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 editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:39, 11 May 2021 editNil Einne (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers73,005 edits →Sisay Leudetmounsone← Previous edit Revision as of 07:46, 11 May 2021 edit undoRuling party (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,432 edits →Sisay LeudetmounsoneNext edit →
Line 285: Line 285:
How is my line of thinking in breach with Misplaced Pages protocols? Tell me? I want discussion and you want to force you're point of view! --] (]) 07:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC) How is my line of thinking in breach with Misplaced Pages protocols? Tell me? I want discussion and you want to force you're point of view! --] (]) 07:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
::::That I'm saying is that consensus in both this discussion and the RSN discussion while ongoing points towards that specific cable being unreliable. What I'm also saying is that as this matter concerns living persons, the information needs to stay out until and unless a consensus is established that the cable is a reliable source. That is fully supported by BLP policy. As I pointed out, in the Sisay Leudetmounsone article, the information isn't even long standing. It was only added on the 6th May. Therefore it cannot possibly be taken as long standing information. Therefore even in the general case, there is no policy or guideline which supports keeping the information in. The status quo ante is without the information. Also we don't need to prove a source is inaccurate. Instead, what we need to know is whether a source is reliable. This is a subtle and important distinction. Does the publisher of the cable have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? For the US diplomatic service, perhaps although not everyone agrees. For wikileaks, most seem to agree we cannot be confident their documents are what they purport to be. Therefore the publisher of this document is taken as Wikileaks, who lacks a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. The fact there is no proof that this particular cable is inaccurate is not very germane. ] (]) 07:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC) ::::That I'm saying is that consensus in both this discussion and the RSN discussion while ongoing points towards that specific cable being unreliable. What I'm also saying is that as this matter concerns living persons, the information needs to stay out until and unless a consensus is established that the cable is a reliable source. That is fully supported by BLP policy. As I pointed out, in the Sisay Leudetmounsone article, the information isn't even long standing. It was only added on the 6th May. Therefore it cannot possibly be taken as long standing information. Therefore even in the general case, there is no policy or guideline which supports keeping the information in. The status quo ante is without the information. Also we don't need to prove a source is inaccurate. Instead, what we need to know is whether a source is reliable. This is a subtle and important distinction. Does the publisher of the cable have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? For the US diplomatic service, perhaps although not everyone agrees. For wikileaks, most seem to agree we cannot be confident their documents are what they purport to be. Therefore the publisher of this document is taken as Wikileaks, who lacks a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. The fact there is no proof that this particular cable is inaccurate is not very germane. ] (]) 07:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
:{{replyto|Nil Einn}} EVerything points in the direction that this reference is accurate. All old members are per third party sources members of the 7th Central Committee, per sources the order of rank of the first 20-30 members are correct. Per sources everything is correct. The position of governments they hold match primary and third party sources. Everything bloody points to it being reliable. '''If it had been unreliable the information would have been corrected in third party sources''' --] (]) 07:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


== Negar Mortazavi and Farnaz Fassihi == == Negar Mortazavi and Farnaz Fassihi ==

Revision as of 07:46, 11 May 2021

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
    Chuck Cissel (random unreferenced BLP of the day for 24 Dec 2024 - provided by User:AnomieBOT/RandomPage via WP:RANDUNREF)

    |- ! colspan="3" style="background: #CAE4FF; font-size: 110%; border: 1px lightgray solid; padding: 0.5rem;" |

    Centralized discussion



    Sai Paranjpye

    The 1998 film Saaz attributed as being inspired by "the lives of Indian playback singing sisters, Lata Mangeshkar and Asha Bhosle" is debatable - It uses the following article as reference ] (Note the word used in the article is "Speculated"). Asha Bosle is quoted, "Its not true at all. To have two women in long plaits, take a couple of incidents and exaggerate them into a 3-hour film is such a waste of time." in the wikipedia page of the Film itself. ]). Interview link - ]

    You're exaggerating this dispute. I've added a" possibly" to Paranjpye's page. Bosle was responding to the question "How true is the gossip?", not whether her life inspired the film. Films are not required to be true to life. Fences&Windows 21:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

    Aleesha Young

    Please clean up this article as soon as possible.

    Please add reliable sources for her contest history as soon as possible, thank you.

    Please add contest history with reliable sources, while also expanding the article! Thank you!

    Not clear what the rush is. Signing so a bot will archive this eventually. Fences&Windows 21:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

    Baek Jong-won

    Lack of citations included in particular to biographical data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newb787 (talk • contribs) 2021-04-23T20:11:44 (UTC)

    It was a mix of promotional content and negative unsourced material. I've removed it all. Fences&Windows 21:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

    Matthew Garrett

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

    Page is repeated getting defaced with a baseless accusation surrounding the movement to remove RMS from his leadership positions.

    This violates the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.

    Violating edits:

    Problem seems to have been resolved by reducing amount of material on this. Fences&Windows 21:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

    Jan Żaryn

    Jan Żaryn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    There is a discussion at Talk:Jan Żaryn concerning the newly added sentence "Numerous statements by Jan Żaryn have been recognized by journalists of as nationalist, anti-Semitic, chauvinistic and historically false". Snip is mine, of course. There is probably some relevant criticism here (although UNDUE is also a potential issue), but the current sentence may indeed be problemsatic. It would be good to see some neutral parties comment on the talk there, as the discussion there - in which I only suggested asking for 3O here yesterday - is already escalating and not in a good way. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

    Why is this problematic?VikingDrummer (talk) 06:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    VikingDrummer, Welcome to Misplaced Pages. You've been here for barely four months so you may not be familiar with policies like WP:BLP. Check it out and then you'll see. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    User:Piotrus, the talk page is impossible to navigate with that long discussion. What is the problem here? Did the "journalists of " not write these things?VikingDrummer (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    I agree that the sentence, as originally written by me, is too harsh. However, there are several data reported in those articles, and also in the discussion that ensued, which deserve consideration, above all because they are arguments that are connected with the accusations of politicization of the Institute.--Mhorg (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    VikingDrummer, Per WP:SYNTH/WP:OR, it is not our place to claim there have been "numerous" statements. As for whether they wrote this or not - I haven't seen any quotes supporting such exact claims being made. And even if they were, we need to consider WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. Please read all mentioned policies, btw. I suggested you read BLP above - have you done so? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
    I have done so. The dispute between you and User:Mhorg was unclear in scope. But apparently you both agree that the sentence was inaccurate so there is no current dispute? You could just place what the individual newspapers write.VikingDrummer (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

    Jovan Hutton Pulitzer

    As far as I recall, most of the previous versions of the article on the CueCat guy were self-promotion. However, he is now involved in the Arizona GOP's efforts to invent election fraud - he has been covered on and off for over twenty years, but there are significant new mentions today. Does this draft pass muster? Guy (help! - typo?) 20:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

    Guy, I'm afraid it reads as a hatchet job at the moment. "Failed treasure hunter" for example seems unnecessary even if it is sourced; we don't need to adopt the language of his political opponents and a local newspaper. He's probably notable and the sources are generally not kind to him, but we can write more conservatively and pad out his biographical details. You've not got his original full name as Jeffry Jovan Philyaw, for example, and his time on The Curse of Oak Island is missing. I guess you saw this recent hagiography? I think we can tack a middle path.
    Here's some more sources: . As a bonus, here’s his old website: Fences&Windows 23:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    Fences and windows, it is what the RS call him. And it's kind of hard to wrote a flattering biography of someone who is mainly known as a grifter. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    I'm not asking you to flatter him, just don't write like a tabloid journalist. See WP:BLPSTYLE. Fences&Windows 14:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

    Edward Applebaum

    Someone added a date of death for Edward Applebaum, but I am unable find any information to verify it. Maybe the date should be removed until verified? Hrdinský 18:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

    It was put in by User:Pasquale. Is there a source for his death? I found , but I don't think that's reliable.VikingDrummer (talk) 07:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, I did. It was actually based on a private communication from a close family member of the deceased composer. If that does not meet Misplaced Pages standards, feel free to remove it. Unfortunately, I was not able to find an obituary I could cite either. Nonetheless, the date of death is absolutely correct. Pasquale (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

    Mark Siddall

    Now that the article is semi-protected and a recent sock blocked, this article is ready for improvement. I took an ax to it since it was a pretty egregious example of resume building, and I would like one or more of you all to turn it into decent shape--there are sources. Two things are the main concern here: can a decent biography be written with these sources (I'm aware that the "career" section is terrible, and that's partly my fault, haha); and are the allegations and their aftermath properly represented based on the sources? I could do it myself, but I've already done too much, and after having blocked four accounts in that history I want to stay away from its content. Thank you very much, Drmies (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

    Chuck Collins

    RE: https://en.wikipedia.org/Chuck_Collins For over a decade, I have lived with this annoying and inaccurate wikipedia page. Some right-wing Venezuelan troll did an initial hit job, trying to make me appear more of a radical than I really am. it was a deliberate attempt to "red bait" me --posting a defunct link to "Democratic Socialists of America." I've tried to complain, I've tried to edit it --only to have information restored. What can someone do when they have a troll trying to undermine them? Misplaced Pages has so much power --and it is harmful when you let trolls with political agendas to define other people's lives. I'm about to write an oped for a major newspaper called "Living with My Misplaced Pages Troll." I don't know what to do.

    The material in question appears to be poorly sourced and/or unsourced, so I've removed it until there's proper sourcing and consensus for its inclusion on the talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

    Ursula Andress

    Why is it acceptable for an editor to undertake a highly-questionable revert that includes deleting a source] in an article that needs a lot more sources, not less? 109.249.185.62 (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

    This is a fairly straightforward content dispute, please take it to Talk:Ursula Andress. Str1977 and Serial Number 54129, you both also need to discuss on the talk page rather than reverting please. Fences&Windows 23:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

    Cr1TiKaL

    @EpicPupper: has been edit warring to add the following passage into the Cr1TiKaL article, under a separate subheading entitled "controversy":

    Amid backlash toward fellow YouTuber Carson "CallMeCarson" King for grooming a minor named Sam, White claimed that he does not inherently "see a problem with 19 and 17", while also claiming that, when he was in high school, some 19-year-old students were dating 17-year-old students from the same grade. Shortly afterward, this prompted some to take to Twitter to accuse White of "defending King and supporting pedophilia", to which he argued otherwise, claiming that, although King was 19 and Sam was 17, sending or receiving sexual imagery at both of those ages at the same time is still considered child pornography.

    References

    1. B., Rishabh (2021-01-05). ""I don't see a problem with 17 and 19": YouTuber Cr1tikals on CallMeCarson grooming allegations". Sportskeeda. Retrieved 2021-05-02.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
    2. ^ "moistcr1tikal Addresses Carson Allegations". moistcr1tikal (StealthClownBowling). January 2021. Retrieved May 2, 2021 – via Twitch.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
    3. Celebrityegy (2021-01-08). "YouTuber and streamer CallMeCarson accused of "grooming" an underage girl". Celebrityegy on Medium. Retrieved 2021-05-02.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
    4. Gwilliam, Michael (2021-01-05). "MoistCr1tikal hits back at false claims that he defended CallMeCarson". Dexerto. Retrieved 2021-05-02.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

    To me this seems massively undue and entirely backed up with unreliable sources. Sportskeeda is a glorified group blog that has been judged to be generally unreliable in previous discussions. Dexerto is a website that previous discussions have had mixed views on reliability, but it tends to cover sensational minor internet personality drama with no lasting significance. Celebrityegy is a self-published Medium blog with 1 follower, and thus should be removed per BLPSPS. I explicitly stated that the medium blog was a SPS when i reverted them last time, diff but they added it back anyway. The twitch clips are by Cr1TiKaL so they aren't an explicit violation of BLPSPS, but they do nothing to substantiate that the controversy should be included. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

    Also the accusation in Wikivoice that CallMeCarson groomed a minor also seems like a BLP vio, considering that he has not been convicted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    None of the sources covering this are close enough to reliable to be able to use them for BLP claims particularly of this type. Needs to be removed. --Masem (t) 17:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    BLP issues appear to be a perennial problem on YouTuber articles, who tend to be edited by (presumably young) Wikipedians who don't really interact with the wider community, and thus don't understand our policies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    Hello Hemiauchenia, thanks for the concern relating this issue. I now agree that this is a BLP issue, and the content included should be removed. I apologize for this mistake on my side. Thank you for bringing this up. However, out of curiosity, I'd like to ask a question regarding your comment on Wikipedians who "don't really interact with the wider community, and thus don't understand our policies". Are you implying that these users are problematic or unneeded, or that I am one of them? I personally believe that biting the newcomers is a negative way to deal with new editors and is harmful to the encyclopedia in general. Could you please clarify your statement or intent? Thanks! EpicPupper (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    Not to speak for Hemiauchenia, but compared to when I was first on Misplaced Pages or even on the Internet proper (prior to the Endless September), there was a mantra of "lurk and learn" before one would participate, learning how a community worked. That mantra is long since gone, in place of an instant gratification. That is fine for maybe 75% of the first-time edits on WP (otherwise not vandalism) as they just need a bit of polish, but there are areas like BLP and contentious topics that new users really should read our policies fist before editing our articles, but unfortunately we cannot place any automated restrictions on that (outside of page protections on the most problematic cases). So its nothing against you directly, just a long-standing problem for all new editors that don't take probably a couple hours to be accustomed to how we deal with certain topic areas. Once you learn these ropes, we hope that you and others like that will be a valuable contributor. --Masem (t) 18:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    Sorry for being stern with you, but it's really important that you understand BLP policy. These are serious issues that should not be taken lightly. EpicPupper, you've been here almost exactly a year, so you aren't really a "newcomer" at this point. I am implying that these users are somewhat problematic, since their editing goes against Misplaced Pages policy. That's not to say that they cannot change or improve, but they shouldn't be treated with kid gloves over BLP, its very important for them to understand how serious this is. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    WP:CSECTION is relevant here as well; content should not be under a "controversy" section. I am in agreement that the content should just be removed outright. If this morphs into an RS problem, I'll point out here that a lot of the article currently is sourced solely to YouTube or Twitch clips, which is not enough to substantiate notability. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

    EDP445

    EDP445 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Some users have added poorly-sourced, potentially libelous material to the article above in a manner violating WP:SUSPECT; see this diff and this diff. --Kzkzb (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

    Page is protected and up for deletion: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/EDP445. Fences&Windows 23:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

    Terry Christian

    An IP claiming to be Terry is currently dipping a toe into editing this article. I am notoriously spiky, and could use some welcoming, encouraging and supportive help! -Roxy the sometimes happy dog. wooF 14:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

    I've left them a message. GiantSnowman 14:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

    Awad Haj Ali

    Hello, BLP-people. This article has lately seen heavy editing by SPA:s, one declared a COI. The question is, what should we do with it? Leave roughly as-is now? Cut down further? Nominate for deletion? If you have input, please share at Talk:Awad_Haj_Ali#Edits_made. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/Siavash_Alamouti

    This is Siavash Alamouti. On the wikipedia page describing my biography my Alma Mater is designated as Sharif University of Iran where I only attended one year and was expelled after the Islamic cultural revolution in 1980 where I was accused of apostasy and blasphemy. I never graduated from that University!!! MY Alma Mater is the University of British Columbia in Vancouver Canada where I received my university degrees and owe the opportunity to complete my education. Can you please correct this?

    Thanks and regards,

    Siavash Alamouti

    Siavash, I have added UBC to your alma_mater list. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

    Tilman Fertitta

    This is Tilman Fertitta, living persons, writing the Misplaced Pages Editors and Volunteers to personally change my biography. Lauren Ware is my current wife.

    Please let me know what I can do to confirm this request. Although I have not issued a press release I would like to request an update to the copy under "personal life," first sentence only:

    Fertitta married Paige Farwell from Houston and they have four children, Michael, Patrick, Blayne, and Blake. Today he is married to Houston attorney, Lauren Ware, and they live in Houston and New York.

    There is also the top box on the right hand side - bio: Spouse changed to Lauren Ware

    TFertitta (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

    @TFertitta: Unless we have sources, it's pretty impossible to change based on statements like above. See also Misplaced Pages:Help_desk/Archives/2021_March_3#Personal Life for Tilman Fertitta. Maybe someone else has ideas. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    I have removed the details about his previous marriage and children since it wasn't directly supported by the outdated source (2012). I also do not know whether the source itself is strong in terms of reliability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    A Lauren Ware was head of litigation at his company in 2013, but that doesn't support the claim made here.
    Morbidthoughts, let's not whitewash his life - his four now-grown children and marriage to Paige Farwell in 1991 are verifiable: Fences&Windows 00:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    Then you can reinstate it with the appropriate sources under BLPNAME; but they do not confirm who he is married to today. I don't consider it whitewashing if he prefers his family life generally private from the press. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

    Subject posted a pride flag but doesn't want it to be documented on Misplaced Pages

    (refactored from Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons)

    If a subject posts a pride flag on social media, but later complains that it appeared on their Misplaced Pages page that they self-identified as per the pride flag, should such information be kept or discarded in their article?

    In this specific situation, the subject wanted to let everyone but her direct family members know. The post is still publicly accessible. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 14:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

    Somebody ought to teach them about social media. -Roxy the sometimes happy dog. wooF 14:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    Are we headed towards Streisand territory here? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    We also don't add full names and birth dates to BLPs if the person in question complains about it, for privacy reasons. I'd say being LGBT+ is even more sensitive info, so we should follow the same principle. ―JochemvanHees (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

    Social media posts are not generally reliable sources. In addition, merely posting a pride flag is a pretty ambiguous statement. Pharos (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

    Pharos, it was followed by a tweet saying how she is "blatantly open" about it. Also subject is verified. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    Surely if the individual is out it will have been covered by third-party sources? I have concerns about using photos/comments on social media like this. GiantSnowman 15:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    I would agree. If this has been covered by reliable 3rd party sources it can be included (adhering to IMPARITAL of course). We would have to be careful to make sure any content that makes it to Misplaced Pages is reliable vs speculative. So a source saying "person is because of this photo" wouldn't be OK. If no RSs have covered it then it stays out. Springee (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    This right here. We're making pretty massive assumptions by assuming a pride flag posted on social media means anything, much less something to document. We're not a gossip rag. --Masem (t) 16:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    Agreed. Going from "subject posted an image of a pride flag" to "subject came out as LGBT" is pretty blatant original research. Noting the flag tweet itself without independent RSes would verge on BLPGOSSIP territory. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    Not only gossip, but also WP:DUE. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

    @AngusWOOF: how do we know that "In this specific situation, the subject wanted to let everyone but her direct family members know.” do we have reporting to that effect? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

    Horse Eye's Back, yes, but in further followup tweets, so it's more of the same social media self-reference. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
    Then you mean no? I asked if there was reporting, not if there were more tweets. This sounds like WP:OR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    Horse Eye's Back, the link to her Twitter threads are at Talk:Caitlynn French and that's the only sourcing. Nothing's officially reported by third-party sources or news articles. I'm not aware of OTRS tickets or Oversight emails. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 00:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    Then it appears that the original edit should never have been made. There is absolutely zero basis on which that should have been added to the page. This is exactly the sort of fuck up our BLP policy is meant to prevent, if it had been followed we wouldn't have an issue here. For pete's sake the original post was automatically tagged as "possible BLP issue or vandalism” how did nobody catch this for months? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

    I would like to add my two cents on this matter. If the sexual orientation was confirmed by the subject themselves and it is covered in reliable sources like newspapers or trade magazines, we can use those to verify it. However, if it is not covered in those sources, we can remove them. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

    This resonates with me. I own a rainbow pride flag and fly it during pride month,, and sometimes post photos of it on social media. I also happen to be a boringly heterosexual AKA "cisgender" male. If somebody said I was gay because of the flag I fly, they would be wrong. I fly that flag because of the many LGBT people I have known and loved for over a half century, including several family members, and for freedom. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

    Terry Bean

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

    I first became aware of this article at WP:ANI#Terry Bean, where a reader unfamiliar with internal editing culture was distressed by the article's ECP protection and by how unbalanced it was in favour of an apparently controversial subject. The article is rightfully ECP due to some pretty extensive warring over BLP vios of various types, and the "remove the legal-liability but keep the puffery" shape it was in at the time of that ANI thread's beginning is, to be fair, not exactly a glowing example of a top-tier article. I've removed the worst of it and cautiously expanded the section on the sexual assault allegations somewhat, but this still needs looking at to help especially with the prose, which in large chunks is basically advertorial. I'm also wondering whether it would be due to discuss the allegations in the lead, and how much, because I'm unconvinced burying them at the end of an otherwise POV-positive article is good practice. Vaticidalprophet 21:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

    Jeffrey Tucker

    Reposting. The subsection contains controversial claims supported with three weak citations. One (from reason.com) is a third-hand repetition of statements from an anonymous blog. Another, from economist.com, quotes someone telling office gossip that he heard about another organization. The third from spectator.org, cites a comment box. Am I right in thinking that these are all not RS? If this material does not belong in the article, can the article be protected to stop repeated attempts to add it, and can the claims be removed from edit history? This sourcing dispute has run for years. Bistropha (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

    There's nothing about Tucker in Ron Paul newsletters, which raises the question of whether his involvement is that central. One source used doesn't mention Tucker, so I've removed it. I've merged the sub-section into the existing mention and removed the lead discussion, which was totally undue. Fences&Windows 00:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    Agreed. I hope an admin can also settle the sourcing issues. (1) The Economist and Reason both cited a blog by Wendy McElroy , which cited the anonymous site Rightwatch. This can't be RS since it involves user-generated content and an anonymous source. (2) They both also cite Timothy Virkkala either directly or through his blog , in which he says what a co-worker told him at the office regarding the Ron Paul newsletters. This involves material "heard through the grapevine". (WP:SOAP, WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:BLPGOSSIP) Neither McElroy nor Virkkala make any claim that Tucker was responsible for the offensive content in the newsletters, but the effect of putting these statements in Tucker's WP article is to insinuate it. If this is all inappropriate material, can an administrator protect the page once that material is removed? Bistropha (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

    Li-Meng Yan

    I am having trouble verifying the claim that she is a virologist.

    Evidence against:

    • No degree in virology or any closely related field.
    • I cannot find evidence that her former employer gave her the job title of "virologist" (but it might exist in Chinese).
    • I cannot find a peer reviewed paper on virology published in a reputable acedemic journal. She did co-author quite a few, but it is possible that an ophthalmologist could contribute to a paper on viruses without actually being a virologist.

    Evidence for:

    • Published some preprints on the subject of virology.
    • At first, only unreliable right-wing sources called her a virologist, but this was soon picked up by multiple reliable mainstream sources. I have searched and searched and can't find a mainstream source that says why she is a virologist -- they just say it. No "degree in virology". no "employed as a virologist". But they do call her a virologist.

    Under the "follow what most sources say" rule she is a virologist. Under the "WP:MEDRS sources are required for biomedical claims" rule, maybe not. I am leaning towards "virologist". --Guy Macon (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

    MEDRS is a stricter guideline for good reason. When possible, that should be the standard we adhere to IMHO. Just because a bunch of lower quality sources assert something does not mean that it should be repeated when a higher quality source disputes it. BrxBrx(talk) 00:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    @BrxBrx: I couldn't find a MEDRS source that says she isn't a virologist, but then again I can't find a MEDRS source that says Jimbo wales or Joe Biden aren't virologists. Normally, I just look at the paper. If it says "Joe Biden, professor of frisbeeology, university of Southern North Dakota at Hoople" that settles it. Just being a coauthor on the paper with no title or degree mentioned? Could be a lab technician. Or a word-renowned virologist that nobody ever heard of. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    Unless I'm mistaken, none of the references on her page dispute her description as a virologist. The sources that describe her as a virologist include National Geographic, Snopes, PolitiFact and The New York Times. A press release from the University of Hong Kong described her as "a post-doctoral fellow" but did not say whether or not she was a virologist. Her peer-reviewed work in the "Previous co-authored publications" section of her page is also related to virology ("Viral dynamics in mild and severe cases of COVID-19", "Pathogenesis and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in golden hamsters").
    Here is her response when she was questioned about being a virologist during an interview in September 2020:
    • Maria Ryan: Oh, your PhD is in ophthalmology and your medical degree is in clinical medicine. Is how it is? Okay so you're not a virologist?
    • Yan: I became a virologist five years ago. Because I went to the University of Hong Kong and the Professor of the top coronavirus, virologist Professor Malik Peiris. When he knew me, he felt that I’m suitable for this kind of research. And then when I got my PhD degree later, he invited me to go to that department and I think it's a challenge and interesting, so I moved to that Lab to do further research.
    CowHouse (talk) 02:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    Interesting. Thanks for finding that. Here is something I found:
    • "She did work at one of the world’s top virology labs, at the University of Hong Kong, but was fairly new to the field and hired for her experience with lab animals, according to two university employees who knew her. She helped investigate the new outbreak, but was not overseeing the effort." Source: The New York Times
    --Guy Macon (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    One paper says Yan is from the "WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Control, School of Public Health, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong" (). In another paper, she is acknowledged "for preparing the H3N2 challenge virus". CowHouse (talk) 03:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    Per CowHouse. My own searches basically turned up the same things. Reliable Sources described her that way, no sources disputed it. Are the RS correct? No idea. Koncorde (talk) 04:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    I don't think that matters. We present what is in the sources even when our original research shows the sources to be wrong. The OR does have a use; it encourages us to search for more sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
    I mean second guessing reliable sources in the absence of a reliable source disputing her status seems odd. We wouldn't normally do that. If there are articles questioning her status then we should use a more neutral description of her expertise. I have no issue with us looking for corroborating or dissenting information, but even then we wouldn't know if they were right or wrong without an authoritative debunking of the back story of some fashion. Koncorde (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

    Kee MacFarlane

    Kee MacFarlane —I have updated the lede paragraph to comply with Misplaced Pages standards, replacing "A man was unjustly imprisoned for 5 years due to her ridiculous methods" with something more appropriate. There are comments on the talk page that also are inappropriate, including a remark by a QAnon supporter. What is Misplaced Pages policy on this?

    Kee MacFarlane is a subject notable only for one event. Is this page even useful?

    JHowardGibson (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

    Is this page even useful? Running through WP:NOT1E...MacFarlane is only covered in the context of one event and otherwise of a not particularly high profile, but the event and her role in it were both major, significant occurrences. Your response seems to be to one edit from last month from an IP -- surely it could just have been reverted? (Although your non-revert modification seems reasonable too.) It's fair to note that she was a major player in a massively controversial incident where serious charges were brought against people later cleared of them, and that such a matter can be expected to flare up emotions. Aside from the single IP edit, this article otherwise seems to be as balanced a treatment of the matter as one could expect. The talk page comments are inappropriate, but years old. Perhaps they could be removed, but I don't know whether it's an urgent issue. Maybe I'm being too lenient. Vaticidalprophet 00:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    I've amended the short description, which came from Wikidata and described her as a conspiracy theorist but that's not really supported by the article's content. I also wonder whether there needs to be a separate article for her, though. All the content apart from the McMartin preschool trial affair is just run-of-the-mill stuff and I think merging anything useful into the McMartin article and then making Kee MacFarlane a redirect to that wouldn't result in the encyclopaedia losing anything. Neiltonks (talk) 07:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

    Sisay Leudetmounsone

    Ruling party insists that a stolen diplomatic cable is a valid source for the fact of being a member of the ruling part on this WP:BLP, and is edit-warring to include it. I cannot verify this fact from an independent RS. The editor insists that it is my responsibility to do so, and I should learn Laotian and find a source myself, in violation of WP:ONUS. They assert that removal is vandalism and in bad faith.

    I think that leaked cables are not appropriate sources for statements of fact in BLPs - even when they directly support the text, which is not actually the case here. What do others think? Guy (help! - typo?) 12:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

    I'm sympathetic to the idea but I'm not sure if that follows any policy. It seems to be the idea is if the information was acquired via illicit means we should leave it out of Misplaced Pages. If yes, would we apply the same standards to RSs reporting on Trump's leaked tax returns or on material from Wikileaks? Personally I think we should err on the side of caution when it comes to BLP but if we decide to do that I think it would/should result in the removal of a lot of information from other articles. Springee (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC) Edited to clarify that I mean RSs talking about the material, not directly citing the material. Springee (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    Springee, it does: WP:RS. Sources have to be reliable, independent and secondary. This is a primary source via an unreliable intermediary. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    If the only source is leaked cable on Wikileaks then the info should stay out. Wikileaks cannot be considered an RS for verifying the authenticity of documents. If other reliable sources mention the cable and treat the cable as genuine and unmodified, IMO we can mention the this info (i.e. according to a leaked cable). While I'm always wary of WP:PRIMARY, I think mentioning someone is a member of the ruling party based on a document from the party in a one party state is one case where it's okay. Going further, if reliable sources treat the info as genuine i.e. don't simply treat it was something in a leaked cable, we should treat it as genuine too. As always, it doesn't matter whether these reliable sources are Laotian, English or some other language. Nil Einne (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    BTW although I composed the above based on my own personal view, WP:RSPS supports my opinion of Wikileaks. Nil Einne (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    Nil Einne, I can't find any evidence that other sources treat it as genuine. In fact, it's extremely difficult to find other sources that treat it at all. Which is why we're here: this seems to be pretty much the sole source. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

    "Stolen" diplomatic cables (is that the standard terminology for the US diplomatic cables leaked by Chelsea Manning to WikiLeaks?) are primary sources. Misplaced Pages obviously has a strong preference for secondary sources, but in this particular case, I don't think there should be much concern about using the US diplomatic cable. One of the problems with using primary documents, in general, is that they require analysis, which we don't trust Misplaced Pages editors to do. However, in this case, the primary document in question is extremely straightforward: it is simply a list of Lao People's Revolutionary Party (LPRP) Central Committee members, compiled by the US embassy in Vientiane. There's no analysis at all required, and the cable almost resembles a secondary source. The information that Ruling party wants to add - Sisay's membership in the LPRP's 8th Central Committee - is also a straightforward fact. If a primary source were being used to add controversial, potentially damaging or highly nuanced material about a living person, I would be concerned, but that's not the case here. This material is in no way contentious: Sisay Leudetmounsone is currently a member of the LPRP Central Committee, and the US diplomatic cable simply documents that she became a member of that committee in 2006. In this case, I would say that we should use the diplomatic cable as a source, followed by a better source needed tag. Hopefully someone can find a secondary source (possibly in Laotian) that provides this same information.

    As for the authenticity of the diplomatic cable, that's not in doubt. The US diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks are widely acknowledged as authentic, and have been used by countless news agencies around the world in their reporting. The initial release of cables was done in conjunction with The Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, El País and the New York Times, and the cables have since been used as the basis for so many news articles that it would be impossible to even attempt to create a list. The idea that WikiLeaks might have slipped in a fake 2006 cable with an incorrect list of members of the LPRP Central Committee is extremely far-fetched, particularly since (to my knowledge) none of the cables has ever been seriously called into question. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

    @Thucydides411: If you can provide evidence that the NYT, Guardian etc treats every single cable in this batch as original and unmodified, then we can consider it. Otherwise no. As it stands, it's not even clear to me from the page this is a US diplomatic cable. There is mention about "Public Library of US Diplomacy" on the page, but I initially thought this was sent from Laos to various governments. That shows how shitty the source is. As I said, I'm not so worried about the primary source issue for this particular issue, I would be fine with an official document from the Laotian government but it seems that's not even claimed here. Anyway definitely not this source of unknown providence. We don't allow shitty sources in BLPs just because the information is uncontentious or editor's are having trouble finding accept sources. We keep the information out until an editor finds an acceptable source. Indeed, if this is a US diplomatic cable, that shows how silly the whole thing is. We're using a US diplomatic cable to verify an uncontentious claim about a member of the Laotian government because no one found a suitable source. While WP:Systemic bias is an obvious issue, it also seems that this particularly factoid is not that important hence why it's so hard to find a suitable source. So it's fine to keep it out until someone can find a source. It's not like we're not mentioning she's a member of the central committee. We are because she still is. It sounds like we also have sources for her being a member of the 9th and 10th central committees so it would be fine to add that. We just can't mention she was a member of the 8th which while maybe not ideal, is not that big a deal. Nil Einne (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    Looking more carefully, I see the metadata does suggest this is a US diplomatic cable. However it remains unclear to me how we know which batch this is so can consider the issues raised by Thucydides411 about how an initial batch was authenticated by the Guardian etc. BTW, just want to point out no one ever said Wikileaks modified anything. The point is we have no idea of the path of transmission of these cables to how they end up on Wikileaks because by their nature, that info often isn't made public. We therefore have no idea if anything could have been modified or added, possibly even unintentionally. Even for something like this, there could be various possibilities e.g. an early draft with an error which somehow lost the draft part. But also, we as editors shouldn't have to do that generally especially not with BLPs. There should be some party standing behind the source. Nil Einne (talk) 04:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Nil Einne: The authenticity of the US diplomatic cables is not in doubt. They have been treated by news agencies all over the world as genuine diplomatic cables in countless stories. Just to give a few random examples: The Hindu, The BBC, CBC, FT, Haaretz, and CNN. These stories (and too many others to list here) all treat the cables released by WikiLeaks as genuine. Der Spiegel, one of the original outlets that worked with the cables, published a FAQ that states,

    DER SPIEGEL, the New York Times, London's Guardian, Paris' Le Monde and Madrid's El Pais have viewed, analyzed and vetted the mass of data provided to the publications by WikiLeaks.

    The New York Times described the cables in this way:

    A cache of a quarter-million confidential American diplomatic cables, most of them from the past three years, provides an unprecedented look at back-room bargaining by embassies around the world, brutally candid views of foreign leaders and frank assessments of nuclear and terrorist threats.

    The documents are, in other words, genuine US diplomatic cables. There's no doubt at all about this.
    The question, then, is whether the particular diplomatic cable that lists Sisay Leudetmounsone as a member of the 8th LPRP Central Committee is usable. First off, this cable was transmitted (the recipients, including the Secretary of State, are listed in the header). It is not an unsent draft. After thinking about this a bit more, I think we can basically consider the cable a secondary source, as it is simply a list of members of the 8th LPRP Central Committee, compiled by a third party (i.e., not by the LPRP itself). No analysis of the cable is necessary on our side - we can just read the list of names. As long as we believe the US embassy in Vientiane is reliable for this sort of information, then there's absolutely no problem with using the source. I see no reason why the embassy would be unreliable for such basic, factual information. I would treat this document as we would any other reliable secondary source.
    As this information is not at all controversial or damaging to the subject of the BLP (it merely documents that she was a member of the 8th Central Committee, and other documents already show that she was a member of subsequent Central Committees), I don't see any BLP concerns here. This is important information to the biography of Sisay Leudetmounsone, as the LPRP Central Committee is one of the most important political bodies in Laos, and we shouldn't omit it from her biography. The cable provides sufficient documentation for inclusion. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Thucydides411: BLP is clear we don't include information without a reliable source, even if it isn't damaging. Even if we accept what the NYT says is sufficient to establish that the 250k cables are original and unmodified, it's unclear to me how we know that this particular cable is part of the 250k cache from the source provided. So please provide evidence that this cable is part of the cache the NYT refers to, otherwise it's pointless discussing this further. Once you've done that please also provide evidence the headers prove it was transmitted. They suggest it, but without an explanation for a reliable source, preferably one familiar with this particular cache of cables and what their metadata means, I don't see how we can reach that conclusion without WP:OR. Nil Einne (talk) 10:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Nil Einne: This entire conversation is very strange, and I feel that it's divorced from reality. Are you suggesting that the cache of 250k US diplomatic cables that WikiLeaks provided to Der Spiegel and the NY Times is a different cache from the 250k US diplomatic cables on the WikiLeaks website? I just don't feel that you're raising realistic objections here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Thucydides411: I never said that. What I said is I have no idea whether this single document is part of the 250k cache you keep talking about. Nothing on Wikileaks seems to tell me what cache of documents this cable is part of other than it being an alleged US diplomatic cable. Also quoting you from RSN 'I've never heard of a different cache of US diplomatic cables hosted by WikiLeaks'. I've never heard is not a basis for forming an opinion of the providence of this document. It's possible that there was a small alleged leak from the Vientiane embassy at some time for example. The tone of your comments here and RSN suggest you would agree such a leak wouldn't necessarily get much media attention. The problem with the nature of Wikileaks is that from what I can tell, they give no indication of which leak that cable is part of. All they say is it's a US diplomatic cable. Even that is very poorly done IMO as I pointed out before, I originally thought this was a cable sent from the Laotian government to various embassies in SEA countries. While we can understand why Wikileaks doesn't want to say how they got this document especially who they got it from, it should at least be clear which leak this document is from even if the circumstances surrounding that leak aren't revealed. Unfortunately AFAICT, Wikileaks doesn't really provide that information. Perhaps you can tell from analysing the URL or by seeing where the URL is linked from on Wikileaks, but that seems way to WP:ORy for me. Nil Einne (talk) 06:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    I'll respond in the coming weeks. I'm currently renovating my house so a lot of my focus is elsewhere at the moment :) --Ruling party (talk) 07:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    • In general our problem with this sort of thing is that they’ve never actually been published... We can’t use them directly, we can only use what WP:RS publish about them (which I will note is often extensive). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    I think this particular US diplomatic cable is essentially a secondary document. A straightforward list of members of the LPRP Central Committee, compiled by the US embassy in Vientiane, should be unproblematic to cite. If we were sourcing a cable that provided nuanced analysis, that would be a different matter, but this is just basic factual information. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    You would have a point if the US State Department had published these but they didn’t, at best we can say that wikileaks published them (using the broadest possible definition of publish) but then our problem is that wikileaks is not a reliable source. Might I remind you that basic factual information about a living person is held to a higher standard than nuanced analysis not about a living person? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Thucydides411: You explain my position way more elegantly than I ever could. Thanks for taking you're time to write a comment here. --Ruling party (talk) 06:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    Just as a quick comment, as I understand it the cable isn't simply being used to support her being in the 8th Central Committee but that she was new to the 8th Central Committee. Although it sounds like there are RS for the 7th Central Committee, so we potentially we could resolve this issue via WP:CALC. Please I'm willing to trust the US diplomatic service to be accurate about whether someone is new to the committee just like I'm willing to trust whether they are a member of the committee since it isn't a secret body, but it's IMO not entirely correct there is no analysis even if it's fairly simple analysis that is one of the few types we're allowed to perform ourselves. But as I said above, there remains the question we can be confident this is an original, unmodified US diplomatic cable that was sent by the US diplomatic service. Nil Einne (talk) 11:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    I've asked for more feedback at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#US diplomatic cables on Wikileaks since at the moment the biggest issue seems to be assessing the reliability of the cable instead of anything BLP specific. (Other than whether the information should stay out until we resolve the concerns.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Nil Einne: There are no arguments against this source. It is confirmed as a reliable source by "Yamada, Norihiko (2002). "第6章 ラオス人民革命党第7回大会―残された課題" . Vietnam and Laos after the 2001 National Congresses: Challenges Ahead. Institute of Developing Economies of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (46)." Its also confirmed by state media listing of the 8th Politburo, as seen here when published by the Organisation Commission of the LPRP and by the Lao News Agency here. No other sources, either primary and tertiary seem to say this source is wrong. Probably way more sources as well.... --Ruling party (talk) 05:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Ruling party: Neither of those sources mention the US diplomatic cable. A source which is not reliable cannot be used regardless of whether it's right or wrong. You are welcome to add simple information from those primary sources to our article as I already mentioned. Nil Einne (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Ruling party: While I mentioned before you could use a document from the 9th central committee to mention she's a member, it was pointed out at RSN that it would also be fine for you to use a source from the 7th central committee which does not list her as a member, and a source from the 9th which says she's a returning member to say she joined in the 8th. I also agree this would be fine even if perhaps pushing at the boundaries of WP:CALC. Of course you would need a source from the 9th which says she was a returning member not simply one which says she was a member. And a source from the 7th with a complete membership list. And to be clear, neither of these should be cables on Wikileaks. Personally I would be fine with US diplomatic cables officially released although you can see on the RSN discussion that not everyone agrees and this isn't specific to BLP. Nil Einne (talk) 06:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Nil Einne: The list is also in line with every other list of the Lao Cental Committees.. .For instance from the 5th Central Committee of the Lao People's Revolutionary Party to the 11th Central Committee of the Lao People's Revolutionary Party all new members are listed at the bottom. This should be non-controversial and obvious, but you refuse to accept that all other sources match with this one. WP policy says that Wikileaks is "generally unreliable" and that specific WikiLeaks documents can be judged as "reliable" through discussion. As far as I see you haven't been able to formulate one argument that dismisses this source other than "Its WikiLeaks and WikiLeaks sucks." --Ruling party (talk) 06:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Ruling party: Misplaced Pages articles are not reliable sources. If those articles have reliable sources, you can bring them to the Sisay Leudetmounsone article. If not the information needs to be removed. I have been able to formulate good arguments as have others here and on RSN. The fact you're ignoring them is neither here nor there. Nil Einne (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Ruling party: I checked and the information at 7th Central Committee of the Lao People's Revolutionary Party lacked any RS using the same cable used on the Sisay Leudetmounsone article. So it was useless. I removed the unsourced list of members. Same problem with the 8th central committee list. The other 4-6 and 9-11 seem to have okay sources. One of them also mentions Wikileaks but I assume although didn't check, that the other sources also mention the full membership list. I think you said you found a source for the 7th central committee. It may be a Laotian source but whatever, if you have a source and it verifies the information, it would be fine to add the information back to the 7th central committee article. I assume the 8th central committee article will remain a problem since the whole reason we're here is no one has been able to find a source of all members. When I looked I did find some sources mentioning specific members so you might be able to add some limited information back but not a whole list. Nil Einne (talk) 07:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Nil Einne: This vandalism has to stop! The rules clearly state that its generally unreliable and one has to discuss these things. YOu're blatant attack on articles, facts and sources is a joke. Disist and stop vandalising crap you don't know anything about. --Ruling party (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Ruling party: making false accusations of WP:vandalism is a personal attack. My edit even if it was wrong, which it wasn't was clearly made in good faith and based on my understanding of policies so is clearly not vandalism. And no one is stopping you from discussing things. Indeed I have been the one who has explained my concerns. Thucydides411 has offered a contrary view which while I disagree with, at least they were able to do so. You've mostly failed to make any argument backed by our policies and guidelines. I thank you for fixing the problem with the 7th central committee article by adding reliable sources. We still have the problem for the 8th central committee article though. Nil Einne (talk) 07:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Nil Einne: The rules clearly state "Some editors believe that documents from WikiLeaks fail the verifiability policy, because WikiLeaks does not adequately authenticate them, and there are concerns regarding whether the documents are genuine or tampered. It may be appropriate to cite a document from WikiLeaks as a primary source, but only if it is discussed by a reliable source. However, linking to material that violates copyright is prohibited by WP:COPYLINK." It is mentioned by a third party source and probably was mentioned in a hell of a lot of other third party sources back in 2006...--Ruling party (talk) 07:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Ruling party: Scoop may be a third party source. It's not a reliable source though. It mostly hosts press releases and other such documents without any analysis. If you can find a reliable source discussing this cable, please provide it and we can discuss whether it's enough to authenticate that specific cable. It's what we've been asking for since this discussion began, so I don't know why you spent all your time talking irrelevant stuff rather than finding these sources discussing the cable. Note that both me and Thuyydides411 have already tried to find online RS with a membership list of the 8th central committee and failed. It's easily possible such an RS exists but it may not be that easy to find. I thought you yourself were saying you tried and failed but I'm confused now. Whatever the case, please stop adding information about living persons exclusively sources to that cable. Nil Einne (talk) 07:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Nil Einne: THese are not false accusations. IF you're so bloody blind as to not see that they are than its something wrong with you! --Ruling party (talk) 07:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Ruling party: I've been here for a long time and have a decent understanding of the definition of vandalism, hence why I linked to the policy and was able to explain why my edit was not vandalism. You however have not be able to explain why my edit was vandalism according to our policy. Nil Einne (talk) 07:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Nil Einne: I cannot comprehend how my views fail to take into account WP policy:
    1. Its a list and not an analysis
    2. Compared to other LPRP Central Committee lists and third party references to them its listed in the same manner.
    3. The list clearly is correct when matched with Politburo and Secretariat lists
    4. There is no proof that it is factual inaccurate. Everything points in the other direction—that it is accurate.
    5. WP's own rule on "Perennial sources" calls its "generally unreliable", but again, WikiLeaks is not listed under "Unrelaiable sources" but "Perennial sources". You are making this a clear black-and-white case when it clearly isn't.
    6. That rule does not make any clear judgements, but you obviously are and by making that judgement you are making WIkipedia worse for it.
    7. My position has always been clear cut, and most in line with WP thinking, we leave everything as it was until this discussion has reached a conclusion. As far as I can tell there is no clear cut conclusion to this debate but you are forcing you're point of view on the Misplaced Pages community.

    How is my line of thinking in breach with Misplaced Pages protocols? Tell me? I want discussion and you want to force you're point of view! --Ruling party (talk) 07:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

    That I'm saying is that consensus in both this discussion and the RSN discussion while ongoing points towards that specific cable being unreliable. What I'm also saying is that as this matter concerns living persons, the information needs to stay out until and unless a consensus is established that the cable is a reliable source. That is fully supported by BLP policy. As I pointed out, in the Sisay Leudetmounsone article, the information isn't even long standing. It was only added on the 6th May. Therefore it cannot possibly be taken as long standing information. Therefore even in the general case, there is no policy or guideline which supports keeping the information in. The status quo ante is without the information. Also we don't need to prove a source is inaccurate. Instead, what we need to know is whether a source is reliable. This is a subtle and important distinction. Does the publisher of the cable have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? For the US diplomatic service, perhaps although not everyone agrees. For wikileaks, most seem to agree we cannot be confident their documents are what they purport to be. Therefore the publisher of this document is taken as Wikileaks, who lacks a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. The fact there is no proof that this particular cable is inaccurate is not very germane. Nil Einne (talk) 07:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Nil Einn: EVerything points in the direction that this reference is accurate. All old members are per third party sources members of the 7th Central Committee, per sources the order of rank of the first 20-30 members are correct. Per sources everything is correct. The position of governments they hold match primary and third party sources. Everything bloody points to it being reliable. If it had been unreliable the information would have been corrected in third party sources --Ruling party (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

    Negar Mortazavi and Farnaz Fassihi

    An editor is targeting above two female Iranian-American journalists. This a continuation of an online harassment campaign from Twitter and elsewhere including allegedly doxxing Mortazavi’s physical address on the web .

    The “sources” cited are Youtube videos, Twitter, unknown websites or websites potentially owned within the same groups who Mortazavi reported on for running attack campaigns online.


    Both pages (Negar Mortazavi and Farnaz Fassihi) are now altered to add “views” and controversy , focusing on a very narrow difference of opinion and then creating libelous claims.

    The editor also only edits these two articles. A revert war is ongoing. Example edits are this diff for Mortazavi and these diffs for Fassihi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebright82 (talk • contribs) 14:08, May 7, 2021 (UTC)

    Reverted the worst of it at Negar Mortazavi and warned the user. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

    References

    1. @NegarMortazavi (October 28, 2020). "My personal information & location was doxxed and I'm getting death threats to me and my family, after I reported how @StateDept funds were abused to attack Americans" (Tweet) – via Twitter. }}
    2. "US terminates funds for anti-Iran Twitter feed". AP News. 2019-07-10. Retrieved 2021-01-02.

    Primary sourced political alignment ratings

    I'm pretty sure we should not be primary-sourcing activist groups' ratings of how "liberal" or "conservative" people are. These ratings are very much designed to drive politicians towards the extremes, and if the ratings are not covered by third-party sources then including them seems WP:UNDUE to me. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

    I generally agree that these arbitrary ratings should be excluded. Additionally, something I see far too often in these bios are primary-sourced "letter" or percentage grades from partisan advocacy groups like the NRA, NARAL, NRLC, and the League of Conservation Voters, etc. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

    Gina Carano

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

    The IP editor 46.97.170.112 persistently makes non-neutral and potentially libelous remarks on the talk page of the Gina Carano article. Some examples include calling Gina Carano an "alt right propaganda figure", claiming that she "had a history of spreading trumpist conspiracy theories", and saying "...being called "racist" and "bootlicker" don't appear to be inappropriate as criticism in her case." Thank you, — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> 01:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

    They are definitely not neutral, but they are also statements of opinion about the subject that argues why the content should be included. I don't agree with those arguments unless they are actually arguing that is why reliable sources are covering her. Does it violate WP:BLPTALK enough to stricken? I don't think so. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
    Morbidthoughts, How about this? They're not arguing for inclusion based on sources, recognizing that sources don't support them. It's just complaints and insults about a BLP. This is hardly the worst, but it was fairly recent in the history and so easy to find ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
    Their category arguments may be meritless but it is still "related to making content choices". Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

    I've seen this IP acting tendentiously before on the Jordan Peterson talk page and other controversial articles. If calling a BLP a "Nazi supervillain" , or a "far-right grifter" are not BLP vios, then I don't know what is. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

    Uhhh, context? They're stating his opinion on a content inclusion discussion about a source that compared Peterson to the Red Skull, a nazi supervillain. Perhaps 46.97.170.112's opinions on Shapiro was informed by this article? Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    Where does that source call Shapiro a "far-right grifter"? The IP made the same comment in this edit summary, where this time they refer to both Coleman Hughes and Shapiro as "far-right grifters." What are BLP violations in your opinion? I normally consider unsourced rants about how terrible the subject is a BLP vio. Would you say these rants are acceptable?:
    • "She was an MMA fighter who lost her only match against a real opponent. Other than that, she had some bit roles because hollywood feels some obligation to give her a job despite the fact that she cannot act."
    • "Gina Carano has a history of making dumb political takes on social media abd hurting Disney's PR. Fans have been calling for Gina Carano's firing over her ignorant tweets."
    • "Gina Carano, in spite of some people here insisting otherwise, is nowhere near noteworthy enough for her political beliefs, as insane and nonsensical as they are, to be of any relevance, outside the usual far right echochambers." Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    Sources do not have to explicitly say "far-right grifter" for an editor to form the opinion that Carano is a far-right grifter. Look at the first sentence of WP:BLPTALK very carefully and the examples you cited are all responses about assigning proper WP:WEIGHT AKA "related to making content choice". They may be IDONTLIKEIT or ILIKEIT arguments but they should not be stricken or refactored. What is the end game here? If you want the ip blocked because of this pattern, then go and complain at ANI. The disparaging Trumpism comments are strikingly familiar to Tenebrae even. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    I believe that all of these comments constitute BLP violations. The comment, "She was an MMA fighter who lost her only match against a real opponent. Other than that, she had some bit roles because hollywood feels some obligation to give her a job despite the fact that she cannot act." was removed by the user Sangdeboeuf, who brought up the issue at User talk:46.97.170.112. The "far-right grifters" comment was brought up on that talk page as disparaging of BLP subjects. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> 19:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC) (updated 19:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)) (updated 19:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC))
    Wow, looking at their /24 range, they have an even longer history of blatant BLP attacks and POV pushing.:
    • Calling a BLP a "white supremacist" in mainspace without a source
    • "Volokh is a right wing hack. Of course he's going to read it in a way that makes his side and his people look good."
    • " Gina is C-list actress with no talent, who got the role out of pitty by Favreau whom she put into a difficult situation, playing a replaceable supporting character"
    • " The fact that Gina Carano's idiotic beliefs are shared by half of americans, is exactly why the rest of the world sees americans as stupid"
    • " Let us be real here. Gina Carano is a nobody. Her becoming an alt-right sweetheart for stirring the pot with her idiotic social media posts and doubling down when politely asked to stop is the only reason people even know she exists. Before that she was a failed martial artist who got massively owned in her first real match, and an untalented d-list actress playing silent bit roles where she was cast purely for her size and frame."
    • "Not only is Musk not a scientist, his dangerous lies about COVID-19 has proven that he's a science-denier."
    • "None of these nameless idiots are notable enough to deserve even the slightest mention."
    • "Sanger isn't anyone important. He's just some chud who had ties with wikipedias founders at one point, yet his fellow trumptards are using him like he was an authoritative source on all things wikipedia, when he's little more than a parasite, trying to use the works of pthers to become relevant.his opinion on wikipedia, couldn't matter any less."
    • "Barr's opinion is of course bullshit" Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    There may be issues with the article in question but I think the issues being raised here are editor behavior, not so much BLP related to content. Springee (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    Your point is a good one, and Morbidthoughts' opinion seems to be largely similar. I must admit, I did not fully understand the purpose of this noticeboard and how it contrasts with ANI when I started this discussion. This is probably not the right place for this discussion, as it is about editor behavior rather than a problem with a BLP. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> 21:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: What do you think, wrong noticeboard? — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> 21:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC) (updated 21:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC))
    Angry Red Hammer Guy, if you're looking for some admin action against the IP, then ANI would probably be the place to go. The IP has been alerted to DS, so AE may be acceptable too. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks. I will now remove the template on the Gina Carano talkpage that says that it is being discussed here. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> 22:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

    mia kang

    Mia Kang Some content on this article is deeply personal and not appropriate for public audiences, especially content detailing eating disorder and body dysmorphia, as well as content discussing sexual activity - I have tried to remove some of these descriptions and revised edits on the page, but some users continue to undo my edits and continue to maintain inappropriate content on this page, which I believe is disrespectful to any person, living or dead (no one should know details about their personal life like this, wiki bio should be a straight forward bio suitable for public). The content presented here is harmful and not accurate to the biography for the individual in question (Mia Kang). So, I believe this goes against the biographies of living persons policy, and would like another editor to review the content and remove inappropriate material including tabloid references.

    Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiiyha (talk • contribs) 20:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

    You would have to point out specific examples/diffs. Misplaced Pages is not censored and some of your recent edits removed content that had reliable sources because you did not feel it was "relevant" or "outdated". These are not proper BLP reasons for removal. If something is outdated, then the content can still be acknowledged in the past tense. You also previously attempted to remove the same material by calling it tabloid material, which Trillfendi reinstated. I pinged her to get her opinions on this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

    Related sockpuppet investigation of Kiiyha ]. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

    Cole Frenzel

    Needs more eyes for possible WP:COI ownership. Marginally notable subject, with the article becoming a poorly edited resume/press release. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

    List of major crimes in the United Kingdom

    List of major crimes in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Significant WP:BLP violations about many, many living people being restored. FDW777 (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

    Seems absolutely reasonable to request that each entry (including historical ones) have at least one main source to document the crime. If we have a blue-link article target, this should be trivial to complete, but per BLP, it must be done. --Masem (t) 14:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    The historical ones are obviously less problematic, but as they were unreferenced I decided to save time by culling everything without a reference, rather than have to manually check many entries to see which involved living people. FDW777 (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    This seemed like the best option, I don't question that. Again, blue links, that means they better be referenced there and so repopulating with a source (historical or not) should be possible, but that's up to those wanting to maintain that page. --Masem (t) 22:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    Perhaps this thought is off-topic for this noticeboard, but the scope of that article seems very subjective. Articles on events like crimes are already expected to pass WP:NEVENT, so what the qualifier "major" means in practice is uncertain. Fences&Windows 23:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    If it were up to me, I would delete the article. There must be hundreds of infamous crimes that are ignored, so it violates weight. TFD (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

    Floyd Mayweather Sr.

    Floyd Mayweather Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I came across this diff by an IP editor, which seems like it might be a request from the subject to delete the article. IIRC, there's a procedure for dealing with things like this, but I can't quickly find it - it'd be great if someone more well-versed in BLP issues could sort this out. Thanks! Gaelan 💬✏️ 06:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

    There is no guarantee that it is the subject. The ip address traces back to New York City while Mayweather Sr. lives in Vegas. Further, he is not a non-public figure under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE given his history as a fighter and trainer. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    Further, he is not a non-public figure under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE given his history as a fighter and trainer Is this reasonable per WP:LOWPROFILE? That is, regardless of his career history, has the subject been actively seeking out media attention in a relatively recent timeframe, particularly outside of what's strictly required for his job? Vaticidalprophet 07:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    You do not know anything about the attention-seeking Mayweathers if you think they may be low-profile. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    Exactly, I don't. Can't assume everyone on Misplaced Pages knows everything about everything it covers :) I think it's reasonable that if there's some possibility a subject is requesting deletion, that we can see if the borders of what is and isn't notable can stretch a little to include them; I was quite disheartened once to see the most wholesome prod rationale I've ever seen get rejected because the subject technically passed NPROF. In this case, we obviously don't have any confidence this is actually the subject requesting deletion, so it's a bit of an academic exercise, but I think it's an academic exercise worth having. Vaticidalprophet 07:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    Here are some citations for people who do not follow boxing ] Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    None of those really seem to establish the subject is "attention-seeking" IMO. His son perhaps. But IMO, it's not helpful to get into debates about whether he's low profile or not. The more important point is that BLPREQDEL only applies in cases where there is no consensus. In this case, it seems clear to me that the subject is clearly notable so there's little chance of a non consensus outcome. Whether editors want to call him low profile or high profile isn't particularly important for that issue. He seems to clearly meet GNG, but also I think "won the U.S. Championship Tournament in 1977" means he meets WP:NBOX. Nil Einne (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    He is attention-seeking if you watch any of the documentaries on the Mayweathers (HBO 24/7; Showtime All-Access). His article mentions his self-promoting behaviors, albeit unsourced, throughout his career. He describes himself as the greatest trainer in boxing history. He also clearly passes the GNG as a trainer, even if he is forever linked to his son for obvious reasons.Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

    Robert_Kelly_(comedian)

    Robert_Kelly_(comedian)

    There have been brigading edits of references to "Doug Bell". It's a viral joke related to a character of Jim_Norton_(comedian). Thank you for your help ComedyFixer (talk) 04:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

    Categories: