Misplaced Pages

:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:51, 27 January 2015 editJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,070 edits →Steven Emerson part 2: reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:46, 27 December 2024 edit undoClovermoss (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators30,595 edits →AfDs and BLPs: new sectionTag: New topic 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|Misplaced Pages noticeboard for discussion of biographies of living people}}
<!--{{User:MiszaBot/config
<noinclude>{{Pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>{{/Header}}
|archiveheader = {{archivemainpage|WP:BLPN}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 200K
| archiveheader = {{NOINDEX}} {{archivemainpage|WP:BLPN}}
|counter = 187
| maxarchivesize = 290K
|minthreadsleft = 1
| counter = 365
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 1
|algo = old(5d)
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
| algo = old(9d)
}}-->
| archive = Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
}}
|header={{archivemainpage}}
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive
|format=%%i
|age=90
|numberstart=187
|minkeepthreads= 1
|maxarchsize= 200000
}}{{Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Header}}]]]{{NOINDEX}}__FORCETOC__ __NEWSECTIONLINK__


== Reviews on Environmental Health ==


== ] ==
Hi. User ] seeks to demonstrate or imply that ] is a biased editor-in-chief of this journal. For an editor of a peer reviewed journal, this is a serious allegation. Brian Dell has advocated persistently on the Talk page since his Dec 7th edit and subsequent attempts have been rebuffed by 2 other editors and myself, who joined the conversation with a 3PO. Dell and ] have been edit warring IMO, though they do discuss in Talk and both avoid a formal 3RR violation.


I would like to get other opinions on this article. Members of local county boards in Virginia typically only have local new coverage and are rarely notable beyond the local news. The only thing providing arguable notability in this case is the information in the controversies section. That section is well sourced, but overshadows the rest of the article in content and sourcing. Between the borderline notability claim and the focus on negative content, I think this page is a BLP problem. <span style="font-family: Constantia">] ''(])''</span> 20:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
The most recent Dell edit does finally provide a source for the allegation against Carpenter. However, it's from an admittedly biased source -- and so the controversial allegation is very poorly sourced. Maybe reliable sources will come to light? Meanwhile, I am concerned that Dell's edits violate our BLP policy and should be removed. Is it appropriate for me to report this and then remove the problematic edit myself? Thanks! ] | ] 06:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
:So is your question best answered from policy at ] or at ]/]? At first glance, it looks like a BLP concern because the article is a BLP. But my read of your post is that it's probably up to you to decide whether to walk through AfD. We can't/won't pre-AfD it here. This topic wasn't talk paged other than a notice about this thread. Maybe either ] and AfD in good faith or clean up the article. ] (]) 00:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:FYI your concerns look valid to me. It's also an unflattering ] about a controversy. I'll watch in case anyone chooses to move this discussion to AfD. ] (]) 00:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks for the feedback {{u|JFHJr}} - I kept going back and forth on how to proceed. I came to the page with hopes of improving it, but after reading it, I honestly debated whether it qualified for G10. I (mostly) rejected that and was in the process of nominating it for AFD, before I thought I would raise it here. I should have started on the article talk, but the creator is blocked and there aren't any active editors. So, I didn't anticipate any response there. I'll take a harder look at filling it out or pulling the trigger on AFD. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
:::This is really a strange article. The lead does not even mention that he is a member of the Arlington County Board, and neither does the career section, which describes his previous job. There is no description of the elections he won, his opponents, his vote counts or the work he has done on the board. The "controversies" section gives ] to these financial matters and is overly detailed in comparison to the rest of the article. ] (]) 19:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Looks like the "controversies" material was all added by ]. -- ] (]) 22:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::::@], I added a bit of RS-backed info and copy edited. The source doesn't offer details. @] did lots of cleanup before that. The body to which he was elected appears ] and it took me a moment to find the subsection discussing it in part (ahem, @]). ] (]) 02:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{u|JFHJr}}, I am pretty confident the Arlington County Board is notable. It is just that no one has gotten around to writing an article about it. ] (]) 03:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I agree that the board itself is notable, but I doubt many members of the board are individually notable. When I first came across this article, it looked to me like a political "hit piece" involving minor controversies about a minor local politician. After looking though the history, it clearly didn't start out that way, as he wasn't even on the board when the article was started. However, I remain concerned that it essentially turned into a political attack page. I still doubt there would be a good argument for notability beyond the controversies, which strike me as ] on ]. Even the Washington Post is often considered a local paper for Northern Virginia local politics. It is a strange article that sits right at an uncomfortable intersection between notability and BLP.-<span style="font-family: Constantia">] ''(])''</span> 15:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)


The article editing has stabilized and the product of ] is essentially a biography about a local-government level disgrace. There's little to no independent, reliable ] about the biographical basics of this subject. While I can't say this is an attack page (anymore), I remain unsure of this article's encyclopedic value. Any other editors with better (subscription) access than me to certain research tools may be helpful here. ] (]) 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:It wouldn't hurt you to make the good faith assumption that I'm simply interested in having Misplaced Pages fulfill its role as an information source, and accordingly opposed to efforts aimed at suppressing controversial information about this publication simply because it's controversial. I am also of the view that you are misrepresenting the background by having it appear that the same sort of edit has been at issue for some time. The earlier edits constituted efforts on my part to avoid having critical material in the article and avoid leading readers to the conclusion that there is a controversy while still suggesting to them relevant facts readers could use to inform themselves but you rejected those efforts of mine calling my efforts to make any criticism more indirect "original research". The edit now at issue cites a source questioning a "publication's credibility" as opposed to that of an individual (either living or dead), such that it requires some ] to get even a possible BLP concern here. Re "very poorly sourced", aside from the fact that WP:RS says "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources...", ] does not just but directly links to the source's website. The source is also used by , , , the , , and the . I could go on.--] (]) 05:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
:I think the BLP issue is sufficiently mitigated - thank you. Notability is still borderline, but I personally think it probably squeaks--<span style="font-family: Constantia">] ''(])''</span> 00:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC) by.


== WP:BLPCRIME & international criminal law ==
::It'd be good to get input from an experienced BLP editor. I think the source is unacceptable for this kind of allegation. This is the proposed edit, "''Energy in Depth'', a research and education program of the ], has contended that Carpenter's editor-in-chief role "brings up questions as to the publication’s credibility." I compared it to ], where allegations are mentioned due to sources like ''The Guardian'' and ''Chronicle of Higher Education''. The petroleum association may be a credible or sufficient source for some things, but not for whether Misplaced Pages should cover allegations against one of its academic critics. I do agree that we should assume that Mr. Dell is editing in good faith. ] | ] 16:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
:::''The Guardian'', which is generally known to have a perspective that is more in line with the environment lobby than the industry lobby, was cited for a grand total of two sentences. And the Chronicle of Higher Education was not cited for its main point, that there's a "fierce" scientific and political controversy, but to pluck out a quote that's used to present Boehmer-Christiansen as having a "political agenda". Which she does, but not just this citation, indeed, most of that article, is material contending that Boehmer-Christiansen (who, say what you will, is an "academic") had an "agenda", something I would think you would deem a BLP violation if you were consistent.--] (]) 01:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
* This situation is pretty clearly covered by ]: ''If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article&mdash;even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find '''multiple''' reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.'' (emphasis in original). In this case, the allegations appear to be sourced solely to an oil-and-gas lobbying group with an obvious agenda. Unless these allegations receive substantive coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, they do not belong in the article, according to our ] policy. (Note that the WELLKNOWN provisions apply to public figures; arguably, Carpenter is not a public figure and thus would qualify for even more stringent protection against poorly sourced accusations). ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 17:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
::You can't have your cake and eat it too here. If "WELLKNOWN provisions apply to public figures Carpenter is not a public figure" then you can't cherry pick a clause from WELLKNOWN just because it serves your purposes. Either WELLKNOWN applies or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then cite the policy that does.--] (]) 01:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
:::I don't think you understand the concept of a public figure. Public figures are "fair game" in many ways, but even they are protected from poorly sourced accusations by ]. Private figures are subject to all of the protections of public figures ''plus'' additional deference by virtue of their low profile. Either way, this material violates ] and, as an admin, I will treat it as such. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 10:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
*I don't see how the use of that source would be appropriate in this context. ] (]) 18:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
::How about ]? Nothing in there is inappropriate? This is not a ] observation but a question about what you think the standard is. Just giving an opinion without any reasoning is not helpful, at least not to me.--] (]) 01:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
*Without a reliable independent source asserting that he is biased (and in this case it would need to be a source specialising in the scientific literature in this field), it's ]. His views are entirely at odds with the scientific consensus, and that may well end up going badly for him, but it hasn't yet and we're not here to blaze the trail. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
::If Energy in Depth does not know the "scientific literature in this field" then why do publications like Scientific American turn to them as a counterpoint to the articles that appear in ''Reviews on Environmental Health''? I'll add that we see "Mr. Carpenter’s claims are way out of line with the actual findings of the Hites study" in the ], so it is not like Energy in Depth is the only one to question Carpenter. In any case, this is all a side show, since it's entirely possible to not make any reference to Carpenter. The appropriate thread is therefore ] the RS Noticeboard.--] (]) 02:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


Do categories like ], ], & ] break ]?
FYI, ] et al. Mr. Dell has reinserted the allegations from the (biased) industry publication. Now the allegations do not contain the BLP name, but the source is unreliable and the implication against the individual is clear (and in the industry allegation). Thanks. ] | ] 04:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
:"the implication against the individual is clear" is . The only reason we are here and not on the RS noticeboard is because of forum shopping. Repeating "source is unreliable" again and again is not going to make it so without some evidence and argument that the editors of everything from federal government presentations/handouts to industry journals to the Wall St Journal should have their editorial judgement replaced with a WIkipedian's judgement as to usability.--] (]) 07:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
:: The source supports the claim about the publication, with no names mentioned. It does not support allegations of bias against the individual, for that we would require reliable independent sources that are properly qualified to make the statement, and make the statement in those terms. If you're not already aware of them, ] and ] may help you. Wi-fi / emf crank notions fall solidly in ]. The content you added from Energy In Depth was a ], find a reliable independent source that makes the same point you want to make, and attribute it. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


This issue was first brought up by @] at ], but as it calls into question the validity of such categories as a whole, I thought it best to ask how/if ] interacts with international criminal law.
== WP:BLPPRIMARY ==


<sub>Moved here by request of @].</sub> ] (]) 22:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
] says not to use public records etc. for living people - just to confirm, this does not apply as soon as someone dies, such as using a public record to confirm death details? ]] 19:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
:Gallant is definitely a PUBLICFIGURE and we should neutrally document what sources say, but categories like "fugitive" and "war criminal" don't seem adequately attested in sources to be a category, which should be a defining characteristic. And you did leave out the "war criminal" category in your question. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:] still applies to the recently deceased. Besides if the details aren't in a secondary source do they need to be in an encyclopaedia? — ] (]) 19:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
::Apologies. I hadn't asked about ''"war criminal"'' as I agreed with your removal of it & that no one reinstated it later. I only asked about categories that are currently still on the page. ] (]) 23:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::Think of the hundreds/thousands of notable people who dropped out of the public eye many years before their death, which consequently went unreported in secondary sources... ]] 19:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
:::If a secondary reliable source does not think it is important enough to mention, neither ought we. ] (]) 19:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC) :Gallant is certainly a public figure. "War Criminal" is, unfortunately, the domain of ] but fugitive from the ICC is accurate and reflected in many reliable sources. ] (]) 23:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:I still don't understand why we have these categories, as someone who edits a lot about crime. How defining are the individual stages of the criminal process vs the crime itself? Fugitive/charged/convicted/acquitted of category trees have always annoyed me for this reason. ] (]) 23:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::might be a case of ] but dont know much about categories ] (]) 14:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:I think these are BLP violations under ], which says "{{tq|Category:Criminals and its subcategories should be added only for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal.}}" The word "fugitive" would mean that these people are still living and are accused of a crime but have not been convicted. There was recently a similar discussion on this noticeboard and there is an ongoing CfD that was relisted today for further discussion . – ] (]) 23:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::That was roughly what I had in mind from the removal. Thanks for stating it more eloquently and with proper links supporting. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 00:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::I'm not sure that Gallant has been charged. I think (but I'm not sure) that he would only be charged once arrested. In any case, a more bland category name that is 100% true and relevant to notability would be something like "Persons subject to an International Criminal Court arrest warrant". If such a category existed, I can't think of any reason to not include him. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Why would that not also fail the provision in BLPCRIME mentioned above? It's related to crime. ] (]) 01:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Also, how is this arrest warrant relevant to his notability? Isn't he notable fully without that fact for several other things? Regardless of what happens with his status as having had a warrant issued, he was notable fully as an Israeli military man, politician and minister, and I don't see the warrant is a relevant thing to his notability but simply a recent news fact that involves him. Unless "relevant to notability" is intended to mean anything that might be part of his biography, if it were written today, this would occupy a small portion of it, right? ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 02:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::::People can be notable for multiple reasons. Of course he was already notable enough for an article, but now he is a bit more notable. BLPCRIME doesn't exclude it, since he is a public figure and the name I suggested does not say that he committed a crime. It only states an objective fact. An ICC warrant puts him in a very exclusive club and I don't see why there shouldn't be a category for that club. We don't omit scientists from the Nobel Prize winners category if they were already famous before winning the prize. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::OK, but the existing "fugitive" categories being discussed, unlike winning a Nobel Prize, are subcategories of "Category:People associated with crime." and of "Category:Suspected criminals," and "Category:Fugitives" is a subcategory of "Criminals by status" which indeed is under "Criminals." Now, the BLP text above mentions Criminals and its subcategories, so it seems like a matter for interpretation whether the caveat applies that they must have been convicted to include the categories. It would seem to say though that these fugitive categories on this basis should not be included. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 04:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::A "convicted fugitives" category would presumably be fine under ], but not any categories that contain living people and allege criminal conduct without a conviction. – ] (]) 00:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Fugitive does not inherently allege criminal conduct without a conviction. A "convicted fugitives" category would just be confusing and largely oxymoronic. ] (]) 16:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:Categories aside we also have ]. The title seems sorta odd since it includes people like ] who's location seems to have been known even when they were fugitives and who might still be somewhat easily findable but are protected by the lack of an extradition treaty between where they are and the jurisdiction seeking them. Heck I just noticed it even includes ] who recently isn't exactly low profile, and who even did a CNN interview. ] (]) 13:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::If we are going to contend that this is a BLP violation then we should be consistent. Is ] a BLP violation? It's got lots of controversial categories for what is technically an article about unproven accusations against a BLP. Example <nowiki>], ] and ]</nowiki> I would suggest a famous politician who is one of the leaders of his country is at least as much a public person as a music producer. I would likewise suggest that accusations of war crimes are even more severe than accusations of systematic sexual assault. So what is the consistent Misplaced Pages policy here? Should we be deleting the Sean Combs article as a BLP violation? Should we be deleting categories that, while accurate, might lead people to believe a person subject to unproven crminal accusations is guilty? Or should we also maintain the "accusation" categories on Gallant? ] (]) 13:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I'd favor removing the categories from the Sean Combs article. Nobody is advocating deleting either article. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 13:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I'd agree with removing the categories from the article. Covering alleged crimes by living people is permissible in articles, but ] puts an absolute bar on those types of categories being used. – ] (]) 18:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::So wouldn't the ] action be to delete all "accused of" categories? ] (]) 19:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::It seems like just removing the "accused of" categories from Gallant while leaving them established is inviting a double-standard. ] (]) 19:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I think that BLPCRIME wise its kosher because saying someone is a fugitive from justice is different than saying they're guilty... The war criminal category though should be reserved for those with a conviction. ] (]) 19:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:The "fugitive" categories are a subcategory of Category:Criminals (because they are by definition alleging criminal conduct), and therefore should not contain any living people pursuant to ]. The requirements at WP:BLPCRIME are separate considerations for content in articles, but WP:BLPCRIMINAL has an absolute bar on the use of categories in these circumstances. – ] (]) 20:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::Then remove Category:Criminals... You're literally proposing the opposite of what we're supposed to do. ] (]) 23:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::So, yeah, I mean, we could recategorize the fugitive categories to not be under "Criminals" and maybe we should do that anyway. I confess I do not know if this requires some kind of requested move process or is a bold type of move. However, while we could look into that anyway, or Puffy or whatnot (Misplaced Pages doesn't demand that Puffy be treated the same as Gallant, and I don't have much interest in editing him, but that shouldn't stop anyone from doing that and maybe someone should), I think keeping the "fugitives" category on the Gallant page is counter to the spirit of BLP even if we make it policy-abiding by divorcing it from the "criminal" tree. Categories are supposed to be accurate and neutral. A certain POV is that Israel isn't a signatory to the ICC and didn't sign the Rome Statute, AFAIK, and while CAIR is calling Yoav Gallant a fugitive and war criminal, that doesn't seem to be the most accurate or common description in reliable sources, and might not be a neutral description of the situation. It's also misleading under the plain meaning of "fugitive" which would imply that he's fleeing justice, as opposed to simply not being extradited by his own government, or I guess, just showing up somewhere that would arrest him, both of which seem pretty unlikely to occur. But a naive reader could assume that means he was convicted of a crime or is somehow ]. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 04:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::: I have added Category:Legal procedure. You're supposed to voluntarily surrender to the court. Someone who doesn't turn themselves in to the court is a fugitive from justice, that is within the plain meaning of the term. Gallant is "on the lam from the law" (you would have to be incredibly naive to believe otherwise). Note that this isn't an endorsement of the court or a particular form of justice. ] (]) 04:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Whether or not it is currently under Category:Criminals, that doesn't matter because it is still includes allegations of criminal conduct by a living person prior to conviction. The point of our BLP rules regarding categorizing criminal conduct is to protect the privacy interests of individuals by avoiding categories that allege criminal conduct prior to conviction because the categories are unable to provide context or nuance that can be provided in main article space. Changing the top-level category doesn't avoid the BLP violation. Either the policy needs to be changed or the category needs to be deleted. – ] (]) 21:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::It is allowed to include allegations of criminal conduct by a living person prior to conviction, that isn't a BLP violation. What it can't do is treat them as something other than allegations. A fugitive is not a criminal, saying that someone is a fugitive isn't saying that they are a criminal... Its saying that a courts has ordered them to appear and they have declined to appear... It doesn't actually say anything about their guilt or innocence. ] (]) 16:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Fugitive means they are charged with or convicted of criminal conduct. So it is a BLP violation if they are included in that type of category prior to conviction. Also, some fugitives have definitely been convicted, there's literally a whole TV series and film about one. Trying to change categories to avoid the explicit BLP policy is just gaming the system. – ] (]) 16:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Including information about being charged with a crime is not a BLP violation... And if they are convicted then again no BLP violation. ] (]) 17:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Your claim that "Including information about being charged with a crime is not a BLP violation" is not true, which is why ] exists, as sometimes that will be a BLP violation in main article space depending on the circumstances. As for categories, including any categories that involve being charged with a crime without a conviction are BLP violations. That is why ] and ] exist. No one has ever said here that a category about criminal conduct after a conviction is a BLP violation, so not sure what that red herring is about. You are the one who said that "convicted fugitive" is oxymoronic, apparently not understanding what those terms mean. – ] (]) 17:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::A fugitive does not mean criminal though. It doesn't even necessarily imply guilt as a fugitive can be on the run for a crime they haven't committed or because they refuse to give testimony, even if they aren't a suspect. In this context, fugitive only means that they've been accused of a crime & have yet to've faced a trial, not that they're a criminal.
::::::::::A "convicted fugitive" then would be someone who was first convicted of a crime & ''then'' went on the run/avoided the result of said conviction, otherwise they couldn't have been convicted yet.
::::::::::] states ''"A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction."'' which doesn't contradict ''"Including information about being charged with a crime"'' as long as we aren't stating that they are guilty of said crime.
::::::::::Further considerations only apply when concerning non-public figures.
::::::::::This is just my reading of the policy though & why I brought the case here to begin with. ] (]) 18:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{tq|A fugitive can be on the run for a crime they haven't committed}} ] ] (]) 19:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::The more directly relevant policy is ] (not ], which is a relevant but separate policy). Any category under Category:Criminals should not be applied to living people who have not yet been convicted. A category such as "fugitives" is going to be under the "suspected criminals" subcategory (or convicted criminals category, such as for Dr. Richard Kimble of ''The Fugitive'' TV series and film), and so it should not be applied to anyone who is still living and has not been convicted. I'm not aware of anyone in the categories you posted in your original post above who are not accused of crimes, and it appears most if not all have not been convicted of those crimes. – ] (]) 19:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::While I agree that's what ] says as written, I'm unsure if it's accurate in spirit ''(I know that sounds stupid, but I'll explain my thought process)''.
::::::::::::The reason we don't categorize someone as a criminal unless they were convicted (& the conviction stuck) is because to do otherwise would be ] & potentially defamatory.
::::::::::::Categorizing someone as a fugitive however is a statement of fact. They haven't been convicted & haven't faced trial, but they've been formerly charged. It does not imply guilt, isn't defamatory, & isn't ].
::::::::::::You can't be convicted of being a fugitive & once you're convicted, you aren't a fugitive ''unless'' you run away after that conviction.
::::::::::::As such, should I break off a request to determine if the category of ''fugitive'' should be considered to violate ]? ] (]) 20:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I don't think that's stupid and your way of looking at it seems a reasonable position, but I think our BLP policies align more with the idea that saying someone has been charged with a crime ''does'' imply guilt, which is why, unless there has been a conviction, we (1) generally don't include those accusations for non-public figures in articles, (2) only include for public figures in article space if there are multiple high quality sources about it, and (3) don't include in categories for any living people because they cannot provide adequate context. BLPCRIMINAL is the most directly relevant policy when discussing categories, rather than BLPCRIME, and so it may be helpful to redirect the discussion to that instead. – ] (]) 21:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Agree, not at all stupid but I agree with notwally on the merits. BLP means Misplaced Pages tries not to imply guilt. PUBLICFIGURE gives some leeway but I think this is pushing it. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Fugitive status does not imply guilt... Neither does being charged with a crime, that is simply not what the policy or practice is. WP:BLPCRIMINAL advises "Caution should be used with content categories," which explicitly contadicts "don't include in categories for any living people" ] (]) 22:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Being charged with a crime definitely does imply guilt. Please also see this nearly identical , where almost all editors agreed that categories about criminal charges against living people prior to conviction are BLP violations. – ] (]) 04:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::This isn't a category about being charged with a crime and no it doesn't (it doesn't imply guilt anymore than it implies innocence, you're relentlessly twisting reality to serve your own views). And again you can be a fugitive from a civil court, it doesn't have to be a criminal court so even if we take your statement as true it just doesn't apply to the category. ] (]) 19:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::It doesn't say "Don't cover accusations, investigations, arrests and charges." You're taking this a level beyond what anything actually says, if the person is a public figure there is no inherent issue with the category from a BLP perspective. ] (]) 22:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::One of the central purposes of ] is to exclude categories that accuse living people of a crime prior to conviction. There was recently an almost identical , where there seemed to be a pretty clear consensus that these types of categories are BLP violations. – ] (]) 04:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::We've gone in a circle again... Fugitive is not a category that inherently accuses living people of a crime prior to conviction. It only is because of the way its been constructed, change that construction and poof no violation. ] (]) 19:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Which category of "...by the International '''Criminal''' Court" or "...on war '''crimes''' charges" or "...on '''crimes''' against humanity charges" do you think are fugitives from a civil court? I'm not interested in pointless word games, and I don't see anyone else in this discussion supporting your views. – ] (]) 21:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::So you play a pointless word game... And then claim not to be interested in pointless word games? Maybe this is just a bias thing but I'm seeing other people make similar arguments to me, for example Andre, Butterscotch Beluga, Zero, Levivich and Patar knight. ] (]) 21:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Not me, I agreed with notwally. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::There are at least some things we agree on, for example I agree that "the BLP text above mentions Criminals and its subcategories, so it seems like a matter for interpretation whether the caveat applies that they must have been convicted to include the categories." If you think I've miscategorized anyone else please let me know, I may be mistaken. ] (]) 22:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Well, yes. It's a matter of interpretation. Since people wanted to move fugitives out of that criminals category tree, that would moot the BLPCRIMINAL text. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps this would best be discussed at ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 04:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


I don't see any BLPCRIME problem for public figures, which almost all ICC fugitives are (if not all). ] (]) 23:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The problem with that is if they have 'dropped out of the public eye', you may well end up reporting their death based on a public record concerning another person with the same name. Which, if the subject of the article is alive is definitely a WP:BLP violation. ] (]) 19:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
:The relevant policy is not ], but ], which prohibits categories alleging criminal conduct for living people without a conviction. – ] (]) 23:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I disagree with the general trend of discussion here of not including an article-subject's date of death unless reported by secondary sources. If the person is indeed notable, their death should be a de-facto part of the article where applicable and is not a weight issue. ] (]) 00:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
::OP's question was about BLPCRIME, not BLPCRIMINAL. But nothing in the text of BLPCRIMINAL prohibits the existence of ], although I suppose if someone thought that it did, they could take that category to ]. I'd vote to keep. ] (]) 23:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Yes this is right. If someone passes GNG and has an article, the fact that they have died is always going to be noteworthy for inclusion in the article, even if we have to make do with primary sources. The alternative is that people who are not-so-famous when they shuffle it off are immortal for Misplaced Pages purposes, which would be a bit silly. Of course, we also need to ensure accuracy, but that doesn't rule out using primary sources per se. ] (]) 00:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
:::They're already at CFD. I don't have the link handy. It's there though. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::(ec)Perhaps so - but there have been examples where "]" occurred and the person was actually not dead. ] (]) 00:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::But common sense and ] ought to be enough to prevent that. ] (]) 00:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC) ::::I don't see ] at ] or ]. ] (]) 23:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I don't believe there is a discussion about "fugitive" categories, but there is one about "charged with" categories: ]. – ] (]) 23:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I recommend reading ] for an example of the real danger of mixing up two people with the same name. Also ]. ] ] 05:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::That's what I meant; my mistake, thanks ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Frederick Meyer looks like it might good example of the dangers of taking ''secondary sources'' at face value, or even just an illustration that there are some cases where Misplaced Pages gets it wrong if the media gets it wrong first. There's nothing in the example that says we should ignore primary sources. ] (]) 09:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
:::The OP is asking about categories such as "Fugitives wanted by the International Criminal Court", which is by definition a criminal allegation and therefore should not include any living people or else it is a clear BLP violation under BLPCRIMINAL: "{{tq|Category:Criminals and its subcategories should be added only for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; '''the subject was convicted;''' and the conviction was not overturned on appeal.}}" (emphasis added) – ] (]) 23:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::The initial question was much more broad. We should be careful using primary sources for adding details about a persons death (e.g. suicide, details of an accident, etc.) This is especially true if this for someone recently deceased. Editors should also be very careful about conducting OR and linking a primary source to the subject of the article, and until it is established by reliable sources that a subject is dead, or that enough time has past that it is obvious they are dead (i.e. they would be unbelievable old if alive) then ] applies. If for example, a reliable source says that someone is dead, but does not note the date, then it may be acceptable to use a primary source to note when they died. As long as the primary source is clearly and plainly linked to the subject. — ] (]) 17:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
::::BLPCRIMINAL does not prohibit "criminal allegations" and does not contain those words. ] is not (any longer) a subcategory of ]. I know it's kind of unusual around here, but I did actually read this discussion, and investigate the categories, and read the relevant policy pages, all before making up my mind and posting a comment. ] (]) 23:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::* Where we are wrong, we are at least ''definitively'' wrong. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::I think removing subcategories from parent categories to avoid an otherwise clear BLP violation is gaming the system and ignores the privacy concerns that led to the creation of those policies. – ] (]) 23:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I think it's presumptively fine. To quote policy: ] If only people would spend half the time reining in bad editors that they spend confronting good editors who, by virtue of exercising their editorial judgment broadly and research skills extensively, are adding value. Yes, there is a such a thing as unacceptable original research, but every time we exercise our editorial judgment we are doing something "original" if we are not engaging in serial copyright violations.--] (]) 06:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::It should never have been in that category in the first place since fugitives are not necessarily criminals. Some (e.g. escaped convicts from prison) are, but the page notes that the category tracks the ordinary definition in that it includes people not turning themselves in for arrest, questioning, or even fleeing vigilante justice/private individuals, none of which requires them to be a criminal. If there's a clear BLP violation here, it would be insisting on labelling people in these latter groups as criminals through sub/parent categorization.
: I worry about this. True, we do cover people who become notable then leave the public eye. But in most cases a local newspaper will run at least some obituary. It doesn't even need to be a long one, just "John Smith, former drummer for the One Hit Wonders, leaves behind two daughters and a dog." Otherwise, if all we have is "John Smith, died February 31", we are in real danger of referring to the wrong one. Sure, there can be a little bit of ], and if the person's name is clearly unique (Honoria Winifred Funkenstein), maybe the primary source will do. But in general, when there is a reasonable possibility of doubt, I would say not; we are better off by not writing the truth than by writing misinformation. --] (]) 20:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::As for the ] issue people in these specific categories mentioned in this section are all public figures and noting that they have not surrendered to a body as long as that's cited to RSs in the article (which shouldn't be an issue given the high-profile nature of such cases), is not a BLP violation. ITN has dealt with a similar issue in that while normally news blurbs about criminal charges are not blurbed for BLP reasons unless its about a conviction, but ICC arrest warrants being issued have routinely been posted. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 23:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::...and "clearly unique" is quite dubious. We spent some weeks at my old parish praying for someone named ], who proved to be the mother-in-law of another parishioner and not the opera singer. We shouldn't go by name alone. ] (]) 21:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::This discussion is specifically about categories such as "Fugitives wanted by the International Criminal Court", which obviously should be under "Category:Criminals". Also, please note that BLPCRIME is not the relevant policy for categories alleging criminal conduct. The applicable policy is ], which has no exception for public figures. – ] (]) 23:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::"... when there is a reasonable possibility of doubt, I would say not..."
::::::::I disagree that categories such as "Fugitives wanted by the International Criminal Court", or any of the ] cateogires, obviously should be under ]; in fact, I think it's obvious that they should ''not'' be, because not all fugitives are criminals, so the subcategorization wouldn't comply with ] (failing the "is-a" relationship). ] (]) 00:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::This is 100% the right attitude, but it has nothing directly to do with using primary sources. You could have a secondary source that is unclear or you could have a primary source (a probate document, for example) that gives the person's name, address, date and place of birth, the names of all her children, her profession, and so on. ] (]) 22:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::{{tq|"Fugitives wanted by the International Criminal Court", which obviously should be under "Category:Criminals"}} is simply not true? The only person in the ICC category who was convicted is ], by a local Libyan court in absentia, and for which the ICC has said is not sufficient to drop its own charges. Everyone else in that category has not been convicted, so they are legally not criminals and should not be in the category. ] applies sitewide and generally prohibits labelling unconvicted people as criminals, which you seem to want to do. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 00:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::] and ] are part of the same policy: Biographies of living persons. "which obviously should be under "Category:Criminals"" doesn't seem obvious or even sensible, how can you both be arguing that we should obviously be doing something and also that doing that thing would be a BLP violation? ] (]) 22:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:I think we're missing an important issue when considering this categorization. ] says {{tq|A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place.}} This is especially important with negative or contentious categories. ] (]) 23:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::CATEDEFINE is another one of those "meh" policies, because it says {{tqq|For non-defining characteristics, editors should use their judgment to choose which additional categories (if any) to include.}} and it doesn't say anything about what should influence that judgment.
::World leaders who are accused of war crimes seems like as good a category to have as any. And it probably ''is'' defining. For example, I'll bet you $100,000 quatloos that every single biography of every single ICC fugitive will state that they are (or were) an ICC fugitive. It's impossible to imagine that a biography of a leader wouldn't "refer to" an ICC arrest warrant for that leader. It's a big deal.
::At bottom, "political leaders with ICC arrest warrants" is an encyclopedic topic. Having a list of them would be encyclopedic. Having categories of them would also be encyclopedic. And because they are political leaders, there just isn't really any BLP problem from any angle. We report when political leaders are accused of crimes, regardless of whether they're convicted or not. Just the accusation is a significant ] of the topic, when the accusation is crimes and the topic is a political leader. ''At least'' for national political leaders (maybe not the local town mayor... but maybe a mayor, too). ] (]) 00:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq| every single biography of every single ICC fugitive will state that they are (or were) an ICC fugitive}} If that is the case, it should be possible to name one biography of Yoav Gallant that uses that language. Maybe it's too recent and it hasn't been written or published yet. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 00:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I think its too recent, unless I'm missing something he was charged a month ago. The point seems to stand though, any biography of Gallant published in the future is going to talk about this. ] (]) 22:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::That's not clear, that's an assumption. It's not clear at all that they will refer to him as a fugitive until we see that happen. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I can't imagine anyone could receive an ICC arrest warrant & have that not be considered significant enough to mention when describing them. ] (]) 23:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Its an assumption in the same way that the sun coming up tomorrow is an assumption. I can't imagine not including that sort of thing in a biography... And I'm the worst sort of person (I actually read political biographies! ha) ] (]) 23:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::It really depends on when the biography will be written, who wrote it, and what might happen in the intervening time. For example, if Gallant gets arrested, they probably won't bother talking about how he was a fugitive. Or if the arrest warrant is cancelled or withdrawn, it also probably won't get mentioned as him being a fugitive. ] ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::This is true, but today he is a fugitive from justice. ] (]) 23:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::How do you square that with ]? ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::CRYSTAL has never barred speculation when it is verifiable by reliable sources and lists the next American presidential election as an example. While it may not ultimately pan out, there's verifiable information about it and all previous iterations have been notable. That's similar to the case here, where every single previous person charged by the ICC has had that been defining and there's no reason to think that would be different here given how much attention the Israeli-Palestinian conflict gets. The fact that they are fugitives is simply a statement of fact about where in the ICC process they current are (i.e. they're not detained, acquitted, or convicted). -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 14:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Very easily, today it is a defining feature... If the events you forsee in your crystal ball (Gallant gets arrested, the arrest warrant is cancelled or withdrawn) come to pass then it will likely cease to be a defining feature... CRYSTAL is not on your side here. ] (]) 16:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::It is 100% too recent and to insist otherwise would be deliberately obtuse. It's normally somewhat rare for non-heads of state to get biographies published on them and the timeline for reputable biographies to get published is years not a month.
::::The best and closest comparison would probably be ] as another politician no longer in the office that lead to the charges and as someone with some distance from the charges. This biography of Bashir by a British foreign affairs analyst , which I don't have access to, has about 30 hits for "ICC" and "International Criminal Court", and a chapter devoted to the ICC, which presumably details the well-known enforcement issues. The Britannica biography has a section devoted to the ICC case and discusses difficulties enforcing. When he was overthrown, the BBC profile mentions the ICC stuff as well. The ICC stuff is brought up in recent news articles almost entirely unrelated matters.
::::In general though, it is exceedingly unlikely that anyone charged by the ICC won't have that be a defining feature and these categories simply indicate the stage of the process where they're at. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 07:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks, SFR; I knew that there was a piece of policy or guideline about categories being defining, and that is it. I agree. This hardly seems defining to me, and I'm not sure the burden has been met (yet?) that it articulates ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 00:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


== Steven Emerson == == ] ==
{{la|Steven Emerson}}


There is a discussion on the ] on if we should include the following to the lede:
{{talkquote|Emerson has been accused of inaccuracy and anti-Islam rhetoric by people and organizations such as the ],<ref name="SPLC">{{cite web |last=Steinbeck |first=Robert |title=New Report Details Funding Sources Behind Anti-Muslim Fearmongers |url=http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/08/26/new-report-details-funding-sources-behind-anti-muslim-fearmongers/ |publisher=] |date=August 26, 2011 |accessdate=January 19, 2015 |quote=The five key misinformation experts identified by the report Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism. Their research – which is routinely exaggerated, deceptively selective or outright false – empowers key “grassroots” activists }}</ref> the ],<ref name="MPAC Counterproductive Terrorism 5-6">{{Cite |title=Counterproductive terrorism |url=http://www.mpac.org/publications/policy-papers/counterproductive-counterterrorism.php |publisher=] |date=December 31, 2004 |accessdate=January 14, 2015 |pages=5–6 |quote=Emerson’s lack of precision leads him to conflate legitimate organizations that can help America and secure the homeland with others that are neither genuinely American nor transparent. ... Emerson’s decade-long investigation of the American Muslim community is discredited by deliberate distortions, questionable sources and shoddy research techniques. ... His work ... is plagued by anti-Islam and anti-Muslim alarmist rhetoric. }}</ref> '']'' reviewer ],<ref name="Edgar">{{cite news |last=Edgar |first=Adrienne |title=“A Defector’s Story: A Review of ''Terrorist'' by Steven A. Emerson and Cristina Del Sesto |work=] |page=714 |date=May 19, 1991 }}<!-- previously referenced from this source; this citation also found in MPAC's Counterproductive Terrorism, page 7 --></ref> investigative reporter ],<ref name="Friedman">{{cite news |last=Friedman |first=Robert |authorlink=Robert I. Friedman |title=One Man’s Jihad |work=] |pages=656–57 |date=May 15, 1995 }} Cited in {{Cite |title=Counterproductive terrorism |url=http://www.mpac.org/publications/policy-papers/counterproductive-counterterrorism.php |publisher=] |date=December 31, 2004 |accessdate=January 14, 2015 |page=7 }}</ref> ],<ref name="Boehlert">{{cite web |last=Boehlert |first=Eric |authorlink=Eric Boehlert |title=Terrorists under the bed |url=http://www.salon.com/2002/03/05/emerson/ |work=] |date=March 5, 2002 |accessdate=January 14, 2015 |quote=Whether this egregious conceptual flaw, which renders most of his book all but worthless, is the result of a political agenda to demonize passionate supporters of the Palestinian cause as terrorists or terrorist sympathizers, or is simply the result of hysteria and/or ignorance, is unclear. ... Nor does Emerson’s at times loose way with the facts inspire confidence. ... ], a former director of counterterrorism for the CIA] dismisses Emerson’s entire thesis. ... 'He doesn’t know what he’s talking about.' ... The truth is, Emerson uses the word “terrorist” the way Sen. Joseph McCarthy used to use the word “communist.” }}</ref> and was directly contradicted by ] ],<ref name="Seitz-Wald">{{cite news |last=Seitz-Wald |first=Alex |title=GOP Rep. embraces Boston conspiracy theory |url=http://www.salon.com/2013/04/18/gop_rep_embraces_boston_conspiracy_thoery/ |work=] |date=April 18, 2013 |accessdate=January 18, 2015 |quote=Just hours after controversial terrorism expert Steve Emerson reported last night on ]’s show that unnamed “sources” told him the government was quietly deporting the Saudi national who was initially suspected in the bombing, South Carolina GOP Rep. ] grilled ] ] on the rumor at a hearing this morning. ... “I am not going to answer that question, it is so full of misstatements and misapprehensions that it’s just not worthy of an answer,” the Homeland Security secretary shot back ... Duncan’s willingness to embrace Emerson’s charge highlights how quickly theories can go from the fringe to the mainstream in an environment when the political opposition is desperate to score political points against the president, and less concerned about getting facts right. }}</ref> leading '']'' writer Alex Seitz-Wald to describe Emerson as a "fringe" theorist<ref name="Seitz-Wald"/>. Despite these progressive detractors, Emerson has frequently testified before Congressional committees on ] and other terrorist organizations,<ref name="i100">{{cite news |last=Champion |first=Matthew |title=That Steve Emerson #foxnewsfacts interview is even worse than you think |url=http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/that-steve-emerson-foxnewsfacts-interview-is-even-worse-than-you-think--lkO4fdUh5x |publisher=''i100'' from '']'' |date=January 12, 2015 |accessdate=January 18, 2015 }}</ref> with his own Investigative Project on Terrorism describing Emerson as having been "consulted by White House, ], ], ], Congress and intelligence agencies".<ref>{{cite web |title=About The Investigative Project on Terrorism |url=http://www.investigativeproject.org/about.php |publisher=] |accessdate=January 18, 2015 }}</ref>}}
{{reflist-talk}}
This section is supposed to reference ] and ] sections of the article according to ], and would replace another sentence which was removed because of accusations of ] violations.
we seem to have hit an impasse where editors on bot sides are accusing each other of bias and one group claiming that it is a ] violations. I'll not summarize the arguments so that I avoid misrepresenting either side. I am not satisfied that it is a BLP violation to add sourced references about controversies to the lede. Please advise.] (]) 17:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


This text under Personal Life in the ] biography is poorly fact checked. Note refers to gossip regarding Shorts love life. Should be removed entirely.
: Per ] (my highlight): ''The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, '''including any prominent controversies'''''. So, providing that the sources are reliable and the controversy significant, such material could be included in the lede, but you have to take into account also ]. A much shorter summary of the controversy may be a good compromise. - ] ] 17:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


Source: https://decider.com/2024/10/24/meryl-streep-martin-short-only-murders-in-the-building-romance/ <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Yup. There is no WP:BLP violation in reporting the controversies surrounding Emerson's claims - they are basically all that makes him notable in the first place. ] (]) 17:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
:It has been removed. Decider is not an appropriate source to put weight on. ] (]) 08:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Now that is not very nice. The section is not neutral, poorly sourced, and last two sentences are synthesis and a violation of BLP. The proposed addition sets up a negative characterization of Emerson and then says despite he being a liar he is ''STILL'' used as a resource. This is synthed using Emerson's website to back up the statement. Two of the main sources for attacking Emerson are MPAC and "The Nation" which are clearly biased and simply not usable or reliable for anything factual. The book review is from 1991 from an obscure reviewer. Just because a couple of people are pissed at him does not entail that their opposition be given prominent position in the article. ] (]) 17:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
::This user doesn’t exist anymore, and the Meryl Streep article says the same thing, plus if you actually look into it there’s a lot more supporting it than just that one article so there’s no reason it can’t be included. That article actually includes quotes from the showrunner himself in fact. ] (]) 20:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::: You can't negate that there is significant controversy. ] may be a good way for you to address this. Just find a way to report the controversy. - ] ] 17:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Have any reliable sources actually reported that it is a confirmed relationship? The most recent reliable sources seem to be framing it as a rumour (), which fails ] in addition to BLP sourcing concerns. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 20:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Even the Decider source says "Short and Streep have not publicly commented on their relationship status". Tabloids are expected to pursue rumors and innuendo; Misplaced Pages is not. ]&nbsp;] 20:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::: We now have new accounts trying to edit-war the material into the article. I have reverted again, but will protect if this carries on. ] 20:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


== Călin Georgescu ==
::::It says 'inaccurate'. It does not call him a liar. And given that he has admitted that his latest example of 'anti-Islamic rhetoric' was inaccurate, I can't see any particular problem with us describing it as such. Maybe the wording needs work, but there is no reason whatsoever why the lede should not fully reflect the matter that brought him to international attention. Few outside the U.S. will have heard of him before his latest gaffe, and any article needs to explain why he gained such attention. ] (]) 18:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::My problem with the proposed text is that it's not really on point. It's focused on proving that progressives don't like Emerson. While this is undoubtedly true on some level, it's rather besides the point. The notable issue is that Emerson says things in his purported field of expertise which are not true. In fact, some of his commentary is so not-true that he's been called out by reliable sources (e.g. , , ) and even provoked the (conservative) Prime Minister of the UK to opine that Emerson is "clearly an idiot" (). That's the notable aspect here, and the aspect that's had significant coverage in independent reliable sources&mdash;not the fact that a number of (mostly progressive) commentators have criticized him over the years. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 18:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::Unaware of this conversation I have just made this point on SE Talk page: . . So has Steven Emerson. To repeat the former's comments that the latter is "clearly a complete idiot", without any perspective, is a clear violation of Neutral point of view (NPOV).] (]) 22:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


What do you say about {{diff2|1264162062}}? ] (]) 21:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::: Made an edit summarizing the controversy in a few words. The rest can be expanded in the article's body. - ] ] 18:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
:For those interested in ], here's a link to the from two weeks ago, as well as a courtesy link to the article's talk page discussion: ]. – ] (]) 21:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::'''"It's focused on proving that progressives don't like Emerson."''' When the British Conservative PM said what he did and even Fox News says Emerson is wrong, it goes a bit beyond what progressives don't like. Those of us who don't watch Fox News would never have heard of the guy if it weren't for his wildly incorrect statements. ] (]) 19:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
::Your argument was that I used low-quality sources. Your argument no longer holds true.
:::::::Just a quick clarification on how I am interpreting ] comments. The notable aspect isn't simply the Fox News Gaff, but rather that he has been criticized by multiple sources for his inaccuracies for a while, and the Fox News Gaff is simply another example of that. I don't think he is notable for simply one event, but rather that he has a history of controversy. If I'm incorrect MastCell, please correct me.] (]) 19:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
::So, basically, the burden of proof is according to you infinitely high. This man preaches New Age in public, but since he denies he is preaching New Age, it cannot be stated in his article. ] (]) 21:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
'''Administrator attention''' please? This BLP is being attacked with both unsourced blanket criticism, and poorly sourced contentious statements, including an accusation of prejudice - - in the lead which is totally unacceptable. I realize residents in the UK would like to lynch this guy - he made a huge blunder - but it doesn't justify the personal attacks. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>]</b></font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 19:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
:::One of my objections to your content was the quality of the sources. You adding in another opinion article does not address that concern. Another objection was that you are making claims about a living person's personal religious beliefs that they dispute. I don't think that is appropriate, and if it is, then it would need very high quality sources supporting any claims about that, IMO. A third objection was that this content has been disputed and no one else has supported including it except for you, which is far from demonstrating there is a consensus for inclusion. – ] (]) 22:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
: The source is The Washington Post, which reports that ""Emerson has been accused of Islamophobia in the past." - ] ] 20:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
::::I'm not a mind reader, so I do not profess to know his private thoughts. But journalists, academics, and theologians have analyzed his public discourse. There is a difference between private thoughts and public discourse. We cannot investigate the former, but we can know the latter. ] (]) 06:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
: There are many books, including one from ] (now included in the article), that mentions Emerson in the context of Islamophobia: - ] ] 20:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
::::A bishop of the ] has lambasted the danger of the New Age in the context of the Romanian presidential elections. He did not explicitly name CG, but all informed readers know there was no other candidate for whom New Age was an issue. See .
::Your contentious statements are poorly sourced and are based on questionable allegations at best. Using poorly sourced contentious material to discredit a BLP is clearly a violation as I've tried to explain to you. Emerson may be a goofus, but he is not an Islamophobe. To call him that isn't any different from calling a civil rights activist a Crackerphobe, or other biased label. Contentious statements must be well-sourced, the partisan Washington Post made an allegation based on other allegations. The book you cited was co-written by Omid Safi, "whose writings on Islam have been criticized as faulty and “utopic” by other scholars." . The sources you cited do not pass per ]. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>]</b></font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 22:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
::: Without comment on the underlying, saying that someone is engaging in BLP violations and then using the freebeacon as a source to call someones work faulty should really consider taking my username and spelling it right. ] (]) 22:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC) ::::This is getting serious, especially seen that the lower ROC clergy made political campaign for CG. The leadership of the Church played politically neutral. ] (]) 02:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::] has a lot of sympathy for CG, but they also notice he is preaching New Age. ] (]) 02:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::: Atsme is actually right there is issues with the article and the fact there is a "Controversy" and a "Reception" section which splits out "praise/mixed/criticism" sub-sections is a bright red flag. The praise is unsourced and out of context from circa 2000. Much of the attention was paid to a minor gaff and the recent gaff. Sources like Salon and such are pretty poor and the whole "what other people think" is already veering into the weeds for a BLP. It is a problem to see editors prop up/tear down Emerson (or any person) by what other people said about him. None of it goes towards advancing a disinterested and neutral portrayal of a person. There is a huge misconception that "if it exists" it can be included or is worth including. Misplaced Pages should not be using low grade sources or filling up a page's content on what amounts to gossip and dirt. ] (]) 23:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't being hypocritical, I was being bi-partisan. I couldn't think of a better way to demonstrate my point. Well, except maybe for this one: . I think it's fascinating how things appear depending on the angle of bias. We all just need to remember that WP is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>]</b></font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 23:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
: In short -]. Though it should not really need to exist, but a reception section for a BLP is a bad idea and is nothing more than a lowering of the BLP bar to get otherwise unacceptable material into the BLP. Often this is a "wikilawyer" backed approach to slip a source of questionable nature into the article by attributing the material to the source '''''as''''' justification '''''per policy'''''. This results in gossip being included because it exists instead of whether or not it is appropriate at all. This is aided by not being a major BLP issue, but more of a ] issue. This makes attempts to correct or rectify the problem (requiring the removal as the only suitable option) appear to be damaging instead of beneficial. ] (]) 00:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
::Tip: Criticism/praise is not gossip. --] <sup>]</sup> 01:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
::: Tip: Hate speech and bigotry accusations are BLP violations not criticism. ] (]) 02:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
::::really? because when the addition that stated he was accused of Islamophobia was made it was vetted through this board. Perhaps you are accusing the BLP Noticeboard of not understanding BLP?] (]) 02:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
::::And again, BLP does not say what you want it to say. Please copy the '''exact''' sentence in BLP the prohibits adding well-publicized, well-sourced attributed assessments to biographies. --] <sup>]</sup> 02:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
::::: NeilN - Think Progress and/or Salon are not a high quality reliable sources. If it is not a proper high-quality reliable source it cannot be used to make contentious assertions against living persons per BLP. Also you are completely off base because being accused of inciting Islamophobia is completely different from '''being''' a bigot (Islamophobe). This is not "one sentence of BLP" it is entire sections of BLP and IRS. Stop wikilawyering and stop trying to label a living person as a bigot to such weak sources. It a BLP attack and is unacceptable. ] (]) 03:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::But the Cambridge University Press and Washington Post are high quality sources. and they say the same thing. So since you just asserted that this is a sourcing matter and we can make those claims as long as we have quality sources, we can consider it closed unless someone at the ] agrees with your interpretation of sources. Unless of course you are ] pushing and going to shift your argument again. Cheers Mate! ] (]) 04:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::Actually, you'll just move the goalposts again to your preferred version of BLP - no analysis no matter what the source (Supreme Court clerk, LA Times, New Yorker legal analyst - were all not good enough for the other article). --] <sup>]</sup> 04:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::This is pretty clearly covered by ]: ''If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article&mdash;even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.'' There are multiple reliable sources (including the ''Washington Post'' and the Cambridge University Press book) documenting the allegations of Islamophobia, so it is appropriate (and consistent with ]) to mention the allegation. Of course, the allegation should be presented with appropriate in-text attribution, rather than as a "fact" in Misplaced Pages's voice. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 04:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


== RFC on Taylor Lorenz controversial statement regarding healthcare ceo shooting ==
{{od}}There are many RS that have labeled civil rights activists as racists and race baiters, or that have expressed views of anti-Semitism or whatever. Such labels and contentious material is not included in the leads of WP:BLPs. Using the term Islamophobia, or fomenting Islamophobia applies equally - it is hate speech, and it doesn't belong in the lead of a BLP. WP is neither a tabloid nor a partisan (mis)information source - we don't hang labels on people. Reliance on what pundits claim in partisan media, and then writing about it as "encyclopedic" is terrible authorship - embarrassing, in fact - especially knowing the media has been known to screw-up the facts at one time or another. ] and ] is of the utmost importance. Please pay heed.


Posting to relevant noticeboards: ] ] (]) 20:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
{{talkquote|Read ], '''If it's written in a book, it must be true!"''':
*''Most sources do not state their opinions as opinions, but as facts: "The hypno-toad is supreme" is more likely to be found than "our opinion is that the hypno-toad is supreme, but there are others who disagree with us." It is the task of the Misplaced Pages editor to present opinions as opinions, not as facts stated in Misplaced Pages's voice; this is one reason Misplaced Pages's voice should be neutral.
*The best way to describe a dispute is to work with a tertiary source that already describes the dispute and cite it as a reference. ] may also help to confirm that there is a legitimate dispute to begin with, and not just a fringe theory against a universally accepted idea.
*It is important not to "cherry-pick" quotations or other material. Source material should be summarized in context to make sure it is represented fairly and accurately.
*In some cases, publication in a reliable source is not sufficient to establish that a view is significant. Reliable sources may be outdated or disputed by other sources.''}}
The issues at Emerson are a result of not following the above guidelines. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>]</b></font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 19:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
: {{u|Atsme}} and {{u|Arzel}} keep making the same points here as they've made on ] and refuse to accept that criticism of someone is not a violation of ] or of ] and are repeatedly objecting to reliably-sourced words like ]. I've made these arguments repeatedly on the Talk: page and they have failed to answer at any point why the sentences I wrote (which {{u|Coffeepusher}} helpfully brought over here) is not appropriate for the lead. In particular, their objections seem to centre on "biased sources", despite ] explicitly stating: {{talkquote|The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of ''editorial'' bias, but does not forbid ''properly sourced'' bias. Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content.}}
: To be honest, I would suggest that their objections have gone beyond the point of being a reasoned discussion and are now ]. Frankly, big arguments like this are why I — and many others — avoid editing topics around politics. It's just not worth the stress and hassle; I've spent hours crafting and defending reliably-sourced and carefully-balanced wording that I could have been spent actually improving the encyclopædia. — <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (])</span> 14:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
;Administrator's attention needed please?
::There are a few editors insisting on maintaining BLP violations in Emerson. For example, the lead currently reads (and is properly sourced and cited):
::{{xt|Emerson has testified before Congressional committees on such topics as the financing of terrorism and organizational structure of networks known for their involvement in Islamic militantancy, including Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. Some of Emerson's statements have been challenged for inaccuracies, including a recent statement he made during a television interview wherein he incorrectly stated "there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don't go in." Emerson retracted his statement, and extended a public apology.}}
::The few editors who are edit warring want that paragraph to read:
::{{xt|Emerson has testified before Congressional committees on such topics as the financing of terrorism and organizational structure of networks known for their involvement in Islamic militantancy, including Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. Some of Emerson's statements and networks have been challenged as fomenting Islamophobia, and for inaccuracies related to Muslims in the U.S. and Europe.}}


== Blake Lively ==
::I have already pointed out that the cited sources used for including contentious statements such as "fomenting Islamophobia" cannot be verified per ] and ]. Other editors have tried numerous times to help the three disruptive editors to understand the problem, but to no avail. The liability for stating in Wiki voice what just is not true and/or inaccurately stated was also demonstrated in a link posted at the TP: . The same few editors insist on the inclusion of the ''"fomenting Islamophobia"'' statement and ''"inaccuracies related to Muslims"'' in the lead, ignoring verification, and BLP policy. They cannot see past what they perceive as RS. I went to the effort of pointing out the problems source by source , but Cwobeel (now retired), Coffeepusher, OwenBlacker, and Nomoskedasticity keep reverting. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>]</b></font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 16:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Translation: ChrisGualtieri and I can't force our interpretation of BLP on other experienced editors so I want admins to restore my preferred version. Instead of threatening everyone else with BLP blocks, why not avail yourself of dispute mechanisms like RFC? --] <sup>]</sup> 16:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::Experienced editors...hmm...the ], a reliable source, has the ] translation: "" ] (]) 18:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::], any reason why you're linking to a site which seems to consist of copyright violations? --] <sup>]</sup> 19:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
::::I just found by ] which is one of many that shows them editing to defend this article against a perceived partisan ideology rather than using wikipedia's guidelines to evaluate the edit. Cheers! ] (]) 17:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::And if you actually read the source, the 'no-go areas' in question (in the English example) were actually areas where ''Muslim'' youth felt threatened. ] (]) 17:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


''The New York Times'' that Blake Lively&mdash;an actress I've never heard of before&mdash;has been the subject of a coordinated, paid campaign to stir up negative social media and internet publicity against her. The article does not mention Misplaced Pages as a focus of these alleged efforts, but we should be aware of this issue. Perhaps unrelated, but I have removed one sentence from ] sourced only to a Youtube video and a second sentence that was not sourced at all. ] (]) 00:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
An edited volume from a major academic press certainly appears to be a BLP-appropriate source for contentious claims. And there are multiple high-quality sources here. I don't see how there's a problem beyond ]. ] (]) 21:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


== RSN discussion about use of a self-published source (The InSneider) in film articles ==
:The reason it is not appropriate is because it failed verifiability when checked against the actual source cited by the author to justify his use of such a contentious statement - ]. It flies in the face of ] and ]. To include such bias in the lead of a BLP would be spreading prejudicial and (borderline ethnic/racist) slurs used by an author who incorrectly attributed another source that did not make such a statement. Furthermore, none of the ] verify the contentious statements as they were used. Liken it to what happened to Emerson in reverse - a source gave him the wrong information. WP should not be spreading such misinformation. The lead I wrote which was constantly reverted actually had the proper amount of criticism, balance and was properly attributed with inline citations to reliable sources, and '''verified'''. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>]</b></font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 03:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
* There seems to be a big disconnect between the suitability of contentious allegations and the ability to verify the existence of contentious allegations. The ability to verify the existence does not make it suitable to include it "because it is sourced". There is a reason "reception and controversy" sections are not fit per ] and Featured articles on persons like ] do not include them at all. BLP requires high quality sources and NPOV should be a disinterested overview of a subject - labeling persons as bigots or even claiming they are bigots (because someone said so) is not proper. Obama has had no end of attacks on charges of corruption and other issues - yet not one reference to any accusation stands in the biography despite multitudes of sources and even books dedicated to asserting this. What we see here is sentence or less claiming bigotry by biased sources and without high-quality evidence of actual bigotry. The sources are not suitable to carry such an accusation into a biography. Doing so would result in biographies containing all the accusations by detractors and whatever scrawlings malcontents come up with. ]. ] (]) 05:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
::I'm sorry ], I don't understand what you mean when you say "failed verifiability when checked against the actual source". Are you saying that failed verification when they were checked against their "actual source"? Who did this checking? Where's the source that undercuts Hammer and Safi? I'm confused. ] (]) 05:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm moving this into a ] since we have gone so far from what the original post is, and if I was not involved in the ongoing discussion, I would have no idea what ] was talking about. So Chris, I'm going to paste your above comment in the section below, if you feel I'm misrepresenting your position feel free to modify it or delete it as you choose. Cheers! ] (]) 05:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
:: Mmm.. if you misrepresent it then I made a poor argument! I'd prefer a new section, but this has gotten far from the original point and I do worry of Atsme's position as one of support instead of the creation of a disinterested biography. ] (]) 06:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}No need to worry about my position. Neutrality, fact-checking, and verifying sources has never been an issue for me throughout my 30+ year career as a writer/publisher. I'm ok with the lead as it is now, but if it is ever expanded, I believe it should be done with the same adherence to policy, and with the consistency, care and careful consideration that was given to ], ], ], ], and ].


Posting a relevant discussion which might touch on ]: ] -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
In response to Guettarda's question, yes Hammer and Safi failed verifiability because they said things that were not in the source they cited.
The Cambridge statement, ''"Islamophobes Steven Emerson (the discredited "terrorism expert" who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma City bombing committed by Timothy McVeigh)'', etc. was attributed in the book with an inline citation to an article written by ''Think Progress'' which states, {{xt|"Most notably, in 1995, Emerson claimed that the Oklahoma City bombing showed “a Middle East trait” because it “was done with the intent to inflict as many casualties as possible.”}} <---- Where in that statement do you see Muslim? Where do you see Islamopobes? Where do you see "discredited terrorism expert"? The use of "Islamophobe" is a biased slur and the opinion of the author(s). Emerson actually works to help Muslim groups protect against terrorism . I have not read anything to date in a RS that validates or justifies Islamophobe or Islamophobia labels on Emerson, and certainly not in Wiki voice. I listed a similar breakdown at the TP for all the other sources that were used to justify the contentious material in the lead. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>]</b></font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 08:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
:] much? ] (]) 08:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


== ] ==
==Charles Gordon-Lennox (or maybe Charles March)==
{{la|Charles Gordon-Lennox, Earl of March and Kinrara}}


There’s been a recent update of Moira Deeming’s DOB as consequence of an affidavit that she filled as consequence of a lawsuit initiated by her. What is the more pertinent policy? ] which says we shouldn’t use court transcripts or other court documents in BLPs, or ] which says that because it’s an uncontentious fact which the subject has written about themselves that we can use it?
], an entirely unfamiliar name to me, popped up in my watchlist. Even by WP standards, the article was dreadful. I rather lazily . Later, I noticed that it had been edited again, with no edit summary, and took a quick look (mostly to see whether hagiographic elements had been reinserted). It was then that I noticed that there'd been a series of edits changing unsourced factoids to ''different'' unsourced factoids.
Please see discussion at ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 10:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== Abubakar Atiku Bagudu ==
The biographee seems notable for horseracing, car racing, and running a large house, three areas of which I know very little. While I'm concerned that WP should not misinform, I'm not the best person to be fact-checking this material. (I also have other, major demands on my time.) Could other, level-headed editors please take a look at this article and its fairly recent history? (If a sweeping reversion is in order and my own changes are among those that are swept away, of course I shan't take offence.) -- ] (]) 00:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


*{{la|Abubakar Atiku Bagudu}}
: The article does not have a single source. I will stubify it and check for notability. - ] ] 01:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


A heads up on something worth keeping an eye on. A new user is removing the (sourced) section on this article entitled "Corruption". It could probably do with someone more competent than me double checking the quality of the sources. The edit summary of their second blanking of the section reads: ''"This information is misleading and it has no basis to be uploaded. The matter is currently in court and should be removed from the subjects profile until adjudicated upon by a court of competent jurisdiction."'' which is not a legal threat, per se, but does have a chilling effect. ] (]) 13:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:: Thank you. Additionally, this is within a bizarre genre of articles that treat their biographees as racehorses or similar, with precise (if usually unsourced) details of ''breeding''. I never know quite how to take this kind of thing, but it seems vaguely insulting. -- ] (]) 01:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


== Potential Bias and Edit Warring on “David and Stephen Flynn” Biography ==
'''BUMP''' Cwobeel, the editor who said (close above) that he'd stubify it and check for notability, merely stuck a humdrum template on it and seemingly left it at that. Cwobeel is now in no position to edit anything and has announced retirement. Is there nobody here with any interest (in the desirable sense of this word) in horse-racing, car-racing, or running a large house? I could try it myself, but I know nothing of these matters and am not tempted to read up on them. -- ] (]) 10:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi everyone,
== James R. Clapper ==


I am reaching out to request assistance with the article about David and Stephen Flynn on Misplaced Pages. There appears to be an ongoing issue with 2 sections: "Careers" and "Health Advice & Public Response"
{{la|James R. Clapper}}


Several attempts have been made to improve the neutrality of the section by adding balanced context and reliable sources to reflect differing perspectives, but these edits are repeatedly reverted by an editor (or editors) without meaningful discussion or engagement. The old section "medical misinformation" is highly one-sided and does not adhere to Misplaced Pages’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.
The article states: He responded - committing the felony of lying to congress under oath - "No, sir."


For the "careers" section, the editor(s) keep deleting that they've stopped collaborating with Russell Brand and to make it seem they still support him. Although the original comments were made prior to recent allegations against Russell Brand.
This is a legal opinion. Unless the writer can cite a felony conviction, it has no place in the article.


Specific changes made:
Nor does the section heading. The administration expressed confidence that the Director answered in the least misleading way possible, given the wording of the questions. To use the phrase "False testimony" is an opinion and is not supported by any citations to legal findings. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
1) The section title, “Medical Misinformation,” is sensational and prejudges the content. I have proposed a more neutral alternative (“Health Advice and Public Response”) to better reflect the material.
:I removed the bit where someone asserted he was lying, since it was nothing more than an opinion. Articles are supposed to be neutral and reproduce only what the available sources say. As to the lede, I don't think there's a problem with it because all that is sourced later in the article, and it is worded neutrally. <span style="color:red; font-size: smaller; font-weight: bold;">§]</span><sup>]</sup> 23:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
2) Revisions have added reliable sources, such as peer-reviewed studies and mainstream media articles, to provide context and balance, but these have been reverted without clear justification.
::It's called mind reading, where the writer assumes to know the intimate thought processes of the subject. Strongly discouraged in professional journalism, it has no place here either. (Fine in ], though).--<span style="text-shadow:#FFD700 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">] ]</span> 20:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
3) Efforts to include clarifications about actions taken by David and Stephen Flynn, such as their acknowledgment of errors and removal of contentious content, have also been removed or ignored.


I believe this issue warrants review by neutral, experienced editors to ensure the article aligns with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines on neutrality, verifiability, and respect for biographies of living persons.
== Donald Keene ==


I would greatly appreciate guidance or intervention from the community to address this matter fairly. I am happy to provide details of the edits and sources I have proposed.
{{la|Donald Keene}}


Thank you for your time and assistance. ] (]) 15:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
As the template for BLPs says "If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns", material has been repeatedly inserted and undone, and there are concerns outlined in the Talk page for the subject in question. In particular, COI via self-promotion self-referencing, (indirect) libel, and relevence of putting outlier information not shared by mainstream sources.
:Related: ] ]&nbsp;] 16:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks... I have responded there as I can see that person has gone in to change the wiki page again. Not sure what more we can do. ] (]) 17:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:I've started a convo on the article talk page. Please continue there. ] (]) 18:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== Discussion at ] regarding ] ==
Not sure how much detail I should add here, but the gist of the concern is in the Talk Page for the Misplaced Pages BLP mentioned above. ] 02:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


An editor has started a discussion "{{tq|about the ] aspects}}" of a DYK nomination at ]. Feel free to offer input there, ] (]) 15:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
==] ==


== Edit War on Trump ==
{{adminhelp|ans=yes}}
{{cot| IP User should keep discussion on ] talk page. ] (]) 19:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}}
Subject of BLP continues to make edits to the bio, removing all content that is negative towards him or shows verifiable proof of his past work actions, in violation of BLP guidelines and standards. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
So it has come to this hasn't it?
:Holy edit warring. But the removal is justified as the placement of the material is unacceptable. --] <sup>]</sup> 06:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
This incident all started on ] when ] won the recent election. Following this, an edit war ensued. This occurs in the section after the ] in which ]. People keep editing the title, changing it to "Interpresidency", "First post-presidency", or most recently "Post-presidency". I see this is taking place on a Extended confirmed article. I request it be upgraded to an appropriate level. ] (]) 19:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:If an admin processes this, can we get the article semi-protected so the IP's use the ''empty'' talk page? --] <sup>]</sup> 06:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
::I've semi'd it. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 10:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Both IPs are past 3RR, but ] has saved them from themselves by semi-ing. ] (]) 12:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


:Care to point to exactly what / where / when? And really, don't bring this sort of thing here unless <u>absolutely necessary</u> and if it can't be resolved on the relevant talk pages. <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 19:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
== "Criticisms" section in bio of a scholar citing one instance of another scholar who disagreed ==
::Well, you see, I tried to do it on the individual talk page but it didn't exactly work out so well. More names were put in as suggestions. This occurs in the section currently called "Post-presidency (2021-present)" as well as the relative ]. However this name has been changed multiple times until being changed back. As for the when, Pinpointing it exactly is not feasible. The last time an edit occured in this war was sometime before December 26, 15:00 CDT. To examine the talk page go near to the bottom till you see the discussion "Edit War". I thank you for your time. ] (]) 18:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:I imagine, when he takes office on January 20, 2025 - the section-in-question will be named differently. ] (]) 19:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
{{cob}}


== ] ==
I did last night but I'm not entirely sure about it. As I pointed out on the talk page, it seems the view of his under discussion was expressed in an early work (published when he was in his late 20s) that happens to have had an influence on other scholars, and scholars (at least those of the opposing school) consider him to be the "founder"of the revisionist view in question. A seemingly neutral review in ''The Journal of Japanese Studies'' apparently considers his scholarly method to have been flawed but not without merit, as other scholars continue to take this view. (By "neutral" I mean in relation to this debate, not to make some sort of claim that one source is superior to another based on how objective and NPOV it is.)


This article contains a mention of a serious allegation against the living subject that, while reported in reliable sources, has had questions of whether or not it constitutes ] for inclusion on the article's ]. I don't see firm consensus one way or another, but I did remove it a few days ago since consensus is required for inclusion even for verifiable BLP material per ] and ]. I have since had my removal of this content slightly reverted with the content restored, albeit without the subheading that was included for it. I was considering reverting again, per BLP and ], which directly states: "If you are having a dispute about whether to include it, the material is automatically contentious." However, given that per ], what counts as exempt under BLP with regards to the three-revert rule can be controversial, I figured I'd ask here to see what others think would be a good idea. ] (]) 19:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
But regardless of which view is more mainstream, I'm inclined to think discussion of that debate belongs in the ] article, not in the form of criticisms of one of the scholars on one side.


:Pinging {{ping|Ringerfan23}}, who reverted my edit, for their input. ] (]) 19:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
] (<small>]]</small>) 10:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
:I've commented at the talk page. Hopefully discussion there occurs and this thread can be closed. Cheers! ] (]) 23:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


== Eternal Blue (album) ==
:Criticism sections are almost always bad. A nuanced description of someone's work should reflect the secondary sources that exist, both positive and critical. If you're writing a criticism '''section''' you're almost certainly running into ] issues. (There are exceptions, of course, like where a work is only notable because of the criticism it received.) ] (]) 20:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


This article is an ]. In my review, I brought up a question that hopefully can get resolved here. A band member is cited from for a statement about another band member - specifically, for the statement that the rest of the band met the band member only two days before touring. I've understood that generally, interviews, and especially statements from the interview subjects, are considered primary sources. And in this case, the interview is also by the publisher of the publication, so even the secondary coverage is essentially self-published. My question is, is citing interview statements from band members about fellow band members a violation of BLP policy?
::I agree with ]. When it comes to scholarly criticisms we need to be careful to only cite those body's of work which are significant for the field. Almost every notable scholar has critics, but we must be careful not to highlight a particular criticism due to ] issues. If you decide to move forward in this addition, you will probably need to demonstrate why this particular criticism is significant for the field. Did it produce a significant body of work or develop a new direction for the field? Was it a criticism by a notable scholar which changed the direction of that scholars research? Has it been a sustained conversation taken up by multiple scholars over a period of years either within a field or does it produce interdisciplinary cross pollination?] (]) 05:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


Depending on the outcome here, I also will have a follow-up question about a different set of articles.--] (] &#124; ]) 13:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@]: Just to be clear, the article ''previously'' contained a "criticisms" section, and I ''removed'' it. The problem is that it was (''very'' briefly) discussed by two IPs on the talk page some years ago, and remained in the article all that time, so I was wondering if I was right in removing it. If we're all in agreement that the criticism section didn't belong, then we're probably done here. (I assumed that when ] said ''If you're writing a criticism '''section''' you're almost certainly running into ] issues.'' they were speaking hypothetically, but I could have been wrong...) ] (<small>]]</small>) 12:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


:Well, we'd want to make sure we're following ]. Is there something particularly contentious or controversial about the claim being made? If not, then we're fine to use it. ] ] 13:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Thank you for looking for my opinion in the matter. I agree with it's removal. Cheers! ] (]) 15:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
:Yes, it's a primary source, but the statement about him isn't negative or contentious, and it's clear that it is "According to LaPlante...", so I don't see an issue here. Problems with interviews being primary sources generally occur when they are being used as criteria for notability, which isn't the case here, or when there are disputes about their truthfulness or authenticity, which also isn't the case. ] 13:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::As you (]) know, there's a great deal of disagreement about what "self-published" should mean for WP's purposes, what the consensus practice is for considering something self-published, and whether the current definition reflects that practice. I haven't been around long enough to assess whether using this is/isn't consistent with the consensus practice. As best I can tell, the current definition of self-published + the exceptions are primarily intended to keep editors from using sources that are less likely to be reliable for the content in question, especially for BLP content. This source seems reliable for the fact that LaPlante said it, but uncertain re: whether it's reliable for the content of her statement.
::Seems to me that whether or not one considers this "self-published," policies prevent the use of this source for this content. If you treat it as self-published, it either fails as BLPSPS (if you consider it as self-published by the interviewer/owner), or it fails BLPSELFPUB restriction #2 (if you consider interview responses as essentially self-published by the interviewee, though I think that interpretation is problematic). If you treat it as non-self-published, then because it's a primary source, WP:BLPPRIMARY is in play, which says "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source." A quick search didn't turn up any secondary source discussing this particular content, and if it did, there would be no need to rely on the interview for this specific info.
::Can you get consensus here to include it anyway, since it isn't contentious and the claim is attributed? The first two responses suggest "yes." But, it also doesn't seem like important content for this article (perhaps more DUE on the Spiritbox article, though it's not included there). I think it could easily be omitted, in which case the issue is moot. ] (]) 17:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{U|Black Kite}}, thank you. That's where I would fall on the issue, and where historically I've always fallen, but I wanted to see if my view is reflective of consensus or not.-- ] (] &#124; ]) 20:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] ==
:::::Yes, I was speaking in generalities, not specifically about your actions or this article. ] (]) 19:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


Some experienced eyes would be helpful ] for a long running BLP dispute between mostly IPs and new editors. Some watchlisting would probably be helpful as well. Thanks. ] (]) 13:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
== Is it okay to add back a completely unsourced awards sect about BLPs? ==


:On it. ]] 13:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
#Please see by {{user|Murry1975}}.
::I appreciate it, thanks. ] (]) 14:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
#I had removed a sect from an article with completely unsourced info about ]s.
:::I think the IP needs blocking. SPA and edit warring. ]] 14:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
#{{user|Murry1975}} added the entire sect back, with zero sources, asserting he can do that because "]" and because the ''''.
::::I've warned them about the edit warring and directed them to the talk page. Hopefully that'll have been a productive use of my time. ] (]) 15:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
#Last I heard, ] was an ''essay'', while ] and ] are policy.
:The disputed entry impacts on an active libel and defamation case. It seems to me this entry has been deliberately edited to suppress public knowledge of the recent libel action. The amendment from 'abuse allegation' to 'abuse allegations' clearly implies more than one public accuser, a further distortion of the truth that seems highly prejudicial to Mr Stanley (a living person) and directly impacts upon his livelihood. The source cited for these amendments, screenanarchy.com, is a blog entry and, in my opinion, not a valid primary source. I believe these amendments have been made by Finland based journalists promoting a tabloid 'documentary' 'SHADOWLAND', that seeks to exploit this case for financial gain. ] (]) 15:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Some clarification would be helpful here, because I think it's best to remove ''completely unsourced info related to ]s'' from articles.
::Once again - this is matter for the article talk page. You have already been specifically . This is now becoming a competence issue. ]] 16:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] ==
Thank you,


The article in question is about my uncle, Frank Pando, who has requested that I delete the article written about him. As evidenced in both his article's talk page and by a notification on that actual page, there are plenty of problems with both sourcing and notability. I have tried to put up a suggested deletion notice, but it was promptly taken down by some user who said that the subject's request to delete the article is invalid. I strongly urge my fellow editors to take heed of the notability/citation concerns, as well as my uncle's request, and kindly delete this page. ] (]) 15:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
&mdash; ''']''' (]) 18:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


:I have started the ] discussion which could lead to it being deleted. You will find the discussion ], and are welcome to join in (though it may help if you read that first link to understand the process first). -- ] (]) 15:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:WP:BLUE is irrelevant - the colour of the sky is common knowledge, whereas who won an Academy award etc for a particular year isn't. ] (]) 18:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
:May I ask what he objects to? Skimming through the article, it's just largely looks like a laundry list of roles he's played. I do t see anything particularly contentious or controversial... ] ] 16:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, definitely shouldn't be added back without adequate sourcing. ]] 18:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


== AfDs and BLPs ==
:::All sources are available at the linked award pages, citation over kill for a page that has clear links.
:::"Remove immediately any ''contentious'' material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced"
:::How are actual facts contentious?
:::How is removing vast sections, linked to sourced pages, across multiple articles "improving" wikipedia?
:::Removing material, blanking when sources are available on the linked articles is actually disruptive. If the editor in question would like to improve rather than delete. Utter tautology. ] (])
::::No, ], refusing to use citations is disruptive. As for whether the material is ''contentious'' or not, put yourself in the shoes of the person that actually won the award. We have a serious problem with these unsourced award sections, and a lot of them consist of false information.&mdash;](]) 18:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
::::If the information is well-known and obvious, then it should be trivially easy to provide a reliable source for it. It's not "oversourcing" to provide such a citation. ] (]) 18:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::The My Left Foot artilce, is it contentious that Daniel Day-Lewis won an Oscar? Is it not counter productive that instead of drawing attention to the possible need for inline citations, the section is removed? Is it not counter productive that when an article is linked that instead of transferring inline cites that the accurate, neutral infomation is deleted? Common sense is meant to used. ] (]) 19:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::First, if they are sourced at the article for the award then the addition of the award to other articles is entirely appropriate. Per ] any editor is free to add any citations that they wish. OTOH removal of the info is counterproductive to say the least. An alternative is to add "CN". Claiming that awards won is a BLP violation is pure sophistry.I'm not sure what the ] of these removals is but they do not improve the encyclopedia. ]&#124;] 19:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


Those watching this page may be interested in this discussion: ]. ] ] 21:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:I've added the unref section tag instead. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
::And based on the logic of blanking the whole section, then the article for ] should be blanked too. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
:::A third of it sourced in 5 minutes. You can bow down and thank me later. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
::::Let me see, ], you knowingly restore unsourced material about a living person ''after'' its been objected to and then expect thanks? I assume that you will accept this block warning instead. Never, ever, again, under any circumstance, should you restore uncited material about a living person to an article after it has been challenged for lack of sourcing.&mdash;](]) 19:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::Please get off your high horse. What an attitude problem you have. I've added several sources to that article. How many have you added? None. What a hypocrite. Another admin who thinks they're better than the editors who actually do the legwork around here. Pathetic. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 20:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::Gone quiet now {{u|Kww}}, haven't you? Not surprising now you've been outted as a bully. Go on, take me to ANI about adding unsourced text with a ref needed tag. I dare you. If you think anyone who adds any unsourced info to an article is going to get blocked, then pretty much every one here is in the shit. Including plenty of admin lackeys. I bet your edit history is worth looking over while we're on the witch-hunt bandwagon. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 10:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

:::::Strongly agree with by admin {{u|Kww}}. &mdash; ''']''' (]) 19:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::{{edit conflict}}I think Lugnuts' actions were clearly productive, and that your threat of a block is completely out of line. You are really threatening to block someone for adding relevant information back to an article and sourcing some of it, just because he wasn't able to add citations to all of it in 5 minutes? Kww, while ] is an important policy, so is ], and threatening to block someone for good faith edits that improved the article is clearly not acceptable behavior. ] (]) 20:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::No, agree with admin {{u|Kww}}. They can work on unsourced info about a ], offsite on a txt file, and ''then'' add it back to the article, sourced. There is no urgent need to add back wholly unsourced info about a ] to a page. &mdash; ''']''' (]) 20:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::Just to clarify, I'm not objecting to Kww complaining that Lugnuts added some of the information back in unsourced, or to Kww removing the unsourced portion again. What I feel is inappropriate is the block threat over what was a good faith edit that improved the article. It would have been even better for Lugnuts to add citations to the info in the same edit where he added it back in, but his actions were still helpful and certainly not something someone should be threatened with a block for. ] (]) 20:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::Thanks for the clarification, I can agree with that part. :) &mdash; ''']''' (]) 20:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
*The removal may or may not have been the best approach on a collaborative project, but ] is very clear. The challenged content cannot be restored to the article without the inclusion of in line citations at the time of restoration - vague waves to "the claim is sourced in some other article " are not at all sufficient. -- ] 20:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

{{od}} More time was spent arguing over this than it took me to find the sources. It might actually take me more time to write this comment than it took me to find the sources. It DEFINITELY took both Cirt and Murry1975 more time to revert and argue over this than it would have taken either of them to find the sources. ] (]) 20:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
:Indeed. The ] exception applies to contentious material only. - ] ] 20:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

::Agree completely with Hipocrite. ] (]) 20:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
*Strongly agree with application of ], specifically with regard to ''completely unsourced info'' about ]s. And also strongly agree about claims of "but but but ... it's sourced in another Misplaced Pages article". &mdash; ''']''' (]) 20:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
**And no, it would take way more time to add citations for all this ''completely unsourced info'' about ]s. Better to remove it, and add back, iff and only iff properly cited to sources that conform to Misplaced Pages site policies. &mdash; ''']''' (]) 20:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
:{edit conflict}I replied to Cirt over at ], but the gist of my comment there is that the right action in this case was to source the content. It clearly needs sources, ] definitely doesn't apply, and Murry1975 was wrong to add it back in without trying to source it. However, for content like this that so clearly could easily be sourced, Cirt should have just sourced it himself (and removed anything he couldn't find sources for). Please remember that the idea here is to build good encyclopedia articles, and that having good sourced content is clearly better than either option of having unsourced content or removing content. I commend Lugnuts for taking it upon himself to start adding sources to the content. ] (]) 20:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
::No, agree with admin {{u|Kww}}. There is zero urgent need to retain ''completely unsourced info'' about ]s on a page until sourced someday. &mdash; ''']''' (]) 20:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Cirt, you don't need to post that you agree with Kww over and over again, both in this discussion and on other pages. We can get it after the first time. Anyway, I'm not saying that you should have left the content unsourced in the article, I'm saying that it would have been better for you to source it yourself. It would indeed have taken a little longer to source it than to just remove it, but that would also have made the article much better. ] (]) 20:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
::::Yes, {{u|Calathan}}, that effort on quality improvement could indeed be done by anyone, offsite or on a draft page, ''after'' removing unsourced info on ]s from a live Misplaced Pages page. &mdash; ''']''' (]) 20:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Please note that there is now a ] request about this issue. Feedback is welcome here. ] (]) 05:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
:'''Update:''' Result of ] request: ''''. &mdash; ''']''' (]) 17:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

== Robert Kagan ==

{{la|Robert Kagan}}

], who is the subject of the article, is attempting to remove ethnicity information from this page. I've had conflicts with him in the past and would rather defer the case to other administrators. ] (]) 19:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
:Labelling people as Jewish etc. falls into the topic of ] where unless the person self-identifies as Jewish, we do not do so. ] (]) 19:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
::Looking at the page in question, ], but not for ethnicity. Or is this guideline given elsewhere? ] (]) 20:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Looking at the Robert Kagan article, the disputed statement was entirely unsourced. ] (]) 20:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Tell ya what - look at the prior discussions about "Jewish" on all the noticeboards - and note that categorizing a person as "Jewish" invariably is viewed as contentious where ''no'' self-identification is made. Trying to assert that "Jewish" merely is an ethnicity has not flown here before, and is unlikely to fly now. ] (]) 20:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
:::: Support per Collect's argument - labeling persons without self-identification or other high quality sources is not acceptable. ] (]) 23:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::Glad to see this is already here. Article has no sources regarding Kagan being Jewish; no mention of being Jewish at all. Agree with Collect. Must be removed. ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 05:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::I think Jewishness, in the final analysis, is irrelevant to this discussion. What we are discussing is whether or not unsourced material should be removed from a ]. As we read at ]: "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced immediately." I disagree with those who might say that this material is "contentious". It is merely unsourced. ] (]) 12:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Prior discussions all reached a different conclusion than that, however. ] (]) 13:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
:Any time the subject of an article indicates in good faith that they do not wish to be labelled with a given ethnicity, we should respect that. It's a matter of courtesy and logic before we even get round to considering WP policy. Same goes for religion and sexual orientation. (Caveat: I have no idea if Wikifixer actually is the article subject in this case, and I have done nothing to check). ] (]) 23:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

== Error ==

{{la|Joni Ernst}}

Joni Ernst's Misplaced Pages page states " ..the first woman ever elected on a statewide level in Iowa...." this is incorrect.
Patty Judge was elected Iowa's Iowa Secretaries of Agriculture in 1998 and served until 2007
Iowa Auditor of State Mary Mosiman was elected in 2013 and is the current Auditor.
Secretary of State office has been Held by Mary Jane Odell elected in 1980 and served until 1987 and Elaine Baxter elected in 1987 and served until 1994 <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Sourced to WaPo which is a reliable source - but proving again that "reliable" != "correct." ] (]) 21:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
:: Labeling the origin of material "reliable" by publisher instead of "a source" gives authority to something by origin instead of by examination. While the source is markedly different from Daily Kos - publishers are not infallible and this is an example of an error in a normally fine source. Thank you for addressing it Collect. ] (]) 23:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
: Looks like a case of {{tl|sofixit}} to me... <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

== Zero sources on "awards" pages about BLPs ==

#]
#]
#]
*"Awards" pages about ]s, each had zero sources, none cited, whatsoever.
*I've removed the wholly unsourced info about ]s.
*Please don't add back unsourced info unless properly cited to sources that conform to site policy, including ], ], and ].

Thank you,

&mdash; ''']''' (]) 20:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
: Totally unnecessary, add {{tl|cn}} where needed or {{tl|refimprove}}. The BLP exception applies to contentious claims only. Do ] or let others do it if you are not interested. - ] ] 21:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
::First, ], ] applies to all material, whether it is about a living person or not. Second, "contentious" doesn't mean "disparaging" or "unpleasant", it only means that someone may disagree about it. While removing it in the first place may not have been the best choice, once it has been challenged, it can only be restored with a citation to a reliable source.&mdash;](]) 22:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Why is {{u|Cirt}} disagreeing with the ''content''? --] <sup>]</sup> 22:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
::::He's been pretty clear that he objects to it because it is inadequately supported by sources, i.e., it may not be true. If it matches up with my experience on similarly unsourced awards articles, his suspicions are well justified: they tend to be exaggerated and inaccurate. I've warned him not to go on a spree of these removals, despite any suspicions he might have.&mdash;](]) 22:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
*Support removal per Cirt's citation of applicable and relevant policy. ] (]) 22:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

*I recall one BLP where one editor wanted to include a Nobel Peace Prize "nomination" for a person as being important <g> so yes - awards can be contentious in the sense that other editors find the claim dubious. ] (]) 23:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
: This is one of those instances where ] would apply, as these awards are very easily sourced. But I will not fight for this, I leave it to you to continue blowing up the work of good faith editors for no reason other than being super-narrow in your interpretation of policy. Have fun. - ] ] 23:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
: While you are at it, go ahead and do the same with ], ] and similar lists. There are many to keep your fun going. - ] ] 23:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
:: Cwobeel, please stop attacking other editors. This is a good faith claim and the material is contentious and unsourced, policy states it should be removed until it can be re-included with a proper source. This is a key fact of ]. ] (]) 23:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
* Congratulations to Cirt for playing a straight bat and posting for third party review, this is wholly uncontroversial. Unsourced material has no right to exist, regardless of how notable some related article subject may be. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 00:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
:* Cwobeel restored all three articles and sourced the entirety to IMDb. They were promptly redirected as IMDb is not a reliable source, much less a BLP source. ] (]) 04:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
:: There is nothing wrong is using IMDb for a an innocuous list of awards. That material is not contentious. ''']''' exists for a reason. Use your common sense, and think of the reader. - ] ] 05:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
:::There is indeed something wrong. The same person who creates the Misplaced Pages article could create the IMDB content, and we'd never even know. It's not an acceptable site to be the sole or primary source of an article. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Make the BLP day and also redirect ], and ]. - ] ] 05:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing them is always better than removing them. In my opinion the lists should be as comprehensive and well sourced as possible.♦ ] 11:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
:'''Update:''' Result of ] request: ''''. &mdash; ''']''' (]) 17:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

==Charlo Greene==
{{la|Charlo Greene}}
I'm not sure if this is a BLP/N thing or maybe an issue for another forum. Long story short, I've had someone make a few comments on the talk page saying that Greene doesn't pass notability guidelines (she passed an AfD) and making statements that come across like they're saying that there's a bias on the page because it doesn't contain this or that content. I'll be honest: it really comes across like the editor in question has a genuine strong dislike of the person because of how they've phrased everything. I've told them that if anything is missing or seems overly puffy that they can make edits '''if they think that they can do it in a neutral fashion''', but I'm fairly concerned that any edits by them would be done with the specific goal of stripping sources from the article and editing to reflect their point of view, which is that she's non notable and the article should be deleted. I would like someone to come in to the article and help with edits and also with mediation with the editor in question. It just feels like unless some other people step in this is just going to be a pattern where the editor comes back, makes more POINTy comments about Greene and the article (stating how there's a bias and that it's missing information that they don't seem to want to add), and then takes off to do other things. ]] 05:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
*Also, should be mentioned? I've added it, but it doesn't seem to have been as widely covered as some of the other stuff like the other recent legal issues (misusing campaign funds) and it just feels a little minor. ]] 05:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
::{{ping|Tokyogirl79}} Did the AfD address if she was covered by BLP1E? I have watchlisted the article and commented on the eviction issue back at the ] (]) 15:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
:::..."and then takes off to do other things." Uh, you mean such as paying work out in the real world? How dare I give that a higher priority than fucking around on Misplaced Pages! This has been the quintessential BLP1E from Minute One. As I recall, the AFD began with the nominator referencing BLP1E and using it as justification for deletion, which obviously fell on deaf ears. I also recall that it was taken to AFD after it was PRODed and her supporters removed the PROD tag with no rationale or discussion whatsoever. Perhaps all that helps to explain why sensible people have stayed far the fuck away from this. I attempted to offer comments prior to and during the AFD, but abandoned them. My real-world obligations took a sharp turn in a different direction about eight months ago, which means that I truly did have better things to do with my life at the time.
:::In my eyes, this is one of far too many examples of giving undue weight to something because it was "trending" on one particular day, considerations such as ], ] and ] (among others) be damned. The rationale was given during AFD that this received "significant coverage". What others may view as "significant coverage", I view as a result of a media environment in which an endless number of media outlets endlessly rehash the same content over and over in an attempt to appear "competitive" or "relevant". I'm sure some won't understand that statement, but I'm merely looking at the bigger picture here. I came here to help build an encyclopedia, not a portal to CNN and ''The Huffington Post''.
:::There has been "continuing coverage", but that's mostly on account of the Anchorage-based corporate media deeming her to be the next "homegrown media darling" a la ]. The only thing I see in common between Charlo Greene and Sarah Palin is that they both had a cup of coffee at ], and that Wikipedians seem all too eager to bludgeon readers with their respective fleeting associations with the station, all the while deleting sourced content pertaining to individuals who actually had something to do with putting KTVA on the map. Is there an essay which spells out the difference between "notability" and "celebrity" and outlines how not to confuse or intertwine the two, or have I just given someone an idea for their next big Misplaced Pages project? Anyway, I'm totally puzzled as to why any media executive would view Greene as a logical successor to Sarah Palin in terms of the similarities in coverage. I don't think I have to explain Palin's accomplishments. Greene, in comparison, is just a pitiful bottom-feeder. This has been reflected in "social media commentary", with multiple instances of readers asking media outlets why they insist on wasting readers' time with this bullshit, giving such excessive coverage to her eviction proceedings and other non-events while "even Ray Charles can see" that she had already jumped the shark by that point.
:::As to the issue of omission of content: hopefully, we're all at least familiar with the circumstances surrounding this individual. There was a larger issue, Ballot Measure 2, to decriminalize cannabis in Alaska, which was successful. One of the primary figures on the side of opposing this ballot measure was Deborah Williams, the top Alaska-based official of the ] during the Clinton administration and a politically powerful person in Alaska in general. The simple fact of the matter is that Charlo Greene outed herself because Deborah Williams went to KTVA's management and complained about the tone of her reporting. This fact was reported by reliable sources. That Wikipedians somehow didn't find this to be very important boils down to one of three things: someone was afraid of possibly offending Deborah Williams, someone felt that mentioning Williams would detract from the important task of procuring enough turd polish to make this appear legit in the eyes of the uninitiated, or providing proper context would detract from continuing to promulgate the sort of BizarroThink which permeates Misplaced Pages and further lends to the laughingstock image many people have of the encyclopedia.
:::As with "social media commentors", I feel enough of my life has been wasted reading about Charlo Greene (there's a James A. Michener quote to the effect of "Nothing in your life matters before age 45, but once you reach that age, you better make everything in your life matter" – well, that's me, plus it also partially explains why I've had a whole lot less time lately for Misplaced Pages than I used to), so don't necessarily count on any replies from me.]/]/] 20:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
*Paying bills and real life are important- I'm not denying that. My issue is that you come on, make statements about how awful the article is, how it shouldn't be on Misplaced Pages, how it should include this or how not having that is a sign of bias, yet you never actually '''do''' anything. Rather than just complain about how much you think that Greene is a bottom feeder, why not actually help improve the article? As far as I can see with the article you just mostly complain about how Greene and the article exists, but without actively doing anything to improve the article or even re-nominate it for deletion. At some point it seems like you're more using the talk page as a forum to complain about Greene's existence and her tactics on self-promotion. Misplaced Pages is not a ] to be used to further a specific viewpoint. You don't like what Greene did or that she got media attention. That's duly noted but again, Misplaced Pages is not here to be used as a platform to either promote a person in a positive or negative manner. Even if you feel that someone got media attention for something stupid or sleazy and you don't personally agree that they should have gained that attention, that doesn't automatically mean that they aren't notable per Misplaced Pages's guidelines. There have been times that I've had to vote to keep an article for topics I really didn't want to have an article and there have been times that I've had to delete articles for topics that I genuinely wanted to keep. At this point I can't help but wonder if you really can make any neutral edits concerning Greene. You clearly have a very strong negative viewpoint about her and you also clearly want the page gone from Misplaced Pages. Will the world end if the page got deleted tomorrow? No, but we should not delete pages based upon our personal convictions and if you don't think that you can be neutral about the page, then odds are you should probably keep from editing or suggesting edits. No matter what I do to the page, you complain and at one point on the talk page you made blanket statements that I personally inferred as me having a positive bias towards Greene. (IE, statements about this being a puff piece, about how "desperate some of you are to give free publicity", and so on.) You don't like Greene and you don't like the page. Duly noted, but each time you come on to the page you get nastier and nastier about everything. At some point you really do need to step back and just sort of distance yourself from the page. ]] 04:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
:*Also, the reason that she even survived deletion was the award from High Times and the Elle recognition. If I hadn't found those then I'd have voted to delete the article myself, but High Times doesn't give out many awards and it was enough to warrant a weak keep from my end. ]] 04:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
::For the record, in case you haven't already perused the history, I haven't made a single edit to the article. I also really could care less about the person. My main concern is that the existence of content such as this makes Misplaced Pages out to be a reflection of all that's wrong with the web rather than a reflection of human knowledge. "Misplaced Pages is not here to be used as a platform to either promote a person in a positive or negative manner". Hmmm, from my perspective, I've seen too many instances of ] or even the threat of such being used to turn articles into promotional puff pieces. In one case, an editor was so quick to whitewash the placement of {{tl|Advert}} on a BLP with no real discussion, I began to wonder if that editor even knew the difference between an advertisement and an encyclopedia entry. It's understandable, really. People are just aping the rest of the web, which since about 1996 or so has existed more to advertise and promote and further corporate agendas than it has to inform.
::Three years ago, I expressed concerns on here about ] and the coverage of his so-called "mayoral campaign". The cherry-picked sources used were little removed from Johnston's own press releases, which emerged not long after the announcement that he had hired a publicist. Later, around the time of the actual filing period for the office, when other sources emerged showing that Johnston didn't actually file for the office and had no comment as to whether he was going to file, those sources were ignored. The response to that posting was similarly cherry-picked, basically another blow-off. Is anyone expected to believe that '']'' has anything credible to say about an election in Alaska, yet when the same ''Us Weekly'' has something negative to say about Johnston, suddenly it's not a reliable source? Go look at the history of that article if you doubt me on this.
::Anyway, back to the topic at hand: the appropriate response only came to mind a few hours ago while looking at coverage of ]'s death. Like I said, I came here to help build an encyclopedia, not a portal to corporate media. Is this article evidence of the notion that notability is gauged by how many media outlets pick up the same story? By the standards used to judge this as notable, everyone ever mentioned by ] deserves their own article. As for the High Times award? Cannabis as a political issue in Alaska goes back to 1972, not Charlo saying "Fuck it" on a live television broadcast. I suppose the reason why Irwin Ravin doesn't have an article is because dead people aren't in a position to craft a social media strategy. There's numerous other things, such as the notable events of the 1990 cannabis-related ballot initiative not being covered (because they occurred in 1990 and therefore Google is not going to make tons of sources automatically fall into one's lap, never mind that it leaves the impression that those events are somehow not notable because they occurred in 1990 rather than 2014), the ] and ] issues in the KTVA article being made worse by this episode and so forth, but I'll save my breath.]/]/] 14:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

==Marco Rubio et al==
Election 2016 is a little way off, but already polls are being taken on all sorts of "possible candidates" all over the place by every organization. I rather think that adding such polls to political BLPs is pure recentism and makes Misplaced Pages into an ersatz newspaper, but others demur. So far at ] an extensive section of all the current polls was added -- at this rate, and adding each poll as it is released, the BLP will be 90% "polling results" long before election day. Again, IMO, polls taken this far out are of minimal, if any, biographical value, and of nil encyclopedic value. I objected to the 2014 polls added to many candidates which aggregated up to 150 polls for each candidate <g> and I suspect the mere eight or ten added in the first half of January will easily surpass that level in 2016. How much weight in BLPs should be given to crystal ball polls as opposed to actual election polling? ] (]) 12:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
:This would be a discussion best had on the article talk page. This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period.- ]] 14:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
::Generally yes, the article talk pages are the best place for these discussions, however Collect makes a valid point; American election cycles are very short and the polls are never ending. Repeating the same process for every BLP is a waste of time. Where else would we have this conversation?]<span style="font-style:italic"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 15:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
:::It's not a policy issue; it's a content issue. Summarizing a few polls for potential/actual presidential candidates should be of value to our readers. Obviously, this would apply to just a few BLPs, not every BLP.- ]] 15:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
::::Actually -- where information is of nil biographical value, it is, indeed, discussable here. We can expect literally several hundred polls in this year alone - and a full year before the election. I know some people are fascinated by hundreds of polls in every political BLP, but the issue of what weight to ascribe to the ''crystal ball polls'' (polls where no one has even declared a candidacy are absolutely ]) is properly discussed here as it might affect hundreds of BLPs. Or each BLP could end up looking like ] where the polls take up about 100K out of the 114K article. As I noted - that is a very valid topic here. Cheers. ] (]) 15:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)!
:::::Fortunately there's now a productive discussion at the article talk page as well. ] (]) 15:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::Even so - this topic affects just about all the major US political BLPs as we head into the 2016 election season. Best t get general input and not just from one single BLP,no? ] (]) 15:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

::::::::As a general observation, it is not an improvement to biography articles to have multiple poll results for an individual or individuals who have not yet declared (and may never declare ) that they are running for public office. This is little more than wild ass guessing on the part of media companies. The only place tht this sort of routine "crystal ball" polling ''might'' be an improvement or suitable inclusion would be an article about the relevant primary (in a section on pre-primary maneuvering). Even then it seems a marginal addition. ] (]) 16:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::Is there any good reason to mention polls in an ongoing way? It can be relevant to note things like "after repeatedly polling less than 5%, Mr. Mugwump ended his campaign for dogcatcher" but in most cases there's no point in keeping a blow-by-blow account of every poll. ] (]) 03:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::I have quite a few political articles on my watchlist. Every election cycle, a certain few editors show up in certain articles they may have never edited before, or are otherwise active with newer articles pertaining to current events, particularly election articles. The pattern is the same: dump polling data en masse, puff up whomever happens to have made a few recent headlines or whose press releases are being rehashed into "reliably sourced content", and willfully trash rather than build upon or improve any attempts on the part of other editors to improve these articles. I would name names, but when I have before, they tend to show up and throw ] in my face and make me out to be the real problem. Yes, I hope you've figured out already that I hold strong opinions sometimes and only "back down" because I may not have as much time for tit-for-tat as they do. The end result found in the articles is exactly as Collect described: fully fleshed-out polling data, while most of the remainder of the article is a pretty crystal-clear example of why we have a policy known as ]. In the 8½ years I've had this account and 5½–6 years of being at least a nominally active editor, this is certainly the most egregious ]/] complex I've ever witnessed. Worse yet, an overwhelming majority of these polls come from ]. Reading that article gave me the impression that PPP is a Democratic Party front. Even the dimmest of dimwits can figure out what a slippery slope that is. Finally, having a BLP which contains an excess of polling data pertaining to a single election, which is then later removed from the article, validates the "ersatz newspaper" comment and also is thumbing its nose at the concept of "enduring notability" which we all see mentioned so often in discussion pages.]/]/] 15:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{user|Tulipmaster}}, formerly {{User|Islandsound}} has some controversial info to ] about the person being charged for fraud under the name Charles Jones. While one of the added () does verify that a Charles Jones was charged with fraud, it does not give any indication that this is the same person. The other two sources added give 404s.

I the user about this, and they by saying, "''I have had personal dealings with this guy. I can send court documents on the matter if need be. Image can be verified via youtube search via his music. People who steal like alias names.''" and providing a link to YouTube which proves nothing. I then explained that Tulipmaster seems to have a ]

Is there any chance that this user can be blocked for harmful COI edits? Also, should their edits be redacted from the history due to lack of valid sourcing identifying this as the same person? <span style="color:green">'''Ten Pound Hammer'''</span> • <sup>(])</sup> 02:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
*Bump. <span style="color:green">'''Ten Pound Hammer'''</span> • <sup>(])</sup> 17:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
:It might be the same person: but none of the sources make that connection, so it has to stay out the article. I would just keep reverting it and give the users escalating warnings. If they continue after being warned, they should be blocked. Since the content may meet on the ], I suppose it could be reversion deleted.- ]] 18:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
: If this persists, please take to ANI - this is not funny. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

== en.wikipedia.org/David_Eisenhower ==

This article conflates David Eisenhower with David Eisenhower II. The first is the son of a President, the second is the grandson. See the article to view the errors. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== ] ==

absolutely none of this page is sourced, and it reads like promotional material. This man is not a person of note, the page should be deleted. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I'm looking at the content and sources. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
:Okay, I'm done. I think the subject meets ] but I've stubbed the article. There were three main issues:
:*Completely unsourced material
:*Sources that didn't mention Jimenez at all
:*Material that was sourced to Jimenez's Huffington Post columns or his Huffington Post bio
:When looking for other sources I found there's lots of stuff in the Daily Mail and the Mirror but both are not used in BLPs. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

== Proposed move of ] ==

I have proposed moving the above article at ] because I see at least potential BLP issues in the existing name, which I more or less itemize in the comments there. I think that this might not be the only instance of common names which might be unfortunate for BLP's, and I would welcome any input on the specific move and any possible, similar, title questions elsewhere in the future. ] (]) 20:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
* The "controversy" is incredibly minor and I don't think the article does us any service at all. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

== ] ==

The section titled "Controversies" does not have a valid reference or base. It is added by people who did not like his principles and they wanted to bring bad name to him. There is no evidence to prove that he acted as mentioned in this section. So, please remove this section from this wiki page. This hurts millions of people who consider him as grate hero and who fought for a cause. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Although the subject died more than three years ago, that section was poorly sourced and contained an unsourced allegation against a living person so I've removed it. Other sections could use more sourcing. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

== ] ==

This individual's wiki article appears to be largely promotional and self-serving. The external links he provides are known in the legal profession to be websites that help lawyers promote themselves, often in exchange for a fee. The cases in which his name appears as counsel, which are not themselves legally prominent, are no different than the thousands of searchable cases in which various names of other attorneys are also listed. ] (]) 05:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
:On a quick glance, there actually isn't a single significant external reliable source supporting this biography — it's entirely based on primary sources linked to the subject, or simple attorney directories. I substantially agree that unless significant external sources are found to support the existence of this biography, it should be deleted. ] (]) 06:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
:I've been working on checking sources and trimming the article and now it's at ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 06:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
:Note: What we have here seems to be a classic COI editor who hasn't edited since 2011. --] <sup>]</sup> 06:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
:I'm the COI editor? I have no connection to this person. I stumbled on his page. ] (]) 13:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
::No, no, NeilN is referring to the article's original creator. ] (]) 13:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
:: Sorry, just realized that. I haven't edited in a long time so I was projecting. :) ] (]) 13:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

== Chad Ford ==

Edit to ] happened on January 25th entering libelous, unfounded character attack. Should be deleted <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:It's been removed. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

== Steven Emerson part 2 ==
{{la|Steven Emerson}}

There has been some serious controversy at the ] page over the following sentence:

{{talkquote|Some of Emerson's statements and networks have been challenged as fomenting ],<ref name=CambridgeCompanion>{{cite book|author1=Hammer, Julie|author2=Safi, Amid|title=The Cambridge Companion to American Islam|date=2013|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=9781107002418|page=8|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OBPKKFUyZaUC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8#v=onepage&q&f=false|accessdate=22 January 2015|quote=Islamophobe Steven Emerson (the discredited "terrorism expert" who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma city bombings committed by Timothy McVeigh)}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=9 questions about Birmingham that Fox News was too embarrassed to ask|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/01/12/9-questions-about-birmingham-that-fox-news-was-too-embarrassed-to-ask/|publisher=Washington Post|accessdate=22 January 2015|quote=Emerson has been accused of Islamophobia in the past.}}</ref><ref name=Palgrave.Macmillan>{{cite book|last1=Ernst|first1=Carl W.|title=Islamophobia in America: The Anatomy of Intolerance|date=2013|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan|isbn=9781137290083|page=86|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=K-0VFNIfZyIC&pg=PT86#v=onepage&q&f=false}}</ref><ref name="law as movement">{{cite journal|last=Yazdiha|first=Haj|date=2014|title=Law as movement strategy: How the Islamophobia movement institutionalizes fear through legislation|journal=]|volume=13|issue=2|publisher=]|format=PDF|doi= 10.1080/14742837.2013.807730|accessdate= 23 January 2015|quote="funding flows to the Islamophobia movement's 'misinformation experts' including...Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism|url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14742837.2013.807730}}</ref>}}
{{reflist-talk}}
It appears that one group of users believes that because this sentence documents the fact that Steven Emerson has been accused of Islamophobia, it is a violation of ]. The most recent position against it is as follows:
{{talkquote|There seems to be a big disconnect between the suitability of contentious allegations and the ability to verify the existence of contentious allegations. The ability to verify the existence does not make it suitable to include it "because it is sourced". There is a reason "reception and controversy" sections are not fit per ] and Featured articles on persons like ] do not include them at all. BLP requires high quality sources and NPOV should be a disinterested overview of a subject - labeling persons as bigots or even claiming they are bigots (because someone said so) is not proper. Obama has had no end of attacks on charges of corruption and other issues - yet not one reference to any accusation stands in the biography despite multitudes of sources and even books dedicated to asserting this. What we see here is sentence or less claiming bigotry by biased sources and without high-quality evidence of actual bigotry. The sources are not suitable to carry such an accusation into a biography. Doing so would result in biographies containing all the accusations by detractors and whatever scrawlings malcontents come up with. ]. ] (]) 05:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)}}
Please advise. Cheers! ] (]) 05:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

:on a completely related note, the article itself has been locked until we get a consensus and both positions appear to be willing to listen to what you have to say on this matter. Input would be appreciated so that we could get the article unlocked and back to normalish operations. Thank you and Cheers! ] (]) 07:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
::The first and third sources appear to be reliable secondary sources which would support mentioning that Emerson has been criticized for his views and inaccurate statements about Muslims/Islam. The second source is a little weak, but somewhat supports the fact that Emerson has been criticized. I can't access the full text of the fourth source, but would note that it has been cited elsewhere . Generally, I don't agree with ChrisGualtieri's above statement. ] would mandate that Emerson's biography acknowledge that his views on Islam have been criticized and discredited. It's not a fringe view and it is well-sourced, as far as I can tell. Comparison to Obama is not apt.- ]] 15:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Agreed. I've also mentioned elsewhere that cherry-picking the Obama article is not apt as criticisms are present in articles spun off to keep the length of the main article manageable. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
::: <small> <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --></small>
* The first source verges on ], since it does not mention islamophobia. The second fails to identify who made the accusation - was it agenda-driven extremists? Some people will denounce as islamophobic anyone who dares to mention the association between militant Islam and terrorism (domestic and international). The quoted text also does not accuse him of fomenting islamophobia. You give no text extract for the third. The fourth has the same problem of ]. So on the face of ot none of the sources support the statement and two of them fall a long way short of even a direct accusation agaisnt him, let alone one of fomenting. If, after this much effort, you have not managed to find a single slam-dunk reliable independent source that openly and in as many words accuses him of fomenting islamophobia, then you had probably better drop it. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
**The ''first'' source, ]? I'm confused - it specifically uses the adjective "Islamophobe" to describe Emerson. ] (]) 18:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
***The first source says '''"Congressman King cited Islamaphobes Steven Emerdon ..."'''. No synth required. The author is making the assertion. The only thing that may be debatable here is the specific wording proposed by Coffeepusher. - ]] 19:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
:::: The text the source purports to support is: "Some of Emerson's statements and networks have been challenged as fomenting Islamophobia". It does not mention fomenting, and I don't see any such mention in the others either. The source is scarecely without an agenda, either, since it's written by academics on Islamic studies. So instead of nit-picking, how about finding a robust, independent source that actually supports the sentence, or modifying the sentence to something actually supported by the sources? He has been accused of islamophobia by islamists, would be entirely uncontroversial. You seem determined to go much further. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::I'm not determined to go anywhere. I'm not editing this article. I am curious though: Are there sources that state that "he has been accused of islamophobia by islamists"?- ]] 00:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Um -- reading all the sources one would suggest the most encyclopedic claim to be ascribed to them following Misplaced Pages policies is:
:''Some people, including A, B and C, have called his positions Islamophobic in their opinion.''
as covering the material without getting close to any BLP violation, and making clear that this is a matter of opinion which is then properly cited ''as opinion''. I am sure any claim of a person being a ''(pejorative'') is generally a matter of opinion rather than a statement of objective fact. ] (]) 19:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
:We don't have to be quite so jejune with our prose. We can simply state that "Distinguished professor of Islamic studies ], __credentialed person B__, and __credentialed person C__ has characterized Emerson as Islamaphobic, in part due to his discredited claims about Muslims." Or something along those lines.- ]] 19:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
::Actually - no. Misplaced Pages does ''not'' suggest adding honorifics and parenthetical praise about persons where the intent is to present a claim in any ''non-neutral'' manner. Or we could have, by your suggestion "''Nobel prize winner A thinks George Gnarph is a Loon''" We ''must'' present opinions ''as opinions'', and not imply that a particular opinion is fact because a specific credential is shown. Also note that you seem to forget that "'''discredited claims about Muslims'''" is in itself ''opinion'', and you appear to strongly state it as fact ''in Misplaced Pages's voice''. Cheers. ] (]) 20:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
:::] that it was Islamic terrorism and Emerson was quoted as identifying it has having the hallmarks - not being "Muslim". Muslim is not Islamic terrorism. For additional context on this please see (ctrl-f to Oklahoma if you wish) Emerson is not discredited but the man needs to stop being "in the moment" and making gaffs on TV - which is definitely accurate and certainly indisputable fact. ] (]) 21:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

:::Not quite. Attribution is best served by acknowledging the expertise of the person being attributed. Actually, at least some of Emerson's claims have been discredited. That is a documented fact.- ]] 21:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
:::: I would make sure that the source is the correct "discredited claim" in the first place. A strawman was made and attacked - Emerson was still wrong, but wrong for a different reason than the one the source provides. The best sources (1000+ words) all refer to it and provide context that these trivial mentions don't. Use Fear Inc. (in article already), , , and . Each one of these sources are much longer, more detailed and more suitable to properly apply criticism and context than all four of the sources combined. ] (]) 22:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Dividing this discussion into 2 parts is confusing and diluting. You could have simply performed an arbitrary break or hatted some of the discussion (repetition and irrelevant) so it would have been easily accessed. There is important information in Part 1 that should not be dismissed, including the reasons the sources that were used to add contentious material fail the RS test. Now I am reading suggestions that fictionally support a contentious label, so if that's the procedure now, how about this - hypothetical article in Breitbart about Muslim Professor A who was denounced by Jewish Rabi B who said Professor A teaches anti-Semitism and is trying to make Islam dominant over other religions at his university. Professor A also supported building a mosque at Ground Zero in the wake of 9-11 and was widely criticized for his views on Islamic terrorism. Next you find a book written by a Christian author who calls Muslim Professor A an anti-Christian because he supports Islam and denounces Christianity. You cite those two sources for the following statement in Wiki voice: ''Professor A has been widely criticized for being anti-Semitic and anti-Christian, and for fomenting Islamic terrorism.'' That isn't far from what has been proposed for Emerson which was clearly spurred on by his blunder about Birmingham. Have you seen the articles about PM Cameron's mistakes about Islam and Muslims? And while you're at it, read the following local news report dating back to 2009 - Don't you think that article is a RS because it actually presents both sides of the issue without UNDUE. VERIFIABILITY. NO SYNTH. NPOV. BLP. The following 2nd paragraph for the lead is policy compliant:
{{talkquote|Emerson has testified before Congressional committees on such topics as the financing of terrorism and organizational structure of networks known for their involvement in Islamic militantancy, including Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. Some of Emerson's statements have been challenged for inaccuracies, including a recent statement he made during a television interview wherein he incorrectly stated "there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don't go in." Emerson retracted his statement, and extended a public apology.}}
Statements that Emerson's critics have referred to him as an Islamophobe should be interwoven in the article, ], ], ], and not included in the lead because it represents a minority view and should not be given ]. For example, you can use the Oklahoma bombing incident wherein Emerson (and lots of other news outlets) theorized it as having a Middle Eastern trait. That would be a good place to include criticism wherein Professor A, an expert in Islamic studies, referred to him as an "Islamophobe" (with the inline citation). Simple. Balanced. NPOV. Dispassionate tone. There are already criticisms in the Birmingham section. Readers will get the point. Thank you for taking the time to read my proposal. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>]</b></font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 00:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
:Yes, I would steer clear of describing any living person as an ''anything''phobe in the lead of any Misplaced Pages article.- ]] 01:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
:: I don't object to it on principle if that is what they are known for (to take an extreme example, Fred Phelps was known almost exclusively as a raving bigot), but int his case the claim relies on some rather obscure and obviously pro-Islamic sources that make an allegation of islamophobia, and that is then proposed to be presented ''in Misplaced Pages's voice'' as a statement that he has fomented islamophobia, which is not even in the sources. I don't have a lot of time for bigots, but we have to be fair and accurate. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

== uzi rabi ==

]
This Page is full of blunt inaccuracies.
I've checked several of the facts presented in this page and they turned up as absolutely not true (for example: Rabi's name never appeared in the Wall Street Journal, and only 3 times in the New York Times (And even then he was not "interviewed" - he was only mentioned), A quick search in Google Scholar will show that Rabi's articles and books were cited very few times - So I doubt that's he's a "leading authority" in his field)
and also: "Prof. Rabi consults regularly with Israeli and world leaders" - that sounds ridiculous to me.
What do you think, and what should be done in this case? <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Article trimmed. It would probably survive a deletion discussion as a cursory search finds newspaper interviews. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
:He is mentioned per NYT search function in four separate articles. He appears to meet notability requirements as a result, but you are free to propose the BLP for deletion. ] (]) 15:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
::I have cleared out some issue tags that are not needed anymore. ] (]) 17:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


== Women and video games ==

* {{la|Women and video games}}
* {{la|Electronic sports}}
According to two editors, my (proposed) edits of two articles might violates the biographies of living persons policies. Scarlett is mentioned as an example of a female gamer, and I would like to add that she is a transgender woman. In my opinion it's relevant given the context. The related discussion is ]. Input is welcome. --] (]) 15:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
:The issue here is that IP 82 wants to imply that Scarlett and therefore has an unfair advantage when playing against women. Reliable sources do not state this, and they wouldn't state it because it's bunk. ] (]) 15:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
::Hey, don't put words in my mouth. I have ''never'' claimed Scarlett has any kind of "unfair advantage", nor did I imply this in any way. ] please. --] (]) 15:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
*I'm not sure why she's mentioned at all. If she's notable, then perhaps there should be an article on her -- and then the name wouldn't be redlinked. As for saying "transgender", I think this would have to be significant as per a reliable source (not just mentioned in passing) (and perhaps a matter of self-identification as per ]). I can imagine sources getting into the general issue -- it wouldn't surprise me if trans topics were indeed covered in analyses of sport/gaming. It's less obvious for video-games, though. ] (]) 15:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

*The proposed text seems awkward and inappropriate. I'm referring to: "Sasha Hostyn (Scarlett), a transgender, first gained notoriety in the open qualifiers of IGN ProLeague 4". If we're going to mention this, seems wording it something like "Sasha Hostyn (Scarlett), a trans woman from Canada, first gained notoriety...." would be less awkward than saying she's "a transgender". However, it's notable that the source used to cite that she's transgender says {{em|'''she does not self identify as a trans woman gamer'''}} and that in fact she thinks that her trans status is irrelevant to her gaming:{{tq|The response ot her success from the gaming world was was mixed. Many people celebrated her wins. But a loud minority of fans attacked her gender identity at every opportunity. Hostyn herself rarely talks about this aspect of her life, even going so far as to say it’s disrespectful to even acknowledge the fact in online encyclopedia entries about her. “I have always tried to make it a complete non-issue,” she wrote, “and including this is subverting that and akin to mentioning someone is the best gay/black/etc player; something that has absolutely no relevance on how they play.”}}.
:Considering the subject's stance on this, I'm not sure we should include it.--] (]) 15:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
::If Scarlett was born a man, then this is a simple fact. As I wrote before, this is all about context. Both the sections in question are about women and video games, not about gays or blacks in video games. And, on top of that, the text mentions Scarlett in comparison with males, not with for example heterosexuals. If the subject does not like the word "transgender" we can use something else, but the subject's stance does not change reality. --] (]) 16:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
:::"Born a man" is actually not a simple fact, just because one has certain genitals does not mean that there is not cause to believe that they were born with the brain of another gender. Sex and gender are complex issues ''with more than one way of looking at things''. Which is why I don't see the likelihood of finding a comfortable solution here; the ] concerns are valid, but to simply say that here's this woman who did thus well competing against men or that well competing among women is to take a point of view that self-identification is the ''only'' lens through which gender can be legitimately viewed. There are certainly people who hold to that, and understandably so, but it is not a universal belief. If we're dealing with how well she did specifically in gendered realms, it's hard to say that complexities in the view of her gender do not matter to what we're saying. --] (]) 16:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
::::I see that this is a sensitive topic. All I wanted is for the articles to say ''something'' more than 'Scarlett as a woman who; the end'. But I don't care enough about this topic or Misplaced Pages to continue this discussion. Thanks for the input though. --] (]) 16:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
*I read everything here and at the ] Talk page, also Googled her name and read a few articles about her that mention she's transgendered. The German Misplaced Pages article did not mention she's transgendered -- they discussed it on the . If this wasn't a sports thing or gender-competitive or an article about "Women in video games" it probably should not be mentioned. If she's not mentioned in the article, many readers may wonder why. ] (]) 16:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
::I think it's unbelievable that the German article does not mention she's a transgender - or however it should be formulated. Apparently we're so politically correct that we're too afraid to mention this about Scarlett. This is an encyclopedia, but if the subject prefers not to talk about it, neither should we. Got it. Anyway, as I mentioned above, I'm leaving this discussion. Thanks for the input though. --] (]) 16:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

:<small>Things were in 2005. ] ] 17:06, ], ] (UTC) </small>

It strikes me that the very fact that she has repeatedly said to several interviewers that she doesn't want her gender status discussed or associated with her gaming, but they've asked because either they, their editors or their audience felt it was relevant makes it noteable for an article on Sasha. The fact that she's being discussed in a section related to gender "Women in video games" makes it relevant. Also she does identify as MTF transgender

{{quote|Okay, to stop all this speculation — it is true I am MtF transgender, and I kind of expected this reaction. I have never tried to bring attention to myself for anything other than my play, so I don't feel like this should be a big deal|Sasha "Scarlet" Hoysten| ''16 July 2012''}}

Also note that the article the above is from is entitled '''{{TQ|Starcraft 2: Transgender gamer quietly wins, in more ways than one}}'''

I don't think it's a BLP violation to note something which is context relevant which the subject freely describes themselves as to the press in expectation of publication.] (]) 17:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

:And as a matter of concern here, on the BLP board - your suggested edit is also saying that the subject gained "notoriety", which is not a term you want to use unless it's really well sourced, and I don't think it's the term you mean. It doesn't mean just "famous", but famous in a bad way. The adjective form of ''notoriety'' isn't ''notable''... it's ''notorious''. --] (]) 17:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
:: <small>Not sure that's still true, certainly in EN-UK. The web gives me
{{quote|
noun, plural notorieties.
1. the state, quality, or character of being notorious or widely known:
a craze for notoriety.
2. Chiefly British. a notorious or celebrated person.|Dictionary.com}}
{{quote|notorious
1. Known widely and unfavorably: common, infamous.
2. Widely known and discussed: famed, famous, leading, popular, well-known.|Roget's Heritage Thesaurus}}
::The definition, in modern english, is quite distinct from Notorious which (i believe but am not certain) still holds almost entirely negative connotations.] (]) 18:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)</small>

:::I'm not sure why you're saying that it is "quite distinct from Notorious" when both definitions you give include "notorious"; in any case, even if it has gotten loosened up, it is best avoided because it can reasonably be read as having the negative connotation, and when there are so many words to use without that (she could have gained fame, attention, notability.) --] (]) 18:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

:::: Because they are distinct. Notoriety could come to mean mango without the definition of notorious changing one bit. By distinct I meant independent. Anyway, point being Notoriety as a good thing is almost as common as Notoriety for a bad thing. I agree there's no need to confuse the issue in this article which is why it was a small aside for future reference. ] (]) 20:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't see any reason why the fact she is transgender should be mentioned. The sentence which might be supposed to make it relevant in the Women and... article is "She is well known for being one of the few non-Korean players who can play at the same skill level as male Korean players", but this wording isn't supported by the source, which mentions that she has beaten a number of highly regarded Korean players, but does not specify their gender. ] (]) 18:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

:Because it's in a gendered article. If dividing gamers by gender and sex is a relevant consideration then the specific gender/sex and gender/sex history of the individuals is relevant.] (]) 20:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
::The source doesn't tell us that the Korean players were male, though. So it is an unsupported fact. It also doesn't appear to be an important fact, or else the source would mention it. ] (]) 21:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

::The sense I get from reading over the RSes, though, is that the only group for whom this is an issue are anonymous critics, trolls, and the transphobic. Obviously if a transgendered person is the target of this kind of criticism/abuse and it's reflected in the RSes then an argument can be made that it should be covered in the article on the person. But none of the sources are supporting the legitimacy of that line of criticism. Unless RSes can be furnished showing that this is actually an issue for eSports performance rather than just an issue for transphobic fans I think we should hold off on spreading it to articles that are only tangentially related to Hostyn herself. -] (]) 20:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Exactly. Among certain StarCraft fans, her being a transgender woman is shorthand for having an unfair advantage against other women competitors. It would be like updating ] with information about multiracial ancestry: it may be reliably sourced and factually true, but it's an insidious POV and (potentially) BLP issue. ] (]) 21:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

: I agree it can be included but the sentences need to be rewritten so it expresses what is verified by the sources. Excerpts from The Daily Dot article "But then there's the curious case of Sasha “Scarlett” Hostyn, one of the best players in the world, who breaks the mold completely. She’s a 20-year-old Canadian transgendered female with injury-prone wrists and a penchant for beating Koreans at their own game. Known alternatively as “Korean Kryptonite” and “The Queen of Blades,” she’s built up an enormous fanbase that rivals any StarCraft player in the world." and "Hostyn’s impressive StarCraft talent combined with her singular personal story as a pioneer make her one of the most important people in eSports today." Whether that is notable enough to be listed, or whether more RS are needed can be debated. E-sports Earnings mentions that Hostyn has played in the women's leagues. -] (]) 21:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:46, 27 December 2024

Misplaced Pages noticeboard for discussion of biographies of living people
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here. Shortcuts

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

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

    Search this noticeboard & archives
    Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Additional notes:

    Notes for volunteers
    How do I mark an incident as resolved or addressed?
    You can use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section containing the report. At least leave a comment about a BLP report, if doing so might spare other editors the task of needlessly repeating some of what you have done.
    More ways to help
    Today's random unreferenced BLP
    Aaron Coundley (random unreferenced BLP of the day for 27 Dec 2024 - provided by User:AnomieBOT/RandomPage via WP:RANDUNREF)
    Centralized discussion




    Christian Dorsey

    I would like to get other opinions on this article. Members of local county boards in Virginia typically only have local new coverage and are rarely notable beyond the local news. The only thing providing arguable notability in this case is the information in the controversies section. That section is well sourced, but overshadows the rest of the article in content and sourcing. Between the borderline notability claim and the focus on negative content, I think this page is a BLP problem. Mojo Hand (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    So is your question best answered from policy at WP:BLP or at WP:AFD/WP:BEFORE? At first glance, it looks like a BLP concern because the article is a BLP. But my read of your post is that it's probably up to you to decide whether to walk through AfD. We can't/won't pre-AfD it here. This topic wasn't talk paged other than a notice about this thread. Maybe either WP:BEBOLD and AfD in good faith or clean up the article. JFHJr (㊟) 00:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    FYI your concerns look valid to me. It's also an unflattering WP:BLP1E about a controversy. I'll watch in case anyone chooses to move this discussion to AfD. JFHJr (㊟) 00:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for the feedback JFHJr - I kept going back and forth on how to proceed. I came to the page with hopes of improving it, but after reading it, I honestly debated whether it qualified for G10. I (mostly) rejected that and was in the process of nominating it for AFD, before I thought I would raise it here. I should have started on the article talk, but the creator is blocked and there aren't any active editors. So, I didn't anticipate any response there. I'll take a harder look at filling it out or pulling the trigger on AFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojo Hand (talk • contribs) 05:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    This is really a strange article. The lead does not even mention that he is a member of the Arlington County Board, and neither does the career section, which describes his previous job. There is no description of the elections he won, his opponents, his vote counts or the work he has done on the board. The "controversies" section gives undue weight to these financial matters and is overly detailed in comparison to the rest of the article. Cullen328 (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    Looks like the "controversies" material was all added by this now host-blocked account. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Cullen328, I added a bit of RS-backed info and copy edited. The source doesn't offer details. @NatGertler did lots of cleanup before that. The body to which he was elected appears not to be notable itself and it took me a moment to find the subsection discussing it in part (ahem, @Mojo Hand). JFHJr (㊟) 02:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    JFHJr, I am pretty confident the Arlington County Board is notable. It is just that no one has gotten around to writing an article about it. Cullen328 (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    I agree that the board itself is notable, but I doubt many members of the board are individually notable. When I first came across this article, it looked to me like a political "hit piece" involving minor controversies about a minor local politician. After looking though the history, it clearly didn't start out that way, as he wasn't even on the board when the article was started. However, I remain concerned that it essentially turned into a political attack page. I still doubt there would be a good argument for notability beyond the controversies, which strike me as routine reporting on local elections. Even the Washington Post is often considered a local paper for Northern Virginia local politics. It is a strange article that sits right at an uncomfortable intersection between notability and BLP.-Mojo Hand (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

    The article editing has stabilized and the product of WP:CONSENSUS is essentially a biography about a local-government level disgrace. There's little to no independent, reliable WP:SIGCOV about the biographical basics of this subject. While I can't say this is an attack page (anymore), I remain unsure of this article's encyclopedic value. Any other editors with better (subscription) access than me to certain research tools may be helpful here. JFHJr (㊟) 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

    I think the BLP issue is sufficiently mitigated - thank you. Notability is still borderline, but I personally think it probably squeaks--Mojo Hand (talk) 00:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC) by.

    WP:BLPCRIME & international criminal law

    Do categories like Category:Fugitives wanted by the International Criminal Court, Category:Fugitives wanted on war crimes charges, & Category:Fugitives wanted on crimes against humanity charges break WP:BLPCRIME?

    This issue was first brought up by @AndreJustAndre at Talk:Yoav Gallant#WP:BLPCRIME, but as it calls into question the validity of such categories as a whole, I thought it best to ask how/if WP:BLPCRIME interacts with international criminal law.

    Moved here by request of @Simonm223. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

    Gallant is definitely a PUBLICFIGURE and we should neutrally document what sources say, but categories like "fugitive" and "war criminal" don't seem adequately attested in sources to be a category, which should be a defining characteristic. And you did leave out the "war criminal" category in your question. Andre🚐 22:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    Apologies. I hadn't asked about "war criminal" as I agreed with your removal of it & that no one reinstated it later. I only asked about categories that are currently still on the page. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    Gallant is certainly a public figure. "War Criminal" is, unfortunately, the domain of WP:CRYSTALBALL but fugitive from the ICC is accurate and reflected in many reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    I still don't understand why we have these categories, as someone who edits a lot about crime. How defining are the individual stages of the criminal process vs the crime itself? Fugitive/charged/convicted/acquitted of category trees have always annoyed me for this reason. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    might be a case of WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION but dont know much about categories Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think these are BLP violations under WP:BLPCRIMINAL, which says "Category:Criminals and its subcategories should be added only for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal." The word "fugitive" would mean that these people are still living and are accused of a crime but have not been convicted. There was recently a similar discussion on this noticeboard and there is an ongoing CfD that was relisted today for further discussion . – notwally (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    That was roughly what I had in mind from the removal. Thanks for stating it more eloquently and with proper links supporting. Andre🚐 00:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not sure that Gallant has been charged. I think (but I'm not sure) that he would only be charged once arrested. In any case, a more bland category name that is 100% true and relevant to notability would be something like "Persons subject to an International Criminal Court arrest warrant". If such a category existed, I can't think of any reason to not include him. Zero 01:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    Why would that not also fail the provision in BLPCRIME mentioned above? It's related to crime. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    Also, how is this arrest warrant relevant to his notability? Isn't he notable fully without that fact for several other things? Regardless of what happens with his status as having had a warrant issued, he was notable fully as an Israeli military man, politician and minister, and I don't see the warrant is a relevant thing to his notability but simply a recent news fact that involves him. Unless "relevant to notability" is intended to mean anything that might be part of his biography, if it were written today, this would occupy a small portion of it, right? Andre🚐 02:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    People can be notable for multiple reasons. Of course he was already notable enough for an article, but now he is a bit more notable. BLPCRIME doesn't exclude it, since he is a public figure and the name I suggested does not say that he committed a crime. It only states an objective fact. An ICC warrant puts him in a very exclusive club and I don't see why there shouldn't be a category for that club. We don't omit scientists from the Nobel Prize winners category if they were already famous before winning the prize. Zero 04:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    OK, but the existing "fugitive" categories being discussed, unlike winning a Nobel Prize, are subcategories of "Category:People associated with crime." and of "Category:Suspected criminals," and "Category:Fugitives" is a subcategory of "Criminals by status" which indeed is under "Criminals." Now, the BLP text above mentions Criminals and its subcategories, so it seems like a matter for interpretation whether the caveat applies that they must have been convicted to include the categories. It would seem to say though that these fugitive categories on this basis should not be included. Andre🚐 04:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    A "convicted fugitives" category would presumably be fine under WP:BLPCRIMINAL, but not any categories that contain living people and allege criminal conduct without a conviction. – notwally (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    Fugitive does not inherently allege criminal conduct without a conviction. A "convicted fugitives" category would just be confusing and largely oxymoronic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    Categories aside we also have List of fugitives from justice who disappeared. The title seems sorta odd since it includes people like Febri Irwansyah Djatmiko who's location seems to have been known even when they were fugitives and who might still be somewhat easily findable but are protected by the lack of an extradition treaty between where they are and the jurisdiction seeking them. Heck I just noticed it even includes Abu Mohammad al-Julani who recently isn't exactly low profile, and who even did a CNN interview. Nil Einne (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    If we are going to contend that this is a BLP violation then we should be consistent. Is Sean Combs sexual misconduct allegations a BLP violation? It's got lots of controversial categories for what is technically an article about unproven accusations against a BLP. Example ], ] and ] I would suggest a famous politician who is one of the leaders of his country is at least as much a public person as a music producer. I would likewise suggest that accusations of war crimes are even more severe than accusations of systematic sexual assault. So what is the consistent Misplaced Pages policy here? Should we be deleting the Sean Combs article as a BLP violation? Should we be deleting categories that, while accurate, might lead people to believe a person subject to unproven crminal accusations is guilty? Or should we also maintain the "accusation" categories on Gallant? Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'd favor removing the categories from the Sean Combs article. Nobody is advocating deleting either article. Andre🚐 13:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'd agree with removing the categories from the article. Covering alleged crimes by living people is permissible in articles, but WP:BLPCRIMINAL puts an absolute bar on those types of categories being used. – notwally (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    So wouldn't the WP:BOLD action be to delete all "accused of" categories? Simonm223 (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    It seems like just removing the "accused of" categories from Gallant while leaving them established is inviting a double-standard. Simonm223 (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

    I think that BLPCRIME wise its kosher because saying someone is a fugitive from justice is different than saying they're guilty... The war criminal category though should be reserved for those with a conviction. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

    The "fugitive" categories are a subcategory of Category:Criminals (because they are by definition alleging criminal conduct), and therefore should not contain any living people pursuant to WP:BLPCRIMINAL. The requirements at WP:BLPCRIME are separate considerations for content in articles, but WP:BLPCRIMINAL has an absolute bar on the use of categories in these circumstances. – notwally (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Then remove Category:Criminals... You're literally proposing the opposite of what we're supposed to do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    So, yeah, I mean, we could recategorize the fugitive categories to not be under "Criminals" and maybe we should do that anyway. I confess I do not know if this requires some kind of requested move process or is a bold type of move. However, while we could look into that anyway, or Puffy or whatnot (Misplaced Pages doesn't demand that Puffy be treated the same as Gallant, and I don't have much interest in editing him, but that shouldn't stop anyone from doing that and maybe someone should), I think keeping the "fugitives" category on the Gallant page is counter to the spirit of BLP even if we make it policy-abiding by divorcing it from the "criminal" tree. Categories are supposed to be accurate and neutral. A certain POV is that Israel isn't a signatory to the ICC and didn't sign the Rome Statute, AFAIK, and while CAIR is calling Yoav Gallant a fugitive and war criminal, that doesn't seem to be the most accurate or common description in reliable sources, and might not be a neutral description of the situation. It's also misleading under the plain meaning of "fugitive" which would imply that he's fleeing justice, as opposed to simply not being extradited by his own government, or I guess, just showing up somewhere that would arrest him, both of which seem pretty unlikely to occur. But a naive reader could assume that means he was convicted of a crime or is somehow on the lam. Andre🚐 04:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have added Category:Legal procedure. You're supposed to voluntarily surrender to the court. Someone who doesn't turn themselves in to the court is a fugitive from justice, that is within the plain meaning of the term. Gallant is "on the lam from the law" (you would have to be incredibly naive to believe otherwise). Note that this isn't an endorsement of the court or a particular form of justice. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Whether or not it is currently under Category:Criminals, that doesn't matter because it is still includes allegations of criminal conduct by a living person prior to conviction. The point of our BLP rules regarding categorizing criminal conduct is to protect the privacy interests of individuals by avoiding categories that allege criminal conduct prior to conviction because the categories are unable to provide context or nuance that can be provided in main article space. Changing the top-level category doesn't avoid the BLP violation. Either the policy needs to be changed or the category needs to be deleted. – notwally (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    It is allowed to include allegations of criminal conduct by a living person prior to conviction, that isn't a BLP violation. What it can't do is treat them as something other than allegations. A fugitive is not a criminal, saying that someone is a fugitive isn't saying that they are a criminal... Its saying that a courts has ordered them to appear and they have declined to appear... It doesn't actually say anything about their guilt or innocence. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    Fugitive means they are charged with or convicted of criminal conduct. So it is a BLP violation if they are included in that type of category prior to conviction. Also, some fugitives have definitely been convicted, there's literally a whole TV series and film about one. Trying to change categories to avoid the explicit BLP policy is just gaming the system. – notwally (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    Including information about being charged with a crime is not a BLP violation... And if they are convicted then again no BLP violation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    Your claim that "Including information about being charged with a crime is not a BLP violation" is not true, which is why WP:BLPCRIME exists, as sometimes that will be a BLP violation in main article space depending on the circumstances. As for categories, including any categories that involve being charged with a crime without a conviction are BLP violations. That is why WP:BLPCAT and WP:BLPCRIMINAL exist. No one has ever said here that a category about criminal conduct after a conviction is a BLP violation, so not sure what that red herring is about. You are the one who said that "convicted fugitive" is oxymoronic, apparently not understanding what those terms mean. – notwally (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    A fugitive does not mean criminal though. It doesn't even necessarily imply guilt as a fugitive can be on the run for a crime they haven't committed or because they refuse to give testimony, even if they aren't a suspect. In this context, fugitive only means that they've been accused of a crime & have yet to've faced a trial, not that they're a criminal.
    A "convicted fugitive" then would be someone who was first convicted of a crime & then went on the run/avoided the result of said conviction, otherwise they couldn't have been convicted yet.
    WP:BLPCRIME states "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction." which doesn't contradict "Including information about being charged with a crime" as long as we aren't stating that they are guilty of said crime.
    Further considerations only apply when concerning non-public figures.
    This is just my reading of the policy though & why I brought the case here to begin with. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    A fugitive can be on the run for a crime they haven't committed Famously so, in fact. Simonm223 (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    The more directly relevant policy is WP:BLPCRIMINAL (not WP:BLPCRIME, which is a relevant but separate policy). Any category under Category:Criminals should not be applied to living people who have not yet been convicted. A category such as "fugitives" is going to be under the "suspected criminals" subcategory (or convicted criminals category, such as for Dr. Richard Kimble of The Fugitive TV series and film), and so it should not be applied to anyone who is still living and has not been convicted. I'm not aware of anyone in the categories you posted in your original post above who are not accused of crimes, and it appears most if not all have not been convicted of those crimes. – notwally (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    While I agree that's what WP:BLPCRIMINAL says as written, I'm unsure if it's accurate in spirit (I know that sounds stupid, but I'll explain my thought process).
    The reason we don't categorize someone as a criminal unless they were convicted (& the conviction stuck) is because to do otherwise would be WP:CRYSTAL & potentially defamatory.
    Categorizing someone as a fugitive however is a statement of fact. They haven't been convicted & haven't faced trial, but they've been formerly charged. It does not imply guilt, isn't defamatory, & isn't WP:CRYSTAL.
    You can't be convicted of being a fugitive & once you're convicted, you aren't a fugitive unless you run away after that conviction.
    As such, should I break off a request to determine if the category of fugitive should be considered to violate WP:BLPCRIMINAL? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think that's stupid and your way of looking at it seems a reasonable position, but I think our BLP policies align more with the idea that saying someone has been charged with a crime does imply guilt, which is why, unless there has been a conviction, we (1) generally don't include those accusations for non-public figures in articles, (2) only include for public figures in article space if there are multiple high quality sources about it, and (3) don't include in categories for any living people because they cannot provide adequate context. BLPCRIMINAL is the most directly relevant policy when discussing categories, rather than BLPCRIME, and so it may be helpful to redirect the discussion to that instead. – notwally (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    Agree, not at all stupid but I agree with notwally on the merits. BLP means Misplaced Pages tries not to imply guilt. PUBLICFIGURE gives some leeway but I think this is pushing it. Andre🚐 22:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    Fugitive status does not imply guilt... Neither does being charged with a crime, that is simply not what the policy or practice is. WP:BLPCRIMINAL advises "Caution should be used with content categories," which explicitly contadicts "don't include in categories for any living people" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    Being charged with a crime definitely does imply guilt. Please also see this nearly identical discussion earlier this month, where almost all editors agreed that categories about criminal charges against living people prior to conviction are BLP violations. – notwally (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    This isn't a category about being charged with a crime and no it doesn't (it doesn't imply guilt anymore than it implies innocence, you're relentlessly twisting reality to serve your own views). And again you can be a fugitive from a civil court, it doesn't have to be a criminal court so even if we take your statement as true it just doesn't apply to the category. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    It doesn't say "Don't cover accusations, investigations, arrests and charges." You're taking this a level beyond what anything actually says, if the person is a public figure there is no inherent issue with the category from a BLP perspective. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    One of the central purposes of WP:BLPCRIMINAL is to exclude categories that accuse living people of a crime prior to conviction. There was recently an almost identical discussion earlier this month, where there seemed to be a pretty clear consensus that these types of categories are BLP violations. – notwally (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    We've gone in a circle again... Fugitive is not a category that inherently accuses living people of a crime prior to conviction. It only is because of the way its been constructed, change that construction and poof no violation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Which category of "...by the International Criminal Court" or "...on war crimes charges" or "...on crimes against humanity charges" do you think are fugitives from a civil court? I'm not interested in pointless word games, and I don't see anyone else in this discussion supporting your views. – notwally (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    So you play a pointless word game... And then claim not to be interested in pointless word games? Maybe this is just a bias thing but I'm seeing other people make similar arguments to me, for example Andre, Butterscotch Beluga, Zero, Levivich and Patar knight. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Not me, I agreed with notwally. Andre🚐 22:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    There are at least some things we agree on, for example I agree that "the BLP text above mentions Criminals and its subcategories, so it seems like a matter for interpretation whether the caveat applies that they must have been convicted to include the categories." If you think I've miscategorized anyone else please let me know, I may be mistaken. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Well, yes. It's a matter of interpretation. Since people wanted to move fugitives out of that criminals category tree, that would moot the BLPCRIMINAL text. Andre🚐 22:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    Perhaps this would best be discussed at WP:CFD. TarnishedPath 04:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    I don't see any BLPCRIME problem for public figures, which almost all ICC fugitives are (if not all). Levivich (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    The relevant policy is not WP:BLPCRIME, but WP:BLPCRIMINAL, which prohibits categories alleging criminal conduct for living people without a conviction. – notwally (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    OP's question was about BLPCRIME, not BLPCRIMINAL. But nothing in the text of BLPCRIMINAL prohibits the existence of Category:Fugitives, although I suppose if someone thought that it did, they could take that category to WP:CFD. I'd vote to keep. Levivich (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    They're already at CFD. I don't have the link handy. It's there though. Andre🚐 23:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't see Category:Fugitives at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/All current discussions or Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/All old discussions. Levivich (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't believe there is a discussion about "fugitive" categories, but there is one about "charged with" categories: Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/All current discussions#Category:People by criminal charge. – notwally (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    That's what I meant; my mistake, thanks Andre🚐 23:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    The OP is asking about categories such as "Fugitives wanted by the International Criminal Court", which is by definition a criminal allegation and therefore should not include any living people or else it is a clear BLP violation under BLPCRIMINAL: "Category:Criminals and its subcategories should be added only for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal." (emphasis added) – notwally (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    BLPCRIMINAL does not prohibit "criminal allegations" and does not contain those words. Category:Fugitives is not (any longer) a subcategory of Category:Criminals. I know it's kind of unusual around here, but I did actually read this discussion, and investigate the categories, and read the relevant policy pages, all before making up my mind and posting a comment. Levivich (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think removing subcategories from parent categories to avoid an otherwise clear BLP violation is gaming the system and ignores the privacy concerns that led to the creation of those policies. – notwally (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    It should never have been in that category in the first place since fugitives are not necessarily criminals. Some (e.g. escaped convicts from prison) are, but the page notes that the category tracks the ordinary definition in that it includes people not turning themselves in for arrest, questioning, or even fleeing vigilante justice/private individuals, none of which requires them to be a criminal. If there's a clear BLP violation here, it would be insisting on labelling people in these latter groups as criminals through sub/parent categorization.
    As for the WP:BLPCRIME issue people in these specific categories mentioned in this section are all public figures and noting that they have not surrendered to a body as long as that's cited to RSs in the article (which shouldn't be an issue given the high-profile nature of such cases), is not a BLP violation. ITN has dealt with a similar issue in that while normally news blurbs about criminal charges are not blurbed for BLP reasons unless its about a conviction, but ICC arrest warrants being issued have routinely been posted. -- Patar knight - /contributions 23:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    This discussion is specifically about categories such as "Fugitives wanted by the International Criminal Court", which obviously should be under "Category:Criminals". Also, please note that BLPCRIME is not the relevant policy for categories alleging criminal conduct. The applicable policy is WP:BLPCRIMINAL, which has no exception for public figures. – notwally (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    I disagree that categories such as "Fugitives wanted by the International Criminal Court", or any of the Category:Fugitives cateogires, obviously should be under Category:Criminals; in fact, I think it's obvious that they should not be, because not all fugitives are criminals, so the subcategorization wouldn't comply with WP:SUBCAT (failing the "is-a" relationship). Levivich (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    "Fugitives wanted by the International Criminal Court", which obviously should be under "Category:Criminals" is simply not true? The only person in the ICC category who was convicted is Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, by a local Libyan court in absentia, and for which the ICC has said is not sufficient to drop its own charges. Everyone else in that category has not been convicted, so they are legally not criminals and should not be in the category. WP:BLPCRIME applies sitewide and generally prohibits labelling unconvicted people as criminals, which you seem to want to do. -- Patar knight - /contributions 00:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPCRIMINAL are part of the same policy: Biographies of living persons. "which obviously should be under "Category:Criminals"" doesn't seem obvious or even sensible, how can you both be arguing that we should obviously be doing something and also that doing that thing would be a BLP violation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think we're missing an important issue when considering this categorization. WP:CATDEFINE says A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place. This is especially important with negative or contentious categories. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    CATEDEFINE is another one of those "meh" policies, because it says For non-defining characteristics, editors should use their judgment to choose which additional categories (if any) to include. and it doesn't say anything about what should influence that judgment.
    World leaders who are accused of war crimes seems like as good a category to have as any. And it probably is defining. For example, I'll bet you $100,000 quatloos that every single biography of every single ICC fugitive will state that they are (or were) an ICC fugitive. It's impossible to imagine that a biography of a leader wouldn't "refer to" an ICC arrest warrant for that leader. It's a big deal.
    At bottom, "political leaders with ICC arrest warrants" is an encyclopedic topic. Having a list of them would be encyclopedic. Having categories of them would also be encyclopedic. And because they are political leaders, there just isn't really any BLP problem from any angle. We report when political leaders are accused of crimes, regardless of whether they're convicted or not. Just the accusation is a significant WP:ASPECT of the topic, when the accusation is crimes and the topic is a political leader. At least for national political leaders (maybe not the local town mayor... but maybe a mayor, too). Levivich (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    every single biography of every single ICC fugitive will state that they are (or were) an ICC fugitive If that is the case, it should be possible to name one biography of Yoav Gallant that uses that language. Maybe it's too recent and it hasn't been written or published yet. Andre🚐 00:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think its too recent, unless I'm missing something he was charged a month ago. The point seems to stand though, any biography of Gallant published in the future is going to talk about this. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    That's not clear, that's an assumption. It's not clear at all that they will refer to him as a fugitive until we see that happen. Andre🚐 23:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    I can't imagine anyone could receive an ICC arrest warrant & have that not be considered significant enough to mention when describing them. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Its an assumption in the same way that the sun coming up tomorrow is an assumption. I can't imagine not including that sort of thing in a biography... And I'm the worst sort of person (I actually read political biographies! ha) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    It really depends on when the biography will be written, who wrote it, and what might happen in the intervening time. For example, if Gallant gets arrested, they probably won't bother talking about how he was a fugitive. Or if the arrest warrant is cancelled or withdrawn, it also probably won't get mentioned as him being a fugitive. WP:CRYSTAL Andre🚐 23:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    This is true, but today he is a fugitive from justice. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    How do you square that with WP:CATDEFINE? Andre🚐 23:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    CRYSTAL has never barred speculation when it is verifiable by reliable sources and lists the next American presidential election as an example. While it may not ultimately pan out, there's verifiable information about it and all previous iterations have been notable. That's similar to the case here, where every single previous person charged by the ICC has had that been defining and there's no reason to think that would be different here given how much attention the Israeli-Palestinian conflict gets. The fact that they are fugitives is simply a statement of fact about where in the ICC process they current are (i.e. they're not detained, acquitted, or convicted). -- Patar knight - /contributions 14:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Very easily, today it is a defining feature... If the events you forsee in your crystal ball (Gallant gets arrested, the arrest warrant is cancelled or withdrawn) come to pass then it will likely cease to be a defining feature... CRYSTAL is not on your side here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    It is 100% too recent and to insist otherwise would be deliberately obtuse. It's normally somewhat rare for non-heads of state to get biographies published on them and the timeline for reputable biographies to get published is years not a month.
    The best and closest comparison would probably be Omar al-Bashir as another politician no longer in the office that lead to the charges and as someone with some distance from the charges. This biography of Bashir by a British foreign affairs analyst , which I don't have access to, has about 30 hits for "ICC" and "International Criminal Court", and a chapter devoted to the ICC, which presumably details the well-known enforcement issues. The Britannica biography has a section devoted to the ICC case and discusses difficulties enforcing. When he was overthrown, the BBC profile mentions the ICC stuff as well. The ICC stuff is brought up in recent news articles almost entirely unrelated matters.
    In general though, it is exceedingly unlikely that anyone charged by the ICC won't have that be a defining feature and these categories simply indicate the stage of the process where they're at. -- Patar knight - /contributions 07:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks, SFR; I knew that there was a piece of policy or guideline about categories being defining, and that is it. I agree. This hardly seems defining to me, and I'm not sure the burden has been met (yet?) that it articulates Andre🚐 00:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    Martin_Short

    This text under Personal Life in the Martin Short biography is poorly fact checked. Note refers to gossip regarding Shorts love life. Should be removed entirely.

    Source: https://decider.com/2024/10/24/meryl-streep-martin-short-only-murders-in-the-building-romance/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMBLE (talk • contribs) 11:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

    It has been removed. Decider is not an appropriate source to put weight on. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    This user doesn’t exist anymore, and the Meryl Streep article says the same thing, plus if you actually look into it there’s a lot more supporting it than just that one article so there’s no reason it can’t be included. That article actually includes quotes from the showrunner himself in fact. EvaSofie (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Have any reliable sources actually reported that it is a confirmed relationship? The most recent reliable sources seem to be framing it as a rumour (), which fails WP:NOTGOSSIP in addition to BLP sourcing concerns. -- Patar knight - /contributions 20:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Even the Decider source says "Short and Streep have not publicly commented on their relationship status". Tabloids are expected to pursue rumors and innuendo; Misplaced Pages is not. Schazjmd (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    We now have new accounts trying to edit-war the material into the article. I have reverted again, but will protect if this carries on. Black Kite (talk) 20:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Călin Georgescu

    What do you say about ? tgeorgescu (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    For those interested in beating a dead horse, here's a link to the prior discussion from two weeks ago, as well as a courtesy link to the article's talk page discussion: Talk:Călin Georgescu#New Age. – notwally (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Your argument was that I used low-quality sources. Your argument no longer holds true.
    So, basically, the burden of proof is according to you infinitely high. This man preaches New Age in public, but since he denies he is preaching New Age, it cannot be stated in his article. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    One of my objections to your content was the quality of the sources. You adding in another opinion article does not address that concern. Another objection was that you are making claims about a living person's personal religious beliefs that they dispute. I don't think that is appropriate, and if it is, then it would need very high quality sources supporting any claims about that, IMO. A third objection was that this content has been disputed and no one else has supported including it except for you, which is far from demonstrating there is a consensus for inclusion. – notwally (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not a mind reader, so I do not profess to know his private thoughts. But journalists, academics, and theologians have analyzed his public discourse. There is a difference between private thoughts and public discourse. We cannot investigate the former, but we can know the latter. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    A bishop of the Romanian Orthodox Church has lambasted the danger of the New Age in the context of the Romanian presidential elections. He did not explicitly name CG, but all informed readers know there was no other candidate for whom New Age was an issue. See .
    This is getting serious, especially seen that the lower ROC clergy made political campaign for CG. The leadership of the Church played politically neutral. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Chronicles (magazine) has a lot of sympathy for CG, but they also notice he is preaching New Age. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    RFC on Taylor Lorenz controversial statement regarding healthcare ceo shooting

    Posting to relevant noticeboards: Talk:Taylor_Lorenz#RfC_on_Taylor_Lorenz's_comments_on_Brian_Thompson's_murder Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    Blake Lively

    The New York Times reported today that Blake Lively—an actress I've never heard of before—has been the subject of a coordinated, paid campaign to stir up negative social media and internet publicity against her. The article does not mention Misplaced Pages as a focus of these alleged efforts, but we should be aware of this issue. Perhaps unrelated, but I have removed one sentence from Blake Lively sourced only to a Youtube video and a second sentence that was not sourced at all. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

    RSN discussion about use of a self-published source (The InSneider) in film articles

    Posting a relevant discussion which might touch on WP:BLPSPS: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Jeff_Sneider_/_The_InSneider -- Patar knight - /contributions 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    Moira Deeming

    There’s been a recent update of Moira Deeming’s DOB as consequence of an affidavit that she filled as consequence of a lawsuit initiated by her. What is the more pertinent policy? WP:BLPPRIMARY which says we shouldn’t use court transcripts or other court documents in BLPs, or WP:BLPSELFPUB which says that because it’s an uncontentious fact which the subject has written about themselves that we can use it? Please see discussion at Talk:Moira Deeming#Date of birth. TarnishedPath 10:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    Abubakar Atiku Bagudu

    A heads up on something worth keeping an eye on. A new user is removing the (sourced) section on this article entitled "Corruption". It could probably do with someone more competent than me double checking the quality of the sources. The edit summary of their second blanking of the section reads: "This information is misleading and it has no basis to be uploaded. The matter is currently in court and should be removed from the subjects profile until adjudicated upon by a court of competent jurisdiction." which is not a legal threat, per se, but does have a chilling effect. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 13:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    Potential Bias and Edit Warring on “David and Stephen Flynn” Biography

    Hi everyone,

    I am reaching out to request assistance with the article about David and Stephen Flynn on Misplaced Pages. There appears to be an ongoing issue with 2 sections: "Careers" and "Health Advice & Public Response"

    Several attempts have been made to improve the neutrality of the section by adding balanced context and reliable sources to reflect differing perspectives, but these edits are repeatedly reverted by an editor (or editors) without meaningful discussion or engagement. The old section "medical misinformation" is highly one-sided and does not adhere to Misplaced Pages’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.

    For the "careers" section, the editor(s) keep deleting that they've stopped collaborating with Russell Brand and to make it seem they still support him. Although the original comments were made prior to recent allegations against Russell Brand.

    Specific changes made: 1) The section title, “Medical Misinformation,” is sensational and prejudges the content. I have proposed a more neutral alternative (“Health Advice and Public Response”) to better reflect the material. 2) Revisions have added reliable sources, such as peer-reviewed studies and mainstream media articles, to provide context and balance, but these have been reverted without clear justification. 3) Efforts to include clarifications about actions taken by David and Stephen Flynn, such as their acknowledgment of errors and removal of contentious content, have also been removed or ignored.

    I believe this issue warrants review by neutral, experienced editors to ensure the article aligns with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines on neutrality, verifiability, and respect for biographies of living persons.

    I would greatly appreciate guidance or intervention from the community to address this matter fairly. I am happy to provide details of the edits and sources I have proposed.

    Thank you for your time and assistance. SabLovesSunshine (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    Related: WP:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#David_and_Stephen_Flynn Schazjmd (talk) 16:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks... I have responded there as I can see that person has gone in to change the wiki page again. Not sure what more we can do. SabLovesSunshine (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    I've started a convo on the article talk page. Please continue there. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    Discussion at WT:DYK regarding Diddy parties

    An editor has started a discussion "about the WP:BLP aspects" of a DYK nomination at Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know#Diddy parties. Feel free to offer input there, Rjj (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Edit War on Trump

    IP User should keep discussion on Donald Trump talk page. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    So it has come to this hasn't it? This incident all started on November 5, 2024 when Donald Trump won the recent election. Following this, an edit war ensued. This occurs in the section after the 2020 United States presidential election in which Trump lost. People keep editing the title, changing it to "Interpresidency", "First post-presidency", or most recently "Post-presidency". I see this is taking place on a Extended confirmed article. I request it be upgraded to an appropriate level. 2601:483:400:1CD0:7D95:FF0A:CEC6:A8AD (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Care to point to exactly what / where / when? And really, don't bring this sort of thing here unless absolutely necessary and if it can't be resolved on the relevant talk pages. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 19:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    Well, you see, I tried to do it on the individual talk page but it didn't exactly work out so well. More names were put in as suggestions. This occurs in the section currently called "Post-presidency (2021-present)" as well as the relative talk page. However this name has been changed multiple times until being changed back. As for the when, Pinpointing it exactly is not feasible. The last time an edit occured in this war was sometime before December 26, 15:00 CDT. To examine the talk page go near to the bottom till you see the discussion "Edit War". I thank you for your time. 2601:483:400:1CD0:B614:68CF:9223:D88F (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    I imagine, when he takes office on January 20, 2025 - the section-in-question will be named differently. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Maynard James Keenan

    This article contains a mention of a serious allegation against the living subject that, while reported in reliable sources, has had questions of whether or not it constitutes due weight for inclusion on the article's talk page. I don't see firm consensus one way or another, but I did remove it a few days ago since consensus is required for inclusion even for verifiable BLP material per WP:BLP and WP:V. I have since had my removal of this content slightly reverted with the content restored, albeit without the subheading that was included for it. I was considering reverting again, per BLP and WP:STATUSQUO, which directly states: "If you are having a dispute about whether to include it, the material is automatically contentious." However, given that per WP:3RRBLP, what counts as exempt under BLP with regards to the three-revert rule can be controversial, I figured I'd ask here to see what others think would be a good idea. JeffSpaceman (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Pinging @Ringerfan23:, who reverted my edit, for their input. JeffSpaceman (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    I've commented at the talk page. Hopefully discussion there occurs and this thread can be closed. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 23:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Eternal Blue (album)

    This article is an FAC. In my review, I brought up a question that hopefully can get resolved here. A band member is cited from this interview for a statement about another band member - specifically, for the statement that the rest of the band met the band member only two days before touring. I've understood that generally, interviews, and especially statements from the interview subjects, are considered primary sources. And in this case, the interview is also by the publisher of the publication, so even the secondary coverage is essentially self-published. My question is, is citing interview statements from band members about fellow band members a violation of BLP policy?

    Depending on the outcome here, I also will have a follow-up question about a different set of articles.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Well, we'd want to make sure we're following WP:PRIMARY. Is there something particularly contentious or controversial about the claim being made? If not, then we're fine to use it. Sergecross73 msg me 13:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, it's a primary source, but the statement about him isn't negative or contentious, and it's clear that it is "According to LaPlante...", so I don't see an issue here. Problems with interviews being primary sources generally occur when they are being used as criteria for notability, which isn't the case here, or when there are disputes about their truthfulness or authenticity, which also isn't the case. Black Kite (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    As you (3family6) know, there's a great deal of disagreement about what "self-published" should mean for WP's purposes, what the consensus practice is for considering something self-published, and whether the current definition reflects that practice. I haven't been around long enough to assess whether using this is/isn't consistent with the consensus practice. As best I can tell, the current definition of self-published + the exceptions are primarily intended to keep editors from using sources that are less likely to be reliable for the content in question, especially for BLP content. This source seems reliable for the fact that LaPlante said it, but uncertain re: whether it's reliable for the content of her statement.
    Seems to me that whether or not one considers this "self-published," policies prevent the use of this source for this content. If you treat it as self-published, it either fails as BLPSPS (if you consider it as self-published by the interviewer/owner), or it fails BLPSELFPUB restriction #2 (if you consider interview responses as essentially self-published by the interviewee, though I think that interpretation is problematic). If you treat it as non-self-published, then because it's a primary source, WP:BLPPRIMARY is in play, which says "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source." A quick search didn't turn up any secondary source discussing this particular content, and if it did, there would be no need to rely on the interview for this specific info.
    Can you get consensus here to include it anyway, since it isn't contentious and the claim is attributed? The first two responses suggest "yes." But, it also doesn't seem like important content for this article (perhaps more DUE on the Spiritbox article, though it's not included there). I think it could easily be omitted, in which case the issue is moot. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Black Kite, thank you. That's where I would fall on the issue, and where historically I've always fallen, but I wanted to see if my view is reflective of consensus or not.-- 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Richard Stanley (director)

    Some experienced eyes would be helpful here for a long running BLP dispute between mostly IPs and new editors. Some watchlisting would probably be helpful as well. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    On it. GiantSnowman 13:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    I appreciate it, thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think the IP needs blocking. SPA and edit warring. GiantSnowman 14:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    I've warned them about the edit warring and directed them to the talk page. Hopefully that'll have been a productive use of my time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    The disputed entry impacts on an active libel and defamation case. It seems to me this entry has been deliberately edited to suppress public knowledge of the recent libel action. The amendment from 'abuse allegation' to 'abuse allegations' clearly implies more than one public accuser, a further distortion of the truth that seems highly prejudicial to Mr Stanley (a living person) and directly impacts upon his livelihood. The source cited for these amendments, screenanarchy.com, is a blog entry and, in my opinion, not a valid primary source. I believe these amendments have been made by Finland based journalists promoting a tabloid 'documentary' 'SHADOWLAND', that seeks to exploit this case for financial gain. 79.200.21.192 (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Once again - this is matter for the article talk page. You have already been specifically directed to that discussion. This is now becoming a competence issue. GiantSnowman 16:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Frank Pando

    The article in question is about my uncle, Frank Pando, who has requested that I delete the article written about him. As evidenced in both his article's talk page and by a notification on that actual page, there are plenty of problems with both sourcing and notability. I have tried to put up a suggested deletion notice, but it was promptly taken down by some user who said that the subject's request to delete the article is invalid. I strongly urge my fellow editors to take heed of the notability/citation concerns, as well as my uncle's request, and kindly delete this page. Crazy Horse 1876 (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    I have started the Articles For Deletion discussion which could lead to it being deleted. You will find the discussion here, and are welcome to join in (though it may help if you read that first link to understand the process first). -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    May I ask what he objects to? Skimming through the article, it's just largely looks like a laundry list of roles he's played. I do t see anything particularly contentious or controversial... Sergecross73 msg me 16:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    AfDs and BLPs

    Those watching this page may be interested in this discussion: Misplaced Pages:Village pump (idea lab)#NOINDEX AfDs on living people. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Categories: