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: |
Pierre Poilievre
There is a sentence saying Poilievre supports defunding the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).
Two editors have supported its insertion. Two editors have supported its removal. Further input welcome here or on the talk page]. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Update: Up to four editors supported removal, with some accompanying remarks that (as I interpret) it could go back if better sourcing appears and/or Mr Poilievre makes clear statements in future. It's once again removed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Bruce George Peter Lee: Primary sources contain important updates
What should be done about the above article? Secondary coverage I can't seem to find anywhere. A fresh appeal has changed matters considerably and contradicts other older material;
- "11 of these were overturned on appeal." This number has increased substantially.
- "Lee was imprisoned for life" the primary source indicates he received a hospital order rather than a custodial sentence.
- The individual's name. The judgement refers to him merely as T, but does not clarify the reasons for this anonymity. It does note Bruce Lee as a name used previously; a BBC article cited once in the article suggests the name should be Peter Tredget. A piece this month from a law firm connected to the case also states Peter Tredget as the appropriate name.
- "arguing due to his physical disabilities he could not have committed the crimes and falsely confessed" is a somewhat misleadingly simplistic summary of the grounds of appeal, albeit an attractively succinct one. This is a complicated appeal heavy with, and revolving around, detailed analysis of a range of concepts and points.
The article also contains a lot of citation needed tags, many of which can be addressed by the primary source. Am I correct in thinking that the source is considered largely unuseable, though, without secondary coverage?
Judgement is here and it's lengthy. I spent much of yesterday and today reading it. Law firm article is here. The BAILII version of the judgement is here. It is the same document, but listed as between R and Tredget rather than simply T.
Any thoughts/advice? 79.71.44.32 (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- You are correct. Details that can only be sourced to WP:BLPPRIMARY should be removed. If reliable secondary sources do not bother to report on the detail, we shouldn't either. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- While we sometimes have problems with appeals being given minimal coverage when the hype has died down, given the extremely high profile nature of this case and accused crimes, I'd be surprised if the key details aren't covered in secondary sources. A quick search shows that these article seems to do an okay job of summarising the result of the most recent appeal and also the various claims made in it [1] [2] [3] although I haven't compared them to the judgment. At least one of them does mention he's been detained in a secure mental hospital since 1981. The earlier stuff is probably in the contemporary sources and maybe in general overviews of the case which may exist. I suspect some of the existing sources cover these details and the problem is partly a lack of inline cites although admittedly I see Daily Mail and Daily Mirror as sources, as well as a book by the detective in charge and Tru TV none of which seems to be great sources. (Well not totally sure about Tru TV but, I'm wary of true crime TV documentaries as sources especially when it affects living persons.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- A minor note, perhaps, but the Daily Mail of Hull is distinct from the Daily Mail 'of London'. Those new sources, I haven't read them yet (will shortly), but they could hopefully solve the problem. 79.71.44.32 (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- You're right, the ref is Daily Mail of Hull not the deprecated Daily Mail of London so may be fine. I also see that the Tru TV is actually some sort of true crime story on their website rather than a documentary. I still don't think it's a great source, indeed on of the reasons I got confused is it mentioned chapter which I assumed referred to parts of a documentary but it's actually referring to very short chapters in their story. I don't have much experience with that sort of writing but fear like true crime documentaries there may be a great focus on the story telling and entertainment aspect. However it may not be bad enough to require immediate replacement which I feel does apply to Daily Mirror. Nil Einne (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- It's really odd to me the the Mirror isn't deprecated like the Mail and Sun. Maybe it should be? 79.71.44.32 (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- You're right, the ref is Daily Mail of Hull not the deprecated Daily Mail of London so may be fine. I also see that the Tru TV is actually some sort of true crime story on their website rather than a documentary. I still don't think it's a great source, indeed on of the reasons I got confused is it mentioned chapter which I assumed referred to parts of a documentary but it's actually referring to very short chapters in their story. I don't have much experience with that sort of writing but fear like true crime documentaries there may be a great focus on the story telling and entertainment aspect. However it may not be bad enough to require immediate replacement which I feel does apply to Daily Mirror. Nil Einne (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- A minor note, perhaps, but the Daily Mail of Hull is distinct from the Daily Mail 'of London'. Those new sources, I haven't read them yet (will shortly), but they could hopefully solve the problem. 79.71.44.32 (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Michael Woodley
Content focusing on this individual's association with right-wing and fringe race-and-intelligence research has apparently accrued over recent years, sourced especially to three secondary sources: this article in The New Statesman, this one in Review of General Psychology and this one in the American Journal of Biological Anthropology. Recently Grayfell added a summary statement noting Woodley's fellowship with the far-right Unz Foundation to the lead: [4]. This was reverted by Ferahgo the Assassin, who cited a user-generated website to argue that Woodnely was no longer an Unz Foundation fellow: [5]. I restored the sentence, changing it to the past tense and providing the date when Woodley was last known to have been an Unz fellow: [6] (subsequently updated: [7]). I also performed some pretty straightforward copy edits to the section in the main body referring to this same set of facts: [8]. These have been my only edits to the BLP.
I was therefore very surprised to receive the following message from DGG on my talk page: " Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did at Michael Woodley, you may be blocked from editing. More exact, restoration of material having a negative implication to a BLP"
How on earth could this be a BLP violation when the statement is so well sourced, and my restoration took pains to change the affiliation from present to past tense (with a reliably sourced "as-of" date)? My understanding is that it is standard practice to mention people's affiliations, including with far-right groups, when these are well sourced to reliable secondary refs, and indeed to include them in the lead if those affiliations constitute a major source of notability for the individual, as is clearly the case here. Given this context, I do not understand why DGG would think to leave such a dire warning on my user talk page.
I should also note that, in their series of edits to the BLP which accompanied this warning, DGG didn't even remove or alter the statement on Woodley's affiliation with the Unz Foundation which was the whole point of the warning: [9]. They simply messed up the formatting of one of the references and cut another sentence in the main body which I had not edited at all. What is going on here? Generalrelative (talk) 11:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Update: DGG has removed the warning with my express permission and at the urging of Bishonen. See User talk:DGG#Please don't misuse warning templates. Generalrelative (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've also edited the article, fixing two broken references and replacing text which DGG deleted, " a covert invitation-only conference which has discussed eugenics and purported racial differences in intelligence" with the edit summary "Removeeditorializing. We don't use inneundo by asociation in bLPs" with "a secret invitation only conference for research on controversial aspects of human intelligence, including race and intelligence and eugenics." which is from the lead of the conference article. My edit summary was "this needs context and it is completely factual, plus we mention his formal response". See also Talk:Michael Woodley#Guilt by association. Doug Weller talk 13:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- The connection between Woodley and the London Conference on Intelligence is not well-sourced. Of the three sources that Generalrelative listed above, two—the papers in Review of General Psychology and in American Journal of Biological Anthropology—do not say anything about Woodley's connection to the London Conference on Intelligence. (The Review of General Psychology paper discusses Woodley and also mentions the LCI, but it does not mention a connection between Woodley and the conference.) The only source that actually makes a connection between Woodley and the conference is the New Statesman source, which mentions Woodley in a single sentence as part of a list of several people who attended it.
- By attacking Woodley for his having attended this conference, the Wikipedia article is making an accusation that is not made in reliable sources. You can call this guilt by association or you can call it original synthesis, but the bottom line is that it isn't appropriate for a BLP article. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what your objection here is. Are you saying that he didn't actually attend the conference? He's listed in the program. MrOllie (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- By attacking Woodley for his having attended this conference, the Wikipedia article is making an accusation that is not made in reliable sources. You can call this guilt by association or you can call it original synthesis, but the bottom line is that it isn't appropriate for a BLP article. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- (ec) First off, I did not edit anything having to do with Woodley’s connection with the London Conference on Intelligence, so pointing out that the references I cited do not connect Woodley to this conferences is entirely beside the point. My use of these sources was to show Woodley’s connection with the far-right, antisemitic Unz Foundation. Or rather, I was simply presenting the sources that were already used in the article.
- Incidentally, and contrary to Ferahgo’s claim, the American Journal of Biological Anthropology ref does explicitly make the connection between Woodley and the London Conference on Intelligence in footnote 23, where it mentions: “For a rejoinder from conference participants see Woodley of Meine et al. (2018)” But again, this is entirely beside the point.
- As to Ferahgo's claim that the article as currently written is “attacking Woodley”, I’ll quote what Bishonen wrote earlier today on DGG’s talk page (with apologies): “Well-sourced negative content added in a neutral tone is not defamatory.” [10] I do not see how any impartial observer might think that what is written there is either “guilt by association” or original synthesis. It seems to me to be simply reporting on what both primary and secondary sources say. But perhaps others who are less involved in long-running race-and-intelligence content would like to judge for themselves. Generalrelative (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- In this edit, you restored text that says, "In January 2018, Woodley was criticized for his involvement with the London Conference on Intelligence, a covert invitation-only conference which has discussed eugenics and purported racial differences in intelligence." The sources for this material are a primary source (a program from the conference itself), and a single mention of Woodley on a list of conference attendees in the New Statesman article. Do you feel that these sources are adequate for the inclusion of this material in a BLP article? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- That single mention being
Rindermann, James Thompson, Michael Woodley of Menie and Aurelio Figueredo, all heavily implicated in the London Conference on Intelligence
- given that we consider the New Statesman to be reliable, seems adequately sourced. Of course including (or not) anything is a matter of editorial judgment, but this clearly isn't a BLP violation. MrOllie (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)- It is a BLP violation if the sources do not directly verify what is asserted per WP:OR and WP:V. Further, the details cited only to the conference program is WP:UNDUE per WP:NPF. I will remove the paragraph and it should not be reinstated until consensus is gained under WP:BLPUNDEL. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Aha, looks like I missed that bit when reverting you. Taking your edit summary (which focused on Woodley's Unz affiliation) at face value, it looks like I didn't scroll all the way to the bottom, or else didn't recall doing so. I apologize for the oversight. But in any case, yes, I am in accord with MrOllie and Doug Weller on this. And we can always add the American Journal of Biological Anthropology ref as well. Generalrelative (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- For those without institutional access, this long quote from the American Journal of Biological Anthropology article may be informative:
- That single mention being
- In this edit, you restored text that says, "In January 2018, Woodley was criticized for his involvement with the London Conference on Intelligence, a covert invitation-only conference which has discussed eugenics and purported racial differences in intelligence." The sources for this material are a primary source (a program from the conference itself), and a single mention of Woodley on a list of conference attendees in the New Statesman article. Do you feel that these sources are adequate for the inclusion of this material in a BLP article? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- As to Ferahgo's claim that the article as currently written is “attacking Woodley”, I’ll quote what Bishonen wrote earlier today on DGG’s talk page (with apologies): “Well-sourced negative content added in a neutral tone is not defamatory.” [10] I do not see how any impartial observer might think that what is written there is either “guilt by association” or original synthesis. It seems to me to be simply reporting on what both primary and secondary sources say. But perhaps others who are less involved in long-running race-and-intelligence content would like to judge for themselves. Generalrelative (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
- Not only does this text tie Woodley to the conference explicitly in the footnote, but it also sets out the broad argument the authors are making about how events like the London Conference manufacture a veneer of respectability around fringe academics and pseudo-academics, and then presents Woodley and his co-authors as a prime examples of how this works. Generalrelative (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Seems due and reasonable to me. XOR'easter (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Not only does this text tie Woodley to the conference explicitly in the footnote, but it also sets out the broad argument the authors are making about how events like the London Conference manufacture a veneer of respectability around fringe academics and pseudo-academics, and then presents Woodley and his co-authors as a prime examples of how this works. Generalrelative (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- WP is an encyclopedia, not a place for investigative reporting. It is not obvious that everyone who has published who publishes in a journal that X edits shares the views of X. Similarly for appearing at a conference , or receiving a fellowship. For example, as a graduate student I worked in the same department as an exceptionally harmful AIDS denialist; my post-doc fellowship was funded by a government at the time engaged in racist genocidal warfare, as was the case for almost all US scientists of my generation; I worked for most of my career at a university whose most famouse President was a notorious racist and anti-semite. The place to characterize a funding organization is the article on an organization, and people will follow the link. The place to discuss the nature of a conference is the article on the conference; it can then be linked to, and people will follow the link. But being invited to speak does not necessarily mean you are invited to supportthe views of the organizer: in the period when I was advocating for open access, I spoke by invitation at a conference run by a publisher's association; they apparently wanted to confront a person who was trying to destroy commercial journal publishing. On the other hand, that someone has co-authored papers with X does imply that they share or did share some of X's views, but stating the co-authorship is sufficient (which is why I think the article could be improved by a list of journal publications). We state the facts, we do not draw the conclusions--that would be OR. We shouldn't attempt to demonstrate a hypothesized conspiracy. There may indeed be one--I wouldn't rule it out--certainly I mistrust some of the individuals involved, and I even think the far right in the US does engage in conspiracies against science, medicine, justice, the Constitution, and the public interest. But WP is not the place to do it, and especially not in the bio of one of the living persons peripherally involved--he is considerably notable, but not the leading figure in the debate.
- However, I apologize for the version I edited last night--I did it too rapidly. Generalrelative pointed out some of my errors. I keep saying people should go slowly, and carefully re-examine major changes, and wait until the next day to post them, but I'm as much subject to the temptation to post immmdiately as anyone else. And my warning was indeed an over-reaction. I keep saying people should be very cautious in assigning blame and posting formal notices, but, again, I'm subject to the same temptations. DGG ( talk ) 10:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- That is very circumspect, DGG. I appreciate it. Generalrelative (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- As an independent editor that was first brought to this article through this noticeboard, I saw specific liberties[11][12] taken with the BLP policies in thinking that citations to reputable RS were enough when no one thought to look at what the cited articles actually said and whether there was WP:OR actually going on. I have seen this issue repeated with editors thinking that WP:BLP only means the obvious WP:V. Morbidthoughts (talk) 09:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- So you are saying that despite the fact of the bit above in extended content about OpenPsych and the fact that he organised the defense of the London Conference, BLP prevents us from mentioning the London Conference? Because I see you removed all mention, which could be seen as white washing although I know you see it as enforcing BLP. Then there's the fact that he co-authored a book by Edward Dutton (author). I presume you would say that we can't describe Dutton either, because that would what? Misinform our readers? And of course he also wrote an article with Emil Kirkegaard. He obviously shares their views. But we can't make it too obvious? Doug Weller talk 12:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- And if it survives deletion, we should be able to use this critique of Woodley's work by one of the sources we use in Race and intelligence.[13] Doug Weller talk 14:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Doug, I don't see that source cited in Race and intelligence, which makes sense because of the elevated sourcing requirement there. But in any case a very similar critique of Woodley's collaboration with Noah Carl is presented in the Review of General Psychology article discussed above: [14]. I hope that's helpful, Generalrelative (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Generalrelative: the author, John P. Jackson, not the source. We use two works by him in the R&I article so the critique by him, an expert, should be an RS. Doug Weller talk 17:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Aha, thanks for clarifying. Generalrelative (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Generalrelative: the author, John P. Jackson, not the source. We use two works by him in the R&I article so the critique by him, an expert, should be an RS. Doug Weller talk 17:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Why would a blog be acceptable under WP:BLPSPS or WP:NPF? Are you arguing to bypass strict adherence to WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV to set the record straight? Are there BLP exemptions for bad characters that I am not aware of? Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Of course not. Looks like you're right. He's an expert so his review should qualify as a reliable source for anything else, but I hadn't thought of the BLP aspect. I don't see how any of the other policies are that relevant here. No original research, verifiable, and I have no idea why you think NPOV would be relevant. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Let me clarify the policies behind the specific removal.[15] I take the text and its citations as they are given in the article and not review what other citations could be out there because of WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS. With the first sentence, the cited New Statesman article briefly mentions him as a participant and does not verify that he was specifically criticised. Then, the second sentence that he coauthored a conference paper is WP:UNDUE (part of NPOV) detail only cited to the conference program since the New Statesman does not mention that. The last sentence, his defense of the conference, becomes UNDUE without a citation to an independent RS and does not fall under the denial exception under WP:WELLKNOWN since Woodley is not well known. Since WP:NPF applies instead, the whole paragraph is UNDUE without better citations that directly verify what is trying to be said rather than synthing RS and primary material together. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Morbidthoughts: all that I know and when you made the edit I checked the sources and realised that your deletion was correct. But I was asking about the blog by John P Jackson and I repeat, "I don't see how any of the other policies are that relevant here. No original research, verifiable, and I have no idea why you think NPOV would be relevant." Doug Weller talk 13:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- I was responding to both of this [16][17] Probably should have done it in a more lineal format rather than LIFO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Morbidthoughts: all that I know and when you made the edit I checked the sources and realised that your deletion was correct. But I was asking about the blog by John P Jackson and I repeat, "I don't see how any of the other policies are that relevant here. No original research, verifiable, and I have no idea why you think NPOV would be relevant." Doug Weller talk 13:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- Let me clarify the policies behind the specific removal.[15] I take the text and its citations as they are given in the article and not review what other citations could be out there because of WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS. With the first sentence, the cited New Statesman article briefly mentions him as a participant and does not verify that he was specifically criticised. Then, the second sentence that he coauthored a conference paper is WP:UNDUE (part of NPOV) detail only cited to the conference program since the New Statesman does not mention that. The last sentence, his defense of the conference, becomes UNDUE without a citation to an independent RS and does not fall under the denial exception under WP:WELLKNOWN since Woodley is not well known. Since WP:NPF applies instead, the whole paragraph is UNDUE without better citations that directly verify what is trying to be said rather than synthing RS and primary material together. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Of course not. Looks like you're right. He's an expert so his review should qualify as a reliable source for anything else, but I hadn't thought of the BLP aspect. I don't see how any of the other policies are that relevant here. No original research, verifiable, and I have no idea why you think NPOV would be relevant. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Doug, I don't see that source cited in Race and intelligence, which makes sense because of the elevated sourcing requirement there. But in any case a very similar critique of Woodley's collaboration with Noah Carl is presented in the Review of General Psychology article discussed above: [14]. I hope that's helpful, Generalrelative (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- And if it survives deletion, we should be able to use this critique of Woodley's work by one of the sources we use in Race and intelligence.[13] Doug Weller talk 14:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- So you are saying that despite the fact of the bit above in extended content about OpenPsych and the fact that he organised the defense of the London Conference, BLP prevents us from mentioning the London Conference? Because I see you removed all mention, which could be seen as white washing although I know you see it as enforcing BLP. Then there's the fact that he co-authored a book by Edward Dutton (author). I presume you would say that we can't describe Dutton either, because that would what? Misinform our readers? And of course he also wrote an article with Emil Kirkegaard. He obviously shares their views. But we can't make it too obvious? Doug Weller talk 12:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
AfD
Please note that I have decided to nominate the page for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Woodley (2nd nomination). Any and all input would be welcome. jps (talk) 13:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Pat King (activist)
The subject of this article (Pat King (activist)) is a leader of the trucker convoy in Ottawa who currently is being held without bail and facing lengthy imprisonment if convicted. Despite his unpopularity, I think it is important that statements about him accurately reflect sources.
The following text is not supported:
- He has led the Wexit movement advocating for secession from Canada of Alberta and other western provinces, led the United We Roll movement, and acted as a regional organizer for the Canada convoy protest.
- King served on the board of directors of Wexit Alberta, and as a primary organizer of the Wexit movement that advocated for Canada's prairie provinces to secede.
- King was a co-organizer, and a driver for the United We Roll yellow vest protest in 2019.
Wexit is the Canadian Western separatist movement and Wexit Alberta was a party dedicated to Wexit. In fact, King was the co-creator of the hashtag #Wexit. Sources do not call King a leader of the Wexit movement, but a contributor to wexitmovement.com.
Although King drove a truck during the United We Roll campaign and was listed as a contact for North Alberta, the sources do not say what his exact role was.
I withdrew an AfD which I had drawn up for persons notable for one event, in this case the trucker convoy. because I thought the claims made in the article made it appear he had achieved notability. In fact, before the convoy, there were no articles about him, although he was mentioned in several articles about right-wing activism.
TFD (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- In the AfD discussion it was noted that there were articles about him (at least nine from Reuters, AP News, CBC, etc.). They didn't just mention him, they were articles whose subject was specifically his activity in various activist causes, and the nine I checked were all published prior to the convoy. At worst, where he was not the sole person focussed upon, he was referred to as "co-founder", "co-campaigner", or one of a "duo". Otherwise, he was the one being reported on. After all the sourcing laid out, I can't imagine what "
before the convoy, there were no articles about him
" could possibly mean. signed, Willondon (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)- Everything in BLPs must be sourced. It is not helpful if the sources used to support information in the article do not support it, to say that other unspecified sources do. WP:BLP says, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." TFD (talk) 05:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, this is my first time on a notice board like this, I'm not sure on process, so forgive any missteps please. I created Pat King (activist) and I added the three statements that TFD has said are unsourced. I've copied and pasted the statements below and added my soure for them under each
- He has led the Wexit movement advocating for secession from Canada of Alberta and other western provinces, led the United We Roll movement, and acted as a regional organizer for the Canada convoy protest.
- "Two main organizers behind #Wexit, the campaign calling for Canada’s prairie provinces to secede, have a prolific history of pushing far-right and anti-Muslim conspiracy theories." https://www.vice.com/en/article/59na9q/wexit-founders-are-far-right-conspiracy-theorists
- "Pat King, who was listed as one of the regional organizers" https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/09/politics/fact-check-canadian-convoy-protest-ottawa/index.html
- "Patrick King, one of the organizers of the event." https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/convoy-pipeline-immigration-1.5024863
- King served on the board of directors of Wexit Alberta, and as a primary organizer of the Wexit movement that advocated for Canada's prairie provinces to secede.
- "King is one of Downing’s main #Wexit co-campaigners and a member of the #Wexit Alberta board of directors." https://www.vice.com/en/article/59na9q/wexit-founders-are-far-right-conspiracy-theorists
- "Their secessionist campaign is represented by the #Wexit hashtag, which trended on Twitter last week after the Liberals won a minority government in the federal election. #Wexit stands for Western Canada Exit, a movement calling for Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and even B.C. to leave the rest of Canada to become separate nation-states. https://www.vice.com/en/article/59na9q/wexit-founders-are-far-right-conspiracy-theorists
- King was a co-organizer, and a driver for the United We Roll yellow vest protest in 2019.
- "Patrick King, who co-organized the United We Roll pro-pipeline convoy" https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-ndp-ridings-target-1.5283650
- "Patrick King, one of the convoy drivers, was among a few yellow vesters perched on a platform on the street, speaking to the counter protesters with a bullhorn" https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2019/02/19/protesters-greet-alberta-organized-convoy-on-parliament-hill.html
- I have already said all of this on the talk page Talk:Pat_King_(activist) but the conversation between us has not gone well and has left me confused about how TFD consider it unsourced, in the context of these sources. My best guess is that TFD sees a subtle difference between the content in the sources and what I have written and if TFD or anyone wants to suggest edits that make improvements, that seems like a good solution here.
- The statement that "
before the convoy, there were no articles about him
" is difficult to address because that seemed to be unanimously clarified in the recent AfD that TFD started and then closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pat King (activist). - I am certain that TFD has good faith intentions here and I'm sad that we're not understanding each other, and hope that an intervention from a 3rd party here might help us reach consensus, which I have tried to reach on the talk page already. CT55555 (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- As I said above, Wexit and #Wexit on twitter are not the same thing, just as Wikipedia and #Wikipedia on twitter are not the same thing. The person who started #Wikipedia on twitter for example is not the same person who founded Wikipedia the website we are using. Also, the issue at BLPN is not whether the article should exist, but whether there are sources in the article that support the information there. If you have the sources, add them to the article and we can discuss. TFD (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- Honestly, this is the first time I have understood your objection. It's that I've said they lead the campaign and you think the source says the organized a hashtag? If your analysis is correct, do you think Vice would have said "Their secessionist campaign is represented by the #Wexit hashtag"? because that implied what they did was more than tweet. Also this source also confirms he's a Wexit organizer https://www.vice.com/en/article/akvwep/conspiracy-black-lake-pat-king I quote: "King has for years been involved in right-wing organizing in Western Canada. He was one of the main Yellow Vest organizers in Alberta and a co-founder of the Wexit (Alberta separation) movement." I'm going to add that as a citation now. CT55555 (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- Please see the policy WP:BLP: " All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." You need to ensure that each statement you add to the article is referenced to a source that makes that statement. We can then examine whether they do so. Saying that sources exist but are not added as footnotes is against policy.
- Bear in mind that Wikipedia is one of the first places people look for information about individuals. That was my concern about creating an article, that we lacked high quality sources to create a neutral article. But since the article exists, we need to ensure that it complies with BLP.
- King is facing trial and substantial imprisonment if convicted. We don't want to influence the outcome in any way.
- TFD (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think everything was sourced, and I think in the past few minutes that fact is now doubly sourced. Are you satisfied now? CT55555 (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- Are there sources beyond the doubly cited Vice?[18] Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- There is overwhelming volume of content that he is part of Wexit. The article currently cites two Vice sources.
- Other sources that I've found since you asked:
- https://www.antihate.ca/wexit_co_founder_pat_king_threatens_demonstrators
- https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1860092/pat-king-manifestation-camionneurs-ottawa mentioned him as an organizer
- https://www.thestar.com/edmonton/2019/11/10/visionary-or-villain-hes-the-pied-piper-of-albertas-wexit-but-is-the-movement-heading-in-a-dangerous-direction.html Previous reports have identified King as an organizer within Wexit and as a member of their board of directors."
- I could find more if you'd like? CT55555 (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- Naw. Use them, specifically RC and the Toronto Star, and put weight on what they say over Vice. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- Part of the reason I clarified on why I cautioned upon relying on Vice. From the Star, "Previous reports have identified King as an organizer within Wexit and as a member of their board of directors... Downing says he’s seen some 'really good citizen journalism' from King, but said that while he may be a member, King doesn’t have an official role within Wexit... 'We have an advisory board of directors. He’s not on that board, he’s not on our executive,' Downing said." Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've updated it and just called him an organizer. CT55555 (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- After reviewing and cleaning up the sources in the article, I'm surprised there is no mention about his arrest. WP:BLPCRIME should not apply to him. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- I predicted that this article would be deeply scrutinized and deliberately avoided the reporting of his arrest and bail. If you are confident it is fair to write about them, I will add. One other editor did also suggest that in the AfD. CT55555 (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- He is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE in the same manner as Jake Angeli. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- I predicted that this article would be deeply scrutinized and deliberately avoided the reporting of his arrest and bail. If you are confident it is fair to write about them, I will add. One other editor did also suggest that in the AfD. CT55555 (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- After reviewing and cleaning up the sources in the article, I'm surprised there is no mention about his arrest. WP:BLPCRIME should not apply to him. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've updated it and just called him an organizer. CT55555 (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- Part of the reason I clarified on why I cautioned upon relying on Vice. From the Star, "Previous reports have identified King as an organizer within Wexit and as a member of their board of directors... Downing says he’s seen some 'really good citizen journalism' from King, but said that while he may be a member, King doesn’t have an official role within Wexit... 'We have an advisory board of directors. He’s not on that board, he’s not on our executive,' Downing said." Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- Naw. Use them, specifically RC and the Toronto Star, and put weight on what they say over Vice. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- Are there sources beyond the doubly cited Vice?[18] Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think everything was sourced, and I think in the past few minutes that fact is now doubly sourced. Are you satisfied now? CT55555 (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- As I said above, Wexit and #Wexit on twitter are not the same thing, just as Wikipedia and #Wikipedia on twitter are not the same thing. The person who started #Wikipedia on twitter for example is not the same person who founded Wikipedia the website we are using. Also, the issue at BLPN is not whether the article should exist, but whether there are sources in the article that support the information there. If you have the sources, add them to the article and we can discuss. TFD (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Mubashir Husain Rehmani
Kindly make corrections on this page. I have added sufficient citations but wikipedia is asking for more citations. I thinks these citations are more enough.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Absar Uddin (talk • contribs) 07:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- In my opinion, it reads like a resume. the Clarivate Highly Cited Researcher "award" included in the awards section and in the lead is a list of more than 6600 people. The article should be neutralized, eliminate lists like the Media Coverage section and focus more on what the independent reliable sources say about the subject. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
narda e. alcorn
ARTICLE AT AFD | |
This has been brought to AfD. Please provide input there. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I am the wife, Shelli Aderman, of Narda E. Alcorn. She has requested that the page be deleted, as some of the people that were NOT admitted to the David Geffen School of Drama at Yale have sent not just hate mail, but death threats to other professors, and Narda would like her private life to remain just that. PRIVATE. She asked me to delete the page, and I tried, but someone named Fachidot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fachidiot) reinstated it.
PLEASE DELETE this page - IMMEDIATELY! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narda_E._Alcorn
Thank you, Shelli Aderman, Narda's wife of 21 years, (and the technically savvy person in the house). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shellipsm (talk • contribs) 19:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- What on earth...? There's a process for deletion. Just because the subject of an article wants it deleted, doesn't make it so. Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE would probably apply here. Shelli, please have Narda send an email to info-en-q@wikimedia.org to confirm you are who you are and request deletion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- What on earth...? There's a process for deletion. Just because the subject of an article wants it deleted, doesn't make it so. Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Is there something in the article that facilitates people making inappropriate contact? Rather than deletion, editing could be a solution. I'm guessing this has to do with a recent development. Is there something in there that triggers the disgruntled? None of the content seems contentious.
- The subject of an article doesn't really have any veto over its curation, but there are policies at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons that might be relied upon. I notice the previous nomination for deletion (a little over a year ago, on the grounds that it did not meet the requirements for notability) was closed with a result of no consensus. signed, Willondon (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- The personal life section gives it away. Interracial lesbian couple with adopted black children, names included, might attract bigots. WP:BLPNAME would demand some revision. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- This is now being addressed with a discussion in Articles for deletion, so it seems this thread should be closed. But I don't know the etiquette or the mechanics of that. signed, Willondon (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
James Shupe
An editor by the name ElisaShupe has indicated the information on the article subject's gender and transition is incorrect and outdated. She has provided an SPS source to back this claim (link). How should we go about dealing with this? I'm assuming good faith, but it is perfectly possible the editor is not actually the article's subject. Resolving this is hard, as news sources might not have much incentive to actually cover someone re-transitioning after detransitioning (as the editor indicated in this comment). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- I believe they can identify via WP:OTRS so we can verify the source is them, then it would be acceptable to use per WP:BLPSPS. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Kunduz_hospital_airstrike
I just deleted a comment made by an IP address account that called for the killing of a well known politician. It technically also was a breach of WP:BLPCRIME although that part was probably in good faith. I know I should let that person know that I'm talking about them here, but for safety reasons I would rather not. I don't want to over react, I think it's a throw away comment that idiots make about politicians, but I also felt like I should alert admins and not let this go unnoticed. CT55555 (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've deleted the edits and blocked the IP. Beyond that I'd agree with your analysis and don't think it merits any further escalation. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Valentina Lisitsa
The following sentence has been added to the lead of pianist Valentina Lisitsa’s bio: "In April, 2015, The Ukrainian Weekly described her social media postings featuring anti-Ukrainian remarks - alongside the use of Holocaust imagery portraying Ukranians as Nazis - as hate speech".[19] It is sourced to an article in The Ukraine Weekly which does not mention "anti-Ukrainian remarks" or "the use of Holocaust imagery portraying Ukranians as Nazis". The article does say "Hate speech is not free speech" in referring to Valentina’s social media posts. I removed the phrases "anti-Ukrainian remarks" and "the use of Holocaust imagery portraying Ukranians as Nazis"[20] but they have been re-added to the article.[21] It seems like a serious breach of BLP policy. Thoughts? I don't want to waste time by continually removing the phrases so have placed a "failed verification" tag against the sentence for the moment. Not an ideal solution though.
Btw, when the offending phrases were re-added, a description of Valentina as a "Russian pianist" was added without a source. While this may not be as flagrant a breach of BLP policies, it is careless. The sources used in the lead describe Valentina as a "Ukrainian-American pianist" and "born in Kiev, she is now a U.S. citizen who makes her home in New Bern, North Carolina".
Burrobert (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- I removed the assertion cited to The Ukraine Weekly from the lead and replaced it with language that describes the controversy more neutrally, citing it to the Guardian. I also reinstated that she is Ukrainian-American according to the Globe & Mail and Toronto Star. I would invite other editors to review the political views section and gauge whether that much depth is WP:DUE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- It is alleged on the talk page that this controversy ended her North American career which would potentially make the length of the section DUE. However no sources have been provided supporting this and indeed recent sources like [22] only mention the TSO cancellation and specifically mention that other appearances in Canada went ahead as planned. (It does mention that the executive directory of Toronto’s Royal Conservatory of Music probably wouldn't book her today, but this is after she went on to play there after the controversy.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Another reason why she probably doesn't play in North America is because she lives in Europe now.[23] Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding to these concerns Morbidthoughts. Your edits have improved the lead and are backed up by references. I believe Nil Einne is correct in saying that Valentina has played in Toronto since 2015. This source says she played at the The Royal Conservatory of Music's Koerner Hall in April 2016 and, possibly pointedly, played an all-Russian programme.[1] Burrobert (talk) 10:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Morbidthoughts, musicians routinely play in venues around the world, and she was formerly located in the USA. Her lack of North America bookings is more likely the cause, not the effect, of the relocation to Rome and Russia. But we have no sourcing on that factor and it's not under consideration for article content. Unfortunately, with relatively little-known, relatively insignificant public figures, there is scant mainstream coverage to draw upon. Sources do tie the TSO decision to cancel to Ukrainian opposition, and the orchestra appears initially to have avoided taking a stand in its own voice. The tweets are available in copies to various websites for those who are interested. They appear to be authentic copies. The Ukraine Weekly publication appears to be RS as to fact and it provides summary information. I removed the "anti-Ukraine" modifier from "hate speech" in the lead because, as has been pointed out, the publication does not use the phrase that was formerly in the article, "anti-Ukraine hate speech". SPECIFICO talk 15:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- No. The Ukraine Weekly article you cited to[24] is an editorial and cannot be used to assert facts. This is basic according to WP:RSEDITORIAL Further, it is clear that "anti-ukraine" hate speech quote comes from another UW article written by conductor Adrian Bryttan that was cited in the Globe and Mail article.[25] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- What uanattributed UW content do you oppose? SPECIFICO talk 15:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- The one I had removed with the edit summary explicitly describing the rejection.[26] Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- What uanattributed UW content do you oppose? SPECIFICO talk 15:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- No. The Ukraine Weekly article you cited to[24] is an editorial and cannot be used to assert facts. This is basic according to WP:RSEDITORIAL Further, it is clear that "anti-ukraine" hate speech quote comes from another UW article written by conductor Adrian Bryttan that was cited in the Globe and Mail article.[25] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Another reason why she probably doesn't play in North America is because she lives in Europe now.[23] Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- It is alleged on the talk page that this controversy ended her North American career which would potentially make the length of the section DUE. However no sources have been provided supporting this and indeed recent sources like [22] only mention the TSO cancellation and specifically mention that other appearances in Canada went ahead as planned. (It does mention that the executive directory of Toronto’s Royal Conservatory of Music probably wouldn't book her today, but this is after she went on to play there after the controversy.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Arthur, Kaptainis (11 April 2016). "Ukrainian pianist Valentina Lisitsa returns to Toronto after TSO ban, lets her fingers do the talking - New Cold War: Know Better". New Cold War. Retrieved 6 March 2022.
E. Jean Carroll
There is currently an edit dispute on rather the following sentence is WP:DUE:
Carroll has stated that she believes "most people think of rape as being sexy."[1][2] Because of this belief, she fears using the term "rape" is only helpful to Trump.[3] She reiterated her belief during an interview on Anderson Cooper 360°,[4] with her comments being described as surprising and receiving mixed responses.[5]
References
- ^ Bennett, Jessica; Twohey, Megan; Alter, Alexandra (27 June 2019). "Why E. Jean Carroll, 'the Anti-Victim,' Spoke Up About Trump". The New York Times. Retrieved 6 March 2022.
- ^ Collman, Ashley. "E. Jean Carroll explains why she didn't use the word 'rape' in her sexual assault allegation against Trump". Insider. Retrieved 6 March 2022.
- ^ "'I accused Donald Trump of sexual assault. Now I sleep with a loaded gun'". the Guardian. 13 July 2019.
- ^ "CNN.com - Transcripts". edition.cnn.com. Retrieved 6 March 2022.
- ^ Loofbourow, Lili (26 June 2019). "The Devastating Oddness of E. Jean Carroll's Trump Accusation". Slate Magazine. Retrieved 6 March 2022.
I support including the paragraph. It's reliably sourced with 4 RS (all "generally reliable" at WP:RSP). This includes the New York Times, The Guardian, Slate, and Insider (culture). Additionally, I included the transcript for Anderson Cooper's show for reference. The context for her statements has also been included. I see no WP:BLP or WP:NPOV concerns here, just reliably sourced info that is covered in RS, therefore, WP:DUE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- I can't verify all the sources, but if this is indeed included there it certainly is well-sourced (WP:BUSINESSINSIDER having no consensus as an RS might raise some eyebrows, but seems to pass the bar here). They are also statements by the subject, so I can't remember any BLP violation by including such a brief mention of her opinions on such a crucial matter to her biography. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's not Business Insider sourced, it's just Insider, which is considered reliable for cultural topics at WP:RSP. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, my bad! Thanks for the clarification Iamreallygoodatcheckers (I'm not). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's not Business Insider sourced, it's just Insider, which is considered reliable for cultural topics at WP:RSP. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see any UNDUE issues on including this as explaining her mindset on why she initially didn't use the word rape in her accusations. Enough RS are reporting this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- "Enough RS?" not relative to the many top-tier RS that report the truly significant details. This snippet is cherrypicked and framed in a standalone paragraph -- after it's already been covered in the preceding paragraph -- to make her look bad. It is spotlighted in a way that promotes a Trump-apologist misogynist crypro-sexualized spin to disparage the victim. Do our articles similarly elevate all the thousands of real-time remarks RS have reported from Trump. SPECIFICO talk 14:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's well sourced, and why she didn't report it as rape is an important issue. It's also not crypto-sexualized, "people think of rape as being sexy" is quite openly sexualized, that's the whole point. Whether to put it in a standalone paragraph or not is a minor issue, presumably? Many of the paragraphs in the Sexual assault allegations section are fairly short, so there is a lot to be said for reorganizing them, but "it's a separate paragraph so should be deleted" isn't the most convincing argument. If you fear the statement being taken out of context or otherwise misunderstood the answer is to rewrite the section to explain the context, not to delete it. Finally, there is no shortage of weird remarks from Trump in our articles, Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape is a long, long article about just one incident, Social media use by Donald Trump is chock full of them... saying provocative things that make him look bad is arguably his defining characteristic. --GRuban (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have real qualms that the sentence cited to Slate is a misrepresentation of the source: the "mixed responses" are not ascribed particularly to the "rape" commentary, but to her "frank approach." And I think it bears mentioning somehow that the source goes on to say "She's basically right." I, at least, as a reader, would come away with a very wrong view of that article based on the text here. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know. The approach and comment are interchangeable to me. That entire paragraph that you scrutinised is an analysis of the reaction to that specific quote. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- As I said, people are free to differ, but it strikes me as pretty different -- the "rape" commentary was an example of the mixed commentary ('conservatives focused on') and not the generator of the mixed commentary. So it goes. Dumuzid (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Dumuzid: I see your point, I think the author of the Slate article may have left it a bit vague. Do you think it would be better to say
She reiterated her belief during an interview on Anderson Cooper 360°, with her comments being described as surprising and receiving criticism from conservatives.
or simply..., with her comments being described surprising.
[excluding conservative criticism]? This seems to be a more straightforward interpretation of the source. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)- I am not sure "responses" are particularly relevant here, it's not as though people were reviewing her statements or choices. I might go with "...described as surprising, and Carroll herself noted her beliefs were 'contentious'." Or something like that. For the last bit, I would cite to this:[27] Just a thought. Dumuzid (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Dumuzid: I see your point, I think the author of the Slate article may have left it a bit vague. Do you think it would be better to say
- As I said, people are free to differ, but it strikes me as pretty different -- the "rape" commentary was an example of the mixed commentary ('conservatives focused on') and not the generator of the mixed commentary. So it goes. Dumuzid (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- GRuban, those Trump remarks you cite have been the subjects of thousands of times as much RS coverage -- so much that, as you indicate, they are wiki-Notable in themselves. Not so for this one off-the-cuff remark on cable. I don't think that's a good comparison.I do agree, somebody might be able to include more than what's in the first mention in the paragraph above, while at least mitigating the problems with the version I removed. We'd have to see proposed text to evaluate it. SPECIFICO talk 22:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know. The approach and comment are interchangeable to me. That entire paragraph that you scrutinised is an analysis of the reaction to that specific quote. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have real qualms that the sentence cited to Slate is a misrepresentation of the source: the "mixed responses" are not ascribed particularly to the "rape" commentary, but to her "frank approach." And I think it bears mentioning somehow that the source goes on to say "She's basically right." I, at least, as a reader, would come away with a very wrong view of that article based on the text here. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, NY Times, CNN, Guardian, those bastions of "right-wing chatter", are top-tier enough. You're just arguing WP:WEDONTNEEDIT now. You cannot compare the weight of the quote against Trump's library of quotes to determine its weight in Carroll's. WP:OTHERSTUFF. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Please don't make snide remarks about a serious concern. The problem is what I believe is cherrypicking and weaving content into an UNDUE narrative that makes her look bad. And why is it a separate paragraph when we already detail her use of "attack" and not "rape" directly above? SPECIFICO talk 21:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- My "snide" point was that neutrality or "cherrypicking" concerns are addressed by the quality and bias of the sourcing. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you are missing the point. First, WP:ONUS tells us we don't need to include every morsel that has a handful of more or less contemporaneous references. Second, even well-sourced content that might be used in a proper narrative can be stated and juxtaposed and formatted in such a way to misinform our readers or lead them to UNDUE conclusions. SPECIFICO talk 22:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- I am not missing anything. I gave the opinion that I don't believe the material is UNDUE and I explained why. I also am not reading any SYNTH implications in that text. Any further attempt at discussing this is just wabbit season bludgeoning. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you are missing the point. First, WP:ONUS tells us we don't need to include every morsel that has a handful of more or less contemporaneous references. Second, even well-sourced content that might be used in a proper narrative can be stated and juxtaposed and formatted in such a way to misinform our readers or lead them to UNDUE conclusions. SPECIFICO talk 22:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- My "snide" point was that neutrality or "cherrypicking" concerns are addressed by the quality and bias of the sourcing. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Please don't make snide remarks about a serious concern. The problem is what I believe is cherrypicking and weaving content into an UNDUE narrative that makes her look bad. And why is it a separate paragraph when we already detail her use of "attack" and not "rape" directly above? SPECIFICO talk 21:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's well sourced, and why she didn't report it as rape is an important issue. It's also not crypto-sexualized, "people think of rape as being sexy" is quite openly sexualized, that's the whole point. Whether to put it in a standalone paragraph or not is a minor issue, presumably? Many of the paragraphs in the Sexual assault allegations section are fairly short, so there is a lot to be said for reorganizing them, but "it's a separate paragraph so should be deleted" isn't the most convincing argument. If you fear the statement being taken out of context or otherwise misunderstood the answer is to rewrite the section to explain the context, not to delete it. Finally, there is no shortage of weird remarks from Trump in our articles, Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape is a long, long article about just one incident, Social media use by Donald Trump is chock full of them... saying provocative things that make him look bad is arguably his defining characteristic. --GRuban (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- "Enough RS?" not relative to the many top-tier RS that report the truly significant details. This snippet is cherrypicked and framed in a standalone paragraph -- after it's already been covered in the preceding paragraph -- to make her look bad. It is spotlighted in a way that promotes a Trump-apologist misogynist crypro-sexualized spin to disparage the victim. Do our articles similarly elevate all the thousands of real-time remarks RS have reported from Trump. SPECIFICO talk 14:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO the NYT relates this quote with her reasoning to not call her alleged incident with Trump "rape", and this context is very clearly stated in the proposition above. If you really don' want it to be an independent paragraph, it seems like snugging it with the 2nd paragraph go the Donald Trump sexual assault allegation section would be a fair compromise. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
This is a quote for those who are having trouble accessing the NYT article.[28]
Hatted quote from NYT
|
---|
In media interviews in recent days, Ms. Carroll, who once wrote for “Saturday Night Live,” has been confident. Asked on MSNBC why she made her accusation in a book, she replied: “What? A woman is not allowed to take a pen and put it to a piece of paper?” (“That didn’t go over very well,” she said in an interview later.) On CNN, she explained why she preferred the word “fight” to “rape”: “I think most people think rape is sexy. Think of the fantasies.” (She explained later that she was referring to romance novels that depict men ravishing women. “This was not thrilling, this was a fight,” she said. “A fight where I’m stamping on his feet and I think I’m banging him on the head with my purse.”) |
Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- I would prefer better sources than NYT. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- NYT is just one of many sources about this, also it's considered "generally reliable" at WP:RSP. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Compromise
Carroll chose not to describe the alleged sexual assault as rape, instead describing it as a fight. "My word is fight. My word is not the victim word ... I fought."[1][2][3] Carroll has stated that she believes "most people think of rape as being sexy."[4][5] Because of this belief, she fears using the term "rape" is only helpful to Trump.[6] She reiterated her belief during an interview on Anderson Cooper 360°;[7] her comments were described as surprising,[8]and Carroll herself noted her beliefs were 'contentious'.[6]
References
- ^ Victor, Daniel (June 27, 2019). "Two Women Who Heard E. Jean Carroll's Account of Being Attacked by Trump Go Public". The New York Times. Retrieved June 27, 2019.
- ^ "Corroborating E. Jean Carroll". The New York Times. June 27, 2019. Retrieved September 9, 2020.
Every woman gets to choose her word. Every woman gets to choose how she describes it. This is my way of saying it. This is my word. My word is fight. My word is not the victim word. I am not—I have not been raped. Something has not been done to me. I fought. That's the thing.
- ^ Weir, Keziah. "How Has E. Jean Carroll's Life Been Since Accusing Donald Trump? "Fabulous. Buoyant."". Vanity Fair. Retrieved February 28, 2021.
- ^ Bennett, Jessica; Twohey, Megan; Alter, Alexandra (27 June 2019). "Why E. Jean Carroll, 'the Anti-Victim,' Spoke Up About Trump". The New York Times. Retrieved 6 March 2022.
- ^ Collman, Ashley. "E. Jean Carroll explains why she didn't use the word 'rape' in her sexual assault allegation against Trump". Insider. Retrieved 6 March 2022.
- ^ a b "'I accused Donald Trump of sexual assault. Now I sleep with a loaded gun'". the Guardian. 13 July 2019. Retrieved 8 March 2022.
- ^ "CNN.com - Transcripts". edition.cnn.com. Retrieved 6 March 2022.
- ^ Loofbourow, Lili (26 June 2019). "The Devastating Oddness of E. Jean Carroll's Trump Accusation". Slate Magazine. Retrieved 6 March 2022.
I think this a good compromise text of what has been discussed so far. It partially addresses SPECIFICO's weight concern of an independent paragraph by combining it with pre-existing text (in case your confused: Carroll chose not to describe the alleged sexual assault as rape, instead describing it as a fight. "My word is fight. My word is not the victim word ... I fought."
is already in the article) Additionally, I took the advice of Dumuzid and altered the text to be a bit more consistent with RS. Overall, I think this would be a good solution to many concerns over the original text. I also happen to think it's an improvement over my original proposal. Cheers, Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's just repetitive and drags Anderson Cooper into it for no reason. SPECIFICO talk 08:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I tend to agree that there's no need for "she repeated it" with Anderson Cooper name checked; as a cite that's fine to me. While I think this content is due, for me, it just barely clears that bar; as such I think brevity is appropriate. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
-- That's the meaning of her words. The "compromise" above does not convey what she communicated and IMO it somewhat snidely suggests that there's something extraordinary or even presumptuous for a woman to choose her own words and to explain them. She is a writer. It is not surprising that she's highly sensitive to the meaning and nuance of language. SPECIFICO talk 14:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Carroll refers to the incident as a "fight" and states that she does not use the word "rape" because it evokes the attacker's view of the victim rather than the victim's act of resistance.
- I think your point is well taken here, SPECIFICO, though I will say I think the compromise above is a lot closer than the former wording. Again, for me, the issue is conveying all of this in a concise manner, as I don't think it' a major point in the article--do you have any thoughts on how to do that? Are you suggesting substituting your wording above for the first sentence in the compromise? That would be workable for me, but I would put it in the past tense -- "Carroll has referred to the incident...." Happy to hear other opinions. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- No, I don't think that was a compromise at all, just a re-wording of the disparaging text. I think it's a minor point in the entire bio and we could just use the text I wrote above as the sole text on this issue. The offending Cooper bit was just recently added before I reverted it, so I don't think it's better to start from first prinicples on this. SPECIFICO talk 17:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think we need to nod to the idea that people took notice of it -- while I think the concept is utterly uncontroversial, it's notable because it gave people pause, at least for a moment, no? Dumuzid (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think that's just NOTNEWS media buzz and not significant to her life. The fact it was reported means folks took notice. It would not have been reported if it were completely ordinary. Even WaPo and NYTimes print recaps of weekly tv shows and other trivia that are just recent media chatter. SPECIFICO talk 19:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, you're threatening to have me dip down below that "due" bar again, but I guess I am mostly easily persuaded. Iamreallygoodatcheckers, to be clear, you are under no obligation to answer me, but I wonder if you can make an argument that this will still be of encyclopedic interest in 10 years? This is the danger of wading into a brouhaha with no dog in the fight! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Dumuzid: the quote does pass the WP:10YEARTEST for a couple different reasons. (1) Carroll sexual assault allegation against Trump is a highly significant part of her notability. (2) How she described the allegation is to say the least is a bit of unorthodox, a point that is significant and has been extensively covered in RS, see the one's above. (3) It's difficult to capture exactly Carrolls beliefs, this is why RS has been quoting many of here statements, and explaining her rationale. We already see this in the "fight" quote, and frankly the "rape is sexy" quote has received just as much coverage and is often paired with the fight quote. Leaving either out is not provident he proper context and understanding of Carrolls comments. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, you're threatening to have me dip down below that "due" bar again, but I guess I am mostly easily persuaded. Iamreallygoodatcheckers, to be clear, you are under no obligation to answer me, but I wonder if you can make an argument that this will still be of encyclopedic interest in 10 years? This is the danger of wading into a brouhaha with no dog in the fight! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think that's just NOTNEWS media buzz and not significant to her life. The fact it was reported means folks took notice. It would not have been reported if it were completely ordinary. Even WaPo and NYTimes print recaps of weekly tv shows and other trivia that are just recent media chatter. SPECIFICO talk 19:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I really like SPECIFICO's proposed rephrasing ... assuming we have sources that make it exactly clear that was, in fact, what she meant, and that we are not putting words in her mouth. I'm not sure the sources are that clear. SPECIFICO, can you cite the parts of the sources that back that was what she meant? --GRuban (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think we need to nod to the idea that people took notice of it -- while I think the concept is utterly uncontroversial, it's notable because it gave people pause, at least for a moment, no? Dumuzid (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- No, I don't think that was a compromise at all, just a re-wording of the disparaging text. I think it's a minor point in the entire bio and we could just use the text I wrote above as the sole text on this issue. The offending Cooper bit was just recently added before I reverted it, so I don't think it's better to start from first prinicples on this. SPECIFICO talk 17:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think your point is well taken here, SPECIFICO, though I will say I think the compromise above is a lot closer than the former wording. Again, for me, the issue is conveying all of this in a concise manner, as I don't think it' a major point in the article--do you have any thoughts on how to do that? Are you suggesting substituting your wording above for the first sentence in the compromise? That would be workable for me, but I would put it in the past tense -- "Carroll has referred to the incident...." Happy to hear other opinions. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I tend to agree that there's no need for "she repeated it" with Anderson Cooper name checked; as a cite that's fine to me. While I think this content is due, for me, it just barely clears that bar; as such I think brevity is appropriate. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I prefer to shorten the compromise text:
- I left out the reaction to the comments because they should also be cited to RS news articles rather than RS commentary to maintain NPOV. I also removed the self-described "contentious" label because it was extrapolating from her comment that rape is "the responsibility of the woman, too. It’s equal. Men can’t control themselves.” Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I can't agree to this because, without the necessary context, "rape as...sexy" could be horribly misconstrued. I am not sure she communicated her thought very well here, but as laid out, I think it's possible if not probable that people will come away with the wrong idea. Sincere thanks for the effort, though, I do like shorter. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Dumuzid. The version I bolded above is even shorter, and I think it avoids this possilbe misunderstanding. SPECIFICO talk 00:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I am concerned about the possible OR aspect as GRuban alluded to in trying to "explain" what she meant rather than her own words. She said what she said over a series of interviews, and I'm not going to second-guess and chalk them up to miscommunication or misunderstanding. That to me would be the much more serious BLP violation. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think at this point any specific compromises on prose should be discussed on the article talk page so the talk page watchers there can take part. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I am concerned about the possible OR aspect as GRuban alluded to in trying to "explain" what she meant rather than her own words. She said what she said over a series of interviews, and I'm not going to second-guess and chalk them up to miscommunication or misunderstanding. That to me would be the much more serious BLP violation. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Dumuzid. The version I bolded above is even shorter, and I think it avoids this possilbe misunderstanding. SPECIFICO talk 00:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I can't agree to this because, without the necessary context, "rape as...sexy" could be horribly misconstrued. I am not sure she communicated her thought very well here, but as laid out, I think it's possible if not probable that people will come away with the wrong idea. Sincere thanks for the effort, though, I do like shorter. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that more context is needed, but this proposal is on the right track. I do think it's paramount to include the quote, you can see my reasoning above in response to Dumuzid. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
How about this:
Carroll described the alleged sexual assault as a fight rather than a rape. "My word is fight. My word is not the victim word ... I fought."[7][2][8] She fears using the word "rape" is only helpful to Trump because she believes "most people think of rape as being sexy."[9][10][6]
This one is short and to the point, and serves as supporting detail to the fight quote, which is already in the article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Chex, you are completely missing the point. All the press coverage of the Cooper bit that you cited above happened within days of the broadcast. So much for the 10 year test. It is Trump who boldly and pointedly sexualized the attack in his comments, some of them repeated in the July Guardian reference, about how she's not his type, he wouldn't rape somebody who's not attractive, etc. Pardon me for being direct here, but it's not clear you understand what she said and you appear to be doing exactly what she said she was determined to avoid, namely, to modulate your view of the incident of violent assault as if it were "about" anything other than assault. When you say "...rather than rape", which I omitted from my shorter version above, you are insinuating the straw man question -- "why doesn't she just use the normal word for it?" or somethng like that. She is making a profound statement about how people think about and speak about such assaults, and you are posing it in such a way as to emphasize that this is a deviation rather than a moral distinction that she believe she is making. SPECIFICO talk 03:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Chris Bascombe
I was speaking with Chris Bascombe on twitter and he would like his article to be deleted. He is not happy with some of the content on it and would rather his article to be removed from wikipedia. I am not sure, but was there an email that that I need to pass on to him, a wikipedia page with details on how he can proceed to remove his article? Govvy (talk) 11:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Govvy. I answered this a bit at the Teahouse, but you may as well have an answer here too. With a few exceptions, such as speedy deletion and legal stuff, articles are deleted by the community under usual deletion procedures. There are several pages to help article subjects navigate these procedures and Wikipedia in general, including WP:BLPSELF and Wikipedia:Contact us/Article subjects but these are really just guides to how Wikipedia works. Sometimes you will see suggestions that the subject email WP:VRT. This can be useful when there is private or non-public information involved, but it will usually eventually circulate back to AfD with any private details filtered out. However when you have a subject who can find their AfD, and present their case well on wiki, this won't usually be necessary. Now if they become dissatisfied with the response by the community (or they don't know what they're doing), then this page or VRT might be useful for the subject to find someone to work with or explain things. My impression of this particular situation is that they're currently doing OK. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Uğur Şahin
Uğur Şahin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A number of users keeping editing this entry changing the factual and cited claim that the person makes a claim, to the not proven and not cited claim that the person has a certain belief. They keep claiming that the factual wording is "weasel words", but it is not, and there is no mention of using this precise wording in the weasel words article. Can someone please assist? Rebroad (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- It looks like you're edit warring against multiple other editors. You should probably stop that before bringing attention to the situation at a noticeboard. Also, if someone says something about their own beliefs, no "claims" qualifier is necessary. If I were to say "I enjoy drinking bourbon," you wouldn't need to say "ScottishFinnishRadish claims they enjoy drinking bourbon." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- So, how would you word it? Rebroad (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- They either clearly said it, in which case no qualifiers are needed or someone claims they said it, which would require attribution of who makes the claim. In sum, either the line is undue and should be removed or its what he said. There's no wiggle room or need for "claims".Slywriter (talk) 14:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- So, how would you word it? Rebroad (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Take the discussion to talk page, I actually think there is a good argument the line should not be there at all based on current sourcing. In reading a translation of the interview, it appears to be a throwaway line in an interview being given undue weight.Slywriter (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't actually have a real horse in this race (I only ended up seeing this due to an ANI thread), but I think a line about a vaccine creator saying they shouldn't be mandatory, if it's sourced, isn't undue and is relevant. Canterbury Tail talk 14:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've just read through the Business Insider interview and I'm having serious doubts it supports the text. He appears to be saying the vaccination will be voluntary when it happens, which doesn't necessarily support saying he is against mandatory vaccination. However someone with better German skills should probably have a look at it. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 14:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- (ec)I'd normally agree but in the context of this particular interview, it does not appear to be some critical statement they are making and no other source has been shown to cover the view, so not sure the proper weight is being given here. Either way, adding "claims" is not the answer. It belongs or it doesn't.Slywriter (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- No agree adding claims is nonsense. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 14:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't actually have a real horse in this race (I only ended up seeing this due to an ANI thread), but I think a line about a vaccine creator saying they shouldn't be mandatory, if it's sourced, isn't undue and is relevant. Canterbury Tail talk 14:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I've replaced the reference with this one in which he definitely states his opposition. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 16:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Priscilla Ekwere Eleje
The middle name is Ekwueme and not Ekwere — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adejumod2001 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Adejumod2001, all the sources in the article refer to her as Priscilla Ekwere Eleje and the image of her signature on the money is Priscilla Ekwere Eleje. Are you thinking of someone else? StarryGrandma (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've reverted the name change, which included changing the titles of the sources. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- ^ Victor, Daniel (June 27, 2019). "Two Women Who Heard E. Jean Carroll's Account of Being Attacked by Trump Go Public". The New York Times. Retrieved June 27, 2019.
- ^ a b "Corroborating E. Jean Carroll". The New York Times. June 27, 2019. Retrieved September 9, 2020.
Every woman gets to choose her word. Every woman gets to choose how she describes it. This is my way of saying it. This is my word. My word is fight. My word is not the victim word. I am not—I have not been raped. Something has not been done to me. I fought. That's the thing.
- ^ Weir, Keziah. "How Has E. Jean Carroll's Life Been Since Accusing Donald Trump? "Fabulous. Buoyant."". Vanity Fair. Retrieved February 28, 2021.
- ^ Bennett, Jessica; Twohey, Megan; Alter, Alexandra (27 June 2019). "Why E. Jean Carroll, 'the Anti-Victim,' Spoke Up About Trump". The New York Times. Retrieved 6 March 2022.
- ^ Collman, Ashley. "E. Jean Carroll explains why she didn't use the word 'rape' in her sexual assault allegation against Trump". Insider. Retrieved 6 March 2022.
- ^ a b "'I accused Donald Trump of sexual assault. Now I sleep with a loaded gun'". the Guardian. 13 July 2019. Retrieved 8 March 2022.
- ^ Victor, Daniel (June 27, 2019). "Two Women Who Heard E. Jean Carroll's Account of Being Attacked by Trump Go Public". The New York Times. Retrieved June 27, 2019.
- ^ Weir, Keziah. "How Has E. Jean Carroll's Life Been Since Accusing Donald Trump? "Fabulous. Buoyant."". Vanity Fair. Retrieved February 28, 2021.
- ^ Bennett, Jessica; Twohey, Megan; Alter, Alexandra (27 June 2019). "Why E. Jean Carroll, 'the Anti-Victim,' Spoke Up About Trump". The New York Times. Retrieved 6 March 2022.
- ^ Collman, Ashley. "E. Jean Carroll explains why she didn't use the word 'rape' in her sexual assault allegation against Trump". Insider. Retrieved 6 March 2022.