Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:42, 25 March 2022

• WP:BLPN
• WP:BLP/N
• WP:BLPNB
• WP:BLP/NB

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

Additional notes:

• Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
• For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
• Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

Chidiebere Ibe

I believe the article Chidiebere Ibe should contain an entry regarding his plagiarism (that was already written and being constantly removed for some reason by the person who wrote this article...), which was pointed out in several posts, and can be easily identifiable by using a reverse image search. Please view the Talk page of the article for more information. 80.123.97.90 (talk)

The content concerning alleged plagiarism was removed per Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons policy, since it was unsupported by any reliable source. We don't cite random posts on Instagram in biographies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

It only takes a pair of functioning eyeballs to realize that his illustrations are plagiarized. In the comment I've made (which you've removed) there were many examples, but I'll leave the most "famous" one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/File:Chidiebere_Ibe_fetus.jpg

https://www.gettyimages.at/detail/nachrichtenfoto/third-trimester-this-image-shows-the-fetus-at-the-nachrichtenfoto/648891556

Look at the illustrations side by side. This is just plain theft. 80.123.97.90 (talk)

Misplaced Pages bases biographical content on published reliable sources. This is not open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is also bound by the law, and this is copyrighted material belonging to Getty images uploaded onto its servers. 80.123.97.90 (talk) 10:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Even if that were true, it still wouldn't permit adding unsourced claims to the biography. If you think there is a copyright issue with the image as uploaded to Misplaced Pages (under Misplaced Pages:Non-free content guidelines), I suggest you read Misplaced Pages:Copyright violations and Misplaced Pages:Image use policy, and then follow the process laid out in Misplaced Pages:Guide to image deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Gotcha. Which terms does a statement made by the artist fall under, if made on Twitter? There's a public statement made by the original artist, proving it. I am wondering whether it can be accepted or not based on the fact that it is "user-generated" and therefore "unreliable", although the folks at HuffPost and so on had clearly done no research on the matter, and they are considered as "reliable"...

I do want to follow the guidelines, but leaving the article as-is seem to justify the offenses made by Mr. Ibe, praising him as the creator of the illustrations, while he in fact, just stole them. 80.123.97.90 (talk) 80.123.97.90 (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPSPS self published sources cannot be used to make claims about BLPs if they relate to third parties. Therefore a Tweet from the artist of the Getty image could perhaps be used to support the statement they made the illustration on Getty's images although I'm not convinced we could even say that, since it could be seen as unduly self serving. But in any case, it's a moot point as a tweet from the artist of Getty's image cannot be used to say anything about Chidiebere Ibe so such a tweet has no relevance to the Chidiebere Ibe article. Nil Einne (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

If we put aside BLP issues for a while, I had a look at edits and they demonstrate why we always require RS even in cases where living persons aren't affected. One of the claims made there is utter nonsense, anyone with any experience knows that plenty of incredibly educated people have an incredibly poor understanding of copyright. Indeed, it's something we have problems with on Misplaced Pages all the time. While reliable sources aren't immune to making nonsense claims like that, they're thankfully a lot less likely to do so than editors. Nil Einne (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that segment was based on exchanges made in a private discussion board over at AMI.org boards. Mr. Ibe admitted to copying the illustrations but claimed ignorance on the matter. These claims are not "utter nonsense".

He had received backlash owing to his actions over at Twitter and Instagram (search ebereillustrate plagiarism/copyright), and unfortunately, a "We were wrong about that artist, he actually stole those images" title won't generate as many clicks as the original ones, so it seems like we're stuck either with a misinformed source lacking the truth (the current state of the article) or we should at least mention it.

I have no idea about the inner matters of AMI, but I will contact them and ask for their response. In the meanwhile, how about we bring up the mere controversy into the reader's attention? It really doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes to see that he indeed stole those images. 80.123.97.90 (talk) 80.123.97.90 (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

How do we "bring up the mere controversy into the reader's attention?" We don't. Not on Misplaced Pages. Not until it is covered by published reliable sources. And since the relevant Misplaced Pages policy (WP:BLP) also applies to posts made on talk pages, I suggest you stop using words like 'stole', before you are obliged to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Not sure whether this article should be merged into medical illustration under BIO1E. The illustrator is not the focus of the RS; more the lack of diversity in medical illustration and textbooks. This person could be said to qualify under WP:ARTIST under criteria 2, but does changing the skin tone of allegedly existing illustrations qualify? Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that any claim to Misplaced Pages-notability for the subject of the biography seems marginal, regardless of any alleged plagiarism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Can I get a Misplaced Pages article written about me as well, assuming I apply a filter on the Mona Lisa making her look black? 80.123.97.90 (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

If sources cover you in sufficient detail to meet WP:GNG then sure. There seems to be some question whether this applies to the subject of the article that started this thread but there are at least some minimal sources. A lot of people do a lot of things and aren't covered at all. Nil Einne (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Several distinct issues are at play here. The image was uploaded here to English Misplaced Pages as a non-free image. If the image dies not meet the strict standards at WP:NFCI, then the image should be deleted in accordance with standard procedures. As for whether our article Chidiebere Ibe should accuse him of plagiarism based on looking at two images side by side, the answer is absolutely not since that is original research and is contrary to an essential core content policy. Individual Misplaced Pages editors are forbidden from posing as experts on plagiarism or copyright violations when it comes to such accusations in a biography of a living person. Only if this kerfuffle receives genuine coverage in independent, reliable sources should it be mentioned in the biography. The third issue is whether or not this person is notable. That is a matter to be determined by deletion policy and is based entirely on the depth of coverage in independent, reliable sources, and not on any accusations floating around on voracious social media platforms. Cullen328 (talk) 05:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Stephen James (model)

The article state "James is not Jewish, but his mother & father are." If his parents are Jewish, so is he. Being a Jew is the ethnicity. Judaism is the religion. See your own entry "Jewish." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonkitto1958 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The first source says he is Jewish , and the second source mentions his mother and his Star of David tattoo . Beccaynr (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jonkitto1958: For clarity, while our article may be wrong going by what Beccaynr has said, per WP:BLP what matters is sources not editor's opinions of what makes someone X. And when it comes to ethnicity, sources tend to focus on self identification combined with descent rather than purely on descent. Nil Einne (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Jonkitto1958. In order to state an ethno-religious identity in Misplaced Pages's voice, we require an unambiguous self-identification from the person themself. Simply verifying that a person's parents were part of a religious or ethnic group is not sufficient, because people can voluntarily abandon or change their religious or ethnic identities. In this particular case, there are two references to sources where this person affirms their Jewish identity in their own words. That is what matters most, not any information about his parent's Jewish identity. Cullen328 (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Ian Katz

I am the subject of this page

https://en.wikipedia.org/Ian_Katz

I am still technically married to Justine Roberts, as the page states, but we have been seperated since 2019

There is no publicly available source to verify this but you may check it directly with her at

I would appreciate it if where she is listed as my spouse, you could add (seperated 2019)

And under personal life, could ylou please add after:

Katz is married to Justine Roberts, the chief executive of the Mumsnet website.

"They have been seperated since 2019"

Thank you.

Ian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.253.51 (talk) 23:12, 14 Mar 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP is very clear that we need a published reliable source to make that change. We do not contact the subject of an article for verification, nor do we rely on the word of an anonymous editor claiming to be the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks...could you explain what would constitute a reliuable source given that the fact of my seperation has not been publically reported. Is there a way that I can give you to verify my indentity? 86.181.253.51 (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

You can read about reliable sources, including general examples, here: Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources, and there is a more specific list of examples here: Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Beccaynr (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

You can reach out to WP:OTRS for your concerns, and they may be able to help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

You can verify your ID as Scott recommended, but I doubt it will help you in this circumstance. I don't mean this to come off as rude or anything, but we get this sort of question all the time. We're not facebook and we really don't have any need to keep up-to-date relationship statuses. That's not what an encyclopedia is for. We really have a strict need to adhere to reliable sources and not get all caught up in these day-to-day trivialities. (I'm sure it's not trivial to you, but to the general reader it really doesn't tell us anything of value.) As the editor of a news outlet, I'm sure you already know what constitutes a reliable source. It's much the same here, except we're a tertiary source, thus we rely on secondary sources to tell us what is correct but also what is significant to the reader. Although we're an online encyclopedia and subject to very rapid changes by comparison, in many ways we are also similar to paper encyclopedias, where information doesn't need to be constantly up to date.

As the editor of a news outlet, perhaps you could simply have one of your reporters write up something for an upcoming broadcast. Then we'd have something to use. Of course, that in and of itself would pose all kinds of ethical dilemmas for you. (Maybe write up an editorial and slyly work it in somehow. "I think this, but my ex-wife Justine Roberts says..." or something like that.) Sometimes, we're just stuck with what we have, and more often than not that's what makes this all work. It differentiates us from the rest of the internet. Zaereth (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• An easy fix is to say, as long as it can be verified, that "Katz married Roberts in …" whatever year it was. That's still true even if "Katz is married to Roberts" becomes untrue and there are no sources for it. The marriage (presumably verifiably) happened at that point in the past, and we make no statement as to its current status. Of course, this is why infoboxes are troublesome. Prose can convey this. |spouse= does not. Uncle G (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Boris Mints

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Boris_Mints&type=revision&diff=1077279226&oldid=1077144707

Please consider editing information about a living person made by users Snooganssnoogans and Edwardx as untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buklemeshev (talk • contribs) 14:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Editor has disclosed a conflict of interest. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The statement referred to is sourced to a primary document stored at a location with which I am unfamiliar. Is it a reliable reference? The lead ignores the individuals's achievements and interests but includes this US-centric statement. As far as I can tell the Mints has had little or no connection with the US. Burrobert (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The file is hosted by Bloomberg, so I would say it's reliable. I've added a second source, which embeds the document. As to whether it's due that he has been sanctioned by the US, obviously it is. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 20:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Least Competent User? Mints is not mentioned in the second source. His name appears in a document that is linked in the story along with a few hundred other people. If we are interested in telling readers about Mints' life, then this would not be one of the two most important things to start with. It appears we can't even find a source that discusses this aspect of Mints' life. The lead does not even scratch the surface of Mints interesting life. Burrobert (talk) 02:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and rewritten the introductory sentence. I think this best reflects the article and the available sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

A fugitive and accused embezzler! Wow. Is there a source? Neither appears to have been mentioned in the body. Burrobert (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

It's discussed in the body , and the specific charges of embezzlement are mentioned in this Moscow Times article . Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Where are these discussed in the body? Neither "fugitive", nor "embezzlement" appears in the body. The Moscow Times article does not seem to be mentioned anywhere in the bio. If it is not there, I would suggest adding it, and making the two points clearer in the body. Burrobert (talk) 03:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The embezzlement part has been added now . As for fugitive, it isn't said in the lead idea, I'd argue it's technically accurate but unnecessary based on him being wanted in Russia but in any case all we say is he's wanted not that he's a fugitive Nil Einne (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

David Yassky

David Yassky started a campaign for the New York State Senate in February 2022, and I've noticed some less than neutral edits to his page, particularly from Jack1983B. The language used is rather pointed and poorly sourced, and other users edits are being removed with no explanation in edit summaries or the talk page. I've tried making constructive edits to source and use more neutral language, but the original, unsourced, value-laden language has been added back. Chaonautical (talk) 04:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Bo Andersson (businessman)

I'm not sure the course of action here, but I stumbled upon this article, and it reads more like a resume/press release of a hiring than a biography.

I can enumerate further, if needed. Mryanleslie (talk) 07:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT DeCausa (talk) 07:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mryanleslie: I added a tag that labels this issue. If you would like to you could go make edits to the article to correct this issue. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

With all the PR fluff removed, its now just a verbose resume.Slywriter (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Ryan's World

See Special:Diff/1077383523. Happened again, requesting removal of revision per WP:BLPVIO, thanks -Gouleg🛋️ /_hound 14:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Revdel'd by El C. Finally, he did something right. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@El C: this one as well -Gouleg🛋️ /_hound 15:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Wait, am I Cornwood or James Randal in this scenario? I'm losing track of my own nonsense! Let's just do both, you scoundrels! El_C 15:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Ryans the best 85.210.141.89 (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Who? ♫ Tacos today, tacos today ♫ El_C 17:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Remove page of Brandon Miller

created his own article to state out malicious code he has created distributed over a node package.

It is definetly not the purpose Misplaced Pages biographies should be used for. For more Information see: https://snyk.io/blog/peacenotwar-malicious-npm-node-ipc-package-vulnerability/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.24.142.194 (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Non-technical summary of what the IP is talking about: https://www.itnews.com.au/news/protestware-npm-package-dependency-labelled-supply-chain-attack-577488 Endwise (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The Brandon Miller (motorcyclist) biography was created in 2012. And if Miller has been distributing malicious code, I think we can be fairly certain he hasn't been doing so via the biography. You can't inject an 'Inter Process Communication Module for node supporting Unix sockets' into articles. Or if you could, there is a much more systemic flaw in Wikimedia software, and anyone who'd figured out how to do it would surely not confine such actions to a single article.

As for the biography itself, it has been tagged as not meeting notability standards, which given the lack of sources seems appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Probably the article should simply be deleted. While there are some sources from the motorcycling stuff I'm not sure if they're enough although some of them seem dead and I can't be bothered recovering them. Regardless as long as we have an article we need to respect WP:BLP. Even if the article was really originally an autobiography, it's very very far from the first and it's not something we cover unless it receives significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. As for the malware thing, I don't think IT News is enough for us to cover this and we definitely cannot rely on blogs or editor's WP:OR. If this does blow up perhaps we'll cover it but it doesn't seem to have happened yet since the only other thing which appears on Google News mentioning the person I saw besides IT News is Bleeping Computers and indeed there are still many things about the motorcycle stuff. As AndyTheGrump said, the idea the article created in 2012 has anything to do with the distributing the questionable package in 2022 is laughable. Nil Einne (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Let's take a step back, and look at a few core policies and guidelines for a moment. I'd be in support of an AfD, since not only does the topic of the article not meet WP:GNG, but it's highly likely that it's an WP:AUTOBIO as well. RIAEvangelist is Brandon Miller's username on Github, and this also happens to be the username of the Misplaced Pages editor who created the article, and is responsible for 90% of the article prose content. Anything else that's been brought up (e.g. malicious code) holds no weight under Misplaced Pages policy, so I'd suggest not having the discussion focus too much on that. --benlisquare_T•C•E 22:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I've started the AfD discussion over at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Brandon Miller (motorcyclist). --benlisquare_T•C•E 23:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

roman temkin

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

User continually uses Russian media sources to malign individual who is living. This doesnt belong there and should be removed immediately. 38.140.253.170 (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

It looks like the info has been removed and a WP:PROD has been added. I'm predicting the article will be deleted. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Eugene Parker § Views on climate change

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Eugene Parker § Views on climate change. More editors' opinions on content discussion for biography of a very recently-deceased physicist are welcome. Schazjmd (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Parker died two days ago, so this board is not a place to discuss this issue.Yreuq (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Two days ago mean WP:BDP definitely applies. Nil Einne (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

That's about as ridiculous as it gets.Yreuq (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Yreuq: it's a long standing part of BLP. Until and unless you successfully get BLP policy changed, you need to accept it. If you're not willing to, you need to refrain from affecting any BLPs where it applies or if you can't do that, then don't edit any biographies at all. Nil Einne (talk) 07:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

That's your misinterpretation of BLP. However, the letter of the rule says: "Such extensions only apply to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime. A scientist's view on a scientific topic does not qualify for the extension, sorry. The man is dead, BLP no longer applies.Yreuq (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Unverified material on biography

The following statement on the biography of Martin Kulldorff: "...attempting to implement could cause many unnecessary deaths with the potential of recurrent waves of disease spread as immunity decreases over time."

The Wall Street Journal article cited in support of the statement says the following:

If immunity wanes after several months, as it does with the flu, patients could be susceptible to the virus after being infected, they said. That, they said, would result in recurrent and potentially large waves of infection, a common occurrence before vaccines were invented.
— WSJ.com

The WSJ article ties recurrent waves to waning immunity, not the Great Barrington Declaration, which Kulldorff co-authored.

There is a lengthy discussion at the talk page regarding the statement. After 30 days of not being verified, I have today removed the statement from the biography. However, my edits are being repeatedly reverted by the same editor (diff, and diff). In order to avoid an edit war, I am posting here for outside opinion.

I contend that the WSJ article does not support the statement and therefore the statement does not belong on the biography of Martin Kulldorff. The statement does not add any value to Kulldorff's biography and as written, it is original research and inaccurate. It therefore does not comply with the core policy of verification or the content policy for biographies of living persons.

Any outside input and assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 04:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I am the editor in the diffs above. I'd also be glad to have the thoughts of other editors. Since the notice above is non-neutral, I might as well lay out my side, though I'd prefer to keep further discussion at the article talk page. In short, Kulldorff is primarily notable for co-authoring the 2020 Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated for a herd-immunity-based approach to dealing with COVID. The cited WSJ article (which I can send a copy of via email if needed) is all about the GBD and herd immunity. The quoted line isn't a sudden non sequitur, but a comment from experts on the hazards of relying on the kind of herd immunity Kulldorff's plan required. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 05:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Simply because the subject of the WSJ is "all about the GBD" does not change the fact that the WSJ article explicitly and directly ties recurrent waves to waning immunity, not to the GBD. Stating otherwise is either a misattribution or original research.

Verification policy states that "...any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. "

It further clarifies direct support as:

A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of Misplaced Pages:No original research.

The WSJ article does not explicitly nor directly support a relationship between the GBD and recurrent waves.

The WSJ article also quotes Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (another of the GBD's co-authors) as saying that the Lancet article, which is the WSJ's source for the 'recurrent waves' statement, "...mischaracterizes the focused protection approach advocated by the Great Barrington declaration..." The authors further clarified focused protection on the home page of the GBD by stating "...some media outlets and scientists have falsely characterized it as a “herd immunity strategy”."

Lastly, the Lancet article does not mention either the Great Barrington Declaration or Martin Kulldorff.

Therefore either the statement as written should be removed entirely (as it adds no value to the readers' understanding of Kulldorff) or it should be re-written to state something along the lines of this: 'scientists warned a herd-immunity strategy like the GBD is dangerously false.' And to be accurately and neutrally presented, a statement like that should be accompanied by one that also states the authors of the GBD feel it is mischaracterized as a herd-immunity strategy. Even then, I do not see the value this line of content adds to Kulldorff's biography, as opposed to an article about the GBD itself.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 06:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

This paragraph: If immunity wanes after several months, as it does with the flu, patients could be susceptible to the virus after being infected, they said. That, they said, would result in recurrent and potentially large waves of infection, a common occurrence before vaccines were invented. That would continue to place a huge burden on the economy and health-care system, they said is scientific background about our understanding of infection and immunity, i.e. that there will be waves of COVID like there are waves of the flu if COVID immunity wanes quickly. This context plays into the reasoning for the health risks of the GBD, e.g. as they argue in the next paragraph Allowing the virus to run its course could lead to thousands of people with long-term health problems, scientists say, etc. But it is not saying that GBD will cause waves of COVID-19. Not that that's false necessarily, it just is talking about something else.

More pertinently, I don't know why a detailed "takedown" of a policy needs to be included on the biography of every supporter of that policy. That should go on the article about that policy, and the biography article should stick to the beliefs of (or about) the subject of the biography themselves. I could, for instance, find every BLP subject who has advocated for rent control, and copy a few paragraphs of criticism from Rent regulation#Economists' views and paste them onto their article. That, as I think we can all understand, would be a disruptive and inappropriate use of the encyclopedia. I don't see why that should change because the topic area is different. Endwise (talk) 06:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

About it is not saying that GBD will cause waves of COVID-19: you are correct, technically, because nobody expects a piece of paper to cause infectious diseases. But the article is saying that following the advice in the GBD could have this result (under the specified circumstances, i.e., "If immunity wanes after several months, as it does with the flu"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

This seems contentious enough to require several reliable sources discussing this beyond the WSJ, preferably without a paywall, even without considering the alleged OR (synthing). Does the WSJ even explicitly name Kulldorff? Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

He's named: "The authors of the document, which gets its name from where it was written and signed, include Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford University Medical School. The third, Sunetra Gupta, a professor of theoretical epidemiology at Oxford University, earlier this year garnered criticism for suggesting that some places might be able to reach herd immunity with just 25% of people infected, due to protection from previous exposure to seasonal coronaviruses." Llll5032 (talk) 08:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Should WP:MEDRS come into play here? Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe it does. The statement being made is epidemiological in nature (recurrent waves of disease). Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 10:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't. Michael quoted only part of the sentence here. The full sentence said this:

The World Health Organization, the National Institutes of Health and other public-health bodies said such a policy lacked a sound scientific basis, and scientists dismissed the document as impossible in practice, unethical and as pseudoscience, and warned that attempting to implement it could cause many unnecessary deaths with the potential of recurrent waves of disease spread as immunity decreases over time.

Consequently, the thing to verify isn't whether "it's true that" (which is MEDRS territory), but whether "scientists warned that" (and this news article certainly proves that some scientists did, indeed, warn of exactly that). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I have included a useful search to wade for some sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Morbidthoughts. The WSJ article links to the John Snow Memorandum, first published in The Lancet, in response to the GBD. (The JSM's warning about recurrent waves is also described at the "Counter memorandum" section of the Great Barrington Declaration Misplaced Pages article.) The whole story is described more recently in commentary by Science Based Medicine in "The Great Barrington Declaration and the John Snow Memorandum" section. Llll5032 (talk) 08:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The Science Based Medicine article relies on the same Lancet article as a source for the 'recurrent waves' statement and therefore falls into the same problem as the WSJ article. They both use the same Lancet article, which again, does not mention the GBD or Kulldorff by name and therefore can not tie recurrent waves to the GBD.

Any statement that the GBD will cause recurrent waves is not supported by the WSJ article, the SBM article, the Lancet paper, or the John Snow Memorandum homepage and is therefore original research/synthesis.

I agree with Endwise that there is no need for a detailed 'takedown' of the GBD on Kulldorff's biography. It adds no value for a reader interested in Kulldorff. Stating that mainstream science feels that the GBD lacks a 'sound, scientific basis' satisfies due weight in regards to fringe/alt topics. Readers interested in the GBD and the drama surrounding it can read the article dedicated to it.

The statement as it currently reads not only violates verifiability policy, it is also poorly written as a sentence run-on:

The World Health Organization, the National Institutes of Health and other public-health bodies said such a policy lacked a sound scientific basis, and scientists dismissed the document as impossible in practice, unethical and as pseudoscience, and warned that attempting to implement it could cause many unnecessary deaths with the potential of recurrent waves of disease spread as immunity decreases over time.

My original edit from today makes the statement much more concise, retains due weight, removes a kludgy run-on and removes the problem created by the 'recurrent waves' statement:

The World Health Organization, the National Institutes of Health and other public-health bodies said such a policy lacked a sound scientific basis.

And as I've mentioned in a similar discussion:

It is further problematic to use the John Snow Memorandum to refute the GBD because we now know that a key concern expressed in the John Snow Memorandum, namely that "there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection" is now false; natural immunity is proving to be at least as strong, if not stronger and longer-lasting than vaccine-acquired immunity:

Importantly, infection-derived protection was higher after the Delta variant became predominant, a time when vaccine-induced immunity for many persons declined because of immune evasion and immunologic waning.

— cdc.gov

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 09:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying this commentary in Science-Based Medicine is SYNTH? Llll5032 (talk) 09:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I am saying that no source has been provided that supports the statement "...attempting to implement could cause many unnecessary deaths with the potential of recurrent waves of disease spread as immunity decreases over time."

The onus is not on me to prove otherwise.

No one has yet provided a quote from the WSJ article, the SBM article, the Lancet paper, or the John Snow memorandum home page that explicitly and directly supports that statement. Without direct support, the statement has no place in a biography of a living person, per content policy and core policy.

Policy supports the removal of disputed and unverified content until direct and explicit support for it can be presented and consensus reached on using it.

And again, the John Snow Memorandum is no longer as salient a 'response' to the GBD as it might have previously been. The following is from a recent article (which also cites the CDC report I referenced above):

Antibodies derived from natural infection with COVID-19 are more abundant and more potent – at least 10 times more potent – than immunity generated by vaccination alone, according to a study from Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) in Portland, US, published on January 25.

— Medscape.co.uk

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 10:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The onus isn't on anyone to prove that, because the Misplaced Pages article never said that was true. The Misplaced Pages article only said that other scientists claimed this, and the cited WSJ article is completely reliable for which people said what. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Since there are other reliable sources discussing the criticism against following the GBD,, the only question is that can this be rewritten to remove the alleged OR, the recurrent waves mention, and just simply focus on the counter, "the declaration’s approach would endanger Americans who have underlying conditions... and result in perhaps a half-million deaths" Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

At least two RS link the JSM's warning of recurrent epidemics to the GBD's strategy and also discuss Kulldorff's role in writing the GBD. SBM is especially clear about this, additionally commenting that the warnings turned out to be true. Llll5032 (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

It is clear that the JSM notes that "Such a strategy would not end the COVID-19 pandemic but result in recurrent epidemics". However, I do not consider the SBM editorial as an appropriate RS to establish facts about a BLP. (WP:RSEDITORIAL) Just find independent non-editorials or commentaries RS that mention that in context of Kulldorff to establish due weight. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Please provide a quote that directly and explicitly warns of recurrent epidemics to the GBD. The quotes so far warns of recurrent waves caused by waning immunity.

With the evidence provided thus far, making the connection from recurrent epidemics → waning immunity → Great Barrington Declaration is original research. Again, how the GBD causes waning immunity is not clear in any of the articles. Even more importantly, natural immunity is now known to be as strong, if not stronger than induced immunity. Therefore the John Snow Memorandum is much less effective response to the GBD.

It is quite telling that we are now over a month into this discussion (mostly on the Kulldorff's talk page but now here too) and all of the attempts to keep the statement have so far relied on indirect connections to keep it, rather than providing a simple quote from a reliable source that the GBD will/might cause recurrent waves.

That should be illustrative enough to remove the statement.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 23:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The quote has been in the ref for months. OP may believe it is inadequate, but so far, others at the talk page have not been persuaded by his reasoning. Llll5032 (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The onus is not on me to persuade others. The quote directly and explicitly ties recurrent waves to waning immunity, not the GBD. I am not the only editor who understands that. The provided quote clearly does not support the statement as written. Therefore the statement is disputed and unverified.

Furthermore, in a request for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons, part of the final decision (passed by a 10:0 vote) is:

Misplaced Pages articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Misplaced Pages editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 01:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I haven't been paying much attention to this, because it's hard to judge a part of a sentence taken out of any context, as was posted at the top. First, I'll start off by declaring my own biases, because it's totally illogical statements like that which have me doubting these scientists, whoever they are. "If you catch the virus, you're not immune, but if we inject you with the virus, then that's somehow different." I mean, you can't have it both ways. That said, what are the legal or ethical implications you keep talking about? How is this possible harming the subject? I can't see any argument that makes this a BLP concern and something more than a simple content dispute. That said, the whole section is terrible, which I assume is the result of edit warring and piecemealing it together. The sentence in question is a run-on (and on) and it is bordering on incoherent. And what is with all the interstitial refs? Whenever I see that many references for a single sentence, my spidey sense starts to tingle and a big red-flag pops up saying "SYNTH!" I'm not saying it is synth, but there should be no need for so many refs to support a single sentence unless something funky is going on. (I mean one, maybe two. three concurring refs at best for disputed lines, but like 10 all interstitially dispersed!?! That's crazy.) But I don't see what the big deal is nor how it would possibly rise to the level of BLP vio. Zaereth (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

You asked several questions, so the response is long:

it's hard to judge a part of a sentence taken out of any context

I disagree, in this case. Including simply the quote above, from the WSJ article as it is, illustrates that it links recurrent waves to waning immunity, not the Declaration. It is unambiguous and explicit. You can read the quote while asking the question "what causes recurrent waves?" and the answer is provided by the quote, explicitly. The quote is nearly its own paragraph, minus one sentence. Neither the paragraph before the quote or the one after the quote link recurrent waves to the GBD. All three paragraphs are below to provide more context (for anyone who doesn't have access beyond the paywall):

It is unknown how long immunity to the new coronavirus lasts and what level of antibodies is protective, infectious disease experts said. A handful of reinfection cases have been documented around the world, the first one in Hong Kong. Scientists last week reported the first confirmed U.S. reinfection case in a 25-year-old male patient in Nevada.

If immunity wanes after several months, as it does with the flu, patients could be susceptible to the virus after being infected, they said. That, they said, would result in recurrent and potentially large waves of infection , a common occurrence before vaccines were invented. That would continue to place a huge burden on the economy and health-care system, they said.

Allowing the virus to run its course could lead to thousands of people with long-term health problems, scientists say. Researchers are still trying to piece together who is most at risk for a condition known as "long Covid," or lingering health issues that a significant proportion of Covid-19 patients experience weeks and months after they get sick. These patients struggle with issues ranging from problems with concentration, thinking and memory to extreme fatigue, and muscle and joint pain.

— Sarah Toy, Daniela Hernandez, WSJ.com

How is this possible harming the subject?

It potentially harms the subject because it is a false statement and policy regarding BLP is meant to protect subjects from false statements.

That said, the whole section is terrible, which I assume is the result of edit warring and piecemealing it together.

It was the result of tendentious editing piled on over time in order to portray the GBD as scary as possible.

I don't see what the big deal is nor how it would possibly rise to the level of BLP vio

I agree, it shouldn't be a big deal but there is a group of editors who seem to believe that the GBD and by extension Kulldorff should be portrayed as eugenicist/scary/quackery etc. Quite frequently these editors' personal opinions come through in their copy, as is the case here. The copy as written is not neutral and is not directly supported by the source provided. My attempts to clean up the biography and make it more inline with a biography have been met with edit warring and incivility. Bringing the issue here is a step towards improving the article by engaging others with a 'fresh' or 'outside' view. Sorry for the long reply, but you presented several questions and points to address.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 04:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The Boston Globe (non-opinion) also cites the warning about recurring pandemics and the relationship to the GBD.. (Unlike the WSJ story and the SBM commentary, it does not mention Kulldorff by name.) Llll5032 (talk) 23:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The Boston Globe article simply restates what the others do using the same source as the others: the John Snow Memorandum. The one time the Globe article mentions "recurrent" is a quote from the Lancet paper. Because the Lancet paper neither mentions the GBD nor Kulldorff, it can't be construed as making any direct and explicit linkage between any content in the John Snow Memorandum and the GBD or Kulldorff himself. The closest one can get is to say "a herd-immunity strategy" instead of 'the GBD.' But then for balance and neutrality, the article must mention that the GBD authors said the GBD was mischaracterized as a herd-immunity strategy when it isn't. And that takes us too far afield of what a biography of Kulldorff should be. Plenty of GBD drama is documented in the wiki article dedicated to it.

The Boston Globe article does not support the statement either, and for the same reasons as the Wall Street Journal and Science Based Medicine articles: it does not directly and explicitly link the GBD to recurrent waves.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 23:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Per SBM the Great Barrington Declaration is an example of eugenicist thinking "written at the behest of the libertarian free market think tank American Institute for Economic Research (AIER)". We don't need MEDRS to counter the Declaration because it is not science, but fringe polemic. But per WP:PSCI we do need to point out that it's ridiculous. Alexbrn (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  Calling it pseudoscience does not grant an editor carte blanche, especially from adhering to core policies. The core verifiability policy still applies to content, even if that content is intended to give counter-weight to or identify fringe-ness. Therefore WP:PSCI is not a justification to retain the disputed and unverified 'recurring waves' statement.

  I would argue the same goes for statements involving biomedical information, such as a statement about recurring epidemics. Any medical statement made in a wikipedia article should be properly sourced per medical resources policy even if the statement is meant to counter or identify fringe/alt, or pseudoscientific content. The claim that the GBD "...could cause many unnecessary deaths with the potential of recurrent waves of disease spread as immunity decreases over time" pertains to biomedical information and should therefore comply with reliable medical sources policy, content policy, as well as core policy.

  Otherwise an editor could assert something like "Kulldorff wants to kill old people because a blog post on Science Based Medicine tells us the Declaration is eugenicist thinking." As you said; it's ridiculous.

  Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 12:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  The whole GBD thing was to let people die to keep the economic wheels turning for the rich, based on pseudoscience. Yeah it's fucked-up, but Misplaced Pages isn't going to shy away from calling it like it is, despite your tedious long-drawn campaign of POV-pushing. Alexbrn (talk) 12:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

If relevant quality RS calls this document eugenicist (or ridiculous, or whatever) then Misplaced Pages needs to reflect that. We need to call out pseudoscientific idea as such prominently per WP:PSCI. Just say what the good source says. There's way too much dancing around to try to avoid doing this. Alexbrn (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the 'recurrent waves' statement and replaced it with something that is hopefully closer to a consensus statement, taking input from this discussion. Please take a look and tell me what you think.

One of my concerns is going too far afield into the GBD on Kulldorff's biography page, especially when the GBD has an article dedicated to it. Hopefully the current statement satisfies other's desires to have the GBD discussed more in context of Kulldorff, while not going too far into the single (albeit very controversial) aspect of his career.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 01:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Who thinks Michael's new edit is a "consensus statement" as he wrote in the summary, based on this discussion? I think that is doubtful, because it looks like at least 4 of 6 of us voiced some differences with his interpretations. Llll5032 (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

All sources provided so far say that waning immunity would be the cause for recurrent waves.

If you have to connect the dots from waning immunity, to recurrent waves, to the GBD, you are performing original research.

An editor's interpretation is original research.

As illustrated above in the long reply to Zaereth, the section of the WSJ article that mentions recurrent waves is an aside or background information. For the three paragraphs of that section, neither the GBD nor Kulldorff is either mentioned or referenced.

The WSJ article is explicit in saying that waning immunity (in susceptible people) is what could cause recurrent waves. As Endwise stated, that section of the WSJ article is 'scientific background,' which is not directly related to the GBD or more importantly, to Kulldorff. It therefore adds no value to a biographical article about Kulldorff.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 23:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Nope. The cited source actually says this.

Looking back at your edits over the last couple of months, I see a pattern of trying to exclude criticism of GBD's ideas from this article. You remove a sentence from the article that says only that "scientists warned", and you come here to have an irrelevant debate about whether those scientists are correct. You have repeatedly insisted that the John Snow Memorandum, which is so closely related to what scientists say about GBD that we merged the two subjects into a single article, has nothing to do with the GBD and/or its authors, and thus must never be mentioned anywhere. All of your edits tend to promote the idea that the GBD might possibly have been correct about something, that only irrefutable proof of its errors is an acceptable approach to criticizing it, and that only responses to Kulldorff's ideas that separately mention him by name can even be considered for inclusion. Next stop on this slippery slope: Information about Shakespeare's plays can't be mentioned in Shakespeare unless the cited source happens to name the author. Ifthe author instead assumes that educated people already know who wrote Hamlet, then we'll claim that it {{failed verification}}.

That's not how Misplaced Pages works. That's POV pushing, not writing down what the reliable sources say, including the parts that you don't personally agree with. I would like you to consider voluntarily leaving this article to editors who do not seem to be as unwilling to include all the information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Are we debating me or the content here? Ad hominem attacks typically indicate a lack of substance.

The original post here at this noticeboard is to question whether or not any cited source directly supports the 'recurrent waves' statement. The onus is not on my to prove it does not. The onus is on those who wish to keep it to prove it does. Simply saying "the cited source actually says this" does not demonstrate that it says it. The quote from the WSJ (and all other sources presented so far) is very clear in what causes recurrent waves; waning immunity.

I brought the question to this noticeboard because there is a group of editors who are clearly squatting a group of article which they have deemed "theirs" and others should keep their hands off those articles (the chest-thumping is obvious from more than one editor). An outside opinion is critical in this situation and that is very clearly demonstrated here.

No one owns wiki content. Attempts to push an editor away from certain "pet" content lacks civility.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 22:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

A group of crows is a murder, a group of ferrets is a business, and a group of editors is a consensus. It doesn't seem like you've gotten much support here, so perhaps you should accept consensus is against your position? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Consensus is not about superior numbers. It's not a vote. It's not a majority.

Policy is policy, even if a group of editors — regardless of what they call themselves — wish otherwise.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 23:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I thought it might be useful for editors here at BLPN to see the paragraph in question on the day before Michael started this:

1. Gorski, David. "The Great Barrington Declaration: COVID-19 deniers follow the path laid down by creationists, HIV/AIDS denialists, and climate science deniers". Science-Based Medicine.
2. Burki, Talha Khan (February 1, 2021). "Herd immunity for COVID-19". The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. 9 (2): 135–136. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30555-5. ISSN 2213-2600. PMC 7832483. PMID 33245861.
3. Zilbermints, Regina (2020-10-15). "Dozens of public health groups, experts blast 'herd immunity' strategy backed by White House". TheHill. Retrieved 2022-01-22.
4. ^ Hernandez, Sarah Toy and Daniela (October 18, 2020). "Scientists Push Back on Herd-Immunity Approach to Covid-19". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved August 27, 2021. A group of scientists is pushing back on renewed calls for a herd-immunity approach to Covid-19, calling the method of managing viral outbreaks dangerous and unsupported by scientific evidence. ... If immunity wanes after several months, as it does with the flu, patients could be susceptible to the virus after being infected, they said. That, they said, would result in recurrent and potentially large waves of infection, a common occurrence before vaccines were invented.
5. Gordon, Elana (October 20, 2020). "Public health experts warn against herd immunity strategy to manage COVID-19". The World from PRX. Retrieved August 27, 2021. As herd immunity gains new ground as a possible public health strategy, a growing chorus of public health experts is speaking out against it as an extremely dangerous idea. ... Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director of the World Health Organization, called the herd-immunity strategy unethical. ... In response to the mounting attention, dozens of health researchers from around the globe published what they've called the John Snow Memorandum last Thursday in the medical journal The Lancet.
6. Swanson, Ian (October 5, 2020). "Trump health official meets with doctors pushing herd immunity". TheHill. Retrieved August 27, 2021. The mainstream view of epidemiologists and public health experts, including the nation's top infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci and the World Health Organization, is that the best way to get through COVID-19 and protect people who are at risk for serious illness is to not get sick in the first place by wearing masks and practicing social distancing.
7. Achenbach, Joel (October 14, 2020). "Proposal to hasten herd immunity to the coronavirus grabs White House attention but appalls top scientists". The Washington Post. A senior administration official told reporters in a background briefing call Monday that the proposed strategy — which has been denounced by other infectious-disease experts and called "fringe" and "dangerous" by National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins — supports what has been Trump's policy for months. ... "What I worry about with this is it's being presented as if it's a major alternative view that's held by large numbers of experts in the scientific community. That is not true," Collins, NIH director, said in an interview.
8. • For "unethical", see Lechler, Professor Sir Robert. "Navigating COVID-19 through the volume of competing voices | The Academy of Medical Sciences". acmedsci.ac.uk. Archived from the original on 12 October 2020. Retrieved 10 October 2020.;
   • for the "impossible" nature of focused protection, see David Gorski (12 October 2020). "The Great Barrington Declaration: COVID-19 deniers follow the path laid down by creationists, HIV/AIDS denialists, and climate science deniers". Science-Based Medicine.;
   • for "pseudoscience", see Reid Wilson (15 October 2020). "Town of Great Barrington, Mass., comes out against Great Barrington Declaration". The Hill..
9. Mandavilli, Apoorva; Stolberg, Sheryl Gay (2020-10-19). "A Viral Theory Cited by Health Officials Draws Fire From Scientists". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-01-22. On Oct. 5, the day after the declaration was made public, the three authors — Dr. Bhattacharya, Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard — arrived in Washington at the invitation of Dr. Atlas to present their plan to a small but powerful audience: the health and human services secretary, Alex M. Azar II.

The part being debated here is in the middle, "scientists...warned that attempting to implement it could cause many unnecessary deaths". Now that you can see it in context, with all nine refs (including one that specifies exactly which contentious word is attributable to which source), I think it should be clearer that this is entirely about "what people said" and not at all about "which people are right".

I therefore believe that the correct solution here is to revert Michael's (re-)removal, and to insist that he leave it alone in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Not a single one of those nine sources directly link the GBD to recurrent waves. If any single one does, please provide the quote.

Of all of the nine sources provided above, only the WSJ article even uses the word 'recurrent.' And the WSJ article, as already discussed here, does not link recurrent waves to the GBD. The context provided does not support the argument that it does. In fact, it further illustrates that this is original research.

What needs to be proven (per WP:ONUS) is that a reliable source directly supports the statement that the GBD causes recurrent waves or recurrent epidemics. Otherwise making that statement in a wiki article is original research.

The way some editors are conducting themselves in this debate is illustrative of the problem that past BLP arbitration has highlighted:

There continue to be significant and numerous problems with the implementation of the biographies of living persons policy, including both obvious non-compliance at the article level, as well as more subtle attempts to undermine or weaken the policy itself, or to stonewall attempts to implement it in particular cases.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 22:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

WAID, I agree that reversion is the correct move here, and I see continued consensus for the old version. In addition to removing the critical content, MCW's edit added weight to the fringe view, inserting "The authors of the Great Barrington Declaration said it was mischaracterized as a herd immunity strategy", sourced to the self-published declaration website. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 01:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

That's sourced from the WSJ article:

The Lancet letter "mischaracterizes the focused protection approach advocated by the Great Barrington declaration, and vastly underplays what the scientific evidence is saying regarding the vast physical and mental harms of the lockdowns on people around the world, especially the poor."

— WSJ.com

It does not add undue weight. The sentence before my edit states: "The World Health Organization, the National Institutes of Health and other public-health bodies said such a policy lacked a sound scientific basis."

Labelling the GBD a "herd immunity strategy" is a controversy in and of itself and is where, I think, we are running afoul here. The John Snow Memorandum, while commonly understood to be "in response to" the GBD, does not mention the GBD, the GBD authors, or even 'focused protection,' a single time, either in the Lancet paper or the Memorandum's home page. Instead, the Memorandum discusses an unnamed, generic, herd immunity strategy. The GBD authors have, on several occasions, including on the home page of the GBD, clarified that it is not a herd immunity strategy.

This further illustrates my point that this entire discussion goes too far afield of a biographical article about Martin Kulldorff. Readers interested in the drama surrounding the GBD can read about it on the dedicated wiki article.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 02:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

After weeks of OR concerns, you are apparently willing to tack on "as a herd immunity strategy" onto the WSJ's reporting, despite it not being present there at all. Why? Despite your explanation above, I still feel your edit added weight, inappropriately, to the GBD authors' view. Are there any RS that support their "GBD is not a herd immunity strategy" argument? Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 02:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

In the GBD authors' own words from the second source I provided, the GDB home page:

This may surprise some readers given the unfortunate caricature of the Declaration, where some media outlets and scientists have falsely characterized it as a “herd immunity strategy” that aims to maximize infections among the young or as a laissez-faire approach to let the virus rip through society.

— gbdeclaration.org

The key here is I used neutral language and clearly wrote that "The authors of the Great Barrington Declaration said it was mischaracterized..." Wiki policy allows the use of self published material in support of what the subject says. For fair usage of self-published material, see here.

I don't need to provide any support for your statement that the "GBD is not a herd immunity strategy" because I, as an editor, did not make that statement. I described the dispute. This is the fine line of neutrality that is being broadly misunderstood here.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 02:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I said your new content was sourced only to GBD's site. You said it was sourced to the WSJ. I think you're now implying that it was sourced only to the GBD's site, in which case I agree. Yes, ABOUTSELF material is often allowable, but I find myself on firm ground that this increased the weight afforded to the GBD author's views. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 02:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

It would be biased to state that one side characterizes the GBD as X while not stating that the other side disagrees. Especially when both sides are not only well documented, but are at the core of the very dispute.

Simply stating that the authors disagree with the characterization of the GBD does not give undue weight.

The authors of the Great Barrington Declaration said it was mischaracterized as a herd immunity strategy.

I challenge you to identify one other sentence in all of Kulldorff's article that mentions the GBD without using either weasel words (such as "claims") or otherwise legitimately identifies its fringe-ness.

The GBD is not mentioned one single time in Kulldorff's biography without somehow highlighting the fact that it is controversial (and I have never contended it is not controversial). There is no risk of anyone reading Kulldorff's biography and somehow thinking the GBD was accepted as a mainstream idea. Undue weight of Kulldorff's ideas is not a legitimate concern as the article is currently written.

But we digress. The 'recurrent waves' statement remains as unsupported, original research.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 03:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

"Simply stating" anything can give it undue weight. Imagine, e.g., "The creator of Birds Aren't Real said that it was mischaracterized" in the article Bird. That'd be undue weight, even though it is "simply stated". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Failing to state both sides would be biased. Neutrality policy is non-negotiable. What you seem to be suggesting; not describing both sides of the dispute because it is somehow dangerous to state that the GBD authors said it's mischaracterized, violates core neutrality policy.

Jimmy Wales has qualified NPOV as "non-negotiable", consistently, throughout various discussions...

This misunderstanding that fringe topics gives editors carte blanche to disregard policy is part the reason why there are problems with biographies that rise to the level of arbitration.

Michael.C.Wright (/_Edits) 03:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages doesn't "state both sides" for fringe ideas. The fringe idea must either be omitted or presented within the non-fringe/scholarly context. That's NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 04:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Stating both sides is the classic WP:GEVAL violation of NPOV.

@Firefangledfeathers, are you sure that's "I didn't say the thing I just said" mischaracterization claim is sourced to only a self-published source? If that's so, then WP:SPS says it has to go per "unduly self-serving". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm not sure. The sources MCW provided were the WSJ piece, which did not support the content, and the GBD website. I can't recall any secondary sources mentioning their denial, and I've recently read all the ones in that section that I have access to. I already asked MCW above if they knew of any secondary coverage. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 04:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Not a digression. While removing a consensus- and source-supported statement due to an OR concern, you introduced material about which I have both OR and NPOV concerns. In a BLP, these are non-trivial issues. Yes Kulldorff's fringe views are rightly afforded little weight in the article. The fact that a short statement of his view wouldn't tip that overall balance doesn't justify additional weight to the fringe view. That GBD is not a herd-immunity-based strategy is also a specific view, and not one that is contextualized enough by the mainstream view in the paragraph in question. Our options are to remove the ABOUTSELF view or add contextualizing info, though that would only add to the length of the GBD content in this biography. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 03:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I have reverted. Open to improvements, but policy/consensus seems clear here that a WP:PROFRINGE direction is not one the article should be heading in. Alexbrn (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I hate to suggest such aggressive approaches, but I do wonder whether we need to consider a TBAN. There is an enormous amount of whitewashing and POV pushing going on here. The subject published something, and he was roundly criticized by subject-matter experts but praised by some politicians. The article should just say that, without these efforts to make it sound like he said something different from what he actually said. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The moment for sanctions could well be fast approaching. The OP is aware of the DS for COVID-19 topics. As I said above, there's a lot of dancing around here when the sourcing and policy seems straightforward, and it's becoming a time-sink for the community. Alexbrn (talk) 04:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Leoncie

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

Hello I would like to report False, Innacurate,Biased and Libellous information on the wikipedia page named LEONCIE. It is a biography of a Living Person (Myself) and the false information from Vandals and attackers has caused me great Emotional and Financial Distress. First of all My Music is Western Jazz Pop, and not (oriental music) I play many Instruments and not a (digital Piano)which looks like an ancient organ,like the Vandals have put a picture of an old organ,in the biography about a living person _Myself. Without permission from me. A Biography should be written by a Professionally Educated Biographer who has studied the Subject(ME) in person, and not Fictitionalise about me because of their incompetence and racial hatred against me. There is also a False date of birth, in the LEONCIE page and why do total strangers want to know WHO is born WHERE and When? I don´t care about WHO is born where or when. It does not put food on the table this sort of Nosy behaviour into other peoples Lives. I want to live my life in peace and PRIVACY. SO Publishing all these Defamatory Libellous Lies about me in Misplaced Pages and spreading it around the world is Madness. Other peoples biographies do not Interest me at all. Articles from Icelandic Media Racists canot be called "REFERENCES". They are not References but Biased articles full of libel and Defamation. Please delete them. Misplaced Pages HAS ALLOWED AND PUBLISHED FALSE,DEGRADING, LIBELLOUS, DEFAMATORY AND MALICIOUS HATE PROPAGANDA AGAINST ME to DEFAME AND INJURE MY REPUTATION, AND IT SHOULD BE MADE PUNISHABLE BY LAW,BECAUSE IT DISCREDITS ME IN MY PROFESSION AS A PROFESSIONAL MUSICIAN COMPOSER AND NO MEDIA OR WEBSITES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DESTROY PEOPLE with websites like Misplaced Pages Terrorists. Please correct these Libellous Lies or Delete the page named LEONCIE. That´s what I wish and somebody should be in Court and sued for these Libellous Defamatory Lies and HATE PROPAGANDA. No Websites Distributing HATE PROPAGANDA SHOULD BE ABOVE THE LAW. Yours Sincerely Leoncie.Musician, Composer,Artiste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonciemusic (talk • contribs) 17:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Leonciemusic has been advised about WP:No legal threats. —C.Fred (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Reading a translation of Glatkistan's about page, it looks like that's not a reliable source, and the material sourced there may need to be removed—which struck the alleged date of birth, alleged full name, and the quotation about the style and instrumentation. —C.Fred (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

In addition to the legal threat, this is socking. See Icy Spicy Leoncie and Leoncie. This has been going on since at least 2013.-- Jezebel's Ponyo 18:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Violation?

I couldn't find any mention of this in any sources online. Considering the editor didn't provide any themselves, does this require a revdel? – .O. 18:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd say yes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Lucrezia Millarini

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

Persistent attempts to include unreferenced date of birth. I'd prefer not to find out which admins don't consider removing a WP:BLPDOB violation to be exempt from edit-warring, so if someone could do the necessary it'd be much appreciated. FDW777 (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@FDW777: The IP adding the unsourced dob is currently blocked, so this should settle things down for the time being. —C.Fred (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Max Baer, Jr.

This man is reported as dead in 'Find a Grave.' (https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/234635464/maximilian-adalbert-baer).

Please investigate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C2:300:2BC0:D011:88D7:ECF9:3299 (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

This is an interesting dilemma. I'm inclined to believe the find a grave source (even though it's not reliable at WP:RSP), but I can find no other referencing about this. I'll keep looking — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk • contribs)

I can't find any sources except that page. I've pinged the Findagrave page creator to find out what her source was. Schazjmd (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

You trust a source that calls Jethro an "intellectual"? That's like calling Ronald Reagan an intellectual. SPECIFICO talk 20:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Ha, I didn't even notice that! I wonder if she meant ineffectual? Also, I couldn't figure out what the "TBV" stood for, but I'm thinking it might mean "to be verified". Anyway, I'll see if I hear back from her. Schazjmd (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it's most trustworthy when there's a picture of the tombstone, but that doesn't appear to be the case. This would be a rather odd thing to lie about though. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• With no evidence of an obituary, I'm beginning believe the subject is still living. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  Well, the person who created that FindAGrave page was of no help: Hello ,at this time I can't remember where I found it . I usually Google everything . I think we have to presume still-living. Schazjmd (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Find a Grave is never reliable in itself per WP:RSP#Find a Grave and WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL. Calling someone dead is a WP:BLP matter requiring a much higher threshold than "somebody on the internet said so on a wesbsite with zero editorial oversight". The Find A Grave author might have been confused by this article in Best Life magazine from December 6, 2021 (the date of Baer's purported "death"), which states quite the opposite: that Baer is the only living cast member of The Beverly Hillbillies. 63.155.100.241 (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Yea that is probably a good explanation for this whole situation. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

And the BestLifeOnline article probably was triggered by Baer's birthday on Dec 4, a couple of days before. Also it was 50 years since Beverly Hillbillies series ended. StrayBolt (talk) 05:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with 63.155. He was reported alive in https://bestlifeonline.com/jethro-beverly-hillbillies-now-news/ on his supposed death date. I wonder if perhaps someone misunderstood "last living" as "just died". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Is "Find a Grave" really "Find a Grave" if they did not find a grave? Wouldn't that make them "Said they're dead?" ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Lia Thomas

Hello. People keep adding Lia Thomas’s deadname to the her talk page. She is a trans athlete that has been in the news. Diffs https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ALia_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=1077899583

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ALia_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=1077956001 There are multiple edits by involving the deadname and it may extend beyond these two. Am I reporting this to the right place? Thanks -TenorTwelve (talk) 04:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Just revert them I guess; that's what's been done lately. We may need to bump the article to extended confirmed protection, if this becomes a serious problem on the article itself. An admin would need to review that. I don't like protecting talk pages, just because it limits participation. Is there a way to put notices on a talk page that says please don't comment about a certain issue? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• @TenorTwelve: I noticed you removed comments. It may be best to hat instead; straight up removing constructive edits might not be the best way of dealing with this, and can become problematic. When new deadname discussions pop up, just close them and say this is settled. That's going to be the best way of dealing with this; it's what's done for repetitive discussion at controversial articles like Donald Trump. Deleting text is not good unless it's clearly unconstructive or vandalism. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Iamreallygoodatcheckers Sorry about that. What does hat mean?… TenorTwelve (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@TenorTwelve: Hatting would look like this in a discussion:

Just to give an example of it being used in a real life discussion see Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 143#Follow-up to Russian bounties Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: Do I just cover the deadnaming comments or the entire discussion? -TenorTwelve (talk) 05:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@TenorTwelve: I would just cover deadname comments. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I’ll try to make it work. -TenorTwelve (talk) 05:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I have put in the hats. Did I do it right? Thanks -TenorTwelve (talk) 06:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@TenorTwelve: looks good to me! Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• MOS:DEADNAME states, If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists, so I have refactored Talk page comments with redaction templates to remove the deadname. Beccaynr (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

User:2600:1004:B1E6:2C27:B97B:5EB6:5D3F/40 disrupting various BLPs

moved to ANI.— Shibbolethink 17:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

2600:1004:B1E6:2C27:B97B:5EB6:5D3F:601C (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) See the following: (T·E·H·L·R) Luc Montagnier (T·E·H·L·R) Chaz Bono (cannot link to the 10 diffs during an edit war on 18 March as they were all suppressed) (T·E·H·L·R) Rod Stewart (cannot link to the 2 diffs on 18 March as they were both suppressed) (T·E·H·L·R) Reggie White Non-BLP disruption over same time span: (T·E·H·L·R) Window (T·E·H·L·R) Interstate 270 (Missouri–Illinois) (]·E·H·L·R) Talk:CNN Center (single edit suppressed with edit summary removed on 16 March) Why keep this /40 range? I propose at the very least a temp range-block to prevent this continued disruption. This IP range is creating a significant burden of work for editors while contributing very little to the overall encyclopedia. If one is to examine their contribution history, the non-reverted edits are mostly small neutral changes or later heavily revised changes which do not improve the project. If this is better suited for ANI, let me know and I will happily move it over there. Thanks. — Shibbolethink 14:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC) The Chaz Bono and Rod Stewart edits are from WP:Long-term abuse/CalebHughes (or some copycat; it doesn't really matter). Unfortunately; CH uses some other ranges. I doubt the other edits are CH. The same range is used by 16ConcordeSSC; I don't think they've been active in the last few days, but the partial block on 2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/41 is ever-growing. zzuuzz is familiar with both users, and wizzito might want to comment about 16ConcordeSSC. I don't know what the best step is now. A Verizon Wireless /40 or /41 (or even /44) range might cover hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of customers. A block allowing account creation certainly won't slow down CH, but it might cut down on some of the other crud. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC) I typed all that thinking I was looking at ANI; perhaps this should be moved there? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC) Yeah I'm happy to move it to ANI, it will certainly get more eyes there! Will do it right now — Shibbolethink 17:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Jack Frackleton - removal of DOB info

Hi. An editor claiming to be connected to the subject has removed the DOB from the article (see the edit history for more). Is this correct procedure? I don't see why it should be removed from WP, as all three external links in the article clearly show this info too. Thanks. Lugnuts 20:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

It should be widely covered on reliable secondary sources of we're going to include it. I believe listings in databases are primary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Ignoring the issue on what is/is not a primary/secondary souces, is this correct just to remove the info in this way? Lugnuts 20:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

If it's not appropriately sourced as per WP:BLP, yes. CUPIDICAE💕 20:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

It was sourced before its removal, and is listed on the World Rowing website too. Lugnuts 08:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I haven't checked the edits, but WP:COIADVICE#2 could apply. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I've removed such information pretty often. See WP:BLPPRIVACY for some details. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Death of Arnold Walker

This article on a 2019 police shooting contains sections on the (still living) police officer (Zachary Rolfe) and the resulting media coverage. The shooting and its handling by the justice system and media have generated intense anger (including at least one riot) and so I would argue that even greater care needs to be taken when determining which material is directly relevant to the subject of the article. At issue are several points made by User:Dippiljemmy in his edits:

• that Ben Roberts-Smith, described by Dippiljemmy as an "alleged war criminal", was friends with the Rolfe family (even if true, surely irrelevant to the shooting and a naked attempt to smear Constable Rolfe)
• that Rolfe used excessive force in previous arrests (these allegations were never proven and did not lead to any legal or disciplinary action, and were excluded from mention at Rolfe's trial. I do not think they should be excluded from the article, but Dippiljemmy sought to give them undue prominence)
• that a certain newspaper journalist, Rosemary Neill, was considered dishonest by a rival media outlet (unfair to her and irrelevant to the subject-matter)
• that media proprietor Rupert Murdoch – who has no connection to the case – "is a disgrace" (a note Dippiljemmy inserted in a reference name tag, presumably reflecting his personal animus). VisitingSamG (talk) 05:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Inna Sovsun

The sub-part "Relationship with Serhiy Kvit" in the part "Personal life" of Inna Sovsun page violates the biographies of living persons policies. Misplaced Pages instructs to "be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources". The cited part about the alleged romantic relationship contradicts the Misplaced Pages rules as it is poorly sourced, sexist and ageist. Despite alleged COI, I highlight that removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable.

The dispute is provided here: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Sofiia_Popovych. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofiia Popovych (talk • contribs) 10:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I've removed that section, as the source states Moreover, it was rumored that there were secret stairs and entrances between their offices. However, all these suspicions have remained rumors, and the “defendants” themselves do not bother to comment on this matter. We don't report on unsubstantiated rumors, especially in BLPs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

University of Rochester investigation

Celeste Kidd

Potentially libelous information sourced only by a single biased source (Koch brothers' Reason Magazine) is being added repeatedly to the Celeste Kidd wikipedia entry to suggest her substantiated sexual harassment claims were fabricated. The material is being added repeatedly in a campaign to discredit legitimate whistleblowers, and is factually inaccurate. The same material is being added to Jessica Cantlon and Richard N. Aslin's pages, all whistleblowers in a high profile sexual harassment case against the University of Rochester. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betheonetoforget (talk • contribs) 20:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Jessica Cantlon

Potentially libelous information sourced only by a single biased source (Koch brothers' Reason Magazine) is being added repeatedly to the Jessica Cantlon wikipedia entry to suggest her substantiated sexual harassment claims were fabricated. The material is being added repeatedly in a campaign to discredit legitimate whistleblowers, and is factually inaccurate. The same material is being added to Celeste Kidd and Richard N. Aslin's pages, all whistleblowers in a high profile sexual harassment case against the University of Rochester. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betheonetoforget (talk • contribs) 20:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Are we really taking the words of a literal conspiracy theorist as fact? Can someone slap this puppet down for the whole "Koch brothers'" Ignorance? Explain to them how funding works and then tell them they can go back to 4chan if they're so worried about the ""dark"" money that is or isn't in an article. The Koch brothers do not personally source or edit. The only four people undoing all of the edits have Literally no other edits. Have never posted on wikipedia. And I am almost sure are Cantlon and Kidd themselves.73.60.59.91 (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Richard N. Aslin

Potentially libelous information sourced only by a single biased source (Koch brothers' Reason Magazine) is being added repeatedly to the Richard N. Aslin wikipedia entry to suggest her substantiated sexual harassment claims were fabricated. The material is being added repeatedly in a campaign to discredit legitimate whistleblowers, and is factually inaccurate. The same material is being added to Celeste Kidd and Jessica Cantlon's pages, whistleblowers in a high-profile sexual harassment case against the University of Rochester.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Betheonetoforget (talk • contribs) 20:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

So, after a quick perusal of the issues and sources here (and in the two related cases above), I think the Reason article does bear mentioning, but by my lights, at nowhere near the length of the removed section. A sentence or two would suffice and be proportionate, I think. As ever, reasonable minds may differ on the best way forward! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

This incident seems to fall under WP:NPF. There are multiple sources that discusses the sexual harassment lawsuit but only one (Reason) that discusses the alleged smear campaign. You need multiple reliable sources under WP:WELLKNOWN. The standard under WP:NPF should be no less than that. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

If you think so! I am certainly not married to the idea, but a sort of per contra seemed appropriate to me, in a sentence or two saying that Reason found the accusations overblown, or some such. No issues with simply leaving it out if that's consensus. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

If you look at Celeste Kidd and Jessica Cantlon's articles, the sources there discuss that investigations mostly cleared Jaeger and left it at that. Reason went into detail about why and is the only one to do so. I'm starting wonder if Jaeger's name should be removed under WP:NPF since he was cleared of the most serious accusations and doesn't have his own article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it's worth emphasizing that the Reason article didn't interview the plaintiffs, didn't use information from their lawsuit, didn't include the 10 other plaintiffs, or other students who spoke out about Jaeger in Nature and the Chronicle of Higher Education. The author is trying to sell a podcast on unfairly cancelled men. I think that all of that is reason enough to discount it. Nimchimpski (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

(not 10 other, 7 other plaintiffs -- they all had legal claims which were found to be valid by the judge, who is the only really independent person to have looked at the case) Nimchimpski (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

You mean in the case that settled out of court, was paid for by insurance and with literally no one admitting any wrong doing as part of the settlement. You do know that's how settlements work right? With no one usually admitting fault. 73.60.59.91 (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Reason is listed as reliable at WP:RSP. They often publish opinion, and are a libertarian magazine so have a political bias and thus in political cases should largely be attributed, but I don't see an issue with mentioning this article in any of the three BLPs listed above. You say the Reason article (and thus some of the conclusions of the report, e.g. the complaints' narrative largely without factual basis) is factually inaccurate and that Katie Herzog is wrong, but Misplaced Pages does not publish original research from you or any other editor. There doesn't seem to be any good reason to forbid the Reason article (or other articles discussing the report) from going in those BLPs. Endwise (talk) 03:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPF and WP:REDFLAG requires at least more than one RSP. I would argue it requires consensus to establish WP:DUE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Because of the edit warring that's been going on in the Cantlon and Kidd articles, I have requested temporary page protection for them. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Well this is a mess. For a first step I would remove the citations to some of the earlier pieces such as The New York Times and Wired, which report the allegations and prominently mention the professors name, but were published before the White Report. Those could be easily replaced with later reporting. Inside Higher Ed has report also exonerates the professor and the ...complainants "organized to force his departure outside of formal procedures, Science accounts by his accusers are "exaggerated and misleading in many respects.", but it's "the accusers" criticized in these articles and not a named individual, and Reason does quote: "We found that some of the complaints' allegations were true...". I'd cite all three articles but use something along the lines of Reason's report concluded...acted unprofessionally and inappropriately in his early years at the school, but he had never violated any university policies. That would avoid accusing an individual if wrongdoing, which you can't do without going to the primary document to find out who said what, and hopefully addresses the BLP concerns of all involved. fiveby(zero) 03:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I look forward to morbidthoughts moving on this since you've now given multiple sources. 73.60.59.91 (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing to move on. I agree with Fiveby's analysis and approach, and there already were sources in those articles that confirmed that the report mostly cleared Jaeger. It's not appropriate to accuse specific individuals of wrongdoing without multiple independent RS reporting on this per WP:REDFLAG. Parsing the investigation report itself to pinpoint blame is prohibited under WP:BLPPRIMARY. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Reham Khan

Regarding this addition of a "Controversey" section where it is alleged that the subject attempted to poison her husband Imran Khan, the PM of Pakistan; the Time of India source seems to be reasonable, but the other two sources DNA and Emirates247 are not attributed to a named report, but rather to "DNA Web Team" and "Correspondent" respectively. I'd appreciate additional opinions/more eyes on this. OhNoitsJamie 16:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Definitely not. None of the sources actually states this as fact. All of the usual journalistic get-outs are there in abundance, from the question headline to the "theory", "feared", "claims", "might have been", and suchlike. Also note that DNA is repeating "a report in an English daily". If this is to be in Misplaced Pages, I think that we should demand a source that is prepared to outright identify itself and make a definite statement of fact without get-outs like that. Uncle G (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Definitely seems WP:BLPGOSSIP Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Liz Mills - unsourced material

Came across Liz Mills and was struck by how much unsourced material there is on it. What's the best way to do with it? Find sources and if not, delete the unsourced stuff? MaskedSinger (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The ideal approach is to find sources, but that's not always practical if a lot are needed and your time is limited. I tend to (1) remove unsourced birthdates, names of spouses, partners, parents, children, etc or anything potentially contentious and (2) tag anything else with {{cn}} tag. OhNoitsJamie 16:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! :@Ohnoitsjamie: MaskedSinger (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

takeshi nishimoto

Hi there,

Thanks always for your help.

If possible, I'd like to improve this article.

Could you please suggest what I could do?

I'd like to add a photo to start with.

Should you have any questions, please get back to me at any time.

best wishes, takeshi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takeshi nishimoto (talk • contribs) 00:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

First, as you identify this account as being the subject of the article, you should read, understand, and follow the Conflict of Interest guidelines. Please also read the autobiography content guidelines and the notability standards. I have tried to find more information but I cannot locate significant coverage in reliable, independent sources on Takeshi Nishimoto as a guitarist and composer. At this point, I would be likely to nominate the article for deletion due to lack of evidence that complies with our notability standards. I see no independent reviews of compositions, recordings, or performances, for example. I also note that there has not been any attempt to improve the article's shortcomings in the almost six months since it was undeleted. If you want to improve the article, your best course of action is to suggest improvements on the article's talk page. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC) adding ping so that @you: are notified about this reply Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

George Strait

There is a discussion at Talk:George_Strait#Count_of_number_hits? regarding his tally of number-one singles, which may be of interest to editors here. Ten Pound Hammer • 17:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Jaime Zapata (painter)

Es una actualización de la biografía del pintor Jaime Zapata solicitada por él. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miragebonhomie (talk • contribs)

Translation: It is an update of the biography of the painter Jaime Zapata, requested by him.

@Miragebonhomie: As I mentioned on your talk page, this is the English language Misplaced Pages, but the content you have added is in Spanish, and therefore not acceptable here. Also, since you appear to be working on Zapata's behalf, you have a conflict of interest which you need to declare. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 21:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@WikiDan61 Thank you, tell me what I have to do to add this information in english and not problems with that? Miragebonhomie (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Im working with a book of Zapata that was published in Ecuador in 2007, I think that shouldnt be a problem. Miragebonhomie (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Miroslava Duma

Miroslava Duma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I am a Virtual Assistant manager to my Boss, Miroslava Duma. Her nationality is Ukrainian and not Russian. This ought to reflect on the lead section of her page.

An editor named Ilsecondoordine tried to reach a consensus on that issue on the talk page of article: .

The other editor named Russ Woodroofe who has contantly edited the page is hell-bent on putting "Russian" on the lead. He invited an old editor named Curdle to weigh in.

Curdle did a research and agreed that pretty much all of the sources acknowledge that Duma's family comes from the Ukraine, but emigrated to Russia/Siberia. Hence her actual nationality is Ukrainian and not Russian. Duma has repeatedly said so in most of her intervies. This should be on the lead section and not "Russian".

Furthermore, I am saddened by the action Russ Woodroofe took. The argument on the talk page was already reaching a consensus on the Ukrainian nationality. Instead of doing the right thing, he went ahead and re-added "Russian" which was earlier set aside pending when a consensus is reached.

Russ Woodroofe also went ahead to file a sock-puppet report against Ilsecondoordine just because the argument on the talk page is going against his stand. See link. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Estarosm%C4%81r%E1%B9%AD

This is quite awful. Is that how things work on English wikipedia? The editor got banned on mere conjectures.

I am not worried about the sock-puppet issue anyway. All I want is for the right nationality to be added. Duma's nationality is Ukrainian and not Russia. Pls BLP admins should look into this and come to our aid.

Peace to everyone

Linda O Linda Osin (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I've watched the article in question because of long-term evidence of undisclosed paid editing there. As far as the current question: Reliable sources indicate that Duma's family came to Russia from Ukraine shortly before her birth. They also generally describe her as Russian, and there appears to be reason for this: her father became a member of the Russian senate, she met her husband in Russia, and much of her career appears to be based in Russia. There may be a more balanced way to discuss than what is there now. Since I have been concerned about the appearance of UPE, I am pleased that a representative of Duma is now disclosing a relationship and requesting an edit through our paid conflict of interest channels. It seems better for now if I step back and let uninvolved parties handle the request. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Emma Weyant

The article on Emma Weyant could use some extra eyes. I am challenging the addition of a sentence because I think including it would go against the spirit of BLP, but I'd appreciate hearing from BLPN regulars if they think my sense of what is potentially harmful is miscalibrated. Egsan Bacon (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution