Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive308

Death of George Floyd - Inclusion of Officers' histories

Death of George Floyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Perhaps I'm off base on this, so I thought it best to seek wider input before continuing. Over on Death of George Floyd#People involved, there have been edits to include the fact that one officer was involved in 3 shootings and another accused of excessive use of force which resulted in a settlement (see [1]). The material is sourced well.

My concerns (stated in more detail here) are that these details are WP:UNDUE for an article about this one event and go against WP:BLPCRIME.

Drmies disagrees with me (which I completely respect) and Kire1975 has said this is WP:CRYBLP. Given these oppositions, I thought I'd seek more input. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Its definitely excessive right now, innocent until proven guilty (even though they have been fired and the video evidence is pretty strong against them). It is begging the question of their guilt based on their past in Wikivoice, and even if you had "As noted by (RS), Officer X had been involved..." its still coatracking past events that we don't know yet are fully relevant. Likely they will be tried, and if that is key in their trial then can be mentioned. --Masem (t) 20:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

That is my (eventualist) view as well. If it's linked to this event in the course of a trial, then it's fair game. But until then, it should be excluded. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Since Floyd's criminal record has also been published in WP:RSs I think you should either include all of their backgrounds (Floyd's and the officers'), or none. Which way that should go I don't have an opinion at this time. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Take out Floyd's too. The only past crime that should be mentioned was what the officers were responding to in approaching Floyd in the first place ("forgery in progress") and why they opted to detain him ("under the influence", "physically resisted arrest") which is a valid part of the story. I mean, the limited bio details in this article [2] is about all we should be going into at this point until we know about how their pasts (victim and suspects) affected the incident. --Masem (t) 20:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm still sort of of two minds about this. I can see EvergreenFir's point, of course, but then again it is impossible (for me) to watch the video and not think that any previous histories of violence on the part of the violators are relevant. As for Floyd, Mases says "the only past crime...", but there was no past crime: there was a suspicion of a crime, at best. I have no doubt a whole bunch of people are digging through Floyd's archive to figure out if he'd ever spat on the sidewalk or whatever, but none of those things matter unless, maybe, all of those things were known by the officers who allegedly killed him (I suppose I have to say "allegedly" here). And these things will show up in the article which, I just saw, is now semi-protected. But, it is true, if reliable sources start claiming that the men's past is relevant here, we will follow suit, and no doubt a criminal investigation will bring all this to the surface as well. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Houston Chronicle says Floyd has a record (at least one violent felony conviction) in Texas. If RSs are associating the backgrounds of the officers or Floyd with this incident by mentioning them in relevant articles then I think it tends to say we should as well. However, there is no rush at this time. For balance again I think we should include include the law-enforcement-related background of everyone involved or none of them. While clearly it is distasteful to contribute to the possible re-victimization of someone who was "allegedly" (as you say) victimized already, we are not here to right great wrongs, just report what is considered relevant by the RSs. I'm not sure I see a BLPCRIME reason to exclude the criminal history but maybe there is? —DIYeditor (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Painting Floyd and the officers with the same brush, as an all-or-none proposition, ignores a very important point: Floyd was a victim of the officers' actions. The law-enforcement histories of perpetrators of a violent act are, for obvious reasons, generally more relevant than the victim's law-enforcement history.

WP:BLP actually addresses this very clearly, in WP:AVOIDVICTIM: When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced... This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Simple mention in reliable sources isn't sufficient to justify inclusion here, under the circumstances. This is an area where policy is crystal-clear, and we just need to follow it. MastCell ^Talk 22:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It does say "living individuals" but maybe we can assume "recently deceased" is implied? Why does it specifically say "living individuals"? Cause of death hasn't been established, so as clear as it may be to us or the media from the very disturbing video that he was killed by the cop kneeling on his neck, I think we should avoid saying he was the victim of another's actions either. If it becomes an issue in the media over the long term that he had a criminal history, would we include it in the article at that point? At some point BLP no longer applies, correct? —DIYeditor (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

BLP is taken to apply to the recently deceased as well, see WP:BDP. The time period is roughly six months to two years from death, depending, the idea being that someone's death is not like a lightswitch, suddenly allowing for all the contentious claims that we'd not have allowed while a BLP to be loaded into an article. --Masem (t) 18:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that the officers' prior records as police officers are relevant—including any commendations or discipline—since they're public officials who appear to have been exercising the same authority and doing the same jobs during Floyd's death. If they had been disciplined during a prior career as, say, used car salesmen, that would likely be irrelevant (ditto for if the article was about a bar fight in which they'd allegedly been involved while off-duty). No idea whether Floyd had a criminal history, and if so what it may have been, but it seems unlikely that it would be relevant—unless it's shown to have something to do with his death, the reason he was apparently under arrest, or somehow involved other people also involved in his death. But the current information about Officer Chauvin in the article seems inaccurate and poorly sourced (one source cited for "three shootings" mentions one and an auto accident and isn't from what appears to be a RS). And when it comes to past officer-involved shootings or accusations of misbehavior, it seems essential to include the dispensation of those (whether they were found justified and/or whether the officer was disciplined). In terms of settled lawsuits, it's important to note whether there was any admission of wrongdoing. Tambourine60 (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The officers' histories are likely to be relevant at some point, but we should wait until we have information from the investigation (NOT THE MEDIA) to know why they are relevant. The media are speculating the violent events in the officers' past to justify events but that's not what we can do, and we need to stay far from that. And that's definitely why we can't include Floyd's background because that has no one bit of iota to the events here. --Masem (t) 19:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Include all parties' histories - The reason we know about these people's past conduct, at all, is because reliable sources are reporting on it. That shows that the RSes think the histories are relevant to the event. And, of course they are; both the police officers' and the victims' histories--especially the officers' disciplinary histories and the victim's criminal history (if any), as well as the history of police brutality in the police department--are all directly relevant to this article about a man who died in police custody. So long as it's well-sourced (and it is.. NYT, WaPo, WSJ, etc.), we should follow the sources and include it. We, as editors, shouldn't decide what's relevant; the sources should. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, we follow the emphases of reliable sources—but with several very well-defined exceptions. This is one of them. Again, WP:BLP is quite explicit about this ("When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced... This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.") In this situation, policy mandates that we go a bit further than simply saying "it's sourced, so include it". WP:BLP is a fundamental policy which can't be overridden by a local consensus. More to the point, "Include" comments which fail to engage with the actual WP:BLP policy and its stipulations about victims aren't valid in determining how to apply policy here. MastCell ^Talk 16:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Nothing in AVOIDVICTIM or BLP policy says not to include a victim's criminal history. It's just not addressed. It says don't include everything, and of course no one is arguing for the inclusion of everything. But if you read five articles about the event from top quality sources and all five mention the races of the individuals involved, then we should include the races. If all five mention that the police officer had 18 prior complaints, then we should include that detail, too. If all five mention the victim's prior criminal history, then we should, too. BLP doesn't say "ignore the sources", and there's a wide gap between "everything" and "directly relevant details". Below, BK says to exclude unless "directly relevant", and that's the whole question: are these histories directly relevant or not? How do we decide? We decide by examining the sources. My !vote is to include whatever history is included by the consensus of the best sources. That doesn't mean everything, but it doesn't mean we censor things either. My !vote does not violate BLP policy. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
      • The underlying principle of BLP (and to that end, the recently deceased) is "do no harm". Criminal histories are harmful, period. So their inclusion should automatically be avoided, even if sources go into great depth, unless there is a pressing need that fundamentally aids in the understanding of the article, and by omitting it, we are making it harder for the reader to understand the article. At this point, it is clear that the only questions about Floyd's past is the events of the few hours beforehand to lead to someone calling the cops on him, period. --Masem (t) 17:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
        • Thats a tautological principle. Everyone agrees criminal histories should be excluded unless there is a pressing need that fundamentally aids in the understanding of the article, which is just another way of saying "unless it's relevant". The whole question is whether there is a pressing need that fundamentally aids in the understanding of the article (or whatever formulation of "relevant" we want to use). And how do we decide if there is a "need" or if it's "pressing"? By following the sources. The only question is: do the RSes consider there is a pressing need that fundamentally aids in the understanding of the article? BLP doesn't say otherwise. For this reason, BLPCRIME doesn't really say anything. It just says don't include irrelevant information. That's good advice for all articles, not just BLPs. In fact the same thing is said at the ONUS part of V policy. It's said again at NOTEVERYTHING. "Include only relevant info" is really just common sense. The question is always, "is X relevant"? The answer is: I'm not sure yet, but if it is or if it becomes so, we should include it. Case in point: that the officer and the victim both worked at the same place once--is it relevant? Should it be included? Not yet IMO because we don't have a consensus of top quality RSes, but I could very well see that in the future, if it's widely reported, that piece of history may become relevant. Or maybe not. Either way, the way to decide whether to include the prior employment overlap is by following the sources. Not by deciding what we, as editors, think is relevant or important about the case, but by examining what sources think is relevant or important. Another example: lots of editors are voting for changing the title to "killing" on the explicit basis that they watched a video and the video "clearly" shows a killing. Well, that's OR. We should use "death", "killing", or "murder", based entirely on what word the RSes use, and not at all on what our impression of a video we watched is. Sure, BLP policy in general calls for a stricter standard of "relevance" for BLP content than for non-BLP content. That's a good principle. Still, whether the parties' histories (or any part of them) meets the stricter BLP standard of relevance is, nevertheless, to be decided by examining RSes, and not by editors' OR. We always follow the sources. It's a pillar. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
          • I would make the comparison of criminal histories similar to the same logic we use for non-free media as outlined at NFCC#8 which is a two-pronged test. Here, I'd make it a three-prong test: 1) is the criminal history sourced to the best quality RSes and not to primary sources or weak RSes? 2) does the criminal history increase the reader's understanding of the victim's involvement with this event (in the recent Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, this might be a yes given that the event dealt with people who had knowledge of his past history, but in the case of Floyd, there has yet to be any proven connection between the officers and Floyd) and 3) does omission of the criminal history harm the reader's understanding of the event?
          • To give a hypothetical of what I mean by #3, take a case of a person that had served time after convicted of a violent crime but since released. He has a known history with local police. An event where he is attacked and killed in a event around a non-violent routine check, no weapon involved, but only because the cops mistook his actions that they react in self-defense because they might believe he had a gun. All that supports the condition that we'd need to include the past criminal history of my third test, because without that, we aren't giving the fair reason why the cops reacted in self-defense.
          • But that condition does not all exist in Floyd's case. No known connection between officers and victim, and everything that the videos show is based on the information on the call (there was no identification of Floyd by the call) and what the officers saw there. Nothing about his history drove their actions (that we know of yet). As such the condition for #3 fails because can omit this and there's no change in how the reader understands the situation. That's what "no harm" needs to be about. Just because the press is free to go about it, we take a lot more care in all facets of BLP and do not simply repeat what the press does. --Masem (t) 18:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) Masem—I don't understand how you can refer to readers' "understanding of the article". Some readers might not be interested in knowing of any blemishes that might be on the records of the involved officers but other readers would be interested in being apprized of this information. Bus stop (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
          • We're not here to answer all the questions a reader has. We aren't the last stop for all information. That's not the purpose of an encyclopedia. --Masem (t) 18:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
            • The "purpose of an encyclopedia" is not to mislead. Clearly we want to know if the involved officers have problematic histories in their employment as police officers. Bus stop (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
              • Only if (as we know now for one of the officers) the officiers are convicted of a crime related to this. Omitting information to protect BLP per "do no harm" is not "misleading", particularly since we're using sources that likely are giving that information. Again, we're not the last stop of information, and if a reader needs to learn more, we're giving them plenty of sources to find that out. But what is on our pages we have to curated to protect BLP as a core policy and that might mean holding back information the press freely talk about. --Masem (t) 19:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
                • Editors don't determine what constitutes a "reader's understanding". That is the province of the sources that we use to support the article. WP:BLP does not exist in a vacuum. You refer to "do[ing] no harm". This is always weighed against the prominence of information in the best quality sources. Sometimes we are shooting ourselves in the foot by deliberately omitting relevant information that is prominently found in the best quality sources. That we are preventing "harm" is dubious. As you point out "we're not the last stop of information". Bus stop (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude victim's criminal history; it's off-topic to the nature of his death. See also: WP:AVOIDVICTIM. I'm undecided on the police personnel's records. It may be too soon at this point; the investigation has just started. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Include. To me it seems perfectly fine to document the backgrounds of all participants, using restrained language, and only when those backgrounds are prominently found in good quality sources. This sounds like censorship, self-imposed, to purposelessly omit information that is readily available elsewhere. The language that we use is very important, provided the requirement is met that the information is prominently found in multiple good quality sources. We should not elaborate on problematic details found in a person's past but we should not be purposely keeping the reader in the dark about facts surrounding this incident that reliable sources demonstrably consider relevant to a full telling of the delineation of this case. Bus stop (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Again, these "include" comments focus on sources but ignore the stipulations of WP:AVOIDVICTIM, and thus don't really have a bearing on how to apply policy here. As for "censorship", see rule #1. MastCell ^Talk 16:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    • MastCell—let us unpack this. It would of course be majorly problematic if we were discussing the potential inclusion of minor facts about the people involved in this incident. But that is obviously not the case. WP:AVOIDVICTIM cautions us not to include "every detail". Do you understand that to mean that we should not include any details? If so, I would have to disagree with that. Bus stop (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Definitely Exclude victim's crimial history (if any) - we have a policy WP:AVOIDVICTIM for a reason - unless any of it is directly relevant to the incident. I am also undecided on the police personnel records - again, I think they would have to be directly relevant (i.e. they had been cited for a similar incident in the past). Black Kite (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude Floyd's history as not relevant. But, include Chauvin's history. There's a connection being made with Amy Klobuchar, who as Hennepin County DA failed to prosecute him back in 2006, which is relevant. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, now that Chauvin's been charged with third-degree murder [3] it is very likely his past incidents of violence on the police force will be highly relevant at the trial. I'd wait until a trial actually starts as the case develops to make sure its added in context, but... --Masem (t) 19:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude (too soon), I agree that the BLP conservative approach is to exclude until their backgrounds are made essential in the official inquiries themselves, or by later historical reviews. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude the dead person. Include the person under arrest for murder And close this. O3000 (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude the victim (Floyd), include the person arrested (Chauvin). Include the other cops if/when they are arrested. --Shadybabs (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Shadybabs—Wikipedia is not trying to be a moral beacon to the world. Why would we exclude background information for George Floyd but include background information for Derek Chauvin if the majority of good quality sources include background information pertaining to both George Floyd and Derek Chauvin? I don't think an integral purpose of Wikipedia involves the righting of great wrongs. The purpose of Wikipedia involves reflecting the best quality sources addressing a topic. Bus stop (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• FWIW , I think there's enough support here that we should discuss some type of codificiation at BLP (if its not already clear), which I will open there. --Masem (t) 00:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• We have this notice-board to iron out disputes. Beyond a certain point "codificiation" creates more problems than it solves. Bus stop (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Bureaucratic codification stultifies the mind. We should rely on judgement as much as possible, while providing guidance. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - there is also a discussion about his criminal history taking place on the article talk page, which can be found here His criminal history keeps on being added to the article, and has been removed by multiple editors, including me. I also included a link to this discussion on the talk page of Floyd's article. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude any criminal history of Floyd unless directly related to his death. Include police officers' job histories—both good and bad—as they're public servants and were on duty and exercising the powers of their offices. And be sure to specify outcomes of any complaints, lawsuits, etc. Exclude arrest and charging of Chauvin per WP:BLPCRIME, which states: "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction." As Masem points out: "to protect BLP as a core policy" sometimes requires "holding back information the press freely talk about." Tambourine60 (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The victims Criminal history is still in the article, despite having been removed more than once. Can someone removed it (I would but that would mean an edit war)?Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

RFC maybe? That would freeze the state of it... I assume this is as good as an RfC; I haven't seen MelanieN offer commentary here though. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I think (EXCLUDING this one) there are about 3 threads active on this issue. Yes one RFC might be a good idea.Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I have now started the RFC [[4]] Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Using for Forbes.com for Kanye West's networth

Kanye West (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can we get some opinions on this and this removal of Forbes.com I made to the Kanye West article? The hidden note I added as well? As stated in the edit history, I removed the source because Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting is clear that Wikipedia discourages the use of Forbes.com. It also states, in part, "Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by 'Forbes Staff' or a 'Contributor', and check underneath the byline to see whether it was published in a print issue of Forbes. Previously, Forbes.com contributor articles could have been identified by their URL beginning in 'forbes.com/sites'; the URL no longer distinguishes them, as Forbes staff articles have also been moved under '/sites'. See also: Forbes." The source does state "Forbes staff."

There has been back and forth and similar regarding the addition of this material. Oyylmao added the Forbes.com networth material. Trillfendi stated, "The fuck not. You cannot take them seriously when they admittedly don’t even properly verify their earnings estimates... ([[Gisele Bündchen|leading to certain people getting audited)." Realslovenian then used the same source to add "The asset is however highly illiquid and in reality West only owns 11% of royalties as stated by Forbes." Elliott080212 came along and stated, "Kanye West is worth over 3 billion, according to Bloomberg and other websites. It seems wrong to list it at 1 billion when Forbes is the only website listing it." Bzweebl reverted, stating, "The 3b+ is self-reported, websites that reported are simply sharing that. Only Forbes does the legwork." Transfo47 came along and removed the piece that Realslovenian added, stating, "This information adds nothing new, and certainly financial minutiae should not be in the lead section. In addition, the same source is cited right after another citation of itself." Realslovenian added the material in a different way, stating, "More accurate representation of the deal." NoD'ohnuts removed the material that Realslovenian added. Realslovenian came back and re-added it.

I will also alert the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard to this. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It's a Forbes staffer, not contributor. Forbes as the magazine is considered reliable for BLP, so this is completely fine. As you've pointed out, its when the byline is Contributor that you have to throw caution in the use for BLP, but that's not the case here.

Secondly, we're talking an article that points back to Fortune's Billionaire's List ([5]) , which is a highly respectable source. They are normalizing all the people on that list (2000+ some) using the same principles based on what assets they have, etc. so the normalization applies as close to equally to all on the list. So I see no reason why editors are throwing doubt to the $1.3B number that the Forbes articles is giving out here. What I would make sure is clear is in the body (not the lede, that's the wrong place to put it) is an explanation from Forbes, and probably this Bloomberg article that this accounts for a portion of the $3B that Yeezy is valued at. (BTW, I'm not seeing other sites saying West is over $3B. They note the value of Yeezy but because he doesn't own it fully, there's no way all $3B of that can be valued onto him). --Masem (t) 18:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting on this. Because of the "Forbes staff" aspect, I wasn't opposed to the material being included, but I was questioning its inclusion and whether or not the source is ideal for the information because of the back and forth and similar. And I definitely did not view it as WP:Lead material. I knew it needed discussion. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I would think it's fair, in the lede, to say that "With his partial ownership of Yeezy, Forbes included West on their 2020 Billionaires list with a net worth of $1.3B." because that's pretty significant, but what's key that identifies the who, and the important list (Forbes Billionaires), and in the body, any additional details can be discussed. That's all fair game within BLP; sourcing is there and attributed. --Masem (t) 19:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

As stated in Forbes disclosure....they only have access to public information....thus their estimates are imperfect (a guesstimate at best). Not sure an encyclopedia is the place for guesswork of this nature. Perhaps is a billionaire ... but an exact figure seems Out Of Reach if you will.Moxy 🍁 19:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

If the RS debate various numbers than that should be included in the article. (I'm just not sure about in the lead (having no survey of all the best sources on his life) so I take no position on it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I looked at the source, and it's an editorial piece. There is a lot a guesswork on the part of the author, which to his credit he makes clear in his writing, and quite a few jabs taken at West in the process, as apparently the two have some history. I would really want a much better source than that for any numbers. For example, the "11%" number is one the author was clearly guesstimating.

When it comes to what goes in the lede, I'd have to base that on weight. The lede is supposed to be just a very brief summary of the article, and the weight given things there should be proportional to the weight given in the body. (I like to picture it as a scale model of the body.) Naturally that means cutting out a lot of fine details from the lede, and shaving it all down to the nitty gritty--those things he is notable for-- so unless this info carries a lot of weight, and is very well sourced, I would not even consider putting it there. That's just my two cents. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Masem, Moxy, Alanscottwalker, and Zaereth, I just reverted Graywalls on the matter. He stated, "re-inserting contents that is under dispute as an uninvolved editor, and add additional comment with another source. After evaluating the source and looking at perennial list, I'm satisifed that Forbes.com Staff writer articles are authoritative." I replied, "You are uninvolved, yes. But per the WP:BLP noticeboard discussion, this is not WP:Lead material, at least not without being covered lower first. And there are editors there expressing that using this source alone is not ideal. I'll comment further there." I think that Graywalls "Forbes reports Kanye West insists he is worth $3.3 billion." wording is worse than what was there before; it has a WP:Claim tone it. Thoughts? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Frozen:, If it is not lead material, there is always the option to relocate it. "it has a WP:CLAIM tone to it" applies to the use of synonym by an Wikipedia editor that conveys different message than the source directly supports. When reliable sources disagree, you report both versions. It has been established that Forbes.com staff written articles are satisfactory for most purposes. USA Today is reporting that Kanye West is disputing Forbes account. Therefore, it is reported as said. Graywalls (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, that the material can be relocated is obvious. But it doesn't appear that you are considering what Moxy and Zaereth have stated above. It is not as though consensus has been achieved for adding that material. And as for "insists", you can still state "says." Per WP:Verifiability, I am very much aware that "When reliable sources disagree, you report both versions." That is...as long as we are not giving WP:Undue weight to one side. Per our WP:Undue weight policy, not all sides need reporting or should be reported. We adhere to the WP:Claim guideline except for cases where that type of wording is needed. It's not needed in this case. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Forbes may very well be reliable for some things, but I wouldn't call this particular column reliable. Reliable sources are not always reliable for everything they print. It doesn't work like that. For example, a book on lasers may be perfectly reliable for info on lasers, but would be a lousy source for info on dogfighting. A news article from the NY Times would be reliable, albeit at the bottom of the barrel as far as RSs go (news-type info may be good, but I wouldn't trust them for my medical info.) An op/ed column from the NY Times most certainly would not be. This article from Forbes is an op/ed, thus I would not consider it reliable. Not only is it full of the author's own opinions, but the author makes it rather clear that he's only making some educated guesses. That's not what I'd call reliable by any stretch of the definition. Zaereth (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Zaereth:, But for this, it appears that Forbes is talking about lasers in a book about lasers. This is one of their niche topic. See https://www.thedailybeast.com/is-the-forbes-400-just-dick-measuring-at-its-finest Graywalls (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, the op-ed is explaining the math of the placement of West on the Forbes Billionaires list (eg The World's Billionaires). All the entries on that list have similar funky math and hand-waving to estimate net worth. --Masem (t) 13:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

If there is such a thing as expert on publicly estimating wealth, Forbes is expert, it's one of the things they are known for.[6] Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This. As long as it is reported as "so and so publication estimates". It only becomes a problem when it is stated as "determined" "conclude" or "valued it at" that indicates something other than an estimate. I don't know why this isn't allowed, while statement that is PURE out of rear OPINION like Atlantic's "America's Mozart" is allowed. Graywalls (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Tyrell Robinson

• Tyrell Robinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is WP:BLPCRIME consideration - a professional athlete whose career has seemingly come to an end due to criminal charges. He is in court tomorrow - extra eyes on the page (particularly given the offence is sexual and involves a minor) would be appreciated, as well as wider guidance on how best to describe/display the situation on the page. I am the main editor to the page and have tried to avoid details, but they probably need to be mentioned somewhere/at some point. GiantSnowman 11:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The amount of when things happened could be cut down just a bit but its not be yet. I'd add a para break when discussing the event around the arrest and charges, and suspension/dismissal from the team only as that's clearly a separate logical thought. You could arranging to keep all the criminal charges together, and then afterward, noted that the team suspended him on the arrest, then later let him go (avoid some slang like "sack"), but its otherwise not any serious BLP problems right not; everything you have is wholly appropriate per PUBLICFIGURE. --Masem (t) 17:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Tara Reade

Joe Biden sexual assault allegation

I am hoping to get some feedback especially from uninvolved, perhaps apolitical editors. My addition *, * of a statement from the lawyer who represented Biden sexual assault accuser, Tara Reade, is continually being removed *, *. Disallowing Reade this voice in her defense seems to be an NPOV violation.

His statement reads:

While not providing a reason for leaving, Mr. Wigdor said his decision was “by no means a reflection on whether then-Senator Biden sexually assaulted Ms. Reade,” adding that he was among the 55 percent of Americans who believe her, according to a Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll.

The article is heavy on the defense of Biden, and includes very little support of Reade already. This statement from her attorney should be allowed per WP:BLPBALANCE according to my understanding. petrarchan47คุก 20:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

That is not Reade's voice. That is attorney Wigdor's voice. His statement supports his professional reputation by shutting down any further speculation that he took the case without believing Reade's narrative. That would have been a serious breach of professional ethics, and with murmurings to that effect already circulating (Trump donor, etc.) it is understandable he would want to secure that point at the time he closes out his involvement. SPECIFICO talk 21:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This statement qualifies as a statement in defense of Reade. He is essentially speaking on her behalf, and if your WP:OR is correct, the statement has a dual purpose. However, that has no bearing on whether a defense of the BLP subject by a prominent voice should be included per WP:BLPBALANCE. As any disinterested party can see, the article gives ample room for criticism of Reade and the allegation. I really was hoping to hear from editors who aren't involved. petrarchan47คุก 23:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with involved, OR or other Wikipedia stuff. He quit. He was no longer representing her when he made that statement. It was for himself. That's how attorneys do it. They represent clients only when they are representing the client. The announcement of the end of representation is significant and relates to professional obligations and ethics. SPECIFICO talk 00:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

And now all mention of this attorney has been removed from the article, removing any supportive words from Reade's BLP. That's not neutral, but I give up. I'm with Sanger.* petrarchan47คุก 16:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC) (Pinging Thryduulf so that a noninvolved party is aware)

• Correction: mention of the lawyer was whittled down to On May 22, Wigdor announced that he was no longer representing Reade, while also stating that he still believed her allegation.* But Wigdor's defense of Reade with regard to recent journalism heavily covered in the BLP was removed. petrarchan47คุก 17:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The teck-no police have arrived to reping your non-pinged Thryduulf so instead, I'll add my sig like a good little teck-no police. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't attach your frustration to a named colleague in your edit summary. This board is heavily watched. Maybe there's nothing more to say? SPECIFICO talk 17:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Petrarchan47 left a lengthy message on my talk page about this as well, but I haven't been following the saga on or off wiki. Without spending time that I don't have at the moment reading the background to understand matters I'm not in a position to determine what is or is not due. I'm also reluctant to get into US political matters at the moment - UK politics has enough issues of its own right now and I've spent the last couple of days being accused (on Facebook) by someone I believe to be a (possibly former) Wikipedian (I won't name them, don't ask) of being "spineless", an "enabler" )whether of police brutality or the anti-police protestors I'm not sure) and an "enemy of the United States" for not supporting a specific interpretation of a specific part of the US constitution (because I didn't know enough background to know whether I did or did not support it). So I wont be offering any opinion here. Thryduulf (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Reading what was removed from Petrarchan47's diff above would only seem appropriate to keep if there was discussion on the media's actual approach to how the allegations were covered and if there was bias in how they covered it. Which I don't know if that can be done or not, but that's where it would below and be appropriate; without such coverage, the reduction of Wigdor's statement seems appropriate to the relevance here. --Masem (t) 17:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Jack Buckby

☁ Jack Buckby is a former far-right activist who has published a book that criticizes the far right and tells his story of being in the far right/BNP as a teenager. In the past two to three years the content he produces has changed dramatically. A section in his Wiki biography about him being a critic of the far right, which he is, has been repeatedly removed.

This is a contentious page as Buckby has a lot of critics but it doesn't change the fact that he has published content critical of the far right on his website, on his Twitter (a lot on his Twitter, in fact), on other websites, in his latest book, in videos, and in interviews.

If his Wiki bio says he frequently publishes content critical of Islam, when he hasn't published anything about Islam in several years, then surely it should also show that he is critical of the far right. It is also surely important that this page details his history in the far right (which it does) but at the very least tells readers that in recent years he has become critical of the far right - simply for the sake of accuracy and giving readers the most up-to-date information about this person.

My skills on Wikipedia are limited. I take an interest in this page to build my skills but I am still struggling to resolve edit wars and have attempted to engage in Talk with the users removing the sentence but it has failed. One user has claimed a source used was commissioned by Buckby but provided no evidence this is true. I don't want to cast aspersions but I think there may be some level of personal/political grievance coming into play on this controversial page.

I hope you can help me come to a fair conclusion on this by making sure his criticism of the far right is documented without removing any of the current content describing his past in the far right. Rosswikieditor (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Rosswikieditor

I'm one of the editors who previously removed a lot of claims that were sourced to unreliable sources - we have harsh BLP sourcing policies for a reason. In particular, extensive slabs of content that were self-sourced, sourced to Amazon promotional pages or unsourced were removed. I also put a few sentences into past tense just now, fwiw.

It's a tricky one. For one thing, he really was active on the far-right, and this is well documented. For another - and someone else noted this on talk - his ideas on what constitutes "far left" are not those of someone who's left the far right behind. So we really need to go to the solid sourcing.

Is there coverage in anything like a third-party WP:RS-level source? Alternately is there a good, single, statement, e.g. on his website, about where he's at now, that would fit WP:BLPSELFPUB? - David Gerard (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Buckby's book 'Monster of Their Own Making' is based entirely around a strawman argument, namely, that the principal reason young working-class men join the far right is because of the actions of the far-left.

Buckby's book ignores the wealth of academia, research and expertise in this field. He repeatedly misdefines the 'far-left' as what most rational political commentators would simply refer to as mainstream liberal political principles. This is clearly evidence that he is still sympathetic to far-right views as it is a common argument put forward by the far-right/alt-right commentators. He posted a video yesterday asserting that journalists for the Daily Mail were part of the far-left media.

He is banned from travelling to the USA because of his associations with far-right groups in the past. Until this ban is overturned I think it is impossible to assert that he is a redeemed character.

2.25.195.68 (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I am responding to :@David Gerard:David Gerard. I appreciate your constructive input on this! I think it's important to avoid getting emotional or personal about this topic as some contributors are. I am certainly no fan of this person's politics, whether he is still opposed to Islam etc or not.

I have pulled the following quotes from his website. It seems pretty clear to me that he is a critic of neo-Nazis and the extreme right.

“There is a very real far right presence in the UK. It’s small, but it is growing again, and it is drawing in young people. I got out, but not everyone does.” - https://www.jackbuckby.co.uk/2019/05/11/187/

“I’ve been disturbed to see other young men who’d been in my situation – some of whom I’d known personally – getting gradually sucked in to the most dangerous fringes of politics. Some have even planned terrorist attacks.” - https://www.jackbuckby.co.uk/2019/05/11/187/

“As a former far-right activist, I have seen how young men are radicalized, how they find a home and a community in the extreme right, and what issues motivate them. I joined the largest white nationalist movement in recent British history as a teenager in 2008, and over a period of years was groomed by Britain’s most famous neo-Nazis to become a future leader of the movement. Following years of conspiracies, harassment, racist paranoia, and violence, I escaped and became the man I am today. I can’t say the same for my former friends. Far-right extremism is misunderstood, but it is very real.” - https://www.jackbuckby.co.uk/2020/02/28/the-futile-crackdown-on-the-far-right-is-creating-terrorists/

EDIT: Just a quick update about a comment made by the previous anon user. I just watched the video they referenced where they claim he called the Daily Mail far-left media and he didn't say that. I heard him talk about left-wing media but he didn't say the Daily Mail is far-left. I'm not sure why that's relevant anyway but just wanted to point that out.

Rosswikieditor (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Rosswikieditor

The point was that Buckby went on a tirade against the 'left-wing media establishment' and its treatment of Dominic Cummings. This is classic alt-right/far-right commentary; the media have overwhelmingly criticised Dominic Cummings, from across the political spectrum. The Daily Mail is objectively not a left-wing publication, nor is, for example, Piers Morgan, but they have been extremely critical of him.

For Buckby to dismiss this as a 'left-wing' media tirade is evidence of his far-right views, insofar that he is putting himself to the right of the Daily Mail. 2.25.195.68 (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The trouble is, we need a high-quality source to say this ... and Buckby isn't on their radar any more - David Gerard (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

David, you make it sound like you are purposely trying to frame Buckby as far right. Is that the case? You say you "need" a high-quality source to say he is far right to confirm it, yet you aren't addressing the articles, videos, book, and interviews Buckby has done in which he criticizes the far right.

Did you see the quotes I gave you above? Rosswikieditor (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Rosswikieditor

Rosswikieditor seems to constantly miss the point; just because someone says they are not far-right, does not make it true. 2.25.195.68 (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree Buckby is no longer on the major news source radar, this is why it is important to ensure that his cynical false reinvention is not credited on his biography until there is actually substantive evidence he refutes far-right ideology. He and his wife still constantly indulge in the alt-right online. 2.25.195.68 (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. We can use the subject's own sites for certain types of info, but not for info such as this. And it's not always the case that they may be lying or anything, but the one person in the world who any of us cannot possibly be objective about is ourselves. In fact, the self is the person any of us know the least, and the entire field of psychiatry is founded on that principle. (Just watch Dr. Phil for a few minutes, and you'll see how little his guests are self-aware.) I would even be dubious using facebook to say someone was the producer of a newspaper, and was suggested below, because who of us here haven't fudged our resume a little.

But more than that, what Ross is encouraging us to do is look at all the evidence and draw our own conclusion. Does he fit the definition of far-right, not back then but today? Well, that depends on the definition, which varies drastically depending on who you ask. Someone on the far-left will likely see anything two inches to the right as being far-right, and visa versa. (Honestly, I've never seen much difference and don't know where the line is drawn, as both sides are just as hypocritical.) We Wikipedians are not qualified to make that judgment. Find a reliable source that says he's a born-again leftist, and we can add it to the article, but if he's no longer in the headlines then it's likely that nobody cares. Drawing that conclusion from the evidence is a perfect example of WP:SYNTH. Zaereth (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I am seeing a lot of emotion and political bias from the anonymous user. This user has just removed an accurate assertion that Buckby describes the far right as dangerous and real. This is something Buckby says in his work. It is not an opinion - it is a factual statement reflecting what Buckby has said.

If we are at a point where an anonymous user with heightened emotions and anger, who continually makes false assertions because they disagree with that person politically, then Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. At this point, we are allowing this page to be defined by the emotions of a dedicated and emotional anonymous user who repeatedly removes information they do not like. They claim rules have been broken but they have not. They claim Buckby has called the Daily Mail left wing when he has not. There are so many false assertions being made by this person that it is hard to keep up.

This sentence was just removed by the anonymous user:

"In his writing, Buckby argues that the nature of the far right is misunderstood by liberals and conservatives, but that it is "very real" and dangerous."

This is accurate. It is true. And it fits the WP:BLPSELFPUB guidelines. However, the anonymous user claims it breaks the biographies of living persons policy. They have not demonstrated where - because it doesn't.

Why is this person not being reprimanded for repeatedly removing accurate content? Rosswikieditor (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Rosswikieditor

Also, it is extremely scary that people are advocating on Wikipedia that because a person is not in the news cycle, it is fair to portray them as something they are not. If a person changes what they do, if they say something different to what they used to say, it is inaccurate and morally reprehensible to portray them as something they are not just because they aren't in the media.

Wikipedia should display the truth, and it does so very well on the Jack Buckby page. It displays all of his far right activity. It should also reference the fact that, today, he writes extensively about the far right in articles, talks about it in interviews, and wrote a book on the topic. Political opinions and emotion shouldn't come into it, nor should the asserttion that "he and his wife engage with the alt right online." First of all, that's a big assertion to make and one that, even if true (and from what I see on his social media, it's not), it doesn't represent Buckby and doesn't change the fact that he calls the far right dangerous.

How can we move forward with this, without the constant vandalism and attempts at portraying him a way that suits the political opinions of a user that doesn't like Buckby? Rosswikieditor (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Rosswikieditor

"Rosswikieditor seems to constantly miss the point; just because someone says they are not far-right, does not make it true" - Actually, if a person constantly criticizes the far right, writes a book criticizing the far right, does interviews criticizing the far right, then it means they aren't far right. In Buckby's case, as he has written about extensively, it means he left the far right and considers them dangerous. As he has written repeatedly, but which you think should be ignored because you don't like him and you think he deserves to be misrepresented because he isn't in the news any more. Rosswikieditor (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Rosswikieditor

No it doesn't fit BLPSELFPUB. This is not info about himself. Wikipedia is not a platform for people to spread their messages. We need to find this info in reliable, secondary sources. If we allowed every thing a person posts on a blog or facebook or whatever to be included in their article, it would be chaos. We Wikipedians should not be cherrypicking quotes or making analyses of their arguments. We let reliable sources and experts do that, then we report what they say. We don't do the original research of a journalist and dig this stuff up ourselves. The answer is simple; find it in a reliable source.

Furthermore, we report info that is significant and notable. If no RS is picking up on this, then why should it matter to me, the reader? Unless some source finds this significant enough to write about it, then it's really just trivial information.

And your final statement is based on a logical fallacy called denying the antecedent. That is what we Wikipedians call synthesis, which is a type of original research and a violation of core policy. Removal of the line was the correct thing to do. Zaereth (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

We should be able to make a simple statement that "Jack Buckby says that he has left the far right, and considers them dangerous" or something cited to his own writing, that fits all prongs of WP:BLPSELFPUB - David Gerard (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

If he says that, then that may be different, but that's not what I'm seeing here. Ross seems to want us to view the evidence and make that conclusion, and frankly the IP's arguments tend to mirror that; same but opposite. I view this as being similar to the hundreds of people who come here saying, "I was married to that person but no longer am" or "I was dating that guy, but now I'm seeing this one." We're not facebook and don't need to keep up-to-date info on what people are doing in their lives. We don't say "so and so was a movie star but is currently working at McDonalds" unless it's reported in an RS somewhere, and is somehow part of what makes them notable. But if he actually says it, then perhaps there is a valid argument for including a brief statement per SELFPUB. Zaereth (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

To Zaereth , if a person is not accurately defined today by what is published on Wikipedia, and by sources from years ago, then the reason it is of interest to the reader is because the Wikipedia page is wrong. It's really that simple.

As David Gerard says, it does fit all the prongs of WP:BLPSELFPUB if we make a simple statement that says Buckby has left the far right and considers them dangerous. The anonymous user above just removed a sentence that did precisely that. It said: "In his writing, Buckby argues that the nature of the far right is misunderstood by liberals and conservatives, but that it is "very real" and dangerous."

This is accurate and simple. It isn't promoting Buckby, it's not indulging him, it's a simple statement of fact that makes the page accurate. It also doesn't negate his history and maintains all the information on the page relating to his previous far right activity. Rosswikieditor (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Rosswikieditor

It is synthesis, plain and simple. You expect me to draw a conclusion from that, and I won't. Otherwise, it is just him soapboxing on Wikipedia. Look, an encyclopedia is supposed to be timeless. We record notable people and things. It doesn't really matter what they do today, unless what they do is noteworthy. What really matters is what they are notable for. If he made a change to better himself, then great, but why should I care? It's only notable if someone notices, and that someone should be a reliable source. If you can find in his own site where he actually says, "I am not far-right anymore" or some such thing, then you may have a good argument for including that, but I personally tend to take a very hard stance when it comes to primary sources. (And I use primary sources all the time, such as flight manuals, but never without secondary sources to back them up.) Zaereth (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It will be timeless if this Wikipedia entry describes how he has left the far right. Buckby describes how he has left the far right in a book published by Post Hill Press and distributed by Simon and Schuster, on his websites, in interviews, and in articles. I have also offered three quotes in which he describes how he has left the far right, and in which he criticizes the far right, above. Please scroll up and see those quotes. One of those quotes was used to produce the simple one-line explanation that the anonymous user removed. The list above is also not exhaustive; there are several other quotes in which he says he has left the far right.

If this Wikipedia entry is to be timeless, it cannot portray him as something he is not when he has been very vocal about his leaving the far right, and his criticism of the far right and the people he believes embolden the far right.

In the line that was removed by the anonymous user, it described Buckby's stance on the far right and how he believes they are dangerous & real, now that he has left the far right. Rosswikieditor (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Rosswikieditor

This reminds me of the Bobby Beausoleil case, where fans of his argue that he has changed. He is no longer a murderer and his article should describe him as being a musician. But he is and will always be notable as being a murderer, and nothing is ever going to change that. Now he got a little notability for his music, so we include that in his article, but he will always and forever be know for what he did as a youth. That is what he is notable for, and that is what the readers care about. If the subject really wants Wikipedia to pick up on this, then he should work to make himself notable for his change of heart. He has the power to do that, but we can't. I looked at your quotes. Unless I missed something, they're all from his personal website. You say there is a book that describes this. Perfect. That sounds like a reliable source. Why don't you just use that? Zaereth (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting I find a quote from his book and reference the book? That could be done, I have a copy, but it would result in a sentence extremely similar if not precisely the same as the one that was removed by the anonymous user. And, the moment I add it, the anonymous user will remove it again. I am avoiding adding anything new because the anonymous user just removes it and that person isn't being reprimanded for vandalism, and I'll end up getting my account kicked. So somebody either needs to stop this person constantly removing things they don't like, or add this new sentence themselves.

As David Gerard said, referencing his website fits all the prongs of WP:BLPSELFPUB. It is not making Wikipedia his soapbox, it is just accurately representing what he is, what he does, and what he says. And, with respect, this guy isn't a murderer. If he is writing books about how he left the far right and articles about how he left the far right, then it is only right that this is at least referenced. Wikipedia is meant to portray accurate information... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosswikieditor (talk • contribs) 23:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It does --possibly-- if he actually says it somewhere. In not a single one of your quotes does he actually say that about himself. If it did, then I could probably see adding a line that says "He says he's no longer far-right" or something to that effect. In other words, if he is actually talking about himself as the subject of the sentence. That is not what you have posted in any of your quotes. He's talking about the far-right, not about himself. You are asking me to make the conclusion that he left the far-right from that evidence, which is synthesis. Find a quote where he actually says it and maybe there's a valid argument for including under SELFPUB. Zaereth (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I really grow tired of Ross insisting that Buckby has left the far-right. There is not one iota of evidence out there that suggests this. He has written a book that misdefines who and what constitutes the far-left and also talks about a very small faction of the far-right that intimidated him out of that aspect of the movement.

Buckby is a narcissist and lacks the self awareness to truthfully identify himself. He used to call himself a ‘Culturist’ instead of a nationalist to make the term more palatable. Until Ross can find a mainstream news source that picks up on Buckby’s change of heart then I personally see this discussion as over. 2.25.195.68 (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Respectfully, you are wrong on that. In one of the quotes above he describes how he was groomed by Neo Nazis and how he escaped. I have his book in front of me. 50% of it is autobiographical and describes his journey into the far right, and his journey OUT of the far right. He has spoken about this at length in several articles but, importantly, in this book.

Here it is: “As a former far-right activist, I have seen how young men are radicalized, how they find a home and a community in the extreme right, and what issues motivate them. I joined the largest white nationalist movement in recent British history as a teenager in 2008, and over a period of years was groomed by Britain’s most famous neo-Nazis to become a future leader of the movement. Following years of conspiracies, harassment, racist paranoia, and violence, I escaped and became the man I am today. I can’t say the same for my former friends. Far-right extremism is misunderstood, but it is very real.” - https://www.jackbuckby.co.uk/2020/02/28/the-futile-crackdown-on-the-far-right-is-creating-terrorists/

1. He says he is a former far right activist. 2. He says how he was groomed by neo nazis. 3. He says he escaped but many other young men didn't.

His entire book focuses on this topic and explains how he left the far right and disavows racism and anti-semitism. This is relevant information on a page that describes his far-right activity in the past and I'm not going to give up on this one because I am shocked that this is being ignored. It's no wonder people think Wikipedia is biased because this is shocking.

I don't understand why you are ignoring the huge number of references, including an entire book, that show Buckby criticizes the far right and not longer associates with the extreme right - all the while, this anonymous user is removing content and resorting to insults. How does this make any sense?

This person wrote a book about how he left the far right, has written articles warning about the far right, and yet an anonymous user who resorts to insults and emotion to get their point across (and thinks they are the arbiter of truth and get to define what the far right is) is not being reprimanded for edit warring?

This discussion isn't over. I understand the anonymous user wants it to be, as demonstrated by their emotional rant and insults, but it isn't over at all. Rosswikieditor (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Rosswikieditor

On page 210 of this book, in reference to the far right and his associates as a teenager, he says he left the far right. This is yet another important reference, and one of many in the book - the book which is about how he left the far right. I included it in the sentence that the anonymous user removed, claiming the accurate information was "vandalism." It is not. Rosswikieditor (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Rosswikieditor

Listen, whether you believe him or not, whether you agree with him or not, he wrote a book about his journey through the far right, and his story leaving the far right. Reflecting this on his page accurately describes who he is and what he does. You don't like him, clearly, but that doesn't really matter. Your emotions don't matter. It is true, and for some reason it is being ignored. Rosswikieditor (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Rosswikieditor

Frankly I find IPs argument to be very uncompelling as well. Like I said, It's basically a mirror of yours. It doesn't matter if he's a narcissist, or whatever else you or the IP thinks about him. All that matters is what we find in reliable sources, which determines the significance (weight) of the info as well as what the subject is notable for. It doesn't matter one iota what he is not notable for. All that really matters for Wikipedia is that the information passes all of our policies. Zaereth (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Ross, how many words does Buckby dedicate in his book to Ann Marie Waters, Tommy Robinson or Liberty GB? 2.25.195.68 (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Zaereth, as David Gerard says, simply noting that he details his journey out of the far right in his book satisfies WP:BLPSELFPUB rules. It's not making it a soapbox for him, it's just referencing the most recent information about Buckby. If this article is about his far right history then, logically, it should at least reference what he says in his most recent work. Otherwise the page is inaccurate/out of date - and as you say, it should be timeless.

I am shocked by how much emotion/vitriol has been allowed to go on here. And that things are just constantly removed without any reprimands.

I have added a sentence that references specifically what he says in the book. First you say that if he says he left the far right then it is right to be used. I present that info and you say he didn't really say it. Then you say the book should be referenced, I should you how he says it in the book and you say no.

Come on. All this page needs is a reference to his most recent work, citing his book (a reliable source which complies with WP:BLPSELFPUB) and the page is done. But the anon user keeps removing it without reprimand.

Rosswikieditor (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Rosswikieditor

The answer is 0 words Ross2.25.195.68 (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

How can you say he talks about his journey out of the far right when he doesn’t talk about being the campaign manager of a far right politician 3 years ago? 2.25.195.68 (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I have to say I am quite shocked that so much emotion and vitriol from somebody who is injecting political opinions/disagreements into this has been allowed. Rosswikieditor (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Rosswikieditor

No emotion intended, just getting frustrated that you keep repeating that his book is proof he has left the far right when it is nothing of the sort. Sorry that this has upset you, but the integrity of this article must be upheld! 2.25.195.68 (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

You are damaging the integrity of the article and that is clear by the names you have called the person in question, and the insults. You can't call someone a narcicist and fire insults at them and then claim you're being impartial. I'm a guy who read his book and who doesn't even agree with him.

You might not believe he left the far right because you might still consider him far right, but you aren't everybody, and you aren't the arbiter of truth. Buckby wrote a book describing his journey out of the far right. I'm sorry you get so angry abotu that, but it is fact. And it is a fact we can reference because he has said it many, many times over. Whether you like it or not, Buckby has criticized the far right on many documented occasions and done so in a 300-something-page book. The integrity of this article is impacted when you claim to be doing the right thing by injecting your political feelings.

I have interacted with some very nice people here on Wikipedia. You have been extremely rude. Rosswikieditor (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Rosswikieditor

Ross please try to not be so emotional, this is Wikipedia not a politics forum. I am defending the article from your vandalism; you have failed to provide a credible source for your assertion Buckby has left the far right. His book is not it, his book does not mention his work with Tommy Robinson, Rebel Media or Ann Marie Waters. It barely touches on his time in Liberty GB.

I’m sorry that your admiration of Buckby has caused you to get so wound up. Please stop vandalising the page with baseless claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.195.68 (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The book and the articles he has written crticizing the far right are indeed sources that show Buckby criticizes the far right. That is quite evidently true. I am confident that other editors will see for themselves what happened here and fix it in the coming days. I wish you all the best. Rosswikieditor (talk) 00:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Rosswikieditor

Ross, it’s sad to see you dedicate so much time to try and make something untrue appear true. I really hope you find a more fulfilling purpose in your life and learn from this experience. All the best! 2.25.195.68 (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

My own two cents here... It looks like someone is trying to use a self-published source (inherently not reliable, except for quoting their own statements) establish something as fact, rather than summarizing from a reliable and independent source. Wikipedia is a tertiary source and should only be summarizing what secondary sources say, unless something is patently obvious (like the sky being blue) and completely non-controversial. In this case, we have a very subjective topic for a controversial BLP (which has EXTREMELY strict policies surrounding reliable sourcing). He may or may not consider himself associated with any particular political persuasion, but from Wikipedia's perspective it simply doesn't matter. If there is reliable, independent sourcing that says he's changed political positions, then we have something to work with. Synthesize something from a self-published source, where there's argument about what his own perspective is regarding what constitutes far-left or far-right is not what Wikipedia is for. Also, accusing people of vandalizing and edit warring is also highly inappropriate and could very well lead to being blocked, please stop. Waggie (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Well said, and thank you for finding the words to put it so eloquently. Zaereth (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, well said. When a reliable, independent source can confirm he has changed political persuasions then the article should be amended accordingly. 2.25.195.68 (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I might have a look later and see if I can put together an understated and acceptable sentence of his description of his views per WP:BLPSELFPUB. I too am sceptical as to how changed he actually is - but WP:BLPSELFPUB is for this sort of situation after all, and Wikipedia does pretty much err in favour of the living subject within reason, even if it might be argued that some don't deserve it - David Gerard (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not think that his book satisfies the test for WP:BLPSELFPUB;

· It is unduly self-serving. Having read his book, he does not bring up his recent associations with far-right figures including Tommy Robinson and Ann Marie Waters. Buckby clearly does not view these people as far-right. This undermines the assertion that he is a 'vocal' critic of the far-right. Granted, he is a critic of a particular subsection of the far-right, namely, violent antisemites which have forced him out of the spotlight in far-right/alt-right circles.

· The book does involve numerous unfounded claims about third-parties; 'fake' conservatives, 'the left', the media etc.

· There is reasonable doubt to its authenticity. Throughout it makes little reference to empirical research on far-right extremism and in fact, Buckby often rubbishes it. His book is a diarised autobiography documenting when he joined and subsequently left the BNP, not evidence of him being a counter-extremism researcher or a vocal critic of the far-right. 2.25.195.68 (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

yeah, I'd be looking for a clearly-quotable statement about himself with "I" in it - David Gerard (talk) 11:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It is no wonder people call Wikipedia biased. You are choosing to define somebody by your own personal opinions because you do not agree with him. You have ignored several statements in which Buckby explains how he left the far right, and in which he criticizes the far right. Whether you agree with him or not, whether you like him or not (which the primary, anon user here doesn't given the insults and rude language they have used) doesn't change the fact that he criticizes the far right and left the far right. If his sources show he criticizes the far right, then he criticizes the far right. That is a fact.

Is is not unduly self-serving, it is simply an accurate portrayal of truth. If he criticizes the far right (which he does) then....he criticizes the far right. But you don't want to include that and, not only that, you don't even want to acknowledge that he calls the far right "very real" and dangerous. Why? If that is the truth then that is the truth whether you agree with him or not.

Anon user claims the book includes unfounded claims about third parties, which is interesting. Unfounded? Where? When? You mean - you don't agree with the claims, right? You are not an arbiter of truth.

There are several very clear quotes, David, (which Include "I") in which Buckby describes leaving the far right and criticizes the far right. But you don't appear to want to use them. Rosswikieditor (talk) 12:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Rosswikieditor

Hi Ross, could you please address the fact that Buckby doesn't mention his associations with Ann Marie Waters and Tommy Robinson in his book which supposedly proves that he is a critic of/has left the far-right. 2.25.195.68 (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Our personal opinions do not matter, nor it does matter what his associations are (or whether or not he mentions them). What matters is what independent, reliable sources say. All this argument and sniping is going to get nowhere. So please stop it, both of you. If there are some clear quotes with "I" in them, then provide them and maybe they can be included if we can determine subjectively to meet BLPSELFPUB. It's that simple. Waggie (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I apologise Waggie, what I have misunderstood is that I thought it was useful to bring to Ross's attention that he will not find an independent reliable source saying that Buckby is a critic of the far-right.

I don't see this as my personal opinion when it is demonstrably evident that he has not really left his far-right views behind. I did believe his associations matter when Ross is claiming that Buckby's own publications establish that he is a vocal critic of the far-right. His associations show that his own publications on the matter are not reliable.

I now appreciate that this is irrelevant for the purposes of his Wikipedia biography and I agree with the other editors above that if a clear quote does demonstrate he has renounced his far-right views, then it should be included. I won't hold my breath and neither should Ross. 2.25.195.68 (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm hereby admitting failure to find even a usable "I" quote, short of buying Buckby's book just to go fishing for a quote, which I'm not going to do. (Looked through the first few pages on the Amazon preview and couldn't see one.) Given he still in 2020 advocates a pile of views usually considered far right, I'm not holding out much hope - David Gerard (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

No "I" quotes? Then I guess that's evidence that rules out him being a narcissist ... but please don't put that in the article either. Zaereth (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a fairly confusing discussion. IMO while we can sometimes use someone's website per WP:SELFPUB, it's problematic when it's something like someone claiming they left the far right. If there are quotes from his book these would be far better. It sounds like no one else has his book or wants to look in it and this is understandable. User:Rosswikieditor since you have access to his book, can you find these quotes and present them somewhere either here on the article talk page? Be prepared to provide more details if needed.

Although I'm always reluctant to include what someone has written about when it hasn't been picked up by secondary, personally, since the article clearly discusses his involvement with the far right, I'm leaning towards including some quote from his book disassociating himself from the movement, if it can be found.

This doesn't mean we should claim he has left the far right in Wikipedia voice, but if he wants to claim he did and if someone was willing to publish such claims (it sounds like it was a real publisher rather than self publishing or a vanity publisher), I'm leaning towards including them. A media source would be better since a media source is more likely to analyse such claims and at least would help allay concerns we are just cherry picking one thing he said. But it sounds like an issue is he's fallen off the radar of most media. And I feel that in a contentious case like this, a direct quote rather than summarising what he said would be better. Especially since it's coming directly from his book rather than from media discussion of what he said.

BTW, what is the book that's being referred to? The only book I see named so far is "Monster of Their Own Making, How the Far Left, the Media, and Politicians are Creating Far-Right Extremists" but this sounds more like book aimed at criticising the "far left, media and politicians" than one aimed at criticising the far right. If he wrote a book mostly aimed at criticising the far right and it's been covered in sources, it would be good if this book is at least mentioned in the article.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking into this a bit more, I wonder if one of the issues is he's has another "change of heart" or whatever you want to call it. It sounds like the book "Monster of Their Own Making" was released in April 2020. Assuming there wasn't some weird publishing history where it was written long ago and only published now, I guess this means the other book Rosswikieditor keeps referring to that the subject wrote aimed at criticising the far right was written and published months or more ago. Maybe for a time the subject was mostly a critic of the far right, but is now returning to mostly criticising the "far left, media and politicians" and perhaps that's why they're associating with far right figures again? Nil Einne (talk) 09:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Hi Nil Einne a lot of my work is based on researching the far-right and I have actually read his book 'Monster of Their Own Making, How the Far Left, the Media, and Politicians are Creating Far-Right Extremists'. There are quotes within where he does disassociate himself from certain subgroups within the far-right, namely the violent protestors, the BNP and anti-semites which he was involved with in his teenage years. However, you are correct the book focusses mainly on criticising the "far left, media and politicians". Buckby fails to criticize or acknowledge his far-right activities after leaving the BNP and as such, to use this book as evidence of him leaving the far-right is problematic. He has cherry-picked from his own history and presents himself in a misleading manner. I don't think Rosswikiediotr is referring to another book, he is referring to a series of articles which he published in the run up to the book's release. Again, these focus only on him leaving the BNP several years ago and do not acknowledge his associations with contemporary far-right figures i.e. Tommy Robinson, Ann Marie Waters and Paul Weston etc. 2.25.195.68 (talk) 10:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Grady Judd

Grady Judd's biography seems inherently biased and claims he is racist, without any proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.218.203.87 (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

This seems to have been fixed by Dmitry103. Thanks for letting us know. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Billy Chemirmir

Billy Chemirmir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could somebody please deal with this WP:BLPCRIME disaster please, and also remove his entry from List of serial killers in the United States?

Despite him not being convicted (other than of DUI) there are violations in the lead (stated as fact he is a serial killer), infobox (stated as fact he has 14-22 victims and he committed crimes between 2016 and 2018), Exposure section (stated as fact he attacked a 91 year old woman, and other crimes) and categories (two serial killer categories).

The editor responsible, Haunted Spy (talk · contribs) seems to specialise in creating articles with potential for BLP problems (serial killers and the like), so perhaps someone could apply a liberal dose of clue please? Another article he created also has major BLP issues Samuel Legg (his trial was postponed for health reasons but might still occur, yet he is called a serial killer and it's stated as fact he killed four women) and is also incorrectly included on the list article mentioned above. 82.23.215.85 (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The article is egregiously violative and I am working on fixing it currently. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the references on the article and reduced it to comply with BLP. I've also removed the entry in the list article. The original text by Haunted Spy (f/k/a Plamen1402) was very sensationalist in tone. Much was sourced to unacceptable sources such as web forums. What was sourced to acceptable sources used those as justification to directly state multiple times that he committed the crimes and included actions leading to them of which he has only been indicted or accused of. I have explained my reasoning further on the article's talk page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Rob Roberts (politician)

Hi. For the article on Rob Roberts, a politician in the UK, there's been a bit of back-and-forth in adding/removing information about his personal life. The issue is around if we should or should not include details of a potentional COVID-19 lockdown breach at his home, when he was not present. I personally think this is WP:UNDUE. As of typing this, the version of the article has this information, but I was looking for a second opinion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I remember that story - it was a newsworthy event, but the Daily Mirror featured a great big picture of Roberts, even though he had separated from his wife and (as he tweeted in response to the Mirror) was 200 miles away at the time. So it was news because he was tangentially involved, but ... he wasn't actually involved. I'm not sure it is actually reasonable to put in his bio, unless and until he's found to be directly involved. That said, the current wording isn't awful - David Gerard (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks David. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

B. Wongar

The article on writer and literary hoaxer B. Wongar has been subject to a lot of problematic editing in the past (e.g., by Serbian nationalist and sockpuppeteer Vujkovica brdo). Recently, a new editor has showed up on the page, a lot of tags, and left a very long message on the talk-page. I do not have a good enough grasp of this topic to assess how much of this is valid and how much of it is more POV-pushing; additional eyes would be welcome. --JBL (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Nick McKenzie

Nick McKenzie page is subject to repeat additions by a single user who repeatedly adds inaccurate and defamatory material. Repeated requests to seek consensus on talk page are ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qldsydmel (talk • contribs) 20:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I see a content dispute rather than any alarming BLP concern (original research?). Rather than continuing to edit war over their lengthy cited assertions, I suggest you discuss the problematic issues with each assertion on the talk page. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Ali Spagnola

An anonymous editor keeps making changes to this article to say, without any source at all, that she died on the 3rd of June. Tried editing it back, but they've just gone and done it again. HiddenViper13 (talk) 07:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Fiona Graham

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

There is no recent information on this page at all because every attempt to add any new information is immediately reversed. Sayuki has been a geisha in the Fukagawa Geisha District for five years and there have been many many attempts to add recent information from the last five years to the page but everytime any new information is deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:4050:B1A0:2D00:D5D9:3D58:C6D3:892 (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

added courtesy link Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

As has already been explained on the talk page, editing the article about oneself is a violation of our Conflict of Interest policy and the related Autobiography content guideline. Adding this information in the form of an Edit request on the talk page and providing independent, third-party sources for the changes will have a much better chance of being accepted. We have no way of verifying edits made by an anonymous user claiming to be a primary source and past acceptance of such claims on other articles has lead to major problems. It is also important to realize that a Wikipedia article on a living person is not a profile or the subject's page -- it is an encyclopedia article based on reliable sources. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to note myself - I have explained, pretty extensively, the ways in which this user, if created and confirmed to be Graham, could request an edit and actually see this article progress in the future. I've also explained that sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, and generally consistent and persistent account-hopping will not see any COI edits ever solidified as part of the page, as due to the nature of the user creating them, they will be removed, no matter how valid.

As has been noted a number of different times, over a period spanning roughly 10 years, a number of confirmed or suspected sockpuppets and meatpuppets have had this explained to them.

The issues surrounding this article, which have frankly dragged on long enough, are not to do with the content of the page - I don't care that someone faced legal action. I don't honestly, pardon my french, give a shit if someone did or didn't have to move their business to another location in Japan for a variety of vague and undefinable reasons. It doesn't affect me.

What does affect me is the fact that I could spend an hour and a half of my time very patiently explaining how to request an edit even with a COI, and how someone could work with unrelated editors in order to reach a consensus, work through their issues with the BLP in question, and reach some kind of, if not happy, begrudgingly settled medium that would allow everyone to move on.

It frustrates me deeply. Wikipedia isn't anyone's soapbox, suspected sock or meatpuppet edits are highly unlikely to become a solid part of the article, if ever, and the longer these issues drag on, the higher the barrier to entry will be for the person in question seeking to edit their BLP - which is not, I am guessing, the result one would want.

I apologise if this doesn't read as a very encyclopedic or especially professional post to this Noticeboard, but when you spent time and effort writing out an olive branch yesterday, and then see the same user not even trying to give a response and simply going elsewhere...I think anyone would be frustrated, if I'm honest. It's not even an attempt at resolving issues, it's just skirting, ducking and diving around the issue, again, and again, and again. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I personally don't support removal of material solely because it was added by someone with a COI, as I believe no policy or guideline supports that. Direct editing with a COI is strongly discouraged but only forbidden if it's forbidden for some other reason. If edits really were being removed solely for a COI, perhaps there would be reason for concern. But whenever I've looked into this including just now, it's never that simple. For starters, as others have said, there are multiple accounts who seem to get involved, this results in SOCK and MEAT concerns and since some of these accounts have been blocked you get into concerns over editing in violation a block or ban (which often does justify removal of edits without bothering to check whether they are bad). In addition, given the large number of accounts there are concerns whether these are just one or more editors with a regular COI, or if there could be WP:PAID editing involved. If there is paid editing going on, then that's a major no no since AFAIK, no one has ever disclosed this however it's been required many years, nearly as long as this has started. And it doesn't matter if you are directly editing the article or only commenting on the talk page. You need to disclose your paid editing per policy and the TOU. If whoever was behind this would restrict themselves to one account preferably with a confirmed identity and of course requiring with the paid editing disclosure requirements if required, this would help to reduce concerns in that area. But the other thing is the edits themselves are often problematic. There is a persistent attempt to remove the Wanaka court case even though the community has rejected that. And a lot of the additions are poor e.g. [7]. That of course is the problem with COI edits and the main reason (I hope) why they are often removed. When someone has a COI, they often cannot see that the language they are using is flowery or promotional and unencyclopaedic, their sources are poor or unsuitable, sometimes not even supporting what they added, or they modify sourced material so the source no longer supports what it says etc. Therefore their edits are poor enough to warrant removal. Nil Einne (talk) 07:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

My apologies - I hope you can forgive me, I was unaware that no Wikipedia policy supported the removal of COI edits on sight. (I'll update what I've posted on the Talk page of this article to reflect this.) Entirely my mistake - I should've made myself more familiar with BLP policy before posting. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 June 4#File:Derek Chauvin.jpg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 June 4#File:Derek Chauvin.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 May 29#File:George Floyd.png

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 May 29#File:George Floyd.png. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Judy Mowatt

The page currently states (under the section "career") that Judy Mowatt is the longtime wife of Bunny Wailer. Furthermore, it states Mowatt as co-author of 3 songs performed by Bunny Wailer, under the pseudonym "Jean Watt". Both claims point to the same source: "The words and music of Bob Marley", written by David V. Moskowitz.

Jean Watt however is a separate person. She is, in fact, spouse to Bunny Wailer and co-author of the 3 songs mentioned. On May 28th, 2020 she was reported missing in Jamaica. Citing the article: "Social and traditional media have been utilised in helping the family to find Watt, with a message that states, "Jean Watt, who is known as 'Sister Jean', is dreadlocked, about five feet three inches tall". The article shows 2 photographs of Jean Watt, and make no mention of the name Judy Mowatt.

The claim that Jean Watt is a pseudonym for Judy Mowatt is contradicted by reggae historian Roger Steffens in his essay about the recording sessions for the album "Burnin'" by the Wailers. Here, he refers to Jean Watt as Bunny Wailers "baby mother". No mention is made of Judy Mowatt in the essay in spite of her later important role as backing singer for Bob Marley as a member of the I-Trees. It can therefore be concluded that they are not the same person.

Judy Mowatt is reported to be still active (now a gospel singer) and recent photos show her to look very different from Jean Watt. Furthermore, Judy Mowatt no longer has dreadlocks. She remains a well known figure in the jamaican music industry, and still releases new songs with other top artists.

The David Moskowitz book would therefore appear as a poorly researched source. It should be noted that one other book by the same author, "Caribbean Popular Music: An Encyclopedia of Reggae, Mento, Ska, Rock Steady, and Dancehall" from 2005 has been criticised by one reviewer for being poorly researched in 3 instances, quote: "the entry for Ranking Dread states that he rose to prominence on Clement "Coxsone" Dodd's UK-based sound system, confusing Dodd with the completely unrelated British sound system operator Lloyd Coxsone. Moskowitz doesn't seem to have done his research well at all, and he fails to even mention Ranking Dread's rather colourful life after reggae. The entry on Cornell Campbell is similarly poor, getting his year of birth wrong and stating that he recorded at Studio One for Bunny Lee(!) and retired in the mid-1980s, not mentioning the albums he recorded or the regular live performances since then." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phk1966 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Climate change denial category

I've been seeing removal of the "climate change denial" category at a few articles, including James Delingpole and Anthony Watts (blogger). Apparently a CfD discussion is the justification. It's not obvious to me that that discussion should be determining. No doubt some will disagree -- but on the basis that categories are (merely) useful navigational aids, I'd suggest restoring it where it has been deleted (not just for these two articles). It certainly is pertinent to those two individuals. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there was a tussle to remove the category at Naomi Seibt, a YouTuber employed by the Heartland Institute a little while ago as a paid spokesperson for climate denial. Esowteric+Talk 16:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion at Category talk:Climate change denial#Criteria for adding biographies and Category talk:Climate change denial#After introduction and deletion of the "denialists" categories about this currently. PackMecEng (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Certainly, Seibt is not in the same category as Delingpole when it comes to notability. --Knucmo2 (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

There have been many discussions over the years about why these are generally not helpful categories for BLPs, and the specific categories for "climate change deniers" have been deleted twice recently, reflecting the consensus that these particular categories are not a good idea. In this context removing BLPs from the "climate change denial" category is certainly understandable, although the consensus here is less clear. But if you are going to include BLPs in this category then as a minimum you should only do so when the article includes an explicit statement in Wikipedia's own voice that the subject is a climate change denier. If we can't find sufficiently good referencing to make such an explicit statement then we shouldn't make an implicit statement by inclusion in categories of this kind. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes that all makes sense. I think that for most of these people, something along the lines of Category:Persons involved in climate change issues (which would maybe be a direct subcategory of Category:Climate change and society) would be best. True, this would make it harder for the reader to easily say "find me all the articles on climate-changer deniers", but impossible for her to say that and presented with the members of set that we have made up on our own dime that includes some people who are climate change deniers, and some who might or might not be, depending on who you talk to. It's a lose-lose proposition, but "no data" is usually better than "false data". It would be nice for a reader to quickly be able to get the set of climate change deniers. But... it would also be nice for the reader to quickly find the set of "Corrupt United States Senators" or "Underrated American Football running backs" or "Difficult actors" and so on, but... there's a limit to what we can do. Sometimes the reader just has to do her own work. "Climate change deniers" might be over the limit of what can do, at a reasonable level of confidence that we aren't making any mistakes. Herostratus (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Julian Firth

Date of birth: January 8, 1961 Divorced — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.149.11 (talk) 07:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Julian Firth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) We need reliable sources to add details to the article. I have removed the existing birthdate including year since I can't find any such sources (to be clear IMDB and other wikis don't count) for either date. Probably an age as of would work since the Evening Standard has an age, but it doesn't seem that important. The marriage stuff, I've left it be for now. The Evening Standard source confirms he had a son who died in Thailand, but the parentage of the deceased son's sister and brother isn't clear and doesn't mention whether he was ever married to the son's mother so frankly the whole family section is lacks clear sourcing. So if someone wants to modify or remove, be my guest. Nil Einne (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Richard McDaid

Richard McDaid has two sources but they both lead to https://cricketarchive.com/subscribe instead of the refererences currently in use.

You have | Failed | This Universe | 00:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• It's a paywalled site, can be read with a subscription. (The first time I clicked on the first link, the proper page showed up... for a fraction of a second, before it was rerouted to the subscription page.) WP:PAYWALLed sites are allowed, but not preferred. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Trevor Moran coming out as transgender

Trevor Moran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Saw this via WP:Huggle. Huggle often picks up on pronoun changes being made to a BLP article. Experienced editors are needed at the Trevor Moran article to handle the name of the article with regard to WP:Common name and WP:NAMECHANGES, and name usage within the article. Pronoun usage is clear per MOS:GENDERID, but MOS:GENDERID does not apply to article titles. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Bronson Pinchot

Bronson Pinchot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There has been a recent recurring issue on this page. An anonymous editor posted a sentence on the bottom of the “personal life” tab that states that Pinchot’s Perfect Strangers co-star Rebeca Golden accused him of sexual assault. The source of this information was from an informal fan-run Wordpress blog, and though it is cited, it is clearly not a reliable or high-quality source. Additionally, the blog referenced has a history of publishing highly subjective, malicious and libelous statements regarding Pinchot. Since it’s addition to the page on April 5th, various users have removed this information FOUR times (with one user commenting on the unreliable source), only for it to be quickly re-added each time by the same exact IP address of the original editor.

In addition, I have searched and found no additional sources, credible or otherwise, to verify Golden’s claims. The statements from Golden’s interview on the blog may or may not be true, but seeing as the source is unreliable, and also known for posting hateful and biased information, I feel that this sentence should be permanently removed. The publication of this content on Wikipedia also defames Pinchot, which is unacceptable, unethical, and violates all 3 of Wikipedia’s BLP policies (NPOV, V & NOR).

I have not edited the article myself, as I did not want to cause unnecessary conflict. I also have little experience in editing pages (student), and wanted to make sure to do the right thing to have this fixed. I apologize if I made a mistake in reporting this here.

I felt that this issue needed to be brought to attention because it genuinely seems like intentional libel due to the content being republished multiple times by the same IP address. I hope there is a way that the administrators can permanently remove this content, block the violator and/or protect the page from vandalism. Kreglas413 (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

As the owner of the blog sourced for the statement, I can verify that I have the emails from Ms. Golden, as well as a recording of our conversation. You're correct that the majority of material on my blog is subjective, as are all review and analysis efforts. I fail to see, however, how the interview cited falls under the same umbrella as the rest. The page cited does objectively show the questions and answers that comprise the interview. I recognize it is difficult to hear that an actor one is a fan of has acted horrifically to another human being, and I'm sorry you're having to go through that. Caseyroberson (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPSPS we do not allow any claims against a BLP from self-published sources. If a reliable source like the New York Time picked up these assertions, then we could incorporate that, but we're not going to use a blog even with the assertion of the origins of the source. --Masem (t) 17:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both for your responses. Caseyroberson, while I appreciate your comments on the matter, this has nothing to do with my feelings, nor anything other than Pinchot’s BLP page, which, like any other BLP page, must have reliable sources which abide to Wikipedia’s policies. Even if you can verify the information, no one else can. As is clearly stated in the WP:BLP, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid.

That being said, this unverified content being continuously re-published and re-cited on a website like Wikipedia can also be seen as potential defamation of character.

I noticed now that the sentence has returned after being deleted again for the FIFTH time. Would administrators please consider protecting the page (WP:PP) or blocking the IP address (WP:BP)? It seems that this problem will persist unless either of these things are done. Kreglas413 (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I've removed it and semi'd the article for a week. --Masem (t) 22:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks,Masem. I appreciate your work in resolving this issue. Kreglas413 (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:The Great Hysteria of 2020

Violation of WP:BDP; unsupported and mostly untrue allegations against George Floyd; no possibility this will be an independent article given existence of Death of George Floyd and related content. Kablammo (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Speedied. Thank you, Kablammo. Bishonen | tålk 15:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC).

Bishonen, I think you sent a warning message to the wrong IP. That IP created the original version of the page in neutral terms (although youre correct in the sense that it was a duplicate article). It was only a subsequent IP who introduced the biased terms. Also the talk page of the draft should be deleted per G8. Thanks! --Dps04 (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Dps04,  Done – Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Isaacman

User CircleBBQ continues to deface an individual users wiki page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Isaacman) with information out of context and factually incorrect. He has been warned and continues to revert back the changes regularly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CircleBBQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.59.191.98 (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reverted it and left CircleBBQ a DS warning and an explanation of BLP. Might be advisable for other editors to keep an eye on the page as well- One of the "references" was a youtube video posted by someone using the same name. plus review complaint sites, facebook... Looks like someone is not happy with the automated payment system operated by the company belonging to Mr Isaacman.Curdle (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Aengus Ó Snodaigh‎

Aengus Ó Snodaigh‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's been back and forth between various IP and other editors over a two year period, so perhaps the input of some outside editors can get this issue put to bed for a while. The current content being added or removed can be seen here. Specifically there's a lengthy paragraph about his wife being drunk and a court case resulting from it, and secondly there's a spy-ring allegation with some other allegations thrown in. While two of his staff were convicted in relation to that, it was simply for IRA membership and thus the rest of the allegations remain in WP:BLPCRIME territory especially as the subject of the article doesn't appear to have been accused of criminal activity, never mind convicted. Another point worth bearing in mind is how much of the article seems to be about people other than the subject of the article. FDW777 (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

In the general case, controversial material about non-notable third parties shouldn't be on a BLP at all, no - David Gerard (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

James Kilgore

Not sure the proper way to do it, but if anybody is better than me at Wikipedia: basically all the previous edits to James Kilgore's page from 98.155.163.122 should be reverted. They violate most of the issues with living people's bios. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.186.227 (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I used a tool called Who Wrote That? to find the remaining text added by the anonymous editor. These additions were clearly detrimental to the article, being ungrammatical, biased, and, most importantly for WP:BLP purposes, unsourced. Thank you for the report. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Mark Wahlberg

For any interested editors, there's a discussion at Talk:Mark Wahlberg on whether a section should be labelled Hate crimes, Racial incidents, Arrests and felony assault conviction, or Legal issues. (Note that the section heading was A Big Deal yesterday on twitter.) Schazjmd (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Mark Di Stefano

For the interested, pretty awful BLP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Heather Marsh

• Heather Marsh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pretty much the entire article is the work of WP:SPAs. The style is pretty poor, the sourcing is very variable, but the subject is probably notable. Guy (help!) 11:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Mohammad Naved

• Mohammad Naved (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not an important person, just a usual terrorist. should not be included in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.87.57.119 (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see anything that runs afoul of BLP. The article is sourced. Whether the sources are enough is a matter for normal deletion processes. —C.Fred (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Sandra Harding

• Sandra Harding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a smear campaign going on in this article, quite inane really. I commented in the Talk section about it. The last line of the lead ought to be removed, it is not written or cited properly. I suggest a controversy section if necessary, but likely theres no way to back up this claim rigourously, as they've tried and failed numerous times. Rather it ought to be removed pending proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joldt (talk • contribs) 16:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your removal. Per WP:LEAD, it is unacceptable to add a factoid to the lead which should be a summary of the article. According to old comments on talk, "she mentioned that a hypothetical feminist could call it a rape manual if a certain condition was true about metaphor in science". If that is true, the removed statement was an unacceptable distortion. Finally, the reference was a secondary source (good), but only the juicy bit (what Harding was claimed to have written) was in the article. A reasonable secondary source would have had some analysis and that should be the point in the body of the article, with attribution. Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Allison Davis (television executive)

A user has made major unsourced contributions, claiming it to be "their article". I left them a note on their talk page about verifiability and autobiographies, but they are continuing to edit and havent responded. I'm reverting their edits for now as they are still uncited and therefore technically WP:BLP violations. I'd like somebody with more experience on the issue to take a look. –DMartin 23:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with –DMartin. Based on the username and the edit summary where the user states, "re-formatted my page" it appears that the subject is editing her own page which violates WP:COI. Perhaps someone should post a follow-up on Ajdavis1721's user talk page and explain that they can request these changes by posting on the article's talk page and another editor can make those changes as long as they provide proper sources. Quorum816 (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Randall Miller

• Randall Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The subject makes films. In 2014 a camera assistant was killed on production and a conviction occurred—"the first time a director was sent to prison for the death of a cast or crew member". SPAs like to either add text highlighting Miller's evil deeds, or remove them. My own feeling is that if Miller were notable for only for being involved in someone's death, there would be no article. Accordingly, an edit such as this is undue. Obviously the article has to cover the death and Miller's role, but the current text is pretty blatantly the result of anyone can edit. All I can find from previous discussions is BLPN April 2015 and ANI April 2015. Thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Just to add context, and without trying to start anything, the edit suggested as 'undue' is a rollback of a direct COI editor who didn't discuss their changes in the talk page first. To note, the controversial tone was also being discussed here Talk:Randall_Miller#Midnight_Rider_and_Manslaughter_Conviction_section_header, and the fact is its notable that he is the first convicted filmmaker in US history, which is also sourced. He is also of recent interest as he is back in the news for this very same topic. Strangerpete (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The standard response to that is to write an article about the topic (the first convicted filmmaker in US history). If that is all Miller is notable for, there should be an article on the conviction and no article on the person. However, having made several noted films, Miller is clearly notable and having 4300 bytes on him and 4340 bytes on the incident is WP:UNDUE. Johnuniq (talk) 02:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I do agree that Miller is notable for more than just the incident and conviction. Several of his movies have their own articles. I also believe that the discussed edits I reverted a COI.The edits not only removed any mention of the incident from the opening paragraph, but it also added sentences about separate legal issues in regards to officials involved in his prosecution and had an image caption that felt more like a promo blurb in a magazine. If I'm out of line, let me know and I'll back off, but since I've also been involved in the edits made I felt like adding my two cents. JellyMan9001 (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Miller meets notability, since the sources provided in his article are not about him directly. Notability requires "significant coverage" that "addresses the topic directly and in detail." Although his films may be notable, we would need sources that write about them as a body of work.

John Landis was charged with manslaughter and acquitted in the Twilight Zone accident. If Landis had not been written about extensively for his career, his article would probably be almost entirely about accident.

TFD (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Murderpedia, BLP1E

The newish article Steven Gordon and Frank Cano has Murderpedia as a source; how do we feel about that? Also, does this article pass WP:BLP1E? --JBL (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see anything on that site indicating who writes for it, how they source it, any indication of editorial oversight or fact checking, etc. It might as well be some rando's GeoCities site. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

It's an SPS, so fails BLPSPS as well as some copyright violations as it is just pulling the text from news sources. But to that, one can just grab the news articles as the sources and here's where we'd turn a blind eye to how one got those articles (eg you'd might be sourcing 1970 LA Times article not available on the web, but which that site has a text version of. You would not link to that site at all, but you can still say that you have a LA Times 1970 citation for the content via a standard cite news template. --Masem (t) 22:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis, you could ask at WP:RSN but I know what answer you'll almost certainly get: not reliable. Self-published, user-generated, fansite and other WP:ELNEVER things. Guy (help!) 11:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, thanks for your responses, and apologies for asking 2 questions at the same time -- the second question (do you think this passes BLP1E?) was the reason I brought this here (rather than RSN). The author of that article produces a lot of crime news content and I am skeptical of its encyclopedic value, but I would appreciate a second opinion. --JBL (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Standard practice would be to have an article on the crimes, not a faux-biography. Guy (help!) 13:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

So what's the right thing to do with the existing thing -- AfD? Or something else? (I personally have no interest in rewriting articles on murders, notable or otherwise.) --JBL (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I would first move the article to something like "YYYY Orange County serial killings" and flesh out the details of what happened - you don't need to name victims but explain how they were caught,etc. Now, if you feel that doesn't leave enough per WP:NEVENT for a full article, then you can send it to AFD. --Masem (t) 13:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I personally am not interested in rewriting articles on these topics, but I have started looking at the 280 or so articles that link Murderpedia and either tagging it or removing it; anyone else who wants to help with that (thanks, Cullen328) is also welcome, of course. --JBL (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Murderpedia is used over 300 times as a source on Wikipedia per murderpedia.org  , so it should absolutely be taken to the noticeboard, maybe even a RfC to get it depreciated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Excellent point. Will start the discussion (Don't think a full RFC even needed, just confirmation). --Masem (t) 15:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Wrestling II - RFC

There is an RFC on Talk:Mr. Wrestling II on whether it is appropriate to describe this recently dead person as a sex offender - more BLP savvy input is needed.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Roger Kaufman

Found this page by special:random

Extraordinary. I think the rule that applies is "no original research" although I don't know how to start making it better - the source code is a mess.

Oh I started editing and somehow I got distracted and this didn't get posted.  AltoStev ^Talk 01:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at it also. Need an expert to review, verify, and properly cite discussion of the concepts that he developed since it does seem like original analysis by one of his colleagues rather than taken from an independent literature review. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The article is so dense with jargon and new-age business speech, my eyes cross when reading it. All the sources seem to be articles by the subject, co-authored by the subject, or interviews with the subject. I am having trouble finding any verifiable third party reporting of the subject and/or his business philosophies. But, admittedly, academic journals aren't really my thing, so I'm not sure whether what I'm looking at is legit or not. Ditch ∝ 01:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Scott S. Weiss

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_S._Weiss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spellmonger (talk • contribs) 16:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Should be deleted. Purely self-promotional in nature. Written by people working under Scott S. Weiss' authority. Scott S. Weiss is a small-time business owner whose life and alleged accomplishments are a far cry from being Wikipedia-worthy. The page exists only to promote his business — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spellmonger (talk • contribs) 16:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for deletion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Abdi Gahad

Abdi Garad is a PhD Candidate at the University of Birmingham and not a pirate as per the Wikipedia. To add insult to injury, the page links his twitter account and uses his picture. Would you fix it? That would be appreciated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdi Garad (talk • contribs)

I do not see the twitter account and photo linked to this article Abdi Garad. I have also nominated it for deletion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Abdi Garad: I think you’re looking on Google, which links text from the Wikipedia article to the picture and Twitter account of a different person with the same name when it generates a profile for this name. Unfortunately, that happens sometimes and there’s nothing we can do about it. Neiltonks (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Joe Rickard

I accidentally deleted all the references to this page while trying (and failing) to add some new information about him leaving In Flames. This was not meant to be malicious, my apologies.

Fixed, in the future you can go into the article history and click undo at the end of the listing for you edit which I just did.--69.157.254.64 (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Caitlyn Jenner as asexual

Caitlyn Jenner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At the Caitlyn Jenner article, I reverted MacySinrich changing "she will identify as asexual for now" to "she will identify as bisexual for now." I then complained about it on MacySinrich's talk page. MacySinrich was reprimanded by others as well and is currently blocked. Åüñîçńøł was watching MacySinrich's talk page and also focused on the asexual aspect, stating, in part, "The article falsely claims that Jennifer identifies as 'asexual'. The truth is: Nowhere in the source does Jenner claim to 'identify' as asexual. Jenner (in the source article) expresses an attraction for women — so it is not unreasonable for a fellow editor to assume bisexuality." Åüñîçńøł is wrong. As seen by this The Washington Post source and this NBC News source, Jenner does explicitly state "Let's go with 'asexual' for now." This is in reference to sexual identity, not gender identity. It comes out of Jenner's mouth in the interview. Yes, Jenner also states, "And I always felt heterosexual. I am not gay... as far as I know, I am heterosexual." But that is when speaking in the context of identifying as a man. At the time of that interview, Jenner was still using masculine pronouns and would often speak of "Bruce" (meaning life as Bruce) as a separate entity. The ABC NBC News sources relays that Jenner "ultimately identif[ied] as asexual." Despite this, as seen here, here, here, Åüñîçńøł has repeatedly removed the asexual aspect, claiming that Jenner never said they identify as asexual and that the text is a BLP violation. I have reverted Åüñîçńøł each time.

On the talk page, Paul August told Åüñîçńøł, "but the cited article quotes Jenner as saying 'Let's go with 'asexual' for now,'. What are we to make of that?" And I stated, "Not sure what you are going on about. The sources are clear. And you most certainly did not add any 'recent and up-to-date sources' on Jenner's sexual identity. To repeat, the text you added wasn't an update on Jenner's sexual identity. You redundantly added 'She identifies as a transgender woman.' We already know that! Readers will already know that because the lead and 'Coming out as a transgender woman section' are clear about that. The trans woman aspect is gender identity, not sexual identity. MOS:GENDERID is also about gender identity, not sexual identity. And to repeat something else, it is not uncommon for people to use 'asexual' to mean 'celibate' or 'sexually abstinent,' as made clear in this section of the Celibacy article. However Jenner meant 'asexual' back then, we do not know. We can guess. But we don't have Jenner's word on it. What we do know is that 'asexual for now' was stated. Should Jenner have used other words instead, given the 'never been sexually attracted to men, but always to women' aspect? One can argue that, yes. But what was stated was stated. It came out of Jenner's mouth. There was no misquote. All that is left now is to form consensus on whether or not to remove any mention of the asexual bit. If it is removed, it will leave some readers assuming that Jenner identifies as a lesbian. The article might occasionally get added to the lesbian category, which would need to be removed each time per WP:BLPCAT. We go by what BLP subjects identify as. If there are more recent sources on this, and the asexual or lesbian aspect is therefore clear, then we can tweak the section and categories in that regard."

Thoughts? To me, it appears that Åüñîçńøł keeps removing the asexual bit on a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT basis and/or a misunderstanding of transgender sexuality (given their comments at Talk:Caitlyn Jenner). Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

(This discussion is regarding content in the Caitlyn Jenner article, in the last paragraph in the section “Coming out as a transgender woman”.)

This is a simple question: The article states “she would identify as asexual for the time being”. Does that belong in the article or should it be removed? Jenner never says that she would identify as asexual. The sources cited are more-than-5-years old and are based on a TV interview on ABC. In that interview Jenner doesn’t say it. When Jenner refers to asexuality (or sexuality in general) it is never as an “identity”, and Jenner points out that (in Jenner’s words) “sexual orientation and gender identity are not the same thing”. Identity is important to this article, because it is discussed notably as a Gender Identity. “Identity” needs to be handled accurately and carefully. In the source interview Jenner says that there is a “misperception that people transition because of their sexual desires.” Wikipedia should be careful not to contribute to that misperception. Jenner discusses these topics often, and in much more recent interviews, and Jenner is consistent in saying that sexuality is not identity.

Two sources cited are both more-than-5-years-old, and are both based on the same TV interview. The first citation is People Magazine, the second citation is an anonymously written NBC news bulletin, which interprets Jenner’s comments — from the original ABC-TV interview — and claims that Jenner was identifying as asexual. But (again) Jenner never actually says it, and Jenner contradicts the idea in the original TV interview, and in many other reliable (and more recent) sources, and in Jenner’s 2017 autobiography, which was recently removed as a source from this section.

The argument above (made by Flyer22 Frozen) is wide-ranging, speculative, and it discusses all kinds of things that seem to be off-topic. Flyer22 Frozen repeatedly makes the false statement that the idea that “she would identify as asexual for the time being” came (as he puts it) out of Jenner’s mouth. (The phrase “for the time being” is a translation of the word “now” — and the sources are 5 years old.)

The advice given by Wikipedia is that this article should adhere to the identity guidelines, it should give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, and contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed from the article.Åüñîçńøł (talk) 12:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

For this topic, nobody is interested in an editor's personal views on gender identity, sexuality, or odd views about the sources. And that includes your statement that "Jenner contradicts the idea in the original TV interview." Contradicts? I already stated that the reason Jenner relays "And I always felt heterosexual. I am not gay... as far as I know, I am heterosexual" is because Jenner was speaking in the context of identifying as a man. At the time of that interview, Jenner was still using masculine pronouns and would often speak of "Bruce" (meaning life as Bruce) as a separate entity. Jenner has been very clear about that. Jenner stated what Jenner stated. Did you even watch the interview? I did. The sources state what they state. Various other reliable sources state Jenner identified as asexual as well. You, just like MacySinrich, are having trouble with this because Jenner is a transgender woman. And that is partly why Jenner went with "asexual for now" -- for laypeople like you. Jenner didn't want to continue publicly identifying as heterosexual because it would confuse people. Trans women who are heterosexual are those who are only sexually attracted to men, similar to how trans men (as noted in the Trans man article) who are heterosexual are those who are only sexually attracted to women. But Jenner was clear about not being sexually attracted to men. So Jenner chose "asexual for now." Trans women who are only sexually attracted to women may be called lesbian (though some don't use that term and may use queer instead). That is not off-topic or speculative. It is a fact. Jenner apparently did not want to identify as a lesbian, and chose "asexual for now" instead. This 2016 "Being Transgender: What You Should Know" source, from ABC-CLIO, page 143, tells us, "Caitlyn Jenner was caught off guard by questions about her sexual orientation in his TV interview with Diane Sawyer. Caitlyn tried to dodge the question but finally recovered by saying that she was asexual. This made me believe that he (it was his preference to use masculine pronouns in the interview) had learned a little transition science from his mental health professionals."

Here and here, I see that you alerted WP:Teahouse and WP:LGBT to this discussion. Okay. But you are not listening. That is easy to see, including by you once against again citing MOS:GENDERID when I have already been clear that MOS:GENDERID is about gender identity, not sexual identity. As many know, I significantly edit sexology topics. But I'm not going to sit here and educate people on sexual matters, except for what I stated above and to state that one can be both heterosexual and asexual (often called heteroromantic among asexuals). What matters in this case is not our personal thoughts on gender identity or sexual identity, or what term Jenner should have used, but what Jenner and the sources state. You've offered no up-to-date statement on Jenner's sexual identity/sexual viewpoints. But I will now. We can see in this 2017 Allure source that Jenner states, "I don't have the appetite for [sex], which is why the public's obsession over whether I would [get gender confirmation surgery] is annoying to me." That aligns with the "not interested in sex" definition of asexuality. And, yes, as is clear in the Asexuality article, there is more than one definition for it (which is partly why it's conflated with celibacy and sexual abstinence). In the Allure source, it is reiterated that gender identity and sexuality are distinct, although they are often conflated, and the source also relays what Jenner states in a book: "A future female companion? I think about that. A future female sexual companion? Not happening, at least for now, and perhaps not ever. A future male sexual companion? I have never had the inclination. But maybe that attitude might possibly change if I have the Final Surgery." 2017 is the most up-to-date commentary on the matter. Jenner has yet to retract identifying as asexual. You go on about the 2015 statement being five years old, but Jenner is under no obligation to keep us updated on the matter. If wanting us to know that a change has occurred, we will know. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The 2015 interview and 2017 autobiography are generally consistent: 1) Jenner was only ever sexually attracted to women, and 2) she has for some time considered sex of very low importance. Any discussion in the article should convey those two points, preferably with as direct and recent quotes as possible. I lean towards removing the contested sentences entirely. Jenner has shared much more about her gender identity and transition than her orientation.--Trystan (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Åüñîçńøł's reasoning is not making any sense to me. Sexual identity and gender identity are distinct, and I see no conflation being implied by the content at all. The 2015 statement doesn't have an expiration date, and is stated directly by Jenner, so this seems to be straightforward. The sentence in the article is good as is. As for Åüñîçńøł's statement that In the source interview Jenner says that there is a “misperception that people transition because of their sexual desires.” Wikipedia should be careful not to contribute to that misperception, I am baffled as to how stating that Jenner said she was asexual contributes to the idea that she transitioned due to sexual desires. Obviously the opposite if anything. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Can Wikipedia properly claim that a person “identifies as asexual for the time being” if there is no quote of that person ever saying such a thing? If that person often discussed, and can be quoted on the topic of their own sexuality and identity — and no quote exists of them saying that they identify "as asexual for the time being"? If that person consistently says that they identify in a particular way (which they do), but never says they identify "as asexual”? Åüñîçńøł (talk) 11:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

More than once I have wondered if there is some language/cultural barrier here or something. I don't understand why you keep stating that Jenner never identified as asexual/never said it...when the interview and sources are evidence to the contrary. Are you saying that Jenner never explicitly used the words "I identify as"? If so, I find that argument very faulty. The question of sexual orientation/sexual identity came up; it concerned how the world should view Jenner in this regard. To quote the "Being Transgender" source again, "Caitlyn tried to dodge the question but finally recovered by saying that she was asexual." When Jenner relays "asexual for now" in the context of sexual orientation/sexual identity, how else are we to relay that? It's like asking someone what their sexual orientation is. If the person states "heterosexual", the person doesn't have to state "I identify as heterosexual" for us to relay that the person identifies as such or has stated that they are heterosexual. Otherwise, we wouldn't report the demographics that we do in the Demographics of sexual orientation article unless the person states "I identify as [so and so]." You keep dodging the fact that Jenner stated "asexual for now." As a result, reliable sources have reported that Jenner identifies as asexual. And there is the fact of Jenner seemingly not being interested in sex (whether as a result of simply having no interest in it or a libido aspect) aligns with the "not interested in sex" definition of asexuality.

I'm asking you to stop WP:Edit warring on this and to not remove the asexual bit unless you have WP:Consensus for removing it. So far, you don't. Slow edit warring is still edit warring and can still have consequences. And, yes, I know that I've been on the other end reverting you. In addition to preferring that we aren't blocked, I'd rather that the article is not WP:Full-protected, to stop the edit warring. As for "time being" in place of "for now", it was recently changed to that and it's no big deal since it obviously means the same thing. It can be easily changed back to "for now."

When the asexual bit was first added, I questioned it in my head as well because Jenner certainly seems to have been sexually attracted to women, and because the term "asexual" is not always used in a consistent manner (which I've been over above), and because "for now" indicates a non-permanent state (that it's an identity being used in the interim). Looking in the edit history, I see that I altered the wording in 2015 as a result of IP commentary on the talk page. As seen in that discussion, the initial IP wondered if we should report that Jenner is a lesbian. Wondering about Jenner's sexual orientation is why Sawyer asked what she asked, and it's why Jenner has commented on it more than once. So I think it's relevant for Wikipedia to comment on it. If you think that this wording seems to imply that Jenner transitioned due to sexual attraction, which it seems that you do, we can change the current text to the following: "She said that sexual orientation and gender identity are not the same thing, and that she has never been sexually attracted to men, but always to women. She also said that she would identify as asexual for the time being." If you take any issue with "asexual for now" being mentioned, all I can do is repeat that Jenner said this. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen, please, tone down your words. Wikipedia encourages civil discussion, and the assumption of good faith among editors. But you, with your repeated accusations, and your enormous amount of anger, are acting as though you are incontinent with rage. I’m afraid you’re going to intimidate others from participating. You are the one that brought this, you are the host of this conversation. I would think you’d want to be welcoming to others. You accuse me of edit warring — I consider that a false accusation. I have edited very little, I was reverted by you. Big deal. If you think that your accusations are true, I challenge you to go elsewhere, perhaps to another section on this page, and make your case if you think you have one. But don’t clutter up this discussion with it. Please. Åüñîçńøł (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Tone down my words? Again, what in the world are you going on about? Read the WP:Edit warring policy if you don't understand what edit warring is. You have been edit warring to remove reliably sourced content with rationale that makes no sense. Editors have been clear to you about what Jenner and the sources state. That is why I brought this matter here. I don't need a lecture from you about civil discussion. I was clear about what could happen if the edit warring continued. That is not uncivil. I also proposed alternative wording, and, instead of focusing on that, you decided to lecture me in an unjustified manner. And "enormous amount of anger"? And "acting as though [I am] incontinent with rage"? No. It's time for you to move on. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Whats the difference between incontinent with rage . . . and incoherant with rage? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 20:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Who's intimidated? This is just far out of my field of expertise, so I would generally turn to Wikipedia's foremost expert on such subjects. I see nothing wrong with Flyer22's behavior. She has a very direct way of speaking, but that's just Flyer22.

The sources here say what the sources say. Like it or not, we have to go with that. I don't know much about this world beyond what goes on within the realm of my own interests. I generally think people are born like they are, and most of them spend all their lives trying to figure out what that is. We all knew my nephew was going to be gay when he was still in diapers. He never realized it until he was in high school, and when he finally decided to come out on his own, years later, it was a big relief for everyone. Nobody wakes up one day and says, "I think today I'll be gay" or whatever.

Jenner seemed equally confused. I'm not sure she was using the term correctly, or just maybe threw it out there as sort of an "I don't know", but it's not really our place to debate it. We use the term she did. Simple as that.

Now, what we have there does have problems. 1.) It's too closely paraphrased to the source. 2.) By using the phrase "for now" or "the time being", we are giving this a temporal dimension. The question becomes, when? I think simply adding the date of the interview would help alleviate this problem. (ie: "In a 2015 interview, she stated..." or something to that effect.) Then we know what "for now" means. Other than that, we shouldn't be trying to interpret her words ourselves. Perhaps a direct quote would be best. If she feels the need to clarify or update us on what she has learned in these past years, that is up to her, but this also seems like something very private and personal to her (as it is to most) so she may have been vague for a reason (as people often are) and may not have any inclination to fill the world in on it.

That said, this is not a BLP vio, and I tend to lean toward honoring a person's right to privacy. I'm not all that sure that a person's sexuality is necessary for understanding the subject --unless that is a big part of what makes them notable-- and due to the vague and sensitive nature of the statement, I would lean toward leaving it out. (When in doubt...) But it is well sourced, she did decide to make it public, and others may feel differently, as is their prerogative. Whatever we do, we should do our best to keep the meaning true to the sources and avoid spinning in our own interpretation. Zaereth (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Since I have been accused of “edit warring” (the phrase is used against me 8 times on this page), I think I should be permitted to respond and defend myself. So here goes:

I made three edits, in good faith, to the article over the course of 27 days (May 6, May 26, June 1). (Not counting other edits I made that don’t pertain to this — for example when I fixed a format.)

Each of those three edits is explained in the edit history, each one is different, each is separated by discussion on the talk page. The reason each of my edits is different, is party because I made adjustments to go along with comments made by others on the talk page. The talk-page discussion seemed to have a consensus that the “asexual bit” (as Frozen22 puts it) could be removed: First, I myself thought so, second, another editor said “you may be right”, and even Frozen22 pointed out: “However Jenner meant ‘asexual’ back then, we do not know. We can guess. But we don't have Jenner's word on it.” If any editor objects to any of my edits — they are always welcome to change or revert, and they are welcome to discuss.

I also had in mind the extra cautions and advice found in boxes at the top of the article’s talk page: Editors are encouraged to “adhere to the identity guideline” (“use the term that is most commonly used by recent reliable sources”) and “give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources”. And editors are told: “Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately.”

I believe that what I was doing is simply called “editing”. Åüñîçńøł (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

If we used the actual quotation, and if we included the date, as Zaereth mentioned, that would seem fair enough, but then there’s a problem of “notability”. The word “now” usually indicates a sliver of time in constant motion. So, if Jenner had a fleeting moment of asexuality five years ago — that’s not notable. I mean, you could ask: Who hasn't had an asexual moment now and then? It also seems to go against Wikipedia’s advice that says: “Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid..." etc. Åüñîçńøł (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I've never heard of an "asexual moment" until now. And "not a tabloid" is not relevant, because again, Jenner said this herself. It's not tabloid-esque secondhand gossip/speculation. Note that earlier in this discussion, it was noted that the very same point was picked up by an academic work from ABC-CLIO. Still, I am also good with Flyer22 Frozen's proposed alternative of She said that sexual orientation and gender identity are not the same thing, and that she has never been sexually attracted to men, but always to women. She also said that she would identify as asexual for the time being. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

When the Wikipedia policy uses the term “tabloid”, it doesn’t refer to second-hand gossip or speculation — it refers to writing conservatively and with regard for the subject’s privacy in biographies of living persons. Wikipedia policy also says editors should give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources. Åüñîçńøł (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

There is another serious problem that hasn’t been discussed, and should be. The paragraph we’re discussing in the Wikipedia article on Jenner mixes up the chronology of events without letting the reader know. It begins by mentioning and providing the date of an event (surgery) that occurred in 2017, then shifts backwards in time, to go back to the 2015 interview (when Jenner says “let’s go with asexuality for now”). This gives the impression that the “for now” is a reference to sometime post 2017, and the comment about “asexuality” is made in a post-surgery context — which is false. And it leads the reader to think that somehow the 2017 surgery might very well contributing to Jenner’s thinking and frame of mind in 2015. Which is impossible.

This chronology problem can be easily remedied, and it was edited recently (June 1) to fix this with the explanation: “copyedit to move first sentence to the end of the paragraph, so they are in chronological order - sources are from 2015 and 2017”. However, that correction was reverted the same day (here), with a comment that included: “Taking it to the WP:BLP noticeboard." That needs to be corrected, it is not controversial. Åüñîçńøł (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

It is important to this discussion and revealing to compare what Jenner actually said with what the Wikipedia article is claiming. Here’s the problematic sentence from the WP article:

“She said she has never been sexually attracted to men, but always to women, and that, keeping in mind the difficulty people have understanding the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity, she would identify as asexual for the time being.”

“Keeping in mind?” How does Wikipedia get inside of Jenner’s thoughts? The phrase “keeping in mind” is not supported by any source, because Jenner never said it. It is as if Wikipedia is writing a novel — from an “omniscient” point-of-view. The phrase “keeping in mind” is being used in the article to stitch together separate thoughts, that occur in different places in the interview to create or imply a conclusion that is not explicitly stated by the source. This violates a Wikipedia policy that is referred to as a synthesis of published material.

Wikipedia adds a “blue link” to the phrase “sexual orientation”, however Jenner doesn’t actually say “sexual orientation”, he says “sexuality”. Why not use the word that Jenner actually said, since both words have their own articles on Wikipedia? Who knows. However, the WP article Sexual orientation better supports the concept of “identifying”, which will better support the claim that Jenner will “identify as asexual” — another thing he never actually says.

Consider what Jenner actually says on asexuality. In this part of the interview the question is: What about sex? Jenner says: “That's so far down the road.” That doesn’t sound like a person “identifying as asexual”. It sounds like a person foreseeing sexuality in the future, but not now. Jenner continues and says that in the future,"I want a free soul, and a lot of great friends. I just want a great life, it's that simple... Let's go with asexual for now.” There are way, way too many serious problems with this short paragraph, which deals with what is a sensitive topic in a biography of a living person. (The more complete quote is from an article in USA Today, “Jenner speaks: I am a woman” written by Maria Puente, published April 24, 2015.) Åüñîçńøł (talk) 10:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I suggest that a solution to all this is to follow Zaereth’s suggestion (above) that actual quotes be used, and to provide sources that will support the quotations. Since the section heading is: "Coming out as a transgender woman", (which happened in an interview on ABC in 2015), the content regarding 2017 surgery doesn’t belong in this section, and is repeated elsewhere in the article, so it can be deleted. Here’s what the paragraph might look like:

In 2015 the interviewer, Diane Sawyer, asked "Are you a woman?" Jenner responded, "Yes, for all intents and purposes I am a woman." He added, "In a lot of ways we’re different, but we still identify as female." Responding to questions regarding sexual attraction and gender identity, Jenner said, "I am not gay. I am, as far as I know, heterosexual." And then later in the interview added, "It’s apples and oranges. There’s two different things here. Sexuality is who you personally are attracted to–who turns you on–male or female. But gender identity has to do with who you are as a person and your soul, and who you identify with inside."

In the article, the reliable sources would be included as inline citations.Åüñîçńøł (talk) 11:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I was ignoring you because talking to you is like talking to a wall (brick or otherwise). But I will reply now, one last time to you in this section, since you are not getting it. You once again cited MOS:GENDERID. Why do you not understand that MOS:GENDERID (a guideline, not a policy) is about gender identity, not sexual identity? That you keep refusing to see what it's about is like editors who wave that guideline around as though it trumps our WP:Article title policy, subsequently violating WP:Common name and WP:NAMECHANGES by renaming articles to the uncommon (essentially unknown) name. You stated that, "When the Wikipedia policy uses the term 'tabloid', it doesn't refer to second-hand gossip or speculation." Um, per WP:BLPSOURCES, it does. You also don't seem to understand that we can summarize sources and don't need to use the exact wording of a source. Not using the exact wording is not automatically a BLP violation. You have again stated that Jenner did not "identify as asexual", when editors have already been clear with you that per Jenner's own words and the sources, it is fine to state that Jenner stated "would identify as asexual for now" or "asexual for the time being." And now you are misgendering Jenner, which is not surprising. From the beginning, I knew what was the root of your problem with us reporting Jenner as asexual: You clearly and simply see Jenner as a heterosexual male. Otherwise, why are you insisting that we relay Jenner as heterosexual? Why are you referring to Jenner by the masculine pronoun "he"? Why are you ignoring the fact that when Jenner used the "I am not gay. I am, as far as I know, heterosexual." wording, it was because Jenner was using masculine pronouns at that time and was referring to "Bruce" as male? Jenner, when thinking of herself/referring to herself as Caitlyn, does not identify as male. From what we know, Jenner does not identify as heterosexual while also identifying as a trans woman. Do you not understand that a heterosexual transgender woman, like I stated above, is a trans woman who is exclusively sexually attracted to men? So why are you wanting us to relay Jenner as heterosexual, which would confuse readers?

My answer regarding your proposal is a solid no. There is no need to state, "In 2015 the interviewer, Diane Sawyer, asked 'Are you a woman?' Jenner responded, 'Yes, for all intents and purposes I am a woman.'" It is already clear that Jenner is a trans woman. And, to reiterate, if we quote Jennner as heterosexual, not only will it be inaccurate in the context of Jenner being a trans woman exclusively sexually attracted to women, but also because Jenner specifically chose to go with "asexual." That is why we don't quote Jenner stating "And I always felt heterosexual. I am not gay... as far as I know, I am heterosexual."  We instead state that "She said she has never been sexually attracted to men, but always to women." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed the ping, so I guess I'll reply. I haven't been following this either. I have no clue how you expect me to connect all the dots you're laying out here, but please don't twist my words around. I suggested adding a date, and that is all. The reason being that "now" is present tense, meaning "right in this moment". It gives a present temporal-perspective, like saying "today" or "yesterday". That's great for a newspaper or magazine because (like the present) those are fleeting. An encyclopedia should be written in a perfect (timeless) perspective, in which case we never use adverbs like "today" or "tomorrow" or "for the time being", but instead use the actual dates, and that's all I was suggesting we add.

"For now", on the other hand, is an adverbial phrase with an indefinite meaning: ie: "from this moment on," or "until I say otherwise".

So I don't get your arguments about chronological order and whatever else. Encyclopedia articles would be very difficult to follow if written in a perfect chronological-order. The brain receives and stores info in a non-linear fashion, so that's just hard to parse through. First comes subject (the what), then topic (everything about the what, ie: when, where, who, how, and why, and always in that order), then chronological order. These are separate topics; gender identity and sexual orientation; and it's not something you can or should try to list chronologically.

Likewise, we can't just copy what is written in the sources, because that becomes a violation of copyright. We must rephrase the material, which means using different words and phrases, rearranging the order and syntax, and a variety of other things. I still think what we have there is too closely paraphrased to avoid copyright problems, and I would personally try to rewrite it in my own words. There is virtually an infinite number of ways to say exactly the same thing, but likely it's short enough not to be a big deal.

I would avoid using lots of quotes, and especially cherrypicking them and stringing them together ourselves. In fact, I'd use them very sparingly, and only where it's clearest to use her own words. In this case, merely to show that the phrase "for now" came from her own lips. Simply summarize what the sources say. I mean cut it down to the bare bones; the nitty gritty. The only thing I would quote is the three words "asexual for now". Thus, I would have it read:

"In 2015, she said she has never been sexually attracted to men, but always to women, and that, keeping in mind the difficulty people have understanding the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity, she would identify as "asexual for now"."

Now, I too have to wonder why you're so passionate about it. All this supposition --that all of us are guilty of spewing here-- makes no difference. That it's indefinite adverb, regardless of synonym, doesn't matter. All that matters is that we have a quote from Jenner --in multiple reliable sources-- about a topic only she is qualified to speak on. It doesn't matter if it's vague and leaves us with more questions than answers. We don't need to tie up all the loose ends, and any good story won't (perhaps Jenner knows this). We have what is the most recent quote on the topic, and the rest doesn't matter. We have her own words, and that should be the end of it until she says otherwise. Zaereth (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I did make this edit, swapping the sentence about sexual identity and the one about sex reassignment surgery to follow chronological order. As for "keeping in mind", that is supported by the cited Washington Post article. That states: Jenner acknowledged that it can be confusing for some people to understand that sexual orientation and gender identity are not the same thing. “Let’s go with ‘asexual’ for now,” he said. “I’m going to learn a lot in the next year.” Stating the same idea in our own words, as we are doing, is what we are supposed to do. Given all the above, I think it's time for Åüñîçńøł to WP:Drop the stick. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Zaereth, Flyer22 Frozen,and Crossroads. I will try to not be bothered by Flyer22 Frozen's barrage of insults, various accusations and mischaracterizations of myself. But, I believe that editors should treat each other civilly and assume good faith. I will try to respond to what’s been said, but may I ask something else:

Why are we here on the BLP notice board? Shouldn’t this discussion take place on the Talk Page of the article? The assumption, I guess, is that a discussion on this board will find a group of fellow editors, who tend to be “up-to-speed” on the particular issues of BLP articles. But discussions on talk pages can be a part of that article’s talk-page "editorial history", and can be easily accessed. And in the future if an editor wants to access past discussions, it can be easily done. But in the case of this discussion (almost all of which has not been on the talk page) those who are interested in BLP articles see it, but those readers or editors who don’t follow this board, but who are interested in the subject of the article — they may not have any way of knowing this discussion is taking place. Or how would they ever find this discussion, if in the future they wanted to see past discussions? So by moving a discussion to this board, might be a way of discarded it into the some hard-to-find archive. That seems a misuse of this board.

I have to come back to this later to respond to some of what’s been said above. Åüñîçńøł (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

What?? I just went and looked and Flyer22 Frozen said right here that she was taking it to the noticeboard. Anyone who watches the article can see that. Taking a discussion to a noticeboard for wider input is obviously desirable according to how Wikipedia does things. Trying to paint this as a scheme to hide this from the article talk page will do you no good. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Crossroads. I looked at the Wikipedia policy (it’s actually at the top of this page). I see that when this discussion was opened here, a notification template was supposed to have been added on the article’s talk page — to let editors and readers know. That wasn’t done. I’ve added that notification.Åüñîçńøł (talk) 12:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

In an attempt to resolve this, and considering what’s been said by others on this page, I would suggest that the paragraph we’re discussing could be changed to this:

In 2015 the interviewer, Diane Sawyer, asked if Jenner was a woman. Jenner responded, "Yes, for all intents and purposes I am a woman … In a lot of ways we’re different, but we still identify as female." Responding to questions regarding sexual attraction and gender identity, Jenner said, "There’s two different things here. Sexuality is who you personally are attracted to–who turns you on–male or female. But gender identity has to do with who you are as a person and your soul, and who you identify with inside.”

This uses a limited number of quotations (only two quotes). Which I believe is a concern of editor Zaereth. I also would delete the mention of the 2017 surgery — because the section heading is: “Coming out as a transgender woman”, which occurred in 2015, and the events of 2017 are in the future and do not pertain to her coming out. The surgery is already mentioned in another section anyway. References would be added.Åüñîçńøł (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

This is still inexplicably trying to purge "asexual", in fact all of her own statements about sexual attraction from that interview, from the paragraph. It also relies way too much on verbatim quotes rather than encyclopedic summarization. Please just WP:Drop the stick already. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with using actual quotes in an article. In this case it seems especially needed because the words that Jenner says are in fact the “event” itself mentioned in the section heading. I think a direct quote should be used in the case of the asexual comment. On this page there is a controversy over what exactly Jenner actually said versus the editors “spinning” their own meanings: Did Jenner actually say he “identified as asexual”? No. Does editor Flyer22 Frozen claim that Jenner said it? Yes. Does Flyer22Frozen claim to know what Jenner meant? No, because Flyer22Frozen says: “However Jenner meant 'asexual' back then, we do not know. We can guess. But we don't have Jenner's word on it.” But yet, in the absence of evidence, Flyer22Frozen, wants the article to claim that Jenner “identifies” as asexual.

What is the actual “asexual” quote? Diane Sawer’s topic is not about “identity” it’s about having sex, and Jenner replies: "That's so far down the road. I want a free soul, and a lot of great friends. I just want a great life, it's that simple... Let's go with asexual for now.”

It appears that it’s important to (to Jenner) differentiate between “sexuality” and “identity”. Jenner says that identity is who you are, and sexuality is who you are attracted to. (“You're going back to the sex thing and it's apples and oranges. Sexuality is who you're attracted to… etc”) Jenner also says that people are confused about that. It is inaccurate for Wikipedia to mix up identity and sexuality and present it as something Jenner said. It also ignores the difference he described. It’s also confused and adds to the confusion. Asexuality can be in the article, tho it may not be “notable”, it is a private matter. But let’s not spin it.Åüñîçńøł (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Wow. At one point are you guys allowed to recognize that Åüñîçńøł is engaging in obvious sealioning? There is no good-faith BLP concern here at all. WP Ludicer (talk) 12:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

No name-calling Ludicer. I've been accused before on this page, now I'm a sea lion? You know, editors here have made suggestions, have given thought to this topic, have suggested ways that the article could be improved. There's nothing wrong with that, and perhaps some of those ideas can ultimately help the article. I wondered why the discussion was brought to this page in the first place, and after looking at how it happened, I think it was not the right thing to do. An editor first opened a discussion back on the talk page, then after only five or so comments by only three editors (one an administrator), that same editor decided to move the discussion to this page. Åüñîçńøł (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Rem Koolhaas

I am an experienced Wikipedia writer and an architectural historian with 40 years of experience. I often note that Wikipedia biographies of architects are badly edited, biased toward contemporary architecture, and full of errors. This is particularly true of the Rem Koolhaas entry. His status as one of the most important contemporary architects is overstated and based largely on the opinion of one critic, Nicolai Ouroussoff (fired as the New York Times architecture critic after a series of controversial articles). Koolhaas has come under scrutiny and criticism for his latest Guggenheim exhibition on the Countryside and his buildings are not seen as successful in functional or human terms.

More important, this article uses questionable "achievements" in its head section to inflate the status of its subject: why is he cited as the author of a book (Delirious New York), when Robert Venturi, whose books are infinitely more important, gets no such praise? Why is his alma mater a source of distinction? Why are so many of his biographical details in the front section when they belong in the main sections of the biography? I an only conclude that he and his supports are interested in any way to inflate his status. This is inexcusable for an encyclopedia that purports to be even handed.

The overall article is unduly long and detailed, especially given that he is a living architect who may not remain esteemed after his death. More historically important architects, such as Charles Willard Moore, Carrère and Hastings, and Paul Revere Williams, get shorter and more concise biographies. I find this kind of bias disgraceful and in need of attention from the head editors of Wikipedia.

Please respond to my concerns. Hewittarch (talk) 11:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)Hewittarch

• WP:SOFIXIT – without getting too distracted from a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS angle though. I suppose Rem Koolhaas is primarily known for his ideas (to a certain extent related to architecture & urban planning, and mostly illustrated with some extraordinary imagery), and to a lesser extent for his architectural realisations (although there surely are some remarkable ones): best to keep that in mind too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for this response. I spend a good deal of my "free" time trying to fix entries for architects I have researched or written about, such as Robert Venturi. I feel less secure in doing so about those I have not studied extensively. The Koolhaas entry is so messy and full of BS that I could trim it down, but might well be criticized for doing so. I would also like to discuss the general lack of quality in architect biographies, which are very often written by non-architects and non architectural historians. I have written dozens of these bios in a number of publications (two Oxford dictionaries, for example). To whom might I write to discuss this?Hewittarch (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

So what do you want us to do? I'm not an architect, and I doubt many of us here are. I'm not an architectural historian. If this were about flying a fighter or the history of aerial combat, or maybe the history of steel or a biography of a famous swordsmith I would be right there. Of all the people here, who among us has some knowledge of architecture?

In other words, if not you, then who? The only way I know to become secure with doing something new is to simply try it. You may encounter criticism, but that's ok. Criticism is a vital part of the learning experience, and you should use it to your advantage. Any good writer will have to deal with a lot of criticism in their lives (a good writer will even invite it), and if you take it as constructive, the you can improve both yourself and your writing as time goes on.

The good thing about Wikipedia, however, is that we don't really need to be experts on this stuff. It's helpful, especially if working on a technical, scientific, medical article, etc., in that some expertise may be necessary in interpreting the sources. But what we rely on here are the sources, not an editor's expertise. For any of these bios, all that is really needed is someone who is willing to go through all of the sources and assemble the info into a summary about these people.

Now of all the bios you mentioned, the Rem Koolhaas article so far looks the best to me. It has 49 sources. While I haven't checked all of them for reliability and accuracy, that is a far cry better that the single source used in the Charles Moore article. It makes a person wonder if anything in the Moore article is correct, or if it was written by someone very close to Moore (how else would someone know all those details without sources), or if it is just all made up stuff. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, and thus far Koolhaas has a good number of sources to support its length, and it looks like (by the sources) he is far, far more notable than these other people.

Now I do see problems with his article. There are entire sections which are unsourced, and have been since 2004. There are some issues with prose and maybe a touch of puffery. But fixing it requires someone with the interest, knowledge, and gumption to want to go over there and do the work (both hand and legwork). This is a volunteer project, so there is really no one to write to and complain about whatever issues you see with the article. Since you see the problems --which may not be apparent to the rest of us-- you seem like the most qualified to fix the problems, but that is entirely up to you. Otherwise, we may have to just wait until someone with the desire and fortitude comes along and volunteers to fix them themselves. All of these articles you mentioned need some serious work to bring them up to standards. Zaereth (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear Zaereth: The fallacies that you labor under are common among non-scholars, viz, that something that has "more sources" is better than something with less. Charles Moore wrote more books than Koolhaas, taught at more universities, and designed more buildings. He is the greater architect by far. The reason he has one source is that popular history, and style, have given him short shrift. The "sources" in the Koolhaas article are puffery, not scholarship. I will go over and edit both of these biographies, and do not have a problem with criticism, as I have written seven books and dozens of articles. I do appreciate the chance to discuss this, because it is generally difficult to do so on Wikipedia. You are kind to write back.Hewittarch (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hewittarch:, not to put words in Zaereth's mouth, but referring to the sources in one biography versus another is not necessarily equivalent with a "more sources=better" fallacy. It is, in fact, what the policy on BLP requires: ...all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; Zaereth's statement wasn't about how good the sources were, it was about the policy compliance of the two mentioned biographies. I.e., Koolhaas's biography cited sources for included material (however good or bad those source are) and Moore's did not. I hope this helps explain the policy a bit better. thank you for taking an interest in these articles. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. I may not be an architect, but I do have expertise in several areas, so it's not necessary to talk down to me. Scholarly (academic) sources are not always the best for an encyclopedia. Not bad, but not always the best. However, it's really the amount of coverage that a person has that confers notability to that person. I'm glad that you are going to work on improving those articles. Just keep in mind that info that is properly sourced should be kept, regardless of whether you agree with it or not, and info not found in any sources should go. If the info is sourced but you feel it's wrong, then you'd need to find better sources. Thanks, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

My apologies for being harsh. I just spent a good deal of time trying to wrestle the Koolhaas biography into some sort of reasonable narrative. I believe I have been fair but critical. I did not find all of the essays that attack Koolhaas and his cynical, often two-faced writing, and his often horrible buildings. I will look for more, as there are many. But I also took note of many of the excellent things in the biography, including the bibliography. Many writers look at him as a product of his troubled times, and a kind of honest observer of rampant urban development worldwide. Hewittarch (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Culinary Institute Lenotre Page

Good afternoon

I am the marketing manager at the Culinary Institute Lenotre. Someone keeps editing this page to say we've been ranking "The #1 Worst Culinary College in America". It should read "#1 Best Culinary College in America". Please advise as how to lock this account or whatever I need to do to prevent this happening.

Oh wow. I have to say, that is a horrible article. It reads like a sales brochure rather than an encyclopedia article, and the sourcing is far from good. Many links don't work, and several others are self published sources, while others don't say what is in the article. The particular info about being "the best" is not to a reliable source. This article needs a lot of work to bring it up to encyclopedic standards.

The puffery, like saying it's the "best", should be cut. Articles written like this are magnets for vandals, which it seems is what we have going on here. The rest looks like it was written by someone employed by the business, which is a conflict of interest. Since you are the marketing rep, you should read our conflict of interest policy. In addition, we name several private citizens in this article that we should not, including his wife (which is not found in the cited source). There is no need to name people who are not notable enough to have their own article.

I haven't gone through all of the sources, but I have to wonder if this even passes WP:GNG. If all we have is enough to make an advertizment, then we should probably delete the article. I notice there are some newspapers and magazines in there, and as long as they are real news and not op/eds, perhaps this can be crafted into a decent article, but as it stands it's just an ad. Zaereth (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)