Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive307

Rocky De La Fuente

I just received a call from Rocky De La Fuente, who is currently the Alliance Party candidate for US President, and whose article I am a regular editor on. He is concerned about the use of the term "perennial candidate" on his article. He feels that

1. this was placed in the article based on weak sources (minor market local coverage, rather than national), and
2. uses of the term in subsequent coverage arise from reporters using Wikipedia as reference, and find that term there (and thus would be WP:Circular reporting), and
3. the strong majority of references to him in major coverage do not use that term, and
4. that the descriptor is not accurate, as it is usually used for those who do not win elections, and he has won two nominations - the Reform Party's presidential nomination in 2016, and the Alliance Party's this year, and
5. the descriptor can be viewed as a negative one that could impact coverage and voting.

This matter has been discussed on the article's talk page in the past, which has lead to the current status. However, I felt his concerns were heavy enough that I promised to bring them to this page, so that more editors with a sense of BLP concerns could review the matter (particularly because there has not been much active discussion on that page for a while.) The phrase is also used to describe him at 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries. I ask that folks take a look and voice their opinions here.

To be clear: while this is not the first time De La Fuente has reached out to me, I have no conflict of interest in this matter. I do not work for him, his campaigns, or anything affiliated. I am not here campaigning for one outcome or another, just helping someone who does not speak Wikipedian have his concerns heard. (Obviously, the above includes a lot of translation into Talk page lingo.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I know that he has tried in the past to get this accurate description of himself removed. But he is the absolute definition of a perennial candidate. I can't think of anyone who fits the definition better. Running for president multiple times on multiple tickets; running for Senate in nine different states (where he doesn't live) in the same election; running for mayor of New York (where he doesn't live). Winning the nomination of minor parties (including parties he created himself) is not the same as winning elections. Whether he likes it or not, he is a perennial candidate, and he proves it more and more strongly in every election. Thanks for passing along his concerns, Nat, but "perennial candidate" is what he is, and it is not a BLP violation to describe someone accurately. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Do RS note that he's run multiple times and rarely won? If they don't even acknowledge that, we may be crossing into WP:SYNTH. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Did a quick search and found several RS that explicitly refer to him as a perennial candidate so there is no SYNTH.[1][2][3] Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the claim however reliably sourced can be moved out of the first sentence in the lede. Bus stop (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I checked the list of people at Perennial candidate#United States. It is in the first sentence of the lead in about half the cases. See Sam Sloan, John Raese, Jimmy McMillan, Basil Marceaux, George P. Mahoney, Calvin H. Gurley, Peter Diamondstone, William Bryk. Whether in the lead or in the body of the text, it should be retained since it is accurate and sourced (and is the source of his notability). It is not an insult or a BLP violation. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

How about this: instead of calling him a primary candidate in Wikipedia's voice in the first sentence, we could have a sourced sentence saying "he has been described as a perennial candidate". -- MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Not necessary because the descriptor is completely justified. De La Fuente's objection that it is inaccurate (relayed via NatGertler's point #4) has no bearing because winning nominations is not willing elections and De La Fuente has never been elected to any office. The descriptor is accurate and (as stated above) well-sourced and we retain accurate well-sourced descriptors even if the subject disagrees. If Mr. De La Fuernte does not wish to be described as a perennial candidate he simply needs to stop doing that which gets him reliable described as such. It is not up to us to be his PR department and describe him as he wishes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I would like to share my thoughts on this, I hope they find their way into open minds.

Wikipedia is one of the most important sources of information on the web. Many use it as a reference, make decisions, and shape their thoughts upon what is posted here. Even though it tries to stay objective there is plenty of evidence that there are external forces that shape many articles and damage the image of a lot of people. Especially in politics.

The argument here is about good faith writing. Some consider that the adjective Perennial should be posted and others that it should be removed, both groups make their arguments very rigid points of view, there is not going to be an agreement on that.

What I think we can all agree is that the term Perennial has a negative connotation. Such term politically speaking is mainly associated with ¨joke candidates¨. It has proved to be so controversial here that it can´t be considered ¨accurate¨ either.

I have studied deeply the platform and his positions, his arguments to run and the path he has followed. I can´t say I agree with them or that they are normal, but certainly, they are serious and the impact he has made from a legal point of view in our political system is quite serious and well thought.

So the discussion here should be if it is vital for the quality of the information in the article to label De La Fuente with the term.

If it is not vital, why should it be posted from a Goof Faith writing POV?

Crazycapybara (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Mr. De La Fuente is a perennial candidate by any definition of the term, regardless of its connotations. We should describe him as such. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 15:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Eggishorn—the fact of consistently losing elections is not sufficiently important for the first sentence of the lede. Bus stop (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, it is if that is all the person is notable for. De La Fuente has never had any significant effect on any political contest he has participated in. His notability rests entirely on running for, and losing, elections where he is not merely an outsider (a la Ross Perot or Ralph Nader) but having virtually no impact on the race at all. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm seeing the term used by LA Times, Vox, ChiTrib (granted from their OpEd dept), Politico, Fox News, WAPost, USA Today and that's just about 6-7 pages into a Google News search discounting smaller state and local papers/news stations. "Perennial candidate" is not a label as it has objective meaning here, its well applied to De La Fuente who is a public figure, and its unfortunate that it might harm their election chances but we're not here to right great wrongs.

That said, I'm only getting about 200 hits for "Rocky De La Fuente" and "perennial candidate" in Google News, compared to 19,000 hits for his name only. Putting as a first sentence term is UNDUE. It needs to be in the lede, but it shouldn't (edited per below) be as early as it is; I'd replace it with "politician" and then introduce the "perennial candidate" in discussing his failed runs. --Masem (t) 16:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

"it should be as early as it is"? Do you mean it shouldn't be as early as it is? Bus stop (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

yes, I've edited to be clear. --Masem (t) 16:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Masem, thanks for the search and the Reliable Sources, and for your carefully reasoned approach. I guess your point is that not EVERY mention of him on the internet says he is a perennial candidate, although many do. My hunch is that most that don't are mere mentions of his name, in articles or posts listing the candidates who are running for this or that, but I can't prove it. I would be OK with putting it later in the lead, with attribution. And I would not call him "politician" because he isn't. (A wannabe politician perhaps, but he has never held office.) Call him an American businessman, period. BTW the thing that makes him "perennial" is not that his runs have failed; it's that there have been so many of them, and sometimes carried to (I suspect) unprecedented extremes - like running for Senate in nine different states in the same election. (He admits that he did it to increase his name recognition.) If he is not a perennial candidate, nobody ever has been. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, you can't avoid the term, you can't avoid saying he's run for office many many times, but again, the use of the term is not as frequent as its made out to be to be necessary or appropriate in the lede sentence. This also may be where its necessary not to focus on any particular candidacy runs he's done outside of Presidency in the lede as well. --Masem (t) 16:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I have altered the first and second paragraphs so that the term is no longer in the opening sentence, but it is at the front of the second paragraph. Does this properly reflect all concerns? (I will note in regards to Melanie's most recent comment that our article politician includes those who are campaigning for office under that descriptor, although dictionaries seem mixed on that usage. "aspiring politician", perhaps?) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Nat Gertler, good compromise. I would just say "has been described as" a perennial candidate instead of "is considered to be", which cries out for a tag. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I will integrate that for now, as that has been suggested by another as well, for the nonce.

I have now been reached by a person who is apparently on the PR team for Rocky, who argues that a better, and truer adjective is “persistent”. (Again, posting that as a courtesy; this should not be taken as my endorsing that wording.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

"Perennial" is the term used by the sources. We don't modify our articles to suit the preferred terminology of the subject or their PR team - who I gather is closely monitoring our discussion and actions here. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

There's a few but far fewer for "persistent" and so yes, we have to go with what the sources say. We can agree that per UNDUE it shouldn't be front and center, but we can't go with a preferred wording that is not preferred by sources. --Masem (t) 18:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no issue with directly saying that he is a perennial candidate rather than "described as". The term is intended to summarize that he's ran multiple times without being elected. We shouldn't allow the rebranding spin to "persistant" as his article is not an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I have replaced the existing references with higher profile, national publications, spread out over a period of three years. Thank you, Masem, for the links. That's to respond to their first talking point, above, that the description has only appeared in minor local publications. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Piers Robinson

Dear Editors,

This page, set up without my knowledge, has repeatedly been edited in order to smear me. It seems a battle between editors has gone on for several years.

At the moment the wikipedia page is making two defamatory claims. The first is that my occupation is as a 'conspiracy theorist'. This is false and defamatory.

Second, the page gives the clear impression that I left Sheffield University because I had been accused of spreading conspiracy theories. This is entirely false, my departure from the University ofSheffield had nothing to do with amy criticisms regarding my research.

Yours Sincerely

Dr Piers Robinson Co-Director, Organisation for Propaganda Studies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:46FA:C700:BC59:1B0F:D508:DE4 (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

If you are apparently reputable, can you explain why you promote The Grayzone as a reliable source of information on your twitter account, when it was depreciated as a source on wikipedia for publishing "false or fabricated information"? Also, Wikipedia abides by the WP:No legal threats policy, do not use charged language like this. If you think content on wikipedia is libellous, then you need to contact the email linked at WP:LIBEL. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a page for discussing BLP concerns. It is not a place to have a discussion over what his standards for sources are (but it seems ridiculous to expect that he follow Wikipedia's, except when he edits Wikipedia.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@NatGertler: My point was that he promotes a website that publishes content that has been described in RfC discussions as publishing conspiracy theories, and was placed onto the Wikipedia:Deprecated sources list, which ties in to the claim that he is "spreading conspiracy theories" which he claims to be false. The issues with BLP have largely been resolved after discussions within the last few hours, I let commenters on the talk page of the article know that he made the complaint here, which as I thought was reasonable, as well as a report on the administrators noticeboard for making legal threats, for which he was blocked. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: The issue being raised here had to do with not whether he was "spreading conspiracy theories", but whether that was the basis for his firing. To make it an issue of whether Wikipedia approves of the sources that he uses is far off the point and inappropriate. This is not the place for it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

That was his second complaint, his first was "that my occupation is as a 'conspiracy theorist'". I have no further interest being told I am wrong in the absence of other editors objections, and think it's time to WP:Drop the stick. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

If I may interject, I think what Nat is trying to say here is that your comments above are really treading the line on becoming BLP violations themselves. I'm not saying this was intentional, but I'd be careful on how you assert things. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Just FYI. Zaereth (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't assert anything that could be considered a violation of BLP. I didn't call him a conspiracy theorist or even imply it, my claim that Wikipedia concensus found that it "false or fabricated information" related to the Grayzone, not about Robinson. You can clearly see from his twitter account that he does promote Grayzone News as a source. I simply asked why an academic would promote a source that wikipedia deems "fail the reliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances" such that editors are expilicity discouraged from using them. In retrospect I probably would not include the section again, as it does feel somewhat accusatory, but it is also not appropriate to send legal threats under WP:No legal threats which no other editors have criticised him for. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

To have your comments on Grayzone[4][5][6], and by extension Robinson, taken seriously, at least spell its name correctly.     ←   ZScarpia   15:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC) (note: without using a device such as strikethrough, Hemiauchenia later corrected the spelling from Greyzone to Grayzone in all his references to that website)

ZScarpia, you might want to have a word with the site owners, as the error appears to be theirs. https://www.lexico.com/definition/grey_zone Guy (help!) 18:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: this is a very confusing discussion. Why would a site which appears to be primarily run by Americans [7] and _targeting a US or Latin American audience [8], choosing to use a spelling more common in the US (as per the source you provided) be in error? Of all the criticism that could be made of Grayzone, this seems to be one of the silliest. Nil Einne (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Look mate, I've been having migraines and brain problems for most of the last 6 months and sometimes it affects my spelling, for which I apologise. A minor regional spelling difference makes no difference to the validity of my points, so I don't even see what the point of this comment even was, it has no substance at all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The point is that, like if you were, for example, to repeatedly refer to the Boston Red Socks in a discussion on baseball or Buddism in a discussion on religion, it makes it look as though you don't really know what you're talking about. Some other things which don't show you to advantage: addressing another editor with the words, "look mate"; editing a comment after it has been discussed without leaving an indication that it has been edited [9]; leaving a reference to appeasing "pedants" in an edit comment [10]. Apologies to anyone (other than Hemiauchenia) who feels this is getting tedious.     ←   ZScarpia   02:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC) (note: comments re-arranged into chronological order)

Look mate is British English for exasperation at your rudeness, grey is the correct BE spelling, nobody else objected, why should I care about your opinion, exactly? I know that you have strong opinions about the reliability of Grayzone, so I'd like to know your reasoning. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that everyone else would prefer this thread of the discussion to end. There are a couple of things I would like to note firsy though. One is that I have no objection to your spelling, it's completely a matter for you. I was merely pointing out to you that by using the British English spelling, you gave the appearance of knowing next to nothing about The Grayzone. The second thing I would like to note is that I don't think that The Grayzone particularly meets the standards for measuring reliability, but I don't think it deserved to be deprecated and I'm sure that it's not any worse than some sources which are considered reliable. A bit more consistency would be nice. If you look at the discussion at WP:RSN, you'll see that some editors gave a more favourable opinion of the site than me; presumably, they feel greater disatisfaction than I do about the result.     ←   ZScarpia   02:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The second issue is about the content removed by this edit.[11]. The criticism and his denial should not be in the lead but later in his biography, appropriately in the criticism section. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure this is another instance where wikidata (not affliated with Wikipedia for the benefit of Mr Robinson) was probably showing up in search results somewhere. It still lists him as "British academic and conspiracy theorist" - did someone put a short-desc in to our article to override those stupid fucknuts running wikidata? As currently search results show the ENWP description. (Wikidata had some of the detail expunged earlier today) Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Totally expunged from wikidata now. (@Only in death re 'not affiliated', iiuc, both are owned by Wikimedia Foundation.) Humanengr (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Technically ENWP is not owned by the WMF, nor wikidata for that matter. If you define ownership as the content rather than the physical hosting and trademarks etc. But its easier to simplify that than to go into a really long explanation of why different Wiki projects work by different rules (or in the case of Wikidata, no rules). Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The info boxes at both Wikipedia and Wikidata do, however, say "Owner: Wikimedia Foundation". Humanengr (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Humanengr, to be fair, he has been pushing conspiracy theories. Guy (help!) 22:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

You should re-phrase that. Maybe in your opinion, and the opinions of your favoured sources, Robinson is a "conspiracy theorist", an extremely prejudicial phrase designed to belittle those the whose beliefs the accuser dislikes. But that doesn't make it a fact. Either show that, apart from the extremes of the spectrum, Robinson's views are seen as flakey, as the phrase implies, or redact your statement.     ←   ZScarpia   15:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

ZScarpia, "Prominent British academics have been sharing conspiracy theories about the coronavirus online, The Times can disclose."

"They included suggestions from other social media users that Bill Gates, the billionaire philanthropist, and the World Economic Forum (WEF) that meets in Davos may be involved in plots to exploit the illness and speculation that it was a biological weapon."

"The academics include Tim Hayward, a professor of environmental political theory at the University of Edinburgh, and Piers Robinson, co-founder of the Organisation for Propaganda Studies (OPS), which uses the University of Bristol as an address."

That's not the only one. In fact the range of sources calling him a conspiracy theorist is pretty remarkable: it includes HuffPo, the Daily Mail, The Times, the Jewish Chronicle and more - a remarkably broad spectrum. Dissent from this can be found at the Daily Stormer and Sputnik. He wrote the cover blurb for David Ray Griffin's 9/11 Truther book, and defends it: "My position, as has been the case for some time, is that [conclusions detailed in 9/11 Unmasked] demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that significant parts of the official narrative are very likely to be incorrect."

But thank you for recognising that I favour reliable mainstream sources like The Times. Yes, I do. And so should you. Guy (help!) 18:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

In case there is some confusing, AFAIK search results of a completed search do not show any description. Instead they show a snippet of the article. However for the mobile search the preview of the results (before you hit enter or tell it to search) does show the short description. I just tried and confirmed that [12] for Piers Robinson it's currently showing British academic. I assume this is still coming from Wikidata since we do not have a short description AFAICT. Nil Einne (talk) 09:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

BTW, is there some reason to think this has anything to do with searching? The OP explicitly said " first is that my occupation is as a 'conspiracy theorist'." They did not say anything about search results and while Wikidata does have an occupation field, it doesn't show up in search results or anywhere else on here AFAIK. Only the short description does show up here in some cases (again AFAIK), and I'm not sure if someone would assume every field in the description implies it's their occupation. And remember, our article has said the subject's occupation was a conspiracy theorist, for at least 4 hours combined AFAICT [13] [14]. And indeed this included during "15:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)" when the OP posted and in fact for 2 hours before then. It seems to me this most likely has nothing to do with the short description on Wikidata let alone the occupation field there, but simply to do with the fact we did say his occupation was conspiracy theorist for 4 hours which included when the OP checked it out. We should not forget while 4 hours may be a short time, it's still enough time that people could easily see what is in our articles. Nil Einne (talk) 10:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Nil Einne, the most likely explanation is that he's looking for a job or backers, and blames Wikipedia for the fact that the internet is... unflattering to his cherished beliefs. He's a regular on Sputnik and an outspoken pro-Russia / Assad pundit, so maybe he's in the same position as George Galloway, who is not seen as an honest broker when discussing these subjects. A good number of sources describe him as pro-Assad and pro-Russia. These are not fashionable positions right now. Guy (help!) 18:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: unless you're accusing the OP of being the one who modified the article on him as some sort of false flag attack to help him in some way, this has nothing to do with my point. My sole point with that reply was to remind editors that we did say his occupation was conspiracy theorist in the infobox for about 4 hours combined, and this included the time when the OP made their comment. Therefore there is no reason to think this has anything to do with searching or Wikidata, as suggested by User:Only in death. If you are making an accusation that the OP was involved in changing the infobox, since BLP applies everywhere please provide some evidence. The reason why the OP may have been checking out the article at the time someone changed the occupation to conspiracy theorist is frankly not something I find particularly germane to the discussion anyway. The OP was correct that the infobox should never have said their occupation was conspiracy theorist regardless of whether they may spread conspiracy theories. Frankly anyone who thinks the occupation field of the infobox should have said conspiracy theorist probably shouldn't be editing BLPs. Nil Einne (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Simple in my case. I looked on my mobile when I saw this and it was listed as conspiracy theorist in the usual place. I looked at our article which didnt appear to have listed him as that (at the point I was looking) and wikidata did, so assumed, like in the many many other instances where we have someone described as something and its on wikidata not ENWP, it was another case of the short desc showing up through google (PC-based browser right-side preview last I recall also used short desc). I really have no interest otherwise, as Jzg has pointed out, there are plenty of sources for him peddling consiracy theories, there are almost zero that describe him as a conspiracy theorist, and none that justify it as his 'occupation'. I will leave the speculation to others as to his motivations. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

While I really have no interest in following this discussion, I do have to agree with Only in Death's statement. As a general thing, to call someone a theorist of any kind it would seem to me that it would have to be as an occupation. We wouldn't call someone an atomic theorist if they were only know for blogging on the web about it. And I don't buy most of the bunk conspiracy theories, although I have no doubt conspiracies exist; you'll be more likely to find them between corporations and regulating bodies than in moon landings and bio weapons. Is you want to finds a conspiracy, look for the money. Zaereth (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• We have reliable sources in the article that clearly identify him as a 9-11 Truther. How is that not a reliable demarcation of a conspiracy theorist? As to whether his "occupation" is conspiracy theorist, that's probably not correct, but it should at least indicate that he promotes conspiracy theories somewhere in the infobox given the reliable sources we have which identify him doing such. Perhaps "known for"?jps (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Infoboxes are for simple and obvious information that doesnt need an extended explanation in the article. Its why we had to keep religion and ethnicity out of most of them them. If we start using them to list people's views on various subjects, it will just open a can of worms. Just put it in the relevant place in the article where it belongs - which would be when he parted ways with the uni. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that "Infoboxes are for simple and obvious information", but if the person is known for promoting conspiracy theories, that seems pretty simple. In this case, a significant portion of the media attention is because he was promoting conspiracy theories. I agree that he may also be notable for taking particular foreign policy positions, but as this seems to be from whence his notability is derived, I don't see a strong argument for saying that it is the semantic equivalent for including religious belief in articles where the religion of the individual is irrelevant. A better comparison might be a scenario where we omitted the religion in the infobox for someone who was notable for promoting that religion. jps (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The infobox should be reserved for 100% objective information that needs no explanation; it's "information". No matter how many reliable sources back it up, "conspiracy theorist" is a subjective label. It cannot go in the infobox, period. --Masem (t) 05:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad we agree that "conspiracy theorist" doesn't belong. My point is that this person has received notoriety for promoting conspiracy theories. Do you think we don't have 100% objective information to that effect? If so, why? Does support for 9-11 Truth not indicate support for conspiracy theories? jps (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

If that's the case, then we should just say that. We don't need to make it an official title. Better yet, rather than tell me, show me. I don't need to be told Darth Vader is an evil dictator. Show me and let me come to that conclusion for myself. Zaereth (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, sure. I think we do say that. The question then becomes, "How do we summarize that for the reader?" It is a question of style rather than substance, perhaps. In this case, the person in question is supporting people who are verifiably conspiracy theorists and has said that, for example, the WP:MAINSTREAM explanation of 9/11 is not correct. So if you were going to summarize that state of affairs in a sentence or two, how would you do that? jps (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

There's a reason why our infoboxes for persons do not have spaces to fill for these types of things because it still is a subjective facet even if it represents the most popular opinion with no other opinions (excluding fringe ones) to counter it. The absence of no counter opinions from RSes to a subjective assessment doesn't meant that subjective statement becomes objective, we just get to state it with a bit less hand-waving. I'll assume that a source analysis has been done to show that there's more than sufficient frequency in highly reliable sources to support that he is known to be promote conspiracy theories, documented on the talk page (without that, you can't do what I am about to suggest). in which case we can say in the lede something like "Piers Gregory Robinson is a political commentator and former British academic.[2][3] He was was co-director of the Organisation for Propaganda Studies,[4] and a founder of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media.[5] As a political commentator, he is known to promote conspiracy theories related to 9/11, antisemitism, and COVID-19." (examples only, I'm just doing a quick pull).

No one can be a "verified" labeled term. They can be verified to be considered to be that labeled term, no matter how many sources and quality of those sources back them up, but Wikivoice cannot make the step to say that as a fact, barring self-identification (which even then, I would be wording it carefully as a self-identified label.) Editors are far too eager to jump on the use of labels as objective terms which is exactly what LABELS warns against. Wikivoice cannot state a label is truthful, particularly on a BLP, only that there is wide consensus in sources a label applies. --Masem (t) 19:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you just answered your own question. If the idea is to whittle it down small enough to fit in the infobox, I'd say forget it. It's not factual information, thus cannot be objective. Now if he had a job either creating or espousing conspiracy theories, or both, then I would agree. People like, in my opinion, the producers of Unsolved Mysteries, or that guy with a radio talk show somewhere are professional conspiracy theorists, whether they believe in them or not. While all the evidence presented here may all be factual --regardless of whether it is correct or not-- when we take those facts and draw the conclusion that he is a conspiracy theorist, we are in fact creating our own theory based on an analysis of how and why all that evidence fits together in our minds. A theory is never factual, and why is always a theory (opinion). That's what makes this a subjective label in this case, and not proper for an infobox. (For more info on objectivity and subjectivity see: Philosophy of Scientific Method by John Stuart Mills, first chapter. These same principals are also applied to non-fiction writing.) Facts are observable and recordable things or phenomena (attributes). Theories are subjective analyses (conclusions, judgments, opinions) of those facts, and in themselves are never provable. Scientists may spend the rest of time trying to disprove a theory, but none are ever provable. Zaereth (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The objective fact that support for the 9/11 Truth movement is support for conspiracy theories I think is an objective enough fact to say in Wikipedia's voice. Do you disagree? I am not talking about infoboxes, labels, etc. I'm talking about in the article text. I understand that people are allergic to anything that is controversial, but there is really no debate that this person is a member of various 9/11 Truth groups, has supported the claims of these groups, and is unapologetic about it. Of course he doesn't think 9/11 Truth is a conspiracy theory. That doesn't matter for our purposes. It is possible we're talking at cross-purposes here, but it is important that we don't fall into the trap where we just say everything is, like, just, like, your opinion, man. It's not an opinion that Pier Robinson supports 9/11 Truth. I don't see any way around that. Do you? jps (talk) 01:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I see no reliable source that says that the subject supports any movement. Writing a positive review of a book that questions the official narrative - whether a conspiracy theory or not - is not sufficient to claim that he is a supporter of a movement. Until and unless there are reliable sources that describe the subject's views - like, an official biography - we need to be extremely cautious about "objective truths" found in mass media. Especially when it is absolutely obvious that a given news piece belongs to the smear category. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, I would point out that conspiracy theory is a very different semantic object from critical theory which is different from scientific theory. Most scientific theories are facts (the few that aren't are really more of methods). Conspiracy theories are, by definition, incorrect. We can say that pretty plainly in the encyclopedia and do so. It's important that we don't fall down the rabbit holes of thinking that there is no such thing as a fact when it comes to things people call "theories" lest we start writing stupid things about biological evolution being only "just a theory". John Stuart Mills, I would bet, would agree. jps (talk) 01:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between supporting a conspiracy theory and the questioning of official narratives, especially in politically or commercially sensitive areas. You seem to be deliberately conflating the two. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

There really isn't. There is only a question of degree and which narrative is being questioned. If I question the official narrative that "the Earth is round", I'm promoting a conspiracy theory (and lest you claim that this isn't a politically or commercially sensitive area, I would point out that getting the shape of the Earth correct is big business). If I question the official narrative that, say, trickle down economics will lower the unemployment rate, that's not really a conspiracy theory. In the case of 9-11 Truthers, I think there is really no debate about what it means to "question" the "official narrative" about, say, how building 7 collapsed or whether Al Qaeda was involved (which is what the group that Robinson belongs to does and he makes no apologies for that). jps (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You need to understand that to write a positive review of an academic publication is not the same as to share the author's beliefs. Reviews are of the method; the execution; and the writeup. Sorry. It's how academic publishing works, social science being no exception. I don't blame the HuffPost editor for not understanding this - after all, mass media publishing does differ from academic publishing. But an encyclopaedia aspires to be much more than a summary of media coverage. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

No, most scientific theories are not facts. None of them are. They may be supported by facts, but the theory is not a fact, and will likely be superseded by another, better theory when one comes along. I'll give an example. The phlogiston theory was the top scientific theory of thermodynamics and chemistry of it's time. It was extremely accurate, and passed every test people could throw at it. Even today, it is incredibly accurate in its predictions. It took a brilliant scientist and some newer, more accurate instruments to come along and find a flaw (a fact which didn't fit the theory) to prove it wrong. All it takes is a single fact that doesn't fit, and as even Einstein noted, that is enough to prove it wrong. And speaking of Einstein, he noticed a flaw in Newton's theory of gravity (namely the orbit of mercury). Einstein understood that a single flaw and the theory was unsound, so he came up with a radical new theory of gravity. Both are still used to this day, yet even Einstein;'s theory has demonstrable flaws, so it cannot be right either. Good enough for now maybe, just as the phlogiston theory was and still is, but not correct. Someone will eventually come along with a radical new theory that blows them both out of the water. There is only one scientific theory that has passed every single test thrown at it, and that is quantum theory, but nobody can understand it, not even its creators.

Same with light. First it' a particle, then someone comes along and says it's a wave. (He even got death threats and was beaten up over it.) The another gives good evidence that it is a wave and it's accepted. And here comes Einstein again to show it's not a wave or a particle, but somehow behaves as both.

In science, there is no proof. There are facts and theories to explain those facts. If you make your theories fit the facts, it's good, that is until a new, unexplained fact arises (see: Godel's incompleteness theorem), but if you try to make the facts fit the theory, it's bunk every time. That's the problem with most conspiracy theories. Now conspiracies do exist, and not all theories about them will be bunk. A conspiracy to commit murder, for example. But it's far too easy to see what you want to see than to put your expectations aside and look at it objectively. In science, just as in everything else, it's never about proving something. It's all about probabilities. Is it more probable than not? Nothing is ever 100% for sure, as Richard Feynman spoke of a lot, but if the facts support it with no flaws, then it's widely accepted as a likelihood. If not, it's bunk. Just because you cannot prove a theory doesn't mean you can't disprove it.

But this is not about whether the conspiracy theories are correct or not. It's about objectivity or subjectivity. This is about whether your own theories about him are fact or opinion. I cannot prove your theory, but I can sure disprove it. Every time we learn about or interact with someone, we create a theory in our minds about that person. What that person thinks, why they think that way, how they will react, etc... This is called Theory of mind, and we all do it constantly. Without it any complex communication would not be possible. Through this we learn about ourselves, which is the person we know less about than anyone else in the world. It's important to know just when we are being objective and when we're being subjective when writing, and you can find that same info in any book on non-fiction writing, and it is exactly the same as what is in Mills book. These are universal principals. Zaereth (talk) 09:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Lord, that's a lot of nonsense. It is almost at the level of science denial. Shameful, really. Science is based in empirical reality and theories describe that empirical reality. To the extent that they do that, they are facts. See Evolution as fact and theory, e.g. Also, lol at the idea that phlogiston theory is extremely accurate and difficult to show incorrect. You can do so with fairly simple kitchen chemistry. jps (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, didn't see this until now. Thanks for the link, because that exactly makes my point. I am very familiar with evolution, and there is no doubt it exists. It has been directly observed and recorded. Darwin's theory though, well that's been mostly outdated since the 80s. In part, sure, natural selection has something to do with it, but turns out there are possibilities Darwin never dreamed about and new technologies have brought about new evidence it's not as slow and methodical as all that, but tends to occur rather quickly in spurts, which has also been observed and documented. So thanks for for your help in clarifying my point. Zaereth (talk) 03:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The following is an attempt to provide some diffs relating to the content being complained about. Apologies if it is incomplete or inaccurate. I did not set out to point an accusing finger at user Nomdea, though his/her edits came to feature prominently among those which appeared prominently.

"The first is that my occupation is as a 'conspiracy theorist':

- 20:27, 9 May 2020: NomdeA changes 'occupation' from "political commentator" to "conspiracy theorist".
- 13:21, 10 May 2020: NomdeA repeats the change of 'occupation' from "political commentator" to "conspiracy theorist".

"Second, the page gives the clear impression that I left Sheffield University because I had been accused of spreading conspiracy theories.":

- 21:54, 24 September 2019: citing the Huffington Post, Marjorieparsnips added text implying that, in April 2019, Robinson left his post at Sheffield University due to "reports that he had promoted conspiracy theories". Within half-an-hour, this was modified into a statement about an article in Sheffield University's student newspaper accusing Robinson of "promoting conspiracy theories".
- 19:00, 1 December 2019: NomdeA added text to the Lead stating that the criticisms directed at Robinson had come from other Sheffield University academics, something not stated explicity in the cited source.
- 04:42, 31 January 2020: NomdeA added text to the Lead implying, unsupported by anything but the title of the cited source, that after he was accusations of 'promoting conspiracy theories and of “having no interest in truth or justice”' lay behind Robinson leaving his university job.
- Until 19:43, 10 May 2020, citing this Huffington Post article, the Lead read, "He was the Chair in Politics, Society and Political Journalism at Sheffield University but left the university in 2019 after he was accused by other academics of promoting conspiracy theories." That implied that Robinson left Sheffield University, a claim not made in the cited article (though implied by its title). In addition to not making that claim, the cited article quoted Robinson saying that he was leaving for reasons not related to the criticism or pressure from Sheffield University. Zzuuzz extended the sentence to note that Robinson denied the reason for leaving were accusations of promoting conspiracy theories.
- 21:05, 10 May 2020: Huldra reduced the last sentence in the Lead to its current form, a simple statement that Robinson left Sheffield University in 2019.

Other questionable edits by NomdeA:

- 06:46, 15 October 2019: changed the text "he often appears on Russia-backed channels" to "he often appears on Russia-backed propaganda channels". The cited source uses the description "Russian state-backed channels", so the use of the word 'propaganda' is unsupported.
- 05:59, 20 October 2019: changed description of Robinson in first sentence of the article from "academic" to "conspiracy theorist".
- 05:25, 21 October 2019: added an uncited description of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media as "a small pressure group with no academic standing," re-adding the same text on 24 October 2019.
- NomdeA also took exception to Robinson being described as an academic, though the cited article probably came out before the announcement of leaving his university job, here.

    ←   ZScarpia   04:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

'sharing coronavirus conspiracy theories'

I opened a discussion concerning an edit on this related topic at Piers Robinson talk. (I placed the discussion there as it is not specifically on the two points addressed by the OP here.) Humanengr (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• I mean at this point jps & Slatersteven are trying to use the headline of a Snopes article to label him a conspiracy theorist.[15] PackMecEng (talk) 02:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

If that were the only source we were trying to use you might have a point, and it was responsive to a request for sources that use that exact phrase.Slatersteven (talk) 08:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

It is concerning that Robinson's wiki page currently misrepresents the information provided in The Times article that it uses as a source. The Times claims Robinson spread "conspiracy theories" about COVID-19 but we have changed this to "misinformation". There has also been resistance to including Robinson's reply to the accusation. His reply is included in the same Times article that is used as a source. Burrobert (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

ignore the comment above as the whole section relating to COVID-19 has been removed. Burrobert (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Arb break

I'm pretty puzzled about the removal of the material on Robinson's comments re COVID19, e.g. here. What we seem to have is an editor doing his/her own cogitating about the source -- an obvious instance of WP:OR. The source is obviously reliable; describing it as a "smear piece" doesn't make it unreliable, it's just a bit of dressed-up WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a surprising amount of WP:OR going on. There is a bit of spillover here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sentence_check. I have not seen anything quite like this before. Also, I note that there is a considerable amount of activity on Twitter trying to sway the editorial approach here. jps (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The text that is present is exactly the problem that I'm been called the scarlet letter issue. As I write this, it is exactly one news article that has called out Robinson's behavior to COVID, so whether this is a significant stance that any other sources he had been called out on or not, I don't know yet. I'm going to check after I submit this comment, but before I affect my perception on that, the way this stands to me, just because one RS makes this stance doesn't means its still appropriate to include. If Robinson had been known to have been stating a number of prior theories on medical aspects, adding COVID to the list with this would have been fine, but this is not the case here. We absolulety should not be assembling these types of articles on BLPs with single sources for single points of criticism, that just makes them laundry lists of negative criticism. They need to be holistic. That said, I'm going to check now to see if other sources exist. --Masem (t) 21:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

And after a check, the only other news source that is even close to stating what the The Times source is saying is the Daily Mail, which, no. This is fully not appropriate to include as a single-sourced claim, at least in the sense of UNDUE-ness. BLPs are not "bad person laundry lists". --Masem (t) 21:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: What's your opinion on the Huffpost 9/11 piece? It directly quotes from a book review which he wrote which is available publicly online (which I cited in the article) as well as emails sent from Piers to the Huffpost, my concern is that in the email quote "My position, as has been the case for some time, is that [conclusions detailed in 9/11 Unmasked] demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that significant parts of the official narrative are very likely to be incorrect" is that [conclusions detailed in 9/11 Unmasked] may be misleading editorializing, and there's no way to verify without the original email. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

That too, as a first-pass search, seems like a single-sourced item (HuffPost brings it up again in the news about him leaving his position), there's a few smaller, questionable RSes about it. There's a bit of concern here. Stuff related to Syria, that's clearly multiple sources, as well as Iraq and his stance on media + propaganda. Other positions seem to be singular pieces. --Masem (t) 22:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Just to note that the author of the HuffPost piece is a self-professed "specialist in conspiracy theory debunking"[16]. While there is nothing wrong with debunking fringe theories, York does not debunk here an theory but goes after Robinson, starting right from the article title. This makes this witch-hunting POV news piece pretty much worthless for the purpose of being a reliable basis of a person's biography.

Also while I am long resigned to the fact that mass media fill space with reports on absolute trivia these days, I wonder why someone's tweet or a Facebook share should be immediately included in an encyclopaedia? — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Piers has re-activated his old account and has responded on the talk page

Dear Editors,

Regarding COVID-19 and my alleged 'conspiricism' about bioweapons and lethality, are you aware that PBS broadcast this briefing with a US military commander who also noted the possibility of bioweapons (although he thought unlikely) https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1155&v=n4LvzK1wTRY&feature=emb_logo and that The Australian economics editor (sister paper to the Times) stated the virus threat was overstated etc just three days after the article about me in the London Times https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/we-may-be-overreacting-to-an-unremarkable-coronavirus/news-story/3d78be873fac364af49f5fc949e3eaeb.

Can anyone see a problem here, that I discuss (briefly) issue of lethality and virus origins and am attacked in the Times for doing so, and yet I assume the PBS broadcast and Australian article are not being labelled as conspiracy theorists or attacked?

In addition, are you all aware that the same Times journalist, Dominic Kennedy, led an attack piece on me and my colleagues in 2018, accusing us of circulating conspiracy theories regarding alleged chemical weapon attacks in Syria? Subsequently, Times leader writer Oliver Kamm has publicly stated that he initiated the Times 'investigation' and he has also stated that, subsequently, former UK military officer (involved with the war in Syria) had asked the Times to keep going after us https://twitter.com/caitoz/status/1194741907559108609?s=20??

Finally, although back in 2018 the Times accused us of spreading conspiracies regarding chemical weapon attacks in Syria, it is now the case that multiple documents plus whistleblower testimony are in the public domain corroborating the questions we originally raised. Indeed, OPCW inspector Ian Henderson has addressed the UN security council on this issue. Should there not be mention of these facts when discussing Syria?

This information might be useful for your deliberations.

Sincerely,

Dr Piers Robinson

It is worth noting that Piers has still not retracted his threat of legal action. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Why pasting all those paragraphs when a diff would suffice? Let's keep in mind that this is a new editor and will certainly need guidance re. policies and procedures we have here. You might like to politely inform him that he is expected to retract legal threats as it's unlikely he is aware of this policy. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Because it is a direct response from the person the article is about, quoting it in full makes the most sense given that the initial complaint on this noticeboard was also written by him, not everybody following this noticeboard discussion is also discussing on the talk page. It was made very clear at the IP address that the block was related to legal threats and that he would not be unblocked until the legal threat was retracted, I'm not saying I'm unsympathetic to Piers in this situation, but both of the issues that he found defamatory initially have been resolved, so there's no reason for the legal threat. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

If that's the problem, let's do it this way:

@Piersgregoryrobinson:, Wikipedia policies do not allow editors to make legal threats – see WP:NOLEGALTHREATS. You are asked to retract the legal threat above. Please keep in mind that making legal threats is a blockable offence on Wikipedia.

— kashmīrī ^TALK 11:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Legal threat has been removed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Judy Genshaft

Please participate in the RfC at Talk:Judy Genshaft#REQUEST FOR COMMENT RE:_Al-Arian controversy Rocky.abcd (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Karter Zaher

• Karter Zaher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This seems to be a paid article. Most of the references and citations are not relating to the points being made. He claims to be the founder but there is not proof of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Picolie (talk • contribs) 16:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Jia Tolentino

• Jia Tolentino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recent editing could use attention from a BLP specialist. Could maybe use being frozen on a previous stable version, to encourage discussion of content on the talk page. Jheald (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It would not be suitable to freeze it on any version with a bunch of extraneous article on the subject's parents. This is an article on Jia Tolentino, not an article on her parents. Nil Einne (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Greyjoy appears to have a found a good version without these issues that also has a lot of information that was mysteriously removed despite apparently being sourced. I'm going to start warning anyone who adds the information without sufficient sourcing since editors still seem to be at it. Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

This article is still a problem, and still has anonymous users edit warring salacious claims sourced to blog posts and original research. It definitely at least needs to be softlocked. - Desine (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

A request for page protection has been submitted. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected for three days. —C.Fred (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Freddy Cedeno

Hello my name is fredy cedeno, I would like to add information from my profile, such as my summary, the teams I played as a personal athlete and more information from my biography, please feel free to contact me if you need more information. additionally and no less important my name is written with a single D not with double DD, it is a bit confusing because in some articles on the internet my name is written with double DD. Thank you very much for your help regards fredy cedeno — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredy Cedeno (talk • contribs) 22:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Is this the correct article: Freddy Cedeño? Bus stop (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Death of Rebecca Zahau and Jonah Shacknai

Good afternoon all. Can I request a few opinions over on the two articles above. See this talk section of DoRZ page. Dispute comes down to the insertion of the word "disputed" against an official coroner's report. This was done during a civil trial that has since been vacated following a settlement. The insert of "disputed" suggests a clear POV from Wikipedia in Wikipedia's Voice, and casts a clear shadow on Adam Shacknai who was party to the civil case that was settled without his approval by his insurers which I consider a clear BLP issue. Further on JS article in order to prevent further confusion over the sequence of events I clarified dates, and inserted the factual coroner's outcome of suicide. While not subtle, it is accurate. While there have been speculative articles up to the final civil case, the only other sources that can be found on this are from non-reliable that represent OR, and Self Publish. Cheers. Koncorde (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Putting it in the infobox recognises that the suicide is disputed (by her family), not that Wikipedia disputes it. Is there a WP:MOS for death infoboxes that it should reflect the official coroner's report? I'm also going to agree with being neutral as possible in describing her death in Jonah Shacknai's article. I'm surprised there isn't more written about the death of his son and his former girlfriend in his article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Her family are not an authority, and it is their opinion. I find it utterly incredulous that an opinion without source or attribution is being used in the face of the weight of both Primary and RS against the official position.

That's like going to the September 11 attacks and arguing for the inclusion of conspiracy theories. Koncorde (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

We do not weigh the evidence. We rely on what reliable sources tell us, and their coverage is all about the dispute. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The reliable sources state it was ruled a suicide. The coverage is subsequently about their opinion which they took to a civil case that has since been set aside. Pretty much all crimes have some form of dissent, but we do not typically go around suggesting that criminals are only "alleged" even after they are convicted.

The subject of their dispute is covered in the body, with the appropriate context. In the infobox without context is problematic for me in the same way including other opinions in a public dispute would be.

Yes, her death was ruled a suicide and that ruling was disputed by the family leading to a wrongful death trial covered by reliable sources. The infobox is part of the lead which is meant to summarise the contents of the article. That's why I asked rhetorically if there was a MOS for deathboxes mandating the official coroner's report. If you believe that the word "disputed" needs attribution in the infobox, then attribute it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

They went to a civil trial for damages against Adam Shacknai, (which would not change the coroner's report). They won, and her death was still a suicide. Then on appeal they settled, and her death was still a suicide. The official stance did not change even after her body was exhumed. Adding "Disputed" suggests that there is something intrinsically wrong about the formal process (there is no suggestion to that effect), and still places a clear suggestion of guilt on Adam Shacknai (as no other third party has been posited). If there was no named third party I might not be bothered so much - but given the family have made accusations against an individual and they have since settled with no admission of guilt and outcomes set aside - and he is on record of being aggrieved - then we are clearly infringing on his BLP rights.

Meanwhile asking to attribute "disputed" makes no sense any more than allowing misinformation in the summary about Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 from Russia, because, y'know, their opinion. The presence of someone who doesn't share the opinion of the formal outcome of an investigation was never meant to enable people to insert pet theories into infoboxes without context (sourced or not) particularly when they impact on an innocent third party.

As for MOS for the infobox; whether it is even the correct infobox or the correct information is held at all is open for debate. But the idea that a conspiracy theory (which this is) holds water is dangerous ground. Koncorde (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you to strike out your accusation that this is a conspiracy theory. You have zero sources that substantiate that. The family simply argued that Zahau's cause of death was incorrect. At one point a jury found Adam Shacknai responsible for Zahau's death. And I agree, the civil suit against Shacknai did not change official cause of death. But that's because U.S. law doesn't work that way. The jury did not say Shacknai caused Zahau to commit suicide. It would be unbalanced to display "Cause of death: Suicide" in the infobox without any context. --Elephanthunter (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it is a conspiracy theory. There are literally websites set up to that effect talking about the family's theories (which I am not dragging into here) in addition to their own claims and their own lawsuit. They are not simply disputing the cause of death. They literally alleged a conspiracy, to quote:

“On or around the morning of July 13, 2011, defendants Adam, Dina and Nina, and each of them, conspired to plan, and did in fact, enter into a common scheme of conduct with the intent to murder Rebecca in Coronado, California,” the lawsuit states.

The document goes on to claim that the trio struck Zahau “on the head multiple times with a blunt instrument,” physically restrained her, gagged her, bound her and strangled her “to the point of unconsciousness or death.”

The lawsuit alleges the defendants then placed a rope noose around Zahau’s neck, tied the other end of the rope to a bed, carried Zahau to the balcony of the bedroom and pushed her over the railing."

They are literally alleging people are party to a conspiracy to murder Zahau. Suggesting that there is any legitimacy to their claim is a BLP violation against 3 named individuals. Koncorde (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Koncorde: Colloquially, the label "conspiracy theory" is pejorative. And as a value-laden WP:LABEL, it would be best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Even if we ignore the pejorative nature of the phrase, you have yet to provide a single source (let alone WP:RS) that supports your position that the controversy behind Rebecca Zahau's death is based on a conspiracy theory. Instead, you are providing your own evaluation of WP:PRIMARY sources. Wikipedia policy states Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. So no, in an encyclopedic sense, this is not a conspiracy theory. --Elephanthunter (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The controversy is entirely based on an upset family refusing to accept a coroner's report. What has since been spam is a series of theories making accusations against multiple people alleging a conspiracy (a, "conspiracy theory" of you will) - all of whom have been found to have no criminal case to answer, and the civil case thrown out. But we can't take the family or their lawyers word for it now then? And I know you won't accept any secondary source that doesn't provide their own opinion on things or secondary sources that actually talk about the conspiracy theories or discusses the preponderance of conspiracy theories abounding that are made reference to because the entire thing is a joke and your interpretation is fundamentally flawed. Koncorde (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

You are conflating online conspiracy theories and the real-life litigation by Zahau's family. --Elephanthunter (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

My argument is simple. Konkorde is violating WP:BLPBALANCE by removing mention of the dispute in the infobox in Death of Rebecca Zahau and by adding the suicide claim to Jonah Shacknai. The majority of WP:RS on this matter mention the dispute over Rebecca Zahau's death. Arguably none say her death was a suicide in a way that satisfies WP:SECONDARY: A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. Konkorde's own supposed secondary citations state "alleged suicide" or "ruled a suicide" and reference the dispute, which is honestly par for the course in this matter. Konkorde admits most reliable sources cast doubt on the cause of death [17]. For the page Death of Rebecca Zahau we should inline sources and mention the dispute in a manner that adequately matches the source material. As for the page of Jonah Shacknai, an actual living person who is in the public spotlight, we should either mention both the suicide and the dispute, or leave that to Zahau's article. Mentioning the suicide alone would be a violation of WP:WELLKNOWN: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. Hopefully with these changes, the facts in this case can be presented in a balanced and neutral manner. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The idea that an RS reporting the outcome of a coroner's report doesn't meet secondary is questionable. By that perspective no secondary source reporting facts is admissable on Wikipedia for lack of their own opinion. In fact their opinion is clear when they report the incontrovertible facts. Until such time as the coroner's report is overturned. Koncorde (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

"Disputed" is not suitable for the infobox. The family's view can be related in the article text. The infobox should give the determination of the authority responsible for these matters. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Cause of death is an official record, and is what should appear in the info-box. Ditch ∝ 14:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Governments are fallible like any other primary source. They are routinely incorrect or in disagreement with one another. As an example, I work in articles that deal in genocide. Culpable nations generally underestimate or fabricate stats for their own purposes. The same logic applies for COVID-19 stats and crime rates. And like Morbidthoughts says, there is nothing in the WP:MOS that says official government rulings should be given special treatment. We do, however, give special attention to reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. --Elephanthunter (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Then perhaps, like disputed birth dates, it should just be removed? Ditch ∝ 15:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure. Since the cause of death is disputed, I feel like it's fair to remove the cause of death from the infobox. --Elephanthunter (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Pointless to do so. She still committed suicide. You keep talking about reliable secondary sources, and have provided no such sources that provide the "own thinking" logic leap you are insisting that they must have. Koncorde (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Koncorde: The point of removing the line is to provide a balanced article given the information we have. The article should cover the dispute with the same balance as reliable secondary sources. I've already provided my sources above, which is what prompted me to add a reflist at the end of this talk. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, what "own thinking" is being presented? They are just repeating what the family has said, who are a primary source. A source that, by arguments you have made, we should be careful in using. Koncorde (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding the purpose of secondary sources. Most reliable secondary sources mention the family's litigation and include an in-text citation whenever they refer to the coroner's report. They steer clear of interpreting the nature of her death. Wikipedia's prescriptive guidelines on writing a neutral piece say that we should follow that same pattern. We should not promote the views of Zahau's family as fact, nor provide our own interpretation of the coroner's report. Unlike you, I am not asserting that we should write the cause of death, absent of context, in the voice of Wikipedia. --Elephanthunter (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Dimple Kapadia - parents' religion

The Dimple Kapadia article is currently at FAC, where there's a dispute between myself and a user over the religion of Kapadia's parents (see section on FAC) - my summary/query of the dispute appears on the FAC talk page.

In brief (as much as possible), the a user did not review the article but persisted that her parents' religion be added (I had only a source that said her mother was Muslim but nothing about her father, so I initially refused to add religion because I wanted it to be balanced). Actually I was not very favoring of adding her parents' religion at all because Dimple Kapadia never spoke publicly about her religion. I finally found sources from Open magazine, 2019 and India Today, 1985, which say, respectively, the following about her father, Chunibhai's family:

• India Today: "The wealthy Khoja family, which embraced Hinduism only with Chunibhai's father, Laljibhai, and which accepts the Agha Khan as its religious mentor even now, disowned Dimple's father the day he agreed to Raj Kapoor's proposal to let her sign for Bobby"
• Open (about her daughter): "...nurtured in an eccentric lapsed Ismaili Khoja family ... Her maternal grandfather, Chunibhai, was infamously disowned by his father, Laljibhai—who had embraced Hinduism, but continued to regard the Agha Khan as his religious mentor—when he allowed his daughter, Dimple, to act in Bobby".

Based on these, I wrote the following:

• "Chunibhai belonged to a wealthy family of lapsed Ismaili Khojas who accepted Hinduism but continued following Aga Khan as their mentor; Bitti was Muslim (mother).

The user did not accept this version, saying it does not make sense Khoja Muslims would embrace Hinduism (calling it "adaptive lying not based in any reality that I am aware of"), and instead offered to write that her father was "professing a more pluralistic religious outlook".

After a long discussion and many versions offered, on his part an ongoing insistence to remove the word Hinduism, I found an interview with her daughter which said, "My grandmother is an Aga Khani so she would take Rinke and me to the jamatkhana. I had a multicultural exposure, that's why I don't believe in a particular religion. I have respect for most because I grew up surrounded by so many." Based on this finding (or another similar report), the user said that this proves beyond doubt that the family was Muslim because "Ismailism, which is an integral part of Shia Islam, of necessity and non-negotiably monotheistic, does not allow its adherents, even the wayward ones, to 'embrace' Hinduism, a polytheistic religion". Now this is funny, because her daughter is factually half-Muslim and half-Hindu (Dimple Kapadia's husband was Hindu). My current version, considering all sources:

• "Chunibhai was from a wealthy Ismaili Khoja family, whose members had—according to India Today—"embraced Hinduism" without relinquishing Ismaili loyalties; Bitti was an Ismaili, too, and the couple followed Aga Khan as a religious mentor."

This version is not good for the user either. He is totally against the use of the word Hinduism despite the fact that it's mentioned by a reliable source. The user opposes the nomination in spite of admittedly not having read the article, but that's not for here. The whole process through, I had to put up with some serious calls for a violation of WP:OR, WP:VNT, among others. There's nothing more annoying than to have to deal the whole time with one line in the background section, when the article I worked on covers five decades of work in films.

Another thing, when she was a child, Kapadia was given the name Ameena by Aga Khan. I added it, but he demands that a mention be of Ameena being the name of Prophet Muhammad's mother. I disagreed since this is not what the source says. According to him, the reason she cites for being given the name does not matter (that's literally what he said: "It doesn't really matter what spin she puts on the name". According to me, it is the only thing that matters on a BLP and anywhere on WP since that would be original research.

Anyway, his version is:

• "Chunnibhai was of Ismaili Khoja heritage, but was thought to hold somewhat unconventional religious beliefs; Bitti belonged to a Muslim family."

I think this description is just not warranted by the sources quoted above. I'm specifically ignoring the patronising behavior of the user here, the assertions that this version is his "final proposal", the terribly disregarding words he wrote upon his oppose, because more than anything, out of respect for the actress, as I also explained to him, I would not like to mention anything other than what has been explicitly mentioned by the sources. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Bradford (band)

At Bradford (band), a new editor (Angelhalo86) has been edit warring to remove an assertion about one of the band members having been charged with possession of child pornography - they explain their reasoning in their edit summaries. The content appears to be accurate and supported by sources, but I'm wondering whether it is DUE - the band split up some ten years before the charges were brought, and the band member in question is not himself notable. Is this content necessary in our article? Others' thoughts would be appreciated. Pinging Hillelfrei who brought this to my attention. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 10:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Forgot to ping Michig, who also reverted the removal. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Chanty Marostica

Please see the latest addition to Talk:Chanty Marostica, which may be a violation of BLP policies. I am not familiar enough with the policies to determine for myself whether this note is unacceptable. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLPRS and WP:BLPREMOVE say that contentious material must be cited with a reliable source, which is really what the BLP policy is about. So yeah, that EPER, not specific, unsourced, and possible libel. And off-topic, that should probably be a COI edit request. {{replyto|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 01:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the question was whether the material should be removed from the talk page: obviously it can't be included in the article for many reasons. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I have redacted the unsourced allegations from the talk page. I left parts of the message and the responses, in part to ensure the IP can read them. There is still the line "it is a factual.....", but IMO that's probably borderline okay as it with the earlier stuff deleted, it's not clear what it's referring to. Still others are welcome to go further if they want. IMO revdeletion is also justified but I haven't asked for it from anyone. Nil Einne (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Ray Burton (musician)

Please note that Australian musician, Ray Burton, born in Sydney, New South Wales, on June 22, 1944, is not deceased. The death notice at the bottom of this article I believe refers to American citizen, Ray Burton, the father of former deceased Metallica member, Cliff Burton.

Regards, Jim McMaster — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.39.59.118 (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

OK. I've removed it. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Michael Avenatti

Please come comment at Talk:Michael Avenatti#Opening sentence. A discussion to develop a consensus on the opening sentence needs more than two people who aren't agreeing. At issue is whether to start the article with essentially the "X is a convicted felon" construction. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

My sensibilities lead me to being inclined to omit from the very first sentence that they are a "convicted felon". They are also an educated person who has no doubt done defensible things professionally. It strikes me as over-stigmatization to pigeonhole them as a "convicted felon" in the opening sentence of their biography. Bus stop (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm made the same comment there already with a suggested revised text. There are rare cases - someone like Bernie Madoff - that despite their "legitimate" career before conviction, that their convicted felonies far far far outweigh that and need to be highlighted as such (usually when their crimes have harmed numerous people financially or in some other way). But cases like Avenatti's here are more type of the type of "victimless" white collar crimes that while felonies and important enough to note their convictions and sentences in the lede, should not immediately outweigh impartial coverage of their career they were known for. This is not to downplay their crimes, we should still let the media be a general guide here with an awareness of RECENTISM (in the case of Avenatti, this all happening in the last several months so RECENTISM absolutely applies) --Masem (t) 23:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You consider extortion a victimless crime? --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Not in that way, it was more a simplification to differentiate. All crimes have victims, obviously (otherwise they would not be crimes), but, as I've feel there exists when reading sources, there's a big perception difference of crimes against a company and its recordbooks, and a crimes that immediately impact thousands of individuals. Sources seem to treat the latter as being victims and those committing the crime with much more resentment, while in the former there is not that much sympathy for companies being victims, but there is a want to see justice against any misdeeds anyway. --Masem (t) 23:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

No, not all crimes have victims, even if you put "obviously" on it. Enough people have been locked up over the years for consensual acts that that should be clear. And financial crimes against a company has as victims all of its shareholders. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Some notable examples (of individuals who were notable before they were convicted) that come into my mind:

• Michael Cohen: "is an American former lawyer and convicted felon best known as an attorney for Donald Trump from 2006 until May 2018."
• Paul Manafort: "is a former lobbyist, political consultant, lawyer, and convicted felon of tax and bank fraud."
• Anthony Weiner: "is an American former congressman who represented New York's 9th congressional district from January 1999 until June 2011."

The first two use {{Infobox criminal}} that includes statements about their criminal status while biographies of Avenatti and Weiner. Here (re: Avenatti) is discussion about removing criminal status from the infobox. I'm not suggesting that all four biographies should be treated similarly, just that they aren't. Here someone has commented that Cohen Sorrentino (whoever that is) are not treated similarly. Politrukki (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument, and I would argue the same points on those; they had known careers before they were convicted even though their convictions (and events leading up to and after it) likely overshadowed their careers. Using infobox criminal is fine as long as they are convicting on criminal charges, but as I've pointed on on Avenatti's page, there is no requirement or policy that the lede sentence has the summarize the person completely. The lede in total has to, with appropriate UNDUE considerations, so as to summarize, for example, Cohen without mention of any conviction would be inappropriate. What the lede does have to do is present the topic in a neutral and impartial fashion, and that is where rushing to append a conviction at the end of that first sentence is nearly always a problem; its the inverse of the "murder, arson and jaywalking" trope, and it immediately sets a wrong tone for the article in Wikivoice. Again, per UNDUE, we're going to be talking of these convictions in the lede, and in nearly all cases I've seen, that's in the second paragraph after establishing what their main career path was, and the infobox will have the basic details. This is only a rule of thumb, I am sure there are cases where the conviction needs to come earlier like in the second sentence, but after establishing enough of the person's career to make it clear why that conviction exists. It's not about whitewashing away information but the tone we're presenting this information to readers. --Masem (t) 14:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Mentioning the conviction in the lead sentence twice is redundant and I'm not sure whether "best known" should be mentioned in the opening sentence/paragraph at all. However, I fail to understand how using rollback[18][19] and semi-protecting[20] the article (as opposed to requesting for protection) can be justified – unless there is some additional information we are not privy to. Politrukki (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Terry Angus

I am trying to amend the page "Terry Angus" on behalf of Terry Angus who is a very close friend of mine. The article stated that he had suffered a series of injuries, however the article that was referenced referred to other players having injuries, not Terry, and he is adament that he did not have injuries. I also amended his stats (appearances and goals) as these were also incorrect.

An admin reverted my changes and said they were incorrect but they are correct as I am amending on behalf of Terry,at his request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayleyjedwards (talk • contribs) 18:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

As explained - the injuries element has been updated; the stats provided are either unsourced or contradicted by reliable sources; and there is a clear conflict of interest here. GiantSnowman 18:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Cuban ancestry material at the Mariah Carey article

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

At Talk:Mariah Carey#Cuban ancestry (a permalink for it here), I expressed concern about this material that I reverted. I stated, "It is poor sourcing. I don't think that Deseret.com is strong enough sourcing for what [was] added. And editors have stated before that we shouldn't use genealogy sources (familysearch.org) or otherwise to add material like this. If this is true, it should be covered by better sources." I also stated that the editor who added it, Xuxo, "didn't help the text by adding 'claims'; see WP:Claim."

Xuxo replied, "The sources I posted are not 'genealogy sources', they are official documents (Mariah's grandparents marriage certificate of 1928 and the 1930 US census). Both listed her grandfather as 'Cuban', not Venezuelan. They are not genealogy sources that anybody can change, they are official documents emitted by the US government. These documents happen to be avaiable in a genealogy website (familysearch.com), but they are original copies of official documents and one cannot argue against them. All sources claiming Mariah's grandfather was Venezuelan is based solely on her 'claims'. In that interview I posted as a source, Mariah said that she once thought her grandfather was Cuban, but later she 'discovered' he was Venezuelan (it is possible that someone gave her the wrong information). It is clear that Mariah did not meet her grandfather, so she may be confused about his nationality, which is ok. However, his marriage certificate and the 1930 census are clear and indicate his nationality as Cuban, not Venezuelan. As there are conflitive sources regarding his nationality, I added both possibilities in the article (Venezuelan or Cuban) and this seems the best way to deal with it."

Thoughts? I'll also point the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard to this matter. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen—I don't see where you've included any mention of Cuban heritage. Aren't you saying "I added both possibilities in the article (Venezuelan or Cuban)"? Bus stop (talk) 03:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't add anything. Above, I was quoting Xuxo. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Bus stop (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, those types of official documents are no different than using court records, tax records, phone books, or any other primary source covered by BLPPRIMARY and BLPPRIVACY. I recommend removing them at once, leaving a clear indication that these are definite BLP violations. It doesn't matter if they were found on some third-party website either, they are still official documents and subject to BLP. Genealogy sites are also primary sources, although not the type that would require immediate removal, I would avoid them like the plague. They do their own research, and are far from infallible. It is much better if we can find this info in secondary sources, but digging into primary sources like those is doing the work of journalists, or original research, so I would avoid that.

That said, the diff above is not even about Carey but about her grandfather. It is really extraneous and makes it awkward to read. And the use of the word "claims" makes it look like she's lying, so I would watch for those things. All in all, it's too much detail for something that could be summed up in a few words, and none of that detail really helps in understanding the subject. I would definitely go back to the way it was. I hope that helps.

Oh, and I did a quick review of the Deseret article. At first it looks like a well written article, but it's really just a report of an interview from taken from another magazine, and doesn't say a whole lot. I don't think I would count that as reliable for this particular info. I would at least go back to the original and see what it says in full context. Zaereth (talk) 01:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with "the diff above is not even about Carey but about her grandfather. It is really extraneous ... none of that detail really helps in understanding the subject". While the importance of one's ancestral lineage can be overstated it is not irrelevant. As for the quality of the sourcing I think it is weak and it verges on original research. Therefore I agree the assertion of Cuban ancestry should be omitted at this time. Bus stop (talk) 03:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Using a marriage document is textbook WP:BLPPRIMARY. It is using public records to assert things in her biography and they should be removed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I should have mentioned WP:BLPPRIMARY to the editor; it escaped my mind at the time. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no blanket prohibition whatsoever on using primary sources. We can use them on occasion where appropriate and for plain facts requiring no interpretation. Per WP:PRIMARY, "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

Thus, we can use a primary source to state someone was born somewhere, such as Germany. We cannot, however, use a primary to make an interpretive statement, such as "he is German" (since, for example, Bruce Willis was born in Germany but is not German). --Tenebrae (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Excellent point, in my opinion. Bus stop (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Tenebrae, I think that Zaereth and Morbidthoughts were focused on the following from WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Got it. Nearly 15 years, and I'm still learning! I'm thinking there should be mention of that / link to that at WP:PRIMARY. Addendum: And I see it's already there, right at the bottom of the section!

I would note that secondary sources using data taken from primary sources have long been used and accepted, i.e. FamilySearch Social Security death records and the California Birth Index. So I would advise the editors using primary sources at Mariah Carey to try to find acceptable secondary sources. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Alice S. Fisher

There is a serious distortion in this article about Alice Fisher’s prosecution of Jack Abramoff when she was Assistant Attorney General. Details at Talk:Alice S. Fisher#Request Edit May 18. This is a separate matter from the issue raised below, which has been resolved. JZ at LW (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I've unarchived this as it doesn't look like it has been dealt with and so if nothing else, it will be a reminder to me to look into it in a few days if no one else does. Nil Einne (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Ebi

Ebi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The Ebi article has had repeated edits from the individual in the biography of a living person's article self-promoting with puffery/marketing lines that were unsourced. Chances were given to obtain citations with requests to original editors. The editors came back instead and wiped out all of the updated and actually sourced references with a backup of the old WikiPedia article containing only their uncited material. The page is being used for marketing and not an objective biography. Edits should be required to adhere to WikiPedia policies. There appears no other updated information for this subject individual.

Woah! I support User:Roxy the dog's edit on this article. While the original article could use better sourcing, and is a bit flowery (not unusual in popular icon style singers from the 70's), calling a BLP a drunken pervert and traitor in the lead referenced to what appears to be a blog and a now taken down youtube clip is a violation of BLP. I reverted it back. This singer appears to have appeared recently at a concert that has received backlash on twitter for nationalistic/political reasons hence the rush to demonisation. Mentioning the fact it happened, sourced to newspaper reports in the body of the text may be appropriate, quoting from tweets calling him a traitor is not. Curdle (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Birthdates of BLPs

Having a bit of a content dispute at Keidrich Sellati. Basically, there are multiple sources, including his personal Twitter, that confirm that his birthdate is October 22, 2001. However, this has been removed by several over-zealous editors. While I recognize that articles are supposed to source controversial information, the overwhelming majorities do NOT have a reference for the birthdate, or its implied in another source in the article. Not all of the sources might meet RS, but I see that the majority of sources do say the same, and I have seen Twitter used as a source for certain information in other articles - I think there is even a cite tweet template. He isn't a minor anymore, if that is a concern, that is if we believe what the sources claim of course. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I've witnessed many an edit war over the years stemming from unsourced birthdates in BLPs. Here's what I have to say about this issue: if no reliable sources exist, then don't add a date. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about that. Certainly don't reinstate the date after it's been removed unless you have solid reliable sourcing backing it up. That would be a BLP violation and should be taken seriously. As for twitter, per WP:TWITTER it should be fine to use as a source for date of birth, as long as the tweet is something along the lines of "I was born on the 22nd of October in 2001", or "today I am turning X". Such a tweet doesn't seem to exist however. Sro23 (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, your argument that because other articles aren't referenced means that it's okay to do the same here is complete BS analogous to Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Sro23 (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

While you may have seen many articles with no source for the birth date, some of us have seen many article subjects complain about incorrect and poorly sourced dates in their articles. If you have a Twitter source, you should provide a specific link to the tweet. I read on the talk page that Vulture is considered a reliable source. If this is agreed, then you can use Template:Birth based on age as of date. If you can find a reliable link saying when their birthday is, the combination may suffice for a full date of birth. For more thoughts about self-described birthdays, check out the leading quote in our autobiography guideline. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not an autobiography, I'm not Sellati nor do I know him. Rockawy (a film he was in) wished him a happy birthday on October 22, 2018. And I'm not trying to use the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument per se, though I see how that could be interpreted. To use kind of a random example Matthew McConaughey says his birthdate but does not immediately cite it. I took it as a convention that we don't need to add a ref after the birthdate unless it is controversial. That is the case for the overwhelming majority of actors, sports stars, politicians, etc, so it makes sense to take it as a rule of thumb, no? Either that, or go around removing birthdates from thousands of articles. Also about the sourcing, I've seen Serienjunkies used as a source in several German wiki articles, which I thought had more stringent sourcing requirements than the enwiki. Perhaps not enough to establish notability at an AfD debate, but should be good to establish something relatively uncontroversial as date of birth. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN is simply a core policy and that won't change. If you haven't read it recently, it may be worth another look. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll add that if the subject just tweets "Thank you for the birthday wishes", that's not enough to confirm the exact date as that can be posted anytime including after the birthday. Similarly, if the subject only wants to post their month and day, that isn't going to be useful without a second source to confirm the year. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

If the celeb tweets about it as with Crystal R. Fox https://twitter.com/Only1CrystalFox/status/1181954573189169157 that can definitely firm it up. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

This is fairly simple. You need a good, reliable source in order to list just the year in which he was born. In most cases, the year alone is good enough. Seriesjunkies is not a reliable source for this information. It's basically a German equivalent of Netflix, and probably get their info from places like IMDB (who often get theirs from people like Wikipedia), or other questionable sources. I would look for this in a magazine, newspaper, book, or some other good RS.

In the case of the full date, this requires multiple RSs; enough to demonstrate that the subject does not object to us including it in his bio, per WP:BLPPRIVACY. Twitter is not a reliable source in this case, especially from someone wishing him a happy birthday on a certain date, because that just becomes synthesis. And the subjects of articles are often not reliable for info on their own birthdates anyhow. I should know, I've been 28 for many years now. I would only consider including the full date if found in multiple RSs, but at least one good RS just to list the year.

And I very much agree with going around and removing unsourced or poorly sourced dates from all bios. That is a great plan, and I would be grateful if you could start immediately. Zaereth (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• I would wholeheartedly disapprove of mass removing of birthdates to prove a WP:POINT, honestly. To use one example, the last featured BLP in the main page, Paul E. Patton, has a birthdate that is note cited in the lead. And I suppose none of you have actually read the tweet anyway, since he isn't claiming to be a certain age, he is receiving birthday wishes from someone who would know, the director of the film he is in. Heavy at least confirms he was born in 2001. And IMDB doesn't list his date of birth, so serienjunkies didn't get it from there, nice try. FX confirms he was born in Colorado. Honestly the WP:Burden is to prove why you keep removing information that is sourced, while not to the New York Times, to at least a website with a decent reputation. And many websites have the same data, so you'd have to have a reason they are all wrong. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Uh, you should try actually reading the policies. BURDEN says exactly the opposite of what you said. The burden is on you to provide a reliable source. Lack of reliable sources is plenty of grounds for removal per BLP, which trumps all other policies. Plus the wholesale removal of unsourced or poorly sourced birthdays would help make those articles comply with policy, which is a great reason to do it. All BLPs should comply with BLP policy, and the fact that some don't is no excuse.

Paul Patton, for example, has a good RS, right there in the personal life section. Information that is sourced in the body doesn't need to be sourced again in the lede, since the lede is a summary of the body. And I said Seriesjunkies likely got their info from "places like", so that comeback is moot. Many websites get their data from other questionable sites, which makes them unreliable.

And taking some birthday wishes and judgiung for yourself that it means that day was his birthday is the very definition of synthesis, which is a violation of policy. This is not rocket science. Simply find a reliable source and add away, but be sure it complies with policy or it will likely be removed. Zaereth (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

From my interpretation of BLPPRIVACY, if someone posts something like "today is my birthdate" (although you'd still have the year problem) or especially "I was born 27 May 2000" from a verified Twitter account that is used for publicity purposes (and don't seem to mostly just used for communicating with family and friends), that would be enough to satisfy BLPPRIVACY concerns. You may still dispute over whether the date is accurate. (Which can be complicated. While nominally we're supposed to trust reliable secondary sources to fact check, my gut feeling is that fact checking of birthdates is often limited. And where it does arise, it's often only in response to a dispute, especially over the year. I'd add that fact checking can be difficult in some places where birth records are kept private until death or some other such milestone.)

Now if someone is simply wished happy birthday and they respond "thanks for their wishes", that does not comply with BLPPRIVACY. I'd add I'm doubtful even putting aside lying, you can be sure it's accurate. There are timezone issues combined with the fact even putting aside lying for privacy (and often these will simply be lies for omission) if the tweet is simply Happy Birthday X rather than "Today is person X's birthday, so happy birthday X" or something it's questionable if simply acknowledging birthday wishes is a "lie by omission". While people sometimes say early birthday wishes or happy belated birthday or whatever, for most people, especially if they know each other, if someone wishes them a happy birthday a few days late or early, I don't think they're necessarily going to say "my birthday is actually in Y days or was Y days ago". They're just going to say "Thanks for the wishes". No one may be intended to mislead anyone. It's just that others are reading too much into what are are partly private communication between 2 people. While this probably isn't that likely in tweets by the publicity department (or whatever) for a movie or whatever, once you have to start analysing such complexities you're getting into real WP:OR territory.

BTW, the timezone issue can also easily mean a day wrong even if people were explicitly trying to wish it on the right day. For example I currently live in NZ. If someone in the US tweets on the morning of 27 May US time "happy birthday" and my birthday is the 27, there's a far chance my birth day is already passed as far as I'm concerned. However I understand timezones and I'm not going to consider they were late. Alternatively, in recognition of this maybe someone would tweet at me on the morning of the 26 May in the US. Again, I'm not going to consider this early.

I regularly remove birth dates when they come up here on BLPN, or I otherwise notice they're poorly sourced. For BLPs, if the person isn't highly notable, I may not even bother with WP:before since ensuring BLPprivacy is met takes a fair amount of effort. For highly notable people I may have a quick check and if the date is all over the internet I may not bother or may just tag it. Nevertheless even for those cases I'll defend anyone who removes the date unless our requirements are met. Birth date issues aren't uncommon here on BLPN occasionally someone is saying it should be removed; but more common I think are cases where people are edit warring over 2 different dates when neither of them is sourced or it's an edit war over adding and remove. A lot of times when you investigate these edit wars it's clear that no one ever provided a good source let alone sufficient sourcing to comply with BLPprivacy.

It is unfortunately true that a lot of people don't seem to understand how strict our requirements are for birthdates, and so we do get it a lot of poorly sourced or unsourced additions. Which often don't even comply with basic sourcing requirements for a BLP and which tend to lead to a lot of OSE arguments when someone removes a date. BUt I'm not proposing a mass removal campaign nor do I think it's a good idea. However I will definitely support any specific removal when our requirements are not met.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

On the flip side, you can also see Talk:Peter Bocage, for how I've tried to handle a case where BLP is long past. You can see in that case, I even advocated that it would be fine to reveal details from a birth record on the talk page since it could help with the hunt for sources. There is no way I'd ever advocate that for a BLP, if you look into my history here you'll see I'm very fierce on applying WP:BLPPRIMARY. Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

If you are going to quibble over time zones and the precise date, fine. I'd be cool with using the month of October. But there are several sources, granted not the highest quality but still count for something regardless, that use October 22. If this were a case where there were two different birthdates, I'd agree we should only use the best sources. But this is different. In news articles, generally they use the age of the person unless there is a reason for listing the birthdate. That said, someone's date of birth is not some secret information, and we shouldn't remove them from articles on privacy concerns like, say, home addresses or phone numbers. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Editorofthewiki: You need to read WP:BLPPRIVACY. If a borderline notable subject requests a DOB be removed for privacy reasons, then we should oblige. And if the only sources you can get are low quality, then we should absolutely remove the DOB. The world won't end if one article is missing a subject's exact date of birth. Sro23 (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Rohan Shah

I have blanked Rohan Shah, as I found no revision worth restoring after multiple users' disruption. Perhaps someone can do better. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I've found a past version that looks like something to work from. I trimmed it a bit and am assuming that everything else in it is actually verified. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Titania_Ltd

Trina Robbins

• Trina Robbins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am Trina Robbins, making these corrections: I alone produced and edited "It Ain't Me, Babe Comix", NOT with Willy Mendes, although she was a major contributor. Because of Wikipedia's misinformation, when people write about me, they repeat this error. Also, I was never married to Kim Deitch, and my daughter is named Casey Robbins, NOT Casey Deitch. I am very, very tired of Wikipedia spreading misinformation about me. In case you don't believe that I am who I say I am, please message me on my Facebook page. I will provide my phone number and my address so that you can come to my door, ring my bell, and see for yourself that I am Trina Robbins. Now please correct those errors! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:2F70:4D30:5D51:34F3:7890:4113 (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on what is published about the subject in reliable sources, not on what the subject claims about themselves. Accordingly, we won't make changes based just on the request of (somebody purporting to be) the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The It Ain't Me, Babe Comix claim cites two sources. I don't have access to the books, so I can't directly vet the source, but there are solid references. —C.Fred (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The spouse claim has been removed because it's based only on an interview with the other party, and that's not acceptable per WP:RS. As far as the child...with no sourcing, she's been removed entirely. —C.Fred (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

That's incorrect - that's precisely why we have WP:BLPSELFPUB - David Gerard (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks C.Fred. I was gonna do the same. Not only is the marriage claim an interview with the other person, but it is such a rare thing I could only find one copy on worldcat. There is no way to use that for verifiability. The daughter should never have been named anyway, because she's not notable enough to have her own article.

The other bit is a problem. That info is sourced to what we call a reliable source. The information is located here , so you can read it for yourself. Wikipedia didn't make this up, and we rely on what the sources say. What our article says is exactly what the sources says. Now, neither say who was responsible for producing or editing, but that you both were involved, which you seem to agree with yourself. I don't have access to the other source for this info, but the one says what we say, and you can click the link and read for yourself.

As the subject here, you have the ability to contact the source and tell them they made a mistake. Any good source will want to correct their mistakes, although with books that may be difficult. You may have to wait for the next revision to come out, but that is still an option within your power, but we have to default to what the sources say in this matter, but I don't think they really say what you may be inferring from it, that is, I don't think the author meant for it to come off like that. Zaereth (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@C.Fred: If you look at the history of the page, the addition of the Krensky source, it was used to indicate that a bunch of women "established" the book, presumably meaning that they all worked on it (there are a number of women contributing to the issue); it was other editors who somehow pared that down to just Robbins and Mendes; it would be as if we said "George Lucas and hundreds of cast and crew members made Star Wars" and someone rephrased it as "George Lucas and Peter Cushing made Star Wars". We shouldn't assume that this later editor actually accessed this off-line reference in making the change (and while I haven't searched through for that change, it would've been a different editor, as this was the final edit on this article by Muskmallow (talk · contribs).) And if you look what that edit is coming from, when there was just the one reference there, it was that Trina produced the book. So I don't think we can rely on the fact that the article currently makes this statement and has two references after it as an indicator that those references actually have this claim.

I will note that I have a minor WP:COI regarding Ms. Robbins; as an editor and publisher, I published an anthology decades back that included some of her work, and that book continues to generate money for both of us. So I will not be making any changes myself. But I will say that I have reason to believe that the above poster is indeed Ms. Robbins (she has raised similar issues elsewhere), and that in this matter she is discussing things within a realm where should would be considered expert, not just because it's her own life, but because she is respected and well-published writer of comics history, particularly where it involves female creators. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

If we have a citable source - even Facebook would do - then that would definitely qualify under WP:BLPSELFPUB - David Gerard (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

As for the idea that the author will correct the book in the next edition, there is no reason to believe that another edition is coming. It saw print in 2008, and there has not been a new edition since. It was a book aimed at school-aged kids (that's what the Twenty-First Century Books imprint is for) by an author who is not a known expert in the field and whose other books do not include any other non-fiction about comics. As such, that this source is sufficiently reliable to be used on a BLP in a matter where questions have been raised is questionable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Better source! From the website for a film that is in part about Trina, we find "With the moral support of the staff, she produced It Ain’t Me, Babe Comix, the first ever all-woman comic book. " --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Even better source The Routledge Companion to Comics, published by academic book publisher Routledge: "The women's underground comics movement was launched in 1970, when Trina Robbins published the single-issue It Ain't Me, Babe Comix anthology." --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Even better(er?) source. Article quotes Robbins as saying "And that was ‘It Ain’t Me Babe’ comics, which I co-produced with Willy Mendes." I updated the article to add this source and updated the text to match. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not have access to a copy of Oral history interview with Kim Deitch, 2007-2009, so it's difficult to determine if this was a claim made by Deitch or a genuine mistake. While Trina Robbins is now corrected, the page Kim Deitch currently still has the claim that Deitch and Robbins were married. Given that WP:BLPSELFPUB doesn't allow for disputed claims involving third parties and there is no partner parameter for Template:Infobox_comics_creator (unlike Template:Infobox_person), I've removed Robbins from his list of spouses. I have created an edit request for the comics creator infobox to allow for a partner parameter. See: [21]. --Elephanthunter (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Janez Janša

Editors, the bellow contents may be unfit for the very beginning of the article and it may not factually be correct (the part about international notoriety, as it seems unlikely the said person is mostly known for these actions). Additionally, they may be poorly argumented (or sourced, if you will), since the sources for this content comes from media, well-known to strictly oppose politicians with views familiar to those of Mr. Janša. The said content is cited bellow: Internationally and domestically he is best known for having shifted from being an anti-communist pro-democracy fighter to one using an anti-migration and climate sceptic rhetoric in his political campaigns, calling critical journalists liars and “presstitutes.”[11][12] His views are backed up by Nova24TV, funded by Hungarian figures close to Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a close ally of Janša on the question of migration.[13][14][11] He also shares the Hungarian and Polish governments' wish that the European Union would not lecture the ex-communist countries on democracy and rule of law.[11]

Perhaps just something to reconsider. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.88.168 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Jennifer Connelly

Hi, The music video "Space Age Love Song" by A Flock of Seagulls (1982) on Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcMh6GZoFC8) use Jennifer Connelly's 1991 movie Career Opportunities. It's not an official video and could not be (since the movie was made 9 years later. So, this item should be removed from her music videos. Thanks and regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erdem Lemon (talk • contribs) 21:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Erdem Lemon, that YouTube link is probably a violation of our WP:COPYVIO policy - are we using it in an article somewhere? GirthSummit _(blether) 09:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot the link. It's on Jennifer Connelly's biography, under music videos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erdem Lemon (talk • contribs) 13:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Erdem Lemon, OK, I understand now. Well, I don't have any view on whether or not it should be listed on her page, that's not really a BLP issue so much as a simple question of content - feel free to remove it if you think it's wrong, or discuss it on the article talk page. What we mustn't do is link to YouTube channels like that, which as I said are probably copyright violations. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 09:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Frederika Alexis Cull

This article was, I believe, previously mentioned here, but archived with little or no comments. I tried cleaning things up a little- removing unnecessary detail about her parentage and trivia about her tattoos- but it keeps getting restored to someone's preferred version. Also, in the edit-box text are all these hidden messages, "DO NOT CHANGE THIS" and "DO NOT EDIT," that type of thing. I tried putting some discussion topics on the talk page to no avail. Honestly, this is not really my forte, so I'd appreciate it if someone else took a look. Thanks! Ditch ∝ 16:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't read or speak Indonesian, but the Google translated pages don't come close to verifying most of those claims. Plus the sources all appear to be celebrity tabloid sites, which we probably shouldn't use to support claims about living persons. Woodroar (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I took a pass through to strip out the most obvious cruft. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Good work. The current version is acceptable to me. But I imagine it will be reverted in the next day or two. If so, perhaps some sort of page protection would be in order? Ditch ∝ 22:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Multiple experienced editors are now collaborating on the talk page, along with 6-month auto-confirmed protection. Thanks to all! Ditch ∝ 22:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

yeah, I put 6mo autoconfirmed on it as disruptive editing on a BLP, because it's been semi-protected or full-protected multiple times in the past. IP/new editors can of course propose stuff on talk - David Gerard (talk) 09:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

David Miller

One of our editors has used some very strong language to describe David Miller (sociologist), see the edit comment here [22] and the talk page entry here [23]. I regarded the accusations as a breach of our BLP policy and provided a warning here [24] and here [25]. The editor has provided no response and their descriptions are still visible. Any thoughts on this? Burrobert (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

You seem keen to prevent discussion of real stuff. Is there a reason for that? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Worood Zuhair Removal

This article belongs to a insignificant living person who doesn't satisfy the requirement for biographical articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by عمر سيروان (talk • contribs) 10:00 29 May 2020 (UTC)

So you don't like it? Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Roger Wolfson

I have a personal relationship with the subject of this article. The article contains false, highly-inflammatory allegations about this person in the section Roger Wolfson#Domestic Violence Allegations. The only source is a 100% opinion website, created largely with user submissions, entitled City Watch LA [26]. Here is what the website says about itself on its Contact page: “CityWatchLA is an opinion publication based on the opinions of its writers and contributors. We value ideological diversity and debate. However, the opinions expressed do not necessarily represent the editorial position of CityWatchLA. We offer and encourage those with different opinions to submit articles which we will consider running.” [27]

As I read it, a 100% opinion website consisting of user contributions, which even says it does not necessarily stand behind these contributor opinions, cannot be considered a “high quality source” as required by WP: Biographies of living persons, especially for contentious matters. But even if it were the highest quality source possible, opinion articles (and 100% of CityWatch LA is opinion content) cannot be used as the source for statements of fact, as I found when looking at WP:RSEDITORIAL: “Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.” Therefore, I’d request that this entire section be deleted immediately, as Wikipedia policy requires: “Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” WP: BLP. FYI, I looked it up and these few false allegations are the only contributions this user has ever made on Wikipedia: Special:Contributions/AboutLA.

So this is a WP:Single Purpose Account set up just to attack the subject of the article and may be advancing a personal agenda. Lisrayn (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I have removed those per WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPCRIME. This does not pass WP:WELLKNOWN being cited to a single source of questionable reliability. The other was court records, which is a clear violation. Unless/until a conviction is secured in a court of law, or this becomes a big media thing, it should stay out. Zaereth (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

As a minor political figure, he is a public figure where WP:BLPCRIME does not apply. However, this incident does need multiple reliable sources required under WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:REDFLAG, and I can't find any beyond those sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe BLPCRIME applies unless WELLKNOWN is satisfied. Unless there is a big media storm around this, it should stay out. Zaereth (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Virtue signalling & Joe Biden

Are these tweets enough to include Joe Biden here? Doug Weller talk 11:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree this is unjustified. This is just political disagreement rather than a good example of virtue signalling. Bus stop (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I retract the above. Bus stop (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It's coatracking the current political situation onto the topic for no reason. The topic stands fine on its own without, presuming nothing else comes out of the Biden situation. --Masem (t) 13:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I don’t agree that this is merely political disagreement. But, makes no sense to place in that article just because Brit Hume used the neologism. Particularly since he used it incorrectly. I think it does belong in the Brit Hume article, where it already is but could be expanded. O3000 (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

This is "merely political disagreement", Objective3000. You can't say that Brit Hume "used it incorrectly". Language is used whatever way a speaker uses it to achieve a desired effect. Virtue signalling is precisely about seizing upon something which is ostensibly "virtuous" and assigning to it a problematic motivation. Bus stop (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, even on Hume's article (I've not followed this story at all), how far has it gone in terms of a controversy? If all that's been pointed out is basically what's on Virtue signalling and what's on Hume's page, there's really not much to the story to include per RECENTISM. We need to not get hung up on day-to-day events like this with BLPs involve. Even if it is something larger, how much is this affecting Hume? He may have set a stone in motion then, but that doesn't necessarily make it relevant to his page. --Masem (t) 14:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, as disgusting as it was; it's just typical Fox and and recentism at this point. O3000 (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Kill it! It's absolutely UNDUE in the Virtue Signalling article. This is a great example of taking an article that impartially describes a concept without using controversial examples being coatracked by an addition of an unneeded example with a highly partisan angle. This harms the article and should be removed and salted. Springee (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree it is "highly partisan". But I think it can remain in that article. It is actually well-written. Both sides of the issue are presented: "A number of Twitter users replied that in this instance virtue signalling was the same thing as setting a good example, and many others gave reasons why Biden's mask-wearing might have been a sensible precaution. Hume was not deterred by those replies and continued attacking Biden the next day..." Bus stop (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

My gut reaction on any article like this is that the examples should be things that jump to mind when the term is mentioned long after the fact. Ideally it should be cases where it's not just an accusation from one side, but is widely recognized across the spectrum of viewpoints. Something that happened within the last week shouldn't be included no matter how strongly someone here felt at the time. In an election season these sort of accusation is tossed around so willy-nilly that they quickly take over the article. Mangoe (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I have to add that the article is weak on examples that the Biden case sticks out as plainly inappropriate, as if it were the only example anyone could think off— or worse, that someone wanted to criticize Biden and used a discussion of virtue signalling as a coatrack for that. Mangoe (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I found it to be completely absurd to take 1 Fox News guy's commentary and blow it up into a giant example of the subject matter. Well-written or not, it gives serious undue weight to a mild criticism. ValarianB (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Mangoe—I don't think "virtue signalling" is ever clear cut. You aren't going to have "examples ... that jump to mind". I think this is a good "example", not because it exemplifies the concept, but because a journalist felt the term could be applied to wearing a face mask to prevent coronavirus. Its timeliness is a plus. Bus stop (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Only it was a journalist opinion mocking. Is everyone wearing a mask Virtue signalling? Or, are they following the law and observing safety rules. I realize that DJT is trying to call wearing a mask "political correctness". Let's not echo that. It's a quite poor example. O3000 (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Now lets not politicize the discussion. If it is well-written, it does not have a political message. If it is well-written, it is about the use of language, specifically the term "virtue signalling". I am merely arguing that in a well-written form, it is worthy of inclusion. Bus stop (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Even if its well written, its a pointless addition as it only explains a random use of "virtue signaling" in the real world, the only example on the page and one that is highly politicized and weakly sourced (in that while using RSes, the numbers supporting it are few). That's not good enough reason to include just an example, given how the article goes to lengths to explain broadly how the term has been used since 2015. Just doing a quick google search, this specific incident is so minor relative to any other past single events I can find on virtue signalling that calling it out is very much UNDUE - and calling out those other events outside of broad strokes that are already made is also undo; the issue is not with singular uses of the word but its broad implications so focusing on any single use is wrong. --Masem (t) 19:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

You call it a "random use". All uses are random uses. Is there a repository of authenticated uses? When an average person in a non-medical setting wears a face mask they are liable to being accused of virtue signalling. A handkerchief over the face or another sort of non-medical-grade face covering is designed more to protect others than to protect oneself. The "virtue" in that is the selfless concern for other people. This example is quintessentially "virtue signalling". It would be a shame to remove it over political concerns. Bus stop (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we look at what uses are called out 2, 3, 5 or more years beyond events and see what events get highlighted, if any. Pulling a current event as a choice example is very much random selection. Either you need to document them all (which for "virtue signaling", absolutely not there's far too many and becomes a BLP minefield) or you wait for good summaries to describe how its been used. That's usually the problem with neogolisms that tied to BLPs. --Masem (t) 20:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I read the diff in which it was added, and it's very jarring. If a condensed version fit smoothly into existing text as an illustrative example of some part of the concept, it might make sense, but shoehorning a separate section in that just exposes right/left acrimony is out of place. Schazjmd (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Masem—there are no WP:BLP concerns here. Yes, Doug Weller presented this here. The core question is whether there are WP:BLP concerns with that material in the Virtue signalling article, and I don't think there are any, primarily because it is written in a well-balanced manner. Biden simply wore an anti-coronavirus face mask, as is broadly recommended by virtually all authorities. Bus stop (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

No, it's completely undue in the context of the article, it's not a particularly good example, and it's not particularly well sourced either. Black Kite (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

You have not mentioned it being a WP:BLP violation. Is it also a WP:BLP violation, in your opinion? Bus stop (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

BLP? Probably not. But let me pose this - a reader comes to our article to learn about virtue signalling, in what way is their knowledge enhanced by a passage about a cable news pundit saying a presidential candidate did it? If was a single exchange in an interview. ValarianB (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It's trivia. A Google search for "virtue signal" site:foxnews.com returns 1,040 hits. Like many right-wing sources, they use it all the time. Black Kite (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

We should not be discussing this question here at WP:BLP/N as this question does not involve a WP:BLP violation. This is a question that should be addressed at Talk:Virtue signalling. Bus stop (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

ValarianB—you ask "in what way is their knowledge enhanced by a passage about a cable news pundit saying a presidential candidate did it?" Their knowledge is enhanced by showing them an example of the caustic use of the term, in a contemporary instance. A key quality of the idea of "virtue signalling" is its capriciousness. It is a two-edged sword. It is a benefit as well as a liability. You are arguing to remove a perfectly good example of the capricious nature of the contemporary use of the term "virtue signalling" based on an imagined political dimension of the incident depicted. This has nothing to do with Trump or Biden, though they both are mentioned. Wikipedia isn't a dead thing. It is enlivened by the inclusion of relevant uses of the term that is the subject of the article. What is described is an instance in which someone wore a face mask, as is near-universally recommended, and they were depicted by an onlooker, Brit Hume, as doing this for ulterior purposes. I find the knee-jerk reaction to remove eminently valuable material from the Virtue signalling article to be the problem here. And it is incomprehensible why this is even being discussed on the WP:BLP/N page. Where is the WP:BLP violation? Bus stop (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• WP:BLP violation -- to comply with BLP we must make sure biographical material complies with NPOV (including, due), and with NOR. This BLP use in the virtual signaling article is undue/nor (for the reasons outlines by Black Kite and Masem). Were the point to convey that virtue signalling is a rhetorical 'double edged sword' of elastic meaning (or no meaning, at all), the proper and only way to do that is not through random BLP's, it is through experts (linguists, cultural historians, rhetoricians) saying and analyzing directly that per WP:V's direct requirement. The lesson here is don't use living people to imply rhetorical points. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Alanscottwalker—you haven't even said which living person is being violated—Trump, Biden, or Brit Hume. And contrary to your assertion we don't necessarily need explanations from "linguists, cultural historians, rhetoricians". Bus stop (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

BLP policy is that all living people are covered, anywhere on the pedia And, since you are trying to impose an importance on these BLPs in this topic, you need expert reliable sources to directly make your argument. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The sacrosanctness you are assigning to living people is over the top. Where is the violation of WP:BLP? Who is being violated and how are they being violated? WP:BLP is not an across the board ban on reference to living people. If you can't put the supposed violation into words specific to an instance and specific to one or more people then we should assume the posited WP:BLP violation does not exist. Bus stop (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

If you seriously do not understand how much weight we give to protecting the interests of BLP on en.wiki as well as across all Wikimedia projects per m:Resolution:Media about living people, you probably should be staying far away from anything dealing with BLP articles. --Masem (t) 23:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Peter Nygård

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

I just came across this BLP article, which appears to be a combination of a resume and an attack page. A careful review is needed, and I expect a great deal of rewriting. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

To give a idea of the problems, here's the lede:

Peter J. Nygård (né Pekka Juhani Nygård; born July 24, 1941) is a Finnish-Canadian former fashion executive, founder and former chairman of Nygård International, a company based in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, that makes women's wear. He was rated the 70th richest Canadian by Canadian Business Magazine in 2009 with a net worth of $817 million. Nygård has been the subject of multiple lawsuits throughout his career. In February 2020, ten women filed a civil class-action lawsuit against Nygård, accusing him of raping them at his seaside mansion in the Bahamas and operating what they refer to as a "sex trafficking ring". In April 2020, the lawsuit was amended to include 36 additional women who accuse Nygård of sexual assault; 17 of whom are Canadian women. One of his accusers was only 14 years old when the alleged assault took place.

On February 25, 2020, Nygård stepped down as chairman of Nygård International, after their headquarters were raided in connection to sex trafficking claims.

References

Since no one has responded, I've trimmed back the lede, removing all mention of legal problems [28]. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

A brief summary of his legal troubles and especially his resignation from his company after the latest allegations should be mentioned in the leade. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

BIll Ayers

There seems to have been an effort in the last few weeks to rewrite Bill Ayers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to emphasise his involvement in the Weather Underground.

In late April 2018[29] (arbitrary date} the article read:\

"William Charles "Bill" Ayers (born December 26, 1944) is an American elementary education theorist and a leader in the counterculture movement who opposed US involvement in the Vietnam War. He is known for his 1960s radical activism and his current work in education reform, curriculum and instruction. In 1969, he co-founded the Weather Underground, a self-described communist revolutionary group with the intent to overthrow imperialism, that conducted a campaign of bombing public buildings (including police stations, the US Capitol Building, and the Pentagon) during the 1960s and 1970s in response to US involvement in the Vietnam War."

In December last year[30] it read:

"William Charles Ayers (/ɛərz/; born December 26, 1944) is a former leader of the Weather Underground and American elementary education theorist. During the 1960s, Ayers participated in the counterculture movement that opposed US involvement in the Vietnam War. He is known for his 1960s radical activism and his later work in education reform, curriculum and instruction. "

But starting on the 3rd of March it beings to change , with the last sentence saying "He is known for his 1960s terrorist activity" instead. Then we get thisp[31] which adds "terrorist" to his short description and bizarrely calls Bill Ayres a "political terrorist" in the "For the" bit above the lead. Then we get an account making two edits (and more anywhere) throwing "domestic terrorism" into it in several places. This type of edit continues and even spills over to WP:ANI#Moderator Tarl N. abusing powers and reverting legitimate changes due to political bias with User:Bswastek complaining about User:Tarl N. Bswastek and User:Monomoystriper continue and are reverted by User:MiasmaEternal who then adds to the Weather Underground mention that it was described by the FBI as a domestic terrorist organisation (which is absolutely true, but the issue is where does that belong). An IP that I will notify removed this saying there was a consensus not to use the word terrorism, but I can't find that. User:Baseball Bugs reinstates the text, an IP (that I will notify) changes "described" to "classified", a term definitely not used by the FBI source[32] making it read that Ayers "is a former leader of the Weather Underground (a group classified by the FBI as a "domestic terrorist organisation")" rather than "described by the FBI as a domestic terrorist group"(I'll raise that issue at RSN) and I reverted them.

The current lead says (unless the last IP reverts me as they have elsewhere)

"William Charles Ayers (/ɛərz/; born December 26, 1944) is a former leader of the Weather Underground (a group which has been described by the FBI as a "domestic terrorist organisation") and an American elementary education theorist. During the 1960s, Ayers participated in the counterculture movement that opposed US involvement in the Vietnam War. He is known for his 1960s radical activism and his later work in education reform, curriculum and instruction."

Note that Ayers vehemently argues that his actions weren't terrorism. I'd like eyes on this article, particularly the lead, as I suspect this slow moving edit war will continue. Notifying the editors I haven't mentioned yet (mainly involved in reverts), and as I said, I'll tell the IPs on their talk page. User:Hammersoft, User:Markbassett, User:Nyook, User:Acroterion, User:CLCStudent, User:Tarl N., User:Zinnober9, and User:Galendalia. As is so often the case, what we seem to have is a number of IPs, all but two not editing regularly if ever at all before and accounts with very few edits doing this, with experienced editors reverting them. Doug Weller talk 09:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

References

I'm the latest IP, who reverted you (on the Weatherman page). There are at least two separable issues here. One is how to describe Ayers himself, e.g., is he a former terrorist. I was not involved in those edits, but I think it both obvious and well established that an implicated party like Ayers insisting his acts were not terrorism, although relevant to the article and worthy of inclusion, does not carry much weight compared to the opinions of others. The second issue, which has nothing to do with Ayers, is how to describe the FBI's categorization of the Weatherman group, i.e., did they "classify" it as terrorist or "describe it" as terrorist. The latter are (in my opinion) weasel words but this part of the question is dealt with in more detail at the RSN you just posted. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

As I pointed out at RSN, the description of the group as domestic terrorists is taken from an article written for the general public. As the disclaimer says, "the Department makes no claims, promises, or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents of this site....The information appearing on this website is for general informational purposes only."[33] AFAIK the FBI has never charged members of the Weather Underground with terrorist offenses or designated it a terrorist group. Any attempt to claim they did is wrong.

There's also the issue of synthesis. Unless the same source says that Bill Ayers was a member of the Weather Underground and that the FBI described it as a terrorist group, it should not be used in the article.

TFD (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree. There is also the issue of due weight since there aren't citations to secondary sources confirming the label. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I have issue with -given these three lede samples - how this has morphed to be very non-impartial tone towards a BLP, which is inappropriate. The lede needs to start impartial with the most factual, least subjective and least controversial/contentious statements about a BLP unless the only thing they are known for at all is criminal related (which is not the case here, obviously). Once you get that said and done, as was the first example, then you can move into the contentious aspects they may be known for, here being the ties to the WU and its classification as a terrorist organization. This isn't about trying to incorporate Ayers' claim that WU isn't a terrorist organization, but more that regardless which way you take that, its still a contentious statement relative to other general statements you can make about Ayers related to his notability (education theorist, counterculture movement activist) and should follow those). --Masem (t) 17:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

At least part of the editing of the lede has been political - someone running against Obama, who has associated with Ayers, so thus changing the lede to reflect terrorism helps the campaign to say "associates with terrorists". I hear occasional flames of that nature, and within a day or two, see a spike in edits on Wikipedia. The goal seems to be getting the words "terrorism" or "terrorist" into the lede. Tarl N. (discuss) 17:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I mean, there's reasonable need to mention WU and terrorism-related activities, including the FBI's designation, in relation to Ayers. That's not an issue. What is an issue here, and at most similar cases, is the ordering to put these front and center before any discussion of more objective facets that Ayers was also known for, even if they weren't as notable as his WU connections. There's no requirement that the lede be ordered in terms of what makes a person notable. --Masem (t) 20:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

There isn't an "FBI designation." There's an article on the Department of Justice Website that refers retrospectively to the Weather Underground as "domestic terrorists" as well as a disclaimer for what's written in the article. TFD (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

These attempts to minimize the FBI categorization don't work, since there are numerous other documents up at their website (fbi.gov has a nice search box), the main ones being extracts from longer official publications elsewhere not subject to general DOJ disclaimers; plus early 70's FBI memoranda and testimony published in the Church Committee reports, also online; plus other FBI material in the books by Burroughs (Days of Rage)) and Arthur Eckstein that draw on more recently declassified archives. It is hard to find in all this stuff any FBI documents that discuss the Weathermen but do not refer to them as terrorists and a terrorist organization. I don't think I've seen even one such, though as I mentioned actually compiling and uploading the references would take some time. Older documents almost exclusively use "terrorist" to refer to what we (and the FBI) now call "domestic" terrorist, adding the prefix "domestic" only for disambiguation when both domestic and foreign groups are discussed in close textual proximity (such as the same sentence or adjacent ones). 73.149.246.232 (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Bill Ayers was indicted by a Detroit federal grand jury in July 1970 (court document available on the US Congress site) for the violation of 18 U.S. Code § 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States. I guess "terrorism" wasn't even officially defined until the Antiterrorism Act of 1990? Though the Weather Underground was described as an "urban terrorist" organization even in the US Senate back in the 1970s, the usage of the word 'terrorist' has probably evolved quite a bit. --Pudeo (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

We generally don't use terms of criminal designation without a conviction. An indictment (which was later dismissed) by itself isn't sufficient in a BLP. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

In light of "We generally don't use terms of criminal designation without a conviction" the OJ Simpson article needs to be severely modified as he was never convicted. This would also mean, I think, that many other BLP pages need modified as how many are out there with sexual assault allegations that were never brought to indictment. So if this is the "standard", people better fire-up their keyboards as there's a lot of work to be done. As an aside, terrorism as a term/word dates back to the 1790s, and in the US legally but only generally to the late 1980s. The term has been applied retroactively in the press to many but they've usually at least been convicted of some crime that falls under the current legal terms. Ayers has not so the term isn't appropriate. His affiliation with the WU organization though is documented and should be mentioned and then it can be left to individuals to make their own opinion and hopefully reading. Since terrorism is on the WU article, that is sufficient. ToeFungii (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

We don't go back and describe Bacon's Rebellion, the Sons of Liberty, Shay's Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, etc., as domestic terrorism, although they meet the classification. Besides, we need a reliable secondary source that makes the judgment, not a tertiary source on the Department of Justice website that contains a disclaimer. TFD (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, you might want to look here as Sirhan is said to be terrorist in 2008 Boston Globe article. Oswald's motives were never known as he died. You forgot about John Brown, but may want to look here where terrorist is used to describe him as well as Booth. I could give more examples, but I hope you see my statement is correct. And re-read what I said which was not to include terrorism with Ayers. ToeFungii (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

What it tells us is that new concepts develop and some people use them retrospectively to describe the past: Jesus was a socialist, Spartacus was a communist, Caesar was a man of the left, Reagan was a neoliberal. Your source btw, a professor of English literature writing in The Atlantic. does not describe Sirhan Sirhan as a "domestic terrorist." And why would you accept this type of source as definitive when There are actual experts who write about these things? Why not quote a theologian on architecture or a poetry expert on quantum mechanics? Perhaps a physics professor on Shakespeare? TFD (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

"Domestic terrorism" is not a new concept any more than "gay" is a new concept different from the older term "homosexual". It's a term the FBI used at least as far back as the late 1960's or early 70's when both domestic and foreign terrorism were part of the same discussion and the need arose for a separate term to distinguish them. Otherwise the FBI just referred to "terrorism" meaning the domestic kind. Later, as foreign-originated terrorism directed at US _targets became more common, and the number of US domestic groups increased, "domestic terrorism" became a routine term. There is no retroactive interpretation involved such as calling Jesus a socialist or Reagan a neoliberal; if a group was "terrorist" in the older parlance, and domestically based, it is a "domestic terrorist" organization. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

There are separate standards for public figures and other notable people. See: WP:BLPCRIME and the exception to it, WP:WELLKNOWN. In my opinion, the lede should look like a miniature scale-model of the body. The layout and weight should be identical. Aside from simply giving a quick overview for those who don't want to read the whole article, the primary purpose of the lede is to provide context for the rest of the article, and this is best done by giving info in the same order as the body. That's just the way the human brain best receives info, and makes it much easier to follow and comprehend, so I usually recommend that for all articles; like Honey or Glass, for example. Zaereth (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I've BOLDLY edited the header to remove the LABEL as both UNDUE and contrary to BLPCRIME. The last year version looked much better as a summary, except I dropped 'counterculture' as not literally part of the article so not part of an article summary per WP:LEAD. It probably won't last, but here it is.

William Charles Ayers (/ɛərz/; born December 26, 1944) is an American elementary education theorist. During the 1960s, Ayers was a leader of the Weather Underground that opposed US involvement in the Vietnam War. He is known for his 1960s radical activism and his later work in education reform, curriculum and instruction.

References

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

IP says that "BLPCRIME does not apply to the question of "terrorism"

Interesting that they are saying that at Talk:Bill Ayers instead of here. They wrote in response to User:Markbasset: "BLPCRIME does not apply to the question of "terrorism", which is not a US Federal crime but (in this case) an investigative and administrative classification used by the FBI. The language previously in the lede was that Ayers was a leader of the Weathermen, and that the Weather Underground was classified as a terrorist group by the FBI. Ayers wrote an entire book about the first, and the second has nothing to do with Ayers, it is an assessment of the Weatherman group that stands or falls independent of BLP's of group members.

Ayers is known, in roughly descending order of notability, for leading the Weathermen, being a fugitive (his autobiography is titled Fugitive Days), his connections to Obama in Chicago, and being an education professor/author. The last item has gotten orders of magnitude less publicity than the others, and is academic notability rather than general notability. To exclusively describe him as an educationist in the first sentence is some kind of joke and ledes of that flavor that avoid describing his past as a fugitive (from what?) or are evasive about the nature of the Weathermen will probably keep getting reverted. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 7:51 am, Today (UTC+1)"

Doug Weller talk 09:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Terrorism is crime committed for ideological reasons. It doesn't matter whether a specific crime of terrorism existed at the time, terrorist actions were illegal. So BLP applies. TFD (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Not necessarily, but this illustrates the point that the word "terrorism" is not something well defined, and its meaning differs, depending upon how and who is using it, and how the readers themselves interpret it. Ultimately, it's the use of terror to affect political processes. Through most of history, terrorism was "top-down", meaning the governments used terror to keep the people in line. "Bottom-up" terrorism has been around a long time too but really got its big start in the Renaissance time, terrorism became a common staple of the Anarchists. Their motto was affecting political outcomes through the act of "deeds". The one common thing in all terrorism is this desire to affect politics through public opinion, and was very effective back then, especially when the political structure was already on shaky ground

The Thugs in Asia were commonly referred to as terrorists, and the Mongol authority's method of dealing with the Thugs was equally horrible. But what we understand as modern terrorism really began with the Nationalist movement beginning around the turn of the 20th century. This method began capitalizing on the media to spread its terror, and it is really the media machine which makes terrorism a much more powerful tool that it has ever been in history, and it's important to realize that governments can use it to their advantage as well. During the Cold-War era, terrorism was mainly attributed to communist states. But beginning around the 1980s it became more of a thing associated with Islam, and here is where the lines get blurry. What most outsiders don't understand is that, in Islamic states, there is very little to almost no distinction between politics and religion, so we tend to think of it now as being more of a thing done for religious reasons, but those reasons are and have always been political.

This is why there are so many books written about it, its history, and how best to handle it in the media, such as Terrorism and the Media: A Handbook for Journalists. The problem with terrorism is that the real enemy becomes ourselves. It is how we react to it that determines its effectiveness, but the common threads are both that it's politically motivated, and in the response it invokes. Guerrilla warfare is a good example. It's war if the response is a straight-out military campaign, but terrorism if the response is a covert one. It all depends, but we have to be very careful, as a media outlet ourselves, in just how we report these things. Zaereth (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I am aware of terrorism and its history having contributed to several Wikipedia articles about it. Indeed there is no agreed definition of terrorism, but all definitions share the same general view that it refers to criminal activity with ideological motivation. We don't usually refer to terrorism from above as terrorism but as terror, although some writers such as Chomsky say it should be called state terrorism. In any case the term terrorism is of recent coinage. No one referred to the Thugee as terrorists at the time and there is no mention of the term in the article about them. The term was however used when the Weather Underground were active, although it was not incorporated into U.S. law. TFD (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

True. The word itself actually comes from the French Revolution, but there have been groups throughout history that fit the definition. There were Jewish terrorists 2000 years ago trying to affect Roman politics, and if the word existed Jesus himself would probably have been convicted of it for merely turning over tables in a market place. (A crime he was executed for, or rather for the act of inciting political unrest.) I'm not saying we should or should not add it to the article. I don't know enough of the background in this case. If the media did back then, then it seems we should too. If someone recently wrote a book about it, retroactively calling it terrorism, then we should probably discuss their analysis. But I would not make it the first sentence in the lede unless that was all he was notable for. Zaereth (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of BLPCRIME is to protect low-profile individuals (who are usually only tangentially mentioned in an article). The policy does not apply to high-profile individuals, which Ayers is. But that is beside the point. You are correct when you later say Ayers's personal biography should not include sources that don't actually mention Ayers, but the issue is not "weight" as you suggest, connecting Weather Underground to Ayers in this case would require improper synthesis.

As a side note, I believe that Weather Underground is likely not covered by BLPGROUP, unless I imagine the organisation bigger than it actually is. Hence the fbi.gov source would be an acceptable, though sub-optimal, source about Weather Underground for different article. Politrukki (talk) 11:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Besides the point that terrorism is covered by BLPCRIME, I also point out that no police says that the lede has to be written from "most notable facet to least notable", it should be written in the order of most impartial information to least impartial, in a general sense, to keep an impartial tone to the article. This does not mean burying someone's attachment to violent activities; there's no reason Ayers' connection to the WU and its violent activities can't be in the second sentence of the lede, but they shouldnt be highlighted at the first thing a reader sees as they certainly are far from the most impartial aspect of Ayers. --Masem (t) 17:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I still think that when we mention the Weather Underground, that we use sources about Ayers, rather than sources that do not mention him at all. Per weight, any details about the group that are not mentioned in articles about him are not relevant. In particular the fact that forty years later, an article on the Department of Justice Website refers to them as domestic terrorists is irrelevant. TFD (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

We should be more concerned with their development as a living person and less concerned with pigeonholing them for their initial noteworthiness. Bus stop (talk) 13:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

If this is in fact the uniform standard for BLP, then sure. I don't think that it is (see George Wallace as an example from the opposite site of the political spectrum, even though Wallace "developed" and apologized in ways that seem inconceivable for Ayers). If it were applied to Ayers, the development of his living-person notability has been primarily as an associate of Barack Obama, and that this attracted some national media controversy because of his initial noteworthiness, so the latter has to be explained anyway, which means dwelling to some extent on words like "bombing", "terrorism", or similar. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't care whether words beginning with "terror" are used for this or not, but it needs to be explained clearly and without equivocation what Ayers is notable for and (since that prominently includes leading the Weathermen) what the Weatherman group was and did. Most people reading Wikipedia these days are to young to recognize the group and it is disinforming them to obfuscate the fact that the main notability of the Weathermen was extensive bombing and chaos; that the _targets struck were major US government facilities; that many people were injured and several died as a result of their actions, and that the scale of all this made it a huge national Big Deal at the time going far beyond bland euphemisms like "antiwar protest" or "radicalism". 73.149.246.232 (talk) 05:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Nick McKenzie

Nick McKenzie page has over months had non factual and libellous content repeatedly added to it by single purpose editor in breach of BLP and NPOV. Page was locked by admin but attacks by SP editor persistent and breaching BLP guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qldsydmel (talk • contribs) 04:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain why you removed this paragraph? [34] Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of NPOV, there seems to be overuse of non-independent sources like McKenzie's own writings, his union, and his employer/newspaper. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

William Weir Gilmour

Although this is not a BLP, it raises some significant issues for living people, and Wikipedia policy generally. You will see that this person did have a significant brush with the law in later life. Somebody deleted this, I restored it, I then received this message:-

"Hello Pat. I’m not sure if this is the correct way to message you. I’ve not used this before. I removed content from the page because [this] is my father and my then 17 year old was researching her ancestry. I didn’t want her learning about this online. Mel1425 (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I recognise this could raise some complex and sensitive issues. However Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, see WP:NOTCENSORED. Some might ask if the issue you mention was more deplorable than his fascist activities. Wikipedia has biographies on a lot of people with controversial personal lives e.g. Tommy Sheridan currently has a teenage daughter, her parents might not feel happy about [her reading about] some issues online, and Chelsea Clinton was in her teens when her father's activities hit the headlines. However I will raise this on the appropriate Wikipedia noticeboard if you want. PatGallacher (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)" PatGallacher (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Without being able to review the cited newspaper article, I could not find any non-mirrored mention of this online or through newspaper.com. Let's hope that whatever BLP concerns that might impact the remover have been addressed given that the removal was over a year ago. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I have not actually seen the newspaper article myself, but the Mitchell Library in Glasgow does have microfilmed copies of the Glasgow Herald from way back, I could check this once the coronavirus crisis ends. I don't think it was disputed that the information in the article was accurate, just whether it was appropriate to put this online. PatGallacher (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Given the type of abuse asserted, the BLP impact also depends on whether the remover is related to or is the victim. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The person who removed the article stated on Pat's talk page "Neither Tommy Sheridan nor Clinton have been convicted of sexually abusing their juvenile daughters.", which implies W.W. Gilmour was, which absolutely makes it a BLP issue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The article at present does not identify the victim. Although as a general rule Wikipedia is not censored, I'm leaning towards the view that this is one issue where sleeping dogs should be allowed to lie. Although I may still consult the newspaper article when Glasgow city libraries re-open. PatGallacher (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)