Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 16:43, 5 August 2024

This is an archive of past discussions on Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Talk:Medical professional misconduct scandals in Nova Scotia

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Medical professional misconduct scandals in Nova Scotia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Feel free to join the discussion at Talk:Medical professional misconduct scandals in Nova Scotia#Discussion re: removed section "Private Practice Scandals", concerning the inclusion or exclusion of serious claims about individuals in a more general article. It concerns this section (which may warrant revdel) and the "June 2024" section here. Fram (talk) 07:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that entire article's salvageable as it stands. It looks like a string of unrelated marginally notable incidents presented as a tacit invitation to "join the dots", conspiracy-theory style. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

You're right. Why is this article here? To answer OP: private (no public life) living persons don't need WP:BLPCRIME even if the article is ostensibly about a phenomenon and not a person, by its title. Any content in any article or talk or wiki forum about living persons is a BLP concern. But back to the point Daveosaurus and now I would like to raise: how is this article encyclopedic, and what unrelated source covers this as a discrete phenomenon? It's not normal here to see, basically, "MedMal in X second-level (including federative) nation members" as a title. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 01:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

To the question about how the article is encyclopedic: The existence of Category:Medical scandals and Category:Scandals in Canada and Category:21st-century scandals shows that scandals are, in general, encyclopedic. There are a few longer-titled scandals on there, such as Controversies surrounding the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Royal Newfoundland Constabulary sexual abuse scandal and Canadian Indian residential school gravesites that have a place within an encyclopedia. Within Canada, it is quite unusual for one health region/university combined to have so many scandals related to a toxic culture of bullying, discrimination, entitlement toward colleagues' bodies, entitlement toward accessing anyone's records like a friend's, etc., such that there are a couple dozen articles on these topics. And all are related because any physician trainee studying at Dalhousie University is by default an employee of Nova Scotia Health Authority, and all of the Nova Scotia Health Authority physicians involved in scandals were also working on research or training with Dalhousie University at the time. Some of these scandals involved big lawsuits in the 6-7 figures. That's significant, at least as relevant to Category:Scandals in Canada even if repeated big lawsuits in the 6-7 figures are not a big deal elsewhere. The kinds of scandals that have happened repeatedly within healthcare in Nova Scotia are usually supposed to be very rare, yet happen at an unusually high frequency in Nova Scotia and with significant taxpayer dollars wasted as a result. Scandals are valid within an encyclopedia, especially when the integrated summary of all of it demonstrates overall systemic problems. Ask anyone in Nova Scotia trying to access healthcare or trying to work in healthcare and they will tell you that there are very visible systemic problems, and a combination of over a couple dozen news articles about these things happening within the past decade is evidence of this.

Now, that is beside the point here. Is it right to tear down the entire article because of a dispute over whether or not one section makes sense? That doesn't seem fair, seems almost retaliatory to do that to a new editor who is debating the inclusion of one portion into the article. I don't care that much about the Dr. Steele scandal that I put in there, so please don't try to destroy all of the hard work I put into this by making a mountain out of a molehill and punishing me for trying to understand. If the consensus is that the Dr. Steele scandal stays out, then I accept that and ask that we leave it out without destroying the whole article as punishment for my even daring to question this, even though I currently do not understand why the Dr. Steele scandal is not worth including.

My questions about the Dr. Steele scandal are:

1. This guy died in January, how far back does BLP cover? What is considered "recently deceased" and at what point does that not count as recent any more? Does 6 months count as not recent any more, such that the information is worth putting back in there next month, or is it 1 year or longer?

2. If BLP does apply, does Dr. Steele count as an "involuntary public figure" given the discussion around his behaviours with a minor when you look him up, and therefore WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies?

3. Is it fair to say that he has only been "accused" of having committed a crime, given that the criminal charges were withdrawn, or if we remove just that section about the criminal charges, is it fair to include the rest of it where he lost his medical licence for his actions with a minor? Is losing one's medical licence after an investigation and hearing from one's licensing college not considered a "conviction" in that sense? Is Misplaced Pages reducing the outcomes of medical licensing boards to "accusations" and not "convictions" on the matters of losing the licence because of professional misconduct?

4. Do we consider the investigations and hearings from a medical licensing board to be a "judicial proceeding"? If so, then that outcome of losing his licence because of his actions with a minor seems to be in contradiction to the outcome of having no criminal charges for those actions, which relates to the WP:BLPCRIME point of "If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other, include sufficient explanatory information." And again, if you read the actual documents and articles, he lost his licence because the alleged actions were confirmed to have happened. The victim just refused to testify and that's why it was not pursued criminally - because she was visibly shaken in the courtroom and backed out. Seemed to me when writing this piece that this was worth including as the withdrawn criminal charge is a "seemingly contradictory outcome that does not overrule the other" and it was worth including the "sufficient explanatory information" that the victim was afraid to testify. It was already confirmed that the man did take the nude photos of the teen, and that is why he lost his licence. This is the tip of the iceberg of similar things that have happened in the culture of doctor entitlement in Nova Scotia. Basically the whole article is about toxic medical culture, with several examples of an overarching systemic issue of entitlement to mistreat other human beings because one is a physician/dentist.

MrHaligonian (talk) 02:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Does any reliable source indicate The kinds of scandals that have happened repeatedly within healthcare in Nova Scotia are usually supposed to be very rare, yet happen at an unusually high frequency in Nova Scotia and with significant taxpayer dollars wasted as a result? After that, without any WP:NOR, do two or more others also say so? This quote seems to well state the basis for notability. But the underpinnings are not clear. JFHJr (㊟) 02:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I would say that the details of several of the news articles referenced within the Misplaced Pages article suggest that these scandals should be rare but happen at an unusually high frequency in Nova Scotia. For example, the comment from lawyers that NSHA is "negligent" in preventing repeated privacy breaches suggests this is happening too much, to the extent of it coming across negligent. The fact of NSHA spending $1 million - of taxpayer money - on lawyers to fight Dr. Horne who ultimately won her bullying case anyway and then they paid her more taxpayer money (NSHA is taxpayer funded) when she won her lawsuit; the fact that NSHA paid out a class action lawsuit about privacy breaches; the fact that multiple physicians complained about bullying and said "it was like a circus" among other things and then left the province... it's all connected to a general problematic toxic culture that is notable. Saying that all these issues are just disconnected issues and that I'm playing "conspiracy theorist" is like saying that a bunch of indigenous children's gravesites in all sorts of places all over Canada is not connected and it's a conspiracy to put it all in 1 article, and yet Canadian Indian residential school gravesites exists and I think the country would be up in arms if someone questioned the notability of that article, even though the gravesites are littered all over the place and seemingly disconnected - yet united, the existence of all these problems indicate a larger, overlying problematic culture. Not really a conspiracy theory. Just pointing to systemic issues in how human beings get treated. Systemic issues do exist in all sorts of problematic systems. MrHaligonian (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your wall of text. It would have been much easier just to reply "No, that statement requires original research and synthesis to make the article's titled notion work out." Because that's all I took away from the non-responsive reply wall. My question didn't involve any conspiracy related mentions. Just sourcing. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 00:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Even without the BLP angle and the crime but no conviction issue, the whole section would be WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK: an individual doctor doing something sufficient to get his license revoked is not evidence of any systematic problem at the province level and is, unless reliable sources make the connection explicitly, unconnected to the topic of the article. Whether the article as a whole may exist or not is up to others, but I see no reason to include individual cases (this one or any similar ones) if there is no clear connection, as noted by reliable sources, of the individual cases to a systemic issue. Fram (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@MrHaligonian: just making a quick comment since it's mostly tangential, probably why no one addressed but is important if you're going to continue to edit articles dealing with the recently decease. Per WP:BDP and the recent discussions clarifying, 6 months is generally accepted as the absolute minimum for "recently deceased". Absolute minimum here means if someone died in January then yes they're covered as it's still June so even if they died on 1 January it cannot have been 6 months. This doesn't mean the moment 6 months past we should suddenly ignore BLP. If there are some restrictions specific to BLP like BLPPRIMARY, it's worth considering how to deal with them long term but in any case, as others have noted BLP is only one of the issues anyway even if the one we deal with on this board. Nil Einne (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Nandipha Magudumana

This is one of the most searched individuals in South Africa in 2023 (and probably in 2024 also). She's most notable for her criminal activities as she's still in trial. Apparently inclusion of her criminal activities on the encyclopedia is a violation of WP:CRIMINAL but I believe that's what most (if not all) of the aforementioned page viewers are looking for here. I was hoping to get an input and include at least some of her criminal activities on that article. This is the revision of the deleted content of her criminal activities. Showmax and Multichoice aired a documentary based on their prison escape and most of their history. I believe readers are here for a summarized version of all that. —&nbspdxneo (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

If this person has not yet been convicted of a crime, we simply cannot use the phrase "criminal activities" or any similar wording. If well referenced, the article can say she was arrested and summarize the charges. If she's on trial, that can be included if properly referenced. But until she is convicted. if that happens, the article cannot state or imply or hint that she is a criminal or that her activities were criminal. The language must be rigorously neutral. This is a matter of policy. Cullen328 (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, frankly it seems like I failed to stay neutral the last time. I will try again and have you review the short section before I put it up if that's okay with you. — dxneo (talk) 05:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Dxneo, I will take a look at what you draft, but be aware that I live in California, almost half the way around the world from South Africa, so may respond slowly. Cullen328 (talk) 06:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Categorization

Why is this talk page categorised in Category:Scandals in Canada? — Iadmc♫ 12:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Someone forgot to put : between "[[" and "Category". Fixed.--Launchballer 12:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

OK thanks — Iadmc♫ 12:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Use of XXL for a birthday

Hello, I originally added XXL as a source for a BLP birthday at DJ Paul, due to it being designated as a reliable source per WP:RSMUSIC, but I self-reverted to bring the source here since I am unsure about whether or not this specific link should be cited as a source for the article subject's birthday. What do you all say? I think I've made it clear that I'm not sure whether or not this link should be used for a BLP despite the source appearing to meet the requirements of WP:RS, but I would like to ask for a second opinion here. JeffSpaceman (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

JeffSpaceman, XXL is indeed a reliable source per WP:RSMUSIC. You can try to verify this information by double checking with another green source. — dxneo (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:DOB including the birth date of a living person requires more than just a reliable source. The specific standard is wheather the source is "widely published by reliable sources". As I don't know much about music journalism, I can't say whether XXL meets this standard.Serprinss (talk) please ping on reply. 06:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate you pointing me to that section of the BLP policy, Serprinss. I will avoid restoring the information from the source for now, given that the only other sources I can find for supposed birthdates for the subject are from sources that are very clearly WP:NOTRS, and are especially inappropriate for a BLP (circular sources, websites like Famous Birthdays, etc). I think for now, there is no reason to include a birthdate here, considering that XXL is the only reliable source I can find that has published a birthdate for him. (If anyone wants to see what kind of sources come up when Googling the subject's birthday, see here). JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Article Created by Sockpuppet

If an article was created by a sockpuppet and then deleted as a result of this, what is the process for trying to recreate it?

I have no problem that it was deleted - this happened mid March.

How long is the person in question tainted for? MaskedSinger (talk) 12:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you just ask an admin to allow edits. I had this with an article which had been used originally as a personal blog for a nobody but I knew of a composer with the same name and wanted to create an article on her instead. It was allowed — Iadmc♫ 12:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Better still, create it in draftspace and submit it for review. WP:AFC - Cabayi (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Cabayi @Iadmc I'm going to do some more research before proceeding, just to be safe. If I sense anything about it is iffy, I won't proceed. MaskedSinger (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

MaskedSinger, if you want the content of the deleted article restored, that can be done by any admin. The restored content would not be placed into mainspace, of course, but you could work with it if you wanted to. Schwede66 21:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! Appreciate it. MaskedSinger (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Simone Badal-McCreath

Dispute is about the inclusion of plagiarism allegations in this context referenced to Retraction Watch at Talk:Simone_Badal-McCreath. My take on that is that while the source may be reliable, it doesn't sufficiently demonstrate anything other than that there was a disagreement between the two authors and the publisher and does not warrant inclusion. Please comment here or on the talk page. Graywalls (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I"m going to agree that it is UNDUE along the same rationale I held the last time RW was brought up at BLPN. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It's definitely undue, but more than that it's saying and implying things that the source doesn't say nor imply. We're framing it as a case of plagiarism, which is a very serious charge in the field of writing. The source frames it in no such way. The only explanation offered was by the publisher, who chalked it up to a "production error", and no alternative theory was given by the source that would even suggest plagiarism. Not even an accusation of plagiarism is there. The publisher basically blamed the "typesetters" and not the editors, which (believe it or not) is actually a common problem in publishing, and a very plausible explanation. But we can't take that and suddenly turn it around and claim plagiarism by the editor, because that's OR and SYNTH. Thus, as it actually reads in the source, it seems like a very insignificant thing for the subject of our article, hence very undue. Zaereth (talk) 02:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The bigger question here is not that it's "undue" weight, but why is it "undue"? Reading the source: , it is very legitimate content and given an article on a certain subject for what they are notable for inclusion at WP for would be perfectly acceptable to include for an encyclopedic article. However, since the article about the subject overall (in my estimation) is skirting a fine line for notable inclusion to begin with here at WP, any controversial inclusion of content such as this will be undue because there just isn't anything else in this subject's article to counter the weight. As I wrote on the Talk Page: Coi, on account of this discussion, light has now been brought to an otherwise poorly written, and I dare say: un-visited, and even questionable article that was created in 2017 and not edited for several years due to lack of new contribution entry content. It would seem without this new discovery, there might not be any new entries. So my question here is: should no new content be added simply because there is nothing of real substance to the article to begin with? If I had stumbled across this article just by happenstance, I seriously would have considered placing it up for AfD on the merits raised on the Talk Page. Plagiarism aside, the content exists, it should be phrased correctly and accordingly as the source says and included. If you are excluding based on "undue weight" than you must question the article as a whole. It is not undue to simply state that Badal was a victim of a publisher's error. A simple quote of explanation by Badal from within the source should suffice. After all, her notability is as a "researcher and a medical sciences lecturer" who authors writings on her applied field. Maineartists (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The source looks more like a blog than a reliable source. Maybe it has reliably factual information, but that certainly impacts its relevance towards adding weight in a BLP to such a minor issue that appears to have more to do with the publisher than the article subject who was an editor on the book. I agree with Zaereth and Morbidthoughts regarding their explainations for why the content is undue. – notwally (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Penny Morales Shaw

Can't read the source from the UK but is it enough to call this person a Communist? Added by this blocked IP Doug Weller talk 17:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller Can you read ? This is their aboutpage:. Source seems to check out content-wize, but apart from the RS there is NPOV... though she may of course be the first communist (like) ever spotted in the Texas House of Representatives.

Found nothing at RSN, not a lot of WP-presence it seems:. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Founded by Konni Burton the most conservative member . Thanks.of the Texas Senate. Definitely not an RS as the About page makes obvious Doug Weller talk 17:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I can’t figure out how to find out if we use it elsewhere. “TheTexan.news” doesn’t seem to work. Doug Weller talk 17:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Ana Roš

My name is Urban Stojan Roš (https://en.wikipedia.org/User:UrbanStojan) and I am responsible to handle the information about Ana Roš (https://en.wikipedia.org/Ana_Ro%C5%A1).

Our problem is, that a user https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Launchballer is constantly publish false information about a living person Ana Roš Stojan. All information that we publish is supported by fact and edits by https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Launchballer are false information and misleading. As such Ana Roš is suffering irreparable damage.

We have contacted user https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Launchballer but he refused to cooperate and is republishing false information.

I kindly ask the community for help provide the facts to the Misplaced Pages users. This is the link to changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ana_Ro%C5%A1&oldid=prev&diff=1230545116

Best regards, Urban

The edits I am reverting are WP:BLP violations. See also User talk:UrbanStojan, where I have warned the user for making legal threats.--Launchballer 10:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Launchballer is publishing falls facts about Ana Roš and hurting her as she is sitting next to me as we speak. All the facts that i published are supported by proofs that I can provide if so needed. As I am not a skilled use, I kindly ask for help as Ana fells her identity to be taken hostage and her life work damaged. If there is a true mistake on the data I published I am more than willing to accept the change, but please restrain from publishing false and misleading information. Jus t for instance, Ana's full name is Ana Roš Stojan, she manages three project and not just Hiša Franko, Hiša Frnako has three Michelin stars and a green on, etc.) UrbanStojan (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Message typed by my wife, whos information you keep editing and replacing with false information:

"Hi, my name is Ana Roš Stojan and not Ana Roš.

I am a three Michelin star chef from Slovenia. I am also one of the two women in the world to hold three red stars and one green. I have been holding 3+1 stars since 2023, and I was confirmed 3+1 stars 10 days ago.

You continue changing my Misplaced Pages profile which is correct to the last information and misleading people with fake information.

This is fraud and I feel being stolen my personality and credits for my work.

Just wondering who are you to continue doing it?" UrbanStojan (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I am a Wikipedian enforcing WP:BLP policy. Please read it.--Launchballer 11:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Any passing admin should please block both of these editors for their ridiculous edit war (6 or 7 reverts each in the past few hours). I notice Talk:Ana Roš is unused; shame on both of you. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Reverting BLP violations does not count towards any revert limits. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 22:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Is amazon.com a reliable source for personal information?

An editor added a date of birth and place of birth to Dana Barron with the edit summary, "Amazon is a reliable and reputable reference for date & city of birth of Dana".

The "Dana Barron" page on amazon.com has a small "IMDb" logo under Barron's biographical data, which I take to mean that the content above the logo came from IMDb. The "Dana Barron biography" on IMDb contains the same biographical data as that on the amazon.com page.

WP:IMDB is clear in stating that IMDb is not reliable. Should we say the same for amazon.com with regard to biographical data? Eddie Blick (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

It is clearly from IMDB, so not a reliable source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Both Amazon and IMDB are a no. See WP:RSNP. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 02:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, under WP:DOB, dates of birth should really be "widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public". – notwally (talk) 02:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @AndyTheGrump, @JFHJr, and @Notwally. I appreciate the feedback. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Kathleen Kennedy

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.

There's currently a discussion about adding recent criticisms to the biography of Kathleen Kennedy. Any and all feedback is welcome. Thanks Nemov (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems pretty WP:UNDUE when nothing else about her role in the Star Wars franchise is even mentioned in the article body. I removed it for now and left a comment on the talk page with a more detailed explanation. – notwally (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Summary: Kathleen Kennedy (producer)'s article has, for years now, had many editors trying to add coverage regarding criticisms of leadership of the Star Wars franchise. It seems this stems from the modern culture wars in the US. One particular editor, User:Nemov, for years now has constantly reverted any and all negative references to Kennedy. Various editors have aired grievances in the Talk Page about the current state of the article reading like a press release, only focusing on accolades and non-noteworthy trivia, while having 0 criticisms about the subject allowed. I added recent paragraphs, in what I thought is a Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view style, got reverted twice, User:Nemov posted on my Talk Page twice, and refused to discuss in good faith. This happened before with other editors and he has been subject to a Dispute Resolution before on this.

More details:

User:Nemov has constantly reverted any criticisms and referred to the need for anything to be newsworthy via reliable sources on the articles Talk Page. The above, taken at face value, might seem ok even though it violates Misplaced Pages:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". Instead of correcting or improving the additions, like finding RS+ to use, the article's history shows that of the last 100 edits, 24 were made by said user, usually reverting. The current sources accepted in the article before today, by the way, include: NY Post, Hollywood Daily, Yahoo!, MSN, Box Office Mojk, and Slashfilm.com. They are all, of course, used for positive statements on Kennedy. It seems like a double standard is being applied when a contentious or negative claim has been added by many other editors.

Still, I decided to give a try today, and wrote 3 paragraphs condensing all the very recent criticisms published by RS using sources like NYT, Variety, Forbes, Deadline, Hollywood Reporter, and Vanity Fair. I made sure to reconfirm they are all good RS for media and entertainment, as per Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. In brief seconds after I posted the additions, which I strived for a Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, User:Nemov reverted it and posted twice to my Talk Page, warning me on the topic. I posted on the Talk Page regarding this sub-section and User:Nemov was very aggressive and did not argue in good faith. He refused to even try and reach for consensus. Two other editors then chimed in and agreed that the criticisms of Kennedy should be featured in the article but in less words than what I had typed up. I welcomed it and asked for any editor to improve it. A few hours go by, and User:Notwally, who has never edited this article, reverted my addition, claiming Misplaced Pages:Verifiability (the same argument used by User:Nemov, and that 3 paragraphs was excessive. I want to reiterate that on that same talk page I had welcomed any improvement to the text, but this seems like plain censorship. Of note, User:Nemov and User:Notwally both have edited other articles together, like Pine Tree Flag. Moreover, User:Nemov has been a consistent editor and participant of very contentious articles frequently referenced in these modern culture wars in the US like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Hunter Biden, Andy Ngo, and others. This all leads me to believe there might be collusion between both editors and that User:Nemov is not editing within the non-negotiable Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view.

Of note, I asked User:Nemov twice in the Talk Page, in a polite way, if he could confirm he had no Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest on Kathleen Kennedy. He refused twice to answer said question. It is obvious Kennedy's public criticisms, which has been referenced for years and by many RS' merits inclusion in an article that currently includes factoids such as the first job Kennedy got out high school. One more contentious part of the history of this article is that User:Nemov was wholly responsible for "protecting" the article from having a single reference to the popular television special South Park: Joining the Panderverse which features this issue, criticisms of Kennedy's handling of IP like Star Wars, as its central point. That article references Kennedy 18 times and her own article has 0 references to this. User:Nemov argued in the Talk Page that South Park lampooned everybody and that this was trivial. This led to User:Xam2580 initiating a Dispute Resolution against User:Nemov which, sadly, fizzled out due to lack of participation. Link here.

All of the above explains the current state of the article. I would ask for a non-involved experienced editor or two to take a look at the history and talk page of Kathleen Kennedy (producer), consider the above information and my recent addition, and edit it down to whatever seems due and NPOV for WP. User:Nemov has constantly reverted this article, for years, in what seems is a concerted effort to protect Kathleen Kennedy from any criticism, to the detriment of WP's NPOV and mission.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

A quick addition is that checking this Noticeboard's history I see a few minutes ago both User:Nemov and User:Notwally posted here regarding the above topic. A few sentences each. Oddly, a minute after I posted the above, User:Notwally deleted both their comments. It seems either they are communicating which other, some sort of collusion or possible Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppetry (I hope this is not true). I don't imagine how two wholly separate editors would delete each others Noticeboard comments unless it doesn't look good to them and they are indeed working together.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Aside from WP:AGF and WP:PA, I think it is important to note that many public figures are criticized throughout their life. That does not mean it is WP:DUE or relevant to include in an article about them. Also, you can ignore or misrepresent what other people have said, but it is not going to help your case. Four people on the article's talk page have all agreed that your addition is excessive. You need to use the article's talk page to reach a consensus on what to include, actually address what other editors have said there, and stop making baseless accusations against other editors. – notwally (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I just want to verify a few things here:

-did you revert my edit instead of fixing it or improving it?

-did you consider the Talk Page where other experienced editors agreed that criticisms of Kathleen Kennedy should be included? (even if there is no consensus on the form/lenght)

-did you then stated there was no consensus for your quick revert?

-did you warn me on my talk page, same as User:Nemov, even though I had asked you on the talk page to not post on my talk page?

-did you briefly post here, on this Noticeboard, then User:Nemov replied under you very quickly, and after I posted this you deleted your and User:Nemov's post? why delete another editor's?

-assuming Misplaced Pages:GF, can you confirm here you are not User:Nemov, to dispel any worries of Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppetry?

Thanks.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

This is not a forum to discuss user behavior. It appears IP has a consensus that IP doesn't like. IP is no longer discussing any WP:BLP issues at this time. JFHJr (㊟) 02:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Understood. This is not the space for user behavior discussion. I do want to point out that there is consensus on including the information on the article's Talk Page. Thanks.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 02:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Another addition: my addition was reverted once more. I am not posting on the edit warring noticeboard since this is open. I took into consideration the suggestions of two other, un-involved editors on the Talk Page that it was too long and condensed it to half the words. It got immediately reverted with no explanation. There is a clear level of gatekeeping happening on this article where instead of fixing or editing, the idea is to revert and ignore consensus.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for the length of this comment, but I didn't have time to write a short one. First, Misplaced Pages:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" is an essay not a policy, but WP:BLPRESTORE is a policy, and part of BLP policy to boot. It says if someone feels that this is a violation of BLP policy then no one should restore the information until consensus is achieved on the talk page to do so. BLP policy works with, but ultimately trumps all other policies because it is such an important policy. That means, if you want the info restored, you need to first hammer it all out on the talk page first.

Next, accusations of censorship will almost always get you eye rolls from everyone who reads it. It comes from a misunderstanding of the definition of the word. It's not censorship to leave out info that is irrelevant, or possibly undue weight. Weight and balance is fairly simple in that it's a basic math problem (although the math itself can be quite complicated), it's basically figuring out how much space --if any-- it deserves in the article as a matter of percentages. Does it deserve an entire section, a single paragraph, or a single sentence? Or would even one sentence be too much? That is the main question that needs to be answered.

Finally, as constructive criticism of your addition, it's rather verbose, including the title. I mean, for example, is it really necessary to name the article subject in the title of a section? The section uses a hell of a lot of WP:Weasel words, most of which are "critics". What critics? Do these people have names? If not, why should I care what they think? What does Elon Musk have to do with anything? He's not a movie critic. It seems like a lot of tacking-on for mere repetition, just to inflate the size. Then, it lacks any and all context for the average reader to understand. (Similar to many scientific articles on Misplaced Pages.) In other words, it's written for people who already know everything about it, not for the general reader who has none of the background info. For example, it keeps talking about a "woke agenda". What the hell does that even mean? (Seriously, I have never heard the jargon "woke agenda" before. What does it mean?) What does the subject actually have to do with Star Wars? Besides a short blurb in the lede, there is really no information on this in the body.

An encyclopedia is a summary of the sources. That's what makes them so useful, they cut away all the boring, mind-numbing details and boil everything down to the nitty gritty. The bare bones. From what I can see those three paragraphs could easily be whittled down to a single sentence or two, and that would be far less boring and easier to comprehend. Writing is hard work. Say more with less, that's my advice. But what you need to do is work it all out on the talk page first. Hammer, cut, and wordsmith until you get a consensus, and then it can be put into the article. And try to do so with a friendly attitude, because a defensive one will only cause people to dig their heels in deeper. Not as easy as complaining about other editors, I know, but that's what needs to be done to achieve your goal. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 02:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

How about we agree on at least one mention or one sentence that merely mentions the vast amounts of criticism Kennedy has received? Why don't we agree to start with that? Xam2580 (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree ^

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Lengthy replies can help to explain things. I am but an IP editor and will remain so. There are people who devote their lives to maneuvering the very intricate and regulated WP system of what is allowed when and how.

If I understood correctly, any BLP can have any editor delete a sentence, paragraph or section they disagree with and it remains so, given Misplaced Pages:BLPRESTORE, until consensus has been reached on the Talk Page? Or does this only apply to recent additions?

The above is a valid question since I could see easy abuse of said rules, say, assume an editor that mostly focuses on a few BLP articles, checks their watchlist and anything that gets added, even a sentence or a link, that they disagree with, they would immediately revert and this addition/modification would need consensus on the Talk Page, right? How about a possible editor that seeks new additions on any BLP just to delete them and, given the above, said additions are forced to go through a consensus stage on the Talk Page. Does this make sense or am I missing something?

These questions are genuine and coming from a place of understanding. I strongly believe in WP's mission and from time to time try to improve things. On this article I noticed that for years no single controversy has been "allowed" on the article. Very rarely has consensus been solicited on the Talk Page either and not in a formal capacity. It seems one user (potentially two users but there is a request for Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppetry going on) has been directly responsible for enforcing the above rules and unquestionable reverts any and all criticism of the article's subject. I would implore you or an administrator to look through the Talk Page and see all the times, including archived posts, that criticisms have been suggested by many users and nothing has been added. I went to great pains to only include many RS, as per WP, but nothing comes out of it.

Given the above, what is the best way to improve things? If I add anything right now, even if its the slightest sentence or two (because I tried), I will be reverted. Two other non-involved editors agreed on then Talk Page the criticisms need to be included. We have one of the older editors who tried, like me, to add a neutral POV criticism with sources here pleading the same case. All of this could easily make somebody see gatekeeping.

On the contents, you mentioned you've never heard of "woke agenda" and that's fine. I would suggest Woke#2019–present: as a pejorative. "Woke agenda" actually redirects there on WP.

I would request for you, for example, to help the article and provide that two sentence summary you proposed. As an un-involved editor, the warring editor(s) shouldn't have an issue with a proposal from you.

Thanks for your time.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 03:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

If it's a matter of BLP policy, then yes. BLP policy is far too important that it needs to override everything else. If this means erring on the side of caution, then so be it. We need to be careful and take our time to get it right.

The best way to improve things is like I said. Talk it out on the talk page. Copy-paste your addition there, and then work on it until it's just right. Aside from BLP policy, it's just better than warring about it on article space. For example, see this discussion on the Kelvin article.

My critique was more about good writing versus bad writing, and to be perfectly blunt, the writing was bad. That's the thing about being a writer, you have to thrive on criticism. Want it. Need it. Learn from it. Don't just give me a link to "woke" I'll never click. Writing should never need wikilinks to explain what it's talking about. It should simply explain what it's talking about, as precisely yet concisely as possible. The question I asked you are the same questions the average reader will be asking. Try to predict those questions and answer them beforehand, right there in the text.

I don't know anything about this subject, nor do I really care, and my time is very limited here in the summer. We got three months to get everything done, but luckily the sun never sets. Sorry, if you want this it's your burden to put in the effort necessary. I just monitor this board and give people helpful advice from time to time. Try to help explain why they're having the problems they encounter. Zaereth (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Your history is accurate. I am just too busy lol. But I appreciate the mention.

I will quickly add that all that I wanted was at least one (and only one minimum) mention of some criticism of this person. It could have been a sentence or, as I suggested, a neutral link in the "see also" page linking to the south park page for people to discover themselves. I had seen some of the extensive debates and thought this would be a neutral way to mention the criticism. But even that was too much for some users and I am just too busy these days to fight it. I personally think it is ridiculous and violative of NPOV to exclude all criticism from a public figure and I appreciate anyone pursuing this! Xam2580 (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for trying. For literal years a single editor has prevented proper and extensively covered RS from being included in this BLP. I even asked them twice if they had any conflicts of interest ands they refused to answer that.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Well this is why all I pushed for was a simple change. It seems 1 editor has had a massive impact of this page and cannot tolerate any criticism of Kathleen whatsoever, not even simple mentions that disagreement exists. Xam2580 (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Once again, you'll never get anywhere if you make this about other editors. Those arguments only hurt your case, not help it. Zaereth (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, and am absolutely willing to objectively and neutrally resolve this issue. In fact, this is my preferred outcome. That being said, on some level, this issue pretty much is about one or two editors (I have never received such pushback from mere attempts at mentioning rampant criticism of a public figure). But your point is well taken and who knows; maybe people have changed their minds. I'll dispassionately approach this issue and will refrain from making further comments about past issues. Xam2580 (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry User:Zaereth, you are responding to another editor. An older one who went through the same issues on the same article as I did in the past.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Requesting third opinions at Bronze Age Pervert

@User:Секретное общество and I are going back on forth on this article and I'd appreciate if some other editors can step in to break one deadlock and resolve another longstanding issue. The longer-standing issue is Talk:Bronze_Age_Pervert#Inclusion_of_Jewishness, which has been a slow edit war going back and forth for months. I don't have strong feelings here, but IPs and SPAs do. The second is the inclusion of a couple of largely unsourced infoboxes on BAP's various media enterprises. See Talk:Bronze_Age_Pervert#Preferential_editing?. Any further reversions by me are effectively edit warring, so I'd appreciate some input. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

We normally don't Jew-tag people, especially not as part of nationality. MOS:NATIONALITY covers this. Is there anything in those book infoboxes that isn't covered in the sections on those books? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, in the sense that they have collected every piece of fancruft regarding the length, file type, and theme music for a podcast whose actual sourced prose section is only two lines long. The sources they added are just back to the podcast itself. Same idea for the book. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Global Witness

Kirkylad, who has declared a Conflict of Interest with the NGO Global Witness, recently added a new section containing research and comments made by Global Witness to the article Sultan Al Jaber. As a note, I myself have made a COI edit request on behalf of COP28 on this article, which is currently still open on the Talk page.

The third paragraph of this section beginning "An investigation by Global Witness..." appears to breach WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and I feel also resembles WP:ADVOCACY. The investigation mentioned is one which Global Witness themselves have carried out, and the content has been added by an editor linked to the organisation. Whilst the sources cited are from reliable third-party outlets, the claims are quoted from the Global Witness investigation, and as such require oversight from someone outside that group, especially to make sure the claims fully comply with WP:BLPPUBLIC.

The second paragraph of the section beginning "BBC News reported ..." referencing an alleged increase in ADNOC's oil production is already a contested point under discussion in the currently live COI request, and is an unnecessary duplication of content within the "Abu Dhabi National Oil Company" section of the page. It is also not strictly related to the topic of the newly created section, and as the claim is again based upon analysis by Global Witness, it is not appropriate for Kirkylad to add this information directly to the article given their COI.

Could someone who does not have a conflict of interest please take a look at this contribution to check tone, source quality, undue emphasis etc. Thank you! Dedemocha (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

1. ^ A fourth paragraph was also added but was summarised and combined into the third paragraph on 26 June at 02:08
2. This was edited on 26 June at 02:08 to "According to an investigation by Global Witness ..."
3. ADNOC have countered within the same BBC article that the figures refer to "production capacity", not production

Dedemocha (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Campbell Brown (journalist)

I grew up watching Campbell Brown (journalist) so when I saw that her article had some tags on it, one of which was for UPE, I took it upon myself to clean it up. Ive now done this. Could someone please take a look at it and see if it's in a position for this tag to be removed. Thanks. If it's not ready, please let me know where it requires more work. Thank you. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done Cullen328 (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft:2023 Orchard Road rioting (2)

Can people check the article and my actions please, and if necessary delete or revdel? I first moved 2023 Orchard Road rioting to draft space when it looked like this, with e.g. the long list of "criminal charges". I now moved the improved version back to draft space because it still contains in my opinion way too many names of living people accused but not convicted of all kinds of things, from being part of criminal organisations to murder. Fram (talk) 08:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

RFC regarding MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE at Steven van de Velde

There's currently a discussion about the first sentence of the lead at Steven van de Velde. This could use some feedback from members with experience on BLP issues. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I really don't understand the obsession some editors have with poorly written lead sentences. It is possible to describe someone and summarize their notable aspects without merely a series of nouns. – notwally (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The MOS doesn't give a lot of guidance on this at all, but it's a matter of good writing versus bad writing. The lede should be written at a 6th grade level, but should not read like it was written by a 6th grader. I've had a lot of schooling, training, and real-life experience in this, so I could charge good money for what I'm giving here for free. Having an opening sentence like that comes off to the reader as childish and stupid, and is that truly what anybody wants? There's no way to sugarcoat it, but that's what it is.

Good writing is idiomatic, meaning people know it when they see it, but can't usually tell you what makes it good. That's because so many of the principles are counterintuitive and must be learned. It needs context, coherence, and flow. The first sentence is important only for creating context. This is called the "topic sentence", and the only purpose is to provide context for the following sentences. But it's not the place to make any kind of point. The only thing it needs to do is tell us in very broad terms what the subject is.

People never remember the first sentence, so it's not the most important one. People remember the last thing they see. By far, the most important sentence in the entire article is the last sentence of the first paragraph, which is called the "thesis sentence". This is where the point is laid out.

For example, see the article on Adolph Hitler. That is a perfect example of what a well-written article looks like. We don't start off by saying he was a bigot and murderer. We start off by describing what he was, which was the chancellor of Germany and head of the Nazi Party, which provides context for the reader. We save the most important fact for the thesis sentence, which is his role in genocide. We don't call him names, but describe what he actually did. The same is true for this subject (or any other for that matter.) My advice is don't put so much emphasis on cramming everything into the first sentence, because that's actually counter to whatever goal people are trying to achieve. It's important, but not for the reasons most people think. Far more important is the thesis sentence, because that is the main point of the article. Zaereth (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@Jpatokal vs Michael Ezra

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I believe senior contributor, @jpatokal, has gone rogue. He has violated many of the norms of the WP:BLP with impunity.

He was caught at it 11 years ago: Jpatokal The information you have posted is contentious and libelous. BLP editing rules state it must be removed immediately if unsourced or ‘poorly sourced’. There is no record of that article anywhere other than on the Ugandanet platform which is not a genuine newspaper archive. Please refer to the rules on NOR and Verifiability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prodigalson49 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

He is at it again: @Jpatokal, you have violated almost every principle in BLP! Addressing the banner you placed on this page verbatim: This article needs to be updated... - with what? by whom? do you have new info? 90% of references used are dead links and story filled with Outdated Facts... - Wrong! Original links exist along with links to an archive of the original reference. How do "facts" become outdated? They could be disproved but not outdated! Subject reported as a Hoax... - your linked ref on "Hoax" seems contrary to what you are trying to convey in your banner as per its opening paragraph. So much for NPOV. ...with a multitude of Bankruptcy court cases - your linked webpage has no bearing to the sensational allegation of bankruptcy. ...involving many bouncing cheques... - another sensational reference to "many" but referencing just one case whose outcome is not even mentioned. ...among many others - yet another sensational reference to "many" with a singular citation of a tabloid news article. Cherry picking one of your edits: ...also known as Michael Ezra Kato - a senior contributor should know better than to provide an archived blog post as a reference. This was the balance you brought to the article to remove a NPOV banner you place on the article (could not help but take a negative shot at the man)? The subject of this page is known and dear to many. He might also have many enemies out there but Misplaced Pages should not be the place to settle such scores (going by their policies). This is not Michael! Please undo all your aggressive/ill-intended edits unless you have new FACTS to add to the article. 204.167.92.26 (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC) Every single edit I made is backed up by references. The one you "picked out" is not a blog post, but the text of an article published in the Sunday Vision in April 2004 and helpfully archived by somebody. Jpatokal (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I am following through with the recommended procedures of complaints but honestly have little hope for justice as he seems to enjoy the support of some of the other contributors/admins (and probably sits on the panel that reviews this escalation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.167.92.26 (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Uhh... I have no clue what you're asking for here. Are these quotes from talk page discussions or something? If so, what is the point you're trying to make? Is this in relation to some specific article? If so, which article? We don't deal in justice here, so if your complaint is about editor behavior, then you should take it to WP:ANI, but try to be more direct and provide diffs to support whatever it is you think this user did wrong. If it's about something that violates BLP policy, we'd need to know what you think those violations are and links to the article in question so we can investigate it ourselves. As is, I don't see anything here to really go on, so not sure what you want us to do. Zaereth (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

This section is obviously a request for additional participants in the discussion here. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Brigitte Macron

The Brigitte Macron page appears to be going through multiple rounds of edits & reverts due to concerted efforts by some to add transgenderism claims without citing reliable sources for the living person. Admin action was taken on June 20th, but today the issue has resurfaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4001:85D0:14D4:9116:55B9:EA5F (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I have semi-protected the article again, this time for three months. Let me know if any further nonsense arises. Johnuniq (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Olu Jacobs (Case of death and Disruptive editings on the article page)

There are death rumors surrounding this person. See Talk:Olu Jacobs#Is Olu Jacobs dead? and the article page and help revert Vandalism Wår (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Julie Johnson (actress)

Julie Johnson was married to David Lee Johnson from 1997-2002 and had one child, Trey in 1998.

Julie’s father was named David Lee Johnson, so when she married my brother David it created a lot of confusion with the invitations. This is also why Julie’s son is called Trey, since both his father and grandfather were named David Lee (though not related).

Source: I am David’s brother and Trey’s uncle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.248.1.244 (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Sources based off of one's unpublished personal knowledge has a shelf life. Do you have a published third-party source that corroborates this? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 18:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't find any source for that marriage or the marriage to Dylan Paul Thomas that was in the article, and so I removed it for now. – notwally (talk) 05:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Clementine Ford (writer)

I wanted to get some input here from others before I take a large action, since I see from the talk page of Clementine Ford (writer) that, while there's a lot of separate sections and concerns raised, no one has done anything.

The entirety of the rather lengthy "Social media" section should just be removed, right? Like, pretty much everything in it is a BLP violation using individual news articles to discuss individual tweets or things on Facebook or other nonsense, right? I'm trying to make sure I'm not missing something obvious here. Silverseren 21:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

You are correct. I'm handing you my cleaver while I step away for some time in the dirt. I'll check back in a few hours. JFHJr (㊟) 21:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The first paragraph seemed ok to me, but maybe I'm missing something. VQuakr (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

In my edit summary when I removed the section, I noted that some of the content could be potentially salvageable. But would need to be rewritten and reorganized. And probably shouldn't have its own section just for that. Silverseren 00:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Silver seren: Great work, looks better! I agree with the WP:WEIGHT concerns: a separate social media section is probably not going to be up to snuff. With the same concerns, I've condensed sections for topical relevance and moved a glut of refs from the lede to the body (and removed one primary ref that served no purpose). Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 02:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Singer Konshens first picture is a different person

First picture on wiki site Konshens is not actually konshens, but someone else. 2A02:2454:E60:5700:3149:3B55:1E22:93DA (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• I found this recent image of him . Bear in mind that many of the images of him on a Google search are 10-15 years old, promotional, or both. Black Kite (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I removed the image from the article ( Courtesy link: Konshens) because it was of a completely different artist named Tarik Davis that went by the name "Konshens the MC". Feel free to replace it with an appropriate image. Reconrabbit 13:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Ken Hovind

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.

Many of the “facts” in this page are inflammatory and overly biased. It makes accusations with zero evidence to back them up. It’s obvious to me that the person or persons who wrote this are seeking to use ad hominem attacks and straw-man arguments to summarily dismiss Ken Hovind’s views which are held by many credentialed scientists with PHD’s from state universities. It’s a lazy, shallow attempt to attack the historical position of Christians without actually producing any evidence to support their claims. I don’t personally know Mr.Hovind or even agree with many of his views. This is nothing more than a hit-piece by someone with obvious bias. Is this the standard that Misplaced Pages aspires to? 69.77.210.17 (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Not that this is a particularly serious request that editors on this board need to respond to, but it's Kent Hovind. Alyo (chat·edits) 21:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

A WP-article about a person is supposed to be a summary about independent WP:RS about that person. If that is what the article is, then that is what Misplaced Pages aspires to. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Revert off obvious flamebait. Do not reply to it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 23:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Family Tree templates and BLP

I came across this family tree today, which includes the full names of living (and dead) people, some with articles and others who are apparently non-notable, and it's all entirely unsourced. WP:BLPNAME suggests that we remove the names of living persons who not notable public figures—but that defeats the purpose of a family tree. Maybe that's a good thing?

Category:Family tree templates is filled with family trees, though many of them are for (long dead) historical figures, historical dynasties, animal groups, languages—those should all be fine. But is there a bigger problem with family trees that are unsourced and/or include the names of non-notable living persons? Woodroar (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The sourcing and whether filiation is contentious are the main concerns. But mere mentions of non-notables are less inherently problematic than they are a threshold determination for requiring sources and solid ones for contentious claims. JFHJr (㊟) 21:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

In the tree you linked, the forefathers and siblings of Naqi Ali appear irrelevant. So do Hasnain Raza and Faiz Raza; they could all probably be removed unless there's some kind of relevance to an article's content and it's supported by a reliable source. JFHJr (㊟) 21:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the lack of sourcing is an issue, and that some content (at least) should be removed. But doesn't WP:BLPNAME suggest that we remove every non-notable person? Should we replace removed names with any placeholder text?

I also wonder what the point is. A family tree might be relevant in, say, articles about royal families where everyone is notable. But what use are they when only half of the people mentioned are notable—especially if we end up having to remove the names of non-notables? Woodroar (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Lea DeLaria

More eyes would be appreciated at Lea DeLaria. She recently posted controversial comments on social media. We're getting BLP vio at the article and simultaneously trying to figure out the best way to cover the comments in this discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a rush to include a statement only covered in a single reliable source from what I could find. My general opinion is that controversial statements should not be included in biographies unless there is enduring coverage in multiple reliable sources. Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTNEWS, and a lot of notable people say a lot of stupid stuff. I also left a more detailed comment on the talk page. – notwally (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Graham E. Fuller

I'm afraid I don't know much about BLP policies. Someone ought to look at this recent IP removal ( and the previous edit). The rationale is "Right to be forgotten, EU privacy" which I doubt has any standing over WP; to me the removal seems like an involved party removing cited information. But then again, I don't know the nuances of BLP, so if someone else could take a look, that would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aza24 (talk • contribs)

I don't know that Misplaced Pages respects the EU right to be forgotten (and none of the individuals involved appear to be EU citizens anyway!) but "subject's non-notable daughter was married until 1999 to someone who was the uncle of someone else who wasn't notable at the time but now is" seems like a pretty tenuous link and I doubt it's worthy of inclusion in the article. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Controversial content on BLPs should have multiple high quality sources citing it. I agree the link seems pretty tenuous. – notwally (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Jason Zadrozny

Could someone double check and see if Jason Zadrozny#Personal life paragraphs one and three need to be there. This edit at Ashfield Independents is also relevant. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the child sex allegations would be appropriate to include if there is enduring coverage in multiple sources. Do news reports about the article subject still mention this, or was all the coverage from the year of the court proceedings? As for the fraud and election-related charges, those seem particularly relevant to a politician's biography since they relate directly to the reason he is notable. In general, I think privacy concerns have less weight for politicians than for other public figures and we should be more willing to include accusations in their biographies, although they still need to be noteworthy and reliably sourced. – notwally (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Emmanuel Mogenet

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.

No one thought it odd at the time that Emmanuel Mogenet was created by Emmanuel Mogenet? Anything to do about it now? MaskedSinger (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

After removal of WP:NOTCV info that was not supported by RS, this person's notability is unclear and may need an AfD discussion. I will prod it first. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Since it was previously prodded, I sent it to AfD. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@MaskedSinger Thanks for catching this. For next time, this kind of report is better suited to WP:COIN and requires no administrator action. Toadspike 14:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Karlton Hester

It appears that uncited material was removed from the article but the notice tag remains unchanged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:cd02:32b0:714d:c327:d7d0:c06e (talk • contribs)

The article still needs improving, so the tags are valid IMHO. GiantSnowman 21:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Mohamed Ashmalee

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

The article about Mohamed Ashmalee was (or is) in a horrible state. A large section, restored by multiple experienced editors since 2022 turns out to be a verbatim copy of the cited non-free source, et cetera. Courtesy ping Suonii180, LizardJr8, Kleuske and Midori No Sora who could perhaps have noticed this when verifying whether the section restored by them is actually backed by the cited source. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• I didn't notice that there was a copyvio involved. In hindsight I should have looked a little deeper into how much text was added for the corruption allegation; but I don't see anything that disqualifies the source itself.

I was not sure of the motives behind repeatedly removing text with no explanation other than "wrong", "untrue" or "truth" when I engaged once. I would agree a deeper look is needed into the subject. LizardJr8 (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• I've reverted this only edit because I thought the IP address removed a large section of the article without giving a valid reason. I also didn't notice that section of the article was a copyright violation. Looking at the history, several IP addresses and users were indeed removing that section, but some weren't providing an edit summary or were explaining that it was "the truth" or simply: "yes", which sounded suspicious.

I've also requested CSD of the image, as that portrait was taken from the person's Facebook account and was sourced as "Own work". 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• I've opened a discussion at the talk page to discuss content addition proposals. I've also edited the article to remove generic urls that failed WP:V, unarchived dead links, and lots of stray caps (copyediting). I tagged unreffed claims; this content currently is the majority of the article. I have not removed unreffed claims that touch on notability, but a few unrelated ones got the scalpel. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 01:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• This matter has been forwarded to WP:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Ashmalee. I did not mention the BLP violations, but IYKYK. Thanks to all for input anyone has at AfD. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Ashley Gjøvik

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

A request at WP:RPPI from an IP asks that this article be semi-protected. Another IP opposes the first. There is a storm of editing going on there and I'm hoping someone will work out what is going on and whether admin action is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a massive WP:BLPPRIMARY mine field with too many things cited solely to court documents. One IP had the nerve to revert and wikilawyer an administrator, Fences and windows. I have a suspicion these ip addresses are PR-ing and litigating through wikipedia and the article needs an extensive clean-up. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

For those that don't know there was some previous disputes that seemed to be going on on and off wiki that resulted in both the subject and someone they were in dispute with being blocked and banned respectively. See e.g. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1100#Ban evasion, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13#Arbitration motion regarding HazelBasil and SquareInARoundHole and Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 184#Cher Scarlett, Ashley Gjøvik, Ifeoma Ozoma, & Apple Worker Organizations. I have no idea if the other party is still socking if they are, perhaps longer term semi protection should be considered. While the subject remains blocked, I would suggest emailing about problems would be a better solution than posting about it on Twitter. Nil Einne (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a pattern of IP addresses that have never made edits to WP before making 1 or 2 edits and then disappearing. I suggest that the person doing this knows what they're doing and is doing this intentionally to evade a previous ban. See evidence from here Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Single-edit_IPs_vandalizing_Ashley_Gjøvik_page and in particular, this section posted to another user's talk page from a throwaway IP accusing that editor of "casting aspersions" for making claims that this IP-hopper isn't (implausibly) a new person for every new IP they're using. I wasn't aware of the history of this page before the recent twitter threads, news articles etc., but based on what you have linked above, I think it's very plausible that this IP hopper is the same person as SquareInARoundHole. Note: I've only made a couple edits since my dynamic IP rotated last night, but I'm not intentionally changing my IP after every edit like this person or using proxies across many different ISPs. I am the same person that used Special:Contributions/76.6.213.65 for the past couple weeks. 76.6.210.82 (talk) 07:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I did an extensive clean-up that addressed the BLPPRIMARY and ABOUTSELF concerns. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

That's impressive work, Morbidthoughts, because that article was a mess. – notwally (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

It may be noted for the record that this article and Cher Scarlett were, some years ago, the subject of a protracted episode involving both of the articles' subjects themselves. jp×g🗯️ 23:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

See Special:Permalink/1071273528#Arbitration_motion_regarding_HazelBasil_and_SquareInARoundHole. I believe there was some big noticeboard kerfluffu as well, although I don't have a link on hand. jp×g🗯️ 23:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Question: I am not overly familiar with BLP policies. Is the reason that court documents are not allowed is that they become Original Research because they are easy to MIS-interpret? (I saw lots of those additions, but didn't know about the applicability of court documents as sources for what seemed to be simple statements like "lawsuit dismissed with/out prejudice").

I understand WP:BLP : "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." - but I would think that would pertain to info like allegations of misconduct/criminal charges, not whether a lawsuit is active, dismissed, settled, or adjudicated. ---Avatar317 00:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I take a broad view of WP:BLPPRIMARY's prohibition. The need to complete a story is not a reason to start ignoring this policy. It is an argument that is against WP:WEIGHT if no secondary reliable sources report on the outcome. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I think WP:PRIMARY as well is important regardless of BLP concerns, including its interaction with WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTEWORTHY. A missing detail that is truly important may be useful to pull from a primary source in certain circumstances (much less likely in a BLP given WP:BLPPRIMARY), but determining how much to include in an article is difficult enough using secondary sources, not to mention primary sources. – notwally (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Published case law (which is not court documents in the sense of public records) is used frequently on Misplaced Pages - quick search of Reuters casetext yields 1,100 results. Many are on BLPs. WP:RSLAW is worth a read. RICO is pretty much the most serious accusation someone can lodge and the only source of it is an Apple blog. If it's worth including, I can't see how published case law that it was dismissed (especially with prejudice) isn't also warranted. The fact it was adjudicated doesn't seem like a minor detail. Changed my mind on this because of Johnuniq's note below. Say ocean again (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Published case opinions are court documents and have to be handled the same way on Misplaced Pages because they implicate many of the same concerns with their usage, whether that is privacy of living people or the issues interpreting them by anyone who can edit here. Also, dismissal with prejudice is not necessarily an adjudication on the merits, and there are significantly more serious accusations than a RICO lawsuit filed by an employee for retaliation and fraud. Claiming that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a very persuasive argument, especially on this noticeboard dealing with the strict guidelines for BLPs. – notwally (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Note this IP address has only ever made this one edit, to this talk page. See above about sockpuppeting on this article as this editor is almost certainly a known quantity; since they are no longer able to edit the article, they are now editing administrative threads trying to influence how it is being edited.

I've only made a couple edits since my IP rotated last night, but I'm not intentionally changing my IP after every edit like this person. I am the same person that used Special:Contributions/76.6.213.65 for the past couple weeks. 76.6.210.82 (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't control my IP address and have never contributed in a way that wasn't clear I'm one person. I requested page protections for the very reason that you and unknown number of others were edit warring and the article itself was posted on as a community note from a Twitter thread with tens of thousands of retweets.

I made an account to make it clear, even though I disagree with it on principle for the purpose of this BLPN conversation. Say ocean again (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I was saying that they are Misplaced Pages:Published vs Misplaced Pages:Public records, not that they aren't court documents.

My question is whether or not AppleInsider is a reliable source for inclusion on a BLP.

A second question would be for lawsuits and legal complaints that are never reported on again, at what point should we remove them from a BLP as Misplaced Pages:Recentism, if we cannot include case law? Say ocean again (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The issue about AppleInsider should be up for discussion. Even if reliable, it and another source, Index on Censorship, definitely should not be given as much as weight as sources like Financial Times, The Verge, or New York Times. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion: Talk:Ashley Gjøvik#Inclusion of content and sources Say ocean again (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Using court documents and similar is very undesirable because their meaning can be misunderstood by onlookers, and because they can be contradicted in another document, and because an opponent of the subject can easily cherry-pick undue negativity from a laundry-list of assertions. Using a secondary source is supposed to shift the burden of deciding what reporting is appropriate from an anyone-can-edit contributor to the editorial team of the secondary source. Johnuniq (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• FYI, I have semi-protected the article for 6 months. Lectonar (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

FYI, there's a related conversation happening at Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons#Published judicial documents with good information on this topic. Say ocean again (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion about inclusion of content

Content from Special:Diff/1231386224/1231391075

Moved to: Talk:Ashley Gjøvik#Inclusion of content and sources Say ocean again (talk) 03:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Say ocean again (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

This kind of extensive, detailed discussion is probably better had on the article's talk page. – notwally (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

In vitro fertilisation

In vitro fertilisation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In this edit a previously uncited but vague mention of unprofessional conduct by unnamed doctors has become a direct accusation against a named person. It remains uncited. The editor who added the new sentence, who appears to have a conflict of interest, says they will edit war to keep the paragraph in place. Extra eyes would be useful. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph consisting of BLP violations. While the information added is likely true, the burden is on the editor adding the information to provide a citation. The behavior of SuperinfoTU on their talk page is not encouraging. It suggests that they see no issues in their policy violations thus far and expect to continue violating myriad policies. An admin should consider a NOTHERE block. Toadspike 14:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

As I've explained before I respect the policy. You are bored going back and forth. SuperinfoTU (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Aimee Knight

I do a lot of work in AFDLand and right now we have one, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Aimee Knight where there might be BLP concerns. There has been some Twitter canvassing going on and lots of low edit, sporadically editing, accounts participating in the discussion who might not be that familiar with Misplaced Pages policies, like WP:BLP. I'd welcome some evaluation by editors knowledgeable about BLP concerns to state whether there are legitimate BLP issues or if there are not. Thank you. Liz 23:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Jean-Luc Mélenchon

I'm concerned about the "Controversies" section of this article per WP:CSECTION and WP:BLP. Particularly concerning is the seven paragraph subsection on "Accusations of antisemitism". Note that this is not only a BLP but an active politician (not sure if that is relevant but it seems like it ought to be).

I'd be curious to hear what those more knowledgeable about our BLP policies think about this. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't speak French, but a search of "Jean-Luc Mélenchon" and "conspiracy theories" produces many results from newspapers I do recognize as reliable. The heading does seem to unduly suggest there are "controversies" instead of just criticism, so I'd suggest that should probably be changed. The criticism itself appears due based on my search. Say ocean again (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Nina Power

Could someone please look at Nina Power and especially Talk:Nina Power#She is a confirmed nazi now, where editors are seeking to include material about a libel case based solely on primary sources. I suspect that the core factual statements may well be correct, although the tone of the edits is quite lurid, but there's no secondary sourcing for anything beyond the initiation of the case. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the stuff which were sourced to court documents and self published sources not from Nina Power. Possibly the best solution is just deletion though. From what I see, there are currently zero secondary sources about Nina Power in that article. Instead, it just seems to be sourced to what she has published in various UK papers etc. I haven't done WP:BEFORE so perhaps such sources exist, but definitely the article seems to be highly problematic as it stands. Nil Einne (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that it's all pretty marginal. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nina Power for some previous discussion. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Not clear what the actual problem is, folks. A look at the history shows that previously, secondary sources were removed (e.g. a pair of reviews of art shows mentioning her). And now, court findings cannot be included even when they bear directly on confirmed facts, or when they act as a secondary source confirming the subject's own words and actions?

This is someone that's been a (generally minor, sector-specific less minor) public figure on a (public) political journey rightwards. The only edits I've seen in response to asking for tightening up the wording and sourcing has been over-broad and wholesale deletion of recent updates that form a part of that public political journey. Chaikney (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I think court findings are WP:PRIMARY. We should probably wait for a secondary source, i.e. news media, to report, unfortunately. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Brief aside: It appears that she is known for her anti-trans advocacy (she has self identified as part of "TERF" island in one article). that's probably why there is a fair bit of interest on both sides now, and why many folks want to keep her article in the past AfD.

I agree, starting an AfD may be best, there isn't enough independent sources about her. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

hmm, change my mind, I see some sourcing that is significant. Many of her book reviews also include criticisms of her past history. Should be correct to include the book reviews, and include attributed opinions around her politics in her bio. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing much on her, but plenty on her book. Seems that might be the better subject of an article?

The Nazi bit seems entirely undue from searches. Say ocean again (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

TESCREAL#Alleged TESCREALists

I want some input. Following WP:BLP, @Avatar317 removed significant amounts of material from the TESCREAL article (See diff

I'd argue material is fairly well sourced, and many of these figures are WP:PUBLICFIGURE (i.e. Elon Musk, SBF, Sam Altman, and various high level philosophers).

As per WP:BLP, in cases of conflict, I was told to escalate here on noticeboard for suggestions from community.

Some background:

• Admin Arbitrarily0 closed an AfD for TESCREAL with merge on December 2023. It was closed for lack of WP:N
• Multiple sources since December have used the term and analyzed it. I used Draftspace to improve and asked User_talk:Arbitrarily0#Draft:TESCREAL to see if it could be undeleted.
• It was undeleted today by admin. Avatar317 is upset and has also opposed Template:Did_you_know_nominations/TESCREAL

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

From WP:PUBLICFIGURE:"If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." ---Avatar317 03:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Avatar317: Could you be more specific about which portion of this section is of concern for you? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Anything OTHER than self-described TECREALISTS. ---Avatar317 03:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide a reason why? We need specifics other than "I hate this article and will throw what I can as WP:WIKILAWYER".

We addressed these are all public figures, that there is significant useful sourcing for most of these claims. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

We are describing this supposed philosophy as being akin to a secular religion. We would likely avoid branding anyone with a religion that they have not chosen to identify with. The claim that it is not a pejorative is at odds with the statement in the intro that "the acronym is sometimes used to criticize a perceived belief system associated with Big Tech". It is not a term developed by holders of the belief to identify themselves, and it is hard to see that it's something we should be using to label people any more than "woke" or "TERF". -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Currently, nearly all figures in the section have multiple sources.

Maybe Peter Thiel could be removed for now, as well as Ray Kurzweil. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't read the FinancialTimes article, because it is behind a paywall. Can you please provide quotes, because the association to Musk via one quote where he said he liked the Russian guy well known as a Cosmist was used as the ultimate source for Musk's connection in the first deleted article, and that alleged connection was deemed to be WAY too weak of a connection. ---Avatar317 03:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

2 of the 9 paragraphs deal with Musk in this source. The formatting gets messed up on copy paste into here.

"""

Tech luminaries certainly overlap in their interests. Elon Musk, who wants to colonise Mars, has expressed sympathy for longtermist thinking and owns Neuralink, essentially a transhumanist company. Peter Thiel, the PayPal co-founder, has backed anti-ageing technologies and has bankrolled a rival to Neuralink. Both Musk and Thiel invested in OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT. Like Thiel, Ray Kurzweil, the messiah of singularitarianism now employed by Google, wants to be cryogenically frozen and revived in a scientifically advanced future. Another influential figure is philosopher Nick Bostrom, a longtermist thinker. He directs Oxford university’s Future of Humanity Institute, whose funders include Musk. (Bostrom recently apologised for a historical racist email.) The institute works closely with the Centre for Effective Altruism, an Oxford-based charity. Some effective altruists have identified careers in AI safety as a smart gambit. There is, after all, no more effective way of doing good than saving our species from a robopocalypse.""" Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe this is an excerpt from a longer post, but this does not say that these people identify with a thing called "TESCREAL", rather it is a list of seemingly unrelated factoids. jp×g🗯️ 03:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Read the article if you want.

"People who are very rich or very clever, or both, sometimes believe weird things. Some of these beliefs are captured in the acronym Tescreal."

...

"Repeated talk of a possible techno-apocalypse not only sets up these tech glitterati as guardians of humanity, it also implies an inevitability in the path we are taking." Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

This article quotes Gebru and Torres as having called these people "Tescreal". At no point does FT claim that they are "Tescreal", or even that this is a commonly-used term (the closest it gets is to say "The label, coined by a former Google ethicist and a philosopher, is beginning to circulate online"). The part you've quoted is vague innuendo.

"Newspaper X said that person Y said claim Z" is not the same thing as "newspaper X said claim Z" -- it's not even close.

For a comparison, see the UFO stuff: there are plenty of reputable newspapers saying that David Grusch claimed he had proof of UFOs, but there are not reputable newspapers saying that there's proof of UFOs. jp×g🗯️ 00:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Including a list of specific people on an article about a pejorative political term seems to me like a quite obvious BLP violation -- would we have a list of pundits at feminazi, christofascist, SJW, et cetera, cited only to other pundits, who hate them? jp×g🗯️ 02:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

We have Big Tech, a "perjorative term" for big tech companies.

There are some "perjorative" terms that occur on wikipedia that have allegations that public figures are them. They fall into the pattern you suggest "doesn't happen" on here. Many of these terms are far more perjorative than TESCREALists.

Democrat in Name Only is a similarly "perjorative term" that alleged Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson as DINOs in the 200s.

Republican_in_Name_Only alleges Brian Kemp and others.

Cuckservative is thrown at Jeb Bush and John Mccain

If we keep it in Wikivoice, and they are WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and there are multiple opinions alleging them as such, we should include it with the appropriate WP:WIKIVOICE Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd also argue that "feminazi", etc. are internet jargon slurs used to demean. TESCREAL is originated by well published scientists and philosophers, i.e. Timnit Gebru, and Emile P Torres. Its roots are clearly scholarly and scholarly criticism of philosophies is generally not a perjorative political term right now.

If you find a reliable source arguing otherwise (I've seen the rando medium post arguing TESCREAL is a conspiracy, its WP:SPS), then we should consider WP:BLP. It has no current perjorative connotation as it has not entered mainstream discourse, though it is useful enough of an organizing idea that multiple folks are now using it to describe current veins of thought regarding some AI leaders/philosophers. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

In general, it is clearly not the case that everything that comes out of the mouth of a credentialed scholar is a neutral, scientific claim based on pure apolitical reason. For example, Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Zizek are both very prestigious psychologists and university professors, who both hold all sorts of esteemed doctorates and professorships. However, obviously, neither of them are speaking as neutral scholars in magazine interviews about who's ruining society these days.

I assume you mean this Medium article written by James Hughes, who is a sociologist and a research fellow at UMass Boston’s Center for Applied Ethics. I am not a huge fan of the academic micturation contest framing in the first place, but I don't think there is really a credible basis to say that Emile Torres is a "well-published philosopher" and this guy is a "rando". jp×g🗯️ 00:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Emile P Torres and Timnit Gebru are not in the slight neutral, nor is James Hughes. And I'd argue that science often is not neutral and is often necessarily political. (see Climate Change or the "Do artifacts have politics?" paper)

Apologies for suggesting that James Hughes is a nobody, I mean to say that he needs to publish in a source that can stand up. The article had previously been deleted for lack of WP:RELIABLE sources, and I took great pains to try to include all the reliable sources I could. I think including criticism of the term, especially while its new and highly fluid in every source I find, could improve the article more.

I think this topic is highly political, and like any highly political topic, there are folks who use the most hyperbolic comments on both sides, whether characterizing everyone who is associated with even a single one of the movements as part of a larger eugenics conspiracy (bit of a stretch) or that TESCREAL is a slur invented by the left (also bit of a stretch).

Currently, my opinion is its just an academic term for a phenomena of weird ideologies in Silicon Valley.

We should use WP:OPINION on highly political topics. (I note that the Transhumanism article uses this significantly, as do many contemporary philosophy articles on Misplaced Pages). We should not consider deleting large portions of information stated in WP:OPINION just because we consider the politics to be particularly obnoxious (even possibly to ourselves as editors) or to the WP:PUBLICFIGURE that the politics criticizes.

The plethora of opinion pieces, commentaries, scientific articles, and (Some) straight news pieces suggest that this political term has some notability. And that many of these sources suggest and argue that Elon Musk and others are examples suggests we should include them in a list of alleged "Tescrealists", as long as we use WP:OPINION. Alleging that Elon Musk and others participate in weird ideologies that happens to be described by some as TESCREAL is not something that should be contentious to point out either. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Ella Thomas

Page is currently being targeted with protracted effort to delete relevant and current as well as cited information.

Even citation links to verified information is being removed. Married with child is indisputable based on links that were erased. Average google search of interviews would verify articles and podcasts in actresses on voice.

Seeems to be an attempt to denounce her nationality as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erifanz (talk • contribs) 04:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

courtesy link: Ella Thomas Say ocean again (talk) 05:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Have you considered starting a discussion at Talk:Ella Thomas, which is the first place to discuss issues with that article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm been trying to figure how to go about starting a discussion which is why I was asking for assistance. Erifanz (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Erifanz, you seem to be saying that you are Ella Thomas. Is that correct? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

No... I am her cousin Rusa. I manage the page with her sister. I never had an issue before so am confused why this started and why I'm being blocked when I asked for help. Please advise. Erifanz (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Erifanz Take the time to read

• WP:COI
• WP:BLP
• WP:OWN and
• Misplaced Pages:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing carefully.

This issue probably started because one or more Wikipedians noticed that the article didn't look like a WP:BLP should (WP has a lot of stuff like that, people only notice what they notice). That often happens when friends and relatives edit WP-articles about people, since they tend to do so from a "This person is AWESOME" perspective, whether they mean to or not. The purpose of a WP-article about Ella Thomas is to be a summary of independent WP:RS about Ella Thomas. Some WP:ABOUTSELF allowed, but still needs citing. Just because something is online doesn't mean it's useful as a source, especially for a WP:BLP. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for being so kind and taking the time to clarify.

I'm still confused because I read through guidelines and there is no subjective context to her page. It's her early life, present life and catalog of work. When I look at similar pages of actresses... I followed the format almost identically. Even other actresses and actors repped at the agency have the same format.

I understand that we don't own the page and appreciate the format correction. I also don't understand why an interview with her and her husband doesn't count as a citation.

Again thank you for your patience with my questions. Erifanz (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Are we talking about ? If so, while it's possible that they say "yeah, we are married etc" somewhere in that 70 min podcast, the text on that page doesn't make that clear at all. So for an editor who looks at that cited page, it doesn't seem to say the are married or have a child together. This may be possible to improve with Template:Cite AV media, which has a parameter for time (like when in the podcast do they say this.) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

We're also very strict about copyright around here. At least when we notice we should be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no copyright infringement... I literally manage her website. Those images are on my computer as press files for her. They are our images. Even the old one and the image you questioned are being used everywhere even by her modeling agency. The shots were done for PR. (I understand why it's a conflict of interest on the other issues of editing but that would cause half of the actors and actresses pages to be blocked.) Can you at least please reinstate the new image. Erifanz (talk) 09:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Then you need to prove that on Commons, guidance in the "possible copyright violation" template at . The default assumption on WP and Commons for pics like these is that the copyright holder is the photographer. Note also, that when you upload a pic the way you did, you stated that the picture was free for anyone to use commercially, which is fine if that's what you want. More at Misplaced Pages:A picture of you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Not when it's a paid shoot by the actress for PR and website... she retains rights tto the image for publicity. Thank you again for all your answers. I've learned a great deal tonight. Erifanz (talk) 10:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

This is what you need to prove on Commons. Follow the guidance there. User:Erifanz saying this is so is not enough. And again, you uploaded the pic as "under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license." That means free for commercial use. With attribution. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help... I think I'm giving up and handing this off to someone else. Erifanz (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Josef Sorett

Sorett is a dean at Columbia College who has recently been involved in some controversy around text messages for which three other deans were placed on leave. Sorett himself was not placed on leave, nor did he send any of the texts at issue, though he allegedly replied "lmao" to some of them (according to the Washington Free Beacon, but reprinted in higher-quality sources including the New York Times). Can we get some outside opinions on whether this controversy ought to be described on the biographical article about him? Discussion here: Talk:Josef Sorett#Texting controversy. Courtesy ping to Jjazz76. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Sheng Thao

There are frequent edits to this article on a living person, a politician with a "divisive" stance and is covered in international news. Many of the edits in my opinion do not provide a balanced narrative and do not introduce a neutral point of view. Asking for help to moderate this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.158.98.6 (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Greetings. The word you quoted does not presently appear in the live version of the article. Also, the article talk page is a live and active forum where you can bring such concerns. This forum is for when talk page discussions fail to produce a consensus. Please present your concerns at the active talk page. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 01:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

ANI thread with some BLP implications

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

Noting that people experienced with BLPs might want to take a look at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#84.206.11.96. I'm not sure what to do so input from others is welcome. Thanks. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

If it wasn't for her election to the European Parliament I'd be nominating the article for deletion per WP:BLP1E. Seems like a bit of an attack piece and needs some copyediting. TarnishedPath 01:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article for three months. Johnuniq (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY issue on John Leguizamo article

John Leguizamo appeared on a genealogy show called Finding Your Roots in 2022. Within a day of the airing, this edit changed the widely reported birth date, his name at birth, and a few other details related to his family based on the findings of the show. There seems to be several issues with this, as the details are shown for two brief seconds in a visual overview of a family tree and other editors have considered it 'confirmation of his actual birthdate'. Taking one conflicting date as fact when there are multiple RS pointing to a different date seems to be ignoring WP:DOB. This also draws into question if WP:BLPPRIMARY comes into play and how it should be applied with a brief 'blink-and-you-will-miss-it!' showing of primary details. Since the name listed in the show also is not reported elsewhere, it adds further conflict to how to report on that since it is based on a primary source. @TheSandDoctor: since you were the person who originally initiated the WP:DOB RfC regarding conflicting dates of birth, I wanted to request your opinion for cases like this in the future where multiple sources point to one year, and a solitary source points to another.

I have included the references I could find regarding his year of birth, including his About Me bio from his book. I also was unsure of if Copyright.gov is a reliable source since I know we consider the Library Of Congress reliable for years of birth, or have in the past, but I included it as well for the year of birth.

Copyright Office authorship query, "Leguizamo, John, 1964-"

Current biography yearbook (1998), page 368 "Leguizamo, John - July 22, 1964"

MacMillan Profiles Latino Americans (1999), page 197 "John Leguizamo, July 22, 1964"

Santa Ana Orange County Register Sunday Newspaper Archives July 25, 1999 Page 243 "Recalled John Leguizamo, 35"

The Oxford encyclopedia of Latinos and Latinas in the United States (2005), page 539 "Leguizamo was born in Bogata, Colombia, on July 22, 1964"

Latino Wisdom (2006), page 47 "Born in Bogata, Colombia, in 1964, Leguizamo"

Who : a directory of prominent people, 2nd Ed (2007), page 266 "Leguizamo, John (1964-)"

The works of John Leguizamo (2008), page 3 "Was born in Bogata, Colombia, in 1964" (About the author page from his book)

Time Almanac 2009, page 56 "Leguizamo ( 22 Jul 1964)"

Encyclopedia Britannica Almanac 2010, page 56 "John Leguizamo, 22 July, 1964"

CNN, Oct 3, 2014 "50 people turning 50 in 2014 — John Leguizamo had a milestone birthday on July 22 as he celebrated turning 50."

InterviewMagazine, May 31, 2016 "Now, at age 51, Leguizamo"

Vogue, Apr 6, 2017 "The 52-year-old actor was born in Colombia,"

GQ, Feb 28, 2018 "Yeah, something's definitely different about John Leguizamo. He thinks it might come down to his age—he's 53 now, over half a century"

NBC News, Apr 13, 2023 "Leguizamo, 62, has enjoyed"

Awshort (talk) 10:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

This should be reverted to the date in the majority of sources you've supplied and make a note about the discrepancy. Say ocean again (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Awshort: Thanks for the ping. I would agree with @Say ocean again: in saying that we should probably include it as a footnote but list the predominantly reported one. The case that spawned the DOB RfC was a bit unique in that literally no reliable sources can/could agree for some reason on Taylor Lorenz's age to the level that we have to include a 3 year gap as they all contradict each other...that doesn't happen very often, I would hope. --TheSandDoctor 04:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Steve Darling

Steve Darling has said "During his national campaign, he gained recognition when local Conservative Party campaigners falsely accused him of pretending to be blind for political gain, according to the charity Devon in Sight." The charity has no evidence that this happened. It seems to have been a political stunt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.13.54 (talk) 10:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Article now says "... allegedly falsely accused him..." which is supported by a Guardian article. I don't see an ongoing BLP issue here Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Frank Warren

The Section that I have removed regarding the shooting at a weigh-in involving Daniel Kinahan is entirely inaccurate as it alleges Frank Warren as a co-promoter. In truth, his business was a broadcaster of the event via Boxnation with the event promoted by MGM.

As the fight poster shows: Fight Poster The event was an MGM event and not co-promoted by Mr. Warren but only associated. Mr. Warren had no involvement in the event or present at the shooting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stfen98 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Stfen98 Presumably you mean Frank Warren (promoter). Try starting a discussion with @ADifferentMan, who reverted you, at Talk:Frank Warren (promoter). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Max Volume

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

There is a lot of unreferenced content in this article, added by a user with a username similar to the article title. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I removed a bunch of the unsourced content and added some page tags. Still a lot of unsourced information. I'm not sure if this article subject is notable enough to have a Misplaced Pages article. – notwally (talk) 02:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I've posted some potential sources on the article's talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Neil Gaiman

This discussion may be of interest to those who hang out at this noticeboard. XOR'easter (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Steven Crowder

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

2601:602:A001:5750:9448:B651:4900:8688 (talk · contribs) made a possible BLP violation by writing about 'a false accusation made by the subject's opponents', which is sourced to Reddit.Ae245 (talk) 06:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I just protected the page and REVDELed those edits before seeing this post here on BLPN EvergreenFir (talk) 06:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Donald Trump biography contains libel and slander

The biography page of Donald John Trump contains slanderous comments that are unsourced. This should not be allowed according to your own rules. Disturbing. 2605:A601:A908:6E00:B88F:2AA7:F368:C4BC (talk) 11:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Please take a look at the big blue box at the top of this page: matters raised at this noticeboard generally need to have been discussed on the article talkpage first, and be posted here with diffs making clear what the issue is. Unfortunately it's not really possible to address your concern if you haven't provided specifics on what it relates to. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Since you're not giving any specifics, there's nothing to act on, if that matters. However, WP:LEADCITE may be of interest to you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Lenny Krayzelburg

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.

Dear Misplaced Pages Editors,

I hope this message finds you well.

The domain LennyKswim.com, previously associated with a swimming school, is now an online casino. The school has rebranded and moved to SwimRightAcademy.com.

Please update any links from LennyKswim.com to SwimRightAcademy.com to direct visitors to the correct site.

For example: http://www.lennykswim.com/about-lenny-krayzelburg.php to https://www.swimrightacademy.com/about-swim-right-academy/ (https://en.wikipedia.org/Lenny_Krayzelburg#cite_ref-10 )

Thank you for your assistance.

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Андрей Злобин (talk • contribs) 18:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• What should happen first is a search for archived versions. Updates without textual comparisons might prove problematic, and that would take a reference from the archive to start with. I'll have a look. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 20:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, it looks like there was only one change to be made, no talk page history for your inquiry, and nobody has undone the edit. I'm not sure what purpose this post serves, so I'm closing it. JFHJr (㊟) 20:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

John Ioannidis

In the wikipedia page on professor Ioannidis https://en.wikipedia.org/John_Ioannidis this claim features notably in the lead text:

"Ioannidis was a prominent opponent of lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic, and he has been accused of promoting conspiracy theories concerning COVID-19 policies and public health and safety measures."

The claim about conspiracy theories is misleading, uses poor sources (the opinion of one single writer that is even misrepresented), and, since it targets a notable living scientist, thus defamatory. The way it was constructed and added to the lead text is aggravating from a legal perspective and also indicative of a bias entirely orthogonal to Misplaced Pages's mission of objectivity.

1) The sentence applies misleading citation practises: Upon inspection only 1 of the 4 references actually implies a link to conspiracy theories (David Freedman). Honest editors would put the references to the particularly grave claim on conspiracy theories separately, after these words. This choice of citation method fakes a stronger evidence for the defamatory statement than actually exists (1, not 4).

2) The claim uses poor sources and the claim itself has low credibility: The actual claim turns out upon inspection to be this single (not four) personal witness account: "I saw it on the faces of those medical students. To them Ioannidis may always be the fringe scientist who pumped up a bad study that supported a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory in the middle of a massive health crisis."

So this is a single claim by a single writer (David Freedman) based on his personal reflection not in his own head, which would still not a be notable source, but how he interprets (!) the faces of a group of medical students (!). Aside from being impressed by Freedman's ability to deduce facial expressions at such precision and semantic detail, this is poor sourcing with libellous content, against WIkipedia policies. Noting also that this libbellous content has been repeatedly reintroduced by some actors.

3) Even the claim itself is misrepresented (actual misinformation). The wikipedia text introduced states that Prof. Ioannidis was "accused of promoting conspiracy theories". Beyond the low source quality noted above, the actual statement in the source is "To them Ioannidis may always be the fringe scientist who pumped up a bad study that supported a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory in the middle of a massive health crisis." So the accusation is that he made a study that supported conspiracy theories (a study that is now peer reviewed and published in a leading epidemiology journal, which is - interestingly - omitted, also suggesting lack of objective balance) - not that he promoted conspiracy theories himself, which is entirely different. This is misinformation, and by the way it targets a notable living scientist, thus also defamatory.

I think this case study of wikipedia defamation and multiple violations of good editing conduct is notable enough to be considered in a review on misinformation and biases in Misplaced Pages pages. It is an important topic both for science and for democracy.

PS - Note that Prof Ioannidis has published hundreds of papers with hundreds of coauthors the last few years - claiming him to be fringe as done elsewhere in the same article is directly disproven by his continued centrality in science publishing, and this claim is also purely opinion-based and fails source credibility, even if it had been true (it is, at the very best, highly debatable as evidenced by his scholar page:

https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=da&user=JiiMY_wAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.49.43.69 (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

There's a lengthy section on his COVID-19 positions later in the article, of which the line in the intro is a fair summary. That's how Misplaced Pages works. It's fine. XOR'easter (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Is this really ok?

The section on his COVID-19 positions presents one source for the term "conspiracy theory". Quoting the source:

"I saw it on the faces of those medical students. To them Ioannidis may always be the fringe scientist who pumped up a bad study that supported a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory in the middle of a massive health crisis."

This is quoted in the Wiki page as:

"Writing for Wired, David H. Freedman said that the Santa Clara study compromised Ioannidis's previously excellent reputation and meant that future generations of scientists may remember him as "the fringe scientist who pumped up a bad study that supported a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory in the middle of a massive health crisis."

The lead section says:

"Ioannidis was a prominent opponent of lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic, and he has been accused of promoting conspiracy theories concerning COVID-19 policies and public health and safety measures."

This is referenced with four sources. The first source does not use the word "conspiracy theory". The third source does also not use the word "conspiracy theory". The second source is the article already mentioned. The fourth source says that "or many of his colleagues, Ioannidis’ views could support conspiracy theories in the middle of the crisis" but concludes that his views were in the realm of reasonable scientific disagreement and should not be conflated with conspiracy theories or misinformation.

My questions:

1. Does this fulfill NPOV and BLP rules for sourcing and neutrality ("the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each")?

2. Does this sourcing justifiy the claim of having "been accused of promoting conspiracy theories" in the lead section of a living person? 77.8.134.52 (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, seems like a fair – if anything quite mild – summary. Bon courage (talk) 05:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

1. How do you conclude that placing the claim of having "been accused of promoting conspiracy theories" in the lead section represents a viewpoint in proportion to its prominence, as per RSUW?

2. Why do two sources, one of which concludes that Ioannidis is not guilty of having promoted conspiracy theories, justify the claim of having "been accused of promoting conspiracy theories" in the lead section of a living person? Is this really "well sourced," as per BLP? 77.1.184.13 (talk) 10:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems fair to include this in the lede. This falls under WP:PUBLICFIGURE especially in terms of all the sourcing with regards to that claim. And Prof Ioannidis has objectively spent significant amounts of time on conservative media pushing his contrarian figures around COVID-19 statistics. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, plenty of scientists who are excellent in one field end up pushing fringe conspiracies in other fields. Linus Pauling is among the most central biochemists of our time, but his fringe views on Vitamin C curing cancer was pseudoscience in the field of public health. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

So basically: In 2020 a Wired journalist wrote that the medical students at Columbia University may always view Ioannidis as having "supported a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory" . And in 2020 Nassim Nicholas Taleb "indirectly" connected Ioannidis' view to conspiracy theories . And based on these two statements, Ioannidis' Misplaced Pages page now introduces the reader with the claim that "he was accused of promoting conspiracy theories." And this is done in the lead to represent "a viewpoint in proportion to its prominence", as per RSUW. And the fact that source concludes that Ioannidis' views were in the realm of reasonable scientific disagreement and should not be conflated with conspiracy theories or misinformation is not mentioned, neither in the lead nor anywhere else, even though "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each," as per RSUW. If that's how Misplaced Pages works, I guess that's how Misplaced Pages works. 77.1.184.13 (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Yep. The significant amount of COVID-Misinfo he spread is probably also problematic too.

Maybe it would be worth suggesting to change it to "spreading misinfo" or debunked public health stats instead of conspiracy theory. But it is probs WP:DUE to suggest his latest most notable covid denialism stuff Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Brendan DuBois

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

Brendan DuBois was very recently arrested and charged with possession of child pornography. Because he is a bestselling author, this has received lots of media coverage (although there's not much to report). Since this is a case of someone who is not a public figure being charged but not yet convicted, I have removed the information from DuBois's article, but perhaps others have different opinions about inclusion. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

if they have an article about them they are a "public figure". you are allowed to say he has allegations and has been arrested and charged but not convicted as that is objectively true NotQualified (talk) 07:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

The ABC or Misplaced Pages have an article on someone definitely does not make them a public figure. I'm unconvinced DuBois is a public figure, I don't think all notable authors are public figures, the nature of their work means they tend to have to be less self-promotional than actors and the like or musicians and there is often less focus on them as individuals. While he has won some awards and has a notable book, the sources on him seem fairly limited. I don't think his appearances on two game shows is enough self-promotion to make him a public figure. Nil Einne (talk) Nil Einne (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Having looked at the sources, note however that even if DuBois is not a public figure, I think we still have to mention something despite WP:BLPCRIME. Putting aside the severity of the accused crime, since at least one publisher has stopped sales of his books, it's the sort of career impacting accusation that IMO we still have to mention even after serious consideration of excluding. Nil Einne (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Not everyone who is notable is a "public figure". I think some mention is probably warranted in this case regardless, although I think the focus should be on how it has impacted his career rather than the details of the allegations, at least until more information is confirmed. I made an edit in that direction. – notwally (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Sam Neill

For the article on Sam Neill I have been quoting from his 2023 memoir “Did I ever tell you this”. This is in accord with the Policy page on “Biographies of Living People” which says only that material “challenged or likely to be challenged” shall be supported by neutral sources; but it does not say that quoting from memoirs is forbidden!

But (talk) is saying that this is forbidden. However his memoir would enable me to add (e.g) that he attended Cashmere and Medbury (primary) schools before attending Christs’ College. It would be difficult to find any primary sources for that.Hugo999 (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC) (see my talkpage0

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

This concerns text in an article and should be discussed on the article talk page, not at a user talk page, and not here until after article talk. The comment you received was talking about what is WP:DUE to be mentioned in an article. For example, an autobiography might say that someone climbed a tree when they were five. Mentioning that in the article at Misplaced Pages would not be DUE, not unless something dramatic happened as a result of the climb. The thing that makes it DUE is when secondary sources describe the incident and its consequences. I don't have an opinion on the issue in this case, but what I have outlined is what needs to be considered. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It was discussed on my talk page (originally) and the article talk page! Hugo999 (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no relevant discussion on article talk apart from the comment you added an hour after my above post. Softlavender posted on your talk because their comment was advice related to your editing. You could get other opinions about that at WP:Teahouse but the issue of whether or not certain text should be added to the article should be discussed on article talk so others can easily see it now, and in the future if it arises again. Johnuniq (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Hugo999, there is no reason to find WP:PRIMARY sources for anything. I'm not sure where you got that idea. What is desirable is sources that are independent of the subject; that is, not written by the subject himself. Please read WP:RS if you have not yet done so. Softlavender (talk) 05:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

For basic, non-controversial biographical details, sourcing them from memoirs or self-published sources can be acceptable. See WP:BLPSELFPUB for guidelines on when that may be appropriate. Independent sourcing is almost always better though. Some of the fluff that was added, such as about the Beatles touring Australia and New Zealand, would not appear to be noteworthy even with independent sourcing . – notwally (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Cody Ko and Tana Mongeau

YouTuber controversy: Tana Mongeau has alleged that Cody Ko committed statutory rape by having sex with her when she was underage, only 17. The only decent news source that has covered this is this Rolling Stone article. I've reverted coverage of the accusations on Cody Ko's article multiple times because I'm unsure if it conforms to WP:BLPCRIME, so I'm asking for another opinion here (my talk page comment did not receive much attention). — VORTEX (Talk!) 04:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the article subject is definitely a public figure. Under WP:PUBLICFIGURE, "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." – notwally (talk) 04:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. Is there any way to stop un-reverts?- — VORTEX (Talk!) 04:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You can request page protection, but that should only be if the edits are disruptive and cannot be prevented through any other means. The best way may be to revert edits that are not constructive or do not add new reliable sources while letting the editors know that there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page. – notwally (talk) 04:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see where in the Rolling Stone article she alleges statutory rape. She alleges that she had sex with him when she was 17, and while the Rolling Stone article notes that she lived in California where the age of consent is 18, she does not indicate that the sexual encounter took place within that state. Had they happened to hook up at some meeting in a neighboring state like Nevada where the age of consent is 16, it may well be ill-advised, but not rape and not (as the last version you reverted) "underage". So if we do report on what she said, it has to be on what she said, and not on our assumptions of what it means. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

IMO the Rolling Stone article isn't usable as a source anyway per WP:ROLLINGSTONE. While this might technically be in their culture section, I think it's much more in line with "societally sensitive issues". Even if it's not, we could only use this as a source for Rolling Stone's view of the situation "any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with attribution", which seems irrelevant unless for some reason the article itself becomes a big deal perhaps as happened with the infamous article A Rape on Campus. (To be clear, I'm not suggesting the circumstances are similar just that for good reason the Rolling Stone is largely unusable here.) Since the Rolling Stone seems to be the only putative RS here, we actually have zero RS not one. Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Description of "conspiracy theories" and "misinformation" section to "rumors/claims" on the "Attempted assassination of Donald Trump" article

@JPxG: has recently made an edit removing any mention of "conspiracy theories" or "misinformation" from its given section of the article and replaced it with the description that the claims were either "unverified" or "incorrect". WP: NPOV was cited and there were allegations by him that the previous wording was in violation of Misplaced Pages's policies on neutrality. He has claimed that the words should not be used and that they are "sensationalized POV buzzword... I think is completely unnecessary.".

I interpreted it, along with multiple editors such as @CommunityNotesContributor:, as an edit that implied (along with the other claims made) that there were plausible reasons to suspect that Trump & a right-wing "deep state" was behind the assassination attempt. This is overwhelmingly contradicted in reliable sources and it is entirely in line with WP: NPOV (which doesn't imply neutrality or "not taking a side") to explicitly denounce the given misinformation and conspiracy theories as false in Wikivoice.

As CommunityNotesContributor notes:

I haven't ignored, I've countered. I've asked you to provide references of these so-called "rumours" and you haven't done so. We both know NPOV is about providing both sides of the argument and neutral language to the content, while that section is entirely based on misinformation and conspiracy theories. Probably you don't even realise, but using that language gives a grain of credibility to what is clearly described as false. We are not the adjudicators on whether certain stories are true or false, are role is only to document them based on how the reliable sources describe them, and clearly it's not based on something that is doubtful or unverified (rumours), but instead undoubtedly false (misinformation/conspiracies). I only hope someone changes the header back for accuracy sake at this point, as none of the sources appear to describe "rumours".

Furthermore, as I also wrote on the article's talk page:

And changing it from "conspiracy theories" and "misinformation" to "Many people posted incorrect or unverified claims about the incident on social media" implies that several of the claims have plausibility.

• "Incorrect claims" (which people are going to take as only some of the claims listed)
• "Unverified claims" (which people are going to take as plausible claims)

I'm not asking (and would oppose) the editor who made these changes from being punished. But this seems like a clear, outrageous, and egregious WP: BLP situation and a case where section #7 of WP:3RRNO applies, particularly considering article traffic. I asked for a discussion on the talk page in my original reversion of his radical change to the section, it was immediately reverted, and the changes were reinstated by him before a consensus was reached on the matter.

The full context can be viewed on the article's talk page. Thanks. There definitely should be a conspiracy theory section and it should be listed as unamb. false per policy. KlayCax (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Bizarre action by JPxG, who should be knowledgeable on WP:FRINGE policy by now. These are very clearly conspiracy theories and should be appropriately described as such. Many aren't even conspiracies about Trump himself or negatively disparaging toward him, so BLP isn't the right thing to cite here. This sort of misinformation news reporting and ridiculous claims from people, politicians or otherwise, are common in the aftermath of major events such as these and they should (and are in our articles) described as conspiracy theories. To do otherwise is to violate NPOV and FRINGE.

Edit: This also shouldn't be a left wing or right wing thing. Conspiracy theories have been made in both regards and should be considered conspiracies until there is evidence for any of the claims (which would be a reason to move them out of this article section and put them somewhere else). Silverseren 01:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Clearly there are conspiracy theories about this event (running in both directions), and clearly we cover conspiracy theories to the extent that they are reported as such in reliable sources. BD2412 T 01:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, under no circumstance should allegations of "Trump and the Republicans hired crisis actors" be described as "unverified". (After labeling it a misinformation is entirely deleted from the article.)

This is probably the most egregious WP: BLP violation that I've seen in the three years that I have joined Misplaced Pages.

Off topic for BLPN: but a mention of right/left-wing conspiracy theories is WP: DUE, imo, or at least the type of conspiracy theories given. (False flag v. "Deep state" allowing it to happen.)

It however could probably be trimmed. KlayCax (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You reverted every single edit, and refused all attempts to discuss this, on the basis that none of the edits was acceptable whatsoever in any part. I literally cannot comprehend the claim you are making, then -- you think that the BLP policy requires us to use the specific word "misinformation", and no other word is permitted, when saying that a claim is false? jp×g🗯️ 06:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You are substantially and egregiously misrepresenting virtually everything about this dispute, ranging from the factual content of my edits to the arguments I made, as well as your own claims in repeatedly edit-warring over it. jp×g🗯️ 01:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

What's being misrepresented? KlayCax (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

And, above, I cited WP: 3RRNO rather than saying that there was not an edit conflict. KlayCax (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

If you will recall, what I originally said (at some length) was that this entire section was unnecessary and WP:UNDUE -- we do not actually need to dutifully report every time a crank on twitter says something dumb. Cranks say dumb stuff all the time. It seems extremely predictable that, in the wake of a major political event, right-wing cranks would post right-wing crackpot nonsense, and left-wing cranks would post left-wing crackpot nonsense. There were three full paragraphs being devoted to a deep-dive on every stupid claim that was given even a passing mention, including the false-flag bilge, the NWO bilge, et cetera. This was a top-level subsection! It was being given the same weight in the article as comments from Joe Biden, Pope Francis, Xi Jinping, Macron, Trudeau, Modi, Starmer, every major political party, businessman and spiritual leader combined.

There was one editor who, whenever I brought this up on the talk page, would accuse me of "overthinking". Well, it's not overthinking, it's core content policy. But, regardless, anybody who tried to remove or trim the section was stonewalled, so I decided that rather than keep getting reverted I would just copyedit it. It was written badly, with flowery purple prose about "pushing" and "spreading" stuff that was a "conspiracy theory". But the claims being described this way were not matters of opinion, or really open to interpretation at all: they were very obviously false. There was no reason to do a cutesy dance around saying this with vague innuendo.

This involved moving it to be a second-level subsection of the "reactions" section, after the comments by world leaders and famous figures and media outlets, rather than its own exclusive top-level subsection, and in removing some of the more sensational, editorializing language. For example, if somebody says the Moon is made of cheese, a good way to describe that is to say they "falsely claimed the moon was made of cheese". An extremely bad way to say that is an unreadable wall of buzzwords about "the harmful dangerous toxic treacherous swirling spread of narratives that push, peddle, amplify, carry water for, smack of, are reminiscent of, invoke, incite, reference, and parallel misinformation-disinformation-malinformation linked to and tied to the debunked, discredited, debunked, conspiratorial moon-made-of-cheese trope". This is not only unnecessary and improper, but also unhelpful and unpersuasive.

The thing that you were edit-warring over to change, specifically, was not to remove this section with the false claims at all. Instead, you were repeatedly REMOVING the explicit and objective phrases "incorrect claims" and "unverified claims", and replacing them with the vague buzzwords "misinformation" and "conspiracy theory". I understand that you think those terms sound better, but they are vague and ill-defined -- specifically, "misinformation" is a highly politicized buzzword which even self-proclaimed misinformation think tanks agree is frequently used for POV-pushing.

Since you never bothered to actually try to discuss this, and instead went directly to the phase of edit-warring while falsely accusing me of doing stuff I did not do, you never got to ask me if I would be amenable to simply adding clarifying language later in the subsection. I would have been completely fine with this, and had intended to do so -- I was prevented from doing so because you kept reverting it over and over. jp×g🗯️ 02:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

IMO, those articles about the term "misinformation" are not particularly persuasive. I think most ordinary people interpret it pretty synonymously with "false information/claims". We should just be going with what most sources are using. While I agree that we should try to avoid covering these kinds of crazy claims made online, unfortunately the media is covering them relentlessly right now. – notwally (talk) 04:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you are missing my point: KlayCax's explicit claim is that they are not synonymous, and that calling things "incorrect or unverified claims" means I am actually saying they happened, because I did not use the exact word "misinformation" verbatim.

If there is a consensus that calling a claim "false" is more or less synonymous with calling it "misinformation", and that using one versus the other does not create "BLP" issues, that is completely fine with me -- that is the thing I have been trying to explain the whole time. jp×g🗯️ 06:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

My comment above was addressing your point that "misinformation" and "conspiracy theories" are "vague buzzwords". While "conspiracy theory" is a stronger term that needs more caution than the others, I view the terms like "incorrect claims" or "misinformation" as being basically synonymous. I do not believe any of this involves a BLP violation. – notwally (talk) 06:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

If it's widely supported in reliable sources, we should cover it. If it's not widely reported in reliable sources, we shouldn't cover it. If it's widely called a conspiracy theory in reliable sources, we should call it a conspiracy theory. If it's not widely called a conspiracy theory in reliable sources, we should not call it a conspiracy theory. There, I fixed Misplaced Pages. Happy editing! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree it should be determined by whether the terms in dispute are widely used by reliable sources. There seems to be a lot of discussion, but not enough of it focused on discussing the actual sources. If a lot of high quality sources are using the terms, then they could be included in the article, although not in excess just to make a point. None of this looks like a BLPN issue though, just a content dispute that needs to be worked out on the talk page. – notwally (talk) 04:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The specific rationale for the edit (e.g. the justification given for why WP:3RR didn't apply) was that describing something as an "incorrect claim" was a BLP violation, but that describing it as "misinformation" wasn't. If there is agreement that this is not the case, then there's really nothing more that has to be said at the BLP noticeboard, and I am happy to have the section closed and return to the talk page. jp×g🗯️ 04:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

No, that's not the TLDR. it was clearly about changing "misinformation and conspiracy theories" to "incorrect or unverified claims". The latter changes the meaning from maliciously false to "truth not verified". Likewise changing the section header to "rumurs", as if WP is some tabloid gossip rap that's documenting alternative theories. I asked you to provide reliable sources for this claim, but you refused to do so. Glad I didn't get further involved at the time as I suspected this would en up as "if you don't appreciate what I'm allowing you to have I'll take it all away", in the guide of a WP:TANTRUM. Anyway, does anyone have a list of relevant diffs? The history page is too long to look through, but I don't understand how KlayCax was the only one edit warring. I understand KC reason for doing so, though don't particularly agree, but what's anyone else's excuse? CNC (talk) 10:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You said "no, that's not it" and then repeated the exact thing I said. At any rate, is there an actual BLP issue, or are we just running out the clock? jp×g🗯️ 10:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you not understand the different between unverified and verified? Per source analysis, the only reference to rumors from one RS was the description of "false rumors" or "unfounded rumors". All other sources have verified that these "unverified rumors" are in fact misinformation and/or conspiracy theories. As someone already pointed out above, describing fringe conspiracy theories as "unverified claims" and "rumors" is clearly against guidelines CNC (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I never used that phrase. You are lying.

Please leave me alone. jp×g🗯️ 11:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Since you're now calling me a liar, I've amended my comment to include the diffs where you describe the content as "unverified claims" and "rumors". "unverified rumors" was shorthand. CNC (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You should never refactor a comment after it has been replied to. If you had diffs to add later, do it as a reply. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Notwally Have added list of sources below analysing terminology usuage per request. CNC (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This type of discussion will pop up now and again, here is an earlier example for the interested: Talk:Francis_Scott_Key_Bridge_collapse/Archive_2#PolitiFact. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: Okay, two things: first of all, I'd recommend CNC and JPxG take a break from this thread, and let others comment here. This is quickly becoming an unreadable mess of two users sniping at each other. Second, I'm not really sure why this is at BLPN and not at the article's talk page, where other interested editors can chime in. Isabelle Belato 13:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Source analysis

Per requested above, here are the list of sources that were used prior to the edit war stable version:

• How conspiracy theories and hate dominated social feeds after assassination attempt on Trump. Described as conspiracy theories as well as disinformation. Not described as "rumors", but "false rumors" or "unfounded rumors" for clarity.
• Top Democratic strategist pushed reporters to consider ‘staged’ shooting archived. "baseless conspiracy is becoming widespread", no reference of rumors.
• Conspiracy theories about the Trump rally shooting flourish online. "Conspiracy theories, false claims and unsupported assertions", no reference of rumors.
• Irakli Kobakhidze: The global war party does not change methods - in the 21st century, liberal fascism, radicalism, polarization, hatred and bloody attacks on politicians have become commonplace in the US and Europe. No reference of anything relevant to discussion, doesn't appear to be a reliable source?

Here are additional sources referenced on the talk page:

• Trump rally shooting draws flood of condemnation, support for the former president, and wild conspiracy theories. "At least one Republican lawmaker is already spreading conspiracy theories about the incident." No reference of "rumors".
• Social Media Platforms Deluged by Unsubstantiated Claims About Trump Rally arhicved. Described as "Unsubstantiated claims" with concern from disinformation experts, no mention of "rumors".
• Misinformation spreads swiftly in hours after Trump rally shooting archived. Described as "conspiracy theories" and "misinformation", no mention of "rumors".
• Trump's assassination attempt ignites new divisions and conspiracy theories. Described as "conspiracy theories", no mention of "rumors".
• Trump assassination attempt a result of the ‘worst negligence in history’ or an ‘inside job’? Conspiracies take flight. Described as "conspiracy theories", no mention of "rumors".
• Cool heads needed as political fringe dwellers spread disinformation after Trump shooting. Described as "hyperbole, lies, conspiracy theories and uninformed nonsense", otherwise referenced as "disinformation", no mention of "rumors".

Some additional sources since yesterday over conspiracy theories and misinformation:

• 'BlueAnon' conspiracy theories flood social media after Trump rally shooting archived. "liberals began flooding social media platforms with conspiracy theories", also referenced as misinformation, concern from disinformation experts, no mention of "rumors".
• Tim Robbins hits out at conspiracy theories linking his film to Trump shooting. Described as "conspiracy theories", no reference to "rumors".

Needless to say, all these so-called "rumors" are described as either conspiracy theories, misinformation, or otherwise condemned/identified as disinformation (ie intentional misinformation, as opposed to potentially unintentional). I even searched for "Trump assassination rumors" and there was only the BBC article referenced above, that as identified refers to "false" or "unfounded rumors" - so as to avoid the implication that they could be true. CNC (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You are on the noticeboard for the biographies of living persons policy, where this discussion was moved, from the talk page of the article, on the explicit basis that it was not a normal content discussion, and it had to be discussed in the context of BLP policy.

Everything you've posted here is irrelevant to that, unless you can provide a specific reason why the Biographies of living persons policy REQUIRES the verbatim use of the exact phrase "misinformation" or "conspiracy theory", and that a claim cannot be described as "incorrect". jp×g🗯️ 11:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It was requested above, clearly because no-one can make an informed opinion on whether there is a breach of guidelines unless source analysis is undertaken per WP:EVALFRINGE. It's been clearly explained to you why describing wild conspiracy theories as "unverified rumors" is a breach of guidelines. If you don't understand that yet, I can't help you. CNC (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide a specific reason why the Biographies of living persons policy REQUIRES the verbatim use of the exact phrase "misinformation" or "conspiracy theory", and a claim cannot be described as "incorrect"? jp×g🗯️ 11:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I've made it clear to you the issue is with describing conspiracy theories (verified as such by RS) as "unverified rumors" (not verified by RS). Per below, I believe this a grapevine issue. You can call a claim incorrect sure, that's just polishing a turd as it were, when misinformation is based on malicious intent, something false isn't necessarily deceptive. Let's allow other people to analysis the sources and see if they people "rumors" is an adequate interpretation or not. CNC (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not the talk page for "Attempted assassination of Donald Trump"; it is the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard. jp×g🗯️ 12:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You can also look at WP:GRAPEVINE for this: "is an original interpretation or analysis of a source". Describing conspiracy theories as rumors is quite clearly original research unsupported by the RS used. CNC (talk) 11:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I did not describe them as "rumors" -- that was a section heading, above a full paragraph, which gave a very clear additional description of the claims, and extremely clearly described them as false.

In no way did I ever, by any thinkable definition, call them "rumors" with no additional qualification. You are lying. jp×g🗯️ 11:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

By describing the header of conspiracy content as "rumors on social media", and edit warring to implement this by including it three times within as many hours, this is the same violation and I think you know this very well. Imagine suggesting changing Moon landing conspiracy theories to Moon landing rumors, under the guise of "POV buzzwords". CNC (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This is false. jp×g🗯️ 12:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You understand that MOS:HEADINGS "generally follow the guidance for article titles" and that MOS:AT is a "recognizable name or description of the topic" (emphasis added). So by repeatedly changing the header, you are describing the content. But sure, just call me a liar if you prefer. CNC (talk) 12:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I have ever seen somebody try to do a Frankenstein veto on a Misplaced Pages diff before. jp×g🗯️ 12:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a content dispute over word choice, not a BLP violation. All this needs to go back over to the talk page, or else pursue other forms of dispute resolution. I agree with the other editor who suggests that some of the editors take a break from this and focus on the content rather than the other editors with whom they disagree. – notwally (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Trump and Russia

The lead of the Donald Trump article says, “A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump." This insinuates that Trump may have conspired or cooperated with that interference, which is contrary to WP:NPOV.

A proposal has been made to add a phrase: "A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump, but did not establish that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with that interference.” No one denies that this is 100% accurate and supported by reliable sources, but some editors (a minority) say at the article talk page that they prefer to maintain the status quo, which is an improper insinuation in the lead, without even including Trump's denial of the thing that's being insinuated.

So this seems like a pretty clear WP:BLP violation, and input here is requested. As a matter of context, note that foreign countries have been interfering in U.S. presidential elections since 1796, and several countries besides Russia interfered in 2016. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

That's a misrepresentation. We have not been disagreeing about those words, but some other addition made without any consensus. The current version is the longstanding consensus version, but now AYW comes along with some weird talk about our version endangering Trump's life. This is weird shit. I'm going to bed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You indicated that you would not accept the language described above. You would not accept it, correct? Just say yes or no, please. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Obviously your answer is “no.” You’ve already said, “leave it be” and “why are you trying to change it for no good reason?” and “We can avoid a lot of controversy by just leaving it that way.” The present language is slanted, it suggests Trump may be a Russian agent or pawn, an antidemocratic traitor, and it deliberately omits evidence to the contrary in the very same Mueller Report. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The current, very longstanding, version doesn't imply anything about Trump or his actions. Nothing at all. It only tells the fact that the Russians interfered in the election to help him win. That's a fact that speaks of Russia's actions, not Trump's actions. That's also from the body, so it's an appropriate mention in the lead.

Why don't you point to the exact words in that sentence in the lead that say or imply anything about what Trump did? You won't find that in the lead, only in the body, and especially in the Mueller report article. It documents how Trump and his campaign welcomed the interference, hid it, lied about it, tried to blame Ukraine for it, and cooperated with it in myriad ways. There is a huge amount of such reliably-sourced content we simply don't mention in that spot in the lead. Be happy for that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the lead is particularly well-written in the article, but I don't think the sentence you mention is a BLP violation. It seems like a stretch to claim that it "insinuates that Trump may have conspired or cooperated with that interference". – notwally (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It very clearly implies that he may have done so. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

No more so than your suggested version indicating that that question was investigated with no proven conclusion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Right, they both do, but the addition tends to indicate that he didn’t commit that treasonous act. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it very clearly doesn't. Maybe you don't think there is enough context in the lead, but that is not the same. In any case, it is not a BLP violation, but a content dispute that should be worked out on the talk page. – notwally (talk) 06:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no "insinuation" and no BLP violation. AYW should stop trying to short-circuit the usual process of resolving the content dispute via discussion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I am uninvolved, but it looks to me like editors have tried and failed to reach consensus at the ATP. The assassination attempt has undoubtedly reduced interest to some extent. How much trying and failing is required before one is allowed to post here? If a "no consensus" RfC result is required, the information at the top of this page should state as much. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This is BLPN, which focuses more on BLP violations than ordinary content disputes. There are other avenues to resolve content disputes if discussions on a talk page are not adequate. – notwally (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLP requires neutrality and mentions “neutral” over a dozen times (e.g. “When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic”). Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

If anything, I would read the proposed alternative as being the one which insinuates that the Trump campaign cooperated with the Russian interference: specifically mentioning in the lead that the investigation was unable to prove the Trump campaign was involved in the Russian interference explicitly draws attention to that possibility! (c.f. Apophasis) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

As I said in my first comment above, foreign interference in U.S. presidential elections has been happening for centuries. Yet AFAIK no presidential candidate or president has had it in their BLP, much less in their lead, except Trump. So a bare statement in this lead that there was interference refers to something that has almost nothing to do with Trump himself, and therefore I would be glad to remove it as undue weight from the lead. But if it stays, then we should include BRIEFLY that he was exonerated to some extent, and in the American system everyone knows that he’s therefore presumed innocent. We already have a sentence which draws undue attention to the matter (including not one but two wiki links), and I disagree that the few more proposed words will cause readers to be any more suspicious of Trump than the existing text makes them….quite the opposite. Do we have many BLP’s at Misplaced Pages saying the subject was investigated, but omitting that no guilt could be established? Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

A federal investigation widely reported in the news media seems fairly noteworthy, and makes this situation not comparable to past elections. The lead also does not say that the article subject was investigated; it says that Russia interfered in the election to benefit the article subject. Disingenuous arguments are not going to help an already contentious area. In any case, though, multiple editors have commented that this is not a BLPN issue. The discussion should continue at the talk page or you should pursue other avenues of dispute resolution. – notwally (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

There would have been no "special counsel" investigation if they had been just investigating Russia. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

"foreign interference in U.S. presidential elections has been happening for centuries. Yet AFAIK no presidential candidate or president has had it in their BLP"

Regardless of the fact that there are likely reasons why Trump's case is different, and or exceptional, what specific elections are you referring to? DN (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I already mentioned the 1796 election. The 2016 election also seems very pertinent. I gave a link in my first post above. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a BLP violation. It's something subject to consensus that should be discussed on the article talk page not this noticeboard. @Anythingyouwant: you seem to be replying an awful lot here. Please take pains to avoid dominating the discussion. VQuakr (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, you write "exonerated"? Seriously?

AP FACT CHECK: Trump falsely claims Mueller exonerated him:

"THE FACTS: Trump has not been exonerated by Mueller at all. “No,” Mueller said when asked at the hearing whether he had cleared the president of criminal wrongdoing in the investigation that looked into the 2016 Trump campaign’s relations with Russians."

Anythingyouwant, get your facts straight. Trump was anything but innocent. Unfortunately, Mueller was bound by rules that prevented him from even making any finding of criminal actions. He was not allowed to indict Trump, but he collected the evidence and foolishly hoped Congress would act. He did NOT prove that Trump did not "conspire" or "coordinate" with the Russians. He was just unable to prove it beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt, and he did find evidence of lots of actions that would be considered conspiratorial and collusion (Trump Tower meeting, Stone and WikiLeaks, and the secrecy around the message from Russia to the campaign carried by Papadopoulos).

There was a lot of cooperation with the Russians in the form of lying about the interference, hiding it, denying it, myriad secret contacts between Trump campaign members and Russian intelligence agents, back-channel communication, and aiding and abetting the Russian interference. Lots of secrecy there. Even Giuliani could not deny that the campaign colluded with the Russians. He just claimed that Trump himself didn't do it (and no one but a fool would ever believe Giuliani or Trump): "In sharp reversal, Giuliani now claims: 'I never said there was no collusion between the campaign' and Russia" -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m not going to reply to this opus, as I do not want to dominate the discussion. I would, however, like to thank everyone who has joined or will join in this discussion at BLPN, because the issues are considerably clarified, even though I still maintain it’s both a BLP and NPOV violation. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

No opus here... , just a request that you answer the question I asked you far up above:

"Why don't you point to the exact words in that sentence in the lead that say or imply anything about what Trump did?"

Here's the sentence:

"A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump."

We're still clueless about what words in that sentence triggered you so much. Help us understand. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

What I’ve already said is perfectly clear. We describe in the lead that he was investigated (special counsels investigate presidents) without including the outcome (nor his denial BTW). If we were only describing an investigation of some other people then it wouldn’t belong in the lead at this particular BLP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

That's about as clear as mud. You seem to be objecting to what isn't there more than what is there. What is there is about as neutral as possible. Your attempted solution (by adding words that mean something quite different than what Mueller actually said) made it worse, not better. It wasn't an improvement. Mueller did not exonerate Trump or declare him innocent, but you, with your own OR wording, tried to do that. That's not right. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The underlined words in the very first post above are indisputably 100% correct, reliably sourced, not OR at all, and responsive to your own prior complaints. Good night. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Information on family of Thomas Matthew Crooks

Should information on his mother and father's political beliefs be included? I personally see it as a serious BLP violation as it is hearsay and irrelevant to his motivation, but can prejudice people towards them. WP:NPF seems to me like we should exclude their information as they are not notable and are not relevant to the incident. Just want to confirm I am correct in this being a BLP violation or if I have misinterpreted policy. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not. WP:NPF and WP: BLPPRIVACY apply EvergreenFir (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, correct - NPF/BLP violation. DeCausa (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not, per @EvergreenFir: and @DeCausa:. KlayCax (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing in BLP says this information should not be allowed. Please quote the part of the policy that says it should be excluded. TFD (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• No, for now, per WP:NPF. However I am open to the possibility that this could change if it becomes clear that the parents, and/or their political beliefs, contributed to their son's actions. But the bar there is fairly high. It would have to be discussed extensively in multiple reliable sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  Why is it required that their political orientation be relevant to their son's actions? The article is called Thomas Matthew Crooks, not Why did Thomas Matthew Crooks try to kill the President? Everything generally reported about his life is relevant to the article about him. TFD (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPF is interesting, but instruction creep of simply applying WP:DUE and WP:V of WP:RS. As long as our coverage of it is proportional to what our sources provide and relevant to the subject of the article (i.e. our sources make the connection, not our editors via WP:OR) then it would seem to me sensible to include it. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

BLP violations on Trae tha Truth

IP editor added unsourced and potentially libelous content to article for Trae tha Truth, since has been reverted, see changes. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Revisions deleted. – bradv 14:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Rick W. Wright

I'd like for an experienced BLP editor to have a look at this article, its history, and the two articles placed in the EL section. There seem to be serious allegations but, as far as I can tell, for now they are just allegations. The two articles seem to be reliable, so I let them stay, but I'd rather someone else judge if they need to be used for article content. You'll see in the history that I revdeleted unverified accusations pertaining to the same matter three times. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks like a straight BLPCRIME issue to me. They're not really a public figure, and as of now it is just lawsuits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Disappearance of Jay Slater

Disappearance of Jay Slater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article is about a British teenager that went missing in Tenerife a month ago, and whose body appears to have been found today (unconfirmed). Per WP:BDP, BLP likely still applies. I've just taken out reference to the missing person's alleged past "legal" issues which had been used to link with social media speculation/conspiracy theories about the disappearance, utilizing SYNTHy sources. Helpful if there were more eyes on this. DeCausa (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected from 7/9 to 7/23. IMO, looks like there is still too much inappropriate speculation/rumors/comparisons in it. Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTNEWS. – notwally (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned the whole thing is really NOTNEWS. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree, this is just ghoulish & with no encyclopedic value. Bon courage (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree. I'm also concerned about some of the BLP aspects of the content of this talk page post. Views? DeCausa (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Shanaz Ibrahim Ahmed

Not sure whether to bring this one here or COIN, but on balance it's BLP concerns. Pshakhasraw (talk · contribs) has made edits to Shanaz Ibrahim Ahmed. Here's a diff of their most recent changes, which are a reversion of my revert of their original changes. I had reverted them because, when I checked the references, I found that in several places the refs did not support the statements they were supposed to reference. I set out some examples of this on the editor's Talk page; here's a diff. I had already posted to the editor's Talk page about a possible CoI, as the image of the subject they had uploaded is tagged own work. They had not responded to this, so I asked them to reply and not to edit the article again until they had. They then reverted my revert, so I've brought it here. As I've said on their Talk page, some of the refs they have added would improve the article, but only if they were actually used to support statements for which they provide evidence. There was definitely room for expansion in the earlier version, but I don't think it helps anyone for it to be in a state where evidence is muddled in this way.

I'll let Pshakhasraw know I have posted over here; it would be good to hear from them. Tacyarg (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Michel DeGraff

• Michel DeGraff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've discovered that the past several months of edits on the page of this contentious (at least at MIT) figure have been carried out entirely by the subject of the page. These are additions, not deletions of misinformation, and seem subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.227.34 (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I cleaned up the article a bit and removed the embedded external links along with some of the unsourced content, including this former gem: "Really, language is a powerful tool for decolonization and liberation, as it is for colonization and domination!" – notwally (talk) 03:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

BLP violations on Ali B

IP editor added unsourced and potentially libelous content to article for Ali B, since has been reverted, see changes, changes, changes and changes. --Trade (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Neither unsourced nor libelous. He was convicted of rape and sentenced to two years in prison. The final paragraph of the lead summarizes the criminal cases against him and has cited sources. However, that does not mean it is appropriate to add "convicted rapist" to the short description or the first sentence. – notwally (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Josh McLaurin

Now that McLaurin has weighed in on J.D. Vance's selection as Donald Trump's running mate, his page has been minorly vandalized at least once. If there is a way to flag it to be watched for malicious edits while still allowing regular factual updates, it might be good to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.105.19.174 (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no way to "flag" articles as such, but bringing it to a well-trafficked noticeboard like this is a good way to get eyes on it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 17:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

2/14/1994 Carlmont High School shooting

The list says this was a school shooting. The article it links to says it happened on a sidewalk. All of the articles I have found say it did not happen at the school and therefore should be removed. https://www.newspapers.com/image/461582737/?match=1&terms=Edward%20Sims https://www.newspapers.com/image/462128553/?match=1&terms=Edwin%20Sims — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:c71:8160:2c09:66b8:8f4:843 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Please link to the appropriate article. It appears this is List of school shootings in the United States (before 2000) Meters (talk) 06:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not an issue for this board. Please raise it on the article's talk page, or just remove it yourself. Meters (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

El Hotzo

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

German satirist who said he wished Trump had been killed, which is legal in the U.S. but may or may not be illegal in Germany. A rare case of major media attention for a living person whose biography is an orphan. I've removed the only glaring BLPvio I saw, but it would be good to get some more pagewatchers at least. And maybe someone can find a way to deörphan. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 01:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Added to a "Notable people" section of his hometown. Watchlisted. I don't have an opinion on the current version, which is at least not obviously undue. For similar reasons, it would be nice to have more eyes on Lea DeLaria. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Is deörphan a term we use? I like it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: User:Tamzin/The diaeresis. Join us! -- Tamzin (they|xe) 23:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. But I think I'll stick to using ö when the word is spelled that way, like "ö". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Added to List of German-language comedians. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)