Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard | ||
---|---|---|
This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period.
Sections older than 7 days archived by ClueBot III.
Additional notes:
| ||
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below: |
Steven Crowder
Steven Crowder ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is a procedural request based on WP:BLPKINDNESS: The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern.
- (As many may be aware, there is an ANI thread relevant to this report.)
The article subject has raised concerns on the talk page of their article about NPOV, specifically that they do not believe this content is backed by a subject-matter expert. Other editors expressed that this content was considered to be backed as an expert voice, as Bloomberg (a reliable source) quoted the individual. Kingoflettuce has now asserted that the content violates WP:NPOV by being “textbook WP:UNDUE” and challenged the inclusion of the content via reversion. It was then added back by Aquillion and FDW777 who assert the content is DUE. Given this is a highly contentious matter (regarding an individual who [verifiably] is contentious) I feel that ArbCom’s request that we take an article subject’s concerns seriously (no matter how we feel about them) requires more eyes on this matter for a final decision. - I myself hold no opinion on this matter, and am neutral on the content being re-included. But, I’ll note that WP:BLPBALANCE and WP:BLPSTYLE are both likely relevant here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- There's no problem with the long standing content, other than Coffee's repaeated attempts to circumvent consensus. FDW777 (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Related discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Steven_Crowder_YouTube_video. The article subject didn't so much 'raise concerns' as use a sockpuppet account to attack their critics. - MrOllie (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- It looks due to me, but can we get some clarification on whether the challenge is to the entire bit or just to the use of a direct quote? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back: My understanding is the article subject challenges the use of a direct quote, and Kingoflettuce disputes the use of the bit altogether. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, I'm always a fan of rephrasing direct quotes from red ink people. Kingoflettuce is coming out of left field as long as I'm concerned. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I refrain from getting involved in tedious discussions and this feels like it may devolve into one. But, consensus, consensus, it's established content, yada yada, give me a break. And to be clear, as I already noted in the Crowder talk page, I think there's a case to be made for the stuff to be reincluded in a proper section (assuming one can be drummed up). But if that "researcher"'s opinion is the best you have... Also the stuff about aggressive Asian-ness is probably fine and seems to have been added recently. Kingoflettuce (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- I just hope and pray that somebody can point out how flawed FDW777's argument is: "Going by the access dates, it's been in the article since October 2020 therefore it has consensus by default. There's no need to re-achieve consensus for inclusion every time someone comes along and removes it." Yawn... Kingoflettuce (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back: My understanding is the article subject challenges the use of a direct quote, and Kingoflettuce disputes the use of the bit altogether. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- In my opinion this matter should be discussed once the ANI thread has been resolved. This seems like a very nuanced edge case in the BLP guidelines. Note WP:BLPKINDNESS states
Edits like these by subjects should not be treated as vandalism; instead, the subject should be invited to explain their concerns.
I think it is important to wait for community consensus on how to deal with Crowder's edits and his subsequent video in order to properly determine if they've been allowed to express their concern or if there are other motivations than just sourcing issues. Note that there is WP:NODEADLINE, and so removing the relevant content until concerns are resolved or evaluated by the community either through the ANI thread or here is the wise choice of action. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)- I don't see any reason to wait for the ANI thread to be resolved before we deal with this. Even if Crowder is banned, this doesn't mean we will ignore his concerns. It simply means he cannot express them on wiki. Nil Einne (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Nil Einne, especially since most of the "Oppose" !votes at ANI rest on WP:DENY, either explicitly or implicitly. If there is community consensus that this is bad-faith trolling, WP:BLPKINDNESS may not really apply. Generalrelative (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason to wait for the ANI thread to be resolved before we deal with this. Even if Crowder is banned, this doesn't mean we will ignore his concerns. It simply means he cannot express them on wiki. Nil Einne (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- I think this looks like questionable content. My first concern is that this is an example of a "sound bite" sort of quote. It's not a quote with a lot of substance, instead it's a subjective opinion and in this case of a person who's qualifications to offer it are not clear. Yes, Bloomberg decided to quote her but that doesn't raise her to the status of expert, at least not to the point where we should include such a damning claim regarding racism (a very charged term) in a BLP. Regarding if Lewis is an expert, well the Bloomberg article only mentions her once and it seems only for the sake of including this alarming quote. Concerns that readers may assume she is a well established expert vs a 20 something grad student offering an opinion is an issue. It doesn't say anything about her research or why she feels the way she does. It doesn't offer examples etc. I agree with Coffee's concerns, especially since this is a BLP and we need to err on the side of not including harmful, subjective accusations. Springee (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you! Kingoflettuce (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- How much of a subbject matter expert does one need to be to determine whether Crowder's content is racist or not? What qualifications are needed? FDW777 (talk) 08:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- First, that question and it's answer doesn't address all of the concerns I raised. Second, more than the views of a random grad student. Springee (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- Not a random grad student, an expert that was cited by Bloomberg. On Wikipedia we define an expert as someone 'whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications' - this is a person who, besides being quoted by Bloomberg, has peer-reviewed publications on harassment on Youtube, including one that specifically discusses harrassment by Crowder. MrOllie (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- Is the topic harassment or racism? If her expert views are so notable why didn't Bloomberg ask her for more evidence or facts. What we have is her opinion, not evidence. That's not good justification for including a quote that is strong in hyperbole but contains no facts or evidence. It's an appeal to emotion rather than fact and a poor style for an article that wants to be encyclopedic. Springee (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- If you read the source I linked, it was both. And it isn't up to us to second guess a reliable source like Bloomberg - whatever additional evidence or facts they got from her they seem to have been satisfied, and that ought to be enough for us. MrOllie (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- Bloomberg attributed only that single quote to her. The rest of the article didn't attribute facts/evidence to her research. Also, it very much is the up to editors to discuss how much weight should be given to claims even in generally RSs like Bloomberg. No source is always reliable and more critically, WP:V says that verifiable is only one part of inclusion. Springee (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- Springee, I think you just made the case, albeit accidentally, that we should include more of this subject matter expert's analysis about Crowder than we currently do. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk)
- Bloomberg attributed only that single quote to her. The rest of the article didn't attribute facts/evidence to her research. Also, it very much is the up to editors to discuss how much weight should be given to claims even in generally RSs like Bloomberg. No source is always reliable and more critically, WP:V says that verifiable is only one part of inclusion. Springee (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- If you read the source I linked, it was both. And it isn't up to us to second guess a reliable source like Bloomberg - whatever additional evidence or facts they got from her they seem to have been satisfied, and that ought to be enough for us. MrOllie (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- Is the topic harassment or racism? If her expert views are so notable why didn't Bloomberg ask her for more evidence or facts. What we have is her opinion, not evidence. That's not good justification for including a quote that is strong in hyperbole but contains no facts or evidence. It's an appeal to emotion rather than fact and a poor style for an article that wants to be encyclopedic. Springee (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- Not a random grad student, an expert that was cited by Bloomberg. On Wikipedia we define an expert as someone 'whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications' - this is a person who, besides being quoted by Bloomberg, has peer-reviewed publications on harassment on Youtube, including one that specifically discusses harrassment by Crowder. MrOllie (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- First, that question and it's answer doesn't address all of the concerns I raised. Second, more than the views of a random grad student. Springee (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- Just commenting on one part: Yes, Lewis is a reliable source for harmful speech, extremism, and not-so-extremism on YouTube. Her research on the Alternative Influence Network (see here, also mentions Crowder, incidentally) is well known and a number of publications have cited as well as built on it directly. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- How much of a subbject matter expert does one need to be to determine whether Crowder's content is racist or not? What qualifications are needed? FDW777 (talk) 08:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think there's an issue with the quote from Lewis from the Bloomberg article, but I do think it is rather inappropriate that from the same Bloomberg article there's no additional comments from
ChowderCrowder himself in response to those statements that are included. (Even within the same paragraph from the Bloomberg article they giveChowderCrowder space to comment on the statements from Lewise). That's an NPOV issue on a BLP page. You don't have to give more than a sentence, but not to allow'sChowderCrowder's own stance, covered by an RS, to be there too, is a problem. --Masem (t) 15:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
So long as everyone is here, I noticed this text [1] (restored in another edit) that includes, "...Crowder's YouTube videos were put under review over his repeated use of racist and homophobic slurs against journalist Carlos Maza". This seems exactly like the sort of material that shouldn't be in Wiki voice. Based on the Wiki article Youtube found that Crowder wasn't engaged in sanctionable activates and thus I would assume wasn't engaged in "racist and homophobic" speech. The general content seems DUE to me but the specific telling looks like a violation of IMPARTIAL. Springee (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- Quoting from the article in American Behavioral Scientist, which I linked above:
In May 2019, Maza called attention to Crowder’s harassing content when he tweeted a compilation of Crowder calling him a “lispy queer” and an “anchor baby,” among other slurs.
- MrOllie (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)- Why isn't that claim attributed? What counts as "racist" and "homophobic" is variable and depends on context etc. Since YT decided this wasn't sanctionable we have to assume they didn't agree with Maza's claims. Given the claims being made this should be attributed. That is a pretty fundamental rule for a BLP. Springee (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- No, it's not. It's not open for debate whether such slurs are racist or homophobic. Are you fucking kidding me? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- "Anchor baby" and "lispy queen" are offensive but I'm not sure if they are necessarily racist/homophobic. It's not very befitting of somebody to rail against such slurs anyway and then ending your statement with an expletive. Let's keep it civil... Kingoflettuce (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- That was shock, not incivility. It's hard to assume good faith from someone with a comment like that. To be clear, these are objectively racist and homophobic slurs. It's pretty much impossible to characterize them otherwise, and it seems in bad faith for an editor to argue otherwise. If we can't agree on something as basic as this, that's utterly ridiculous. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- My bad, I misread "queer" as "queen". That does seem undeniably homophobic, nonetheless the point stands that it should be presented in a BLP-compliant way. Kingoflettuce (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- I don't disagree, of course. And while this is a tired refrain, that's what reliable source are for. We let them speak for us. While we present it neutrally, watering it down too much can amount to white-washing. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- We still follow BLP policies. Context matters. We should use RS to state in their view what happened and what the controversy was. We should not state things in Wiki voice that could lead a reader to a false conclusion. It seems very unlikely that Crowder would have remained on YT if his comments were direct, racist, homophobic attacks as the sentence suggests. BI is not likely sympathetic to Crowder but it does suggest this isn't quite so black and white [2]. Again, claims like this need to be attributed and impartial. Springee (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- I don't disagree, of course. And while this is a tired refrain, that's what reliable source are for. We let them speak for us. While we present it neutrally, watering it down too much can amount to white-washing. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- "Anchor baby" and "lispy queen" are offensive but I'm not sure if they are necessarily racist/homophobic. It's not very befitting of somebody to rail against such slurs anyway and then ending your statement with an expletive. Let's keep it civil... Kingoflettuce (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- No, it's not. It's not open for debate whether such slurs are racist or homophobic. Are you fucking kidding me? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- Why isn't that claim attributed? What counts as "racist" and "homophobic" is variable and depends on context etc. Since YT decided this wasn't sanctionable we have to assume they didn't agree with Maza's claims. Given the claims being made this should be attributed. That is a pretty fundamental rule for a BLP. Springee (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- For the record, IMO the text is fine. If one wants to include some sort of rebuttal from Crowder himself, also fine. But the man is already described as a utilizer of racist and homophobic slurs in the lead, so let's not get too far into the weeds of his self-defense of his words. Zaathras (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- That's circular since the lead refers to this incident. Springee (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- No. The lead summarizes the body. There are already details in the body the article regarding Crowder's troubles with racist and homophobic content targeting Carlos Maza. The wrongly-detailed content was an analysis, along with an example of other problematic content. Zaathras (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- That's circular since the lead refers to this incident. Springee (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- The text is fine; it's well-sourced and clearly relevant. This is WP:CRYBLP from a troll. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- Your edit summary is such a disingenuous and flimsy side-stepping of the real concerns here. Nobody is disputing that these ARE "factual" quotes from "reliable sources"--it's whether or not they are cobbled together in a way that does not conform to BLP standards. With all due respect, I think the likes of Coffee have a tad more experience than you. WP:CRYCRYBLP is equally as applicable too. Kingoflettuce (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- Admins aren't super-users, they do not have a greater voice in a content discussion than you, I, or the user above. Tone it down a notch or two. ValarianB (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- Kingoflettuce there is no need for that kind of animosity on this noticeboard. We're all here to improve global access to free, quality information. Criticizing someone's argument based on the time they've spent on wiki does not help this discussion progress. There's neither a hierarchy nor authority between editors except that we all must work under consensus. Please, I'd appreciate if you reworded your statement in a way that's more constructive towards further discussion.NorthBySouthBaranof I'd appreciate if you expanded on CRYBLP, as I feel you might use the wikilink as an easy substitute for your full argument. As can be seen by the ANI thread this is quite a contentious and complex issue, so giving your full, comprehensive thoughts will be much more helpful than just referencing an essay and calling the job done.I hope neither of you see this message as passive-aggressive, just trying to find some common ground here :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- @A. C. Santacruz: Santa, my reference to one user's relative inexperience was preceded by a matter-of-fact explanation as to how he was misrepresenting the argument being made. As has been noted below, nobody is disputing that Bloomberg news is an RS. However, I am evidently not alone in feeling that the presentation of the information leans towards UNDUE and is therefore a BLP violation. Moreover, I think that insinuating that we are trolls or time-wasters is an actual form of animosity, so hopefully you can let them know that there is no need for such animosity. Indeed, we are all here as volunteers working to build a better free encyclopedia so I'll continue to do that and express my views as I have been doing. I do not believe that I've engaged in any personal attacks thus far and am merely latching onto arguments (or assertions) that others have made. At the same time, it is not unreasonable to assume that admins, by virtue of having earned their adminship, would have a better grasp of policy especially in a contentious scenario like this. And Valarian, I do not appreciate the condescension of being told to "tone it down a notch or two". Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thats not condescension its genuine advice which I will repeat for your sake, please "tone it down a notch or two" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- And people get a pass for assuming bad faith and calling others trolls?! I don't need your "genuine advice", I'd rather you work on the Crowder article and directly engage with the policy-based arguments that have been made, instead of being on the tone brigade. Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- Lots of people have discussed this issue and multiple users have expressed the opinion that you are wrong. Your option here is to open an RFC, not to remove longstanding, impeccably-sourced material from a biography citing nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Article subjects and their sockpuppets do not get veto power over content in their biographies. If you think the material is WP:UNDUE, then your remedy is to open an RFC and gain consensus that it is undue. Your personal opinion does not have special authority. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- NorthBySouthBaranof I forgot to include it in my previous statement, but I would like to extend a friendly reminder that labeling other editors as trolls, unless clearly backed by evidence, is not assuming good faith on their part. As the message is unclear as to who you are labeling a troll it adds fuel to a fire that does not need being lit, as it could be any of the editors you are disagreeing with. I understand that other discussions on this topic, whether in the article's talk page or ANI, are being highly contentious and stressful for all, but us using words like troll will only make establishing a consensus on this issue on this noticeboards ever more difficult. Let's all turn the page, Kingoflettuce and NorthBySouthBaranof, and get back to discussing the content aspects of the article that may or may not violate BLP guidelines. Additionally, I will remind the thread here that if necessary, dispute resolution is an option in case editors here believe having a moderator would benefit the discussion here. I don't necessarily think that is the case right now, but just thought I'd add the reminder :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Santa :) Now, there seems to be a little dispute as to whether the contentious material should stay up or not while the discussion is ongoing. The principle of "do no harm" seems to apply here but I do not wish to be involved in an edit war. I hope either you or somebody else who hasn't reverted anything on that page can make the appropriate determination once and for all, so we can continue the discussion without any distractions. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- "I do not wish to be involved in an edit war" -- says the editor who is well on their way [3] [4]... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- Nomoskedasticity this is not the most appropriate noticeboard to discuss editor behaviour. Let's keep that discussion in the appropriate noticeboards, please. I understand you might see pointing out Kingoflettuce's behaviour earlier today as necessary for context or the discussion, but neither the wording nor the purpose of your comment will guide this conversation to a more constructive result. This whole issue is being stressful to all of us, let's not let the noise distract us and get back to discussing how the BLP guidelines instruct us to act regarding the content of the page. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- I am uncomfortable making any edits myself, but would encourage caution under BLP guidelines to keep content off in case it violates BLP guidelines until discussion on the matter is settled. There is no deadline and I see the wiser choice of action as removing the content for a few weeks for it to be fully discussed before reinstating it (modified or not) or leaving it off the article. However much I might dislike Crowder, I don't see much harm in keeping a few sentences off the article while they are discussed. That would also allow us to discuss rewording them in a more sterile location (such as an RfC or an informal discussion here). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly!!! I believe I said something similar (think it was on Arbitration). Why is that so hard to handle? Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- Nomo, I am just executing what I assume the principle of "do no harm" entails. If I must say it, I really do not wish to be involved in any edit war but for the greater good I might have no choice but to do so. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- This is what pretty much everyone who is in an edit war on any subject thinks, including both sides of this argument. MrOllie (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- Kingoflettuce one always has the option not engage in an edit war. I would suggest backing off from this from a few days and rejoin the discussion once it's settled. If you feel you need to engage in an edit war it's probably just that you're too wikistressed and might benefit from a break. See also: WP:CANDOR. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- @A. C. Santacruz: But surely I alone cannot start a war, right? As I was the one who originally made the removal, does that count as the first revert or not? I did not understand that to be the case. If so, the ones who insist on having the stuff remain on the article right now should be the ones violating 3RR, right? Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- Displaying a WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY mindset here won't help you or those who agree with you. The specifics of 3RR do not matter here. Please, I suggest you follow the spirit of the guideline and back off from the article for now, however right you may feel you are, Kingoflettuce. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- I do not intend to touch the Crowder article anymore but I just hope the right thing is done. I think the specifics of 3RR do matter anyway, coz that would clearly determine whether the stuff should stay up or not... Hoping someone will see to that. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- Really bad take. You don't get to edit-war your preferred version in and think 3RR means that your version wins because you reverted first. Also edit warring doesn't require 3RR, so repeating a suggestion made several times now, create an RfC to change consensus, lest this becomes about editor conduct and not content.Slywriter (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- Kingoflettuce 3RR will never determine whether stuff stays up or not. Editor consensus and the guidelines around BLPs will. No matter how hard it might be, or how unfair it might seem at this time, you must always trust the wiki community to do the correct thing by consensus. That is all any of us can do. No one does the wrong thing willingly when acting under good faith. If the content is remaining on the page, that means that enough people think that keeping it there is the right thing to be done. We'll see over the next few weeks as this is discussed both here and in ANI whether that is true or not. In the meanwhile, increasing animosity or putting pressure on the discussion won't help. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- Obviously I meant if it would or should stay up or not for the time being while the discussion took place. You seem to agree with me there but I get your point. Anyway, the page is fully protected now, so it's a moot point. Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- I do not intend to touch the Crowder article anymore but I just hope the right thing is done. I think the specifics of 3RR do matter anyway, coz that would clearly determine whether the stuff should stay up or not... Hoping someone will see to that. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- Displaying a WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY mindset here won't help you or those who agree with you. The specifics of 3RR do not matter here. Please, I suggest you follow the spirit of the guideline and back off from the article for now, however right you may feel you are, Kingoflettuce. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- @A. C. Santacruz: But surely I alone cannot start a war, right? As I was the one who originally made the removal, does that count as the first revert or not? I did not understand that to be the case. If so, the ones who insist on having the stuff remain on the article right now should be the ones violating 3RR, right? Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- Nomo, I am just executing what I assume the principle of "do no harm" entails. If I must say it, I really do not wish to be involved in any edit war but for the greater good I might have no choice but to do so. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly!!! I believe I said something similar (think it was on Arbitration). Why is that so hard to handle? Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- "I do not wish to be involved in an edit war" -- says the editor who is well on their way [3] [4]... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Santa :) Now, there seems to be a little dispute as to whether the contentious material should stay up or not while the discussion is ongoing. The principle of "do no harm" seems to apply here but I do not wish to be involved in an edit war. I hope either you or somebody else who hasn't reverted anything on that page can make the appropriate determination once and for all, so we can continue the discussion without any distractions. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- NorthBySouthBaranof I forgot to include it in my previous statement, but I would like to extend a friendly reminder that labeling other editors as trolls, unless clearly backed by evidence, is not assuming good faith on their part. As the message is unclear as to who you are labeling a troll it adds fuel to a fire that does not need being lit, as it could be any of the editors you are disagreeing with. I understand that other discussions on this topic, whether in the article's talk page or ANI, are being highly contentious and stressful for all, but us using words like troll will only make establishing a consensus on this issue on this noticeboards ever more difficult. Let's all turn the page, Kingoflettuce and NorthBySouthBaranof, and get back to discussing the content aspects of the article that may or may not violate BLP guidelines. Additionally, I will remind the thread here that if necessary, dispute resolution is an option in case editors here believe having a moderator would benefit the discussion here. I don't necessarily think that is the case right now, but just thought I'd add the reminder :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- Lots of people have discussed this issue and multiple users have expressed the opinion that you are wrong. Your option here is to open an RFC, not to remove longstanding, impeccably-sourced material from a biography citing nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Article subjects and their sockpuppets do not get veto power over content in their biographies. If you think the material is WP:UNDUE, then your remedy is to open an RFC and gain consensus that it is undue. Your personal opinion does not have special authority. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- And people get a pass for assuming bad faith and calling others trolls?! I don't need your "genuine advice", I'd rather you work on the Crowder article and directly engage with the policy-based arguments that have been made, instead of being on the tone brigade. Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thats not condescension its genuine advice which I will repeat for your sake, please "tone it down a notch or two" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- @A. C. Santacruz: Santa, my reference to one user's relative inexperience was preceded by a matter-of-fact explanation as to how he was misrepresenting the argument being made. As has been noted below, nobody is disputing that Bloomberg news is an RS. However, I am evidently not alone in feeling that the presentation of the information leans towards UNDUE and is therefore a BLP violation. Moreover, I think that insinuating that we are trolls or time-wasters is an actual form of animosity, so hopefully you can let them know that there is no need for such animosity. Indeed, we are all here as volunteers working to build a better free encyclopedia so I'll continue to do that and express my views as I have been doing. I do not believe that I've engaged in any personal attacks thus far and am merely latching onto arguments (or assertions) that others have made. At the same time, it is not unreasonable to assume that admins, by virtue of having earned their adminship, would have a better grasp of policy especially in a contentious scenario like this. And Valarian, I do not appreciate the condescension of being told to "tone it down a notch or two". Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- Your edit summary is such a disingenuous and flimsy side-stepping of the real concerns here. Nobody is disputing that these ARE "factual" quotes from "reliable sources"--it's whether or not they are cobbled together in a way that does not conform to BLP standards. With all due respect, I think the likes of Coffee have a tad more experience than you. WP:CRYCRYBLP is equally as applicable too. Kingoflettuce (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it is fully protected as a direct result of your actions. The chutzpah here is astounding. ValarianB (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- I've reverted an instance of blanking. The material is entirely in line with our conventional standards. There's all sorts of special pleading and policy invention in this discussion -- people coming up with reasons that have no basis in our policies or the typical application of them. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- Doesnt appear to be anything approaching a BLP violation given the sourcing. Some of the arguments to the contrary are frankly ludicrous. There may be an argument its undue for inclusion in the article, but thats not a BLP issue and probably doomed to failure. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- It is not a separate analysis. WP:BLP does not just demand strict adherence to WP:V and WP:OR, but also WP:NPOV, of which WP:UNDUE is a part of. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- But whether or not something is unsourced or poorly-sourced is generally a straightforward question - is the source reliable or not? If not, it should stay out - BLP is clear that such material may be removed unilaterally without limitation. A reasonable editor should be able to make the determination that something sourced to "DirtBag90210" posting on "MyGossipTrollFarm.biz" is prima facie not reliable, while something sourced to journalists of the British Broadcasting Corporation is prima facie reliable. By contrast, whether or not a particular passage is due or undue is not a straightforward question, and involves issues of sourcing, context, appropriate rebuttals, etc. It is a question requiring consensus and discussion, not easily placed in the hands of a single editor. Thus, it makes sense that there is no provision in BLP policy permitting unilateral removal of material an editor believes merely to be undue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- You should look at WP:ONUS (Part of V) and WP:BLPUNDEL, especially the part about "the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies." It is not enough to for an editor to state there is consensus for WP:DUE. They must actually demonstrate that, usually through past discussion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sigh, that's pretty much what I thought. Perhaps I didn't Wiki-link enuf in expressing what I felt was a common-sense view. I apologise for kickstarting this whole chain of events. Even if I may have been justified in doing so, it is now clear to me that it's better off just leaving contentious BLPs as they are. I wish all of you all the best in the discussion! Kingoflettuce (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, no one has raised any BLP concerns here outside of WP:BLPKINDNESS, which does not reference article text. Coffee, who performed the removal, specifically said it was purely procedural (eventually, and mistakenly, citing WP:BLPKINDNESS when pressed), and none of the earlier reverts cited BLP as the reason. This is part of the reason why I feel that Coffee's initial "procedural" edit is the root of the problem - for there to be a BLP dispute, someone has to actually raise an objection that can be engaged with. Nobody has done so here yet outside of the suggestions that we should be polite to Mr. Crowder as an editor and not ban them for vandalism, which have no bearing on whether the disputed text is included or excluded. --Aquillion (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: To be clear, that is simply not accurate. My procedural revert was not the "initial" edit, nor was it done per WP:BLPKINDNESS. The initial change of content was done by Crowder himself, and the secondary removal of the content was done by Kingoflettuce. As I noted in my opening statement:
Kingoflettuce has now asserted that the content violates WP:NPOV by being "textbook WP:UNDUE" and challenged the inclusion of the content via
reversion.
My action to revert to that version was not based on BLPKIND but was based on WP:BLPUNDEL, specifically:To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first.
And per WP:ARBBLP which echos this, specifically in the unanimous finding of Principle 1 (BLPs):In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned ... such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached.
(emphasis added)
Where WP:BLPKINDNESS comes into the matter is that the initial challenge was done by the article subject, and we are to at least address the individual's concerns, so opening a BLPN thread was a rational decision to make. There are now multiple challenges to the content as it is (including from Masem), but they began with Crowder and then were actioned further via Kingoflettuce's UNDUE challenge. So, to claim no one has "actually [raised] an objection that can be engaged with", is flatly false. I think Masem's objection actually holds weight on the merit of: if there is a response from the person to a statement made about them, we should include their response as well. And, while I don't hold an opinion on Kingoflettuce's challenge, an argument of WP:UNDUE is also an objection that can and (from my reading of this discussion) has been actively engaged with. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: To be clear, that is simply not accurate. My procedural revert was not the "initial" edit, nor was it done per WP:BLPKINDNESS. The initial change of content was done by Crowder himself, and the secondary removal of the content was done by Kingoflettuce. As I noted in my opening statement:
- You should look at WP:ONUS (Part of V) and WP:BLPUNDEL, especially the part about "the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies." It is not enough to for an editor to state there is consensus for WP:DUE. They must actually demonstrate that, usually through past discussion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- But whether or not something is unsourced or poorly-sourced is generally a straightforward question - is the source reliable or not? If not, it should stay out - BLP is clear that such material may be removed unilaterally without limitation. A reasonable editor should be able to make the determination that something sourced to "DirtBag90210" posting on "MyGossipTrollFarm.biz" is prima facie not reliable, while something sourced to journalists of the British Broadcasting Corporation is prima facie reliable. By contrast, whether or not a particular passage is due or undue is not a straightforward question, and involves issues of sourcing, context, appropriate rebuttals, etc. It is a question requiring consensus and discussion, not easily placed in the hands of a single editor. Thus, it makes sense that there is no provision in BLP policy permitting unilateral removal of material an editor believes merely to be undue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- It is not a separate analysis. WP:BLP does not just demand strict adherence to WP:V and WP:OR, but also WP:NPOV, of which WP:UNDUE is a part of. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- And let me be clear: the "troll" I refer to in this case is Steven Crowder, through his admitted sockpuppets - not any established Wikipedian commenting on this issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I'll just chuck my 2c in here. First up, I can't see anything wrong with the content in question. It looks like perfectly ordinary, sourced and valid content which is not new to the article. Furthermore, it is not clear to me (and I apologise if I missed something somewhere) that Crowder has actually approached Wikipedia about this matter in any valid way. Sending meatpuppets to edit on his behalf is not a legitimate way to approach this and the meatpuppets should all be blocked. As regards the call for "kindness", I feel that this is the wrong metric. Kindness is appropriate when we are approached in good faith by somebody who has genuine concerns (whether actually valid or not) about what we say about them. In Crowder's situation (a man who has been extremely unwilling to show any kindness to those he arbitrarily defines as his political enemies) I feel that what we owe him is not kindness but fairness. That means that we need to openly and impartially address any genuine concerns that he may put to us in a valid way. I've yet to see any and I'm not sure why this has been discussed at such length. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- The 2c that DanielRigal provides here are pretty much the same 2c that I was going to add. XOR'easter (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- If you don't mind me building a wall of text, I'll give my own analysis of how BLPKINDNESS applies. Now, even if we agree to bind ourselves by WP:BLPKINDNESS in this case, it states
Edits like these by subjects should not be treated as vandalism; instead, the subject should be invited to explain their concerns.
(emphasis my own). Crowder's person or conduct outside of the relevant video I think is extraneous here. We should first ask ourselves "Has the subject raised their concerns in good faith?" If you (and I'm speaking in a general "you" here) do not believe that he has, then I don't see a way where you would see BLPKINDNESS applying here. However, if you believe he has we now proceed to the second question. We should then ask ourselves "What exactly are the subject's concerns?" Note that other editors' additional concerns on the content do not apply to BLPKINDNESS even if they do to other BLP guidelines, and editors should raise their separate concerns within the thread but in another discussion to the subject's concerns. Coffee said above that Crowder disagreed with using a direct quote but did not explicitly mind the content (from what I understand). Here we can finally discuss policy, namely WP:DUE, WP:BLPRS (particularly WP:BLPREMOVE), and WP:RS/QUOTE. We need to remember that subjects will very rarely understand either the encyclopedic mission nor policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, but we can extend their statement to where we see it would naturally do so. That's where I think BLPKINDESS applies. I personally believe we have a duty to do this as Crowder certainly won't join the discussion on WP:PAGs, but we still must ensure that the content in the article is in accordance with our PAGs. Now trust me, I think every single sentence in the article saying he's said racist and homophobic things is true and founded. However, this must be proven through proper discussion and calm, content-oriented arguments. It can't be that every time a conservative pundit is up in arms about the media we start a food fight. BLPKINDNESS applies to the subject. Wiki kindness applies to each other. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)- I want to particularly underline that what WP:BLPKINDNESS means is not being rude to the BLP subject themselves, and not treating their edits as vandalism - their edits are allowed, not given special force or weight. Nothing about it says, or implies, that anything a BLP subject says should be given even a whisker more weight than anything a random editor says; it is considered in the same way any point raised by any editor would be, ie. it should not be summarily disregarded because it would otherwise qualify as vandalism or because of their COI. BLPKINDNESS protects them from being banned (at least as a vandal purely for removals made to their own page, even if those edits would otherwise qualify as vandalism; it obviously doesn't protect any other policy violations they commit in other contexts) and discourages people from calling them names. It gives absolutely no additional weight to their edits, nor does it allow for the removal of longstanding text simply because they find it objectionable, nor does it add anything of significance at all for what the article text should look like, either in the short or long-term. BLPKINDNESS is solely and exclusively about how we interact with editors - it has no bearing on content or content disputes at all beyond that, fullstop. --Aquillion (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Thomas John (medium)
How should Wikipedia refer to mediums, or those who claim to have psychic, telepathic or clairvoyant powers? For example, it is appropriate to refer to someone as "a (medium/psychic)", if this is their profession (and the way they are described by most reliable sources), or should we refer to them as "a (claimed/purported/self-reported/alleged) (medium/psychic)"? There seems to be an inconsistency in articles in this area.
And even within articles – for instance, individuals are referred to as a "medium", not "claimed medium", in the article titles to differentiate themselves from others. This is not uncommon and is standard practice for titles, so I'm not raising an issue here. But then why does the text of Thomas John (medium) and Matt Fraser (psychic) refer to the two as Claimed psychic medium and Purported psychic medium respectively, whereas Allison DuBois is simply an American psychic (no qualifiers in the short description, but qualifiers in the lead section). I just the last two individuals at random; there are hundreds of discrepancies of this type. Additionally, a number of articles relied on snarky scare quotes either in the short description or in the article leads and prose, to cast doubt on the profession. This is totally unencyclopaedic, IMHO.
My opinion: "Medium" and "psychic" are terms for the job in question – even if the job has no proof behind it. We wouldn't be calling magicians "claimed" or "self-reported" magicians, because we don't think magic is real, and I think the same applies here. I also think the consistency on including "claimed", "reported", etc. is related to the ongoing skepticism and coordinated editing arbitration request; those articles with stronger words regarding the subject disproportionately include editors involved in the controversy, and are more likely to cite Susan Gerbic and Skeptical Inquirer than those who don't. This doesn't mean they're violating BLP or anything – but I think it needs to be pointed out.
Thank you. —AFreshStart (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- I won't comment on the content of the thread as I am a party to the ongoing case, but AFreshStart I believe you should notify the relevant wikiprojects of this discussion as this is of great interest to them and the articles their projects cover. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you; I have notified the Skepticism WikiProject, as well as the Biography WikiProject, and placed a note on the Fringe Theories noticeboard. Though I am slightly concerned about how this will play out, as this w/r/t the concerns over co-ordinated editing on Wikipedia, alerting a WikiProject that was disproportionately involved in the dispute may affect the outcome of this discussion. So I would urge other editors to cast a sceptical eye over any comments here. —AFreshStart (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- So, by way of introduction, I'll just say I have no connection to any Wikipedia groups and speak only for myself. AFreshStart, I completely understand and sympathize with your point, but I am slightly hesitant, for what effectively boils down to linguistic reasons. In my idiolect, calling someone a "magician" might mean that you are asserting that they have supernatural powers, but it can also mean that you are saying they are a particular kind of entertainer. Thus, to me, saying "Penn and Teller are magicians" is a noncontroversial and completely mundane statement. The same is not true (again, for me) with the terms "medium" or "psychic". Those titles come with an inherent claim that there is some kind of paranormal power being brought to bear. A person who does self-consciously and openly fake cold readings, for instance, I would likely call a "magician" rather than a "medium" or the like. It's is entirely possible that this is a quirk of language only for me, and that the trends are against me. Still, I felt it worth sounding that slight note of caution. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, AFreshStart. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- We have many categories on spiritual mediums [5] and psychics [6], even telepaths [7]. These people are or were famous for being known as mediums, psychics or telepaths etc so we don't need to use the terms "claimed" or "purported" into their biographies when it comes to their profession. Rational folk are well aware that psychics, mediums and telepaths are frauds but they make a living out of it, it is a job at the end of the day. Doesn't make any sense to me to put claimed or purported in front of their profession. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you; I have notified the Skepticism WikiProject, as well as the Biography WikiProject, and placed a note on the Fringe Theories noticeboard. Though I am slightly concerned about how this will play out, as this w/r/t the concerns over co-ordinated editing on Wikipedia, alerting a WikiProject that was disproportionately involved in the dispute may affect the outcome of this discussion. So I would urge other editors to cast a sceptical eye over any comments here. —AFreshStart (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I actually keep going back and forth on this. Although mediumship is defined on WP as the practice of purportedly mediating communications...
, in many a reader's minds, the definition excludes the word purportedly and when they read "X is a medium", they understand that "X communicates/is a channel for communicating with the dead", which is something that I don't think should ever be stated in wikivoice. I don't know how to fix that without weasel-sounding words, but I would love if we were able to find a way. The way I see it, when we write that someone claims/is claimed to be a medium, we are being neutral and impartial - that is something objectivelly true and easy to verify -, and when we write that someone is a medium, we can be seen as supporting the credulous POV. For instance, whenever I talk about a "medium" in real life, I gesticulate finger quotes to be clear. Also, although I would love to be able to agree with what Psychologist Guy said above, that Rational folk are well aware that psychics, mediums and telepaths are frauds
, things simply are not that simple. I can't see a way to divide people into "rational" vs "irrational", no one is always perfectly rational. And unless our test for rationality is "does the person believe in the supernatural", which would make the claim circular, there are all sorts of highly rational people that believe in weird things - supernatural or not. VdSV9•♫ 17:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think there is a practical way it can be fixed without weasel words because there are hundreds if not thousands of Wikipedia biographies for astrologers, diviners, dowsers, fortune tellers, mediums, psychics, spiritualists and telepaths and who knows what else. The point is if we start using these words like "claimed", are we going to change thousands of biographies? The more important question would be why? We have Wikipedia biographies for many mediums that have been on Wikipedia for decades, for example Leonora Piper. Or take for example the astrologer Nostradamus. We have never called them "alleged", "claimed" or "purported" mediums in their leads. The "claimed" astrologer Nostradamus sounds ridiculous. No historian would write like this.
- Even skeptics who debunk such people refer to them as mediums or psychics in their articles and books, look at Harry Houdini for example. Mediums and psychics, telepaths is just their profession. I am not sure why an issue is being made about this, we are not saying they are genuine mediums or psychics. We are not saying they communicate with the dead or have genuine psychic abilities, we just say what they are known for. Based on what I am seeing here it is the skeptic group Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia who have been re-writing popular psychic biographies such as Sylvia Browne and Chip Coffey with such text as with "who claimed to be a medium with psychic abilities" and "self-proclaimed" in the lead. They have targeted high-traffic articles, but they are sadly selective here because there are hundreds of articles for mediums and psychics like Arthur Ford (psychic), Daniel Dunglas Home Helen Duncan, Mina Crandon at Wikipedia etc etc where the lead just cites these people as mediums and psychics, none of the "claimed" commentary. I would like to add that I support the Guerilla Skepticism group and they have done fantastic work at Wikipedia but they are wrong about this specific thing IMO. The self-proclaimed commentary reads as ridiculous in leads and info-boxes and is being selectively used. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- On the topic of GSoW, it might surprise you to know that I'm on the "other side" in the current arbcom case, and I generally support using a qualifier for mediums and psychics and the like. I actually reverted AFreshStart's bold change to a few articles, and advised they seek a broader consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Psychologist Guy I don't think the number of pages that would be affected has any relevance to the discussion, nor for how long we have had pages that don't use qualifiers. I also don't think anyone interprets calling someone an astrologer as implying astrology works, it's like being a homeopath, and there is no need to qualify either of those. I don't understand why you say those examples are "selectively used". They weren't "selected", it's not like someone decided to use it on some pages and not on others. As people were writing and editing those individual pages, they didn't think it was right to simply write "medium" or whatever, and used those qualifiers. The fact that they then didn't go around changing every medium article doesn't make it "selective". Or maybe I just don't understand what you mean by the word. VdSV9•♫ 21:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- This question goes back to at least 2008 [8] and has been hashed over many times. Not to say that a fresh RfC wouldn't do some good. - - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing this up. Will check it out. VdSV9•♫ 20:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Ditto, thanks so much for bringing this to my attention! I assumed that something like this must have been discussed at one point – freethought, scepticism, rationalism and empiricism and Wikipedia go back a long, long way. And I'm rather surprised that "qualifier not needed" was the consensus opinion here (of course this can change). —AFreshStart (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing this up. Will check it out. VdSV9•♫ 20:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
My thoughts are that a qualifier isn't needed, as they technically are mediums and/or psychics as we define those terms on their respective pages: they make money off of purporting to communicate with the dead and claiming to use ESP. If we write that someone "claims to be a psychic," then we are saying that they claim to claim to use ESP, which doesn't make any sense. I think most people understand that mediums don't actually communicate with the dead and psychics don't actually have ESP. I don't think there is any risk whatsoever that someone will read our article on Miss Cleo and come out of it thinking that Miss Cleo actually has supernatural powers. Mlb96 (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
This is basically a question on whether the qualifiers are WP:DUE. How are mainstream RS sources describing those individual subjects? Most sources I am aware of do not qualify these descriptions in writing about the person unless the person was notable as being a fraud or swindling people or for their fantastic claims. I think it is enough that the wikilinked medium, psychic, or clairvoyance articles discuss the underlying issues, especially if the RS about the person doesn't do it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Completely disagree, here. The issue in these cases, just like with several other fringe topics, is that mainstream reliable sources too often write from a credulous perspective, which I think is inapropriate for an encyclopedia. VdSV9•♫ 01:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- You still have to comply with WP:BLP's demand of no WP:SYN and WP:NPOV if you do not have RS describing these specific people with these qualifiers. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree with that. A good source --and a big part of how you can tell its a good source-- is that they don't make judgments one way or another, especially on philosophical topics like these. "Can't prove they exist and, by the same token, can't prove they don't." May as well try to prove or disprove the existence of God ... or string theory. Those who believe will do so no matter what rationale you throw at them, and those who don't, won't. When you can't test it, it's no longer science and has gone into the realm of pure philosophy, and I think the average reader is smart enough to be able to decide for themselves their own philosophy. Otherwise, it just seems condescending. (By the way, I personally don't believe in psychics.) Whatever you believe in there is always, on some deep level, an element of faith involved. As Richard Feynman once said, "It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible." Zaereth (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- The condescension is one of my main worries with putting "claimed" on every psychic's page. How stupid do we think our readers are? Or rather, do we want to make it so obvious that we think our readers are stupid? Mlb96 (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- My big qualm with most of our skeptic-editing is the absolute lack of subtlety. I once had to remove the wording "false and debunked pseudoscience" from an article. There is no conceivable context where you would need that many redundant adjectives. Fundamentally, it is bad writing, and my belief is our articles should be well-written. We don't need every word qualified and every statement adjective-studded. Vaticidalprophet 09:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- By that reasoning, only WP:FALSEBALANCE sources are good sources. That is not how Wikipedia should work. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- The condescension is one of my main worries with putting "claimed" on every psychic's page. How stupid do we think our readers are? Or rather, do we want to make it so obvious that we think our readers are stupid? Mlb96 (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I think that using the same standard in all such articles is a good idea. Which standard that should be is secondary. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards the magician argument. We wouldnt use qualifiers like that for many other professions that rely on misdirection/subterfuge. If we did, well all the notable chiropractors will also need an edit. Ooo and the pope. Speaks to God you know... Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think there is a difference between medium, psychic, and astrologer. An astrologer is someone who studies the movements and positions of the stars, and in general they actually do so. The fact that they then make predictions based on that is a separate step - after all, a metereologist studies the weather, even if they then are phenomenally bad at predicting the weather ... as many of them are, to be honest. Now a medium or a psychic claims to commune with spirits, and the claim here is that they don't. Straightforwardly don't, as in there aren't any spirits that can be communicated with. Unlike stars, which certainly exist, and which positions can absolutely be studied. So in general, I'd say "Jane is an astrologer" but "John is an alleged psychic." Note that a chiropractor actually does adjust your spine, whether or not that does good or bad for you, and that the pope, in general, does not claim to speak to God any more than anyone else does, the pope claims to direct the church, which he actually does. --GRuban (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with this -- I lean towards the inclusion of some sort of hedge, but I am also sympathetic to the (correct, in my mind) argument by Psychologist Guy and others that it would force some pretty awful syntax on the articles. I guess I am with Morbidthoughts insofar as we should defer to the RS descriptions. I did a quick check on Sylvia Browne, just to see, and noted that "self-proclaimed" was a pretty common description. Sorry I have neither vehemence nor certainty to add, but I think the discussion has been productive. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm struggling a lot with what I would view to be reasonable here. Issues with calling someone a medium (etc - I'm just going to use medium for simplicity) in wikivoice implies that the mediumship is real which is a huge problem. However, "claimed medium" (and similar) is atrocious language and goes against a bunch of other conventions we have. And mediumship is to some extent an entertainer, as mentioned by some people. So, rather than trying to reconcile these, I'm going to do my second move of sidestepping. If the contention is that they're actually entertainers, then we could call them entertainers whose genre (so to speak) is mediumship. If they're using their "abilities" to lend credence to their religious views that other people are following, then we call them a religious leader who happens to also use mediumship. In this system, Thomas John (medium)'s first sentence goes from Thomas John Flanagan, known professionally as Thomas John, is an American psychic medium
becomes something ... is an American who performs as a psychic medium
. If we're going to be adding "claimed" or whatever in front of the name, then we're throwing out using the "most commonly used terms" anyway. At least this way, we avoid horrific sentences and weasel-words.
To put it simply, we say their profession is the most basic version of what it actually is. --Xurizuri (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oh wait actually, at that point the sentence construction allows for words like claim without making upsetting sentences:
is an American performer who claims to be a psychic medium
(in this case, "claims" is definitely demonstrated - Susan Gerbic and co.'s work is more than enough to support that word, even if consensus here ends up being against mass application of the word). --Xurizuri (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)- What is the specific citation that demonstrates this qualifier for Thomas John and does it satisfy WP:PUBLICFIGURE? Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, it's not. By simply saying "medium" or "psychic" or "astrologer" or whatever, we're not in any way saying it's real or not real. It's like the flying saucers Feynman was discussing when he made the quote I used above (see full quote on wikiquotes or wherever). You can't prove they exist, and by the same measure, you can't prove they don't. We all know this. The reader knows this. Even a small child knows this. Unless we're talking about someone who is a known fraud, adding words like "claimed" is pointing out the obvious, and in common parlance pointing out the obvious is known as "talking down to". No matter what you believe, that just comes off as condescending. No need to point out the obvious or talk down to our readers.
- For example, someone came to the moose article once, and said, "Uh, aren't you forgetting something? Why do you start by calling a moose a deer? A moose is an animal. It's not a plant or mineral." The answer is simple, starting off like that would be pointing out stuff that any child over the age of four should be expected to understand, and comes off as condescending to the average Earth-born reader. Now, if we were describing a moose to aliens from another galaxy, that level of detail would be necessary, but aliens are not our target audience. Any person on planet Earth over the age of kindergarten should already know a deer is an animal, and likewise know of mediums and psychics.
- Now, people can believe whatever they like about things that cannot be proven one way or the other. We don't describe a Christian's belief in a "claimed" god, or the Buddist's belief in a "purported" tao. In any belief system there are those who are crooks and will use it to prey on people, but we need damn good sources to start connecting those dots on someone's bio. There are a lot of ways to trick people with magic and sleight of hand, whether a preacher, psychic, or politician. But that doesn't mean everyone who believes in it, or who truly believes they are one, is a crook, nor does it prove in any way that they are wrong. People can find faith in anything. They can even find faith in nothing, and when it comes to belief systems, our readers come from all of them. There may be certain cases where "claimed" or "purported" would be appropriate, but, as in all things, when dealing with belief systems and other unproveable things, it's important to really examine our own belief systems to understand how it may influence our own editing. Zaereth (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- Any person over the age of kindergarten knows about mediums and psychics? Er - no. Speaking as a parent, those were not actually among the higher priority things to teach my six and seven year olds about, neither were they covered in school at that ag (for which I am quite grateful!). Even as a grown-up, professional mediums and psychics number exactly zero of my thousand closest acquaintances. I'm several orders of magnitude more familiar with fictional mediums and psychics than real ones - and most of those ones are usually "real" mediums and psychics. (Well, except for being fictional. I hope you know what I mean here.) This is different from religion, which we absolutely did cover with our children by that age, and we do have plenty of ... let's say professional religious people ... among our friends and acquaintances. In fact we can't walk ten blocks in any direction without hitting a house of worship, and they're quite prominent. But we'd have to go way out of our way to find a medium or psychic. So yes, it is worth one or two words to say "alleged" or "performs" or whatever. "Medium" and "psychic" are not nearly as common concepts as you seem to think. --GRuban (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Multiple Biographies in the Indian Film Industry Need Cleanup
I was looking through Saladin's article and in the cultural depictions section, several BLP's for Indian actors needed a lot of clean-up whether the formatting was off or some poor grammar. These people are Ghulam Mohammed, Mazhar Khan, Yakub, and Ishwarlal. I hope that some of these can be cleaned up. Seabass715 (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Seabass715
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberto González Echevarría
I completed a malformed AfD for this article on an academic only to discover that the IP that solicited it is from Yale University (where he teaches), had blanked a section detailing sexual harassment allegations from 2017 (with multiple citations), and that the IP had asked another editor to remove the page stating González Echevarría would like the entire page removed from this cite.
The subject probably passes WP:NPROF. I suspect that the course of action for this page is not going to be a deletion outcome, and because of the BLP issues, I am asking for the input of other editors knowledgeable with the policies and guidelines. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- It probably shouldn't be deleted given the feature article in the Miami Herald, but the allegations might not satisfy WP:BLPCRIME nor WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:REDFLAG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- The subject would have a clear pass of WP:Prof, so it's not a case of BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC).
- The AfD has been closed, but some BLP expert eyes would definitely be appreciated at Talk:Roberto_González_Echevarría#After the AfD. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- There is also now a RFC on this subject matter.[9] Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Sascha Grabow
Potentially biased article, opinionated in regard to his competitors in the introduction. Sascha Grabow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.189.199 (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've reverted recent edits by an IP who added the inappropriate content.Slywriter (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Pretty sure the article has one or more undeclared COI editors. It has undergone a significant reduction in size as trivial and unsupported material has been removed.Slywriter (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if he's notable given that there seems to be no RS in the citations for all this puffery. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Scotty Mac
Someone without an account made a series of derogatory updates still visible in the edit history section. These are baseless accusations without sources and a personal attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepitreal46 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- The edits have correctly been reverted because they weren't reliably sourced but IMO there's nothing there which is so bad that it requires removing from the history. Neiltonks (talk) 08:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
richard skinner (broadcaster)
Once again - this is Richard Skinner (broadcaster) protesting the inaccuracies on the page regarding my life! Why -oh Why - do you insist on publishing the wrong information re my birth date? your concern seems based on an inaccurate BBC article which says I joined Radio 1 Newsbeat in September 1973 at age 19 I didn't! I was 21, which if you care to look at the timeline in the rest of my bio is the only age that makes sense when factoring in when I left school aged 18 (September 1970). That is a fact you could check by contacting the online team at my old school - Portsmouth Grammar School - they have records of who attended the school - when they did and how old they were. Meanwhile I have already provided you with a picture of my passport which clearly states my accurate date of birth - December 26 1951 And in December was able to provide further proof - as if it is needed - via a link to a 'music birthdays' page created by John Kutchner I worked with Mr Kutchner at the BBC in the 1980s and he knows very well when I was born! The reason the link to his reference appears 'dead' is that he changes the month available to view to fit the current calendar month ie - it currently shows February anniversaries etc His website allows for people to email him - and if anyone at Wikipedia cares (which I begin to doubt) he could be asked about my birthdate. Or you could accept that I am Richard Skinner - I know when I was born - and I have provided the proof you need in the picture of my passport!! I look forward to this ridiculous situation being resolved. I was born - on December 26 1951 - fact. Richard Skinner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.123.122.46 (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Mr. Skinner. I'm sorry this has been such a problem for you, and if there is anyway to help, we most certain want to correct any factual errors. Most people over 30 don't seem to mind shaving a few years off their date, but that's beside the point, because we do want to get things as right as possible.
- Unfortunately, most of your solutions are not viable for Wikipedia purposes. We can't use public records or other such primary sources, nor can we just take your word for it, as harsh as that may sound. We're all a bunch of anonymous volunteers here, and I wouldn't recommend giving us your passport or driver's license or anything of that nature. There is a secure way to verify your ID, and that is for you to contact WP:OTRS, and then we can give some more weight to your request. Perhaps, if we're just gleaning the date as you say, it should just be removed entirely. (We can often do that upon request.)
- However, to correct the date, we need to find it somewhere in a reliable source. We're a tertiary source, which means we get our info from reliable secondary-sources. You can do more yourself from out there to correct the date than we can from in here. For example, try contacting the BBC and have them run a retraction. Any good source will want to correct their mistakes, and then we will have something we can use. There are other options for you to use, and correcting source mistakes is one of them. I hope that helps, Zaereth (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- Could you explain you concerns a bit better? I understand why you were unhappy when we were reporting your year of birth as 1953-1954, but as far as I can tell, we haven't done since September last year [10] [11]. Instead we report the year 1951-1952 which based on what you've said is accurate i.e. it's no longer "wrong information" since a date of December 26 1951 is definitely circa 1951/1952. Per WP:BLPDOB we don't report precise dates of birth unless it's either well established in reliable secondary sources or by sources linked to the subject since plenty of people do not like their full dates of birth to be so public. Apparently you fall into this category, if you had an official website or verified social media account and published the date there we could consider it, but there's really no reason why we need your exact date of birth. We intentionally to not have it for a lot of our biographies. And as I've said based on what you've said the information we report in our article on your birth year is no longer inaccurate even if it's not precise. Nil Einne (talk) 07:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- For clarity, the Twitter account linked on our Wikipedia article is not verified, so even publishing your date of birth there doesn't help us. Nil Einne (talk) 07:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- How about using [12] (Bibliothèque nationale de France) for YOB, not DOB? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- For clarity, the Twitter account linked on our Wikipedia article is not verified, so even publishing your date of birth there doesn't help us. Nil Einne (talk) 07:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Robert W. Malone
"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous."
Per the article, Robert W. Malone has spread "misinformation" about COVID-19. Controversial information does not equal misinformation. Sources that indicate that his prior statements are "misinformation" are sparse to non-existent. Scientific discoveries regarding COVID-19 as well as related mRNA vaccines are still regularly occurring. Furthermore, the use of the term "misinformation" implies a malicious intent that borders on libel. I suggest the term "misinformation" be replaced with "controversial information" to better portray the spirit and intent the original author likely intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottaevers (talk • contribs) 22:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's BLP policies are not a crude cudgel to remove well sourced negative information from BLP articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- Key to the quoted policy is "
unsourced or poorly sourced
". In the case of Robert W. Malone, the term "misinformation" is well-sourced. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC) - Malone is spreading misinformation and we don't do WP:FALSEBALANCE by giving debunked ideas equal weight. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's not "contentious" that Malone's wrong claims are wrong. The OP calls it "controversial" but it really isn't in sane sources. Classic WP:GEVAL. Alexbrn (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- The talk page had to be protected because of the constant flow of similar trolling. —PaleoNeonate – 09:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Massive ongoing vandalism at Bakary Gassama – revdev required
Bakary Gassama, a football referee's article is seeing massive vandalism. I think it urgently requires page protection and some revisions will also need to be deleted. See [13], for example. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- I see it was protected this very moment. That means we only need some revision cleanup. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Andrew Maher
Came across Andrew Maher - there's just three sources and a lot of material that is unsourced. Whats the correct way to deal with this? Remove all unsourced material? MaskedSinger (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Ideally - source it. Second best - remove it. I don't see anything as controversial as demands immediate removal, but if you can't find sources, yes it should be removed. --GRuban (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you! MaskedSinger (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
dj envy
Good Morning... My wiki page keeps being changed...I am not from Dominican Republic and i was never a landscaper or a pool cleaner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realdjenvy (talk • contribs) 13:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Realdjenvy: Good morning. I've added a level of page protection which should help cut down on that kind of editing. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Christine Dietrich
Christine Dietrich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I'm Christine Dietrich and I'm not a right wing extremist. This information is wrong. I never "operated the right-wing, Islamophobic platform PI-News." I've not been in contact with this platform for over 11 Years The information "Years active 2007-present" is a simple lie unwothy an ecyclopedia. I demand the clearly infamatory article about my person to be deleted immediately, thank you Christine Dietrich — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1210:3EA9:8100:19D4:FD1A:40B:3209 (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Wow, that article is a mess. My lack of German language skills will make it difficult to do any appreciable cleanup, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'll remove what is unsourced and see what it looks like from there. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Unless the sources are unreliable, cited content seems to match what the sources say.Slywriter (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- I saw at least two blogs, one cite to the de.wikipedia Der Spiegel article (?), and the article seems to leave out things from the sources like
In the "Tages-Anzeiger" she distanced herself from the website this week - it's the third time. Her commitment to PI is "a bad mistake from the past," says the pastor today.
Its difficult to really dig into though, as I'm relying on machine translations, and I'm not familiar with most of the sources. I noticed that two different sources have the same header and navigation in different colors, although perhaps that's just the newspaper conglomerate's standard website for local papers? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)- There's also significant machine translation copyvio. From the source, google machine translated:
"Spiegel" based on internal protocols of the PI operators. When the Norwegian neo-Nazi Anders Breivik killed 77 people on Utøya, Dietrich's concern was for the right-wing blogger Fjordmann, Breivik's spiritus rector and friend of Dietrich, as she stated: "I know Fjordman personally - he is NOT a killer. It's a disaster, for us and for Fjordman, of course. Poor fellow, he was my guest."
- Our article:
Der Spiegel published protocols from the PI operators. When the Norwegian neo-Nazi Anders Breivik murdered 77 people on Utøya, Dietrich's concern was with the fascist blogger Fjordman (alias Peder Are Nøstvold Jensen), Breivik's Spiritus Rector and friend of Dietrich. “I know Fjordman personally - he's NOT a killer. It's a disaster, for us and for Fjordman of course. Poor fellow, he was my guest. " she wrote.
ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)- Pinging Moneytrees who has blocked Outdoor-Bro for machine translations in the past. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish Yeah, that user had a lot of issues with not attributing translations from other wikis, and I reminded them to be careful about BLP, but I saw nothing about direct copyvio like that. They haven't edit since I blocked them- a CCI is probably needed... Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 04:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Ugh, indeed an issue there. So this is either she is not notable and article should be AfDed or the content should be cleaned up as honestly the blog is the only thing that makes her notable. She isn't mentioned in the Politically Incorrect article here and does not appear to have a German wikipedia page to compare any sources/content.Slywriter (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- This hostile news interview conducted years later gives a clearer picture of the controversy.[14] The fact that they still talk about her 8 years later suggest this goes beyond BLP1E territory. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging Moneytrees who has blocked Outdoor-Bro for machine translations in the past. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- I saw at least two blogs, one cite to the de.wikipedia Der Spiegel article (?), and the article seems to leave out things from the sources like
The Wikipedia article against me mainliy bases on what Swiss Journalist Benjamin Rosch and Markus Ritter from Elisabethenkirche wrote about me falsly suggesting there was a possible connection between Anders Breivik, wich was never ever existent. Both were found guilty for this defamation by Swiss authorities in Basel Stadt (penal orders VT.2019.24805 and VT.2020.19117). The public persecutor clearly noted, that I've distanced myself from PI-News over 10 years ogo. All allegations I'd still habe ties to this plattform are a simple lie (even if repeated over and over again) and unworthy an "encyclopedia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chdi1 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Anzu Lawson or Christina Aznu Lawson
I have a doubt on the age mentioned as 41.. Born 23 May 1980 (age 41 years).. I got this doubt cause when I search with Cast of Movie Bloodfight (1989), her name is emerging as actress acted in the move with name Milky McKenzie... if she is born on 1980 how could she be acting as an young female actress Milky McKenzie who appears to be in her 20's in the Movie.. A 9 year old girl acting as a young female actress who looks like an adult in the movie makes no sense is my opinion.. I have no other sources to show my point as valid..
I may be wrong if she is the same person acted in the Movie Bloodfight (1989, but in her Biography this move is not in the list of movies/TV shows which she has acted..
Please check this fact once.. Thanks22:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)22:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinnakota Sharath (talk • contribs)
- I'm sorry, but I don't understand what your question is. Our article doesn't give an age or a birthdate. You must be getting this info from some other site; possibly google if you're just looking at their little infobox on the right side of the screen. The get some of their stuff from us, which sometimes makes it seem like it all came from us, but then they also get some from wherever they can find it. If they can't find her birthdate, they might just use one from some mother in North Dakota who happens to have the same name. (The computer isn't smart enough to know the difference; another example of smart technology acting stupid.) Either way, the info is not coming from our article.
- However, this article has some serious sourcing issues of its own. Zaereth (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Vinnakota Sharath: You're probably seeing this on the Google Knowledge Graph Infobox. Although they often take information from and link to us, we have no control over what they publish and this information doesn't seem to have come from us as per Zaereth. Please report any errors on the infobox to Google as there's nothing we can do about it. See also Wikipedia:Ahmadiyya Caliphate information. Nil Einne (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
RfC on sexual harassment allegations at Roberto González Echevarría
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Roberto González Echevarría § Request for comment. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Edit warring on bio of Ketanji Brown Jackson
Politico published an article asserting that a law clerk for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who has been mentioned as a potential Supreme Court justice, has edited Wikipedia to promote Judge Jackson and disparage other candidates. Editors have alternately inserted and removed those assertions from Jackson's article. No sources have yet asserted that the judge herself participated in those actions. Given that this is a BLP, I do not believe the content belongs on Wikipedia unless her participation can be established, but I have not edited the article on that issue. Kablammo (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Add to this that Politico and other sources gives the alleged name + username of the law clerk, so WP:OUTING is an issue. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Sam Sloan
Hey, first time filing one of these. I don't even know if this is the right noticeboard for such a thing, but I honestly don't know where to put it. This is the diff in question, making a seemingly outrageous claim that I thought was vandalism at first glance, but the source added (from the subject's seemingly real personal website) seems to back up its validity. I'm pretty sure this should be deleted per WP:REL in any case, but I am relatively new to editing Wikipedia and the sheer ridiculousness of the situation kinda has me confused. Should this be deleted? Revdel-ed? Maybe even kept? Seeking help here. 70.95.202.140 (talk) 05:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- I see it's been removed. WP:PROPORTION seems as good a reason as any, just because there's a source doesn't mean it should be there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Michael Franzese
I found a pretty big whopper of a mistake in this article, not about Franzese himself but one of his Colombo crime family compatriots. The article flatly states:
He took the oath alongside friend Jimmy Angelino, Joseph Peraino Jr., Salvatore Miciotta, Vito Guzzo Sr., and John Minerva — all of whom died violently over the next 20 years.
And it cites several newspaper articles. I just got watching an episode of the 2011 series Nothing Personal, which features an extensive interview with "Big Sal" Miciotta himself, very much alive. 2011 newspaper article on the episode. I have not seen anything about him dying since then, and at around 74 it's plausible he's still alive. And in any case he did not die violently between 1975 and 1995 as the article claims.
Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Oskar Deutsch
Hi, I'm not really sure what to do here. An editor CHBDKGW keeps removing a well-referenced and notable sentence from this BLP. I can't do anything but revert it, but this is in vain and just results in an edit war. What do? — JThistle38 (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Frankly the whole thing seems to be WP:Coatracking since while the claim may be true, it doesn't seem to be of great relevance to Oskar Deutsch. People campaign to get significant figures to do stuff all the time. But in any case I removed some synthesis which perhaps will help reduce CHBDKGW's concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, a one-sentence mention in that cited article seems like an WP:UNDUE coatrack. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Alvin Kamara and WP:BLPCRIME
A man was arrested after a brawl; ESPN, a local newspaper, and a celeb gossip site reported on it. I do not think that per WP:BLPCRIME this warrants inclusion--not until a conviction. I'd like the input of other editors; we routinely exclude arrests, and wait for convictions, unless there's some obvious national importance. There is no such importance here. The material I removed earlier was restored by Troutfarm27. Also courtesy pings to User:Mattevt and User:cheezejack. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- is subject notable beyond the incident? yes. Is subject a public figure? Maybe(Do we define all athletes as public figures?). Is coverage widespread? well NYT has picked up on it. So think it hinges on public figure, which I do not believe they meet unless community consensus has already defined all athletes that way.Slywriter (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Professional athletes are generally considered to be public figures (I'm not actually aware of any exceptions but they may exist), it varies for semi-pro, and amateur athletes are generally assumed not to be public figures. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Kamara is definitely a public figure as a well-known football player. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Unless it impacts his career, this is gossip level of news that we should absolutely avoid including. Just out of common sense. --Masem (t) 17:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Kamara definitely falls onto the "public figures" category listed on WP:BLPCRIME. That, when combined with the amount of coverage the event has received (it has since been reported on CNN, SI, CBS Sports, and NFL's own website), I don't see why it shouldn't be included (as defined in WP:COVERAGE). What sets this particular instance apart would be its occurrence on the same weekend as the Pro Bowl, a major event Kamara participated in (also worth mentioning that his arrest came shortly after the game). The only issue I can see in retrospect would be the addition of the legal issues section header prior to a conviction, though that can be fixed at anytime. Troutfarm27 (Talk) 18:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Being widely covered as a public figure is one thing, but remember this is only an arrest, and not a conviction. We try to look at enduring aspects of a person's life and not what is flash in the pan type news bursts, as that is more the remit of gossip mags. It is far better to see if this has any enduring coverage before adding. --Masem (t) 22:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with above. We should wait for a conviction before including. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC).
- I agree with Masem, however I will also note that that is not how things usually play out. It is really more an undue weight element as opposed to a BLPCRIME issue. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- (User:Drmies),(User:Masem),(User:Xxanthippe) - I mean, plenty of athlete pages pay significant attention to accusations without convictions. Some subjects weren't even arrested--for example, Ben Roethlisberger (though action was taken by the league)--and some have entire separate articles about them (Kobe Bryant). For a less-noteworthy example: Jeff Reed once ripped a paper towel dispenser off a gas station bathroom wall. In another incident, he was a bit disorderly while a teammate was being cited for a separate issue. Both occurrences resulted in simple citations, yet each has a dedicated three-sentence paragraph in his article. Mr. Kamara was arrested, with LVMPD releasing an official statement. He is a star player for his organization and a significant figure in the NFL. I opine that the incident in question is noteworthy enough for inclusion. However, I also concede my "junior" status as a contributor and won't challenge the ultimate decision. ~~Mattevt | Hit me up • edits 22:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- User:Mattevt, thanks for the ping and for looking around. But the thing is that we have lots of articles full of crap. If any of these are GAs or even FAs, then we can point to them and say, OK, here's precedent that's recognized by the community. But we probably don't have that for any of these. Roethlisberger--didn't he ride around without a helmet one time? Is that what you're pointing at? That really made national headlines, at least for a week or so. That ESPN reports on this story, well yeah, it's sports. If what's his name, that old guy on the NFL shows--Terry Bradshaw? if he farts on TV, ESPN will cover it. Now, here we also have the NYT saying something about it, so that makes it more notable, but again, it's only an arrest, not a conviction. It's a rather high bar that must be passed, and Masem's comment above makes a lot of sense; I'd only add that we err on the side of caution in BLPs. And that, by the way, is likely a valid reason to remove some of the things you saw in other articles. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- User:Drmies, Understood, and fair enough. Appreciate the consideration and insight. I will keep it in mind if I come across similar content in the future. Thanks! ~~Mattevt | Hit me up • edits 23:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- User:Mattevt, thanks for the ping and for looking around. But the thing is that we have lots of articles full of crap. If any of these are GAs or even FAs, then we can point to them and say, OK, here's precedent that's recognized by the community. But we probably don't have that for any of these. Roethlisberger--didn't he ride around without a helmet one time? Is that what you're pointing at? That really made national headlines, at least for a week or so. That ESPN reports on this story, well yeah, it's sports. If what's his name, that old guy on the NFL shows--Terry Bradshaw? if he farts on TV, ESPN will cover it. Now, here we also have the NYT saying something about it, so that makes it more notable, but again, it's only an arrest, not a conviction. It's a rather high bar that must be passed, and Masem's comment above makes a lot of sense; I'd only add that we err on the side of caution in BLPs. And that, by the way, is likely a valid reason to remove some of the things you saw in other articles. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm also of the opinion that this sort of stuff should stay out for now. I think it would be good if BLPCRIME included statements about keeping this sort of content out of public figures in most cases as well. Perhaps RECENT should apply here. In the short term we can't see how this will impact him. If no conviction happens and it all passes by I would say it was never DUE/encyclopedic enough to be here in the first place. If no conviction happens but some significant events in his life are triggered because of this (divorced, looses contract or endorsements etc) then hind sight will tell us to add it. We shouldn't add it primitively. Springee (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Milo Lombardi isn't a notable person and all the sources are unreliable
Hello! This article is for someone who is neither an active musician (his only album was released in 2014 and he has made no contributions since) or a notable figure. I've looked through all the sources and they're either written by himself, don't exist, or are copied from his own website and pasted onto other wikis. I tracked down the quotes listed on his website and they either didn't exist or didn't say what the quote says. In particular one was from a Berlin city newspaper on street musicians and wasn't written by an authority on music. I've included the article for reference be warned its in German [15]. This is a waste of Wikipedia's resources and should be removed. Thank you for your attention, this is my first time posting so I hope I got the netiquette right!
[16] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D660:7940:4E8:49E6:767A:1723 (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've tagged the page, but I'll let someone with more experience take a look to determine its deletion candidacy. Thank you. ~~Mattevt | Hit me up • edits 10:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- I was unable to find any sources, so I nominated at AfD. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Post-transition legal name of Buck Angel
Talk:Buck Angel Sharouser (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Ben Garrison
Ben Garrison looks to have been edited by someone with a large bias. It seems libelous to me, though I'm no expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bethestaphales (talk • contribs) 17:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Was there something that is of particular concern? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Lede could probably be trimmed or rather content shifted to body for a shorter lede but other than that, I don't see any obvious issues with the article.Slywriter (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- The career section could probably be tightened into a paragraph rather than a list of times someone wrote an article about him, as well. The worst part is the section under "Personal life" where it discusses him and his wife having covid, which I just tidied a bit. It is quite possibly WP:UNDUE, but it doesn't appear to be an outright violation anymore. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Lede could probably be trimmed or rather content shifted to body for a shorter lede but other than that, I don't see any obvious issues with the article.Slywriter (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Adam Weitsman
This page is repeatedly being edited to hide negative information (example: Special:Diff/1069136464) and as one can see, is additionally full of promotional material. Myself and a few others have made attempts to condense and/or undo repeated vandalism, and the issue has been brough up on the Talk page, but it still continues. I joined wikipedia when I first noticed this, and as such do not have much broader institutional knowledge to know how else to resolve this issue than reaching out here. Shrimpcoward (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- It does seem a bit WP:PROMO, doesn't it. I've reinserted the conviction for now, we'll see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Wilfred Reilly
See these edits [17], the only edits made by User:Salukitruth. Notifying the editor now. The accusations of a assault and battery conviction when he was a student may be true, but I can't find other sources for it suggesting it belongs in his article. Doug Weller talk 10:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't find any secondary sources covering the plea, and the source given doesn't even show there was a plea. It shows guilty for a single misdemeanor. Per WP:BLPCRIME we shouldn't be including the allegations, as Reilly doesn't appear to be a public figure, although I'm not certain where exactly the line is drawn for that when someone has written books and taken part in a televised debate.
- Generally though, I don't think a misdemeanor conviction from a decade ago not covered in reliable sources, and with no indication of lasting significance, belongs in any BLP article. I've reverted those edits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- He pled guilty to the misdemeanor battery charge while the felony restraint charge was dismissed. This was most likely a plea bargain, but all of this falls under improper WP:BLPPRIMARY. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Salukitruth restored this without discussion, and I've reverted again and opened a section on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Shane Ortega
I am Shane Ortega and I request full removal of my Wikipedia. I never created one. Due to obsessive stalkers posting inflammatory information I request my page deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B077:392B:1C7B:28D2:8534:6D51 (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- I believe the right route is to go to Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team so you can prove your identity, which makes it easier to delete the article, per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. I don't know if the article will be deleted however, since there is plenty of sourcing to show notability. [18][19][20][21]. That said, the article is pretty poorly written right now, and definitely needs some attention. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Ramón Jesurún
I've no knowledge of Columbian sports politics but the recent activity on Ramón Jesurún looks suspicious. It looks like there are editors out there bigging him up and others wanting to incriminate him in various scandals. As my Spanish is very poor I can't read the sources to tell is the events are being stated fairly or not. Nthep (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Jonathan Wheatley
Some parties are concerned whether or not Jonathan Wheatley#2021 Abu Dhabi last lap controversy belongs on Wikipedia. A review of the section to ensure there are no BLP violations would be appreciated. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- I looked at this when there was an open edit request. At the time, it seemed a bit over written, and now there's probably still an issue with balance, although there should be some mention of it in the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Additional subproposals regarding notability of athletes
Several subproposals have been added to the NSPORT RfC that would welcome input from the community.
Subproposal 1: "All athlete biographies must demonstrate GNG when notability is challenged at AfD". Potential exceptions/clarifications/amendments are also offered.
Subproposal 3: "Remove all simple or mere "participation" criteria in NSPORT, outside of ones related to Olympics and equivalent events. This would eliminate several sections on specific sports where this is the only type of criteria given (such as for NGRIDIRON), while merit-based ones, like several in NTRACK, would be left."
Subproposal 4: "Modify all provisions of NSPORTS that provide that participation in "one" game/match such that the minimum participation level is increased to "three" games/matches. This raises the threshold for the presumption of notability to kick in."
Subproposal 5: "All sports biographies and team/season articles must, from inception, include at least one example of actual SIGCOV from a reliable, independent source. Mere database entries would be insufficient for creation of a new biography article."
Subproposal 6: "Conditional on Subproposal 5 passing, should a prod-variant be created, applicable to the articles covered by Subproposal 5, that would require the addition of one reference containing significant coverage to challenge the notice?"
Subproposal 8: "Rewrite the introduction to clearly state that GNG is the applicable guideline, and articles may not be created or kept unless they meet GNG. Replace all instances of "presumed to be notable" with "significant coverage is likely to exist"."
Subproposal 9: "Rewrite the lead of WP:NSPORTS to ... cut the confusing sentence in the middle which is at odds with the rest of the guideline and which leaves itself open to lots of wiki-lawyering." JoelleJay (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)