Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:28, 24 April 2020

• 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.

• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Alice S. Fisher

Comments are appreciated on whether a Senator’s opening statement from a Judiciary Committee hearing of Alice S. Fisher are appropriate to include in a nominee’s bio. Talk:Alice S. Fisher#Proposal to Delete Paragraph Using Only a Primary_Source JZ at LW (talk)

Shincheonji Church of Jesus: current alleged persecutions

Greetings

I wrote it to Oversight, who advised me to address it here instead (see their reply below).

Self-paste follows:

I may be overly sensitive here and inexperienced (see my edit and WP history) but I have just come across a danger of using a current event and a WP article as a basis for witch hunts, harm and more. I am using this tool for the first time and am typing it on a mobile early in the morning, so please excuse brevity and style.

The article is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Shincheonji_Church_of_Jesus

the presumed danger here: https://en.shincheonji.kr/bv_covid19Response_9607 and my, maybe naive, public musings about it on its Talk page, diff: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Shincheonji_Church_of_Jesus&diff=943849273&oldid=943847663

Please monitor it, lock it, or else tell me I am being paranoid here.

Best regards

Zezen, far away from Korea and without any COI

Oversight wrote: Unfortunately, the edits associated with your request cannot be suppressed under our policy <" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="" style="">https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Oversight>;. If you think this matter needs attention from administrators or editors, please visit the appropriate noticeboard (<" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="" style="">https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Noticeboards>;). Thank you for sharing your concerns and please contact us again if you have any in the future.

Sincerely, Primefac The English Misplaced Pages Oversight team

Yousef Al Otaiba

There is currently information on the Yousef Al Otaiba page that doesn't abide by WP:BLP guidelines, including inferences of wrongdoing that aren't directly supported by the sources and information about other people that is adding undue weight to the insinuations. I have been trying to improve the article for several months by using a more neutral tone and reorganizing to give proper weight to negative topics, but my edits have continually been wholesale reverted by another editor. I've tried to work with this editor, but received few responses until I attempted to make my proposed changes. We're at an impasse and I would appreciate others' thoughts on the situation. You can review our discussion on the Talk page. Quorum816 (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Yousef_Al_Otaiba#RfC_on_hacked_emails_section

Sorry, but I'm not really seeing what your complaint is. I looked at the talk page discussions and really can't figure out your reasoning. How are words like "double life" defamatory? If this is how the source described it, then that is how we should. Use of synonyms would be acceptable, but "partying with friends" has a completely different meaning. Also university bios are perfectly acceptable sources for certain kinds of info. Even other bios are acceptable, including autobiographies to a certain extent. Secondary sources are actually preferable to primary and tertiary (third party) sources. And so are notable opinions if properly attributed. In short, from the vagueness of the comments both here and there, I have no real clue what you see as the problem. Zaereth (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

My issue with this section, and the page in general, is that I've tried to edit it to better align with WP:BLP guidelines, but the edits have been reverted because of the size of the edit rather than the actual changes. If there is a disagreement with a certain part of the edit, others are more than welcome to go in and edit that part, but that doesn't mean the edit should be reverted entirely.

The discussion with Huldra has continually devolved into niggling over small phrases, like "double life", which I removed per WP:LABEL and WP:WEASEL, rather than discussing the larger issues on the page, including the irrelevant, and unrelated content that is giving undue weight (WP:UNDUE) to an event. Quorum816 (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, you see, that's all a fine generalization, but it still doesn't explain the problem. What you've written basically boils down to "another editor keeps reverting me". It doesn't tell me anything about the BLP issue, as you see it. I am trying to see what it is that you see as the BLP violation, so I'm asking that you explain it in detail from your point of view. From what I've seen, Huldra is having the same problem at the talk page. You say this is a BLP issue, but give no indication of how or why.

For example, "double life" is not a label. It is an action that someone does. The idiom is "leading a double life", which means a person is being this over here and that over there. For example, Superman leads a double life, both as Superman and as Clark Kent. If I have a wife in my home town, and secretly have another wife the next town over, then I would be out of my mind, but leading a double life. The idiom itself can be either good or bad, but it's not a label. An example of a label would be "gay", "straight", "republican", "democrat", "catholic", "muslim", "jerk", "saint", etc... These are things people are, not what they do.

Likewise, "double life" is not a weasel word. Weasel words are vague words of authority, meant to add credibility to statements. These tend to be words like "they say", "authorities indicate", "according to some", "scientists say", etc... For example, "Scientists say that global warming is a myth." The weasel words are used to lend credibility to the statement. It sounds good to the untrained ear, but what scientists? We would need to exchange that with a specific name. So that's why I say I'm not following your train of thought. If you could clarify, that may help.

This board is for BLP violations. If you think the problem is with the other editor, then WP:ANI would be the place to report it. If it's a simple content dispute, which is what it looks like, then you should use WP:Dispute resolution. Talk it out, and if that doesn't work, get a request for comments. But wherever you go, be specific. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I've attempted to get additional opinions via WP:RFC, but no one has responded, hence why I posted here, I was looking for other editors to go to the talk page and weigh in on the discussion. If you feel it makes more sense to discuss this on WP:Dispute resolution, I will go there. Thanks. Quorum816 (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, dispute resolution is actually a process that you do, not a place you can go. RFC is a part of the dispute resolution process.

See, this is part of the problem, and I am really trying to help you here, but I need you to help me. I think we have a huge communication problem here. The same problem exists at the talk page, and I'm sure at RFC as well, which is likely why no one replied. I'm replying here, because I really want to help you break down this barrier, so we can all understand each other. (And frankly, you're lucky that anyone replied at all.)

I've read the talk page discussions, but I still don't know what the problem is, so I'm asking you to explain it --clearly as you can-- here, so I can understand what you mean. My guess, however (no offense) is that the misunderstanding may be on your part more so than the rest of us, but if I can clear it up I would be happy to help. Zaereth (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the help. Here are the issues:

- WP:UNDUE: It’s 6 paragraphs long filled with excessive details about one instance of hacked emails. I.e. it includes all of the back-and-forth about hosting a Taliban Embassy in Abu Dhabi instead of just plainly stating the facts. It also veers far from the subject of the article in some cases, including when discussing Mohamed Fahmy.

- In some cases, the excessive details lead to guilt by association WP:BLPBALANCE: "observed the exploitation of trafficked girls in Abu Dhabi". This sentence insinuates that Otaiba was involved in human trafficking, but the source specifically states that he wasn't involved in the situation.

- Some of the extra details are sourced improperly: An opinion piece on the NYT, a blog/news outlet that isn’t credible/information isn’t verifiable (All Gov).

- Some of the emails that are detailed can only be found within an Intercept article. WP:PUBLICFIGURE notes that for something to be included, it must be able to be found in several, verifiable sources. I.e: According to The Intercept, one of Al Otaibas friends, Roman Paschal, expressed that he allegedly observed the exploitation of trafficked girls in Abu Dhabi.

- Finally (and I realize this isn’t directly related to BLP) the section is just confusing and includes typos and run-on sentences (contributing to the undue weight): “In other emails, he described how the Emiratis have had a more bad history with Saudi's than anyone else and has warred against them for 200 years over Wahhabism.”

Again, the edits I proposed did not try to hide any of this information, but presented it in a cleaner way that sticks to the facts. Quorum816 (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden sexual abuse allegations

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

These are being used to include them in Media blackout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) despite the lack of sources using the term. I've raised it at WP:RSN#Media blackout - what sources do we need to include something in this article? but it's also clearly a BLP issue. Doug Weller talk 05:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

This looks like WP:OR to me. Here are some sources where it's reported, but it's not in more weighty sources, therefore it's a media blackout according to... er... Rush Limbaugh? I don't know. Some of the other examples look like they have the same issue of Misplaced Pages-editorial interpretation of what constitutes a blackout. Guy (help!) 08:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Independent of that, the Joe Biden article is to be expected to become a honeypot for wild accusations now that he is the Democrat President candidate. For some unfathomable reason, people in that position have attracted fantastic stories depicting them as monsters or frauds in the last few decades. (It is probably just a coincidence.) But I guess all of you already know that and have the article on your watchlists. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, I know, right? It's almost as if there is a media bubble in which factual accuracy is irrelevant as long as a story supports your tribe or attacks the other one. Someone should write a book about it. Guy (help!) 14:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

←::@Hob Gadling: The allegations were mentioned in the Washington Post and New York Times after the above comments were made, and the allegations are now written into the Joe Biden Misplaced Pages page. So I guess NYT and WaPo are part of the vast right wing conspiracy from the last few decades? Or perhaps a more reasonable explanation could be that Misplaced Pages is biased by people who want to exploit the idea of a vast right wing conspiracy to ignore what they don't want to see, even credible sexual assault allegations. I wouldn't stop with twenty years ago! Go back and defend LBJ from the right wing conspiracy theories on the 1948 United States Senate election in Texas page! Or perhaps it's more likely that power corrupts all people every time. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I explicitly said "independent of that". But people just do not listen. Instead, they invent crazy stories about what they think I meant. Sigh. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Kiki Camarena

A host of high-quality academic sources discuss the possible or even probable role of the CIA in killing the DEA agent Kiki Camarena, back in the mid-1980s. There's an academic review that summarizes other academic and journalistic writings on the topic, titled "Spies, Assassins, and Statesmen in Mexico’s Cold War", published in Revista Europea de Estudios Latinoamericanos y del Caribe (Amsterdam Iss. 103, Jan/Jun 2017, pp.143-155) and written by professor Wil Pansters, head of the Department of Social Sciences of University College Utrecht:

In May 1984, the influential journalist and columnist Manuel Buendía was brutally shot in the back in the centre of Mexico City... In a painstaking investigative process, the authors along with other journalists in Mexico and the U.S. became convinced that the Buendía and Camarena killings were linked, and much of the book is about the Bartleys trying to put the different pieces together. The most important element is that the interests behind both killings go beyond criminal interests and reach into the political domains on both sides of the border. In the mid-1980s, Mexico's one party regime confronted serious challenges, while the Reagan administration was deeply involved in a Cold War battle against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Buendía and DEA agent Camarena had each separately discovered that the CIA was running a dark network, which involved Mexican and Central American drug traffickers that imported cocaine into the U.S. and facilitated the movement of arms to the contras. Nicaraguan contras were trained at a Mexican ranch owned by one of the country's most notorious capos. CIA pilots flew many of the planes. The DFS functioned as the go-between, and hence involved the Ministry of the Interior. The Mexican army provided the necessary protection, and got a bite of the pie. Since the overriding concern of the CIA was the anti-Sandinista project, it trumped the DEA's task of combating drug trafficking, and covertly incorporated (or pressured) parts of the Mexican state into subservience. Buendía had found out about the CIA-contra-drugsDFS connection, which seriously questioned Mexican sovereignty, while Camarena learned that the CIA had infiltrated the DEA and sabotaged its work so as to interfere with the clandestine contra-DFS-traffickers network. They knew too much and were eliminated on the orders of the U.S. with Mexican complicity. Later official investigations attempted to limit criminal responsibility to the dirty connections between drug traffickers, secret agents and corrupt police, leaving out the (geo)political ramifications.

The review quotes from "Eclipse of the Assassins. The CIA, Imperial Politics, and the Slaying of Mexican Journalist Manuel Buendía," by Russell H. Bartley and Sylvia Erickson Bartley, University of Wisconsin Press, 2015. That book concludes,

The preponderance of evidence... persuades us beyond any reasonable doubt that Manuel Buendía was slain on behalf of the United States because of what he had learned about U.S.-Mexico collusion with narcotics traffickers, international arms dealers, and other governments in support of Reagan administration efforts to overthrow the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. Camarena was... killed for the same reason.

When I tried to add this information to Camarena's biography, over a year ago now, the content was reverted with promise of discussion. No discussion has occurred. Help would be appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Just put it back in. This isn't a BLP issue -- he is long dead... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: it's done, here . -Darouet (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Still unresolved

The content is again being removed , and without any explanation other than "fringe sources." But the sources being removed are academic and also from the mainstream press, and the Justice Department has reportedly opened an investigation into the issue. Jaydoggmarco can you please comment? -Darouet (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Turley Richards

• Turley Richards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Good evening,

I wrote to you July 16, 2019 regarding violations of this Misplaced Pages page. You acted very quickly and removed the violations and I thank you for that.

I am sorry to say, that the young woman has again entered the same information, albeit with nominal different wording. I am hoping that this is enough to take further action to ensure that this person is not allowed to add this defamatory information in the future.

I am copying and pasting my original request from last July. Please help!

BLP message board

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).I believe that information posted to this page is in violation of the guidelines for Biographies of Living Persons. I have attempted twice to delete the information, and my edit has been reversed, https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Turley_Richards&action=history. Please keep in mind, I am a novice editor to Misplaced Pages, however as an award winning writer, am willing to receive feedback on content and style. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this serious matter.

1. "Avoid gossip and feedback loops" As Richards was never charged and/or arrested, and the country prosecutor declined to pursue the complaint, inclusion of this television expose, although factual in it's report of the original complaint, is not relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. The event occurred 16 years and 8 months ago, and is not relevant (by Richards' statement) to how he conducts business today.

2. "Public figures" the following is copied and pasted from this section: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." As there exists only one third party source, the content about this television expose should be deleted. In addition, Richards' denial of the allegations is not reported.

3. People who are notable, but not well known. This rule states the following: "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures." Due to personal relationship with the subject (wife,) I have knowledge that this article has greatly adversely affected Richards' reputation and livelihood.

4. People accused of a crime. Please refer to the following: " For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction." See comments regarding #1 above. This point is also relevant to "false light" https://en.wikipedia.org/False_light

5. Images. In the linked news expose, Richards states he does not authorize his image to be captured and used by the news station. Since Richards is blind, and could not see the camera, inclusion of this link violates Misplaced Pages's rule for situations where the subject did not expect to be photographed.

In closing, please be aware that Richards is a 78 year old, blind man, who until 9 months ago was revered in his community.  This article has virtually ended his career, even though he has coached hundreds of other individuals over 28 years with no incident reported.  It is of note, that the story was originally added to his Misplaced Pages page by a parent of an individual referenced in the news expose.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons></ref>

Disruption at Douglas V. Mastriano

• Douglas V. Mastriano (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• DrWillow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See history. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

~ DrWillow Continues to remove content that maintains a NPOV, is verifiable and is not original research while adding sections that can be considered original research and does not maintain a NPOV.

The user seems to have some conflict of interest in the page as they continue to reference a "Adams county opposition" in their edits.

Examples of removed content include section about controversial statements made on the Senator's Official Campaign Facebook page that have been covered in the news.

Section Follows:

"Mastriano has been the subject of a number of controversies over his statements made on his campaign's official Facebook page. On May 7, 2019, Mastriano was accused of spreading Islamophobia after sharing several posts on his campaign Facebook page targeting Muslims. Mastriano has never retracted the controversial posts or addressed their content."

Sections removed also include local officials concerns about Mastriano.

~ DrWillow continues to add content that does not maintain a NPOV and is unsourced.

174.55.102.53 (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The content of the page has been trimmed down here by User:Deacon Vorbis. Use the talk page if you think that any of the removed content ought be restored. User:MelanieN has applied semiprotection through 18 April, and has left a vandalism warning here for User:DrWillow. Let any administrator know if problems continue. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

There have been additional instances of a new account attempting to delete the entire cited controversy section. Other edits have been made to make the section more readable and better flesh out the section which do not seem to be disruptive. 174.55.102.53 (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Matt Gurtler

I am concerned this page has been edited in an effort to smear Mr. Gurtler. A lot of the information about his early life has been deleted and replaced with a arrest charge that has been dismissed below I have put edits that existed on a previous version of the article. Also it exhaustedly goes into a random event, it is one of many arguments that have taken place on the house floor and I am not sure why it would be included other than to try to paint Mr. Gurtler in a negative light. If the incident must stay, I have added here the full quotes from the citations already cited, which paint an entirely different picture than what is currently written. Towards the end of the article they purposely miss name a well-known bill to try to make it sound negative. I don't know how to correctly edit the article and I'd appreciate any help.

Suggested edits to early life and education:

Gurtler graduated from the University of North Georgia with a bachelor of Arts in 2012 with his B.A. in History and a minor in Sociology. During his graduate studies Gurtler also participated in R.O.T.C for 2 years at UNG while living in barracks on campus. UNG is one of only a handful of senior military colleges in the United States. In his college years is where his interest in politics first began. During his first run for office in 2016. He ran on the Republican ticket and labeled himself a "Limited Government Conservative Republican." (arrest charge was dismissed so it is unnecessary to include in the early life portion of the article)

Suggested edits to political career: edit 1: (In regards to the budget vote)

In a statement right after the budget vote, Gurtler said, "Growing the size of government and harming the free market goes against the values and principles I believe in and was one of the reasons I was elected. While I agree that there are times for compromise, I believe someone had to take a stand. That is why I voted NO." (this is important to add because it is a primary quote about one of the main topics of the article)

edit 2: (In regards to the incident with Mr. Riley)

Days after Rep. Gurtler told the press he was threatened by Governor Deal's Chief of Staff, Chris Riley, to vote YES to approve the budget a dismissed arrest charge was aired on WSBTV. In a written statement regarding the incident Rep. Gurtler stated: "This incident occurred four years ago," Gurtler said, "After requesting a jury trial to clear my name, the district attorney dismissed the charge, (If information about the arrest charge is left up, I especially think this quote should be included.)

edit 3: (Also in regards to the incident with Mr. Riley)

Rep. Gurtler further criticized the appointees actions to an elected official stating; "I am appalled by Mr. Riley's actions and bullying tacticsof an elected official," he said. "His actions were wrong and unethical, and this type of behavior goes against our system of separation of powers..." Gurtler also stated Mr. Riley's actions were also directed at his district; "Not only did Mr. Riley threaten me, he threatened my entire constituency, some 50,000 plus Georgians in the 8th District," said. Gurtler (This should absolutely be included because it gives the entire quote of a quote mentioned in the article) State Sen. Josh Mckoon, a Columbus Republican who has also infuriated Deal's office, defended Gurtler in the state senate on Tuesday. He said Gurtler was victim to a "sick and twisted" culture at the Capitol.

edit 4: (Constitutional Carry)

Gurtler has gained much attention following his re-election bid after he pre-filed HB-2, otherwise known as Constitutional Carry. With the backing of Governor Brian Kemp. Rep. Gurtler believes in HB-2 and Gov Kemp's backing will help; I'm just really thrilled that we actually have a governor that has gotten behind constitutional carry," said state Rep. Matt Gurtler (R-Tiger) who introduced the bill to eliminate the gun permit requirement. "I don't believe it is radical at all. I think it's conservative. It's constitutional," Gurtler told 11Alive News. "In the constitution it says (the right to keep and bear arms)'shall not be infringed.' We believe that's a no-compromise statement." (This is important because it addresses a bill written about in the article by its real name and adds a direct quote about the subject."

References

1. https://ajc.com/blog/politics/gop-lawmaker-says-top-aide-nathan-deal-threatened-him/cs6GieeA8kTvN9iiJavnvk
2. https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/new-lawmaker-settled-2013-arrest-last-month/xtadt2ltAiANnKWjGXdPyL
3. https://ajc.com/blog/politics/gop-lawmaker-says-top-aide-nathan-deal-threatened-him/cs6GieeA8kTvN9iiJavnvk
4. https://www.11alive.com/article/news/ga-bill-would-end-need-for-gun-carry-permit

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasie19 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh my gosh. No offense, but that looks just awful. First, it's way too newspaperish. This is an encyclopedia, so what we need is just a summary; the gist of it. The style in an encyclopedia is also very different from a newspaper, and this reads like a newspaper. Second, blogs are not reliable sources. Third, what the hell is HB-2? Doesn't the original read better, where we leave out the political jargon and just say what it is? Fourth, the grammar is bad. Some sentences run on into each other, so you can't tell where one ends and the other begins. Capitalizations and syntax errors everywhere. Fifth, in many places it's too closely paraphrased to the sources. Sixth, there is some OR going on here, such as doing your own reporting from blogs as your sources.

Look, we don't need a bunch of quotes. It doesn't matter to the rest of the world about trivial info like what the official name of a bill is. Misplaced Pages is really not here to detail every little dispute between politicians, or to try and carry on these conflicts via the web. We just need a summary of this person's entire life and career, jammed into a nutshell.

Now I agree, the article needs work, because as is much of it is still too newspaperish. The arrest is one example of totally trivial info that just needs to go, not be added on to. What does it tell us about the subject. Nothing. It boils down to "he was arrested, never charged, and nothing happened". Nothing. Same with much of the little beefs between colleagues. What we need to know are things about him. What are his views? What are his accomplishments and failures? Who is this person? Those are the things we need to answer in order to make this a decent article. All these little details are beside the point. I'd suggest looking at how articles about other politicians are written and presented, such as Obama, Reagan, or Nixon. You want to try to go for the same style and format, not like sources. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree with you about the arrest charge. I've expounded further on the article talk page. Note that the OP's summary seems to be misleading. While it's true the charge was dropped, this was only after Gurtler completed pre-trial diversion (I suspect community service of some sort) and paid a costs/fee/fine/whatever. The relevance of Gurtler requesting a jury trial is unclear, Gurtler seems to be the only who who keeps bringing that up and while I have no idea about the specifics in Georgia or whatever, AFAIK diversion is often offered based more on whether it seems to be a good fit for the person and the charge than for any fuss the person makes. Also AFAICT, Gurtler was charged. Charges are generally part of diversion since the idea is generally that the charges will be dropped or at least reduced if the person completes diversion, and from what I can tell, even Gurtler agrees he was charged. Otherwise he couldn't have got the prosecutor to drop the charges after he "requesting a jury trial" and completed diversion. Nil Einne (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm just going by the info as written in the article. It doesn't say anything about all of that. It basically says nothing about this person. If we can expand on it in a way that gives us some insight into him, then by all means. Zaereth (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I might tell you, since you're obviously new, that using multiple accounts will get you blocked, so you may want to pick one and ditch the others. Please read our policies, in particular WP:Reliable sources, WP:Verifiability, WP:No original research, WP:Conflict of interest, and perhaps throw in WP:Manual of style. And sign your comments by typing four tildes (~) at the end, so people can tell who is talking. I also hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 01:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

And WP:BLP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden#Allegations of...sexual assault

Joe_Biden#Allegations_of_inappropriate_physical_contact_and_sexual_assault Contentious, poorly sourced material has been restored into the article. RS report that Tara Reade filed a police report alleging sexual assault in 1993 which Reade stated was about Biden. Most RS do not state that the "police report" does not name him.  The "police report" is confidential; it is the redacted "public incident report" which does not name Biden.  It is only the AP story which contradicts the other RS.  The article now again states that Joe Biden was not named in the "police report".  Please revert this edit until we finish the discussion at Talk:Joe_Biden#Why_the_police_report?. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Kolya Butternut that this is a BLP issue, and it's unfortunate that User:SPECIFICO wants to allow misleading text to remain while we have a lengthy debate which is unlikely to be resolved soon. if SPECIFICO had remove the whole thing, that would be one thing. But allowing the misleading text to remain, while we discuss whether to remove the whole thing is simply not on. Nil Einne (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I've launched an RfC to hopefully clear things up.  petrarchan47คุก 19:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, the RfC does not discuss the text, so this will still need to be addressed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The text that Kolya Butternut has repeatedly removed -- calling it "poorly sourced" is verified by Associated Press, New York Times, and Washington Post (all familiar to those editing this article) among other references. SPECIFICO talk 12:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The AP is actually contradicted by the New York Times and WaPo.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Please specify the contradiction. SPECIFICO talk 14:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:ONUS.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Our BLP policies apply to all persons, both Ms Reade and Mr. Biden. We report what the multitude of reliable sources report. Quite frankly, there should have been a consensus about what to what text to use concerning the allegations before anything was added. The RFC "Should Tara Reade's sexual assault allegation against Biden be included in the article?". closed with "Rather than focusing on whether the allegations should be discussed in the article, the discussion should now shift towards how the allegations should be discussed in the article. Relevant policies include the biographies of living persons policy, especially the subsection on public figures. In my view, there is no consensus yet within this discussion over any specific wording to be included in the article." Instead we have (predictably) a small handful of editors edit warring over their preferred text. Some of us are trying to work toward a consensus on the issue and IMO this edit warring is disruptive to the process. CBS527 03:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

That's somewhat of a mischaracterization.  I'm removing text which we had no consensus to add, not changing it to my preferred version.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

If you want to completely remove any mention of the allegation go ahead. I won't oppose although you may find strong opposition from other sources. The fact we don't have agreement on what to say doesn't mean it's acceptable to say something which is very likely misleading in the interim while we hash it out. I will say it even strong this time. Anyone who thinks it's acceptable to say something misleading while we hash out what to say, should not go anywhere near BLPs. Nil Einne (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Nil Einne, what statement do you think is misleading? And do you think it is unverified by the sources or that it is SYNTH or otherwise a misleadin use of verified content? K.B. declined to answer, above. I think we can sort this out if we are specific about the content and sources. FYI, I have favored removal of the entire mention of the police filing, since I think that the essential content is the allegation itself and not a report that can have no official standing, per Reade's acknowledgement it is outside the statute of limitiations. SPECIFICO talk 19:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, if you want something in the article you have to contribute to the discussion.  What you're doing, asking other people to do all the work, feels like sealioning.  The WP:ONUS is on you.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

First I should apologise since I got a bit carried away in my annoyance. In my earlier comments, I said "most likely misleading" or similar to indicate there was uncertainty, but in some of my later ones I did not include that important qualifier.

Anyway I am referring to this statement which you re-added . It claimed Biden was not named in the police report. The problem with this text is, as discussion on the article talk page showed, this was very likely misleading. Some sources did appear to make this claim. However other sources only said he was not named in the public release. They didn't comment on whether he was named in the police report. At least one source IIRC the Washington Post, specifically said he was not named in the short public information release, and they were trying to obtain the entire police report. (To be clear, I'm putting aside Business Insider since I've always found it a questionable source. I never even read it.)

And here's a key thing, no source specifically said they had obtained the whole police report. The AP did say "she filed a report" ..... "a copy of which AP obtained", which under normal circumstances may lead one to believe they obtained the whole police report. However given that most under sources simply obtained the public release, there was good reason to doubt whether they actually obtained the whole police report, and they didn't specifically say they obtained the police report in it's entirety. And they gave no real indication how they were special over other sources which only obtained the public release e.g. how they obtained it.

There was therefore a very good chance that those sources like the AP which seem to imply that Biden was not named in the police report had simply chosen a poor wording, and did not know anything more than those sources which simply said he was not named in the public release. In cases like this when there is uncertainty as sources potentially contradict each other, we need to be conservative. Adding the potentially misleading claim that Biden was not named in the police report unqualified, was not acceptable. It is sad that attempts were made by you to keep it in. Now we more or less have confirmation from NPR that Biden was indeed named in the police report, so the claim was indeed misleading and hopefully you can see the harm of your approach.

We cannot simply say "it's the sources fault" when we already knew sources were contradicting each other, and the sources making the claim gave no real reason to think they were correct over the other sources. In fact there was good reason to think they had simply chosen a terrible wording.

While we sometimes say "sources differ" or something of that sort and offer both versions, I think most people would agree that was wholly unnecessary here when the simple solution was to remove the text which was likely misleading and wait and see if there was further clarification. I mean even if it was really true that Biden was not named in the police report, would it really matter that we didn't mention this for a few days or weeks? Frankly, while him not being named in the police report seems to be somewhat more significant than the fact that Biden is named, I'm unsure it's significant enough to mention even if it were true unless it becomes a big deal in continued media reports.

Especially on the main article of Biden, as things stand I'm unsure whether we need much detail. And you seem to agree given your opposition to the section point blank. So your insistence on keeping text which was likely misleading is even more perplexing to me.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. I was surprised, because I've always seen you be very substantive and an excellent communciator. This whole thing is frustrating because there really, is at this time, missing information that's led editorial OR to fill in the blanks. As you know, I supported removing the whole bit until we have a complete picture of it. To reply directly to your comment: It would have been better if I'd removed the mention of the report, but at the time I thought that would be inflammatory. But to err on the side of BLP caution does support the "Biden not in the report" verified by at least one RS, as opposed to erring on the side of giving the impression -- the truth of which is currently unknown -- that he was accused of a crime in the official document. I think there's a valid argument that key BLP detail in the police report text fails WP:V. At this point, I think WP:ONUS is out the window. That's not the issue for this particular concern.

Most unfortunately, however, focusing on the police report is a distraction from Reade's serious allegation and concerns, and I can't understand why such a distraction would persist on the article page. SPECIFICO talk 17:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

NPR has confirmed that the police report does indeed name Biden: "NPR obtained confirmation of the police report from a law enforcement source. A record of the report names Biden. NPR has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the full report." Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Wrong - A "record of the report names Biden" is not the same as "the report names Biden". - MrX 🖋 18:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

What record of the report is the obvious question. Are we going to nit pick the minutest details? Our job is not to censor material that clearly belongs in a WP article when it meets our standards of WP:V and WP:PUBLICFIGURE. My concern is that doing otherwise is treading into OR territory, because it appears that we are looking to find "truth" to justify censorship. Our job is simply to SAY WHAT RS SAY - state what they say using in-text attribution. It is unambiguous and simple enough that my grandchildren were able to deciphere it, and the youngest is 9 yo. _Talk 📧 22:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this would be a detail we would want to get right and not just write our own version of the facts. I'm glad I was able to point out that two editors were mistaken about what the source wrote (SAY WHAT RS SAY), and that we were able to correct it (WP:V) twice. Of course, no one tried to censor anything, so I'm not sure how that even entered into the discussion. - MrX 🖋 00:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn't see you giving a quote from NPR that we should use, just pointing out how what we had was wrong. The difference is that it felt like you were preventing the information from entering the article until we got it right, rather then helping. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have jumped the shark. It's simply dumb to suggest a record of the report named Biden but that the report did not. We now have good evidence that those who thought it was acceptable to edit war to preserve the claim that the police report did not name Biden harmed Misplaced Pages by doing so. As the prior discussion at the time strongly suggested, and we now have confirmation from NPR, it almost definite that the police report named Biden and it was simply the public information release that did not name Biden. It seems likely more confirmation will emerge over time that the police report did indeed name Biden. Note that AFAICT, no one is suggesting we add to the article that the report named Biden. I'm not sure if it's ever needed, since it's a fairly pointless diversion which says more about the media (and Misplaced Pages) than anything else. It really has nothing to do with the complaint or Biden. Nil Einne (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

A record of the report does indeed name Biden. The record names the complainant and the suspect. Biden is the suspect and is named in the record and report. They are looking to get the full report through FOIA rather than just the fields. But the record names Biden as does the report. The record will also list what statute was allegedly violated. ConstantPlancks (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Paul H. O'Neill

• Paul H. O'Neill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please review and remove the first paragraph of the "Bush Administration" section. There are numerous misspellings and nonsensical sentences, and an obvious bias toward belittling O'Neill and elevating George W. Bush.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1a0c:44c4:69c9:d777:380d:2ad7 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Martin Tripp

Martin Tripp is a WP:BLP1E: accused of wrongdoing but has apparently not been convicted in a court nor criminally charged (according to a cited WP:BLPPRIMARY).

The accusations are properly sourced (except maybe for the WP:BLPPRIMARY) and as such the whole article has only the effect of being defamatory for this living person.

As such, it should be discussed if the article should be deleted, or with what content it can be kept. Lklundin (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete it. Tripp isn't notable other than being a victim of Tesla. The company or Tesla fanatics have an ugly history of attacking those they see as enemies. This article was created by a brand new account and seems to only tell the Tesla side of the story. Not a good sign. Springee (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I've added a deletion nomination to the page. Springee (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

BLP and comments on various talk pages

I'm opening this discussion as I want to raise the question. As part of their argument of a position, JzG added a comment about people who would be covered by BLP. Elizium23, removed the BLP references]. Were they correct in doing so? Both are experienced editors so I figured it was worth asking. My feeling is this was a BLP violation (though I suspect evidence to support the claims is not hard to find). Are comments such as the ones removed BLP issues? Springee (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

BLPTALK allows for the inclusion of names and discussion of issues that would otherwise NOT be appropriate on mainspace, for purposes of article improvement. So the removal seems against the spirit of BLPTALK (eg JzG adding them was fine as part of the discourse of trying to discuss the NPOV aspects). Obviously, this is within certain reason. BLPTALK doesn't give me the talk to level unsourced accusations against a BLP willy nilly. It should be based on what sources might say and how we're including those sources. --Masem (t) 23:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Masem, what if I want to drag names into a conversation just to slander 'em like crazy (so to speak), and then edit-war to keep them there. Elizium23 (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The names JzG includes are very much public figures, and very much figures that there's no question where they sit on various leanings (in at least, how we will treat them on WP). While it's probably not good behavior in the long run to keep equating "crazies" to these two specific people, this is no different from how people regularly jest/insult/demean Trump/Boris Johnson and numerous other people on a routine basis, as long as they are public figures. It would be wise to try to avoid them but we can't admin-action those. On the other hand, bringing up a random non-public figure for such purposes would be against BLPTALK. --Masem (t) 23:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Short of publishing direct factual falsehoods that defame, it's virtually impossible to libel a figure as public as POTUS. Referring to someone of that lofty a public stature as crazy (for example) could never be libelous. Saying falsely they had been incarcerated in a mental hospital would be. John from Idegon (talk) 04:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Calling Dinesh d'Souza "genuinely insane" may be a direct factual falsehood, I see that JzG told loupgarous that the basis was "reliable sources" but wasn't clear what the source is for Dinesh d'Souza. BLPTALK does not appear to say that is okay, I do not see how calling him insane could improve the Dinesh d'Souza article or help the discussion whether to call someone X or far-X. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Template:Infobox officeholder has a residence field

I thought we didn't include specific details about where people live in BLPs. See Firhad Hakim as an example. Doug Weller talk 17:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

A residence field of some sort is not-utterly-unreasonable, as it reflects whether the politician actually lives in their constituency, or where a national politician hails from. But it should be at the borough level at most, not used for a street address, as in your example. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Isn't it often unclear where they actually reside? Most MPs have a residence in the London, one in the provinces and one in their constituency, and might spend most of their time somewhere else. TFD (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Anjana Om Kashyap

https://en.wikipedia.org/Anjana_Om_Kashyap

Plenty of vandalism on this page

Boycott against Xiao Zhan Incident

The article uses unverified rumors as a sources of information which violates the biographies of living persons policies, specifically the Neutral Point of View section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dadadr (talk • contribs)

All sources that are being claimed to be invalid in what's being removed are valid RSes for us, and there's no sources presented to challenge the validity of their claims. Continued removal is disruptive. (However, I don't understand why this is a separate article from the main Xiao Zhan page, there's no size issue here... --Masem (t) 23:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Pratiksha Apurv

This page contains many highly subjective paragraphs and fails to keep a neutral point of view. Additionally it provides many unsourced statements and claims seeming to be the result of original research. Additionally this contains much self promotion reading as an advertisement.

Got the worst of it out, and most of what is there is now supported by cites. Some of it was already in the references, they just had not been used very well. Curdle (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Max Baer Jr

The article cites Filmography, List of Credits, 1982, The Circle Family, unknown role, Television Movie. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0286546/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 states that Max Baer Jr. played the part of Hearst Circle.

Kylie Minogue

It appears that editors are constantly readding Kylie Minogue's DOB from a completely unreliable source - Hello Magazine. It's not clear also why they even need to note down her full date of birth. I am concerned that we are violating BLP quite egregiously here. Getting a second opinion in the appropriate area to do so. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 06:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Her birthdate is well and truly in the public domain, as can be verified by impeccable sources (Billboard, BBC News, Newsweek, Metro, the joint exhibition run by the Manchester Art Gallery and the Melbourne Arts Centre, The Telegraph, and of course Kylie Minogue herself, and that's just from the first page of Google results on Kylie Minogue birthday). There's no possible way this isn't widely published by reliable sources, and as such WP:DOB doesn't apply. ‑ Iridescent 06:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:Kylie_Minogue#DOB_unwise. Chris is out on a limb here. If the sourcing is OK, it is OK to include it.--♦IanMacM♦ 06:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The sourcing was not OK. If the consensus here is that the information is widely known in reliable sources, then I’ll bow to the consensus. But the sources provided have so far been dreadful, you admit it yourself on the talk page. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 07:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I've just given you six sources that are impeccable by Misplaced Pages's standards, and those are literally from just the first page of a Google search; this is one of the most famous people in the world we're talking about here, and I could probably find a hundred reliable sources with minimal effort. You can't just dismiss every news organisation in the world as "dreadful". I really don't get what point you're trying to prove here, but I strongly recommend you read WP:DOB which doesn't say what you appear to think it says. ‑ Iridescent 07:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Given I'm deeply uncomfortable violating someone's privacy by revealing their full DOB, are you ordering me to add those sources you've provided myself? is there any reason you haven't added them? Not sure what point you are making here. Or are you saying that you believe that because other reliable sources are available it's ok to only quote unreliable ones? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 09:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh hold on, I think you misunderstood me. I don't have an issue with your sources. I was saying the existing source was unacceptable. I have already said I will bow to consensus, which is why I took this here to the BLP noticeboard for a second opinion. I, personally, refuse to participate in an edit that puts in the full DOB, but won't oppose a decent source on someone who is sufficiently in the public spotlight. - - Chris.sherlock (talk) 09:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a rerun of Jim Hawkins (radio presenter), where the full DOB was removed after Hawkins himself objected. Kylie Minogue is a hugely famous pop star and little would be achived by removing the full DOB.--♦IanMacM♦ 07:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I remove uncited DOB:s myself if I notice them, but with sources like I don't see a problem. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Just a side comment, I wouldn't describe Metro as an unimpeccable source. Their video game reporting is good (or at least used to be), but I wouldn't want to use that on its own for anything BLP related. Obviously not the case here though. Scribolt (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Neither is Newsweek, according to WP:RSP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

It's only unreliable for celebrities born after 2013 ;-) Scribolt (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

So to clear the air, IMO it is a violation of WP:DOB to remove a reliable source for the person’s DOB and keep only an unreliable source. Editors should take care not to do this. Does anyone disagree with this observation? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The intent of the BLP rule is to protect a person's right to control their own personal and private information, but we can't force that control upon them. It's acceptable when the full date is so widely published that we can reasonably infer the subject does not object to its publication. (If they did, then one would expect them to have had the sources redact that info themselves, which most reliable sources will upon request.) Here, it has been demonstrated that the date has indeed been widely published. While I would argue that the most reliable source should be used in all cases where those sources provide adequate info, it seems at this point to be a distinction without a difference. Does it change the end result? Zaereth (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It does, it encourages others to rely on unreliable sources, brings us into disrepute, violates the quite strict BLP, and makes a mockery of WP:RS. It actually always matters, but especially so for articles about living people.

It also matters because anyone who comes along and sees it, under WP:BLPREMOVE must remove the source. Most wont go digging through the history to find that previous, reliable sources were provided, which is exactly what happened here. I almost (almost!) consider removing reliable sources and leaving unreliable sources vandalism, but I acknowledge that sometimes incompetence trumps maliciousness. I certainly didn’t enjoy being taken to WP:AN/I because I didn’t notice another editor just removed the reliable sources because of sheer bloody-mindedness. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The thing is, no source is reliable for all types of information. For example, a book on auto mechanics is likely perfectly reliable for info on engines and transmissions, but would be unreliable for, say, info on atomic physics, and visa versa. If all sources agree on the date, then one can easily infer that they must all be reliable for that particular information. As such, it doesn't really seem like a violation of BLP, but something to work out on the talk page. Now if the source in question is full of a bunch of unreliable info that would only serve to mislead the readers, then I would worry a little more, but just going by what I've read here it doesn't seem like something to lose sleep over. Although, since they all agree, it seems an obvious solution just to add one or two more sources, although I wouldn't go past three in total for a single line. Zaereth (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Arundhati Roy

An editor keeps re-adding the same BLP violations to the lead as seen in the following: diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4.

I tried explaining to them what it is they are doing wrong but they have made no attempts to discuss the subject instead become antagonistic (accused me of being communist?) and kept on re-inserting the same lines. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Update since then: I added a warning template on their page in diffA, which prompted them to comment on my talk page in diffB (where there is a ongoing discussion) and to re-insert the same but modified addition on the article in diff5 albeit not in the lead this time and in a new section. I tried to preserve the contents of the addition while removing original research in diffC but they reverted it in diff6. At this point, it has gotten quite edit war-ish and I do not intend to continue. I am requesting additional eyes on the topic which would be very helpful for resolution. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/Devra_Davis

This article has a host of defects and really should be removed until they are corrected. Major issues 1. Puffery: "first of its kind in the world"; "major media outlets"; "cutting-edge studies" 2. Many vague and unsubstantiated claims; examples: "has held a number of posts at universities around the world" - no names and no evidence. "a founder of occupational medicine in 1988" - no reference. "She also has advised Green America, Environmental Working Group, the Green Guide, and Healthy Child—non-profit organizations that promote environmental health." - no reference. 3. Multiple (about a dozen) cases of using the subjects' CV as a source. This is not an academic reference - it's essentially "original research" and it's quite likely that the subject and/or close associates of the subject wrote much of this material.

Welp, I just took a ride on the Wonkatania through the sources: 1 part staff bios, 1 part academic blogs critical of her work, and 1 part book reviews/sellers, with a smattering of local TV news coverage. What's interesting to me is that, buried in all of the appointments, awards, accolades, etc...this person is really (probably) only mostly notable for her borderline fringe theories about cell-phone radiation and cancer conspiracies. Ditch ∝ 01:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Barbara Bollier NPOV discussion

I'm posting to request some eyes on the Brabara Bollier article and the related Susan Wagle article. I'm concerned that some recently added material in both articles fails DUE and IMPARTIAL ], ]. The talk page discussions have stalled so I thought additional eyes and guidance would be helpful. Thanks! Springee (talk) 01:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I would agree that most of those additions is not due. The Medicaid expansion information for Bollier looks more relevant, but I think it would need to be revised if included. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm watchlisting both. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Pinging: Springee, Wallyfromdilbert, Muboshgu, Missvain.
Springee asked to me to chime in after I reviewed Paul V. Malloy for the New Pages Patrol. All these discussions have been caused by the work of User:Activist. This user was also confronted by Missvain in an Admin role at the talk page for Don Young. I would like to stay out of the ongoing arguments between Springee and Activist.
Nonetheless, my impression is that Activist is properly citing all additions to these articles from reliable sources, but the material is written in a conspiratorial way with loaded word choice. All of Activist's bad news about the dark sides of these politicians can be verified, but I see reasons for concern about the way it is all presented. This has resulted in articles that are almost entirely about allegations of misconduct with very little else about these politicians. This is absolutely a problem under WP:UNDUE, leading to articles that are leaning away from Misplaced Pages's crucial WP:NPOV. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I've got a substantial amount of obligations that greatly constrain the time that I can devote to Misplaced Pages. I'd much rather edit that argue, which latter seems unproductive. I've also been awake for 30 hours or so and given that I don't even drink coffee or tea, I sorely need to get to zzz's. However, I think the analysis here is the forest is being obscured by the trees. I'll respond to all this this evening. Thanks to those of you who have patience. Activist (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Anthony William

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

This entire article is written to undermine the work of its subject. Almost all data included is intended to discredit the subject, and the tone is contentious from beginning to end. It is not objectively factual, neutral, or helpful to either supporters of the subject or those who disagree with his claims and his work. It is not balanced. I request a review and edit of this article so that it is more in line with the encyclopedic tone that Misplaced Pages is known for - otherwise, this article just feels like a somewhat veiled but poorly disguised attempt to smear its subject, which I do not expect to find on Misplaced Pages. Thank you.

I think a thorough parsing of the sources could result in the length and breadth of this article being significantly reduced. However, if what you mean by "balanced" is 50/50 content given to "supporters of the subject" and "those who disagree," then I don't think that's going to happen, because just a cursory look at freely available independent sources shows that most tend to fall on the critical side, so it would be expected that information would be more prevalent in the article. Ditch ∝ 03:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Joe Biden's mental health.

David Olshanetsky

David Olshanetsky Sources do not have any information relevant to what is written. Everything is subjective. Important claims such as "he has been shown by Tumblr as the most popular male account in Europe, and fifth most popular account globall." have no source and no year, so there is no verifiability to the claim. Claims to have collabed with major companies but they dont provide any links to them and nothing comes up if you google it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.130.215.94 (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Nova Scotia killings, map and listing addresses

This article is not a biography, but I presume some WP:BLP policies may apply to it. We had a rather helpful map included. I am not sure about the sourcing for it yet. Anyway, it purports to show addresses of properties owned by the perpetrator and victims. This certainly could be relevant, particularly if this is where the shootings took place. I removed it because I was concerned about the sourcing and whether it runs foul of BLP policies, but would very much appreciate input from others about whether that is actually the case, and how we have dealt with similar things in the past. The talk discussion is here. Thanks--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Addresses of victims - except to the level of township or zip code - would be too much detail. --Masem (t) 00:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Frederico Lapenda

Anyone who has some time on their hands can clean up Frederico Lapenda; an editor with the same username has been editing it and other articles that link to it. ElKevbo (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Carl Benjamin's rape joke

Carl Benjamin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) once responded to a political opponent that he "wouldn't even" sexually assault her. He then later followed it up with a joke that "with enough pressure" he "might cave" on that stance, "but nobody has that much beer".

That is accepted. What's contentious is how to present that information. Currently, this information is presented as a summary in the lead and body of the article. However, it breaches NPOV by omitting important information, making it seem more offensive than what the reporting really said.

Numerous editors have seen the NPOV issue and attempted to fix it. They've typically tried to add the full quote, or parts of it. But they've always been reverted and challenged by other editors, who argued WP:QUOTEFARM and that it should be succinct.

The editors who wanted neutrality eventually gave up, and the editors who wanted to keep it simply outlasted their opponents. No consensus was ever achieved.

I have reviewed their arguments over the rape joke, in the talk page, and archive 5 and archive 6.

I proposed a compromise that should satisfy both neutrality and succinct-ness: Just improve the summary. This makes it neutral while maintaining succinct-ness.

Here is the compromise I proposed, and here is the talk section I created about it. I clearly laid out and quoted the sources that support my proposed edit.

However, they won't accept my suggestion. Since I addressed the WP:QUOTEFARM and succinct-ness issue, they now argue their own personal interpretations of it, and falsely assert that there was a consensus.

They also call out my right-wing bias, which I'll admit to having. However, I am also challenging their left-wing bias.

The evidence of my bias: My editing history. I have been overzealous in the past, but I'm trying to do it the right way now.

My evidence of their bias: They continue to resist even though WP:QUOTEFARM has been addressed. Grayfell's personal views of my proposed change. Bilorv having a Feminist tag in his profile and removing it 9 minutes after accusing me of bias.

I have no evidence of bias from the other editors.

I believe this is an ideological conflict, and I'm escalating it so neutral editors can resolve the conflict. Amaroq64 (talk) 09:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Now that I've reviewed the discussions again, I see a couple of errors I made. Fippy Darkpaw proposed creating a new section for controversies. The table will be updated to reflect this.

173.176.159.21 complained about the neutrality of the article in general, not the neutrality of the rape joke, and could be removed. 107.77.221.156 could possibly be removed since they might be the same person as 107.77.221.57.
Amaroq64 (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly is an ideological conflict on one side. It's very funny that Amaroq64 thinks that I am attempting to hide that I'm a feminist, as if they're the first alt-right SPA to argue that it is inappropriate for me to edit in alt-right topics because of that userbox rather than the umpteenth. I changed my userpage to highlight a much more important discussion than this one that any good faith editors reading this should go and participate in rather than wasting more editor time on this sealioning.

My edits to alt-right topics are not wholly negative; I trust that following Misplaced Pages policies will lead to the overall most accurate and reliable information we can give people. In this case I am motivated only by our policies on minimising the length of quotations where possible and of highlighting the short quotes that have been most widely covered by reliable secondary sources—and in fact I don't actually believe that quoting "pressured into rape" rather than "rape" makes Benjamin look any better, so I certainly have no political agenda here.

It should be unsurprising that a table whose columns are labelled by ostensibly mutually exclusive positions "Keep It As Is" or "Make It Neutral" does not tell the actual story of what longstanding consensus on this page has been.

Given their contribution history, Amaroq64 has made it clear what their intention is on this website—introducing alt-right bias to articles—and I propose that they should be topic banned from alt-right and far-right topics, broadly construed. If this forum isn't the right place to decide upon that then I plan to raise the issue at WP:ANI. — Bilorv (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Amaroq64, we should reflect reliable independent sources and avoid, to the greatest extent possible, ever quoting a word that Benjamin himself says. Guy (help!) 22:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Support the additional material in the quote. Though the comment was off color, the context is critically important here. Using partial quotes is very problematic in a case like this. Additionally, this is a BLP so if there is a conflict with how the material is presented we should use the "best case" possible. Leaving out context is not that case. Springee (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

"off color"??? and: the context somehow makes it better?? (Personal attack removed) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

In what sense is the context "critically important" here? Trying to plumb the nuances of a joke about sexual assault is like asking whether the problem with the Nazis was that they chose ugly uniforms. Moreover, we need to bear in mind that the quote in question is a serious affront to a living and serving politician. While the event is certainly notable, I don't believe exhaustive detail is required. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• I do not think adding "be pressured to" as suggested by Amaroq64 is needed or appropriate. There is no difference between "might be pressured to rape" and "might rape", and it is certainly not "important information". The comment "making it seem more offensive" suggests to me that Amaroq64 believes being "pressured" is a justification or at least partial justification for rape (suggesting that a person saying they would rape someone without being pressured is "more offensive"). Regarding adding additional parts of the quote to the article, I have not seen any persuasive reason for including more. The comment was universally condemned by reliable sources, and so the idea that additional "context" is needed so that readers can understand it was a "joke" seems to go contrary to NPOV. When reliable sources can be adequately expressed in prose, that is preferable to including quotations. We already include Benjamin's defense of his statements. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  It doesn't appear that the quote in the wiki article matches that found in the sources. This is a small change and there is no reason not to make this better align with RSs given this is a BLP and contentious material. Additionally, if the OP's information is correct it does seem that a majority of involved editors support some level of change in this direction. I would suggest a RfC might be a way to address the concern. Springee (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  Of course the information is not correct. For instance, Ryk72 objected to such text as speculating on whether and under what circumstances he might rape (no longer present) and to mentioning the rape comments at all, not what I'd call "Make It Neutral". SVTCobra argued for less text on the rape comments, precisely the opposite of what Amaroq64 is suggesting. etc. etc. — Bilorv (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  Ryk72 objected to ... mentioning the rape comments at all. @Bilorv:, I don't recall that I took such a position, and on review of the Talk page archives, can't find anything with my signature which supports that statement. I do find that I wrote I have no objection to a well phrased inclusion of the events, which is in contradiction. Diffs, please? - Ryk72 00:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

  The table is correct. I collated the users by which policy stance they were taking in the bigger picture, NPOV or overriding NPOV with "keep it succinct". Ryk72 and SVTCobra both ultimately argued that we are misrepresenting the rape joke and that should be fixed. I think you just tried to sow doubt about my honesty to make it easier to dismiss my case. Amaroq64 (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  Amaroq64, I don't think it's appropriate to include a list of individuals unless there was something like an RFC or other clear way of collecting the information like that from multiple people. This list seems to be collected from multiple conversations about sometimes different language, and then makes assumptions about a "bigger picture". The list also has the implicit misrepresentations that the users under so-called "make it neutral" are agreeing with your point, when they have not said that, and that the users under "keep it as is" are arguing in favor of it not being neutral, when that is not what they have said either. I think it would be better to remove your list of names and allow those editors to speak for themselves. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  I find the table misleading. And I mean no offense to you, as you obviously put a lot of effort into creating it. The problem is that is turns consensus into a tally of votes. But consensus doesn't work like that. Consensus is a weighing of arguments, meaning that one person with a good argument can beat a whole slew of poor arguments that fail to convince anyone. It's like the old saying, there are three kinds of lies, little white lies, bold face lies, and statistics. I'm not by any means calling you a liar or anything, but I have to take the table with a grain of salt because it has no real bearing on consensus. Zaereth (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  I can agree that it's better for them to speak for themselves. I did comb through the various discussions and categorize them broadly based on which policy they mainly seemed to be arguing, and I can understand the potential problem with that. But I also think removing the table would remove evidence that there's a contentious issue and that there have been many editors who wanted to fix the NPOV issue. I can quote any user on that table to justify where I put them, if necessary. Amaroq64 (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, I notified every single editor on that table that this discussion is happening. Amaroq64 (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  I could improve the table by changing "Keep It As Is" to "Keep It Succinct". In its current form, it's based on the fact that it seems those users wanted to prevent it from being changed, regardless of what arguments were presented to them for why it should be changed. Amaroq64 (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  You made a lot of assumptions in this list and several editors have said it is misleading. I think you should be removing it entirely at this point. No one needs "evidence that there's a contentious issue". If you want a list of names, then start an RfC and allow editors to weigh in themselves. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  What's the difference between inviting them all to this discussion and creating an RfC? The "Keep It As Is" column could be categorized better, but every editor in the "Make It Neutral" column argued that it has an NPOV issue and wanted to do something about that. Amaroq64 (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

  I did this with the understanding that not everyone has the time and energy to spend hours looking through the archives and sources. So I took the burden of proof on myself to let anyone see with a casual glance that there's a problem that can't be solved without uninvolved input. Removing the table would require everyone who sees this discussion to spend hour(s) going through it themselves, and makes it easier for my ideological opponents to dismiss that there's an issue. Amaroq64 (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

  If you need to manufacture evidence that an issue is contentious, then something is amiss. You're taking the burden and skewing it, even if unintentionally. The table gives a false impression. It's like when commercials use a graph to show how much better their product is than the competition's, but fiddle with the scale to make theirs look much better when there is really only a minute improvement. Unless you include everyone's comments into this table --in context-- it is just meaningless marketing.

• And another problem is that you are basing this upon your own interpretation of what these people said, which is most assuredly colored by your own biases and metaperceptional skills. And I don't mean that as an insult, this is a problem we all have in communicating with others. Only by seeing the real discussion in it's full context can others make their own determination of the consensus, the validity of those comments, and whether it is contentious in their minds or not. Zaereth (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

  Would it help if I put a clause under the table that it should not be considered an authority on the stances anyone took, just an illustration that there's a problem? I can quote every user in context, but that will take time, and this could be a more immediate fix. Amaroq64 (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

  I have added a collapsible table with links to the conversations that I based my placements on. I did find one error that seriously misrepresented one of the editors' stances, so I corrected their placement on the table. Amaroq64 (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Only two comments: 1) this is definitely the case that full context quotes from his are likely needed because editors can piece-part what he's said since to go either way. The prose should explain that after the comment, he was criticized for it, and he tried to explain himself, and that explanation should use full statements where possible without judgement for us to stay neutral and impartial. Yes, in general, no one should joke about rape, but it is not our place as editors to either villify nor whitewash that away, but simply document the controversy. 2) There is nearly no reason for this to be in the lede, given everyone else there. It's part of his failed campaign but there's no clear indication how much it affected it (minority party to start so before it was a snowball's chance). No need to scarlet-letter in the lede further beyond what can immediately be put there, its certainly not affect him long-term. --Masem (t) 17:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Masem, I would recommend you look through the published articles about Benjamin, as they seem to overwhelmingly note the rape comments. Going through Google and Google News as well, the rape comments seem to be the most frequently discussed aspect of Benjamin's life, even more so than the Gamergate controversy. I think it would be hard to justify including his UKIP candidacy without including the topic that is discussed in many if not most articles about his candidacy. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

In discussion of his candidacy in 2019 it's brought it, certainly, and while I know enough about him and have little respect for him, its also what needs to be recognized as mudslinging during an election. I'm not trying to say to whitewash it away, but I TONS of coverage in the March-Oct 2019 period, and then little beyond that from RS, all which to me is standard media reporting on the skeletons in the closet of a candidate (though it appears he may have even been investigated during that 2019 period though obviously nothing came about?) We have to be aware that while WEIGHT/UNDUE is important, the impact of election coverage media bias and mudslinging should be taken into consideration. In the period from 2016 up early 2019, only when he joins UKIP more commentary related to the rape statement, but appearing more in the context that UKIP is seen as this group of alt-right/far-right people. Maybe there's some reason to keep something in the lede, but the lede should be super-high level. What's in there now I think is even too detailed because we're talking naunces of what he said and in what context. I don't know immediately how I'd rephrase what's in the lede, but I'd fully avoid the quotes there if possible. Maybe "Benjamin's off-colour commentary related to rape in 2016 towards Jess Phillips dominated his 2019 EP candidacy." --Masem (t) 18:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure you know this, but UKIP were a pretty major party when it came to EU elections, both because of proportional representation and their main-issue policy being rather pertinent to EU elections. It wasn't obvious just how badly they'd do in 2019. The rape commentary dominated coverage of Benjamin's UKIP candidacy and so is the best way of summarising this party of the body, and a major part of Benjamin's career. I don't oppose using quotes as long as it is mentioned e.g. "Benjamin's widely-condemned comments about rape in relation to Jess Phillips dominated his 2019 European Parliament candidacy". Though I think this is rather the opposite direction to what Amaroq64 wants us to move towards... — Bilorv (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm just saying for the lede, that's not the point to get into the nitty gritty of the mess that happened. What I read from searching, any more details beyond a simple high level statement (yours is better than mine) requires more explanation for us to stay neutral. That's fine to expand upon in the body, and I don't have opinions to how much more to expand there, but the lede is not the place for that expansion. --Masem (t) 20:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree the lead could be shortened and goes into too many details. My previous attempt to shorten it at least a little was later reverted by GergisBaki . I would support Bilorv's suggested summary of the dispute in the lead. However, I do think that it needs to be addressed in the lead in at least some way. I also want to note to Masem that the lack of coverage since October 2019 (which is not a long time) seems to be more due to the lack of coverage of Benjamin generally, while more recent articles that talk about him still often mention the comments about Phillips. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Also wanted to add that I agree with fully avoiding the quotes in the lead in a rewrite if possible. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Masem, I don't think it was mudslinging. It was a valid use of his own words to demonstrate his unfitness to serve as an MP (a view the people of his constituency apparently endorsed). Guy (help!) 22:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Not trying to in any way validate his statements with this, but just that we should be using more care in reading the media's intentions during the election. We should not be approaching this from the editorial standpoint point that "it validates his unfitness" no how much one believes that true, but should "how much the media believed it validated his unfitness". Subtle difference, probably not a bit impact on the prose at the end of the day, but its important going in right to resolve the neutrality issue. --Masem (t) 23:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Masem in regarding the use of full context quotes etc. I don't know enough about the article subject to say if this material should or should not be in the lead so I'm abstaining from that question. Springee (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Presenting "Make it neutral" as an objective fact is a good demonstration of why editing the Carl Benjamin article is such a time-sink. YouTubers, especially those from Benjamin's corner, build careers on attention like this. It is in Benjamin's professional interest to be as evasive and inflammatory as possible, and trying to turn this into something other than a WP:FART is just helping him with his PR. As I said on the article's talk page, taking this issue to "dispute resolution" (which was that-a-way) is trying to drum-up wikidrama over an extremely minor detail. Benjamin's fans are not arbiters of "neutral", and Misplaced Pages isn't a platform for promotion, so whatever adjustments are made will almost surely be a waste of our time in support of gossip. Grayfell (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

  You have evidence that I have a "right-wing bias", but you don't have evidence that the previous editors seeking neutrality were biased. Regardless, there is contention between numerous users other than me over whether he's being represented fairly. The BLP noticeboard is the better place to put this, because a living person having their reputation potentially damaged (more than merited) is important and is what this noticeboard is for. Amaroq64 (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Support I still dont understand how people make things say one thing when it is obvious from a prima fascia case that it says something else completely. Very tired also to see people doing this on bio page that normally should require a higher treshold of evidence as described in the BLP guidelines.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution