Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:48, 3 May 2022

• WP:BLPN
• WP:BLP/N
• WP:BLPNB
• WP:BLP/NB

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.

Additional notes:

• Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
• For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
• Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

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

• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

Andrew Lack (executive)

The page about Andrew Lack (executive), the former chairman of NBC News, is riddled with inaccuracies and bias. I’ll focus just on the statements about Ronan Farrow. FYI, I have declared COI as a consultant being paid by NBC News.

First, In the Career section, NBCUniversal (2015-2020) subsection, the third and fourth sentences read:

Farrow also reported that Lack had ordered Richard Greenberg to scuttle reporting on the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse cases because "it was an Andy decision."  Farrow later published his work in The New Yorker. 

The cited Variety story says Farrow had been told to stop reporting while his reporting was being reviewed by NBC News. It does not say Lack ordered Richard Greenberg to “scuttle reporting.” “Scuttled” would mean an order had been given to cease the reporting entirely, not that the matter was under review. Variety says Farrow didn’t “believe” NBC would run the story after the internal review. Farrow would not have to “believe” what might happen next had the matter been settled.

Furthermore, the language on Misplaced Pages accepts (a distorted version) of Farrow’s allegations as fact without balancing it with high-quality press coverage about NBC News' vehement refutation. New York Times (" built on a series of distortions, confused timelines and outright inaccuracies.”) Washington Post (“...Farrow has distorted, exaggerated and flat-out lied in his account of NBC’s actions..”)

New York Times media reporter Ben Smith also reported that Farrow made the accusations about NBC News without proof. Smith also read Farrow's last NBC News script and confirmed it had no on-the-record sources. New York Times (“ often omits the complicating facts and inconvenient details... At times, he does not always follow the typical journalistic imperatives of corroboration and rigorous disclosure, or he suggests conspiracies that are tantalizing but he cannot prove.”)

The actual events are more nuanced and require a more thorough review of press coverage than a single Variety story. If it is to be included, a balanced version might be:

Lack and other NBC News executives were accused by Ronan Farrow, in his book “Catch and Kill”, of slowing and eventually obstructing Farrow’s seven month investigation into Harvey Weinstein. NBC News denied Farrow’s allegations, saying Farrow’s reporting at NBC News was not ready for publication in large part because he did not have anyone on the record.  On October 10, 2017, The New Yorker ran a story by Farrow about Weinstein with seven named women accusing him of sexual misconduct. 

BC1278 (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

This looks like whitewashing to me, so this is declined forever. Quetstar (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you can't just decline forever. NPOV days we should be covering all significant viewpoints, Which the NBC refutations certainly are, and there is plenty of coverage of them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

For me, neutrality is paramount. And when it comes to controversial articles like this one, I belive that paid editors should stay away from them. Quetstar (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Quetstar: If you wish to reverse well-established Misplaced Pages policy that allows those with a declared conflict of interest to participate on Misplaced Pages, you should draft such a proposal. The BLPN noticeboard is not the place for such debates and distracts from the merits of the discussion. I will note that in cases like this -- involving potentially libelous statements on a BLP -- policy says a COI editor can simply remove the passage directly. I've brought it here so independent editors with an interest in BLP can discuss and decide. BC1278 (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

References

1. Aurthur, Kate and Ramin Setoodeh. "Ronan Farrow Book Alleges Matt Lauer Raped NBC News Colleague", Variety, October 8, 2019.
2. Battaglio, Stephen (31 August 2018). "NBC News denies that it tried to shut down Ronan Farrow's Harvey Weinstein reporting". LA Times. Retrieved 7 March 2022.
3. Smith, Ben (17 May 2020). "Is Ronan Farrow Too Good to Be True?". The New York Times. Retrieved 5 November 2020.
4. Battaglio, Stephen (31 August 2018). "NBC News denies that it tried to shut down Ronan Farrow's Harvey Weinstein reporting". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 21 March 2022.

Agree that this isn't nuance but rather whitewashing. It reads OK to me as is, but if you really think there's improvement to be had, I'm sure you can find a way to include the (paid) NBC refutations without being pedantic about the use of the word "scuttle" and trying to defang the heft of what's been said with flowery language. 98.217.255.37 (talk) 09:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I would just like this to be accurate instead of grossly wrong. The Variety source does not say Farrow reported Lack ordered Greenberg to do anything, let alone "scuttle" reporting. Variety says Farrow alleges in his book that Greenberg told Farrow it was NBC Universal chairman Steve Burke and Andy Lack who had Farrow's story put "under review." Greenberg never said he was ordered to stop Farrow before the review (by Lack or anyone else) -- in fact, Greenberg helped run the review and concluded: “The standard would be, at a bare minimum, a credible person making an allegation on the record — willing to be identified by name — ideally on camera. We never quite got there.” Farrow alleges in his book that Lack coordinated with NBC News president Noah Oppenheim to "obstruct" his reporting - but mostly he blames Oppenheim.) The gross misrepresentation of Variety on Misplaced Pages is also naive about the entirety of the allegations against NBC News and counter-allegations against Farrow from dozens of other sources. My proposed language says "slowing and eventually obstructing" the reporting instead of "scuttling" because obstructed or "blocked" is what Farrow says. NBC News, through Oppenheim, assigned Farrow this investigation into Weinstein and let it go on 7 months - that's why it says "slowing" because at first, Farrows says NBC News assigned it to him. Farrow quit rather than wait out the NBC News review because he says thought they'd never find his way, as reported in the Variety source. He also said he had a magazine ready to immediately run the story. My proposed version also gives a very gentle version of NBC's explanation of why it didn't run Farrow's reporting (lack of sourcing.) You can read the vicious counter-allegations I did not include in the excerpted quotes above, including from the Washington Post (“...Farrow has distorted, exaggerated and flat-out lied in his account of NBC’s actions..”) BC1278 (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I used the prose that was there and the suggested prose, and came up with:

In 2019, investigative journalist Ronan Farrow reported that Lack downplayed a human resources complaint of rape against Today anchor Matt Lauer in 2014. Lauer was not fired until late 2017. Lack was also accused by Farrow, in his book Catch and Kill, of slowing and eventually blocking Farrow’s seven month investigation into Harvey Weinstein. Farrow also alleged that Lack had ordered Richard Greenberg to block reporting on the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse cases. NBC News denied Farrow’s allegations, saying Farrow’s reporting at NBC News was not ready for publication in large part because he did not have anyone on the record. On October 10, 2017, The New Yorker ran a story by Farrow about Weinstein with seven named women accusing him of sexual misconduct. Farrow also reported that NBC News hired a "Misplaced Pages whitewasher" who removed references to NBC News's role in the Harvey Weinstein case from several Misplaced Pages articles, including Lack's.

References

1. Battaglio, Stephen (31 August 2018). "NBC News denies that it tried to shut down Ronan Farrow's Harvey Weinstein reporting". The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 14 July 2021.
2. Battaglio, Stephen (31 August 2018). "NBC News denies that it tried to shut down Ronan Farrow's Harvey Weinstein reporting". LA Times. Retrieved 7 March 2022.
3. Aurthur, Kate and Ramin Setoodeh. "Ronan Farrow Book Alleges Matt Lauer Raped NBC News Colleague", Variety, October 8, 2019.
4. Battaglio, Stephen (31 August 2018). "NBC News denies that it tried to shut down Ronan Farrow's Harvey Weinstein reporting". LA Times. Retrieved 7 March 2022.
5. Smith, Ben (17 May 2020). "Is Ronan Farrow Too Good to Be True?". The New York Times. Retrieved 5 November 2020.
6. Battaglio, Stephen (31 August 2018). "NBC News denies that it tried to shut down Ronan Farrow's Harvey Weinstein reporting". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 21 March 2022.
7. Farhi, Paul. "Ronan Farrow overcame spies and intimidation to break some of the biggest stories of the #MeToo era", The Washington Post, October 10, 2019.

I think that's the best of both worlds, and it contains the NBC News rebuttal. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

That's good, but why is this discussion even necessary?. IMO, I prefer the version that's currently on the page. Quetstar (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

That is the version that's currently on the page, I had already made the edit. WP:NPOV demands that we include the information found in sources, in proportion to the coverage. There isn't a single source discussing this that do not cover the NBC News rebuttals. Also, matching the wording used by sources is better than using an NPOV and unencyclopedic term like "scuttling." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, but you're not supposed to make changes until this discussion is over, so i am going to restore the original version. Quetstar (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

There is no moratorium on making changes to an article while it is being discussed here unless there are WP:BLPRESTORE concerns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The article as it stood prior to ScottishFinnishRadish's edit was a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:BLP policy. I have removed a further unambiguous violation from the lede. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I understand now. I am going to wait a little bit and then close this as resolved. Quetstar (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Just leave it. If anyone wants to contribute, they can, and if not it will be archived. No need for formal closure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Libs of TikTok

This article, about a controversial Twitter account, contains some personal information about the manager of the account, statements about her intent ("to mock people") and a collection of her personal views, which are cleary there to discredit her. The whole page is loaded with recent controversy. It seems to be a thorny and charged issue, so I'm happy to leave this to more experienced editors. – St.nerol (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• I think that part of the problem with these sorts of articles is using "Controversy" in a section heading. It's one of those bad section headings like "Trivia" or "In popular culture". Bad structure leads to bad growth. "Trivia" and "In popular culture" leads to random mountains of largely unedifying factoids, as people think that that is what they should be adding. "Controversy" leads to more he-said/she-said stuff than simple facts. I've done a little restructuring, which I hope will help, but apart from strengthening a weak section start after moving stuff around I'm leaving the content and what the lead should say to others. Uncle G (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  • While I don't disagree with the general point, I think a bigger issue in this case is something akin to BLP1E. Our article was only created after the controversial Washington Post article and the only sources from before the Washington Post article are 2 about a week ago from the time of her suspension (one is the Federalist but seems to only be used for attributed opinions so I expect it's fine) and 1 from 2021 from PinkNews about something shared by the account and the resulting fall out from others. I had a very quick look at articles before 18 April using Google News and there's a bunch mostly from Fox News on her suspension. If I looked before April, most are either from unreliable sources like NY Post or the Federalist or other questionable sources like Distractify. And those that aren't look to just be brief mentions like the PinkNews one, about stuff the account shared or reposted or whatever I suspect with little or no commentary on the account itself. It's not strictly BLP1E since it arose from a Washington Post article on the account rather than an event per se, but it's a very similar principle where virtually the entirety of coverage is about that stuff. There was a Daily Dot article before the Washington Post one but it seems to have only been about a day before. The other thing is that the accounts raison d'etre seems to be to repost on Twitter of 280 character fame what it considers liberal craziness from Tik Tok so virtual everything it does is likely to generate controversy. This isn't like Slate Star Codex, or even Alex Jones or Cameron Slater where at least they tend write or talk a lot. Nil Einne (talk) 06:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

See also Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Libs_of_TikTok Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The reveal of he person behind the account is pretty much the central narrative. What the person posts on social media about (perceived) leftish outlandish happenings is almost secondary. ValarianB (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The way it was revealed is important and perhaps WP:BLPNAME matters, but if we keep the article then I suppose the name must stay, since it's by now widely disseminated and arguably it wasn't a single event since there have been multiple posts. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I think we should err on the side of removal. Remember that during the Trump administration there was a person who was reported to be a whistle blower inside the admin. If their name was even mentioned on Misplaced Pages the editor would be admonished and the name would be rev suppressed. As with this case, that name could be found in RSs. Unless the name is critical to understanding the event, and I'm not sure how it is, we shouldn't include it. I mean if the name were John/Jane Doe would it change the rest of the story or the controversy about how it was released? Springee (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Her name is widely known now. The cat's out of the bag and it would look very strange not to include her name. If we did we'd have continued attempts to try to keep out something that is publicly known. Doug Weller talk 13:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

We have a situation like the Star Wars Kid (prior to when the person there readily accepted the identity as a means to fight bullying), in which many mainstream, non tabloid sources reported the name but we knew the person was trying to avoid the connection, and thus we did not include the name purposely despite the availability in reliable sources. The question that needs to be asked here is similar: I'm aware that the real person used a handle connected to their name (prior to that, clearly NOT a public figure) and then switched to this "anonymous" identity as they started posting on this attention-getting stuff, and from what I have seen, seems to have shied away from affirming connection between that name and this account since. I say seems because I haven't been able to review all the sources and so if there are some where they say "Yes, I am so-and-so and started the Libs of TT account..." willingly...", clearly no longer trying to mask their identity, then all bets all off and we're okay with using the name. But absent that clear indication that they are now opening the connection between their real name and this account name, we should be following the same practice, despite the ready availability of the name in sources. --Masem (t) 13:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I have no clear opinion on whether we should keep the name, but I don't think this is particularly comparable to the Star Wars Kid. The Star Wars Kid made one video when then went uberviral. I don't think it was ever their intention for this to happen, and AFAIK they didn't really do anything to keep themselves in the lime light after that. While the Twitter account uses a pseudonym, they continue to post and it's clearly their intention for their content to get wide attention even if they wish to remain pseudonymous. Further they chose to appear on a Tucker Carlson Tonight after one of their Twitter suspensions (but before the Washington Post or Daily Dot articles). Slate Star Codex is IMO more similar than this although the author no longer tries to maintain their pseudonymity. In some ways I'd argue that a better example than Star Wars Kid would be one of those internet meme cases where someone does seem to be continually seeking attention, sometimes even under their real name but we intentionally exclude any mention of it although AFAIK we've only ever done so when the sources are low quality. There is a prominent example that was discussed at least once here (after an arrest) which we can't and shouldn't name here but which some editors may be familiar with. Nil Einne (talk) 09:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with Doug and Peter that BLPNAME has been met with the wide dissemination of her name. Given the account's targeted harassment and outing of others aka the attention-getting stuff, RS widely treated her identity as all bets were off and the wikipedia article should reflect this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Article as it stands contains numerous WP:BLP violations. Even if it wasn't a BLP, countless claims are stated without attribution to their origin (columnists, Media Matters, self-published sources, blogs, etc) or to any source - let alone a RS - at all. Involved editors on the Talk Page seem to think Misplaced Pages is a democracy and they can simply force their POV into the article by force of numbers, deleting any evidence of any content disputes. Input from an uninvolved Admin desperately needed. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 05:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

General FYI that EnlightenmentNow has since been blocked indefinitely. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 17:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Charles Lane

• Charles Lane (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Misplaced Pages biography about me Charles Lane (journalist) is marred by negative information about me that is poorly sourced and inaccurate. Specifically, it asserts that I was fired from my job as Editor of the New Republic because my employer blamed me for the notorious Stephen Glass fabrication scandal. The only attribution for this is a busted link. The allegation is completely false as I know from personal experience. In addition, the controversies section is one-sided, out of date and clearly not written in good faith. After leaving this alone for many years, I have spent time this weekend attempting to correct the record but my edits keep reverting to the false and inflammatory information. Misplaced Pages should address this situation. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuzukaBlue (talk • contribs) 21:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

This might have been the busted link which said you were fired, while Salon said you were replaced. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

After reviewing the sources, I have updated the article stating that you resigned and sourced it to the NY Times and the Washington Post. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I need some other editors to review the controversies section. I chopped what I can, but it still looks WP:UNDUE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

It certainly is. And more continues to be added. I am at 3RR removing what I consider uncited information entirely out of bounds for a BLP. I would ask others to have a look. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I removed more. The restoration of an unsourced controversy was a solid BLPvio, and the other stuff I cut was purely sourced too. I left the actual attributed opinion, and moved it into the career section, but to be honest, who cares about that opinion, without a secondary sources to show it's due it should probably go to. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I removed that last bit, because along with being sourced to a blog, it was also just the WP:HEADLINE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Gonzalo Lira

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

This is currently at AFD and looks like it is going to be kept. I am concerned about potential BLP issues in the article. Can someone else please review it? User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Justin Trudeau

On Wikiquote, I deleted a section referencing baseless allegations from Buffalo Chronicle, a known fake news outlet with a reputation for publishing libelous information about public figures in Canada — Trudeau in particular. Is there any way to blacklist this toxic website, or anyone who cites it as a resource, from Misplaced Pages and its cousins altogether?

https://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/2019/10/18/theres-little-canada-can-do-to-stop-the-flow-of-false-viral-stories-from-buffalo-website.html

--49thParallelUniverse (talk) 04:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@49thParallelUniverse: While the problem may be the effect on BLPs, it's probably better to ask at WP:RSN than here since what you're saying is the site is complete inappropriate for anything. But briefly, theoretically the site could be added to either the global or local Misplaced Pages:Spam blacklist. The local black list would only affect en.Misplaced Pages, global will affect all sites including Wikiquote. Despite the name, the blacklist isn't used only for stuff that could be considered spam. Locally, it's also possible for an edit filter to either warn or prevent the addition of links to the site although AFAIK that's generally only used for cases where we either want to warn only, or otherwise want to allow links in some cases in ways more complicated than whitelisting would allow. (I assume edit filters are used the same way on other sites when needed, but I have no idea.) However in all cases, although the site doesn't have to be spammed, I'm pretty sure it generally has to be misused enough to be worth adding. I suspect the global blacklist is especially stringent on establishing there's enough misuse for it to be worth adding since you're basically forbidding any project from linking to it, often without people from said projects knowing about this. It think it also has to be clear no projects would ever have a significant reason to link to it. While an occasional link could be fixed with a whitelist, and a local project can even whitelist the entire site, these aren't really consider an acceptable solution to other projects inappropriately deciding one project can't use the site.) Unfortunately there are way more completely unreliable sites, even completely unreliable sites that someone may mistake for reliable, for us it to be worth us adding all to any such list. So if if this site is only being added once in a blue moon, it may not be worth pursuing more. Locally, there are also bots like User:XLinkBot which undoes such additions, although AFAIK these are again only used for cases when we want to warn of disallow the links in certain cases since otherwise we might as just use the spam blacklist. Nil Einne (talk) 08:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Phineas Fisher

There's currently no consensus on the website Vice. At Phineas Fisher (in section AKP Hack) and at WikiLeaks#Reception there are a number of statements sourced only to Vice, and one sourced to Vice and a website called "Cyberwire". I've removed these per BLPREMOVE (as have others) but they've been reinserted multiple times by the same editor. What are people's views on using material from Vice not covered in other sources for BLP? It looks like very poor sourcing for BLP content. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

"I've removed these per BLPREMOVE (as have others) but they've been reinserted multiple times by the same editor."

That is not true, both me and @Geogene reverted it and he said your edit summaries were a lie. You also keep ignoring consensus on Talk:WikiLeaks. Softlemonades (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

"as have others" Softlemonades (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing Who are the other editors? diffs? Softlemonades (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Most of the citations for Phineas Fisher have the same status @Cambial Yellowing is cherry picking challenges as part of an edit war on the WikiLeaks page. Cambial isnt trying to remove any of the other VICE citations Softlemonades (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

If there are others sources to Vice for contentious content they should also be removed. The issue with the content you’re insisting on is that the living person is claimed to have carried out an illegal computer hack on a national government/ political party. That requires reliable sources, not Vice and an archive copy of an obscure website. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Who are the other editors? You didn't lie did you? Softlemonades (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I just ask because you keep edit warring and your reasons change a lot and you make claims like and then leave them or make accusations instead of explaining your position, like on Talk:Wikileaks Softlemonades (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Except none of that happened, did it. My reasons don’t “change a lot”, they’re consistent and accord with policy; and no accusations have been made, simply statement of facts about your increasingly disruptive violations of our policy on Wp:BLPs. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

It just happened again - you accused me of disruptive edits and violations after making false claims in this thread and refusing to back them up.

Who were the other editors who removed the content? You made that claim. Who were they? What were the diffs?

You claimed only one editor reinsterted it. That was false. Geogene also did it. I can back that up. Can you?

I solved it with additional sources by the way, go find a new angle in the Wikileaks article you dont like to complain about Softlemonades (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I added sources. Go find a new objection Softlemonades (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, you all need to just settle down please. It doesn't matter who accused who of what. All that matters is the article, and I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the article is terrible. To start with, the sources: Vice is extremely poor quality. The stories are all very well written, but the content is like, who cares? It's basically clickbait titles with little substance in between. Then we have sources like twitter and github. And Worldcat! Seriously? All they do is sell books. I haven't gone through all the sources, but from what I have seen it doesn't look great.

Then we have the article itself. The last thing a person like this needs is an article in Misplaced Pages. The writing is very newspaperish and not really encyclopedic. Too many fine details and, like the sources, little substance in between. I have to question if this person even deserves an article, because neither the article nor the sources give much indication of why any of this should be important to me, the reader. This looks like a case of WP:Blow it up and start over. Zaereth (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

C clas isn't terrible, the BS issue they raised is solved, and the issue you raise should be raised on Talk:Phineas Fisher if at all but I see someone else foudn new objections for him Softlemonades (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

And it does matter if someone comes in making bad faith claims to push their agenda through. Obviously Softlemonades (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Only if on some level you believe those claims to be true. Otherwise, paying them any attention only helps them. And regardless of class, the article is in very bad shape. If you believe there are problems with an editor, then ANI is the place to discuss it. If sources are the problem, the RSN is for that. This noticeboard is for BLP issues, which I don't know how that would even apply to an unknown person. I don't think it would. I bring this up here only because it is getting tiresome. That's not what this board is for. Zaereth (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Gotcha thanks Softlemonades (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Putinversteher

"Putinversteher" (literally, "Putin understander") is a derogatory political epithet in Germany. The page currently labels various people and political parties using the epithet in Wikivoice. For example, the first paragraph of the lede states,

There are Putinversteher above all in the right-wing party AfD, the socialistic party Die Linke, and in the SPD.

Just for reference, the SPD is one of the two largest political parties in Germany, and is the party of the current German chancellor.

I think the page needs additional attention to ensure that it's neutrally written and in compliance with WP:BLP. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the article deserves extra attention. A couple minutes ago I removed several items I recognized as WP:NOR and added attribution to info coming from analytical reliable sources. I moved away the abovementioned phrase from the lede and gave an attribution. Loew Galitz (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with the statement that Misplaced Pages's article "labels people and parties" - someone else does. And the sources cited did notice that and report on the term. Loew Galitz (talk) 06:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I came to this article after reading the recent Signpost about it, which cited a Deutsche Welle article lauding the Misplaced Pages article and essentially confirming its text. I didnt bother to cite it, because it would be a case of "citogenesis" :-) Loew Galitz (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

P.P.S. While I am here, I reviewed all clauses of the WP:BLP and find none that are violated by the article. Of course, I may be mistaken. Loew Galitz (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Ika Hügel-Marshall

A number of editors have recently updated this article to say she's died. I had a quick look and cannot find any sources saying this. Is her death true, or is this vandalism? Ritchie333 16:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I see some chatter on twitter, but nothing from a reliable source.Slywriter (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

It may be true, but without reliable sources we can't say it in the article. We may have to wait for an obituary, although not everyone who dies gets one. It's up to their loved ones to write it and submit it to the newspaper, so sometimes we can't get any confirmation of death. But it's by far better and less traumatic to have an article that simply hasn't reported someone's death than to falsely declare a person dead before their time. I'd keep it out until we have something concrete. Zaereth (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Vicente Fox

Can someone take a look at Vicente Fox please. The stuff about his German ancestry all appears to be OR sourced from findagrave and ancestry.com, neither of which we accept as reliable sources. The weasely "...but it was discovered that..." without the source of who exactly was doing the discovering implies to me that it was Misplaced Pages editors themselves. SpinningSpark 11:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I removed that paragraph, I agree, it was pretty bad OR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

WILL GALISON Libelous, false and incomplete information

• William Galison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the Misplaced Pages article regarding me (Will Galison), there are statements that are untrue and libelous and there are important facts that are absent. The libelous statements are extremely detrimental to my professional livelihood and my personal well-being, and must be corrected immediately.

Most egregiously: The section "Got You On My Mind and Madeleine Peyroux" appears to have been written or edited specifically to misrepresent facts and to cast aspersions on my character.

"In 2002, Galison met jazz singer and guitarist Madeleine Peyroux in a bar in Greenwich Village. They started to play music together and eventually moved in together.

By the end of the year Peyroux had moved out and the couple had broken up, but they continued playing together and recorded a seven-song CD called Got You on My Mind in February 2003. Peyroux and Galison maintained an intermittent relationship, and Peyroux alleged that Galison became abusive at times; Galison denied the allegation.

Peyroux's contract with Rounder Records prohibited her from selling the Got You on My Mind recording, and she stopped performing with Galison. Galison continued to sell the recording and claimed that he was owed payment for canceled performances. The two artists and Peyroux's record label commenced an extended series of lawsuits and court cases."''Italic text

The first sentence is accurate. The statements "By the end of the year Peyroux had moved out and the couple had broken up, but they continued playing together and recorded a seven-song CD called Got You on My Mind in February 2003. Peyroux and Galison maintained an intermittent relationship, and Peyroux alleged that Galison became abusive at times; Galison denied the allegation." are false and defamatory.

The album "Got You on My Mind" was recorded when Ms. Peyroux and I were still living and performing together, and on very good terms. In 2004 I learned from Rounder Records that Ms. Peyroux's lawyers had misrepresented the copyright ownership of the album to Rounder Records in a contract. In thecontract, Ms. Peyroux's lawyers told Rounder that Peyroux was the sole copyright owner of "Got You on My Mind", which was patently false. I challenged this claim that in NY Federal court and my ownership was legally established. Hence, I have been selling the album since it was released in 2005. Rounder was understandably upset with this misrepresentation in the contract, and Peyroux's lawyer, Jeffrey Greenberg had to do what he could to prevent me from selling the album to avoid being sued for fraud. Their claim of Peyroux's exclusive ownership of the album having been denied by the court, and in jeopardy of being sued by Rounder for making a fraudulent contract, Peyroux's lawyers tried to prevent me from selling the album by other means. They wrote a letter to my lawyer- and copied to Rounder- that they had evidence of abuse by me towards Ms. Peyroux, and that if I tried to commercialize the album, they would press criminal charges against me. This statement was not only libelous but illegal, as it illegal for a lawyer to threaten someone with criminal charges (especially false ones) to gain advantage in a civil dispute. Peyroux's lawyers stated that the "evidence" came from Peyroux, but Ms. Peyroux has NEVER personally accused me of abuse of any kind to me or anyone else. It was her lawyer, Jeffrey Greenberg, who made that allegation in a cynical ploy to prevent me from selling the album that I owned. Greenberg also contacted numerous distributors and falsely told them that Peyroux was the sole owner of the album and that they should not distribute the album on my behalf. My lawyer recommended that for the sake of my professional and personal reputation, and to defend my business interest, that I sue for libel and tortious interference.

I filed a lawsuit against Peyroux and her lawyers for libel and for "Tortious Interference with Business Interests". In her deposition, which took several years to obtain, Ms. Peyroux stated under oath that she did not know the legal definition of "abuse", and that she had never told her lawyers or anyone else that I had abused her in any way. When asked what she did tell her lawyers about me, she claimed client/lawyer provide and refused to answer. All of the above is documented in court records which are publicly available. So the statement in Misplaced Pages that "Peyroux alleged that Galison became abusive at times" is false and defamatory, and must be removed immediately.

Suffice it to say, I have gone on to sell many thousands of copies of "Got You On My Mind", and I have never been charged with or accused of any form of abuse by either Ms. Peyroux or her lawyers (or anyone else).

Furthermore I never "claimed that was owed payment for canceled performances". That statement is entirely false and unfounded.

Furthermore, there was not "an extended series of lawsuits and court cases". There were exactly two court cases; the first to establish my copyright ownership of the album in Federal Court, the second for libel and tortious interference.

The story of my legal ordeal with Ms. Peyroux and her lawyers is interesting and worthy of inclusion in the Misplaced Pages profile, but the facts in your article are entirely inaccurate. I suspect that someone associated with Ms. Peyroux or her lawyers submitted the information on your page in order to skew the facts, protect the reputation of Ms. Peyroux and her lawyers and to defame me. I cannot imagine the incalculable damage to my professional career and personal life this article has already engendered.

WHAT IS MISSING:

My musical legacy:

I have many other albums under my own name, and significant musical projects and collaborations, which are not mentioned in your article. Many of these can be found at my website: www.willgalison.net

My Social Justice advocacy and work as an investigative reporter:

I have spent much of the past 12 years advocating for justice for my friend Sunny Sheu, who was murdered by the NYPD in 2010. That effort is mentioned in this article from "Wikispooks" (https://wikispooks.com/Will_Galison) , and documented extensively at my blog www.sunnysheu.blogspot.com. My investigative reporting on this and other public corruption matters have been published in many prominent news venues, including Truthout, Business Insider, Naked Capitalism, Daily Koz and others. I have also been an advocate against Judical corruption and have testified on numerous occasions before the NY State Senate and the Moreland Commission on Public Corruption.

I hope some volunteer will take it upon themselves to mention these accomplishments in my Misplaced Pages profile.

Meanwhile, I insist that the false and libelous material regarding my relationship with Ms. Peyroux be corrected immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.16.202 (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• The content in question is an accurate summary of the Boston magazine article. If you have a problem with the claims therein, you can take it up with them - we would take action here when they retract the article. - MrOllie (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
• MrOllie pretty much summed up what I was going to say, but I will also add that if you have a reliable source that has an update on the mentioned lawsuits, please provide this (on the talk page, do not edit your own article again). And no, your website and your blog don't count. As of now, the only argument I could see having any bearing would be undue weight, given that there is only one source. --Pokelova (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Allegations require more than one RS per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. It looks like they are discussed in the Independent but I can't confirm through the paywall.. The UPI report of the Independent article attribute the allegations to the record label's lawyers.. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
    • @Morbidthoughts Here's a link around the paywall: https://web.archive.org/web/20180806070600/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/former-boyfriend-sues-the-disappearing-jazz-singer-claiming-he-discovered-her-307882.html EvergreenFir (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I revised the article based on some of the info there.Is it appropriate that the dispute is only mentioned in William Galison's article but not Madeline Peyroux's article? Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
        • Perhaps a dumb question but the stuff in there now (before this addition) is also only sourced to one source, and while Boston mag is reliable, we are talking a story that relies on allegations of who blamed who. Perhaps it is better to trim down to mentioning there were legal disputes without any specifics until more corroborating sources emerge, for both Bio articles' sake?. --Masem (t) 21:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
          • Did you read the contemporary (2006) feature article in Jazz Times? Uncle G (talk) 05:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

It appears that this page (which is about me) is being curated and edited by a person attempting to impugn my character and reputation. To this end, they have made false and libellous statements, and when corrected, added other false and potentially libellous statements. I have now attempted to correct these statements.

Specifially, in the section regarding my association with Madeleine Peyroux they wrote that Madeleine Peyroux had accused me of abuse. I corrected that several days ago, and explained that Ms. Peyroux never accused me of abuse, a fact that is reflected in her deposition testimony under oath.

The following day the person wrote that Peyroux's lawyers accused me of abusing Ms. Peyroux. That is also not true. Ms. Peyroux's lawyers represented in a letter that they had "evidence of abuse" by me against Peyroux, but they never presented any evidence of abuse in court, and under deposition confessed that they had none. Moreover, Ms. Peyroux testified under oath that she had never told anyone that I abused her. She also said that she did not know what "evidence" her lawyers were referring to.

The person also wrote that I had sued Peyroux for cancelled tour dates. That is patently untrue, and there is no evidence to back it up. I corrected this statement and the person maliciously reposted it the next day.

As is clear from every single publicly available court document, I sued to protect my copyrights, to prevent tortious interference to my business interests, and to contain the damage of the false and libellous claims of Peyroux's lawyers. Peyroux testified under oath that she never told anyone that I had abused her.

The person is presenting a specious and libellous claim that is only of interest as a demonstration of the malice and ethical violations of Ms. Peyroux's lawyers. As is made clear in my lawsuit, Ms. Peyroux's lawyers had misrepresented the copyright ownership of the album "Got You On My Mind" to Rounder Records, telling then that Peyrox was the sole owner. When I refused to surrender my rights, Peyroux's lawyer Jeff Greenberg wrote a letter to my lawyer saying that he had evidence of abuse by me, and that if I proceeded to commercialise the album, they would place charges against me. Of course, I have been commercializing the album for twenty years and no one has ever placed charges against me ever.

The illegality and perverse intention of that letter is obvious. If I had abused Ms. Peyroux, he would have pressed charges whether I sold the album or not. But I did sell the album - a lot- and he did not press charges. It was simply extortion, and the lawyer should have been punished.

"Rule 3.4(e) provides: “A lawyer shall not . . . present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter.” Rule 3.4(e) is the same as its predecessor, New York Disciplinary Rule (“DR”) 7-105(A)."

I have added more information to the article which is true and documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.16.202 (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• I just received this lengthy, confused message on my user talk page. Would someone please try to explain to Mr. Galison what is actually going on here? I don't think they'll listen to me. - MrOllie (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

  Got eyes on the article and requested protection at RFPPI. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article and posted a note on the user's talk page with explanations and advice. A couple of people have been working on the page. Hopefully we're done here. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Peter Winter (philately)

• Peter Winter (philately) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

He is pretty much dead. See here for reference.

BDPh for Germany is widely equivalent to RPSL for UK. However there is also an English edition of Winter's Biography by Wolfgang Maaßen (2019) available.

German Misplaced Pages gives year of death of Winter as 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C22:B9D8:4000:E5D8:FCA8:776F:3E84 (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

• Please don't treat other people as your unpaid editing service. The page isn't protected, and clearly you know how to edit a wiki and that ISBN 9783928277983 exists. Uncle G (talk) 05:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Graham Bensinger

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

The Legal Troubles section of this page is inaccurate and needs to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdun1234 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

It cites what appears what appears to be a credible source, though admittedly I'm having to rely on Google Translate. What makes you think it is inaccurate? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

DV (newspaper) does not appear to be massively credible, sounds like the Icelandic Sun or Daily Mail. Black Kite (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I've removed it. Regardless of how reliable DV is, a traffic violation does seem to be WP:UNDUE. Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Having looked into this further, I'd come to the same conclusion. Even if the source is considered reliable (which seems open to debate), the lack of detail makes it rather undue. The article cited doesn't even tell us what the traffic offence was. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Gerald Ward (biker)

• Gerald Ward (biker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Grasshopper1970 (talk · contribs)

The article is making claims that the article subject did various criminal things, and with edits and in edit summaries an editor with an account has been challenging the veracity of this, as well as the veracity of things like the date and place of birth being off. All that anyone else has done so far is use anti-vandalism tools. More attention is needed to the substance here, I think.

One Welland Tribune article (LaFleche's and Walter's 2008 "Angels in Niagara", not cited here) does call Welland the article subject's "home town", for example. Is that justification for place of birth? The original content that says Niagara isn't linked to a source at all. This sort of thing is being ignored with vandalism rollback.

Uncle G (talk) 08:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I came across this at ANI and I've dealt with some of the more minor concerns, date of birth and place of birth. And also something else which seemed to be poorly cited; the claim he forced someone to pay $10000 for misusing his name since the source seemed to present this as something he told someone else, probably on a wire so there was no doubt he said it, but with no clarity on it ever being corroborated by anything. (I also dealt with something related which I'm not sure if Grasshopper1970 complained about again since the inline sources didn't seem to clearly support it.) The creator of the article who's active may be able to help deal with some of the alleged issues, especially those sourced to 'The Hard Way Out: My Life with the Hells Angels and Why I Turned Against Them'. Nil Einne (talk) 09:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, I didn't come across the home town source but IMO it's clearly insufficient and actually said something similar on ANI before I noticed this. I think something similar has been discussed before. But in brief, while I'm not familiar with Canadian usage of the term, at least the way I'm familiar with it, someone's home town is not necessarily where they were born. In a Western context, it's generally where they grew up, if there was one place. (In parts of Asia it may be where someone's grandparent/s, especially paternal grandparent/s live or maybe where they lived or your parents or father grew up.) For a variety of reasons like health care facilities and staff and perceptions of their cost, quality and availability (even for full funded care, access to maternal care may cross internal borders especially lower level ones), family or friend support especially in the later stages of pregnancy and maybe post-partum, an early labour, living close to the borders of whatever place where's specifying and plenty of other things; a person may be born somewhere besides where their mother is resident in the months before their birth. And even if born where their mother was resident in the months before their birth this doesn't mean it's where they grew up. Even if someone is raised by their mother which isn't always the case, their mother's residency could easily change in the months after birth especially if a first child and at a young age. These will vary somewhat depending on how specific we are, the country and the ways they manage the various things, traditions & norms etc, but ultimately I don't think we should ever assume someone's home town or where they spent their early life etc is where they were born. I don't think we should do it even for country of birth although that's something that's a lot less likely to vary. Nil Einne (talk) 09:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

David Leeson

See David Leeson. Several accounts have been trying to put WP:BLP-violating content into the article. Person very recently died, still covered under BLP policy. The content is regarding a court case; and lacks any reliable secondary sources (like reliable newspaper reports, etc.) to verify conviction in said case. They either site older news reports with allegations (but no conviction) or direct cites to primary court documents (which per WP:BLPPRIMARY are not sufficient). Please keep an eye on this. If someone starts to follow proper BLP citation rules, then this may be okay to include, but as it stands right now, we don't have proper citations to include such information in the article on this recently deceased person. Thanks for your additional attention to this. --Jayron32 11:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• I've revdeleted the relevant edits until we have proper citations, especially as some of them (and the edit summaries) definitely fell foul of BDP/BLP. Black Kite (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Yael Eckstein

• Yael Eckstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• International Fellowship of Christians and Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The main editor responsible for the page, Dmackay27, constantly reverts any edits to the page or that of their organization (International_Fellowship_of_Christians_and_Jews), especially requests for notability or external sources. he admits on his talk page that he is a paid employee of the organization. As such the page reads like an advert, and has no real explanation of why she's notable. Mostly it seems to be she's notable because shes the CEO of that org, and the org is notable because it got a lot of donations last year and has her as the CEO (circular justification). Would appreciate some other editors taking a look and checking. 2600:6C5A:67F:ED90:9D73:2376:9E9F:3621 (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Main editor? Constantly reverts? Total nonsense. In fact he has made the huuuuuge total of two, count them, I did, edits to the page out of the last 500. Also note that eckstein was a he, not a she. Disruptive, much? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Yael Eckstein is a woman. Maybe you're thinking about her father, who died a few years ago (did you not even look at the article?) He's used multiple accounts that have been merged in the past (see the org logo discussion, where he admits to being an employee. 2600:6C5A:67F:ED90:9D73:2376:9E9F:3621 (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, I looked at your edit history, and Yael is not on it I do wish people would not edit as IPs. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Main editor? Constantly reverts? Total nonsense. In fact he has made the huuuuuge total of three, count them, I did, edits to the page. Disruptive, much? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I've had major issues with harrassment in the past as a result of edits. And now IPV6 seems to change frequently, far moreso than IPv4 (I could just create a random throwaway account, but that would be less than 100% candid). Nonetheless, the editor in question seems to be heavily patrolling the page, has WP:ACtualCOI (as he admits in his talkpage he is employee of IFCJ which is run by Yael Eckstein, and appears to be practicing WP:advocacy. There's no notability, beyond 3 listicles calling her 'an influential jew' with no reason why, and the other 7 sources are otherwise related to her, and not reputable sources. I'm all for 'assume good faith', but to jump on and revert an edit within 7 minutes, for an article he had no prior edit history on (it seems) when the last substantive edit was more than a year ago, indicates something not right here. If you take the situation in the totality, including that he's not the only employee to have spent time patroling the pages (Teachtosing admits being employed by the org and did a lot of the editing, and sparky1405 existed only to make the page). This is usually WAY beyond the evidence level needed to show there's been bad faith in creating and editing the pages. 2600:6C5A:67F:ED90:9D73:2376:9E9F:3621 (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

She's definitely notable, . The article needs to use some more secondary sources, but there's no lack of them that provide significant coverage. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Problematic IP edit in lead of Robert Rubin article

Hello, earlier today an IP editor made this edit to the article about Robert Rubin. No source is provided, the claim is tendentious, and it doesn't belong in the introduction. I have a COI with Mr. Rubin, as disclosed on that talk page, so I should not be the one to remove it. Would another editor be willing to look into this? Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 23:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it is inappropriate for multiple reasons, so I've removed it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the quick action. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 00:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Dan Siegel

On his page, Dan Siegel is listed as clinical professor of psychiatry at UCLA School of medicine, which is false. His name is not listed on the faculty associated with the Department of Psychiatry. This is important because Dan Siegel is currently selling online access to a course he is teaching, at $700/person. Faculty affiliated with UCLA (a public school) are legally prohibited from selling courses. the wiki page advertises false credentials used to sell a product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabrielakpopescu (talk • contribs) 14:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

He's still listed in the faculty at the UCLA Mindful Awareness Research Center, where it still says he is "Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, UCLA School of Medicine". Is this outdated and he left at some point? Endwise (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

This seems to support it. Daniel J. Siegel, M.D., Founding Co-Director, MARC Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, UCLA School of Medicine. There's other sourcing for it as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Stephen Smyk

• Stephen Smyk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Stephen T. Smyk is an American elected official serving in the Delaware House of Representatives. He has represented District 20 since 2013. Smyk has filed for an open seat for DE State Senate, District 6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccrowe321 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ccrowe321: All of which is present in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't see the mention of the open Senate seat. I also do not see where the reported false allegations have been removed. Ccrowe321 (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

They're a WP:PUBLICFIGURE and the content is sourced. Are there sources for updates that are missing? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@CCroew321: I may have glossed over the state senate seat. We'll need reliable sources before that can be added. As for the lawsuit he is a party to, there is ample sourcing for him being named as a defendant in the discrimination suit. —C.Fred (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Jonathan Blow

Hello, Yesterday an editor made this edit to the article on Jonathan Blow, which I reviewed and reverted due to WP:TWITTER and WP:NPOV. The editor recently undid my reversion and made some very slight modifications seven minutes later, and by and large I still think it violates both the aforementioned policies. I don't want to get in an edit war with an editor who did not put very much serious effort into the edit (they spelled twitter tweeter, there are many grammatical errors, some of the English is broken, many of the citation templates are reporting errors, etc).

Could someone else please look at the edit? Neuroxic (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, all of that needs secondary sourcing to show it's WP:DUE and not WP:OR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I took a quick swing at fixing it up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree fully, and would have deleted it myself, but you beat me to it. This is a perfect example of why I think we should never use twitter as a source. It's way too open to interpretation, and all of these tweets seem to be interpreted wrong as far as I can tell. This is a huge problem, not just on Misplaced Pages, but on social networking and even in the news. If certain tweets are picked out and discussed by RSs, giving expert interpretation and their own opinions, then that would be one thing, but trying to interpret them ourselves is doing the work of reporters, and is definitely OR. It also violates the twitter policy in that it is not info about himself, yet I still think that policy is too lax. Also, the word controversy was once again misused here, which is a pet peeve of mine. I wish people would look it up in the dictionary, because a controversy is not simply anything negative about a subject. It is a "widespread public debate", and unless we're covering a widespread public debate, then "controversy" is the wrong title. (For example, Watergate was not a controversy. However, it did cause a controversy, which is a separate and distinct thing.) Zaereth (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Fully support the revert/removal. I would say that calling these "controversies" sourced only to his twitter is original research by Wikieditors, as it can only be a controversy if there is clear secondary or third-party reliable sourcing to identify as such. --Masem (t) 21:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, took out the covid-19 stance, as unless multiple sources have called out those views, even just one RS calling it out is a similar problem. This is how our articles tend to end up as laundry lists of every negative thing that can be said about a person when we should be seeking summary views at the larger scale. --Masem (t) 21:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

That's good. I left it as an attempt at compromise before any discussion took place, since at least it had a real source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks editors, especially for the quick responses and actions so far. I'm learning some things about Misplaced Pages policy in the process too :) Neuroxic (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with that, Masem, because even sources sometimes misuse the word. To give a clearer example, a school shooting is not a controversy. Gun control is not a controversy. However, anytime there is a school shooting a large controversy about gun control ensues, where you see a massive increase in the public debate on the news, or social media, or around the water cooler at work. When something is truly controversial, then we can tell by the sheer number of sources discussing it without the need for them to say it. Things like lawsuits, marital problems, fights between neighbors, or even stuff a person says that may be deemed controversial by someone, does not rise to the level of a controversy until everyone is talking about it. If someone decides to do a story, say .. not on gun control, by on the controversy surrounding gun control, then and only then would we have a reason to have section titled "Controversy". But it should be about the public debate and not gun control itself. It's simply a matter of using the word in the correct way. Since it rarely happens that a source actually covers a controversy rather than taking part in it, then it should be rarely used as a section title on Misplaced Pages. Zaereth (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Let me stress a larger point, particularly on BLP: we generally should not highly views held by a person if they are not called out by multiple third-party sources, and definitely not pulling from self-published sources. The major exception here would be when a person is talking explicitly in the positive about their self-identity such as their gender identity, sexual identity, faith, etc. Otherwise, when we carve out a person's views to a single source or to self-pub sources, we're inappropriately highlighting something that third-party sources have not really highlighted themselves, and thus would be OR. On the other hand, if the views are part of coverage by third-party sources (as in the case of Blow, his commentary on game development) then we're absolutely justified to include his views within this topic as long as they are not unduly self-serving; that's avoiding the OR factor. --Masem (t) 13:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that I agree with completely. Zaereth (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Ramon Nomar

Given WP:DOLT, I have some concerns that this is a potential CC washing by someone who is not the copyright holder and that inclusion violates the spirit of WP:BLPNAME. I removed it and nominated it for deletion at the Commons. Please keep an eye on this article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Pedro Pascal

Pedro Pascal

repeated inserts of information which is irrelevant to his biography (there is only a wikipedia page because he is an actor, yes?) as well as not public information (instagram available only if you're stalking his family) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:4580:94C0:77:F1D:763F:8A01 (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The article is fully protected for a few days due to the edit warring. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Jah_Prayzah

Under the "Personal life" section, the article insinuates, that getting circumcised is protective of HIV. This is in contradiction with medical science and could put peoples life at risk. The sentence should therefore be removed or it should be accompanied with a statement that this is in contradiction with medical science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prahmsson (talk • contribs) 21:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Except that it isn't in contradiction of medical science. See our article Circumcision and HIV. Nil Einne (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I added a wikilink to our article in the sentence at Jah Prayzah#Personal life which mentions this. I also brought this up at Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Circumcision and HIV as while it concerns a BLP, FTN seems a better place to deal with your concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Non-admin response

I can't possibly see how this would be in violation of WP:BLP, the claim is wikilinked to an article that's properly sourced by various reputable medical institutions such as the WHO and many others.

@Prahmsson: If you were to contest the claim that circumcision can reduce the risk of HIV infection, filing a notice about this article is not the way to go, and instead I'd recommend contesting the article content of Circumcision and HIV on that article's Talk page. If you're to pursue this course of action I wish you the best of luck though, I personally see no merit and very slim chances. ★Ama 02:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

How should BLP apply to dictators like Putin and Assad on allegations they can block in their courts?

An editor added a new section in the Personal life section of Vladimir Putin covering the allegations that he is a pedophile who hid evidence of his paedophilia . I fixed the title and joined the discussion about it , receiving a stern warning from an administrator about misreading WP:BLP . Having now read BLP in full, I disagree with its application to dictators like Putin, as they simply kill or imprison their critics so that none of them can file "formal" accusations like one can in any first world country . The guy literally shut down a newspaper for outing his mistress , and there are all sorts of allegations that he's shut down with his control of the government, judiciary, and press. I also added an allegation to the War crimes section of Bashar al-Assad's page, implicating him in what might amount to tens of thousands of murders . CutePeach (talk) 12:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

BLP applies throughout the encyclopaedia and to everyone who is a living person and also the recently deceased. It doesn't matter what you or anyone else thinks of the person. If you aren't willing to accept this, you need to refrain from editing anywhere on Misplaced Pages related to such living persons. I suggest you do so voluntarily since if we have to topic ban you, trying to craft a topic ban covering those people who you don't think deserve BLP protections sounds too complicated. It'll likely be better if we just topic ban you from all people covered by BLP. As for the rest, especially for public figures, we do not only cover allegations that make it to court. In fact I'm pretty sure there are many places throughout Misplaced Pages where war crime and similar accusations against both Assad and Putin are mentioned although most of these have never been brought up in court. However we do require that any allegations are well covered in reliable secondary sources and in a manner that establishes significance of such allegations. Nil Einne (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:​​ Did you even read the content and the discussion before commenting here and threatening me with topic bans? You replied within minutes and couldn’t possibly have read what I contributed, and it is also evident from your statement that you were unaware that the source I added is WP:SECONDARY, and that the reverted version cites a WP:PRIMARY source. After you've actually read the content and discussion, please formulate an argument for why we should cover the alleged poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in the Vladimir Putin article without explaining why he was allegedly poisoned because that is the only thing I added along with the quote from ​​Bukovsky to WP:BALANCE it . The level of hostility in your reply is shocking. Do we know each other from somewhere? CutePeach (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree. This topic deserves some detailed consideration. I don't see why Misplaced Pages should seek to protect the reputation of despotic and deranged war criminals. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@CutePeach: Before I replied, I read what you wrote above where you specifically said "Having now read BLP in full, I disagree with its application to dictators like Putin" which was more than enough for me to reply. What you said is a completely unacceptable attitude for any editor to have. There is no such thing as a living person who which BLP does not apply, period. If you aren't willing to accept this then at a minimum do not edit those BLPs for which you think it doesn't apply. Do not come to BLPN and claim there are people to which BLP does not apply and expect editors to let that stand. That's completely unacceptable for any editor to say, especially for an experienced editor. There is zero need for me to read anything else you've said when you specifically came here to say there are people to which you think BLP does not apply. I made it clear in my comment I was not commenting on the specific issues since it's irrelevant. As long as you are editing from the viewpoint there are people to which BLP does not apply you are unwelcome in any discussion concerning any such living person. I also pointed out you are making an additional mistake. There's nothing in BLP which forbids us from covering well sourced allegations against living people which have never been tested in court. So there's no need for us to remove BLP protections for certain individuals just so we can cover any such allegations as you seem to think. Ergo, your apparent suggestion that certain people shouldn't be protected by BLP so we can cover such details is even sillier. As I also pointed out, this doesn't mean we cover all allegations, they need to have sufficient sourcing etc. The question of whether to cover any specific allegations can be decided by discussion between editors who are willing to accept that BLP covers all living persons based on an evaluation of the sourcing etc and guided by our policies and guidelines and including and especially BLP. There is no reason why editors who are not willing to accept BLP applies to living persons should take part in such discussions, and instead good reason why they should not do so. Nil Einne (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

In case it remains unclear, although I did read (at some stage, possible after my first reply, I don't remember and don't care since it's irrelevant) the discussion at Talk:Vladimir Putin. But in truth, even before I read the discussion I knew I have insufficient interest in what goes on in the Vladimir Putin article for me to likely get involved in the specifics of any dispute. The same for Bashar al-Assad. I have even less interest to get involved in the specifics over whether to include allegations of paedophilia. Any editors who are interested and who do accept BLP applies to all living persons are welcome to participate in such discussions, I've nothing against that and don't wish to impede it. But that's not going to stop me challenging any editor who claims there are people to which BLP does not apply. This is BLPN, and as I said when you come to BLPN and make such a ridiculous suggestion that there are living people for which BLP doesn't apply, you should expect to be challenged. Nil Einne (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC) 16:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Probably final comment, I do recall you from the time of your topic ban and your work in such articles but I do not believe that has anything to do with why I am so hostile other than the fact it informed me that you are an experienced editor and it's fair to treat you as such instead of a seriously confused newbie. I am so hostile because I care about BLP, and it's shocking to me an experienced editor would come to BLPN and try to say there are people for which BLP doesn't or shouldn't apply. I mean that's a silly thing to say anywhere, but to come to BLPN and say it, to me just takes the cake. Nil Einne (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: as Nomoskedasticity answered below, it is more of a matter of how BLP applies, and as you said for public figures, we do not only cover allegations that make it to courtt - also answering my question in the headline above. The dispute in Talk:Vladimir Putin is about how BLP applies to Putin and the paedophilia allegations made against him by Litvinenko, who Putin allegedly ordered the poisoning of a few months later, according to a British government report prominently reported in a number of high quality RS. From your reply, it was quite apparent to me that you did not read the linked content and discussions, which looks confirmed in your subsequent replies saying there is zero need for me to read anything else you've said and possible after my first reply. Had you read the linked discussions, you would have understood that I did not say that BLP should not apply to some living people, but that I am asking how it should apply to some people - specifically authoritarian dictators, for specific claims, which anyone can also understand from the headline here. Looking at other posts made to this noticeboard, it is clear that reviewing linked discussions is the norm before commenting, so I would ask you to strike your unkind comments above and delete the aspersions you posted on my talk page. This noticeboard is for discussing BLP issues and your conduct here is unacceptable. CutePeach (talk) 08:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

CutePeach, you did say "Having now read BLP in full, I disagree with its application to dictators like Putin". Though it's clear now that you're raising a question of nuanced application, it was reasonable for NE at the time to address the most major issue first. Your posting came just after a talk page exchange in which you suggested that "WP:BLP in the general . . . does not apply to public figures" and then received a formal warning from Cullen328. At the time, there were no BLP issues more pressing than addressing an experienced editor's clearly stated belief that BLP does not apply to some living people. I am glad you've stepped back from that stance, and I suggest that some striking here and at the talk page might help newcomers to these conversations avoid some initial shock. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• Of course BLP applies to all living people. What's harder is to work out how to apply it. I'm seeing some dodgy arguments giving shaky reasons for removing well-sourced allegations. I'm not active on this topic and I don't propose to get involved -- but I do worry about the likelihood that there are reputation-managers active on Russia-related topics, and I don't think we should have much patience with obviously dumb arguments (e.g. we can't use Litvinenko as a source because he was an "opponent" of Putin). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Without digging too deep into this, I'm going to have to agree with Nil. People in Putin's position are top-celebrity level in terms of their notability, so the BLP rules are far more lax for them. That is why we have WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which is an exemption from the normal crime and privacy rules. However, it doesn't suddenly mean BLP no longer applies. It does, and the exemption is very specific about the requirements for inclusion, which is not simply because he's of celebrity status, but this would have to be very widely covered to the degree that there is no longer any point in trying to protect his right to be innocent until proven guilty.

Now the argument can be made that he's almost a dictator (not really, because Russian government is a bit more complicated than that, but close). He has the power to deny others their rights, so he should not have any himself. To that argument I would say, now who's being the dictator? You can't fight an "enemy" by becoming them.

Once all that is satisfied, then you still have the next hurdle, which is NPOV, including BALANCE and WEIGHT. Now you have to weigh all the sources about this thing against all the other sources out there about everything else, and try to put it in proportion with the rest of the article. Does it deserve an entire section? A single paragraph? A single sentence or two? Or would even one sentence be too much?

I only looked at the first link, and upon seeing it I can see why it was deleted. It just reeks of spin. To begin with, the title: "Possible sexual deviance". Seriously? First, never begin a title with "possible". "Deviance" is also a euphemism meant to invoke a certain emotional response in the reader. A proper title should be neutral, such as "Sexual allegations", or something very specific. And the euphemisms just go on from there. "Unlawful carnal knowledge"? Again, seriously? I'm surprised the author left out "forbidden". Nobody talks like that. You may as well just use the F-word. Even if we do pass all the hurdles for inclusion, we still need to remain neutral and formal, like an encyclopedia and not a tabloid. Zaereth (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the specific issue this is a WP:RS/WP:SYNTH issue, doesn't really seem to be a BLP question per say. Not really sure what is gained from the general discussion here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

It's a BLP issue in that we have very strict requirements about accusing anyone of a crime, especially one so heinous. BLP works in accordance with all other policies. It is not a separate policy. It just provides some extra rules and restrictions for living people. It works with all other policies, modifies them, and they modify it, but ultimately it also trumps all other policies. We need extremely good sources and lots of them. Now I'm not a fan of Putin, but the same standards we use for Biden or Obama need to apply to him as well. Zaereth (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something we don't have WP:RS which talk about accusations of a crime so why are we even talking about it? We don't need to invoke the extra rules and restrictions when the ordinary ones would work just fine. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Are you in the right section? Child molestation is a crime, even in Russia, although US laws apply here because that's where the servers are. See the first link posted at the top. Zaereth (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

What WP:RS are you seeing? All I see is the party organ of a separatist group (clearly not a WP:RS) and an unrelated BBC article which has been synthed in. I note that much of this discussion appears to violate WP:BLP... We can't discuss allegations against living people which haven't been covered in WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The thing about Putin, and Russian government in general, is that it is and has always been an extreme bureaucracy. Like Stalin and so many others, Putin got into power by out-bureaucrating the bureaucrats. Personally, I hate bureaucracies, and would rather not see Misplaced Pages become anymore of one. If someone has a problem with a bio, then they should feel welcome to bring it here. They may not get the answer they were looking for, but why be all bureaucratic about it and try to shut down any discussion or fob it off to another "department". Now your point seems to be, if it's not in reliable sources then it's ok to put it in the article. Nobody look. Nothing to discuss here. At least, that's how it comes off. That seems ludicrous to me. I take BLP very seriously, and this is part of the discussion is getting totally off topic. Zaereth (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

If you took BLP seriously you would not have engaged in an extensive discussion of things about a living person without a reliable source. BLP applies everywhere, not just in the article. This entire discussion is inappropriate, I suggest you desist and self revert anything which discusses allegations against living people not covered by reliable sources. Yes I understand that there is a whole "he who cannot be named"/"hairy figment" element to the whole thing which is rather ludicrous, but thats how we're supposed to do BLP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Zaereth and Horse Eye's Back, neither of you seem to have looked past the first link, so either you are missing a clear cut case of WP:CRYBLP, or I am missing something about WP:BLP written in invisble ink. The first link is a contribution by K8M8S8, which, as they said , was copied verbatim from Alexander Litvinenko. After some discussion, I made two attempts to bring it up to standard, by selecting high quality WP:RS, and moving it from the Personal Life​ section to the Poisening of Alexander Litvinenko section . I agree we should not give UNDUE prominence to these claims, which is why I also added the counter claim from Bukovsky, but the British government report - which according to RS - concluded that Putin ordered the poisoning of Litvinenko due to these paedophilia allegations, makes it DUE in the Litvinenko section. If we can't make these claims even with WP:INTEXT attribution, we will have to delete them also from the Alexander Litvinenko article, and all of these talks page discussions. CutePeach (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The simplest answer is: The same as anywhere else. For a start - don't even THINK of adding anything until you get sources at least as good as the sources on (for example) Lavrentiy Beria. THEN remember that Putin and Assad are still (for the time being) living persons and contemplate whether the sources you've found are good enough for a BLP. The world is a big place with heaps of countries that Russian or Syrian courts have no control over, so no need to worry that Misplaced Pages would be hamstrung. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Nikocado Avocado

This article is mostly false, and has been translated in multiple languages it seems. He's a YouTuber who has crafted a trainwreck persona for views, and therefore what he says about himself is unreliable. It's obvious enough watching his videos, but he also brags about making it all up. The article cites low-grade journalism pieces that source his own videos as fact (again, it's not reliable) or what he's told the journalist (with no fact checking). It's locked, so I can't edit it. --Itsjustwaterweight (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy link to discussion of the specific problems you identified: Talk:Nikocado Avocado#Accuracy? Endwise (talk) 05:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution