Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:35, 5 July 2024

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

Talk:Medical professional misconduct scandals in Nova Scotia

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

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

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

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

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

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

My questions about the Dr. Steele scandal are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nandipha Magudumana

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

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

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

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

Categorization

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

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

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

Use of XXL for a birthday

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

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

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

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

Article Created by Sockpuppet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Simone Badal-McCreath

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

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

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

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

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

Penny Morales Shaw

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

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

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

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

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

Ana Roš

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

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

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

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

Best regards, Urban

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is amazon.com a reliable source for personal information?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion at Kathleen Kennedy

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

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

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

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

More details:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just want to verify a few things here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree ^

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting third opinions at Bronze Age Pervert

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

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

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

Global Witness

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

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

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

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

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

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