Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:56, 8 December 2024

• 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.

• 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?

Lucas Kunce

Repeated attempts to edit the article to overemphasize and sensationalize a recent shooting incident, violating WP:BALANCE and WP:WEIGHT. While the incident is appropriately covered in its own section with reliable sources, editors keep trying to characterize Kunce as being "best known" for this single event, which appears to be harassment through repeated undue emphasis of negative content. Request review and possible protection if problematic editing continues.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerophilian (talk • contribs) 15:28, October 27, 2024 (UTC)

COMMENT (uninvolved); I agree with your primary contention. Kunce is most definitely best-known for his political career, and we should avoid giving undue weight to a single — admittedly bizarre — incident. However, I’m not sure I see the support for any level of protection (at this point).MWFwiki (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Calin Georgescu

Repeatedly inserted the reference "Far-Right Extremist" which does not have support by definitions of "Britanica" and was used references of references from biased media rather than the Living Person declarations about himself = see here: ] , in which article the politician is enunciating his affinities clearly.

Within the Article offending inserts, although removed by me then reinserted, it was made references with context which infrige generally the content and cascades this Article's content to the Local ro.wiki version, where is multiplied by the local interested and biased entities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rechinul (talk • contribs) 16:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

"Far-right" is WP:V in WP:RS, "extremist" isn't. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

More OTQ: BBC is like the gold standard for WP:BLP. You are not allowed to delete "far-right" just because you do not like it. That would be paramount bias. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Dear @tgeorgescu, There is no "Golden Reference" in the "BLP" Policy. Kindly please, revise your attitude. I am Romanian and English native Speaking person, and your statement is making reference to a Living Person and moreover is referring to a Media Chanel that has confirmed as not took the "Right of Reply" from the person that they made reference (please, see the footer of their reference). Therefore, the BBC was making a unilateral assumption, not confirmed by the Living Person himself. On the contrary, he Declares Clearly (in my adds references links to Video Content from Accredited Romanian Media) that he is NOT a "Far Right Extremist" and he is neither a "Prominent Conspiracy Theorist" as you sustain , as your oppinion without solid proof and inline with WP.BLP. This is a offending content that you insist to keep, without Grounds. Please, remove. You should not use offending content that generates, by cascading to local content, very ample debates, just unilaterally and without proof. Just because you are an older Editor than me does not give you the right to become biased at certain point, please revise to a neutral content. Rechinul (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

You do not make our WP:RULES. You have to obey our WP:RULES, just like anyone else, or you're out. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Dear @tgeorgescu, It means for my understanding that you are the Law, and you are allowed to be above the Law, it means that you can infringe the Law with no consequences, nor explanation to anybody. You are the ultimate Judge in Wikimedia. When you say about a Living Person that he is an "Extremist" or you post that in Wikimedia about a Living Person that he is "Extremist" , it means to say that you are unilaterally right, and who am I to ask you differently, because you are much older Editor than me. I respect that. I will give up trying now, because I can see that I find the Ultimate Judge of Wikimedia. But you lose me as systematic Money Donor to WikiMedia every year, for sure. Rechinul (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Editors do not bear any responsibility in respect to obtaining donations. I'm not saying that I would be the ultimate judge. I'm just saying that you want to put the axe at the root of the system based upon citing WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I mean there is a source which calls him an extremist but we could, instead, just move to the lede his calling the facilitator of the holocaust in Romania a "hero" in place of that and it would be better sourced. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223: spotmedia.ro called him "extremist". I don't know if that's a great source, you will have to ask someone who knows more about the Romanian press. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Dear @tgeorgescu, As you say that you are not the best at interpreting or quantification of the meaning, in Romanian language, you must then contain your opinions or ask the Living person himself about that. It was a subject of a Romanian Justice Dept. investigation which ended up with Closed and Classified Dossier. Who are you to contest the Judiciary System of Romania which has Stated a Final Verdict to this issue? He was "NOT GUILTY". That is why I suggested to you to analyze very profound your unilateral and un proven statements, and I am decided to go as far as it takes to prove you wrong (by solid proof or by Mr. Calin Georgescu own statements. Rechinul (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Our coverage of subjects is not limited to what they say about themselves. We instead rely on reliable sources. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Please, define "Reliable Sources". Give us some examples if you will, as we have given since all day long different sources to proof. Rechinul (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

All of you just want to justify the use of a Term such as "extremist" and you are a Club of Experienced user that faith to prove that this word is okay for you to use. Please, allow me to disagree. You all are no better than anyone other "Extremist" in this respect. Rechinul (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSPBBC. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

To get an understanding of what editors of the English language Misplaced Pages mean when we refer to "reliable sources", please read our guidelines in regards to reliable sources. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Through this message, I am giving to you a AN3 and an ANI Notice for proceeding to complain about your behavior and request the mediation from Board of Administrators from WikiMedia to take into their attention this subject. Thank you. Rechinul (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Please make the notifications correeclty, Rechinul. They are not made by leaving a message here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 18:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I am try my best, Sir. And I admitted upfront that I am not very good at these issues. But I am determined to continue trying. Is not easy, but I will succeed to make my point even if I get very much bullied in the process (by more older and experienced users that thinks they can do whatever they want and bully everybody, just because they are older in this business, and they can Master any infringement without consequences. I am already blocked for life in Wiki-Ro (due to this Article in English), and in here I am trying my best to prevent a new Revolution on the streets of Romania, by bringing back the discourse to a neutral point, rather than to the incisive discourse that is promoted by everyone these days, including in this realm. The situation is by far much more profound than simple "extreme words". Thank you. Rechinul (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't in the business of fomenting or preventing revolutions. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you think there will be a revolution in Romania if this user ceases to be a Wikimedia Donor? --Pafsanias (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Me? Not. He is stating he wants to prevent a revolution. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Then have a look above here and justify your dictatorial behavior and speech, without even try to make an explanation and I quote "You do not make our WP:RULES. You have to obey our WP:RULES, just like anyone else, or you're out", when you have run out of explanation of WHY you have used the "Extremist" word without proof. And then look elsewhere to you bully approach because "I am a rookie". Rechinul (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Again: my objection is about "far-right", since that is sourced to BBC. I do not have an opinion about "extremist". tgeorgescu (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

TBH I think the sourcing is weak on "extremist" but would concur that "far right" is appropriately sourced. We can get into semantic arguments all week about whether far-right implies an extreme politic or whether someone who calls a holocaust collaborator a hero might be a de-facto extremist but, at the end of the day, we need to go with what RSes say. My recommendation is just call him a far-right politician. It's strongly sourced and avoids the weight on "extremist". Simonm223 (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The damage was already done, look everywhere on a Romanian TV Channel. I am try now just to contain the spread, if you have a chance, just look how many unique visitors had this page and the Romanian connected link just today. Rechinul (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I respectfully remind you that the very subject of all my efforts were your two sentences which you said that you are forbid me to delete, as I was doing this 3 times today: "Far Right Extremist" and "conspiracy theorist" right in the first sentence of presentation (without solid proof). I I will simply explain you what is the background: WHY NOW? is my question to you. It is because he took the solid Lead in the Presidential Race for Romania? Was anybody influence you to use your old editor powers to do this? because this English Version lead me to be banned for life in Wiki-Ro, as the Romanian version was using reference this English version and now all Romania is feed by your "innocent and naive" stance!!! Students took the streets, chanting "Down with the Extremist Dictator". Do not pretend that pure innocent and Objective Puritan behavior if the people around this realm does not know what is the deal behind you very smart words. Rechinul (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theorist" and "far-right" are well-cited. I think the citation on "extremist" is weak. I couldn't care less about the status of the Romanian presidential election. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to @ActivelyDisinterested for improving the citation on "Extremist" - I withdraw my prior objection. Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I saw this, and was of the mind to remove it, but I think the sourcing is maybe there for inclusion. A case to remove extremist could still be made, as all far right politics is extremist so it could be seen as redundant. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

By the way, what is the Romanian word for 'far right"? --Pafsanias (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that has to do with the discussion, if your looking for advice on Romanian I would suggest one of the helpdesks. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

"Far right" is "extremă dreaptă" in Romanian, so that the pleonasm with "extremism" is obvious. Rechinul, who is a native speaker, knows it very well. But he denies both "far right" and 'extremist" as appropriate in this case. --Pafsanias (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you? I will give up this thread! I am too small for such a big encounter. I wish you wisdom and correctness. let us visit this thread 10 days from now, maybe you will re-think to what situation you get innocently and naively, involved with. Mihai Botezatu, aka Rechinul, out. Rechinul (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Rechinul if you were blocked on rowiki isn't an issue here, as the different language projects operate separately. However articles on enwiki reflect what is published by reliable secondary sourcing. You'll find many editor willing to engage in civil discussion, but you need sources to back up your arguments and a willingness to listen to others. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Post hoc ergo propter hoc: Misplaced Pages did not cause those protests. Anyway, I agree that "far-right" and "conspiracy theorist" are abundantly sourced, "extremist" isn't. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not dictatorial for telling Rechinul he has to obey the WP:RULES. He does not win a dispute at Misplaced Pages by merely claiming he is being bullied, and that I'm a dictator. Stating he is a victim does not automatically grant sympathy. Evidence is required. We do not pander to playing the victim. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Rechinul, if we went by pronouncements by the subjects themselves for their political positions, they would all be angels clustered about the center. We don't; we go by what reliable secondary sources say about them, and that's why we call Calin Georgescu "far right" and "conspiracy theorist". Please take a look at the guideline Reliable sources and give your heavy-handed sarcasm about tgeorgescu a rest. Bishonen | tålk 15:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC).

Second iteration

What do you think about ? tgeorgescu (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I would be happy to see that left out. However well sources it is, it is just the opinion of one person. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I would cut that. Armchair psychoanalysis of politicians isn't encyclopedic. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Third iteration

What do you think about . tgeorgescu (talk) 12:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The text doesn't even stand by the five pillars, as the sourcing is either unreliable or not supporting the text:

• the first two sources are signed by pseudonyms ("MAKE")
• the third is a tabloid article including an interview with a disgraced former TV presenter (since the accusations against him were never proven, I will refrain from mentioning them)
• the fourth doesn't support the text at all
• the fifth is an op-ed that mentions Georgescu's discourse includes, beside many things, "new age talk"
• the sixth is another op-ed that mentions Georgescu's discourse is influenced by new age
• the seventh is an op-ed that actually supports the text, but the source is a local publication
• the eight is an op-ed in a fringe web publication that peddles conspiracy theories
• the ninth is the most legit one, but doesn't support the text: it says Georgescu's discourse is a mix of Eastern Orthodox and New Age elements, not that he practices New Age.Anonimu (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

MAKE=Florian Goldstein. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

That journalist was found to be not guilty. And he is suffering from the Cushing syndrome, that's why he is no longer in the spotlights. Not because he would be "disgraced". tgeorgescu (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

And, yup, I was an occultist and Anthroposophist for years, but I didn't "practice" either. There were no rituals of any kind. I just learned those two and talked about them.

Morals: I was a New Age believer, but there was no "practice" of any kind. So, I find odd the argument that he has to "practice" New Age in order to be a New Age believer. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Would some rewording solve this? Georgescu says he is Eastern Orthodox, but has new ages believes ... etc. Obviously not that wording, but there does appear to be enough reliable reporting outside op-eds for something. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I do not think we should be making statements about a BLP's religious beliefs unless they have self-identified as such. There would need to be exceptionally high quality sourcing for me to do otherwise. – notwally (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Secondary sources are always preferred, articles should mostly be based on what reliable sources say about a subject over what a subject says about themselves. This is why WP:ABOUTSELF says that subjects are reliable about themselves only if it's not self-serving. If reliable secondary sources are calling something into question Misplaced Pages should reflect those sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

No, it does not work the same with religious beliefs or sexual orientation, which is why there is an absolute prohibition on using any categories related to those without self-identification (regardless of secondary sources) as part of the BLP policies (see WP:BLPCAT). If we are going to be questioning someone's religious beliefs in an article, there would need to be very good reasons and exceptionally high quality sourcing. – notwally (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

bursa.ro and tvr.ro are high-quality sources, in respect to the claim being made. And they're not revealing some sort of secret, like a hidden camera, but simply analyze a lot of public statements the subject broadcasts for many years. I mean: his public statements are rife with New Age ideology, somebody had to call a spade a spade. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories work by their own policies, but all details of a subject should be based on secondary sources if possible. This is the same for all articles, BLP or not. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Yet another source: Mora, Maria (3 December 2024). "Călin Georgescu şi Cristela Georgescu propovăduiesc altă religie decât creștinismul. De ce Biserica tace". Ziare.com (in Romanian). Retrieved 3 December 2024. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

And another: Redactia (3 December 2024). "Ce este religia „New Age", credința promovată de Călin Georgescu și soția sa". Ziarul de Iaşi - liderul presei ieşene (in Romanian). Retrieved 3 December 2024. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Yet another: Negruțiu, Florin (3 December 2024). "Secta lui Călin. Eu i-am văzut venind și-am râs". Republica (in Romanian). Retrieved 3 December 2024.

And Baldovin, Dora (3 December 2024). "Biserica Ortodoxă Română nu reușește să apere creştinismul de curentul New Age promovat de Călin Georgescu și soția sa". B1TV.ro (in Romanian). Retrieved 3 December 2024. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

And Mihăescu, Alexandru (3 December 2024). "VIDEO Călin Georgescu, discursuri violente împotriva bisericii și religiilor, cu citate dintr-un mistic indian Osho care promovează sexul liber: Religiile dezbină / Biserica te-a făcut mic / Sunt mecanisme viclene create de societate și în special de biserică pentru ca tu să nu știi cine ești". G4Media.ro (in Romanian). Retrieved 3 December 2024. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Those sources look woefully inadequate for such claims. Religion, and how someone identifies, are not some simple matter of fact. – notwally (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

From an Eastern Orthodox theologian: "Un preot ortodox spune despre discursul lui Călin Georgescu că este "ezoteric, new age-ist, de guru sectar": "Se găsesc câțiva creștini care-i diminuează gravitatea afirmațiilor, unii promovându-l chiar electoral"". Ziua de Cluj (in Romanian). 3 December 2024. Retrieved 3 December 2024. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

As an aside: scholars of religion and anthropologists have thought a lot about this. Their solution for the problem: emic and etic.

There should be some solution like: "He self-identifies as Eastern Orthodox, but mainstream media say he is a New Age Christian."

According to Murgoci, Anca (2 December 2024). "Călin Georgescu: O tentativă eșuată de a decredibiliza adevărul și de a răspândi dezinformări. Noi nu ne lăsăm influențați de astfel de practici murdare!". DCNews (in Romanian). Retrieved 3 December 2024. he emphatically rejects being New Age. My view: because he knows that's political suicide. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

None of those sources look even close to adequate to support including the content you suggest, especially when you are including an article that merely quotes a very-POV paragraph from a Facebook post from an "Eastern Orthodox theologian". Maybe your own views are getting in the way of looking at this issue neutrally? – notwally (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

For the moment I think the status quo should remain, which is no mention of Georgescu's religious beliefs one way or another. He seems to be using religion in his campaign, but those beliefs are questioned. Certainly Adevarul and HotNews (both reliable according to the BBC media guide) have run pieces on different religious figures criticising Georgescu, but I don't think there's enough for inclusion at this time. Also I don't think personalising the discussion is helpful. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Where does the BBC say those sources are reliable? The prose above the list says, "US-based Freedom House says the private media sector is dominated by influential businessmen who have their own political agendas." If the two articles to which you are referring are similar in quality and tone to the ones cited above, then I would argue they are not reliable sources. – notwally (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Who do I vote for? I have the right to vote in Romanian elections, but I would have to spend money to travel to the Hague, wait in line several hours, and if that's in time, cast a vote. Too tedious for me. So I don't vote for either candidate. And religiously, I am a non-religious deist, so I don't have an axe to grind against "heretics". tgeorgescu (talk) 05:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

From Adevarul: Mitran, Alina (4 December 2024). "Curentul New Age și legătura cu soții Georgescu. „Episcopii și preoții ar trebui să avertizeze credincioșii împotriva acestor erezii și nerozii"". adevarul.ro (in Romanian). Retrieved 4 December 2024. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

In Italian: "Romania: elezioni presidenziali, valido il primo turno. L'8 dicembre si sceglie tra Georgescu e Lasconi". AgenSIR - Servizio Informazione Religiosa (in Italian). 3 December 2024. Retrieved 4 December 2024. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

These are the main Romanian news organisation, and would be handled under WP:NEWSORG unless there is a major reason not to. Discounting an entire countries news output isn't really an option. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

tgeorgescu It would be helpful if you gave relevant quotes from the sources you add. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

From the last two WP:RS:

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 10:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

AgenSIR at least states in their own voice that he has "a new age influence", but it's not the strongest source. The others are reporting that someone else has criticised him. The other sources could be used for an in-text attributed statement, but you would need to convince to articles talk page that that person's opinion was due for inclusion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

bursa.ro seems like a high-quality source, besides it also has the article in English. Again, MAKE is a pseudonym, but the identity of the author is publicly known. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

This is given with the caveat that I don't know if it is reliable, maybe someone who knows more about the Romanian press knows: Preda, Ionuț (4 December 2024). "Călin Georgescu se declară ortodox, dar se inspiră dintr-un misticism estic antireligios". Mindcraft Stories. Retrieved 4 December 2024. Quotes? It's about those guys from the photos. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

We cannot read his mind, se we cannot know if he is a New Age believer. But he is certainly a New Age preacher, because he peddles New Age discourse.

So, the people who say that his subjective beliefs cannot be determined by the mainstream press, are right, in a sense. Journalists and professors are not mind readers. But the mainstream press is right to call him a New Age preacher, because that is something which can be objectively assessed.

We cannot know his private thoughts, but his public statements are definitely knowable. We don't care about his private thoughts, we care about what he publicly preaches. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

And Mărăcine, Adelina (5 December 2024). "Preot ortodox din Austria: „Georgescu a stat vreo douăzeci de ani la Viena. L-ați văzut vreodată făcând ceva pentru comunitatea românească de aici?"". HotNews.ro (in Romanian). Retrieved 6 December 2024. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

And Popovici, Claudia (5 December 2024). "Vasile Bănescu, îndemn la rațiune înainte de alegeri: Treziți-vă, nu vă lăsați înșelați! Alegerea răului travestit în bine e sinucigașă". Antena 3 CNN (in Romanian). Retrieved 6 December 2024.} tgeorgescu (talk) 09:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

To sum up, there are 21 newspaper/media outlets articles, including one published in two languages, all WP:CITED now at Călin Georgescu, which all confirm that his speeches smack of New Age. Since this is no longer about who he is, but about how his speeches are, I consider the case closed. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Many of the sources have significant issues, not to mention the other concerns that were raised here and on the article's talk page. I have reverted your addition of this content as per WP:ONUS. As per the policy, please use the talk page to obtain consensus for the disputed material before restoring it. – notwally (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Pedro Sánchez

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

Repeated edits adding biased material depicting the living person in a more negative light than the sources themselves provide by hinting or assuming unproven wrongdoings, in a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. False facts are also being added (explanatory diff 1 explanatory diff 2). I have been attempting to edit the article, initially to remove the potentially defamatory material, then to provide more sources and a broader POV, but these are being repeteadly reverted under unsupported accusations of "vandalism" which should be treated as personal attacks (diff diff; it should be noted that this is being done by an account created on 31 October 2024 whose sole purpose seems to be to edit Pedro Sánchez's related articles to add this same defamatory material). As a temporary solution, I have added two templates (diff, diff; this latter one was a conflictive edit), one questioning the relevancy of one paragraph in particular to the article's topic (since it is content related to other people and not directly related to the article's subject), the other one questioning the non sequitur nature of the sentence (based in a source which does not even mention the article's subject and whose relevancy on this article in particular is unclear), but probably a full review of the article is required. I am disengaging from it for now because this has become greatly contentious and every single edit attempting to steer the course of the article is being responded with an accusation of "vandalism". Impru20 10:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The editor has now removed sourced material in the article to reinstate their libellous claims while again throwing a "vandalism" accusation, with no valid argument other than reverting a previous edit for the sake of it (diff). Impru20 10:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Note that a discussion is also taking place at User talk:Alejandroinmensidad, where the "vandalism" accusations are being reiterated without any effort from the editor to engage in constructive editing of the article (which they keep editing to insert contentious material). Impru20 10:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The indictment of the Attorney General is a very relevant issue in any government (in fact, it has never happened before). Alejandroinmensidad (talk) 09:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Pedro Sánchez is not an article on his government; Premiership of Pedro Sánchez is. I pointed this to you here, but you ignored it claiming "vandalism". Impru20 12:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The subarticle inside "Pedro Sanchez" is "Third term in office" ]. Alejandroinmensidad (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I describe the judicial charges against the government and the family of Pedro Sánchez. That is not a personal attack, they are judicial facts. Alejandroinmensidad (talk) 09:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)~

No, what you are doing is to present a heavily POVish version of facts, in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:BALANCE, WP:CHERRYPICK and WP:SYNTH. Let's see some examples:

• Here you describe Koldo García as a "personal assistant to Sánchez": he wasn't (he was a political advisor in Ábalos ministry, never a personal assistant to Sánchez when the presumed offences were committed), so its inclusion in Sánchez's bipgraphy is questionable (specially in the way you put it, which directly hints at Sánchez's direct involvement in those most of the time, which is your own interpretation of the added material). This is not a "judicial fact".
• Here you added material treating (unproven) statements of certain people as absolute truths. This is not a judicial fact either; in fact, you have sources pointing to the Civil Guard relieving Sánchez's brother of many of the accusations that were thrown against him. You're engaging in synthesis here.
• Here You reverted sourced material with no other reason other than claiming "vandalism". I repeat: you reverted sourced material (something you seemingly keep criticizing of others). My edits were an attempt at WP:BALANCE (providing sources) and avoiding the cherrypicking of sources and statements that you were doing, yet you still reverted anyway claiming that it was vandalism.
• You have repeteadly added and re-added text affirming that Sánchez appoints the Attorney General (diff diff), which is false or, at the very least, highly misleading (specially in that context, in what you want to directly link any misdoings of Ortiz to Sánchez in order to justify it appearing in Sánchez's article, because that'd be a matter of Álvaro García Ortiz otherwise). The Spanish Attorney General is a civil servant, appointed and dismissed by the King, after a process that includes a nomination by the Government, a hearing before the General Council of the Judiciary and an appearance before the Congress to evaluate their suitability (check articles 124.4 of the Spanish Constitution and 29 of Spanish Law 50/1981; Sánchez cannot legally appoint AGs in his own). Every Spanish Attorney General is picked and selected the same way, Ortiz was no different in this regard to previous AGs, yet you somehow find it necessary to highlight a lie, which is that Pedro Sánchez somehow personally appoints him on his own, which is misleading (and intentionally misrepresentative).

And I could go on. All of your edits are directed at presenting a biased and incomplete picture of the judicial charges surrounding Sánchez and his family, misrepresenting views and highlighting the most negative aspects while removing or attempting to actively counteract any attempt to balance the text with other sources and views that do not strictly support your view. Impru20 12:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

1) Koldo was an assistant to Sánchez during his campaign for the 2017 PSOE primaries

2) The Civil Guard sees clear indications of crime in Sánchez's brother

3) Sánchez met with Barrabés at the Moncloa on many occasions.

4) The Attorney General is appointed by the government of Pedro Sánchez Alejandroinmensidad (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

1) Your edit was Another political scandal affecting his government is the Koldo Case, which involves Koldo García, a personal assistant to Sánchez, and former minister José Luis Ábalos. You are not saying that he was an assistant to Pedro Sánchez in 2017 (which is entirely unrelated to the scandal and, thus, not relevant to the topic at hand), you are explicit connecting the scandal to he being a personal assistant (at an undeterminate point, which your words could hint at it extending to the present time) to Sánchez. That's a manipulation.

2) The ABC source you link makes an interpretation of the Civil Guard report. There are other interpretations to the contrary from reliable sources ( . Your edit was The judge has charged David Sánchez because the Civil Guard report appreciates clear indications of a crime. This is not true; the judge has charged Sánchez's brother for some crimes; you are not revealing which crimes nor attempt to present a balanced view with those crimes the Civil Guard report explicitly rejects. That's a manipulation.

3) The source you are providing in your very same edit in this BLPN says that Barrabés "claims" that he met Sánchez two times. Instead of balancing this claim with other sources (which do exist and which I attempted to insert in the article before you reverted them (), you treat Barrabés statements as an absolute truth and even manipulate them to claim that he met Sánchez on "many occasions". Seriously? Two are "many"? One of them being acknowledged as a passing-by salute because the meeting was held in La Moncloa (which is Sánchez's home, he is obviously going to be there), and another one in the context of a meeting with other innovation businessmen? You explicitly manipulate the sources and omit key facts to misrepresent Sánchez's role there. That's a manipulation.

4) No, don't manipulate over the manipulation. Your literal edit was The Spanish Attorney General, Álvaro García Ortiz, appointed by Pedro Sánchez, was charged with the crime of revealing secrets. You did not say that he was "appointed by the government of Pedro Sánchez", and fail to clarify how this is even relevant to the topic of Pedro Sánchez himself because all Spanish AGs are appointed the same way. That paragraph should not even be in Pedro Sánchez's article because it has nothing to do with his biography. The source you link here (related to Ortiz's appointment through the legal process that the source outlines and I described above) is from November 2023 and, thus, unrelated to any charges against Ortiz. You are explicitly synthesizing content from various sources and making other content up to hint at conclusions not independently reflected in any of them. That's a manipulation.

And I could go on, as I said, but your manipulative efforts here are enougn proof of what your true motives here are. Impru20 22:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

1) You added many opinions regarding the Civil Guard report. I only added one. The crimes of which Sánchez is accused are already in the article, they do not need to be written in each paragraph.

2) The text and references are clear: "Witnesses in the proceedings have stated that Begoña Gómez met with businessmen at the Palace of Moncloa." You've included a lot of other references, I haven't deleted that.

3) Pedro Sánchez's government is Pedro Sánchez. You should study Spanish politics. Alejandroinmensidad (talk) 08:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

And I ask you to write to me with respect or I will have to report your offensive language. Alejandroinmensidad (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

You are not even caring to reply to any of the addressed conflict points:

1) You have not addressed point 1.

2) I repeat it: you said that "the Civil Guard report appreciates clear indications of a crime". This is wrong. It's the judge charging David Sánchez to investigate the possible commitment of crimes on the basis of the Civil Guard report, but that report both hints at suspicions while at the same time lifts any responsability for others. Saying "the Civil Guard report appreciates clear indications of a crime" is a manipulation. That's the whole point of what I'm telling you.

3) Your edit was Pedro Sánchez was also present at some of these meetings. You are treating that (unproven) statement as an absolute truth, without providing context. I provided context and you reverted it claiming that it was vandalism (). And your previous reply here clearly evidenced that you are intent on manipulating these facts, something you are not even caring to address.

4) Pedro Sánchez's government is Pedro Sánchez. You should study Spanish politics. This is outrightly insulting, pal. You are not even caring to address the detailed evidence I provided to you that proves you wrong.

I ask you to write to me with respect or I will have to report your offensive language. What does this even mean? If you want to fill a report for anything, do it. Attempting to intimidate me because I don't agree with you is a violation of WP:THREATEN. Impru20 09:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

1) I have not answered this point because I have already answered it. Koldo was Pedro Sánchez's assistant.

2) You have written "A report issued by the Central Operating Unit of the Civil Guard in November 2024 determined that no evidence could be found". The same thing you say to me, apply it to you.

3) It´s false, that text is not in the article.

4) Pedro Sánchez is the one who makes the decisions of Pedro Sánchez's government. It is somewhat absurd to explain it but I see that it has to be done. Alejandroinmensidad (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

1) No, you haven't. The statement you added is misleading and misrepresentative of Koldo's scandal relative to Sánchez. You have been explained how and why, and you just simply don't care.

2) Start by applying it yourself, something which you haven't cared to do yet.

3) It's not in the article because another user reverted you lmao (). You basically keep adding either outrighly false or misrepresentative material to the article.

4) What is absurd is to explain how Spanish laws work to someone who is just unwilling to hear.

And 5) Your latest edit has been to revert an edit by a third editor involved () who, with good reason, stated that the subject of this article is Pedro Sánchez, not his family, especially when there appears to be no suggestion of any direct involvement of Pedro Sánchez himself (). You did not even care to reply to that concern. Impru20 11:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

1) Does the truth manipulate?

2) "Consejos vendo que para mi no tengo" in spanish.

3) I have not removed or written anything. You keep making false accusations.

4) What is absurd is to say that the decisions of Pedro Sánchez's government are not made by Pedro Sánchez.

5) In the sub-article "Third term in office" the events of Pedro Sánchez's government are commented on. The corruption scandals of Pedro Sánchez's family are key to that government. The judge accuses David Sánchez of having obtained the illegal work thanks to the influence of Pedro Sánchez.Alejandroinmensidad (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And two more right now:

• Here you have added material directly extracted from editorials, presenting them as statements of fact (particularly the sentence where it is said that In this latest scandal Pedro Sánchez lied about this visit. This is in direct violation of WP:RSOPINION and WP:RSEDITORIAL, which prohibit using these as reliable sources for none other than as statements as to their author's opinion. You are asserting these as facts.
• What was your reasoning for this ()? You reverted two well-sourced facts with no explanation (that Gómez's charges came as a result of Manos Limpias' complaint, which is mentioned in the immediately previous paragraph; and that she not testifying was a result of her invoking her right not to testify, not because she was obligated to testify as your wording hints). This was thoroughly explained in the two preceding edits (diff diff) and you didn't even care to give a reason for the reverts. Impru20 11:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Your latest reply here is an insult to intelligence. Impru20 11:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm tired of your lies and your insults. This is harassment. I will not respond to you anymore and I will report you for harassment and personal attacks. Alejandroinmensidad (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Do not threaten: do the report. I am tired of your disruption and will gladly intervene in any report you try to file. Impru20 11:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

As an update: the user has been blocked and the BLP issues at Pedro Sánchez have been mostly addressed (or, at the very least, are not met by a wall of reverts), so there is no point in keeping this thread open (specially seeing how this ended up being myself arguing with that user). Impru20 10:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

References

1. "Koldo García el hombre que durmió con las urnas de Sánchez: así narra el presidente su misión en 'Manual de Resistencia'". Voz Populi (in Spanish).
2. "La juez cita como imputado al hermano de Pedro Sánchez tras un informe de la UCO que apuntala indicios de delito". ABC (in Spanish).
3. "El empresario Barrabés declara ante el juez que se reunió dos veces con Pedro Sánchez en La Moncloa". Agencia EFE (in Spanish). 15 July 2014. Retrieved 27 July 2024.
4. Reyes, Rincon (22 November 2023). "El Gobierno renovará a Álvaro García Ortiz como fiscal general del Estado para la legislatura". El Pais (spanish). Retrieved 2024-11-28.

peter bance

 Courtesy link: Peter Bance

there are several references made from journalism which are incorrect and should be removed as there is no reliable source for this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coronethouse2008 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Coronethouse2008: The whole page looks pretty bad, and has been tagged as such for over 9 years. Please either WP:BEBOLD and do some editing, or specify what should be discussed here for removal. If you think all of it should be deleted, the correct forum becomes WP:AFD. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 16:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Just realized, it may be a COI since he claims to edited and deleted sections which are incorrect about me and are misleading. (emph. me) 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 17:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:People charged with rape

Can I get some clarity on what instances a subject is to be included in a category like Category:People charged with rape, Category:People charged with sex crimes, Category:People charged with murder, etc?

WP:BLPCRIMINAL states that one of the criteria that should be met for inclusion in subcategories of Category:Criminals is that "the subject was convicted". Given all of these categories already have subcats for people who were convicted, it seems like we're inviting articles to be added to base "people charged with X" criminal categories before they've been tried and/or convicted. RachelTensions (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Seems like all of those "charged with" categories are clear violations of BLPCRIMINAL and need to be deleted. – notwally (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. A category "People convicted of rape" (assuming that also removes people later acquitted of said crime) might be okay since that's a firm result of a court of law, but cataloging ppl only charged with such crimes violates BLP. Masem (t) 18:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

"Innocent until proven guilty" is the legal rule in many countries and it is one that we should follow too. Just because they have been charged does not mean they are guilty until judged so by a jury of their peers. This category is completely inappropriate because we're tarring BLPs when they may have been/may be found innocent. If it was about those who have been found guilty and convicted, that would be fine. But not for one just because they've had a charge brought against them. This category should be deleted or renamed to be about convictions. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:CATV says Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. If we have a section in an article as seen here that is reliably sourced and verifiable, then why isn't that a BLPVIO as well? He's only had charges brought against him (no conviction), and is "Innocent until proven guilty". Isaidnoway (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• There appear to be 22 of these categories: Category:People by criminal charge. Many of them appear to have been created in December 2017 by a now-blocked sockpuppet. – notwally (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
• Individual category members may not pose a BLP problem because either the accusation was at least part of the basis of a subject's notability (Arthur Stanley Brown), or the subject is too dead for us to care (Sherman Booth), or both (Armando Lucero). So it can be a helpful category. JFHJr (㊟) 05:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I have trouble with this as a defining characteristic; it's not based in something you did or are (as a conviction would indicate), it's based in what someone else said you did. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Equally, where do we stand on Category:People acquitted of rape? They too were not proven guilty?--Egghead06 (talk) 07:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Well presumably, that "someone else" would have to be a district attorney that actually charged the person with that crime, in order for the article to be included in that category. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

So, if we were to delete the "people charged with X" categories, what would we do with the subcats? Those seem... valid. New parent categories "People convicted of crimes" and "People acquitted of crimes"? RachelTensions (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

We have a category people charged of rape or of sex crime? I would have thought that was a clear violation of WP:BLPCRIME. What's so flaming important about sticking people into a category like that before they've been convicted? Especially for sex crimes you can get stupid things happening like a paediatrician being attacked because of vigilantes thinking they're a paedophile. NadVolum (talk) 10:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I concur any people charged with X crime categories should be deleted per BLPCRIME. Simonm223 (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I also concur. Convicted can stay, and acquitted is probably okay too, but just charged is definitely not okay. Loki (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• It seems like there is a consensus forming that many if not all of these "charged with" categories are inappropriate. Can anyone provide advice on how to nominate multiple categories for deletion? Or would it be better if these categories were nominated for deletion separately? – notwally (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think before proceeding with nominating the "charged" categories for deletion we should come up with what the best course of action is for the "People convicted of X" and "People acquitted of X" categories which are currently subcategories of "People charged with X"I think the cleanest way would be to categorize them under new "People convicted of crimes" and "People acquitted of crimes" parent categories. RachelTensions (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think that would work, although I will admit I don't know a lot about categories. There appears to be a recent discussion about the parent category where it was containerized: . – notwally (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: I've opened a CfD for this issue here. RachelTensions (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Should lists of notable people from X place have a source?

Many articles on places have lists of notable people, these usually do not have a source and it usually is considered that the WL is a source. I don't see this as being compatible with policy both WP:V and WP:BLP. Often these people do not have an RS connecting them to the location in the article (in which case I remove it), but should they require a source to begin with? I don't see a good policy based reason to exempt these from sourcing. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it should have an RS in the BLP. In normal cases, even a BLPSPS is alright for someone's uncontroversial and uncontroverted claim of origin. JFHJr (㊟) 03:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:SOURCELIST makes it clear that entries in a list must be sourced be they be listings of living persons or something else. Nil Einne (talk) 04:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I see this is just another instance where practice often does not not followed policy. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Technically policy only requires it if challenged or controversial. But you should always be OK removing them if there's no source, and that can count as a challenge, which means re-addition would require a source. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Vansh Sayani

Vansh Sayani is a notable Indian actor. He has worked in many Indian TV shows, movies and advertisements including as lead in Baalveer and Balika Vadhu 2. The article currently has a redirect to Baalveer which should be removed because the actor's career isn't tied to this show. I tried removing redirect and adding valueable information about the actor but administrators or some top-level editors kept reverting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdullateefsherani (talk • contribs) 09:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• There was consensus to redirect Vansh Sayani to Baalveer at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Vansh Sayani in October. Your most recent version does not include any new sources which would contribute to notability. As two different editors have now reverted you when you tried to turn this back into an article, citing the AfD result, your best course of action would be to create Draft:Vansh Sayani and seek consensus to recreate the article. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • (Alternatively, if you think there is a better redirect target than the current one, propose it at Talk:Vansh Sayani. I cannot see a better option though.) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Josef Jelínek

A page to watch: on Saturday, Josef Jelínek was reported by some outlets to have died on Nov. 29, which turned out to be inaccurate.

There's an IP or two reverting the page to include his "death", so I assume a few others will too by accident. Might be worth having some eyes on for a little while. Nohomersryan (talk) 06:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The problem is we have a lot of sources say he died and so far we only have that one blog saying it was incorrect. Personally I'd still just remove the claims of death without mentioning it at all (i.e. not saying it was false) since a possibly out of date article is IMO far better than one which falsely reports someone died even if that falsehood did originate from RS. But not sure if I can be bothered defending this so I'll probably just let it be until we have better sourcing either way. Nil Einne (talk) 13:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The problem turned out to be that there are two Josefs Jelínek in football in close proximity of time and place, and the one who died wasn't the one who didn't die. Looks like that's been straightened out. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Christian Dorsey

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

So is your question best answered from policy at WP:BLP or at WP:AFD/WP:BEFORE? At first glance, it looks like a BLP concern because the article is a BLP. But my read of your post is that it's probably up to you to decide whether to walk through AfD. We can't/won't pre-AfD it here. This topic wasn't talk paged other than a notice about this thread. Maybe either WP:BEBOLD and AfD in good faith or clean up the article. JFHJr (㊟) 00:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

FYI your concerns look valid to me. It's also an unflattering WP:BLP1E about a controversy. I'll watch in case anyone chooses to move this discussion to AfD. JFHJr (㊟) 00:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback JFHJr - I kept going back and forth on how to proceed. I came to the page with hopes of improving it, but after reading it, I honestly debated whether it qualified for G10. I (mostly) rejected that and was in the process of nominating it for AFD, before I thought I would raise it here. I should have started on the article talk, but the creator is blocked and there aren't any active editors. So, I didn't anticipate any response there. I'll take a harder look at filling it out or pulling the trigger on AFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojo Hand (talk • contribs) 05:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

This is really a strange article. The lead does not even mention that he is a member of the Arlington County Board, and neither does the career section, which describes his previous job. There is no description of the elections he won, his opponents, his vote counts or the work he has done on the board. The "controversies" section gives undue weight to these financial matters and is overly detailed in comparison to the rest of the article. Cullen328 (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks like the "controversies" material was all added by this now host-blocked account. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328, I added a bit of RS-backed info and copy edited. The source doesn't offer details. @NatGertler did lots of cleanup before that. The body to which he was elected appears not to be notable itself and it took me a moment to find the subsection discussing it in part (ahem, @Mojo Hand). JFHJr (㊟) 02:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

JFHJr, I am pretty confident the Arlington County Board is notable. It is just that no one has gotten around to writing an article about it. Cullen328 (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the board itself is notable, but I doubt many members of the board are individually notable. When I first came across this article, it looked to me like a political "hit piece" involving minor controversies about a minor local politician. After looking though the history, it clearly didn't start out that way, as he wasn't even on the board when the article was started. However, I remain concerned that it essentially turned into a political attack page. I still doubt there would be a good argument for notability beyond the controversies, which strike me as routine reporting on local elections. Even the Washington Post is often considered a local paper for Northern Virginia local politics. It is a strange article that sits right at an uncomfortable intersection between notability and BLP.-Mojo Hand (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

16 Related Biography Pages

There is a simple issue with 16 related biography page titles on the Karmapa tulku lineage, the pages being the 1st Karmapa to the 16th Karmapa.

The naming convention followed by the 17th Karmapa himself is tulku number, tulku title, given name as in 8th Karmapa, Mikyo Dorje. Reliable scholars also follow this standard convention used in English language journals around the world (see numerous sources providing the burden of proof at Talk:Düsum Khyenpa, 1st Karmapa Lama, Page Move Request.

Since the Karmapa tulku lineage is a lineage of successively recognized incarnations of the previous spiritual leader, it is a living lineage of the same being, reborn again and again as a spiritual leader. The current Karmapa is seen as the 16th Karmapa and as the 15th Karmapa, and so on to the 1st Karmapa. Thus, their correct names and the standard naming convention are additionally important since they are related living persons.

The opposing camp has an unsupported opinion. Contrary to the Karmapa himself, they opine that they like the given name to proceed the title, and that they like the word 'Lama' added to the title - when it has never been included in the title. Why? No valid reason has been given, after almost 4 weeks of asking.

As the burden of proof has already been met in following naming conventions, and additionally met as a BLP, I think with your help we could actually send the personal opinions back to their respective sandbox. Metokpema (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems you've got a WP:MOS issue, whose forum is probably WP:MOSN. We do not regard past human bodily incarnations (dead persons) as still-living through the current incarnation, who is usually the only living person; no other lineage members are fit to discuss here at BLPN. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 22:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Edwina Bartholomew

In regards to: https://en.wikipedia.org/Edwina_Bartholomew Reference 10: In August 2021, Bartholomew received the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine. During an August 2021 segment on Sunrise, she reported on a study that showed "the vaccine is safe."

This bit of info is it really necessary to be quite so public on her public Misplaced Pages page. I find it offensive as I do not have a belief either way about vaccines that someone feels necessary to promote the anti-vax message by her current health situation.

Edwina is a good person, earns a honest living and contributes to society via main stream news. Please remove the reference to the Facebook video and the comment on her page I listed above.

Thanks Vidyagamerfromaus (talk) 09:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Removed. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Salah Choudhury

This BLP of a Bangladeshi journalist has recently been rewritten into an attack piece undermining the journalist's credibility and portraying him as some kind of criminal. I've already pointed out on the talk page that some of the sources used are partisan or don't fulfill the criteria for reliable sources. Note that the journalist in question has been the target of vituperative campaigns to vilify him both in this native country and here on Misplaced Pages. He has also been the target of physical assaults. This is a subject that demands utmost sensitivity with regard to BLP and NPOV issues and both principles have been trampled on here.Mohivela (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Taylor Lorenz

I would appreciate any other editors weighing in on Talk:Taylor Lorenz#The comment about Thompson murder, discussing whether or not to include the response by Lorenz to the killing of Brian Thompson. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Michael Lattke

Michael Stephen Lattke passed away. Birth name might have been Michael Stephan Lattke, though source for obit is here: 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonton Macoute (talk • contribs) 20:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done: The article was edited by Tonton Macoute to reflect this person is no longer living. Thanks for being bold, TM! JFHJr (㊟) 20:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Judy Singer

My biography, Judy Singer and in the page on Neurodiversity has constantly been subject to hostile edits. I cannot deduce from the editors whether they are my actual rivals in the field, (Botha M, Chapman R, Giwa Onaiwu M, Kapp SK, Stannard Ashley A, Walker N), or their agents, or perhaps unqualified self-appointed editors relying on social media gossip. Or worse, rapacious "news" hounds eager to break"scandals".

In particular, the articles gives huge recognition to an American Journalist Harvey Blume, who learned the concept of Neurodiversity from me, who had no understanding or experience of the Disability Rights Movement, who wrote about Neurodiversity once without citing me. Note that he was not required to cite me, being a freelance jobbing journalist. Nor did I complain at the time, because I had no idea that my idea would go "viral".

As an Australian female autistic, I find this doubly distressing as an example of both Northern Hemisphere Cultural Hegemony and Sexism I am immensely distressed by this.

I would like my biography removed until it is corrected based on verifiable original documents, and not social media gossip weaponised by my slanderous rivals.

It is distressing that the above mentioned rivals have been inserted into my biography.

I also give notice that definition given of Neurodiversity on your Neurodiversity page, is apparently edited by amateurs who do not understand the paradigm at all. I will attend to that later.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution