| Revision as of 17:11, 5 April 2018 editSPECIFICO (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users35,511 edits →Shooting of Stephon Clark← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:39, 5 April 2018 edit undoBus stop (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers44,012 edits →Shooting of Stephon ClarkNext edit → | ||
| Line 130: | Line 130: | ||
| ::*Um, ]] 03:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC) | ::*Um, ]] 03:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC) | ||
| * The main problem is that this is so entirely wrongheaded vis-a-vis the social unrest that makes this not an obscure shooting that fades with the day's news. The social unrest and the protests precipitated by the shooting of Clark are ultimately grounded in reality—not in fiction and not in the omission of relevant information. If you want to write an article about the ''real'' shooting of Stephon Clark you have to address the situation as it actually exists. Some editors here probably think they are doing the memory of Stephon Clark a favor by suppressing the negative. But it is is in a negative environment that something like this takes place. What we are ''really'' doing by omitting previous run-ins with the law is tantamount to ]. BLP violation is bogus. The Los Angeles Times is not a racist publication and it doesn't want to disparage the individual. No one said it aimed to do anything like that. But the argument is made that our purpose is different from that of a news article. Yes, it is slightly different. But in general we are required to adhere to their precedents. ] (]) 02:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC) | * The main problem is that this is so entirely wrongheaded vis-a-vis the social unrest that makes this not an obscure shooting that fades with the day's news. The social unrest and the protests precipitated by the shooting of Clark are ultimately grounded in reality—not in fiction and not in the omission of relevant information. If you want to write an article about the ''real'' shooting of Stephon Clark you have to address the situation as it actually exists. Some editors here probably think they are doing the memory of Stephon Clark a favor by suppressing the negative. But it is is in a negative environment that something like this takes place. What we are ''really'' doing by omitting previous run-ins with the law is tantamount to ]. BLP violation is bogus. The Los Angeles Times is not a racist publication and it doesn't want to disparage the individual. No one said it aimed to do anything like that. But the argument is made that our purpose is different from that of a news article. Yes, it is slightly different. But in general we are required to adhere to their precedents. ] (]) 02:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC) | ||
| :::*{{u|SPECIFICO}}—what happened to your argument based on ]? Have you dropped that argument in favor of an argument appealing to ]? It is no secret that policies and guidelines can be misused. ] Clearly this is inapplicable to the question we are addressing. Its inapplicability is approximately equal to the inapplicability of your argument based on ]. ] (]) 08:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC) | :::*<strike>{{u|SPECIFICO}}—what happened to your argument based on ]? Have you dropped that argument in favor of an argument appealing to ]? It is no secret that policies and guidelines can be misused. ] Clearly this is inapplicable to the question we are addressing. Its inapplicability is approximately equal to the inapplicability of your argument based on ]. ] (]) 08:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)</strike> | ||
| ::::*{{u|SPECIFICO}}—you tell me at ] that you ''"have not mentioned WP:COATRACK anywhere".'' This is my error and I stand corrected. I have crossed out my offending post, above. ] (]) 17:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| According to Misplaced Pages policy, Stephon Clark is covered by ], because his death is so recent. ] ] (]) 05:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC) | According to Misplaced Pages policy, Stephon Clark is covered by ], because his death is so recent. ] ] (]) 05:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC) | ||
| :::* And the police officers that shot him are BLPs too. That they shot a man with previous convictions, escaping them after he aroused suspicions is clearly relevant. Whether they knew of his priors or not has little bearing to this being relevant - it is widely in the media, and will surely be brought up in any legal case.] (]) 06:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC) | :::* And the police officers that shot him are BLPs too. That they shot a man with previous convictions, escaping them after he aroused suspicions is clearly relevant. Whether they knew of his priors or not has little bearing to this being relevant - it is widely in the media, and will surely be brought up in any legal case.] (]) 06:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 17:39, 5 April 2018
| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
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.
| Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
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.
| Notes for volunteers | |
|---|---|
|
- AI-generated images depicting living people
- Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
- Voluntary RfAs after resignation
- Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
- LLM/chatbot comments in discussions
Main page on April 1
Please see the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know#Quick straw poll on faux politician trio. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- Resolved. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Doug Ford Jr.
Does comport with the exception to WP:BLPCRIME or does its re-inclusion require a specific and clear affirmative consensus on the BLP talk page? The accusations were made in an Atlantic article which carefully ascribes the accusation to "The Globe and Mail" and does not make the accusations in The Atlantic's voice but phrases it as a question only - which was made in a heated election season.
"There's nothing on the public record that The Globe has accessed that shows Doug Ford has ever been criminally charged for illegal drug possession or trafficking. But some of the sources said that, in the affluent pocket of Etobicoke where the Fords grew up, he was someone who sold not only to users and street-level dealers, but to dealers one rung higher than those on the street. His tenure as a dealer, many of the sources say, lasted about seven years until 1986, the year he turned 22. "That was his heyday," said "Robert," one of the former drug dealers who agreed to an interview on the condition he not be identified by name." seems to be a weak source for a claim of explicit felonious conduct.
In short, a newspaper with a specific political position carefully refrained from making an explicit charge which the Misplaced Pages BLP does not shrink from making. If the source does not make a criminal charge, then ought Misplaced Pages then make the charge the source does not make? Collect (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- It seems to me The Globe does indeed make the explicit charge--but that is beside the point, as I see it. This is indeed a slim reed on which to predicate that entire section. I would personally be comfortable with a brief reference to this ("...accusations of drug activity in the past...." or some such), but as currently constituted, I'd say the section runs afoul of both WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- I think you must be referring to The Atlantic with "a newspaper with a specific political position"; The Globe and Mail is considered by many to be "Canada's newspaper of record" and is well respected for its balanced journalism and broad coverage, though it is often considered moderately conservative, politically. It's that paper that first made the charge: "This investigative report reveals that: Doug Ford, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s brother, sold hashish for several years in the 1980s." The Atlantic is just covering it (as did Huffington Post, Maclean's, the Toronto Star, CBC, numerous others). The Globe's report appeared in May 2013, a year and a half prior to the next Toronto election. The Globe continues to assert their allegation as fact as recently as February 9 of this year (: "Among the things we already know about Mr. Ford: He was, as revealed by this newspaper, a drug dealer in the 1980s.". It hardly seems inappropriate for Misplaced Pages to repeat these much-covered allegations, not in Misplaced Pages's voice but in a neutral tone of coverage of an event. As for the BLPCRIME protection for low-profile individuals accused of a crime: Doug Ford is as far from low-profile as I am from a ballerina. Ivanvector (/Edits) 17:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- "The Atlantic" poses the "charge" as a question - not as a claim of fact. "Is Toronto City Councillor Doug Ford, Rob's Brother, a Former Hash Dealer?. The "Globe and Mail" was, and is, active in Toronto politics, and one should note that the allegations are entirely anonymous. The Daily Mail is more careful than that. Actual allegations of felonious acts are one thing, anonymous rumours of felonious acts are a full step lower in credibility. WP:UNDUE clearly applies, and the extended story certainly makes a "contentious claim" to say the least. Collect (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- And if anyone's interested, there has been an RfC active on the article's talk page for some time on this very thing. See Talk:Doug Ford Jr.#Request for comment: Globe and Mail investigative report. Ivanvector (/Edits) 17:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- I think you must be referring to The Atlantic with "a newspaper with a specific political position"; The Globe and Mail is considered by many to be "Canada's newspaper of record" and is well respected for its balanced journalism and broad coverage, though it is often considered moderately conservative, politically. It's that paper that first made the charge: "This investigative report reveals that: Doug Ford, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s brother, sold hashish for several years in the 1980s." The Atlantic is just covering it (as did Huffington Post, Maclean's, the Toronto Star, CBC, numerous others). The Globe's report appeared in May 2013, a year and a half prior to the next Toronto election. The Globe continues to assert their allegation as fact as recently as February 9 of this year (: "Among the things we already know about Mr. Ford: He was, as revealed by this newspaper, a drug dealer in the 1980s.". It hardly seems inappropriate for Misplaced Pages to repeat these much-covered allegations, not in Misplaced Pages's voice but in a neutral tone of coverage of an event. As for the BLPCRIME protection for low-profile individuals accused of a crime: Doug Ford is as far from low-profile as I am from a ballerina. Ivanvector (/Edits) 17:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- WP:WELLKNOWN trumps WP:BLPCRIME: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it" Nixon Now (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- A source which does not make the accusation as a matter of fact, but reports it only as an "anonymous" rumour is not usable for Misplaced Pages to make the claim as a matter of fact . Period. We are not Rumourpedia yet. Collect (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm also not sure what you mean by "The Globe and Mail is active in Toronto politics". Like virtually all newspapers, they do run editorial endorsements. In the Globe's case, they've endorsed the Conservative Party in the most recent federal and provincial elections so if you are alleging that they are left wing as opposed to Ford's conservativism, you are mistaken. Also, like all responsible newspapers, the Globe's editorial division and news division are separate. The article in question was also the subject of a complaint to the Ontario Press Council, which upheld the Globe and Mail's position and rejected the complaint. Nixon Now (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the Globe and Mail does actually make the accusation as a matter of fact, as they made clear in their statement to the Ontario Press Council which can be read here and says, among other things, "The facts were established, through multiple interviews with multiple, independent sources, all of them anonymous" and then proceeds to go into great detail about just how thorough the investigation was:
- "2. Were adequate efforts made to verify the allegations?
- I'm also not sure what you mean by "The Globe and Mail is active in Toronto politics". Like virtually all newspapers, they do run editorial endorsements. In the Globe's case, they've endorsed the Conservative Party in the most recent federal and provincial elections so if you are alleging that they are left wing as opposed to Ford's conservativism, you are mistaken. Also, like all responsible newspapers, the Globe's editorial division and news division are separate. The article in question was also the subject of a complaint to the Ontario Press Council, which upheld the Globe and Mail's position and rejected the complaint. Nixon Now (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- A source which does not make the accusation as a matter of fact, but reports it only as an "anonymous" rumour is not usable for Misplaced Pages to make the claim as a matter of fact . Period. We are not Rumourpedia yet. Collect (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- WP:WELLKNOWN trumps WP:BLPCRIME: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it" Nixon Now (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- This story was 18 months in the making, in large part because the reporters (on the advice of editors, and in some cases, legal counsel) were sent back multiple times to corroborate details and further authenticate information provided in previous interviews. More than 100 people were approached. Many refused comment. Many referred to second-hand information about the Fords’ role in the illegal drug trade. Our reporters searched only for people with direct knowledge – those who had purchased hashish from Doug Ford, supplied him with hashish or witnessed him possessing large amounts of the drug. Eventually, the reporters located and interviewed 10 people who said they had such knowledge.
- Mr. Chairman, it may be worth reiterating at this point that the focal point of our investigation was never the recreational use of drugs or some fleeting misjudgment of youth, as has been suggested by the participants, perhaps as a way of diverting critical public attention; this was about a serious and sustained commercial activity, something most of us associate with criminals.
- Some of our sources were interviewed more than five times and the reporters went back to them repeatedly to run new names and anecdotes by them, in order to test the credibility of these sources. Some of our sources met with senior editors and, on three occasions, with legal counsel for The Globe. Each person who was quoted anonymously said they were afraid to attach their name to the story, citing the influence of the Ford family or problems they may face in revealing their own involvement in the drug trade. One person sought legal advice and was advised that there is no statute of limitations for drug trafficking offences in Canada. Another source who wanted to go on the record sought the approval of his immediate family, who convinced him not to consent to his name being published. One concern that came up with several sources was how the disclosure of their identity might affect their ability to travel to the United States.
- After repeated, unsuccessful efforts over many months to convince sources to agree to the use of their names, we faced a dilemma: we could publish the story citing only anonymous sources, knowing the facts of the story are both true and in the public interest, or we could not publish at all. The latter option would have been journalistically and socially irresponsible.
- Accepting this, we set extraordinary standards for the extent, documentation and validation of each interview. In addition to these direct sources, the reporters worked for months to seek all available public information, including court documents, related to the cases cited in the story. Additionally, as many of the events documented in the story occurred before the advancement of the Internet, they spent months examining microfiched newspapers, yearbooks and old phone directories for further contacts and information."
- Nixon Now (talk)
the more it became apparent that the drug trade had been a part of the lives of Doug Ford and his siblings is a heck of a weak claim for felonies.
Eventually, the reporters located and interviewed 10 people who said they had such knowledge. is extremely carefully parsed, again not making any actual charge of crimes by Doug Ford Jr.
In short, the claim being sought to be made in Misplaced Pages's voice is not stated as such by the newspaper which used very carefully parsed language, indeed.
Misplaced Pages is not Rumourpedia, as this sort of edit tries to accomplish. Collect (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- And how did the Ontario Press Council rule, User:Collect? Nixon Now (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- The Ontario Press Council (OPC) found that the G&M did not violate the Press Council's rules. They did not rule that Doug Ford Jr. committed felonies. In fact the OPC specifically does not examine legal issues or make any evidentiary findings at all. In short the OPC made zero findings of "fact" at all in this matter. Clear? That is how the OPC "ruled." I suspect it is not what you wanted to hear. Collect (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- First of all, WP:BLPCRIME does not apply to public figures, which Doug Ford certainly is. Secondly, an argument that The Globe and Mail isn't claiming that Doug Ford actually dealt drugs is pretty much debunked when they prominently write: "This investigative report reveals that: Doug Ford, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s brother, sold hashish for several years in the 1980s." at the top of the article. In any case, Misplaced Pages is not saying that Doug Ford for sure dealt hashish, which would be problematic under BLP, but it's saying that The Globe and Mail reported that he had done so, which is fine, given the widespread media coverage after the G&M report. ---- Patar knight - /contributions 20:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with Collect's assessment of this content as "rumour" about activities alleged to have occurred over 30 years ago. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Steven Christopher Parker
Steven Christopher Parker Hello, my name is Steven Christopher Parker and I am the subject of the wikipedia page. A business owner who is trying to harass me recently made a request to delete this wiki page in an attempt to hurt me professionally. Please ignore this attempt, as it is without cause or meaningful reason. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scparker888 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- While both the WP:PROD and WP:A7 deletion attempts have been ended for technical reasons, this does look like a page that might not survive a proper Article for Deletion attempt for notability. I will not be starting it myself, but others may want to take a look. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- And the user who was seeking deletion is blocked for the nonce. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
St Edward's School, Oxford
A single purpose editor has been repeatedly adding information to this article about a former teacher that has apparently been convicted of sexual crimes. The content is referenced, but it has been repeatedly removed by different editors. I think this may be a bit of a grey area where maybe adding this content could be seen as a WP:BLP or WP:UNDUE violation, but removing it might be seen as whitewashing. Could some more experienced editors please have a look and provide advice? ANDREVV (talk) 13:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, pervy people are a fact of life. It's unfortunate, but likely unavoidable. Unless the school covered it up, discussion of an employee's or a student's misdeeds has no place in an article about a school. What are they supposed to do to prevent this? Editors that regularly edit school articles see this all the time. In 95+% if the cases, we just remove it. If it gets contentious, take it to talk and notify the projects following the article. In the very few cases where the school is culpable, and therefore making the perv on topic, I agree the coverage is often UNDUE and RECENT problems. And unfortunately, the (usually) SPAs have field day with it. John from Idegon (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with John that the information is undue in the school's article. I've warned User:Endlesseditor, whose contributions suggest they have no other interest on wikipedia than adding this content, and invited them to join us here. Bishonen | talk 18:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC).
- As the aforementioned editor, I would like to offer my opinion on the matter. The constant deletion of the added information clearly constitutes whitewashing. As this was a teacher who had been employed by the school for over a decade I consider it to be highly pertinent information for anyone who is considering sending their child to the school. The school was of course not directly responsible for the crime but in the absence of this information on the wikipedia article, any prospective parent may be completely unaware of it before enrolling their child at St Edwards, thus I would advocate for the edit remaining on the page. Endlesseditor talk 12:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Endlesseditor (talk • contribs) 12:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- If you can list diffs where it's visible, I will revdel them. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Shooting of Stephon Clark
Stephon Clark was recently shot and killed by police in Sacramento, while unarmed and hiding in his grandmother's backyard. The press has reported that he had past criminal convictions.
In our article on his death, I had added Clark's convictions in a manner that I hoped would not lead or prejudice readers, but would nevertheless make the information available. Those convictions have been removed as a "SYNTH impression... BLP smear." The editor who removed them, SPECIFICO, has asked that we take the issue to BLPN. So here we are: advice is appreciated.
Also pinging @GreenMeansGo, Darkstar1st, and MelanieN: they're participating in the conversation or have helped at the article as well. -Darouet (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- The article title is "Shooting of Stephon Clark," not "everything we can dig up about Stephon Clark, a nonnotable private individual who was shot while holding a cellphone." I agree with SPECIFICO that adding unflattering material just to "make the information available" is wrong here. 16:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by HouseOfChange (talk • contribs) (Sorry I forgot to sign my comment.)HouseOfChange (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- The article is about the shooting. Unless his past convictions are somehow involved with the shooting, which I can't imagine they are, they should be excluded as irrelevant. Seraphimblade 16:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- @HouseOfChange:@Seraphimblade:Thanks for taking a look. I hope you will join the efforts at the article and talk page if you are so inclined. @MelanieN: SPECIFICO talk 16:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Seraphimblade, he was shot evading arrest for a crime he is suspected of committing while on probation for the same crime. are you suggesting this is unrelated to this death? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Considering the police had no idea of this when they shot him, yes, it's unrelated. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Seraphimblade, he was shot evading arrest for a crime he is suspected of committing while on probation for the same crime. are you suggesting this is unrelated to this death? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- @HouseOfChange:@Seraphimblade:Thanks for taking a look. I hope you will join the efforts at the article and talk page if you are so inclined. @MelanieN: SPECIFICO talk 16:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Right now, the text of the biographical section of the article looks like this:
Stephon Clark (born Stephen Clark) was a graduate of Sacramento High School. He was the father of two sons, ages 1 and 3. At the time of his death, Clark was 22 years old. His brother, Stevante Clark, told KOVR that he and Stephon had come from "underprivileged, broken homes”. A 16-year-old brother was killed in a shooting in 2006. Stevante Clark said Stephon had been released from county jail about a month before the shooting and had been staying with his grandparents on and off, adding "He was arrested before, but he's been different lately. He really changed his life." Sacramento County court records show that Clark had a history of convictions for robbery, domestic abuse, and a prostitution-related offense. At the time of his death he was on probation for a 2014 robbery conviction.
On the article talk page, it was agreed that the convictions should be mentioned in the this article due to their discussion in many, if not most, newspaper articles published on the shooting. Plus, wikipedia articles on similar shootings tend to mention prior convictions as well. Currently, there is a discussion on the talk page about whether to add a sentence to this section quoting or paraphrasing one or more activists who state that his convictions could not have contributed to his shooting due to the fact that the officers who killed him were at the time unaware of whether he had committed any crimes before. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- It was most certainly not agreed, "baselessly bludgeoned" would be more apt. But the key point is that the article talk page is a separate venue and this page is for independent review. SPECIFICO talk 17:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- The information included is relevant to the subject because sources writing on the subject thought they were reliable to write about. We don't make unilateral sweeping editorial decisions about what is or is not relevant. We look at the sources, and mirror what they do. What's currently in the article has been discussed at length on the article talk page, and there is a single editor who does not agree, and has bludgeoned the talk page there with nearly 100 comments over the past few days. Those here are welcome to join in the ongoing discussion there. GMG 17:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Respectfully, I think there are multiple sense of "relevant" being used here by various editors. IMO it is pretty clear that although criminal history (like a history of complaints against the officers) is not relevant to anybody's legal culpability, and did not impact the officers' decision-making, nonetheless it is relevant to a straightforward description of what happened and who was involved. N.B., it is an article about a shooting that has BLP implications, not a biographical article that mentions a shooting. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Well actually, since the article is about actions of the officers' and how they exercised their official roles, there is some (not all) history of the officers that would be relevant in the strong sense. SPECIFICO talk 18:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- As he was convicted there is no BLP issue in mentioning his conviction. We do not censor information (widely covered that is) - and we let the reader do what they may with it.Icewhiz (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- As the convictions were unrelated to the shooting (topic of the article), it is WP:COATRACK to add the material, although apparently Fox News is using this info to discredit the victim. Let's be Misplaced Pages, not Fox News. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- It would seem whether this was or was not related to the shooting and his activities prior to being shot is in dispute - hence the corrrect thing to do is to mention the facts, without editorializing.Icewhiz (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Please cite a reliable source saying that it is in dispute whether the prior convictions are relevant. All sources I have seen say they were not relevant, because the police did not know his identity when they shot him.HouseOfChange (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- All the sources I see state the police did not know who they shot. Unless his criminal convictions are related to the shooting in some way, it seems quite coatracky. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Folks, Coatrack is a policy that refers to ancillary material becoming the dominant focus of an article. It has no bearing. The criminal history is widely reported, so the suggestion it is a Fox news thing is also just wrong. Additionally, the suggestion that including the material would be an effort to "discredit" the victim is offensive and uncalled for.
- Some community leaders insisted Clark's criminal history wasn't "relevant" but if that were true in a literal sense, it wouldn't be in so many major news reports. Factchecker_atyourservice 21:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Please cite some RS that say his convictions were relevant to the shooting, which is the subject of this article. Or even some RS that say there is a dispute whether his convictions were or were not relevant to the shooting. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- What a ridiculous suggestion! Sources don't make list of facts and say "X is relevant and Y is relevant and Z is relevant", they just talk about the relevant stuff. Factchecker_atyourservice 22:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- What the above said. Also the article is about the shooting. It is not a biography of the subject of the shooting. If it was a biography, their criminal convictions would likely be relevant (see BLP) if their criminal convictions were relevant to the shooting (eg, someone with a conviction for armed robbery being shot while carrying a gun and pointing it at a store owner) - otherwise including their previous conviction smells like a coatrack to make the story about the victim of a crime in much the same way FOX news likes to portray black victims as criminals. Since we are *not* FOX news, I see no need to follow their base tactics. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- The entirety of your comment is an insult that has nothing to do with what anyone is discussing. Nobody is trying to cite Fox, engage in "base tactics" or "portray black victims as criminals". Factchecker_atyourservice 01:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- Please cite some RS that say his convictions were relevant to the shooting, which is the subject of this article. Or even some RS that say there is a dispute whether his convictions were or were not relevant to the shooting. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I am still of the opinion that past criminal convictions should be kept to a minimum (see my comments on the article's talk page). Mentioning he had some would be acceptable, but a laundry list of them would not be. The primary topic of the article is the shooting, so much more beyond basic biographical info would be coatracking imho. To Factchecker atyourservice's comments above, relevance to an encyclopedia reader is not the same as relevance to an newspaper reader. We do not engage in yellow journalism or human interest stories. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- The only part of NOTNEWS that could conceivably lend support for excluding criminal history is "Misplaced Pages is also not written in news style." Are you suggesting WP articles about police shootings should avoid answering the five W's (who, what, when, where, why) with respect to the incident?
- Your reference to yellow journalism cannot be taken seriously. Go read the WP article. And again, it is uncivil to attempt to smear editors in this way. Factchecker_atyourservice 22:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- I've made no attempt to smear editors. And in terms of the shooting, we can answer the 5 Ws just fine without discussing his criminal record in detail. Just as I think we should remove the fluff statements from the family, we should remove the criminal record stuff. We was not shot in pursuit of an arrest warrant or anything related to those past events. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Do you see how applying the label "yellow journalism" to non-yellow-journalism material that is widely reported in mainstream papers has the effect of raising a false yet still insulting accusation of yellow journalism against the editors who advocate for its inclusion? Factchecker_atyourservice 22:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- I've made no attempt to smear editors. And in terms of the shooting, we can answer the 5 Ws just fine without discussing his criminal record in detail. Just as I think we should remove the fluff statements from the family, we should remove the criminal record stuff. We was not shot in pursuit of an arrest warrant or anything related to those past events. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Your reference to yellow journalism cannot be taken seriously. Go read the WP article. And again, it is uncivil to attempt to smear editors in this way. Factchecker_atyourservice 22:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Evergreen Fir makes a valid point *(not necessarily the "yellow" part)🎶 -- The weight, tone, and content of an encyclopedia article is very often not the same as daily coverage in e.g. the LA Times. I have made this point repeatedly on the article talk page, only to get hooted down with disparagement, name-calling, etc. but the fact remains: WP articles are about narrowly specific, defined and bounded topics. Undue personal detail -- particularly with a negative slant -- is not appropriate, regardless of whether daily news media include it for background, human interest, gossip, or any other good or bad reason. Moreover, the WP editors who so doggedly insist on including this stuff didn't even take the time to include the sort of neutral personal information we find in the articles about other killings -- family, hobbies, interests, neighborhood environment, etc. I have now added some of that information to the article while removing overbalanced POV stuff about the details of his arrest record. SPECIFICO talk 22:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- I think it is quite obvious that past run-ins with the law should be included in the article. The article is about the confluence of conditions that find expression in the lives of the people involved. The protesters are not just protesting the unjustified killing of an unarmed man. The protesters also cite the blighted neighborhood, the absence of job prospects in the area, and what they at least perceive as bad policing tactics, that commonly result in the mistreatment disproportionately of poorer people and people of color. If these possible injustices of a wider nature are to be addressed, how can we possibly omit a whole realm of facts from a Misplaced Pages article ostensibly addressing the subject area? We would be writing a fairy tale. An important principle at Misplaced Pages is that we follow the precedent set by the best of sources. We don't strike out on our own path in departure from the practices found at the best quality sources, which in this case are journalistic outlets. I don't think any Misplaced Pages editor is trying to discredit Clark and I would be distancing myself from any editor that I felt was doing that. Bus stop (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- For starters, perhaps you could respond to the concerns that @EvergreenFir: and I have raised -- concerns that invalidate your "just the facts, ma'am" approach. SPECIFICO talk 00:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
For starters
I've responded to your complaint about my above post at the Talk page of MelanieN. Bus stop (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)- There is no such thing as "undue personal detail", nor "unduly negative" personal detail. Nor does COAT apply to any of this. You folks are just making stuff up. Factchecker_atyourservice 01:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- No such thing as undue personal detail? Surely you jest. We do not include every sordid detail in biographies (please refer to WP:BLP and WP:DUE). It is disingenuous to claim editors are making stuff up in order to dismiss the multiple editors who clearly disagree with you. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- Correct, no such thing. There is a policy on UNDUE WEIGHT which refers to how prominently specific arguments and factual observations are featured in RS's, but it has absolutely zero to do with how personal the detail is or whether it reflects negatively on the article subject. And again, WP:COAT has no application here because it is a policy that prohibits ancillary details from becoming the dominant focus of an article, not a policy that prohibits negative details about a BLP subject. The arguments you're trying to make fall under the "encyclopedic or not" heading, not the "due or undue" heading. And of course the details of criminal convictions are encyclopedic. Factchecker_atyourservice 04:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- Huh, I must have missed part where we include negative personal details indiscriminately. Or how COATRACK doesn't apply here. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- WP:COATRACK is clearly not applicable here. "A coatrack article is a Misplaced Pages article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely." Clearly not applicable. Your other link is to WP:AVOIDVICTIM. This is not a biography. This is an article on an event. The subsequent protests catapult a shooting death into social unrest. There are many problems that are addressed by the protests that are subsequent to the shooting death: high crime, poverty, police abuse, few job prospects. How can we write about this while whitewashing the life of the person who was shot? The shooting did not take place in a vacuum. The Los Angeles Times can be depended upon to be just as forthcoming with any information of a negative nature pertaining to the policemen and you can bet that we will be including every salacious detail on the policemen in our article if information of that nature should come to light. This is an article about an inherently gritty subject. You can't omit crucial details. We should be following the precedent set by for instance the Los Angeles Times. Bus stop (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Bus stop: - "
This is not a biography
" ... but BLP applies everywhere including this article. So this is still falls under WP:AVOIDVICTIM and related BLP issues. Also, I linked to the Balance section of BLP, not to COATRACK directly. We do not include tabloid details in articles. I still fail to see how past crime is related to the shooting event. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Bus stop: - "
- WP:COATRACK is clearly not applicable here. "A coatrack article is a Misplaced Pages article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely." Clearly not applicable. Your other link is to WP:AVOIDVICTIM. This is not a biography. This is an article on an event. The subsequent protests catapult a shooting death into social unrest. There are many problems that are addressed by the protests that are subsequent to the shooting death: high crime, poverty, police abuse, few job prospects. How can we write about this while whitewashing the life of the person who was shot? The shooting did not take place in a vacuum. The Los Angeles Times can be depended upon to be just as forthcoming with any information of a negative nature pertaining to the policemen and you can bet that we will be including every salacious detail on the policemen in our article if information of that nature should come to light. This is an article about an inherently gritty subject. You can't omit crucial details. We should be following the precedent set by for instance the Los Angeles Times. Bus stop (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- Huh, I must have missed part where we include negative personal details indiscriminately. Or how COATRACK doesn't apply here. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- Correct, no such thing. There is a policy on UNDUE WEIGHT which refers to how prominently specific arguments and factual observations are featured in RS's, but it has absolutely zero to do with how personal the detail is or whether it reflects negatively on the article subject. And again, WP:COAT has no application here because it is a policy that prohibits ancillary details from becoming the dominant focus of an article, not a policy that prohibits negative details about a BLP subject. The arguments you're trying to make fall under the "encyclopedic or not" heading, not the "due or undue" heading. And of course the details of criminal convictions are encyclopedic. Factchecker_atyourservice 04:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- No such thing as undue personal detail? Surely you jest. We do not include every sordid detail in biographies (please refer to WP:BLP and WP:DUE). It is disingenuous to claim editors are making stuff up in order to dismiss the multiple editors who clearly disagree with you. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- There is no such thing as "undue personal detail", nor "unduly negative" personal detail. Nor does COAT apply to any of this. You folks are just making stuff up. Factchecker_atyourservice 01:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- For starters, perhaps you could respond to the concerns that @EvergreenFir: and I have raised -- concerns that invalidate your "just the facts, ma'am" approach. SPECIFICO talk 00:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- I think it is quite obvious that past run-ins with the law should be included in the article. The article is about the confluence of conditions that find expression in the lives of the people involved. The protesters are not just protesting the unjustified killing of an unarmed man. The protesters also cite the blighted neighborhood, the absence of job prospects in the area, and what they at least perceive as bad policing tactics, that commonly result in the mistreatment disproportionately of poorer people and people of color. If these possible injustices of a wider nature are to be addressed, how can we possibly omit a whole realm of facts from a Misplaced Pages article ostensibly addressing the subject area? We would be writing a fairy tale. An important principle at Misplaced Pages is that we follow the precedent set by the best of sources. We don't strike out on our own path in departure from the practices found at the best quality sources, which in this case are journalistic outlets. I don't think any Misplaced Pages editor is trying to discredit Clark and I would be distancing myself from any editor that I felt was doing that. Bus stop (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: RE the WP editors who so doggedly insist on including this stuff didn't even take the time to include the sort of neutral personal information we find in the articles about other killings --family, hobbies, interests, neighborhood environment, etc .
, that is both insulting and untrue. The consensus paragraph I added DID include information about his family and his neighborhood environment. We had earlier chosen not to include puffery like “devoted father” and “enjoyed football and video games,” which you just added; what happened to “liked shoes” and “liked to make people smile” which were far more widely reported? And now you have taken it upon yourself to remove the sentence about his previous convictions. Discussion at the article talk page will decide whether to restore it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- Personal attacks and flogging are welcome on my talk page, not on point here. I hope you're not suggesting that the article talk page overrides BLP/N. SPECIFICO talk 02:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO—nobody suggested
that the article talk page overrides BLP/N.
Bus stop (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO—nobody suggested
- The main problem is that this is so entirely wrongheaded vis-a-vis the social unrest that makes this not an obscure shooting that fades with the day's news. The social unrest and the protests precipitated by the shooting of Clark are ultimately grounded in reality—not in fiction and not in the omission of relevant information. If you want to write an article about the real shooting of Stephon Clark you have to address the situation as it actually exists. Some editors here probably think they are doing the memory of Stephon Clark a favor by suppressing the negative. But it is is in a negative environment that something like this takes place. What we are really doing by omitting previous run-ins with the law is tantamount to sweeping a problem under the rug. BLP violation is bogus. The Los Angeles Times is not a racist publication and it doesn't want to disparage the individual. No one said it aimed to do anything like that. But the argument is made that our purpose is different from that of a news article. Yes, it is slightly different. But in general we are required to adhere to their precedents. Bus stop (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
SPECIFICO—what happened to your argument based on WP:Synthesis? Have you dropped that argument in favor of an argument appealing to WP:COATRACK? It is no secret that policies and guidelines can be misused. "A coatrack article is a Misplaced Pages article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely." Clearly this is inapplicable to the question we are addressing. Its inapplicability is approximately equal to the inapplicability of your argument based on WP:Synthesis. Bus stop (talk) 08:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO—you tell me at User talk:Bus stop#BLP/N Stephon Clark that you "have not mentioned WP:COATRACK anywhere". This is my error and I stand corrected. I have crossed out my offending post, above. Bus stop (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
According to Misplaced Pages policy, Stephon Clark is covered by WP:BLP, because his death is so recent. Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons#Recently_dead_or_probably_dead HouseOfChange (talk) 05:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- And the police officers that shot him are BLPs too. That they shot a man with previous convictions, escaping them after he aroused suspicions is clearly relevant. Whether they knew of his priors or not has little bearing to this being relevant - it is widely in the media, and will surely be brought up in any legal case.Icewhiz (talk) 06:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- As will the fact that there's no reason they would have known this at the time, and the fact that they were not in any fear of their lives, and the fact that this was a ridiculous escalation from a trivial crime, and all of these things will, as usual, be ignored, and the police will, as usual, walk away without consequences, because in a country where summary execution for Driving While Black is perfectly fine, there is pretty much nothing that can be done about blue on black violence. Guy (Help!) 08:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- I am sure there is commentary to that effect that may be inserted into the article. The police were out there searching for a burglary suspect. Per the copious coverage of Clark's priors in conjunction with the shooting it seems RSes think it relevant to mention that the fleeing suspect had prior convictions that included robbery.Icewhiz (talk) 11:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- Guy, that is not helpful and frankly comes across as totally zenophobic. Police may have and may not have overreacted here and of course this death is very saddening, but the police are given many cues as to what they are dealing with by dispatch, so they can make a risk assessment, one of which is not, "he's a young black man, blow him away". Maybe actually reading the news reports would be helpful rather than make a blanket zenophobic slander like some BBC talking head. "two felony counts of domestic abuse, to which Clark – who preferred to go by the name Stephon – pleaded guilty and agreed to complete a treatment program. The court record also shows a 2008 robbery charge, and charges in 2013 for possession of a firearm and possession of a controlled substance" when police get that info, they know they are dealing with someone with many priors, so when the guy refuses to stop for the police when ordered, but instead runs, the police go into the situation knowing then from dispatch that this suspect has a history of violence and criminal behavior and based on the fact he was just seen breaking into an occupied home, they had every reason to believe he was a threat, I mean, who the fuck wouldn't? Maybe Superman wouldn't...or Batman? If the police are guilty then I hope and pray they get a life sentence, and if not, then their careers are likely ruined anyway, for doing their jobs.--MONGO 13:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- @MONGO:, they got steered in by a helicopter. At the time they shot him, they had no idea who he was - just some guy running around breaking windows was all they had to go on. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- If the media follows the story we will find out eventually...maybe. But the media doesn't want the truth...they just want to fill the narrative of "unarmed black man killed by police", cause that's what provokes anger and incites moral outrage. What is omitted is the SOP of these sorts of events, not unexpectedly.--MONGO 14:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- This is going into conspiracy theory area. Responding officers do not get info about every person that lives nearby prior to going on a arrest/manhunt for a specific target (which we know wasn't Clark). We can't work anywhere close to the assumption that the dispatched officers knew Clark's priors at the time they approached him. --Masem (t) 14:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- I always did. Perhaps they did not get every detail, every past charge or conviction, but "matches the description of" is routine. The dispatch record of the shooting is available already and the finer details of what the officers may have been enlightened of may also be released.--MONGO 14:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- They had the description of the perp that they were assigned to go after, but no name. Clark matched the description. There is no way they knew of Clark's priors at all. --Masem (t) 15:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with what EvergreenFir said above, I think they should be briefly mentioned, but we don't need a full run-down. A key fact here is that just as the cops did not know who Clark was prior to trying to arrest him, Clark did not know why the cops were approaching him. Clark's reaction at the appearance of cops suggests a reason to be wary of why he was being approached; having past criminal history implies a good reason (we can't directly say it, obviously). We don't want to make Clark looking like a lifetime criminal, so going into full detail of past convinctions which otherwise have no bearing on the story is not necessary, but to not mention that he had some makes the cops' reaction seem more unnecessary. All that needs is something like "Clark had prior criminal history of robbery, domestic abuse, and a prostitution-related offense, and was currently on probation after being released from prison a month prior." Neither overly degrading, but still addresses this Clark had had run-ins with police before, thus explaining implicitly why he likely ran. --Masem (t) 13:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- Just want to say that I agree with the above: "We don't want to make Clark looking like a lifetime criminal, so going into full detail of past convictions which otherwise have no bearing on the story is not necessary, but to not mention that he had some makes the cops' reaction seem more unnecessary. All that needs is something like "Clark had prior criminal history of robbery, domestic abuse, and a prostitution-related offense, and was currently on probation after being released from prison a month prior." Neither overly degrading, but still addresses that Clark had had run-ins with police before, thus explaining implicitly why he likely ran." This is a well-balanced approach, in my opinion. Bus stop (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages policy for BLP is quite clear that defamatory material unrelated to the topic of the article should be excluded. Your guess that he ran because of his criminal record is WP:OR. Please cite a Misplaced Pages policy that should in this case override WP:BLP. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- There's no question he had a criminal history (not just small civil crimes like speeding or jaywalking). Noting that, given plenty of RSes that make its mention, is not defamatory. Going into detail of every prior crime, however, is. We don't want to shine a huge light on the criminal past, only noted that it existed, which does make it related to the matter at hand, to understand he was on probation a month out from prison release. --Masem (t) 17:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict) Misuse of policies and guidelines is a problem, HouseOfChange. You imply that the material in question is unrelated to to the topic of the article, but the article is about social unrest encompassing a range of problems, one of which is the shooting death of a man. You point out that "he ran because of his criminal record is WP:OR", which would be the case if stated in article space, but I contend that it is not original research when stated on this notice-board/Talk page; it is merely an unsupported statement. I am not sure who you are responding to, but I have chosen to respond to your post. If you are responding to Masem, you might consider addressing them by name. Bus stop (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Michael Carroll (Lottery winner)
Hey look at that. Somebody made a mistake and were perfectly willing to admit they were wrong when it was pointed out to them. Next time consider raising the issue on the user's talk page, where things can generally be handled more quickly and with less fuss. Thanks everybody for their input. GMG 20:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Michael Carroll (lottery winner) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
With this edit/blind revert, Oshwah has added unreferenced material to a Biography of a Living Person. Including details of where their bank accounts are/were held.
Is this acceptable behaviour for an administrator? 94.118.44.96 (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Being an admin has nothing to do with it. This appears to be a content dispute. Oshwah asked you to take it to the article's talk page in his edit summary and I've done the same thing in mine. Please do not re-do your edits to the page a third time. Please, instead, start a talk page thread on the article's talk page. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yes it does. And BLP policy trumps a "content dispute". Why have the both of you added unreferenced and probably undue material? Why don't *you* start the discussion rather than blindly reverting? Isn't it better to be cautious when it comes to BLPs? And why should I ask at a barely watched talkpage? Surely this is the correct venue for BLP problems? 94.118.44.96 (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, that is correct - BLP requirements must always be complied with, and the burden of reason always lies on the person whose adding or restoring the content. Content in dispute on a BLP is typically kept removed until any consensus is established stating that it should be added. ~Oshwah~ 20:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yes it does. And BLP policy trumps a "content dispute". Why have the both of you added unreferenced and probably undue material? Why don't *you* start the discussion rather than blindly reverting? Isn't it better to be cautious when it comes to BLPs? And why should I ask at a barely watched talkpage? Surely this is the correct venue for BLP problems? 94.118.44.96 (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Looks like while I was posting here, you were re-inserting your preferred edit a third time. Please self-revert and start a talk page thread. David in DC (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Quite rightly, too. There are a number of issues with the version that Oshwah and David in DC are inserting. "Carroll had a bank account set up with St. James's Place Bank (Division of Halifax at the time)" is unsourced. It removes a cite and adds the unsourced "a phrase that he emblazoned on his black Mercedes van". The section about him being banned from driving has a source that is a dead link. The IP is correct, please don't revert them again. Black Kite (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Umm...@Oshwah: since no one appears to have actually notified him of this discussion. GMG 19:36, 30 March 20
- Everyone above is correct; the version I restored was problematic and the content in question is unreferenced and should not be live on the article. ~Oshwah~ 19:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Umm...@Oshwah: since no one appears to have actually notified him of this discussion. GMG 19:36, 30 March 20
- Quite rightly, too. There are a number of issues with the version that Oshwah and David in DC are inserting. "Carroll had a bank account set up with St. James's Place Bank (Division of Halifax at the time)" is unsourced. It removes a cite and adds the unsourced "a phrase that he emblazoned on his black Mercedes van". The section about him being banned from driving has a source that is a dead link. The IP is correct, please don't revert them again. Black Kite (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm with the IP on this - his preferred version removes uncited or questionably cited tabloid trash, so nobody should sanction him for anything per WP:3RRNO. I have been concerned that Oshwah wades into situations without assessing them (eg: Tony1) and causes all manner of mayhem as a result. Ritchie333 19:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Me three. The I.P editor is on target. К Ф Ƽ Ħ 19:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: It's either take Oshwah to arbitration or forget he exists, dropping in on any Oshwah themed conversations just to whine on and on and on about Oshwah is making you look like a petulant child who is upset that they aren't getting that ice cream cone with a 99 Flake. Nick (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
J. Roberto Trujillo
Self published, does not conform to standards of verifiability and neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.81.183 (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Help needed at Shooting_of_Stephon_Clark
Please see this thread about adding personal information unrelated to the article topic. SPECIFICO talk 19:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- There is already a section above called Shooting of Stephon Clark. Bus stop (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Eyes needed at Kyle Kashuv
There are 2-3 editors repeatedly adding poorly-sourced content to a biography of a living child at Kyle Kashuv. Sources used include NewsBusters, The Daily Mail, and The Daily Caller, MRCTV.org, dailyheadlinesnow.com, and conservativefiringline.com. A few more experienced eyes would be appreciated.- MrX 🖋 23:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- @MrX: This is an RFC especially for NewsBusters/MRCTV.org so please take a look at it. If we can use Media Matters for BLPs, we can use Newsbusters/MRCTV.org for BLPs. The Daily Caller is a reliable source, per the most recent RSN discussion about it. The Daily Mail is usually unreliable per WP:DAILYMAIL, but it wasn't in the article in the first place. We're left with dailyheadlinesnow.com, which is a blog and can easily be blacklisted.
- An editor was banned for disruption and is unlikely to appeal, and I'm the only one left reverting your content, if we exclude restoring what you removed preceding your pseudo-AFD. The article may also be unprotected because IP and unconfirmed users aren't adding anything. I'm not accusing you of POV; however, I would like you to notice that each source you have disputed is conservative. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 09:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Wumbolo The discussions you linked to are not the most recent discussions (one is about eight years old and the other is about five years old). We should not be using Media Matters for America for much of anything, let alone BLPs. The same goes for NewsBusters/MRCTV.org. This is not my personal opinion—it is widespread practice across Misplaced Pages, based on numerous comments from highly experience editors. Additionally, why use these sources when other conservative sources like Fox News have covered the subject? The Daily Caller may be reliable in some cases, but if there are better sources available, we should use them. We should not seek out cherry picked quotes from the biography subject to push a political POV. Note that MRCTV had to walk back their unreliable reporting when they realized that Eichenwald is no longer with MSNBC.
- Here is the content in question:
Attacks and Criticism
Kashuv stated in a tweet on Twitter that he had an interview cancelled by CNN after retweeting a tweet by journalist Clay Travis saying that CNN is “biased” and calling Brooke Baldwin a “fake news hypocrite”. Newsweek and former MSNBC contributor Kurt Eichenwald attacked Kyle on Twitter, stating he continues to “disappoint” and that he’s “trafficking in fantasies”. As a result, he called for boycott of MSNBC.
References
- Houck, Curtis (March 21, 2018). "Parkland's Kyle Kashuv Says CNN Canceled Interview After RT Calling Out Their Bias".
- "Newsweek's Kurt Eichenwald Attacks Parkland Survivor Kyle Kashuv, Blames a 'Mistake'". MRCTV. March 30, 2018.
- Johnson, Benny (March 30, 2018). "Parkland Student Calls For Boycott Of MSNBC Advertisers After Former Contributor Attacks Him". The Daily Caller.
- Even if these were reliable sources for a BLP, the material would be largely unencyclopedic, it would violate WP:SOAPBOX, and it would violate WP:UNDUE unless other and better sources could be brought to bear.- MrX 🖋 12:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- @MrX: agreed. I didn't even look at the sources. Of course we should use mainstream sources instead of these misrepresenting and unreliable websites. I don't even know what to trust in these topics as CNN and Fox constantly attack each other and play propaganda piano music in the background more than report news. wumbolo ^^^ 12:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Even if these were reliable sources for a BLP, the material would be largely unencyclopedic, it would violate WP:SOAPBOX, and it would violate WP:UNDUE unless other and better sources could be brought to bear.- MrX 🖋 12:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Doug Ford Jr.; anti semitic comment by Subject's brother
Re: Doug Ford Jr. This content was recently added with no consensus and has been discussed on the talk page also now seemingly entrenched position by at least one editor to keep it in
Below content from this section "When asked about his brother's use of an antisemitic slur, Ford defended him by stating: "You know something? My doctor — my Jewish doctor, my Jewish dentist, my Jewish lawyer — Hold on, my Jewish accountant" and "Our family has the utmost respect for the Jewish community". His comments resulted in boos and laughter from the audience. Ford's campaign got the attention of Last Week Tonight's John Oliver who closed an episode begging Torontonians to vote for Doug Ford for the world's amusement" Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Some editors have been bending over backwards to highlight every skeleton in Ford's closet since he was recently elected leader of the Progrssive Conservative Party of Ontario. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- The opposite actually. The information the two of you object to has been in the article for years. It's only since he announced his candidacy for PC Party leadership that the two of you and several IPs have consistently tried to remove it. Nixon Now (talk)
- See the POV-pushing going on at the article? This is a BLP of a polarizing politician, so the shenanigans going on at the article shouldn't be surprising. If something isn't done, it won't be long before the lead reads "Douglas Robert Ford Jr. (born November 20, 1964) is a Canadian antisemitic former hashish dealer, businessman and politician ..." Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- The opposite actually. The information the two of you object to has been in the article for years. It's only since he announced his candidacy for PC Party leadership that the two of you and several IPs have consistently tried to remove it. Nixon Now (talk)
- Articles are supposed to provide the same weight to subjects as mainstream sources. The allegations of drug trafficking in the Globe and Mail received wide attention, as have some of his more controversial statements. It's not a case of Misplaced Pages editors scouring for negative information. And note that there was no adverse information in the article about his predecessor as PC leader, until the recent allegations that led to his resignation. TFD (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- By "It's not a case of Misplaced Pages editors scouring for negative information", TFD is referring specifically to the "hashish dealer" allegations and not the "antisemitism" that is the subject of this report, nor to the general POV-pushing that aims at putting Ford in as negative a light as can be gotten away with (considering the number of eyes on the article).
- For the record, the hashish allegations are the subject of an RfC in which the importance of providing balance in the Misplaced Pages article has been stressed, because WP:WEIGHT has been violated repeatedly by POV-pushing editors hunting for ways to highlight this incident, including giving it its own one-paragraph subsection to ensure it appears in the table of contents (!!!). This subsection header has been restored more than once against consensus.
- The POV-pushing has gotten so bad that the article is subject to WP:Pending changes. Here's a concrete example of Nixon Now simutaneously adding something negative while removing something positive from the article. Someone's complained about it on the talk page as well. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- That's a false and self-serving claim. Pending changes was implemented after I requested page protection due to long term pro-Ford edit warring by IPs etc since the beginning of Ford's campaign. Nixon Now (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note carefully that what Nixon Now calls "pro-Ford edit warring" was not the addition of "pro-Ford" material, but hte removal of material that Nixon Now has been editwarring to keep included against consensus. For instance, there is now a unanimous consensus against having a subsection devoted to hashish-dealing allegations at Talk:Doug Ford Jr.#RFC: Hashish dealing subsection and heading, yet Nixon Now still stands i nthe way of its removal, claiming that 30 days need to pass first. Remember, this is a WP:BLP, in which the standard is to remove challenged edits until a consensus is reached to keep them, not the reverse. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- The above comment is misleading. The RFC is not on removing or retaining the section but on whether or not there should be section headings. And yes, POV editing on censoring sourced and verified material is still POV editing. Nixon Now (talk) 08:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- This here is a flat-out lie. The section was opened in response to having the section header that you had no consensus for removed, and you forcing out back in. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- First you say "unanimous consensus against having a subsection devoted to hashish-dealing allegations" and now you admit the RFC is over a "section header" which is exactly my point. So no, I'm not lying, you misstated the facts, something you've conceded in your choice of words while claiming simultaneously that I'm lying. You mistakenly claim the RFC was about removing a subsection when it was actually about removing subheadings (big difference), correct your language when I point it out while insisting that I'm lying and that you made no mistake. That's quite an accomplishment. Nixon Now (talk)
- This whole comment is gibberish. The consensus is against having any sort of header for the hashish-dealing allegations. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- First you say "unanimous consensus against having a subsection devoted to hashish-dealing allegations" and now you admit the RFC is over a "section header" which is exactly my point. So no, I'm not lying, you misstated the facts, something you've conceded in your choice of words while claiming simultaneously that I'm lying. You mistakenly claim the RFC was about removing a subsection when it was actually about removing subheadings (big difference), correct your language when I point it out while insisting that I'm lying and that you made no mistake. That's quite an accomplishment. Nixon Now (talk)
- This here is a flat-out lie. The section was opened in response to having the section header that you had no consensus for removed, and you forcing out back in. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- The above comment is misleading. The RFC is not on removing or retaining the section but on whether or not there should be section headings. And yes, POV editing on censoring sourced and verified material is still POV editing. Nixon Now (talk) 08:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note carefully that what Nixon Now calls "pro-Ford edit warring" was not the addition of "pro-Ford" material, but hte removal of material that Nixon Now has been editwarring to keep included against consensus. For instance, there is now a unanimous consensus against having a subsection devoted to hashish-dealing allegations at Talk:Doug Ford Jr.#RFC: Hashish dealing subsection and heading, yet Nixon Now still stands i nthe way of its removal, claiming that 30 days need to pass first. Remember, this is a WP:BLP, in which the standard is to remove challenged edits until a consensus is reached to keep them, not the reverse. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- That's a false and self-serving claim. Pending changes was implemented after I requested page protection due to long term pro-Ford edit warring by IPs etc since the beginning of Ford's campaign. Nixon Now (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- TFD is referring specifically to the "hashish dealer" allegations and not the "antisemitism"... Maybe let TFD speak for themselves. Considering the end of the sentence you quoted only the beginning of is, "as have some of his more controversial statements," it seems that maybe TFD is not just referring to the hashish issue. I could be wrong about what TFD meant, but it seems extremely arrogant and presumptuous of you to explain what someone else meant, especially when that explanation seems to directly contradict that person's own words. tubedogg (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- No, this is actually not what UNDUE says. This is part of what's been plaguing WP for the last few years. Just because the media dislikes a person does not mean our article on that person should become an attack article supported by the media's dislike to list every skeleton in their closet. That's violating BLP, NOT#NEWS, and NPOV. This is not how encyclopedic articles are written, but too many editors (not just here) feel that if the media backs up their dislike of a person, they can justify including every negative element the media brings up. --Masem (t) 22:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Finally. Thanks, Masem, this situation you identify as being somewhat common is a serious flaw, maybe even existential in terms of the integrity of the encyclopedia. What can be done, for example, in this specific article? Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Look at the 2014 quote, I see no mention of it past the time he gave it. It might be part of the view that he is anti-Jewish overall, but focusing so much on that quote which seems to have had no long term effect on his life is undue, the type that we need to be more aware of discussing a BLP overall and why we must be careful of NOT#NEWS. We shouldn't include singular incidents unless they become affecting of a person's life. --Masem (t) 02:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Finally. Thanks, Masem, this situation you identify as being somewhat common is a serious flaw, maybe even existential in terms of the integrity of the encyclopedia. What can be done, for example, in this specific article? Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I suggest rewriting the section to read (internal citations present in the existing text omitted, but would also be included):
- During a mayoral debate held by the United Jewish Appeal Federation of Greater Toronto and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, Doug Ford's opponent Ari Goldkind responded to a question about Jewish safety by mentioning Rob Ford's use of an antisemitic slur while intoxicated. Doug initially said he wasn't going to address it directly, stating: "You know something? My doctor — my Jewish doctor, my Jewish dentist, my Jewish lawyer — hold on, my Jewish accountant." Amidst booing and laughter, he continued, "Our family has the utmost respect for the Jewish community". The following day, during a radio appearance, he commented, "I said in the public numerous times his comments were unacceptable and inexcusable." (source for the last quote)
This addresses the NPOV and contextualization complaints. Beyond that, this was a noteworthy comment (reinforcing stereotypes) at a noteworthy event (mayoral debate) that was covered in media by referencing the issue in headlines of stories about the debate. tubedogg (talk) 00:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- You stil fail to respond to what's been asked on the talk page already: what makes this information worthy of inclusion out of the mountain of information available on this very public figure? Why cherrypick this, other than to paint him in as poor a light as possible? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Masem, perhaps you could explain why simply rewording doesn't address the problem. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Basically, the comment was in the news for a few days, and then I have not seen any other source bring it up again. In a encyclopedic biography, we're supposed to summarize a person's life, not document every time they are in the news, so a comment that received only short-term attention and had no long-term affects on their career is the last thing one would include in such a summary. That some see Ford as anti-Jewish, that's a broader criticism to be included, but not this specific comment. --Masem (t) 13:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Masem—so how do we enforce that when there are editors who refuse to allow it to be removed? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Basically, the comment was in the news for a few days, and then I have not seen any other source bring it up again. In a encyclopedic biography, we're supposed to summarize a person's life, not document every time they are in the news, so a comment that received only short-term attention and had no long-term affects on their career is the last thing one would include in such a summary. That some see Ford as anti-Jewish, that's a broader criticism to be included, but not this specific comment. --Masem (t) 13:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Masem, perhaps you could explain why simply rewording doesn't address the problem. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- You stil fail to respond to what's been asked on the talk page already: what makes this information worthy of inclusion out of the mountain of information available on this very public figure? Why cherrypick this, other than to paint him in as poor a light as possible? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Respectfully request close - this is already being constructively discussed on the article's talk page, as well as having been brought up at ANEW and ANI. It would be more useful to establishing consensus if editors would add their comments to the preexisting discussion rather than forumshopping it all over the damn place. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, more eyes are always a good thing, but it's quite unconstructive to have parallel discussions on these things happening on many different pages. Ivanvector (/Edits) 13:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- The purpose of bringing something like this up here is to determine whether it conforms to BLP policy, which takes precedence over any talk-page consensus. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- See, if that were true, you would invite editors paying attention to this noticeboard, who presumably are knowledgeable in policy, to comment on that aspect of policy within the already occurring discussion. Asking for an entirely separate discussion here reads like you just want to reframe the context of the discussion to see if you get an answer you like better. That's not a very good way to construct a stable article on a controversial topic. Ivanvector (/Edits) 14:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't open this discussion (Nocturnalnow said more than once he was going to bring it up here before he did), and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot override policy. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- There are a few people in the talk discussion who simply believe that a loaded question asked of the Subject about one time Subject's brother used an offensive slur is notable enough to be in the Blp as well as the Subject's seemingly sincere response which was categorized as being humorous. So, I came here for guidance on the matter and I think Masem, above, has given us exactly that. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't open this discussion (Nocturnalnow said more than once he was going to bring it up here before he did), and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot override policy. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- See, if that were true, you would invite editors paying attention to this noticeboard, who presumably are knowledgeable in policy, to comment on that aspect of policy within the already occurring discussion. Asking for an entirely separate discussion here reads like you just want to reframe the context of the discussion to see if you get an answer you like better. That's not a very good way to construct a stable article on a controversial topic. Ivanvector (/Edits) 14:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
(My comments above were about Ford's comments, although they could apply to other controversial aspects of him as well.) Indeed the discussion heading implies that there is a dispute about whether to report what the subject's brother said, making this a guilt by association issue. But the dispute is not about that but about what Doug Ford said. "My lawyer is a Jew" is such a clique that it provokes laughter. Even Archie Bunker had a Jewish lawyer. TFD (talk) 04:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- Not keeping up with Canadian politics as much as I perhaps should, I didn't know off the top of my head when Ford became as prominent as he apparently is, so I took a look at the page history to find the last truly stable version of the article that was not edited once for more than a month. It was last June. The only use of "Jew-" ("semit-" didn't appear at all) was in
Doug has stated that Karla's maternal grandparents were Jewish and immigrated to Canada from Europe to flee persecution
. So Nixoki's claim that "he information object to has been in the article for years" is questionable. It's also worth noting that both Curly Turkey and Nocturnalnow had edited the page by the end of January, within a day of Ford's announcing his candidacy for party leadership, while Nixon Now didn't touch the article until more than a month later, so the latter's claiming to know what the article looked like "years" ago contrary to word of the other two seems extremely tendentious. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)- Wow, given their zeal, I didn't realize NN had been editing the article less than a month. His interest in Ford goes back slightly longer, though. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Sharon Har
Hawaiian politician Sharon Har reports that she attended Harvard University. This has not been verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:D7C1:2900:302D:96B4:AEC9:DAD4 (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- An {{unsourced section}} notice has been added to the Education section at Sharon Har. This indicates the citations must be provided that support the content within a reasonable period of time or it will be removed. General Ization 05:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Dana Loesch
There is a dispute between myself and DrFleischman on who exactly Dana Loesch is targeting when she warns "time is running out" in a recent video. DrFleischman maintains that she is only referring to journalists. Here are the sources proving that she is referring to a larger group of people:
- Newsweek in the last paragraph quotes her referring to the media, Hollywood, athletes, politicians, late night hosts.
- WBALTV says "She tells them, "Your time is running out."" with the previous paragraph mentioning the media, Hollywood, and athletes. In fact, that's also what the NRATV tweet wrote. It's in the article.
- Bustle quotes her entire list in italics as a run-on sentence, including "to the Joy Ann Reids, the "Morning Joes," the Mikas;" and more. Note that this fragment would make absolutely no sense on its own, there must be some sort of conclusion to the fragment.
- Daily Wire quotes the whole list just like Bustle as one sentence.
- USA Today notes that Loesch is stating a list: "... and politicians “who would rather watch America burn than lose one ounce of their power.” The list goes on ... Enter the hourglass. “Listen up! Your time is running out…"
- Salon - "to politicians and late night hosts – and the list didn't end there. Released on Oscars night, it's a new message that warns, "Your time is running out"
I hope that's enough to convince DrFleischman and anyone else that she isn't only referring to journalists. starship.paint ~ KO 02:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- If it is not stated in her words, it is inappropriate to use what other sources claim she is targetting, at least in a wiki voice. --Masem (t) 03:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Also, given that the ad itself says it is for a new show to be broadcast by NRA TV, the way the current article presents the quote is very much POV and not appropriate. That her "time running out" was taken as a threat and she cleared it wasn't, that's fine, but ignoring that it was an ad, that's bad form. --Masem (t) 03:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks to Starship.paint for listing those sources. The trouble, however, is that that's a cherry-picking of the sources. Other reliable sources are say that Loesch was referring specifically to journalists, e.g.:
- The Independent:
The National Rifle Association has released a video containing a threatening message to journalists, warning them "your time is running out".
- The Evening Standard:
The National Rifle Association has issued a threatening message to US journalists, warning them “your time is running out”.
- The Sun":
"To those who bring bias and propaganda to CNN, The Washington Post and The New York Times… your time is running out. The clock starts now."
- The Independent:
- So we have a conflict among the sources. I frankly don't know how to handle this without giving the issue undue weight. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- @DrFleischman: - Do you recognise the sentence form she's using? Because multiple sources do. They quote her in her entirety. It's like me saying "To John, to Mary, to Bob, happy birthday". Then all you focus is "To Bob, happy birthday", which isn't false, but to argue that "to John, to Mary" isn't included is absurd because "To John, to Mary" doesn't make sense on their own. Plus how can you accuse me of cherry picking when the official NRATV account also quotes her targeting more than the media? starship.paint ~ KO 11:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- I understand that, but how do we reconcile it with the multiple sources that appear to contradict it? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- @DrFleischman: - there is no contradiction, only an omission. If a source says "That guy said happy birthday to Bob", it does not rule out "That guy also said happy birthday to John and Mary". Likewise "The National Rifle Association has issued a threatening message to US journalists" does not rule out that the NRA also issued a threatening message to US politicians - as reported by other sources. starship.paint ~ KO 09:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- I understand that, but how do we reconcile it with the multiple sources that appear to contradict it? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- I think the first step is needed is to establish it is an ad for her new show ( her clarificaton) and not a statement. I've seen ads like this when new programs aimed to tackle controversial subjects come on all the time, its just the state of the media and timing made the press take it threateningly rather than what it actually is. Once you get that, then its simply a matter of saying that the media took that as an attack/treatening message against media; you can also mention that March of our Lives spoofed the video ( -that source also gives a good descriptor "The NRA video seemed to be a threat against anyone who wasn’t supportive of the NRA"). --Masem (t) 05:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'm still on the fence about this, but I'm sympathetic to Starship.paint's arguments. I adjusted the language to say:
In a March 2018 NRA video, Loesch turned an hourglass and said to celebrities, politicians, and media figures, "Your time is running out. The clock starts now."
I hope this addresses their concerns. If we're going to take the position that she was addressing everyone she mentioned in her ad, which was a long list, then we should summarize and not place undue emphasis on some of them over others. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Valerie Vaz
In accordance with WP:BLP I removed this stand-alone section from Valerie Vaz.
I explained: "Having a separate section dedicated to what was evidently just a slip of the tongue is a shocking WP:BLP violation, especially as it implies that she proudly believes she is a true anti-semite. Guido Fawkes is a personal blog and is not a RS." The text was put back without comment by Joshuaselig.
I said "Please don't revert carefully-explained edits without comment. If you would like to argue why the text is not a WP:BLP violation, or why Guido Fawkes is a RS, please do so explicitly on the talk page". The text was again re-inserted without comment by Joshuaselig.
I have no particular interest in this article, but just stumbled across this attack-section and believe it should be removed. Input from other editors would be welcome. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Sigh, I have removed it again. While an incredibly stupid slip of the tongue, even the source cited claims it was a slip. Not even close to being able to state someone is an anti-semite in wiki-voice. And frankly any time I see someone cite guido fawkes its always in an attempt to smear someone. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- I have blocked Joshuaselig for 24 hours for blatant and obvious edit-warring. Ritchie333 12:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- I have just gone through their contributions - they appear to be fixated at the moment on the Jeremy Corbyn anti-semitism row (hence the Vaz edits). If they go straight back to it after 24 hours can you consider topic banning them under BLP discretionary sanctions. I am about to drop a notice. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- (Holy edit conflict batman) Given not just edit warring to include a ("shocking" is appropriate) BLP violation, but also edit warring to prevent discussion of it, and a complete lack of communication to boot, 24 hours is probably generous, and someone in a more sour mood might have opted for indef pending some type of explanation, or...literally any form of communication whatsoever. GMG 13:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- I have dropped an explicit DS warning, both template and a more detailed explanation on their talkpage. As they dont appear to be aware of the DS relating to BLP's (no prior notification that I could find when dropping the template) if they continue after their block expires without starting a discussion here or on the talkpage any admin can take action. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- As you know, I'm not a big fan of blocks. 24 hours will give him time to reflect, and if he comes straight back with problematic behaviour after that, he'll have an Arbcom block waiting. Ritchie333 13:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- As it happens, going from this to that almost makes me wonder whether the account has been compromised. Were it not for the behavioral continuity in blanking their own talk page and the topical continuity regarding antisemitism I would say as much would be obvious. Still very strange when you look at their edit history, it seems to be almost or entirely perfectly cordial discussion with an appropriate concern for policy. Then they show up today, blank their user page and just go off on a wild tangent. GMG 14:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Any objections if I up to indef, since it may be a compromised account? Ritchie333 16:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- I think that would be best. It's not as if this is a neophyte editor. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- You might be able to field a half-decent argument either way, but such a radical shift toward descriptiveness after so long does make one wonder whether, at the very least, the person might be compromised if not the account. But that's so exceptionally easy to clear up with basically any communication at all, I'm not sure that any communication at all is too much to expect. GMG 16:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Since there appears to be no reasonable attempt to request an unblock, I have upgraded the block to indefinite and disabled talk page access (on the grounds that if I didn't, it would just get blanked) and advised him to use UTRS. Ritchie333 17:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Any objections if I up to indef, since it may be a compromised account? Ritchie333 16:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- As it happens, going from this to that almost makes me wonder whether the account has been compromised. Were it not for the behavioral continuity in blanking their own talk page and the topical continuity regarding antisemitism I would say as much would be obvious. Still very strange when you look at their edit history, it seems to be almost or entirely perfectly cordial discussion with an appropriate concern for policy. Then they show up today, blank their user page and just go off on a wild tangent. GMG 14:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- As you know, I'm not a big fan of blocks. 24 hours will give him time to reflect, and if he comes straight back with problematic behaviour after that, he'll have an Arbcom block waiting. Ritchie333 13:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- I have dropped an explicit DS warning, both template and a more detailed explanation on their talkpage. As they dont appear to be aware of the DS relating to BLP's (no prior notification that I could find when dropping the template) if they continue after their block expires without starting a discussion here or on the talkpage any admin can take action. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- I have blocked Joshuaselig for 24 hours for blatant and obvious edit-warring. Ritchie333 12:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
David D. Smith
The controversies section for David D. Smith needs to be trimmed, but of perhaps more urgent concern is the reporting of a 2004 solicitation bust. Per WP:BLPCRIME, he does not appear to have been convicted of anything, so at most, we should have a few sentences, not six paragraphs. There has been an attempt to address these issues at Talk:David D. Smith, but the editor who has been adding excessive detail has not yet responded. More eyes are needed on this. Edwardx (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Christina Hagan
Christina Hagan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A number of IPs and new users have recently been adding material to this BLP which is problematic - e.g. with the first citation is an opinion piece, the second one doesn't mention the content it's being cited for and most of it isn't cited at all. I've reverted this several times and left warnings but it isn't having any effect and since I started the article I can't take stronger action. I would appreciate some outside input. Hut 8.5 21:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
bhumihar
sir most humbly and respectfully, i want to say the on bhumihar on wikipedia is weitten in correct please correct it as soon as possible. it is a abuse for bhumihar community. please take a proper action on this. hope you will understand. here is the link of NCBI . https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12959898 thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:A0C2:55A7:106A:8C37:3566:6FBF (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- It looks as though one of Misplaced Pages's experts on India's caste system has already examined the Bhumihar article extensively, so it is unclear -- to me at least -- how you feel that the article infringes WP:BLP. You will need to explain further. MPS1992 (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Holland's Next Top Model
I'm currently in a dispute with Ratherbe2000 at Holland's Next Top Model and three related articles (1, 2, 3). They are adding contestants' surnames with questionable sources, including blogs and self-published sources. The dispute has happened in the past on these pages and others (see list of diffs below), and I have tried telling the user about identifying reliable sources and the strict WP:BLP policy to little avail.
Diffs (from the four aforementioned articles, along with Top Model (French TV series) and two related 1 2; some are old):
"Fake scientist" a BLP violation?
Legacypac's comments were silly and unhelpful, and s/he shouldn't make a habit of repeating them, but there's no formal BLP-related action needed here. MastCell 18:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is the edit summary here a BLP violation against Bill Nye? Not sure I know how to deal with that question. jps (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- It's inaccurate, but I don't know if I'd go as far as to call it a BLP vio. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Okay. Fair enough. I'll restore an edit then. jps (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- He doesn't claim to be a scientist, so it's hard to see how he could be a fake one. In related news: Guy (Help!) 18:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- The user in question is more than a bit... resistant... to factual claims about such things as the age of the Earth or whether Bill Nye can be said to be a competent reviewer of the latest creationist tripe. I'll leave it to others to continue to engage with him if they think they can bring him to reason. This is, of course, off topic with respect to this noticeboard, though. jps (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Legacypac called Nye a "psudoscientist", which clearly is a BLP violation as it implies he is engaging in pseudoscience. Ironic given that the context is Ken Ham's creationist theme park boondoggle. Guy (Help!) 18:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Saying that a mechanical engineer is not a scientist is on topic, though, I think. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Not really, no. He is a well-known popular science communicator, and the context is Ken Ham's ark park - Ham considers Nye to be sufficiently credible that he chose to debate him on TV. So it's not our judgment that Nye's commentary is valid here, it is the owner of the thing that is the subject of the article. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- The user in question is more than a bit... resistant... to factual claims about such things as the age of the Earth or whether Bill Nye can be said to be a competent reviewer of the latest creationist tripe. I'll leave it to others to continue to engage with him if they think they can bring him to reason. This is, of course, off topic with respect to this noticeboard, though. jps (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Bill Nye is trained to the B Sc level in engineering but his whole career is playing a scientist on TV - the very definition of fake scientist. He plays a scientist every time he steps in front of a camera - it's his thing. This user is trying to use Nye's "TV scientist" opinion to label something as pseudoscience. We don't use the opinions of TV lawyers or TV doctors to support labels on legal or medical articles.
The real problem here is jps who is edit warring, abusing Rollbacker, removing my talk pahe comments and templating me than insulting my beliefs just above. This is harassment. Legacypac (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It seems clear to me that Legacypac's use of the term "pseudoscientist" was a rhetorical maneuver to make it seem like his inaccurate use of the word in relation to Bill Nye was equivalent to an accurate use of the word in relation to creation science, and thus to say that it's absurd jps would support pseudoscience while calling out pseudoscience. I.e. I think he just meant that Bill Nye does not have scientist credentials, not that he advocates and/or practices pseudoscience, and is only a BLP violation if Legacypac doesn't know the word pseudoscientist doesn't mean "a science communicator/educator who does not have scientist credentials." (I suspect that he does know that, and is guilty of a misleading rhetorical move rather than of a BLP violation). This discussion is already spread out over a number of venues and doesn't seem necessary to continue here IMO. — Rhododendrites \\ 19:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-blurse-of-being-bill-nye-180967244/ - "The zany scientist talks about his recent transformation into the public—and controversial—face for science" --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- I don't really see that as being a BLP vio, but rather someone stating their opinion, which I don't think crosses the line thus far. I will say that I agree with Legacypac's reasoning. The problem is we are trying to factually disprove someone's belief, which is impossible. Any good scientist would know this; Richard Feynman wrote at length about it. You can find it discussed in many books, such as Philosophy of Scientific Method. What we call "truth" consists of facts and opinions (aka: theories, hypotheses, conclusions, notions, etc...). Therefore, your "truth" --your reality-- may be quite different from the next guy's, and so on. Misplaced Pages is not about proving or disproving theories and opinion, because that is promoting our own "truth" at the expense of allowing a full understanding of other possible (however improbable) theories. It is not necessary to refute another's belief system, but only to report it fairly and accurately. Zaereth (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- This is getting way off track from the BLP issue. What you're saying is problematic given WP:FRINGE. Reporting about scientific claims fairly and accurately isn't just about presenting those claims but about presenting the overwhelming scientific consensus about those claims in no uncertain terms (it's not trying to disprove belief in god, for example, but the pseudoscientific claims/explanations). Regardless, I would encourage you to take this to the article talk page (or WP:FRINGEN) rather than here for the sake of concentrating discussion. — Rhododendrites \\ 19:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Touch a nerve, did I? Context matters, and this is an article about an amusement park. What next, should we try to prove in the Disneyland article that mice don't really talk? It's totally unnecessary. Zaereth (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- The agenda of Disney is not to convince people that mice really talk. Try to keep up. jps (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- And our agenda is what? To convince people of the truth? Zaereth (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Try again, darling. What's the agenda of Ark Encounter? jps (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Therefore, your "truth" --your reality-- may be quite different from the next guy's, and so on.
Statements such as this should be an automatic disqualification from editing any factual content on Misplaced Pages. See WP:CIR. jps (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)- I was talking about Misplaced Pages's agenda (implying your own). Try to keep up. Zaereth (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages's agenda is WP:ENC. It is not to hand-hold people so that they don't have to face facts. jps (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- I was talking about Misplaced Pages's agenda (implying your own). Try to keep up. Zaereth (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- And our agenda is what? To convince people of the truth? Zaereth (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)x3 Sigh. No. No nerve. Just basic policy. Basic policy that isn't directly related to this BLP-specific thread. Again, just read WP:FRINGE. If there is a nerve, it is that this is something that people have to explain to new POV-pushers every day, and I would prefer to just substitute a wikiacronym for someone who is not a new user but is not presumably familiar with that particular policy. — Rhododendrites \\ 19:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- The agenda of Disney is not to convince people that mice really talk. Try to keep up. jps (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Touch a nerve, did I? Context matters, and this is an article about an amusement park. What next, should we try to prove in the Disneyland article that mice don't really talk? It's totally unnecessary. Zaereth (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- This is getting way off track from the BLP issue. What you're saying is problematic given WP:FRINGE. Reporting about scientific claims fairly and accurately isn't just about presenting those claims but about presenting the overwhelming scientific consensus about those claims in no uncertain terms (it's not trying to disprove belief in god, for example, but the pseudoscientific claims/explanations). Regardless, I would encourage you to take this to the article talk page (or WP:FRINGEN) rather than here for the sake of concentrating discussion. — Rhododendrites \\ 19:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure this was a figurative use of the word pseudo-scientist if you look at the original post...as in "He's a pseudo-scientitist. He's not even a scientist, he just plays one on TV." That Nye doesn't hold any bona fide scholarly or academic position was already the topic of conversation. GMG 19:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Pseudoscientist has an understood specific meaning and it is confusing to use it to describe someone who doesn't claim to be a scientist, but is a science educator.Martinlc (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- No this is not a BLP violation, and frankly should never have been raised here {and as has been pointed out is spread over a number of venues, so there maybe issues of forum shopping).Slatersteven (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Well, it actually is, since pseudoscience is a thing that Nye is well known for exposing, so it is an allegation of hypocrisy, but it's not a serious one. What's much more serious (and not for this venue, but instead WP:FRINGE) is Legacypac's advocacy for creationism. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- No it is a statement he is not a real scientist (he is not), clear from the context (and it takes a massive breach of AGF to see it in any other light). As to the rest, as far as I know advocating for creationism is not specifically against any Misplaced Pages policy, and if I am wrong and such a policy does exit this is not its noticeboard. And there has been far too much of raising issues about users conduct on inappropriate boards involving this case for my liking.Slatersteven (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Legacypac called Nye a "psudoscientist". Not a faux-scientist, not "not a scientist", a pseudoscientist. That word has a specific meaning, and in the context of Nye, someone who has spent most of his career critiquing pseudoscience, it is clearly inappropriate, but int he context of creationist rhetoric against someone who skewers creationists (and let's not forget that real evolutionary biologists almost all ignore creationists, for obvious reasons), it is an understandable bit of rhetorical exuberance. Hence no sanctions will come of it, as long as he doesn't make a habit of it. Guy (Help!) 10:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- No it is a statement he is not a real scientist (he is not), clear from the context (and it takes a massive breach of AGF to see it in any other light). As to the rest, as far as I know advocating for creationism is not specifically against any Misplaced Pages policy, and if I am wrong and such a policy does exit this is not its noticeboard. And there has been far too much of raising issues about users conduct on inappropriate boards involving this case for my liking.Slatersteven (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Well, it actually is, since pseudoscience is a thing that Nye is well known for exposing, so it is an allegation of hypocrisy, but it's not a serious one. What's much more serious (and not for this venue, but instead WP:FRINGE) is Legacypac's advocacy for creationism. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Jim_Garrison_(theologian)
This is just a shameless self promotion with no sources whatsoever.should be shortened to just the verifiable things or deleted completely. https://en.wikipedia.org/Jim_Garrison_(theologian) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.201.130.146 (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jim Garrison (theologian). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Mischa Barton
This biography has a) undue weight given to non-encyclopedic material, and b) suboptimal sourcing. In particular the following sections:
Relationships
(Redacted) rm copy paste from article. also had iffy claim about existence of a tape -- Jbh
Legal troubles
(Redacted) per BLPCRIME -- Jbh
Psychiatric confinement
(Redacted) per BLP -- Jbh
The article is "protected". Please can someone take a look? --94.117.3.30 (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- I have removed the above three sections from the article; per WP:NOTTABLOID, per WP:BLPCRIME and per WP:BLP. I have also redacted two sections above which were copy/paste of removed article content. Jbh 03:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/Katie_Rose_Pipkin
I don't think this person is notable enough to merit a wikipedia page. I would imagine that she either made it herself or had a friend/publicist do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.202.103.34 (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Naomi Wu
After seeing several reports that the Patreon supporting Naomi Wu has been suspended because she doxxed a Vice reporter who wrote a fairly complementary profile about her, apparently because the reporter asked about rumors that her husband may help with some or most of her work, I looked a little further and found , , and . Having some familiarity with a few tangential issues, I am convinced and tagged the article as a potential hoax. I would like to see some third parties review those links for additional eyeballs on this issue, please.
Please see also . 75.171.239.84 (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- The conspiracy theories at reddit, Imgur, 4chan and other non-RS sources would love to get more eyeballs on their rantings, but none of this stuff deserves to be publicized in BLPs.
- The recent Vice article is perhaps the strongest evidence yet against the Naomi-hating theory that she is a nothingburger who parrots her boyfriend. The writer spent days walking around Shenzhen talking with Wu, photographing her house, meeting her friends, etc. He has every motivation to write a big story showing Wu is a hoax--if that's what he concluded. Instead he wrote, "In the past few years, she’s been forced to fend off vile and unfounded conspiracy theories on Reddit and 4chan that suggest a white man has masterminded her career," and he refers elsewhere to "the unfounded Reddit allegations." By all means, let's improve the biography, add even more good sources besides Forbes, Newsweek, LA Times, etc. already cited writing about Naomi Wu.HouseOfChange (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- As indicated in the last link I posted above, that Vice article could not be completed because when the author (a woman, not a man) started asking about the allegations, Wu doxxed her on YouTube, which is why she lost her Patreon. I agree we need secondary sources, but Naomi complains that the Vice author was non-technical, so how do you suggest she was qualified to ascertain authenticity? 75.171.239.84 (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- The writer clearly believes that Wu is authentic. She had much more opportunity of detecting falsehood than I do or you do. The writer's impression, (and the impression of other writers for RS who interviewed Wu in the past), was that Wu is a clever and creative person, deeply immersed in maker/hacking projects. I can't understand why anyone would care if she has a boyfriend or if she and her boyfriend might or might not ever have worked together on any projects. I know lots of male writers who get lots of help (research, proofreading etc.) from wives. Yet nobody screams that the men are fakes who couldn't possibly have written their own books, that their wives "really" wrote them. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- How many of those male writers do you think would distribute the home address of their biographers to their fans with wishes that they would have to repeatedly move upon being asked about how others have characterized their wives helping them? 75.171.239.84 (talk) 02:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- The writer clearly believes that Wu is authentic. She had much more opportunity of detecting falsehood than I do or you do. The writer's impression, (and the impression of other writers for RS who interviewed Wu in the past), was that Wu is a clever and creative person, deeply immersed in maker/hacking projects. I can't understand why anyone would care if she has a boyfriend or if she and her boyfriend might or might not ever have worked together on any projects. I know lots of male writers who get lots of help (research, proofreading etc.) from wives. Yet nobody screams that the men are fakes who couldn't possibly have written their own books, that their wives "really" wrote them. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- As indicated in the last link I posted above, that Vice article could not be completed because when the author (a woman, not a man) started asking about the allegations, Wu doxxed her on YouTube, which is why she lost her Patreon. I agree we need secondary sources, but Naomi complains that the Vice author was non-technical, so how do you suggest she was qualified to ascertain authenticity? 75.171.239.84 (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I note without further comment that dispute tags have been removed from the article twice. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 02:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Dispute tags need evidence in order to survive. Your evidence for the first dispute tag (hoax) was rejected. You offered zero evidence here or elsewhere for tagging the article instead pov. You can't just throw up dispute tags without supporting them with evidence contrasting what's in the article to what is in reliable sources. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- I am not trying to add any material to the article, because there are no secondary sources on this yet, but I would be very surprised if Wu's own doxxing behavior combined with the archive.is primary sources showing that she lives in the same apartment with the same furniture as a well-known older American maker would not be sufficient to support dispute tags. Otherwise Misplaced Pages is essentially complicit in the alleged plagiarism scam defrauding our readers. ...or would be, if she hadn't destroyed her own Patreon. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed, you have contented yourself with adding diverse unpleasant claims about Naomi Wu to the Talk page, and then seeking extra eyeballs for those claims here. Dispute tags require evidence from WP:RS. If Naomi Wu did or did not share an apartment with some older maker in the past, how does that show that her multiple public tech demos are just a "plagiarism scam"? The leap of logic here is amazing. But seriously, it does not matter what you believe or what I believe. What matters is what WP:RS report. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Such claims should be backed up by WP:RS. I'd also like to note in a 2-cent ORish observation (though - I'm sure there are sources to back this up) that many of these social media stars (particularly the high income ones) have a team behind them - it's not unusual that there are people who help (e.g. draft posts, help with producing videos/photos) the public media personality - and we don't call "hoax" on all such personas.Icewhiz (talk) 06:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- The following - A Note About 'Shenzhen's Homegrown Cyborg' - from the Vice staff would perhaps satisfy RS for the doxxing issue.Icewhiz (talk) 06:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- I suppose so, but I'm not adding anything until I've slept on this whole thing. In any case Wu has admitted to the doxxing and I've seen an archival copy of it. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- The blogpost from Vice is a primary source, published by one party to a dispute. What we don't have yet is a balanced, researched account from some RS, giving both sides a chance to be heard. Then the article can link to that RS, assuming that WEIGHT is considered, and COATRACKing of Reddit is not the real goal here.HouseOfChange (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- I suppose so, but I'm not adding anything until I've slept on this whole thing. In any case Wu has admitted to the doxxing and I've seen an archival copy of it. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- The following - A Note About 'Shenzhen's Homegrown Cyborg' - from the Vice staff would perhaps satisfy RS for the doxxing issue.Icewhiz (talk) 06:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Such claims should be backed up by WP:RS. I'd also like to note in a 2-cent ORish observation (though - I'm sure there are sources to back this up) that many of these social media stars (particularly the high income ones) have a team behind them - it's not unusual that there are people who help (e.g. draft posts, help with producing videos/photos) the public media personality - and we don't call "hoax" on all such personas.Icewhiz (talk) 06:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed, you have contented yourself with adding diverse unpleasant claims about Naomi Wu to the Talk page, and then seeking extra eyeballs for those claims here. Dispute tags require evidence from WP:RS. If Naomi Wu did or did not share an apartment with some older maker in the past, how does that show that her multiple public tech demos are just a "plagiarism scam"? The leap of logic here is amazing. But seriously, it does not matter what you believe or what I believe. What matters is what WP:RS report. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- I am not trying to add any material to the article, because there are no secondary sources on this yet, but I would be very surprised if Wu's own doxxing behavior combined with the archive.is primary sources showing that she lives in the same apartment with the same furniture as a well-known older American maker would not be sufficient to support dispute tags. Otherwise Misplaced Pages is essentially complicit in the alleged plagiarism scam defrauding our readers. ...or would be, if she hadn't destroyed her own Patreon. 75.171.239.84 (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- New*
A new SPA IP just added a long "Controversy" section about the Patreon/Vice kerfluffle, citing various non-RS. Its length and detail are disproportionate to the rest of the article. I will removed it to the Talk page and encourage others to collaborate to create a consensus report about this matter, assuming RS can be found to cite. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Laciana
An IP introduces over and over potentially defamatory information about a living musician. Please check and hide. Thanks. Ganímedes (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Gurinder Singh Mann
LadleeFaujan is an editor that is associated as per their own admission with the subject. They are repeatedly editing the article to suit their own agenda. All information being added is sourced and they are adding their own conversations with the subject. This is highly biased.
- Can't speak to that, but the article is a WP:COATRACK for sexual assault allegations that have only passing mentions. The subject appears to fail WP:PROF. Sent to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gurinder Singh Mann. Guy (Help!) 17:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The section "Alleged mismanagement at The Hague Institute for Global Justice" is based on information that cannot be verified. This should be removed immediately.
The section "Alleged mismanagement at The Hague Institute for Global Justice" is based on information that cannot be verified/cannot be determined to be factual. This should be removed immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18A:8300:B0:4111:608D:48A3:91A7 (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- The article referred to is presumably Abiodun Williams, which contains a section named as above. It certainly contains some weasel words and needs work, but the references it cites are in Dutch and I can't check their validity as I don't speak that language. The section needs to be reviewed by a Dutch-speaking editor. Neiltonks (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)