osheter (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

AFD it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: Just did, feel free to weigh in. Alex.osheter (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


Rand Flem-Ath[edit]

It's necessary to include the history here so that this can be put into context. Thank you for your patience in reading. It’s come to my attention that a long-time editor on Wikipedia is once again attempting to manipulate the site in order to fulfill a personal vendetta against me. A clear conflict of interest. The first attempt to do this happened after he had been forced to apologize to me (in writing, by the university that employs him) for a vicious online ad hominen attack. In 2012, he used one of his own students as an unwitting proxy - that’s if the student even existed - to create the original page, “Rand Flem-Ath”. It was full of inaccuracies and outright lies. (It’s safe to say that when Wiki Education was introduced, they did not envision that it would be abused in this way.) When Wikipedia Administrators became aware of the circumstances of the page’s creation, they removed it - everything that he had written - and substituted the neutral POV, minimal version. He’s now attempting to succeed where he failed before, by again putting my name on a ‘wish list’ of articles he wants students to create or edit. Perhaps he thinks that enough time has gone by that this new effort won’t be noticed. Or he believes that his academic persona and long familiarity with Wikipedia will give him a free pass. So that, despite his demonstrated personal animosity towards the BLP subject, and his history with that page, that he will be free to edit it with impunity or encourage students (over whom he has a position of great authority) to edit it. An example of one slight-of-hand manipulation is exhibited here: “The role of the work of the Flem-Aths should also be considered in books about Atlantis by [name redacted] and others. Together, these may make the case for notability that is required by Wikipedia.” This is the most sickening, cynical aspect of this situation. The person he is trying to bring onto my page is associated with Nazis. This teacher is brazenly trying to convince the student (a person reliant on him for a grade) to set up a ‘guilt by association’ status for me on one of the most popular websites on the planet, simply because I offend him by writing about Atlantis, and he can’t forget the fact that he went so far over the line in attacking me that an apology had to be issued. This trivialization of the horror and terrible suffering inflicted by the Nazis - just so that a personal grudge can be satisfied – is contemptible. An Administrator - Bkissin - has rejected – for other reasons – I don’t think s/he is aware of this history - the most recent attempt to hi-jack the page. And now – May 15 - this instructor, who has had years of experience editing Wikipedia – has assumed a hands-on approach with the page to try and ensure its acceptance. I realize that an Administrator’s workload is heavy – but I would ask that someone keep a fresh eye on the page with my name on it. The first note on my Talk page was placed there in anticipation of exactly the situation that has now arisen. It’s regrettable that my concern has turned out to be justified. Please be alert for this. Flem-AthRand (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Flem-Ath, while I will certainly keep an eye out for any spurious claims or attacks, I just want to give you a slight warning that the article, as currently constituted, does not seem to me to meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. I certainly don't mean any offense by that! You are far more notable than I am, for instance. But without some citations that are more in keeping with our policy on reliable sources, I would have to say I'd vote the page should be deleted for now. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I think that's what he's saying. He was happy that the article was previously deleted, but asserts that it was brought back in an attempt to meet WP:NOTABILITY just enough to keep the article up. Alex.osheter (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it looks as though I slightly misread! I do think, in its current state, the article should obviously be deleted. Thanks for keeping me honest! Dumuzid (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
You know, something resembling evidence for your claims would be good to have here if you expect editors to act on your behalf. --Calton | Talk 22:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Especially since no editor has touched the article in two years, and no accounts unrelated to the original reporter have touched the talk page in 3.5 years. —C.Fred (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
All a bit odd, but yes I think an AFD is in order.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
They might be referring to something like this. @Hoopes: - you mention Rand Flem-Ath on your own talkpage, do you wish to make any comment about this? MPS1992 (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I need to get this straight because at first glance this seems to be an attack on a respected professor (not an instructor, John Hoopes is a full professor).https://anthropology.ku.edu/john-w-hoopes#link1] There is a deleted draft of the article, the discussion is at [[29]] I have absolutely no doubt that the student actually existed and the suggestion that he might coerce students to write lies about Flem-Ath is disgusting. Here is an earlier version that was stubbed.[30] Here are his current comments to a student who has been drafting an article unaware that an article exists. User talk:Indianasorell/sandbox/Rand and Rose Flem-Ath And this? "The person he is trying to bring onto my page is associated with Nazis." Is he accusing the student of being associated with Nazis? If not, User:Flem-AthRand, who are you accusing? Because at the moment I think we should be more concerned about your allegations than any possible changes to your existing article. Doug Weller talk 17:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I forgot, here are some articles where we mention him.[31] Doug Weller talk 17:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Calton: I appreciate your concerns. At the time of the page’s creation, it emerged that a couple of editors/Administrators shared this person’s contempt for all things ‘Atlantean’ – and had exhibited an extreme bias against me. So, several neutral Administrators were assigned (I don’t know the inner workings of how it came to pass) to privately communicate with me via email. Despite Wikipedia’s transparency there are obviously, documents, etc. that cannot be posted in a public place. The Wiki page was subsequently removed and reposted in the form it has held since 2012. That action of neutral Administrators who had studied the situation speaks for itself.
Alex.osheter has identified the issue exactly and has caught the circular argument going on here. The only person who ever pretended to consider me ‘notable’ enough (aside from my wife on a good day!) for a Wikipedia page was the one who had it created in the first place for the sole purpose of skewering me. Now, this new attempt to resuscitate the page has been declined for ‘lack of notability’. And so, the pressure is on to come up with a reason, yet again, why I am notable enough to remain for a fresh round of skewering, complete with spoon fed suggestions to the student to ensure that the page passes muster.
Thank you, Dumizid, for your civil tone. I’m not offended at all. My aim in life has never been to be ‘notable’. I am a private person. Have no social media presence. To my publishers’ chagrin, partake in only minimum publicity to fulfill a book contract. This is one of the many reasons that this experience is so troubling. Although, it helps to live in the grand isolation of Haida Gwaii where Mother Nature still has a great say in the reliability of the electronic revolution and where the culture generally considers adults who do seek gratuitous attention as being either unintentionally humorous or sadly lacking! That kind of thing is considered suitable for children before they learn better. Around the age of four.
Doug: Being new to this, I thought that it would be protocol to keep names off this noticeboard. It wasn't necessary. Anyone who follows up on the subject can see the history and the names of the persons involved. As stated, earlier, this Professor was forced to apologize in writing to me by his university. He obviously, never forgot it. Then, was stymied in his attempt to create a page about me in 2012. Just because you don’t like the truth of the sequence of events does not mean that they did not happen.
Please calm down. I did not accuse the student of any such thing. I don’t think that he has any idea of his role in this. If you’d read the material correctly, instead of becoming angry, it’s clear that it is his teacher who is urging him to include the Nazi connotations, which further proves my point. It’s not an accusation. It’s an ugly fact. You seem to think that because a person is a Professor with long association here that he is immune to a conflict of interest.
Your self-righteous defense of him might be admirable under other circumstances. However, your tone and aggressive attack violates many BLP policies (see below*) and ignores the significance of how my page came to be created at all.
I have every right to defend myself, yet again, against a person who, although articulate and active in this community, is, in my opinion, misusing his position to enact a personal agenda.
  • “Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself.
Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest.’
I realize that, given the character involved, these are unique circumstances, hopefully not encountered very often on Wikipedia. I don’t know. As I said when the proposal to delete first came up – considering that my ‘notability’ was determined by one person only, who had an agenda, that deletion seems the right choice in the face of such bad faith. As the subject of the page, I would ask that deletion be seriously considered.Flem-AthRand (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I hardly think that an Amazon book review is significant and it was a long time before your article was created. In any case we are talking about a student editing your article. Doug Weller talk 20:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
The penny dropped. It'll be Frank Collin better known as Frank Joseph he's talking about. He wrote a lot about Atlantis. Rand, I'm sure you aren't a Nazi and a lot of non-naziz have worked with him, used his material or been published alongside him as in Kenton's book Forbidden History. Did you complain about him being included in that book? Doug Weller talk 21:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm writing to address some of the claims made here. Rand Flem-Ath writes, "It’s come to my attention that a long-time editor on Wikipedia is once again attempting to manipulate the site in order to fulfill a personal vendetta against me. A clear conflict of interest. The first attempt to do this happened after he had been forced to apologize to me (in writing, by the university that employs him) for a vicious online ad hominen attack." I would like to reassure Flem-Ath and the other editors responding to this discussion that I am not trying to fulfill a perrsonal vendetta against him. The incident to which he refers did not involve Wikipedia, but rather a response to his request (via my employer) for the removal of an unfavorable review that I posted of his co-authored book, The Atlantis Blueprint: Unlocking the Ancient Mysteries of a Long-Lost Civilization (2001) on the Amazon.com website. He took offense at certain words I used and interpreted it as a vicious personal attack. I disagreed, but gave him the benefit of the doubt, apologized, and removed the review. That was eighteen years ago. Flem-Ath's current comments appear to be in reference to User:Indianasorell/sandbox/Rand_and_Rose_Flem-Ath, a draft article that was rejected by User:Bkissin on 2 May 2019 on the basis of violations of Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Five_pillars. This article was created without my prompting by another person who thought that the topic was notable enough for inclusion. I provided edits and comments on the draft in the user's sandbox. If you review User_talk:Indianasorell/sandbox/Rand_and_Rose_Flem-Ath, you will see that my first query was whether the author was aware of the article Rand Flem-Ath, which was not originally cited. As I wrote, "given that he was found to be notable as an individual author, this argues for the notability of Rand and Rose Flem-Ath as a couple", especially because they were the co-authors of a work on which the article focused. (I do not know whether this is sufficient basis for the creation of a new article rather than additions to the existing one.) Whether User:Indianasorell is able to address these issues or not to the satisfaction of Wikipedia editors is completely up to them. I am sorry that Flem-Ath thinks I have a "personal vendetta" against him. That is simply not true. I am most definitely not "attempting to manipulate the site in order to fulfill a personal vendetta" against him. Hoopes (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
The Wikpedia article Rand Flem-Ath was created on 9 November 2012 by a user who felt that the author's work was notable enough to warrant a brief biography. On 8 December 2012, the article on Flem-Ath was added by another user to. The Flem-Aths' work became directly relevant to the 2012 phenomenon specifically because of its references to a cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis that numerous people--including Graham Hancock in Fingerprints of the Gods, in which he attributes significant influence to the Flem-Aths--were relating to a Maya doomsday prophecy. Flem-Ath also states, "This teacher is brazenly trying to convince the student (a person reliant on him for a grade) to set up a ‘guilt by association’ status for me on one of the most popular websites on the planet, simply because I offend him by writing about Atlantis, and he can’t forget the fact that he went so far over the line in attacking me that an apology had to be issued." Again, I disagree with the assertion that I went "so far over the line in attacking" him. Flem-Ath's work comes up from time to time with reference to the stone spheres of Costa Rica, a topic with which I have been engaged for some time, because these are addressed in a chapter in his co-authored book, The Atlantis Blueprint. While we may disagree about interpretations of Atlantis, these objects and other things, I am definitely not seeking to set up a guilt-by-association status for him at all. It is a fact that Frank Collin (who writes under the pseudonym Frank Joseph) is another contemporary author who has written a number of books about Atlantis, having published at least eight titles on that topic (according to the article about him on Wikipedia). I do not know that author's work well enough to know whether he has made any specific use of Flem-Ath's theories regarding Charles Hapgood, cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis, or the location of Atlantis in Antarctica. In my own comments, I did not make any mention of Joseph's past or present political affiliations or opinions, which may well be irrelevant to his books about lost continents. I was simply making the suggestion that Flem-Ath's books about Atlantis may have been relevant--and therefore notable--in light of subsequent publications by others authors, such as Joseph, on the same subject. (This includes a 2010 book by Joseph entitled Atlantis and 2012: The Science of the Lost Civilization and the Prophecies of the Maya.) For example, it was clearly relevant to Hancock and Wilson. Hoopes (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I would prefer to leave the issues of Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Five_pillars to User:Bkissin and other Wikipedia editors. However, it is my own opinion that this author's notability derives from the many references to his work in Hancock's Fingerprints of the Gods and also the extensive references to his work in Beyond the Robot: The Life and Works of Colin Wilson (2016), a recent biography of author Colin Wilson by Gary Lachman whose index notes discussion about Flem-Ath on pp. 280, 287, 288, 307-9, 311-12, 313, and 331-33. With regard to issues of Wikipedia:Notability, I would refer specifically to the comments on p. 465 of Hancock's book Fingerprints of the Gods in which he refers to the Flem-Aths comments on his own book The Sign and the Seal and how their theory "made perfect sense of all the great worldwide myths of cataclysm and planetary disaster," "provided a solution to the problem of the extreme suddenness with which the last Ice Age in the northern hemisphere melted down after 15,000 BC", "solved the mystery of the exceptional worldwide volcanic activity that accompanied the meltdown", "answered the question, 'How do you lose a continent?', and "was solidly based in Charles Hapgood's theory of 'earth-crust displacement'". I would also refer again to multiple sections of Beyond the Robot (2016) by Gary Lachman, especially pp. 279-280, in which the author details the significant and influential relationships among authors Wilson, Flem-Ath, Hancock, John Anthony West, and Robert Bauval, all of whom are represented by current Wikipedia articles. It has been clear to me that Wilson, Hancock, and Lachman all consider Flem-Ath to be notable. I recommend that, in keeping with Wikipedia policy, this issue be decided on the basis of the secondary literature rather than on the basis of personal opinions. Hoopes (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I hope it clears up the issues raised above. I'd deal with the notability issue elsewhere, but I am concerned with what I see as BLP violations at Talk:Rand Flem-Ath where in 2017 Flem-Ath wrote "that it was probably created as an act of revenge by a person who was disciplined by his employer because of a vicious personal attack against me in the past" which is clearly completely false in all its charges, with more in the same vein added this week. I'll be deleting it as some point if there are no objections. Doug Weller talk 09:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Exciting! First of all, Hooper, Fingerprints of the Gods won't add to Flem-Ath's notability unless reliable (not fringe) sources discuss that connection. Fringe doesn't become notable from being mentioned by other fringe (Wikipedia:Walled garden, indirectly, provides a good argument for that). But that's by-the-by. Flem-Ath, Hooper mentioning the relevance in relation to this Collins dude is hardly an attempt to smear someone by way of association, especially not given the neutral description Hooper provided of how that connection might aid in establishing notability. I find your accusations here to be quite distasteful--and if it is true (is it?) that you contacted someone's employer to complain about an Amazon review, that's about as low as it gets. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
It's Hoopes, not Hooper, but thanks for your comments, especially about distasteful accusations. Yes, I do understand that, "Fringe doesn't become notable from being mentioned by other fringe", but the question then becomes one of who determines what's "fringe" and what's not. Fingerprints of the Gods was published by Random House and many people clearly regard it as credible. It has been cited by many other publications, blogs, podcasts, etc. and is identified as having had a major effect on popular culture, including its influence on the 2012 phenomenon and Roland Emmerich's film 2012. Is Fingerprints considered "fringe" while other nonfiction books by Graham Hancock are not, or is all of this author's nonfiction work to be put in that category? (His most recent book has been published in the U.S. by St. Martin's Press. What are the criteria for identifying something as "fringe"? The Celestine Prophecy, also published in 1995--but self-published--spent 165 weeks on the The New York Times Best Seller list but is something many would regard as fringe (even though it is not yet identified as such in Wikipedia). Flem-Ath's notability is discussed at length in a recent biography of author Colin Wilson by Gary Lachman that was published by TarcherPerigee. Would that be a "non-fringe" source? Who makes the call? How? Hoopes (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Hoopes, sorry about mistyping your name. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
So, "fringe," for me at least, has little to do with the size or history of the publisher of a work. It has little to do with the popularity of a work. The Celestine Prophecy is described as a novel, so "fringe" is a bit beside the point. What is more important is how other people and publications in the field regard the work. If a majority of people think you're wrong about something, you are quite literally on the fringe. To be fair, it has been a long time since I considered Fingerprints of the Gods, and perhaps it has a different reputation now. In my own very anecdotal experience, it certainly seems "fringe," but I can certainly be proven wrong. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@Drmies, Dumuzid, and Hoopes: it's fringe without a doubt. However, Hancock is a reliable source for his own opinions and experience, and he explains in detail how a letter from Flem-Ath helped him write the book. I can take it to RSN but I'm confident we can use it. Doug Weller talk 18:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Mr. Weller, I agree 100% with the above. However, the fact that Hancock's opinions are useable does not move the needle for me on notability, if you see what I mean. Again, just how I see it. If the weight of opinion is against me, I will not kvetch. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Doug Weller, I suppose that such a thing (that letter) may help, esp. if the publisher is notable and it's a popular book. But still, if Erich von Daniken had written up how much I had helped him with this or that, maybe some stuff about some Bosnian pyramid, surely that doesn't help establish notability. It might make for a nice note in my biography, but it shouldn't help make me notable. I think the more relevant question is whether Fingerprint dude thinks he's writing fiction or not. Is he is, great. If he's not, it's fringe, and if it's fringe everything he says should be taken with a grain of salt. Drmies (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

[redacted] Flem-AthRand (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Flem-AthRand, I redacted this entire post of yours and I encourage you not to reinstate it until we figure some things out. I will NOT hesitate to block you at least temporarily if you restore it. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Scofield, Be (2018-03-08). "The Gucci Guru: Inside Teal Swan's Posh Cult". Be Scofield. Retrieved 2018-11-16.[edit]

Teal Swan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The link above is suspended (https://medium.com/suspended)

It was has been suspended due to out of context and false content.

Please take this reference of Teal Swans Wikipedia information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.191.1.45 (talk) 13:13, May 18, 2019 (UTC)

I've fixed the dead link. Please discuss this on the talk page. --Auric talk 18:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Justin Amash[edit]

This congressman yesterday became the first Republican congress member to call for Trump's impeachment. Subsequently, the page has been full of BLP vios and vandalism, and there is every reason to believe it will continue. More eyes needed. I just deleted a sentence in his lede which claimed that he owned a firm that did extensive trade with China, sourced to a far-right crackpot website. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the page and will also keep an eye on it. This is likely to continue. Meatsgains(talk) 21:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Bryna Kra[edit]

Bender235 is violating WP:BLPPRIMARY by edit-warring to include a primary-sourced birthdate on BLP Bryna Kra. Beyond the sourcing issue, my impression was that we typically only include birth years, not dates, on BLPs to respect the privacy of the subjects. But as this is not obvious vandalism, I've reached the three-revert limit. Anyone else want to take it up? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

(i) Library of Congress authority files (like the one in question) aren't primary sources; they are secondary by definition. As a matter of fact, they even list the source for the information they provide.
(ii) Contrary to your impression, we typically include the full date of birth for biographies if we find a reliable source. LOC clearly is reliable.
(iii) The privacy concern is moot. Kra's DOB is publicly available. If it took me just one click to find it, Eve the Identity Thief will find it, too, regardless of whether we include the information on Wikipedia or not. --bender235 (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Nonetheless, that Library of Congress source only gives the birth year, 1966, not the full DOB. If the full date of birth is used in reliable secondary sources, then it is generally okay for us to use it. Edwardx (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Under the section header "sources" (as in "sources for this information"), the LOC entry clearly states "found: Nilpotent structures in ergodic theory, 2018:ECIP t.p. (Bryna Kra) data view (b. 10/06/1966)" --bender235 (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
That most certainly is a primary source. The Library of Congress uses authority control to maintain a clear language concerning authorship status for legal and filing purposes. (ie: All works are filed under Bryna Kra rather than Bryna Rebekah.) It is most certainly directly involved and not a secondary source that is reporting on the matter from the sidelines. LOC is directly involved. (Scientists, tax collectors and phone companies have sources they use and often cite, but are directly involved and do not report as an objective, one-step removed source with editorial oversight like a newspaper or book. Thus, the mere fact that they cite some sources does not automatically confer secondary-source status on them. However, not all primary sources are forbidden. Things like scientific studies or flight manuals or even the subject's own work can be used for certain info --with care. What cannot be used is stuff that may contain home addresses, contact info, names and details of non-notable people, or stuff best interpreted by someone with a proven background in translating legal jargon. That's what BLPPRIMARY, and by association NOR, is all about.) That said, as primary sources go this is similar to a congressional biography or a university profile. The source they use for the date is the subject's own book, which would be the preferred source and is probably good enough to demonstrate that the subject does not object to its being published, so I wouldn't bother removing it unless the subject comes along and actually does make a fuss. Zaereth (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Mark Levin[edit]

I'm not going to try to "convince" whomever is responsible for the totally biased diatribe you published against Mark Levin that they were wrong in doing so; I'm just going to publicly state herein that you liberal a-holes will NEVER receive a donation from me again - DON'T even ask! Here's hoping and praying that Wikipedia suffers bankruptcy.

That's fine. Since you don't seem interested in convincing us of a problem, nor in helping to solve that problem, whether real or perceived, I have absolutely no idea what has got you all worked up. Complaining about a diatribe in the middle of your own diatribe makes me suspect this is more an inner, personal issue than anything to do with the article. (It's amazing what we subconsciously reveal about ourselves and our own insecurities when attacking others.) I'm sure we'll survive, and if a problem truly exists with the article, perhaps someday someone will come along with the hutzpah to do something about it. Zaereth (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)