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: |
How should BLP apply to dictators like Putin and Assad on allegations they can block in their courts?
An editor added a new section in the Personal life section of Vladimir Putin covering the allegations that he is a pedophile who hid evidence of his paedophilia [1]. I fixed the title and joined the discussion about it [2], receiving a stern warning from an administrator about misreading WP:BLP [3]. Having now read BLP in full, I disagree with its application to dictators like Putin, as they simply kill or imprison their critics so that none of them can file "formal" accusations like one can in any first world country [4]. The guy literally shut down a newspaper for outing his mistress [5], and there are all sorts of allegations that he's shut down with his control of the government, judiciary, and press. I also added an allegation to the War crimes section of Bashar al-Assad's page, implicating him in what might amount to tens of thousands of murders [6]. CutePeach (talk) 12:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- BLP applies throughout the encyclopaedia and to everyone who is a living person and also the recently deceased. It doesn't matter what you or anyone else thinks of the person. If you aren't willing to accept this, you need to refrain from editing anywhere on Wikipedia related to such living persons. I suggest you do so voluntarily since if we have to topic ban you, trying to craft a topic ban covering those people who you don't think deserve BLP protections sounds too complicated. It'll likely be better if we just topic ban you from all people covered by BLP. As for the rest, especially for public figures, we do not only cover allegations that make it to court. In fact I'm pretty sure there are many places throughout Wikipedia where war crime and similar accusations against both Assad and Putin are mentioned although most of these have never been brought up in court. However we do require that any allegations are well covered in reliable secondary sources and in a manner that establishes significance of such allegations. Nil Einne (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne: Did you even read the content and the discussion before commenting here and threatening me with topic bans? You replied within minutes and couldn’t possibly have read what I contributed, and it is also evident from your statement that you were unaware that the source I added is WP:SECONDARY, and that the reverted version cites a WP:PRIMARY source. After you've actually read the content and discussion, please formulate an argument for why we should cover the alleged poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in the Vladimir Putin article without explaining why he was allegedly poisoned because that is the only thing I added along with the quote from Bukovsky to WP:BALANCE it [7]. The level of hostility in your reply is shocking. Do we know each other from somewhere? CutePeach (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. This topic deserves some detailed consideration. I don't see why Wikipedia should seek to protect the reputation of despotic and deranged war criminals. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- @CutePeach: Before I replied, I read what you wrote above where you specifically said "
Having now read BLP in full, I disagree with its application to dictators like Putin
" which was more than enough for me to reply. What you said is a completely unacceptable attitude for any editor to have. There is no such thing as a living person who which BLP does not apply, period. If you aren't willing to accept this then at a minimum do not edit those BLPs for which you think it doesn't apply. Do not come to BLPN and claim there are people to which BLP does not apply and expect editors to let that stand. That's completely unacceptable for any editor to say, especially for an experienced editor. There is zero need for me to read anything else you've said when you specifically came here to say there are people to which you think BLP does not apply. I made it clear in my comment I was not commenting on the specific issues since it's irrelevant. As long as you are editing from the viewpoint there are people to which BLP does not apply you are unwelcome in any discussion concerning any such living person. I also pointed out you are making an additional mistake. There's nothing in BLP which forbids us from covering well sourced allegations against living people which have never been tested in court. So there's no need for us to remove BLP protections for certain individuals just so we can cover any such allegations as you seem to think. Ergo, your apparent suggestion that certain people shouldn't be protected by BLP so we can cover such details is even sillier. As I also pointed out, this doesn't mean we cover all allegations, they need to have sufficient sourcing etc. The question of whether to cover any specific allegations can be decided by discussion between editors who are willing to accept that BLP covers all living persons based on an evaluation of the sourcing etc and guided by our policies and guidelines and including and especially BLP. There is no reason why editors who are not willing to accept BLP applies to living persons should take part in such discussions, and instead good reason why they should not do so. Nil Einne (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)- In case it remains unclear,
althoughI did read (at some stage, possible after my first reply, I don't remember and don't care since it's irrelevant) the discussion at Talk:Vladimir Putin. But in truth, even before I read the discussion I knew I have insufficient interest in what goes on in the Vladimir Putin article for me to likely get involved in the specifics of any dispute. The same for Bashar al-Assad. I have even less interest to get involved in the specifics over whether to include allegations of paedophilia. Any editors who are interested and who do accept BLP applies to all living persons are welcome to participate in such discussions, I've nothing against that and don't wish to impede it. But that's not going to stop me challenging any editor who claims there are people to which BLP does not apply. This is BLPN, and as I said when you come to BLPN and make such a ridiculous suggestion that there are living people for which BLP doesn't apply, you should expect to be challenged. Nil Einne (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC) 16:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)- Probably final comment, I do recall you from the time of your topic ban and your work in such articles but I do not believe that has anything to do with why I am so hostile other than the fact it informed me that you are an experienced editor and it's fair to treat you as such instead of a seriously confused newbie. I am so hostile because I care about BLP, and it's shocking to me an experienced editor would come to BLPN and try to say there are people for which BLP doesn't or shouldn't apply. I mean that's a silly thing to say anywhere, but to come to BLPN and say it, to me just takes the cake. Nil Einne (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne: as Nomoskedasticity answered below, it is more of a matter of how BLP applies, and as you said
for public figures, we do not only cover allegations that make it to courtt
- also answering my question in the headline above. The dispute in Talk:Vladimir Putin is about how BLP applies to Putin and the paedophilia allegations made against him by Litvinenko, who Putin allegedly ordered the poisoning of a few months later, according to a British government report prominently reported in a number of high quality RS. From your reply, it was quite apparent to me that you did not read the linked content and discussions, which looks confirmed in your subsequent replies sayingthere is zero need for me to read anything else you've said
andpossible after my first reply
. Had you read the linked discussions, you would have understood that I did not say that BLP should not apply to some living people, but that I am asking how it should apply to some people - specifically authoritarian dictators, for specific claims, which anyone can also understand from the headline here. Looking at other posts made to this noticeboard, it is clear that reviewing linked discussions is the norm before commenting, so I would ask you to strike your unkind comments above and delete the aspersions you posted on my talk page. This noticeboard is for discussing BLP issues and your conduct here is unacceptable. CutePeach (talk) 08:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)- CutePeach, you did say
"Having now read BLP in full, I disagree with its application to dictators like Putin"
. Though it's clear now that you're raising a question of nuanced application, it was reasonable for NE at the time to address the most major issue first. Your posting came just after a talk page exchange in which you suggested that"WP:BLP in the general . . . does not apply to public figures"
and then received a formal warning from Cullen328. At the time, there were no BLP issues more pressing than addressing an experienced editor's clearly stated belief that BLP does not apply to some living people. I am glad you've stepped back from that stance, and I suggest that some striking here and at the talk page might help newcomers to these conversations avoid some initial shock. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)- @Firefangledfeathers:, it is obvious from the headline of this section that this is a question of nuance, so I'm not sure why you, like Nil Einne, are highlighting that sentence. I'm also not sure why you're bringing up the mistaken statement I made in regards to WP:BLP and public figures, when Nil Einne clearly did not even read that discussion. What is the point of this noticeboard if editors don't comment on specific issues raised here? CutePeach (talk) 10:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- CutePeach, you did say
- In case it remains unclear,
- @Nil Einne: Did you even read the content and the discussion before commenting here and threatening me with topic bans? You replied within minutes and couldn’t possibly have read what I contributed, and it is also evident from your statement that you were unaware that the source I added is WP:SECONDARY, and that the reverted version cites a WP:PRIMARY source. After you've actually read the content and discussion, please formulate an argument for why we should cover the alleged poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in the Vladimir Putin article without explaining why he was allegedly poisoned because that is the only thing I added along with the quote from Bukovsky to WP:BALANCE it [7]. The level of hostility in your reply is shocking. Do we know each other from somewhere? CutePeach (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Of course BLP applies to all living people. What's harder is to work out how to apply it. I'm seeing some dodgy arguments giving shaky reasons for removing well-sourced allegations. I'm not active on this topic and I don't propose to get involved -- but I do worry about the likelihood that there are reputation-managers active on Russia-related topics, and I don't think we should have much patience with obviously dumb arguments (e.g. we can't use Litvinenko as a source because he was an "opponent" of Putin). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Without digging too deep into this, I'm going to have to agree with Nil. People in Putin's position are top-celebrity level in terms of their notability, so the BLP rules are far more lax for them. That is why we have WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which is an exemption from the normal crime and privacy rules. However, it doesn't suddenly mean BLP no longer applies. It does, and the exemption is very specific about the requirements for inclusion, which is not simply because he's of celebrity status, but this would have to be very widely covered to the degree that there is no longer any point in trying to protect his right to be innocent until proven guilty.
Now the argument can be made that he's almost a dictator (not really, because Russian government is a bit more complicated than that, but close). He has the power to deny others their rights, so he should not have any himself. To that argument I would say, now who's being the dictator? You can't fight an "enemy" by becoming them.
Once all that is satisfied, then you still have the next hurdle, which is NPOV, including BALANCE and WEIGHT. Now you have to weigh all the sources about this thing against all the other sources out there about everything else, and try to put it in proportion with the rest of the article. Does it deserve an entire section? A single paragraph? A single sentence or two? Or would even one sentence be too much?
I only looked at the first link, and upon seeing it I can see why it was deleted. It just reeks of spin. To begin with, the title: "Possible sexual deviance". Seriously? First, never begin a title with "possible". "Deviance" is also a euphemism meant to invoke a certain emotional response in the reader. A proper title should be neutral, such as "Sexual allegations", or something very specific. And the euphemisms just go on from there. "Unlawful carnal knowledge"? Again, seriously? I'm surprised the author left out "forbidden". Nobody talks like that. You may as well just use the F-word. Even if we do pass all the hurdles for inclusion, we still need to remain neutral and formal, like an encyclopedia and not a tabloid. Zaereth (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Looking at the specific issue this is a WP:RS/WP:SYNTH issue, doesn't really seem to be a BLP question per say. Not really sure what is gained from the general discussion here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's a BLP issue in that we have very strict requirements about accusing anyone of a crime, especially one so heinous. BLP works in accordance with all other policies. It is not a separate policy. It just provides some extra rules and restrictions for living people. It works with all other policies, modifies them, and they modify it, but ultimately it also trumps all other policies. We need extremely good sources and lots of them. Now I'm not a fan of Putin, but the same standards we use for Biden or Obama need to apply to him as well. Zaereth (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Unless I'm missing something we don't have WP:RS which talk about accusations of a crime so why are we even talking about it? We don't need to invoke the extra rules and restrictions when the ordinary ones would work just fine. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Are you in the right section? Child molestation is a crime, even in Russia, although US laws apply here because that's where the servers are. See the first link posted at the top. Zaereth (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- What WP:RS are you seeing? All I see is the party organ of a separatist group (clearly not a WP:RS) and an unrelated BBC article which has been synthed in. I note that much of this discussion appears to violate WP:BLP... We can't discuss allegations against living people which haven't been covered in WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Are you in the right section? Child molestation is a crime, even in Russia, although US laws apply here because that's where the servers are. See the first link posted at the top. Zaereth (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Unless I'm missing something we don't have WP:RS which talk about accusations of a crime so why are we even talking about it? We don't need to invoke the extra rules and restrictions when the ordinary ones would work just fine. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- The thing about Putin, and Russian government in general, is that it is and has always been an extreme bureaucracy. Like Stalin and so many others, Putin got into power by out-bureaucrating the bureaucrats. Personally, I hate bureaucracies, and would rather not see Wikipedia become anymore of one. If someone has a problem with a bio, then they should feel welcome to bring it here. They may not get the answer they were looking for, but why be all bureaucratic about it and try to shut down any discussion or fob it off to another "department". Now your point seems to be, if it's not in reliable sources then it's ok to put it in the article. Nobody look. Nothing to discuss here. At least, that's how it comes off. That seems ludicrous to me. I take BLP very seriously, and this is part of the discussion is getting totally off topic. Zaereth (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- If you took BLP seriously you would not have engaged in an extensive discussion of things about a living person without a reliable source. BLP applies everywhere, not just in the article. This entire discussion is inappropriate, I suggest you desist and self revert anything which discusses allegations against living people not covered by reliable sources. Yes I understand that there is a whole "he who cannot be named"/"hairy figment" element to the whole thing which is rather ludicrous, but thats how we're supposed to do BLP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- The thing about Putin, and Russian government in general, is that it is and has always been an extreme bureaucracy. Like Stalin and so many others, Putin got into power by out-bureaucrating the bureaucrats. Personally, I hate bureaucracies, and would rather not see Wikipedia become anymore of one. If someone has a problem with a bio, then they should feel welcome to bring it here. They may not get the answer they were looking for, but why be all bureaucratic about it and try to shut down any discussion or fob it off to another "department". Now your point seems to be, if it's not in reliable sources then it's ok to put it in the article. Nobody look. Nothing to discuss here. At least, that's how it comes off. That seems ludicrous to me. I take BLP very seriously, and this is part of the discussion is getting totally off topic. Zaereth (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Zaereth and Horse Eye's Back, neither of you seem to have looked past the first link, so either you are missing a clear cut case of WP:CRYBLP, or I am missing something about WP:BLP written in invisble ink. The first link is a contribution by K8M8S8, which, as they said [8], was copied verbatim from Alexander Litvinenko. After some discussion, I made two attempts to bring it up to standard, by selecting high quality WP:RS, and moving it from the Personal Life section to the Poisening of Alexander Litvinenko section [9] [10]. I agree we should not give UNDUE prominence to these claims, which is why I also added the counter claim from Bukovsky, but the British government report - which according to RS - concluded that Putin ordered the poisoning of Litvinenko due to these paedophilia allegations, makes it DUE in the Litvinenko section. If we can't make these claims even with WP:INTEXT attribution, we will have to delete them also from the Alexander Litvinenko article, and all of these talks page discussions. CutePeach (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- The simplest answer is: The same as anywhere else. For a start - don't even THINK of adding anything until you get sources at least as good as the sources on (for example) Lavrentiy Beria. THEN remember that Putin and Assad are still (for the time being) living persons and contemplate whether the sources you've found are good enough for a BLP. The world is a big place with heaps of countries that Russian or Syrian courts have no control over, so no need to worry that Wikipedia would be hamstrung. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:Public figure applies, and if several RS (I use three or more as my rule-of-thumb, but in this case an official court report trumps that) mention an accusation, regardless of its truth or falsity, we should cover it.
This is especially true for debunked false accusations as we set the record straight, a clear benefit to the slandered party, IOW very much in line with the spirit of BLP. Failure to cover the matter is whitewashing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
The better content, citing the official Owen court report, is this:
In particular, the Owen report[1] indicated that the poisoning may have been ordered over an accusation Litvinenko made four months beforehand in an online article, alleging that Putin was a paedophile and that he used his position as head of the FSB to hide evidence of it.[2] Vladimir Bukovsky, a close friend of Litvinenko, said he strongly urged him against publishing it, noting that despite his ferocious hostility toward the Kremlin, Litvinenko still had the mind-set of a security officer and "could not understand the difference between truth and operational information."[3] The New York Times concluded that Litvinenko's allegations of paedophila were "without any evidence".[3]
Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- The claims lacks any evidence as NYT notes and it comes from a defector, thus not reliable. Same applies on other defectors like Guo Wengui, John Bolton and others who were defectors and they also accuse big politicians of many wrongdoings [11][12] which got coverage from WP:RS, but it doesn't mean their claims would get any inclusion on main biographical articles of the person they are accusing without any basis. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 18:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- That is irrelevant. You are confusing WP:Truth with WP:Verifiability. We document what RS say about claims, true or not, and BLP's WP:Public figure tells us how we are supposed to include such claims about notable people like Putin.
- Keep in mind that PUBLICFIGURE applies to even the most outrageous and false claims as long as RS have mentioned them. Wikipedia does the victims a service by also providing the debunkings found in RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, while we're quoting policy, you missed the most important one, WP:ONUS, which states, and I quote, "
While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
(bold mine). We first need to establish, by consensus, that we should include the allegations or not. You can't override consensus to require including anything. There are Wikipedia policies that certain things should NOT be in articles regardless of consensus, but there is literally nothing that MUST be included in an article against consensus, indeed policy is clear that inclusion of anything requires consensus. The default is always to be silent in absence of consensus. --Jayron32 13:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)- Jayron32, although ONUS, like DUE and CONSENSUS, are policies, they are subjective rubber policies that are frequently misused. They should never be used as a standalone reason, but must be backed by citation of other more solid and less subjective policies. That being said, the question of ONUS is not the question here. We are trying to get past the hurdle of Aman's misunderstanding of BLP, while CutePeach makes the case for why BLP allows this content and why it is indeed DUE.
- Aman is indeed confusing WP:Truth with WP:Verifiability and arguing against inclusion because the allegation may not be true, which is an irrelevant issue. BLP's WP:Public figure is designed for even the most outrageously false claims. It informs us of how we are supposed to include such claims about notable people like Putin. In this case it goes toward possible motivation for a murder, as noted by the court's Owen report: The Litvinenko Inquiry. Report into the death of Alexander Litvinenko. Chairman: Sir Robert Owen. January 2016.
- If we don't do that, we fail our primary goal with Wikipedia, as we are supposed to document the sum total of all human knowledge that is found in RS, and that includes facts, lies, opinions, outrageously false accusations, pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, nonsense, etc. We are supposed to be inclusionists who seek to include as much as possible of all that (WP:NOTPAPER), including the nonsense, unless it isn't mentioned in RS or is so trivial only horrible sources mention it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- 'we are supposed to document the sum total of all human knowledge'?. That is complete and utter nonsense. Please stop misrepresenting vacuous slogans as policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Per AndyTheGrump, Wikipedia does not include everything without bounds. Editorial decisions are made every day, and where there are disagreements about editorial decisions, we come to a consensus through discussion. If you believe that all information on every topic for which there is a source must be included in an article, there is no other way to put this, you're just wrong. You can believe whatever you want, but if you try to edit articles with that as your justification, you're going to find yourself on the wrong end of a block pretty quickly. --Jayron32 15:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Jayron, you know I don't think that, nor do I edit in that manner, so back off with the threats. There are indeed limits to how we apply it, but it is still the reason for the creation of Wikipedia. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- If you recognize such limits, then it bears the possibility that this is one of those limits. There needs to be consensus before we include the information at Wikipedia, and I would posit that there is not anything resembling consensus to include it. If there is no consensus to include it, it stays out of the article. --Jayron32 15:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- I fully agree, in principle. We just disagree in this case. Are we good now? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Disagreeing on the specific matter in this case is fine, but your argument before seemed to be based on the notion that disagreement was not possible; your prior arguments were not really based on the substance of whether or not the information on Putin passes the relevant bars of WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:BLP, and WP:ONUS, but rather that those policies themselves were invalid. It appears you have backed down on that, and are willing to argue only on the matter at hand. We're good. --Jayron32 16:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Jayron32: I appreciate you coming here, but this noticeboard is about WP:BLP and this discussion is about specific allegations against Putin and whether including them in the Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko section of the Vladimir Putin article violates WP:BLP. I disagree with your characterization of the consensus here against including these allegations. The reason for deleting the allegations was that they violate WP:BLP, and I see no consensus here affirming that position. Removing content on the basis of one policy, falling back to another when the first one is refuted, and then grabbing onto WP:ONUS is a conduct problem that should not be encouraged by administrators. I have restored the edit and I am willing to have a discussion about WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE, once we have this BLP thing out of the way. CutePeach (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Interesting. You state "I disagree with your characterization of the consensus here against including these allegations." At my count, there are about 6-7 people arguing against inclusion, and 2-3 arguing for inclusion. Can you tell me how that is a consensus FOR including the allegations? --Jayron32 10:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Jayron32: the discussion here isn't just about including the allegations, but if doing so violates WP:BLP. As you are surely aware, WP:CONSENSUS is not the result of a vote, and requires us to
incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines
. As such, I count the comments of Valjean, Nomoskedasticity, and My very best wishes as supporting the position that these allegations do not violate WP:BLP and are WP:DUE in the Litvinenko section of the Putin article, while Aman.kumar.goel and AndyTheGrump believe they do violate WP:BLP, and are WP:UNDUE anywhere in the article. The comments from Nil Einne, Zaereth, Daveosaurus, and Aquillion can be considered as either neutral or in support of inclusion, depending on how you read them. For example, Nil says no formal accusation is required for including such allegations, and Zaereth seems to support that position, saying there may also be BALANCE and WEIGHT hurdles to overcome, separate to the BLP issue. Neither you or or Firefangledfeathers seem to have expressed any POV, and Horse Eye's Back seems to still be checking the RS they were previously unaware of - so I have struck his comment as per WP:IDL - leaving us with 4:2 support:oppose on the BLP issue. In the discussion on Talk:Vladimir_Putin, editor Mavigogun is in support, Cullen328 can be read as neutral, and RandomCanadian as opposing, bringing it to 5:3 support:oppose for inclusion. No one has removed the allegations from the Alexander Litvinenko, where they were added over 15 years ago, which shows this is a needlessly personalized dispute. CutePeach (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)- Nil Einne clearly has stated that BLP applies in this case, and is not "neutral" on the matter. MVBW has stated that the accusations of pedophilia are "debatable" and questioned whether there was sufficient documentation to include it. Nomo has not made any statement in support of including the information, but has merely made statements about the behavior of editors in the topic area. AFAICT, only yourself and Valjean are arguing vehemently for the inclusion of the material given the current level of sourcing available, others (a group which I don't include myself) have noted that the existing sourcing is inadequate. I have no dog in the race; my concern is only that 1) people recognize that WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS make it clear that, in regards to any contested material, Wikipedia has a clear and unambiguous policy that contested material is left out of article text during the time when it is under contest and 2) that the concerns of those who have expressed them are legitimate. I don't really have an opinion myself on whether it should or shouldn't be included ultimately; I just want to make sure we are following best practices by leaving contested material out of an article until after the discussion has concluded, and that we don't dismiss legitimate BLP concerns. --Jayron32 14:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Jayron32: Nil Einne clearly said he was
not commenting on the specific issues
, and answered the question you see in the title of this discussion, sayingThere's nothing in BLP which forbids us from covering well sourced allegations against living people which have never been tested in court
. As I explained to Andy [13], I had made the mistake of saying WP:BLPCRIME doesn't apply to public figures in the article TP [14], promting Cullen328 to correct me on that and say that a formal accusation is required [15], which is what prompted me to to start this discussion. I see no no consensus here that there is a legitimate BLP concern with the information as I added it - in the section I added it to - and no editor has tried removing these 15 year old allegations from the Alexander Litvinenko article, as would be required if there was indeed a BLP violation. My very best wishes, who also said he didn't read the discussion, will have their sourcing concerns allayed when they see the six sources I listed in the first post I made in this dispute [16]. I agree Nomo has not made any statement in support of including the information, but as I said, this discussion isn't about including the information, but about the BLP issue. I am not vehemently arguing for inclusion so much as making a stand against editors who have several times failed to WP:AGF and refrain from WP:NPA. I strongly oppose your imposition of WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS in this situation, as it presupposes there was a legitimate BLP concern here. There was not. CutePeach (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)- Any time we have serious criminal allegations against a living person, that's a legitimate BLP concern. Consensus may determine that confounding factors, like WP:PUBLICFIGURE may ameliorate those concerns, but that doesn't make the initial concerns in bad faith. They were not. The concerns are legitimate, and you should not dismiss them as bad faith concerns without engaging them directly. That's not productive. Like I said, that we determine by consensus to override the concerns doesn't mean the people expressing them don't earnestly have those concerns. Your job should not be to discredit those people or accuse them of acting in bad faith. It should be to establish consensus that additional factors need to be taken into account. --Jayron32 16:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Jayron32: Nil Einne clearly said he was
- I have a non-BLP opinion on the content which I've shared at the article talk page. In brief, I do support a very brief mention of the allegation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Nil Einne clearly has stated that BLP applies in this case, and is not "neutral" on the matter. MVBW has stated that the accusations of pedophilia are "debatable" and questioned whether there was sufficient documentation to include it. Nomo has not made any statement in support of including the information, but has merely made statements about the behavior of editors in the topic area. AFAICT, only yourself and Valjean are arguing vehemently for the inclusion of the material given the current level of sourcing available, others (a group which I don't include myself) have noted that the existing sourcing is inadequate. I have no dog in the race; my concern is only that 1) people recognize that WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS make it clear that, in regards to any contested material, Wikipedia has a clear and unambiguous policy that contested material is left out of article text during the time when it is under contest and 2) that the concerns of those who have expressed them are legitimate. I don't really have an opinion myself on whether it should or shouldn't be included ultimately; I just want to make sure we are following best practices by leaving contested material out of an article until after the discussion has concluded, and that we don't dismiss legitimate BLP concerns. --Jayron32 14:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Jayron32: the discussion here isn't just about including the allegations, but if doing so violates WP:BLP. As you are surely aware, WP:CONSENSUS is not the result of a vote, and requires us to
- Interesting. You state "I disagree with your characterization of the consensus here against including these allegations." At my count, there are about 6-7 people arguing against inclusion, and 2-3 arguing for inclusion. Can you tell me how that is a consensus FOR including the allegations? --Jayron32 10:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Given your statements above, where you stated that "Having now read BLP in full, I disagree with its application to dictators like Putin" you are clearly in no position to judge what is or isn't 'consensus' here. Not that it matters, since local consensus cannot overrule core Wikipedia policies. I have reverted your improper restoration of the disputed content prior to any agreement to do so, and suggest you make no further attempt to force the issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- You cherry picked a sentence from my post, grossly distorting my point of view, and made a personal attack on me in your edit summary [17]. If you read my entire post above - especially the headline - you would understand from that I disagree with how BLP applies to Putin on these specific allegations. If you also read the TP discussion, you would also understand the context behind the sentence you quoted, as it was said by Cullen328 that BLPCRIME only applies to public figures who have been formally accused of a crime [18]. I actually took that advice from Cullen, added high quality RS and moved it from the Personal life section to the Poisening of Litvinenko section [19]. If you read all the comments here, there is clearly no consensus here that these allegations violate WP:BLP. CutePeach (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, lets talk about cherry-picking, shall we? Starting with the way the NYT article has been blatantly cherry-picked to support content that it unequivocally describes as "without any evidence". The NYT makes it entirely clear that it considers Litvinenko's claims to be unfounded, describing it as a case where "Foes of the Kremlin have sometimes picked up the same ugly club and used it to beat Mr. Putin". Said "ugly club" being the use of false allegations of paedophilia to discredit opponents. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- You are now making an argument of WP:DUE - which I am in complete agreement with - and it is exactly why I moved the allegation from the Personal life section to the Poisoning of Litvinenko section. However, this BLPN discussion is about the purported BLP violation in including Litvinenko's allegations against Putin, in the section about Putin alleged assassination of that man four months after he made those allegations. Can you explain why a paedophilia allegation is a BLP violation but a murder allegation isn't? CutePeach (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- No, I am not making an argument of WP:DUE. I am directly stating that the way the NYT article was cited to support a claim which it directly stated was "without evidence" was a violation of WP:BLP policy (and WP:NPOV for that matter). AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- As you may see from my first two edits [20] [21], I put Litvinenko's accusation citing Global News, and Bukovsky's counter claim citing the NYT article, for WP:BALANCE. In the third edit [22], I added a second counter statement for BALANCE from the same NYT piece, as per Valjean's suggestion [23]. How exactly is adding two counter statements for BALANCE citing that NYT article a violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV? CutePeach (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Cherry picking an article in such a manner to support a claim that it directly refutes is a clear and unambiguous violation of policy. If after all this time, and with all the effort people have put into trying to explain things to you, you are unable to understand why, I can only suggest that you would do well to avoid editing contentious articles on living persons in future.
- And that is all I am going to say on the matter, at least until you give a direct and meaningful response to the question raised by Jayron32 earlier. How exactly did you conclude that there was a consensus here to include the disputed material, given that, by Jayron's count "there are about 6-7 people arguing against inclusion, and 2-3 arguing for inclusion"? [24] You seem to have little support here, and nobody is required to respond endlessly to the same repeated arguments. A question was asked. It has been answered. WP:BLP policy applies to all living persons. Without exception. And you can't cherry-pick sources to get around policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- There was no cherry picking, and no supporting of claims. What Litvinenko claimed was that Putin was a pedophile, and that he used his position as head of FSB to destroy evidence of it, and we did not put either of those claims in WP:WIKIVOICE, or omit any opposing views for WP:BALANCE. While the NYT article reports that Litvinenko made these claims without evidence - which we added to the article - this does not directly refute his claims, as you claim. CutePeach (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- As you may see from my first two edits [20] [21], I put Litvinenko's accusation citing Global News, and Bukovsky's counter claim citing the NYT article, for WP:BALANCE. In the third edit [22], I added a second counter statement for BALANCE from the same NYT piece, as per Valjean's suggestion [23]. How exactly is adding two counter statements for BALANCE citing that NYT article a violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV? CutePeach (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- No, I am not making an argument of WP:DUE. I am directly stating that the way the NYT article was cited to support a claim which it directly stated was "without evidence" was a violation of WP:BLP policy (and WP:NPOV for that matter). AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- You are now making an argument of WP:DUE - which I am in complete agreement with - and it is exactly why I moved the allegation from the Personal life section to the Poisoning of Litvinenko section. However, this BLPN discussion is about the purported BLP violation in including Litvinenko's allegations against Putin, in the section about Putin alleged assassination of that man four months after he made those allegations. Can you explain why a paedophilia allegation is a BLP violation but a murder allegation isn't? CutePeach (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, lets talk about cherry-picking, shall we? Starting with the way the NYT article has been blatantly cherry-picked to support content that it unequivocally describes as "without any evidence". The NYT makes it entirely clear that it considers Litvinenko's claims to be unfounded, describing it as a case where "Foes of the Kremlin have sometimes picked up the same ugly club and used it to beat Mr. Putin". Said "ugly club" being the use of false allegations of paedophilia to discredit opponents. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- You cherry picked a sentence from my post, grossly distorting my point of view, and made a personal attack on me in your edit summary [17]. If you read my entire post above - especially the headline - you would understand from that I disagree with how BLP applies to Putin on these specific allegations. If you also read the TP discussion, you would also understand the context behind the sentence you quoted, as it was said by Cullen328 that BLPCRIME only applies to public figures who have been formally accused of a crime [18]. I actually took that advice from Cullen, added high quality RS and moved it from the Personal life section to the Poisening of Litvinenko section [19]. If you read all the comments here, there is clearly no consensus here that these allegations violate WP:BLP. CutePeach (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Jayron32: I appreciate you coming here, but this noticeboard is about WP:BLP and this discussion is about specific allegations against Putin and whether including them in the Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko section of the Vladimir Putin article violates WP:BLP. I disagree with your characterization of the consensus here against including these allegations. The reason for deleting the allegations was that they violate WP:BLP, and I see no consensus here affirming that position. Removing content on the basis of one policy, falling back to another when the first one is refuted, and then grabbing onto WP:ONUS is a conduct problem that should not be encouraged by administrators. I have restored the edit and I am willing to have a discussion about WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE, once we have this BLP thing out of the way. CutePeach (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Disagreeing on the specific matter in this case is fine, but your argument before seemed to be based on the notion that disagreement was not possible; your prior arguments were not really based on the substance of whether or not the information on Putin passes the relevant bars of WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:BLP, and WP:ONUS, but rather that those policies themselves were invalid. It appears you have backed down on that, and are willing to argue only on the matter at hand. We're good. --Jayron32 16:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- I fully agree, in principle. We just disagree in this case. Are we good now? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- If you recognize such limits, then it bears the possibility that this is one of those limits. There needs to be consensus before we include the information at Wikipedia, and I would posit that there is not anything resembling consensus to include it. If there is no consensus to include it, it stays out of the article. --Jayron32 15:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- 'we are supposed to document the sum total of all human knowledge'?. That is complete and utter nonsense. Please stop misrepresenting vacuous slogans as policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, while we're quoting policy, you missed the most important one, WP:ONUS, which states, and I quote, "
- AndyTheGrump, I did not say it was a policy. It is above all policies, as it is the reason for the existence of Wikipedia and still a worthy aspiration. If you don't like it, take it up with Jimbo, not me. If you want to be part of a more limited project, go there, because this isn't it. Jimbo has a vision which we should attempt to live up to.
People of limited scope aren't needed here.Actually, all people who want to improve even the smallest parts of Wikipedia are welcome. I meant that those who want to limit the scope aren't needed. Their thinking is destructive. The success of Wikipedia has proven that Jimbo's vision was a real break with the old "limited by size and paper" mentality. What previously seemed like an impossible and foolish idea proved to be possible and grand. Get out of the old mindset. - Our purpose here is to give free access to "the sum of all human knowledge" mentioned in reliable sources. "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." Jimmy Wales[25]. "A free encyclopedia encompassing the whole of human knowledge, written almost entirely by unpaid volunteers: Can you believe that was the one that worked?" Richard Cooke[26]. "If I go looking for info, and Wikipedia doesn't have it, then Wikipedia has failed." Baseball Bugs[27] That literally means "ALL" information, not just facts. That includes opinions, beliefs, lies, outrageously false accusations, conspiracy theories, pseudoscientific nonsense, etc. We are supposed to be inclusionist by nature. Wikipedia is not limited by size. If it has been said or written in a RS, it becomes potential content here. Although we don't treat different types of "human knowledge" in the same way, we still document its existence. If a topic is never mentioned in any RS, then it's not notable enough for an article or mention. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Valjean, I don't give a rats arse what you (or Jimbo for that matter, though very much doubt he'd support your arguments here) think 'our purpose' is. Wikipedia is governed by policies, as arrived at through many years, by thousands of contributors. Policies that make it absolutely clear that the mere existence of 'sources' are never sufficient grounds for inclusion of anything. If you want to create an indiscriminate garbage-dump of anything you can scrape from the internet, you will have to do so elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- How about some civility here?
Seriously dude, I did not rape your mother! Really. I didn't.[Sarcasm stricken] I am not your enemy, and I'm not sure why you're throwing all this nasty vitriol at me, but you don't seem to understand my views very well at all. I've been here since 2003 and know my way around pretty well. My fingerprints are still, after all these years, in many of our most important policies, and I fully believe that our policies are not in conflict with the original goal of Wikipedia. They just tell us how to do it, and they should not be interpreted in ways that conflict with that original goal, and it certainly is not to create such a garbage dump. Just because something appears in a RS does not mean we include it. It is just "potential" content which we may reject, and if it is not found in RS, it isn't even "potential" content. Note I said "potential" above. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)- Your personal beliefs about Wikipedia (or anything else) are irrelevant. And if you don't like 'incivility', I suggest you stop filling this discussion with vacuous platitudes, and stick to questions relating to the application of policy. Policy, which, amongst other things, states that in discussions regarding content, The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Consensus which isn't obtained by claims of being right because you allegedly wrote the rules. Or because Jimbo (or Baseball Bugs? really?) said something or other, making you right. That isn't 'civil' it is obnoxious. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Whoah. Valjean, I think you may wish to reconsider the second sentence in your response. Like, quickly. ValarianB (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- ValarianB, I have stricken the sarcasm. The response I got (and am still getting from Andy) to simply expressing an opinion on a talk page would have been appropriate if the stricken part had been true.
- I have not disputed ONUS as a possible argument at all, and even if I had, such an uncivil response is still inappropriate. Andy doesn't have to respond to my comment if he doesn't think it's relevant. He could have chosen to just ignore it rather than voicing such an aggressive attack here. It creates a chilling environment. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Whereas writing ' People of limited scope aren't needed here' doesn't? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- That has already been stricken as it was too easy to misunderstand. Here's what replaced it:
People of limited scope aren't needed here.Actually, all people who want to improve even the smallest parts of Wikipedia are welcome. I meant that those who want to limit the scope aren't needed. Their thinking is destructive. The success of Wikipedia has proven that Jimbo's vision was a real break with the old "limited by size and paper" mentality. What previously seemed like an impossible and foolish idea proved to be possible and grand. Get out of the old mindset. That is directly related to WP:Not paper. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)- Go take your soapbox somewhere else. This project is governed by policy, arrived at by consensus of contributors. All contributors, not just those that watched Jimbo give a TED talk in 2005 or whatever and have been trying to create utopia-on-internet ever since. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- That has already been stricken as it was too easy to misunderstand. Here's what replaced it:
- Whereas writing ' People of limited scope aren't needed here' doesn't? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- How about some civility here?
- Valjean, I don't give a rats arse what you (or Jimbo for that matter, though very much doubt he'd support your arguments here) think 'our purpose' is. Wikipedia is governed by policies, as arrived at through many years, by thousands of contributors. Policies that make it absolutely clear that the mere existence of 'sources' are never sufficient grounds for inclusion of anything. If you want to create an indiscriminate garbage-dump of anything you can scrape from the internet, you will have to do so elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- AndyTheGrump, I did not say it was a policy. It is above all policies, as it is the reason for the existence of Wikipedia and still a worthy aspiration. If you don't like it, take it up with Jimbo, not me. If you want to be part of a more limited project, go there, because this isn't it. Jimbo has a vision which we should attempt to live up to.
- Aman.kumar.goel you are making an argument of WP:UNDUE, and it doesn't explain the BLP violation. The Vladimir Putin article has an entire section about the Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko, so I think Litvinenko's paedophilia allegation is WP:DUE there as it is the main reason given by secondary sources for Putin's alleged hand in his assassination. The BLP question not only affects the Putin page, but also our article on Litvinenko, since BLP applies everywhere. I support Valjean's version of the Owen report above and I won't argue this further. CutePeach (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- I did some research. The allegation was first added to the Alexander Litvinenko article by W guice in November 2006 [28], expanded by Hodja Nasreddin using the same source in December of that year [29], and Hodja Nasreddin then added the BBC article in March 2008 [30]. The content has been in Wikipedia all this time, and the last edit was made by My very best wishes in November 2018, removing a counter statement that previously cited a Daily Mail article [31]. The RS/SYNTH concerns raised by Horse Eye's Back are null, considering the updated text with newer sources I and Valjean added to the Vladimir Putin page [32] [33] [34]. Once the purported BLP issue has been addressed - which is what this noticeboard is for - we can then discuss any BALANCE and WEIGHT concerns with this 15-year-old text. CutePeach (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- my edit summary in the link you provide says "rpl [replaced] material per talk", indicating that i replaced it in the article after it had been previously been removed and after a talk page discussion. of course, i have no first-hand recall of this since it was 16 years ago, but you may want to check further back in the article history and on the contemporaneous talk page to find the original source. tomasz. 16:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- The topic of sexually explicit compromising material on Putin is first broached here by an anon user. The link to the Chechenpress is first introduced here by a different anon user. Someone BLPs it here. It is removed here. The first direct allegation appears here, added by user Infrogmation three days before the post of mine you quote above. Discussion of this appears here. Hope this helps you. tomasz. 17:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Let's keep in mind that this isn't about alleging that Putin is a pedophile, but about a possible reason for the murder. The allegation is so offensive that it is understandable(!) that a murderous person like Putin would say "That's it. He's going too far. Let's get rid of him." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Calling him "murderous" is also a BLP violation because BLP applies on all namespaces and he hasn't been convicted of any murders. You should strike or {{redact}} it or rewrite your message. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 15:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Do you want me to add a few of the thousands of RS which document that as an accurate description? Don't you know who he is? It's as accurate a description as calling Trump a serial liar. Those are not BLP violations as they are backed up by the weight of myriad RS, so many that we don't bother with providing refs each time we say it, although it used to be that way here. We used to be so sensitive about using the word "liar" about Trump that it was considered a BLP violation, but we're far beyond that now, and the same applies to Putin.
- Just to clarify a linguistic distinction. Saying someone is "murderous" is not the same as saying they are a "murderer". It speaks to mentality. Putin has a murderous mentality. It is widely accepted that he thinks that way and that he has his enemies, critics, and journalists killed. (The list is growing longer all the time.) The last part amounts to accusing him of being responsible for the deaths of people, even if he is not the one who actually murdered them. US president Joe Biden called Putin a war criminal and "murderous dictator".[4][5] See also List of journalists killed in Russia. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Strenuously disagree (see my comment below.) This is based on a misreading of WP:BLPCRIME. Describing a living person as having committed a crime for which they have not been convicted is something we have to be extremely careful about, but it is not forbidden, and part of the reason it is not forbidden is precisely so we can do so in situations like this, where the sources are overwhelming. I don't know if they're similarly overwhelming for the primary issue that this section is about, but Putin does, and has, murdered his political opponents. --Aquillion (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Calling him "murderous" is also a BLP violation because BLP applies on all namespaces and he hasn't been convicted of any murders. You should strike or {{redact}} it or rewrite your message. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 15:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Note that WP:BLPCRIME merely says that
For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.
It does not forbid including it outright, it just says that we have to think long and hard before doing so. To me this reads as indicating that extenuating circumstances can exist - especially in situations where there is overwhelming, extremely high-quality reliable sourcing saying flatly that someone is guilty of a crime, no sources of comparable quality contradicting it, and reasonable explanations for why a conviction cannot or would not appear. It isn't something to be done lightly, but BLPCRIME is not an absolute bar on describing unconvicted crimes people have committed in the article voice provided coverage of them is overwhelming enough and one-sided enough otherwise. I do not know if the "pedophile" aspect is sufficient, but I do strongly believe that Putin meets the threshold for "murder" - he has murdered his political opponents, and this is simple fact that is not contested by any serious source. --Aquillion (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, of course, WP:BLP apply to the page. And the subject is a public figure. Hence one should check Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures. It says: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article. Sure, such thing as pedophilia is noteworthy and relevant, but how well is it documented? Personally I do know that the accusation is true (because I saw how the subject behaved with boys on various publicly available video), but this must be sufficiently documented in RS. Was it? This is something debatable and should be decided on talk page by WP:CONSENSUS. Please make an official RfC about it if you wish. As about accusations of war crimes, they are very well documented, there are no doubts about it. My very best wishes (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ The Litvinenko Inquiry. Report into the death of Alexander Litvinenko. Chairman: Sir Robert Owen. January 2016
- ^ https://globalnews.ca/news/2469321/ex-kgb-spy-alexander-litvinenko-was-killed-for-calling-putin-a-pedophile-u-k-report/
- ^ a b https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/world/europe/vladimir-putin-russia-fake-news-hacking-cybersecurity.html
- ^ Parker, Ashley (17 March 2022). "Biden calls Putin a 'war criminal'". The Washington Post. Retrieved 18 March 2022.
- ^ Vazquez, Maegan; Carvajal, Nikki (March 17, 2022). "Biden calls Putin a 'murderous dictator' and 'pure thug'". CNN. Retrieved 6 April 2022.
Nikocado Avocado
This article is mostly false, and has been translated in multiple languages it seems. He's a YouTuber who has crafted a trainwreck persona for views, and therefore what he says about himself is unreliable. It's obvious enough watching his videos, but he also brags about making it all up. The article cites low-grade journalism pieces that source his own videos as fact (again, it's not reliable) or what he's told the journalist (with no fact checking). It's locked, so I can't edit it. --Itsjustwaterweight (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Courtesy link to discussion of the specific problems you identified: Talk:Nikocado Avocado#Accuracy? Endwise (talk) 05:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Which specific assertions and sources are you disputing? Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Also not clear on which assertions you are disputing. Upon initial glance, the page appears reliably sourced but happy to do some digging if you are able to provide specifics. Meatsgains(talk) 00:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- There continue to be recurring BLP issues at this article and more eyes would be appreciated. One ongoing concern is how to summarize a conflict Nikocado Avocado got into with another YouTuber. In the aftermath, he claimed that the whole thing was faked for views. There's now an editing dispute about whether we should say that he "claimed" this or "revealed" this. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
kira reed
What appears to be a single-purpose account has been editing the page for Kira Reed trying to remove any evidence that she prominently worked in the porn industry. All of the user's post history is edits just to Reed's page, the page of Reed's late husband, and one other person, which leads to believe they are either Reed herself or someone representing her which is a major conflict of interest. They claim that this information is libellous even though it is certifiably true with ample evidence, and it's frankly the thing Reed is best known for, but someone seems to want to hide this information from readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outsulation (talk • contribs) 18:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- I suggest you read WP:BLP to get a handle on what sources are acceptable. An archive.org copy of an adult site is not RS for someone's marriage. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Wow, this article isn't great. Could definitely use more eyes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Page has since been protected but I've watchlisted as well. Meatsgains(talk) 00:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. At some point I plan on going through and doing some cleanup. The DOB was sourced to Mr. Skin... ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Page has since been protected but I've watchlisted as well. Meatsgains(talk) 00:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Kevin Priola
Kevin Priola The current edit of Kevin Priola's page (as of 18:55 on May 2, 2022) is the one I have created. The previous version, while technically true and citing 'credible' sources as per wikipedia standards, has been written in an attempt to skew the perception of the Senator's political beliefs. Information listed in the Political Positions section are individually correct and technically neutral, but the conditions of biographies of living persons specifies that the text must have an overall neutral point of view. Including information concerning his losses is irrelevant, and combined with assertions that he is not compliant with republican beliefs, the previous edit is not told from a neutral point of view. The most recent edit states only facts, cited from the Colorado General Assembly website instead of argumentative new articles, and is truly neutral. It should not be reverted or changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B038:8C66:A094:C9FF:B37C:9242 (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ignore this. Kevin's staffers have been vandalizing the page for months. They have been attempting to remove routine news coverage of his political positions and legislative votes and putting in puffery about how glorious his bipartisanship is. What the page really needs is protected to prevent new accounts and IP addresses from editing it since Kevin and his staffers refuse to understand conflict of interest despite multiple warnings given to other staffer accounts. Jon698 (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Concur. History shows a concerted campaign with no regard for Wikipedia policies.Slywriter (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- My comment concerns only the edit that I am referencing which is not at all related to campaigning efforts. 2600:100E:B038:8C66:AC7B:FFA7:A706:F18D (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Untrue. The only information I am adding is a list of bills he has passed and part of his career history. The 'new coverage' mentioned is meant to skew public perception. 2600:100E:B038:8C66:AC7B:FFA7:A706:F18D (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- I did not feel that it was; however, I don't protest to it being left on there. If that is the only issue, then why delete the rest of my edits? 2600:100E:B038:8C66:AC7B:FFA7:A706:F18D (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- I am trying to learn to edit political pages and have done many others successfully. I am willing to adapt and learn from your examples, but I don't agree that I am trying to campaign, I'm just trying to make the page neutral. 2600:100E:B038:8C66:AC7B:FFA7:A706:F18D (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- A laundry list of bills he's sponsored sourced only to the legislative site is undue. If independent sources have given any coverage to bills he's sponsored or passed, they might be appropriate for inclusion. If you think there is significant independent coverage of his activities that isn't reflected appropriately in the article, you should raise the issue on Talk:Kevin Priola for discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- A list of well-cited legislation is more informational and neutral than biased news coverage. 2600:100E:B038:8C66:AC7B:FFA7:A706:F18D (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Incorrect. Like all encyclopedias, we're a tertiary source, which means we get our info from secondary sources. We let those sources tell us what is important info and what is not, because they make their money by printing what the public is interested in. All we need is a summary of the subject, not every boring detail. A legislative site is a primary source, and not really suited to our goals as a tertiary source. This isn't something new or specific to Wikipedia. If anything, Wikipedia is far more lax on those things than paper encyclopedias are. But that is doing the work of reporters instead of researchers. Zaereth (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ok that makes sense! Thanks for the information, I appreciate it. I will make future edits with this in mind. 2600:100E:B038:8C66:E1C7:2758:221B:A677 (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Concur. History shows a concerted campaign with no regard for Wikipedia policies.Slywriter (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Angana P. Chatterji
Various editors have continuously attempted to connect a controversial individual to the subject of this article via tenuous links in 2011 over the years, and I don't want to get into an edit war. Other eyes appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igarashi.torren (talk • contribs) 04:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Igarashi.torren was previously reminded on the Angana Chatterji Talk page against making dubious edits. Igarashi.torren has also previously declared a conflict of interest in relation to the topic. Prime facie it appears that Igarashi.torren is trying to block important factual information about Chaterji. Chaterji's association with Ghulam Nabi Fai (convicted by a US court) is extremely noteworthy and widely reported by reputable media organisations. See link below. Furthermore, Igarashi.torren is also deleting the official reason stated for Chatterji's dismissal, i.e. falsifying grades etc. Thus, Igarashi.torren's edits must be undone and Igarashi.torren must be given another admonition in addition to that given earlier.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/10/the-man-behind-pakistani-spy-agencys-plot-to-influence-washington/246000/ https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-isi-vetted-indians-on-ghulam-nabi-fai-list-of-invitees-1576089 https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/nation/story/20110801-us-based-isi-agent-ghulam-nabi-fai-746997-2011-07-22 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow_comments/9340663.cms?from=mdr
Tatsuro22 (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Randy Cornor
Randy Cornor supposedly died on March 24, but other than a single Facebook post and a dodgy looking obit site, I have not found any proof of this. No obits from the Deer Park-Houston area list anyone with the last name "Cornor". I am looking for anyone to keep an eye out on anything reputable regarding his death. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- The Facebook post seems to be legit, as a search on that dude shows he's a published dobroist and seems to have known Cornor; additionally there is a memorial Facebook page and group setup, so it's a good bet to say he's deceased; however, no reliable sources seem to exist. Nothing so far on newspapers.com or in a general search. Curbon7 (talk) 06:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Only thing I can find.[35] Morbidthoughts (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Andriy Melnyk (ambassador)
Andriy Melnyk (ambassador) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Melnyk is the Ukrainian ambassador to Germany. Since early March this year, brief passages about his visit to the grave of Stepan Bandera have been inserted by unregistered users toward the bottom of the Biography section in terms that unnecessarily insinuate (but don't assert outright) that Melnyk has Nazi sympathies. Is that defamatory? The two sources cited don't robustly justify the insinuation. The passage has been removed several times on BLP and verification grounds but it keeps reappearing. There is a discussion on the Talk page ("Stepan Bandera flower laying claims...") – I have added a contribution to that discussion today that may help you. Please review, advise on the Talk page, and take any steps you think appropriate to end the to-and-fro. Thanks and kind regards, --Frans Fowler (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- The source of the disputed entry does not directly verify what is stated and should continue to be removed. I have requested page protection. Even if the source did satisfy WP:V, once it is removed on BLP grounds, the adder must fix or obtain consensus to re-add. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_McKellow
Mr Mckellow was my uncle and I have been advised that he died on 30 April 2022. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.140.19 (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
rule of thumb on serial murders?
I keep seeing articles about serial murders at WP:PNT. I am extremely uninterested but the one I just looked at definitely was/is bad machine translation, albeit mostly understandable. (I got some of the low-hanging fruit as I was reading). Anyway, without doing a deep dive, the sourcing is -- meh. Analogous to what one might have seen for the Central Park Five. Mainstream rather sensational news. Do we even need these articles? People tend to come and yell at me about the things I translate, so I dislike doing this for articles I find pointless to begin with. I've been ignoring them for quite a long time and would like to find a reason to delete them, frankly. It's quite clear nobody else is going to fix them, and I also have notability questions. Can we find out who is fixated on these murders and ask them why? Suggestions welcome Elinruby (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- The one I just looked at was Nadir Sedrati but I have seen several others, which all seem to be about members of minority groups, coincidentally. Elinruby (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'd have to suggest that the 'rule of thumb' for translated articles about serial murderers would be not to touch them with a bargepole unless there was clear and unambiguous credible sourcing, given the obvious WP:BLP concerns. We have enough problems with WP:BLP violations as it is (a surprising number of contributors seem to think that being charged with something is evidence of guilt, for a start, as is evident from the numerous 'List of...' articles we have on the subject...) and given the lax standards I've seen on some (not all) non-English Wikipedias we surely can't always expect them to conform to our standards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Awesome, I feel validated. But the fact that they languish on PNT doesn’t keep them from existing; they are just tagged as rough translations. Should I add BLP and notability tags? AfD? Elinruby (talk) 05:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Any article that appears to label a named living individual as a serial murderer, without the necessary sourcing, would fall under WP:BLPREMOVE - which is to say any identifying information, and quite possibly even claims that murders had actually taken place, would need immediate removal. Which would quite possibly imply speedy deletion, if the individual is named in the title, as is often the case. We cannot continue to host articles containing gross violations of WP:BLP policy once they become apparent. If people want articles on such subjects, the onus is on them to provide the necessary sources first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Here, here! (Clap, clap, clap) Zaereth (talk) 05:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- I’m on board, believe me, esp since I suspect xenophobia. I have never done a speedy deletion though, so I may have specific questions. But as far as the translation part is concerned, they are not doing anything but clogging up the queue. And possibly some of them are bad enough for that to be an additional reason, come to think of it. Thanks, y’all. Elinruby (talk) 07:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Here, here! (Clap, clap, clap) Zaereth (talk) 05:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Any article that appears to label a named living individual as a serial murderer, without the necessary sourcing, would fall under WP:BLPREMOVE - which is to say any identifying information, and quite possibly even claims that murders had actually taken place, would need immediate removal. Which would quite possibly imply speedy deletion, if the individual is named in the title, as is often the case. We cannot continue to host articles containing gross violations of WP:BLP policy once they become apparent. If people want articles on such subjects, the onus is on them to provide the necessary sources first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Awesome, I feel validated. But the fact that they languish on PNT doesn’t keep them from existing; they are just tagged as rough translations. Should I add BLP and notability tags? AfD? Elinruby (talk) 05:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'd have to suggest that the 'rule of thumb' for translated articles about serial murderers would be not to touch them with a bargepole unless there was clear and unambiguous credible sourcing, given the obvious WP:BLP concerns. We have enough problems with WP:BLP violations as it is (a surprising number of contributors seem to think that being charged with something is evidence of guilt, for a start, as is evident from the numerous 'List of...' articles we have on the subject...) and given the lax standards I've seen on some (not all) non-English Wikipedias we surely can't always expect them to conform to our standards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
I prodded three of these articles last night. This required notifying the original author, Haunted Spy, who has now rewritten Nadir Sedrati and most likely the other two as well. The article is now in good English, which solves *my* immediate issue with it, but I don’t think the issues of lightly sourced BLP and failing WP:CRIME are addressed. I do see one respectable if somewhat sensationalist source (Libération) and some references to what might be an ok regional paper that I don’t know, and the references to a TV guide are gone, but replaced by the show itself, which will be difficult to verify. I am pretty sure there are still BLP violations, including speculation about the subject’s responsibility for murders for which he was not charged. The author’s user page says that serial killers is all he does, so there could be a lot of articles like this, and I just don’t see why we need them. These were sordid if particularly gory murders. It isn’t clear to me that they meet notability let alone BLP criteria for the English Wikipedia, and I would like somebody else to take a look. I am willing to look into this regional newspaper if it would help, but I think the lack of coverage in even French national press speaks to the subject’s notability. Elinruby (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section has an RFC
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20220512044316im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. --Aquillion (talk) 04:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Louis Poirson
Is this sufficiently cited? Notable? Le Nouvel Observateur is usually considered reliable. Liberation, opinionated but often accurate, like a less famous Rolling Stone perhaps. Le Parisien has an illustrious history but seems to have become a tabloid like the Daily Mail or the NY Post. I am not sure about the local paper but I have notability questions if that is the deciding factor. Elinruby (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think there's enough there to show they are notable and more sources are likely available. Serial killers generally get a pretty fair amount of coverage. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- To be clear, I am in this because these French serial killers are bad machine translations that are piling up in the WP:PNT French queue that only I ever work on, as far as I can tell. I am profoundly uninterested and question their notability as somebody who has lived in France. They might meet a threshold of notability for the French wikipedia, where readers would care about a crime in their backyards, presumably. But color me not interested in somebody who killed some hitchhikers in southern France in 1990 or whatever. Not going to put the time into fixing it when there is lots to do in Algerian and Congolese history that is in the end much much more important. It's simple triage. Not going to look for sources or fix it, and neither is the author apparently. Unless maybe I AfD each of these individually Elinruby (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Notability is independent of language, and we don't need English language sources. Machine translations are a problem though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- To be clear, I am in this because these French serial killers are bad machine translations that are piling up in the WP:PNT French queue that only I ever work on, as far as I can tell. I am profoundly uninterested and question their notability as somebody who has lived in France. They might meet a threshold of notability for the French wikipedia, where readers would care about a crime in their backyards, presumably. But color me not interested in somebody who killed some hitchhikers in southern France in 1990 or whatever. Not going to put the time into fixing it when there is lots to do in Algerian and Congolese history that is in the end much much more important. It's simple triage. Not going to look for sources or fix it, and neither is the author apparently. Unless maybe I AfD each of these individually Elinruby (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with you there, actually, as somebody who frequently works with foreign language sources and frequently has to defend them. However, context also matters, no? People care a lot more about serial murders that are not in another country. So I am positing that while he might as a French serial murder be notable in France, this doesn't necessarily extend to notability on the English wikipedia. I AfD'd the article mentioned above, btw, and the editor improved the English (but it took AfD for that to happen), and yet that article still accuses the subject of murders he was not convicted of, just for a start. The sourcing is now if anything a little worse than in this article. And I must admit that I find it a little disturbing that somebody is collating this stuff. I mean, I have read Truman Capote, and I get the interest to a point, but is this what Wikipedia is for? Elinruby (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's unfortunate, but serial killers are one of those things that attracts attention, which means stories and documentaries and articles, which means notability. I don't have the time to do a real once over on the article right now, but I'll try to get around to removing the BLPvio when I have the time, and take a look at the AfD. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- the editor deleted the tags. All of them. This does get the articles out of the WP:PNT French queue, which was my particular issue with them, and finding out that there are a lot more of these articles, but although I don't usually swim in these waters, I think there are unaddressed BLP and notability issues. I am quite happy to leave the matter in your hands though; as I said I am very extremely not interested, and there is machine translation out there that *should* be rescued and imho would be a better use of my time. Elinruby (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's unfortunate, but serial killers are one of those things that attracts attention, which means stories and documentaries and articles, which means notability. I don't have the time to do a real once over on the article right now, but I'll try to get around to removing the BLPvio when I have the time, and take a look at the AfD. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's an extremely bad-looking WP:BLP. If it's a notable topic, fine, but all uncited text should be nuked and only be added back with BLP-acceptable refs. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Odumeje
Odumeje (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The above article, a (purported) biography about a living individual, a Nigerian clergyman, has recently been mentioned at WP:ANI (see [36] - permanent link [37]). Discussions regarding the article creator are probably best dealt with there, but meanwhile it would seem advisable to do something about the blatant violations of WP:BLP policy found in the article, since it clearly needs editing - with a nice sharp axe.
As a flavour of the issues, see the section entitled Threat to kill anyone writing negative things about him
, which tells readers that Odumeje claimed he had spiritual powers and would kill anyone who wrote anything negative about him no matter how much they concealed their identity, he claimed he could spiritually tell who they were and would proceed to kill them spiritually.
The sole source cited for this allegation being Opera News [38]. Opera News describes itself as "a completely localised and personalised news app", one that delivers "AI-curated content according to your interests". [39] The website, whatever it is, clearly doesn't meet WP:RS, and the article being cited for the Odumeje 'biography' is written in broken English by one 'Semiemmy2 (self media writer)', whatever that is supposed to mean. At a guess, I's suggest it probably means 'some random dude on the internet pretending to be a journalist'.
I'm tempted to deal with the problem myself, but given my involvement with the ANI discussions should probably leave it to others to sort out, provided it is dealt with promptly. If I was to edit it, I strongly suspect that the end result would be an article consisting entirely of a statement that 'Odumeje is a Nigerian clergyman [citation needed]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have done some work here, with a ceremonial axe. Possibly more to come, there is "one" decent source....but it's late, now. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 03:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Robert Sarver
The Philanthropic and advocacy work reads a lot like a self-written exercise for good PR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.6.142 (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Much of the section has now been removed since they were without independent RS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Vicki Iseman and the John McCain lobbyist controversy revisited
I have discussed this today with a few editors personally but think it might be wise to put this on Wikipedia's radar. Over 14 years ago the New York Times wrote an article which seemed to imply Senator John McCain (at the time the leading Republican party presidential nominee candidate) was involved in some way with a female DC lobbyist. At the time an affair was implied in the NYT but not so stated, the focus of the article concerning the special working relationship between them. Wikipedia started covering this as the sources came out (in the middle of the night, as memory serves). We excised the controversy from the the BLP, creating the current controversy page, but at AfD the Iseman article ultimately was overturned/kept in order to provide the subject positive coverage to balance the exclusively negative material alleged in the controversy page. I'm certainly not entertaining notions of re-litigating those processes. After Iseman sued the Times, the two parties settled with no money changing hands. A representative of the New York Times actually posted a statement on our article talk page, a step I've not often seen from an involved RS.
At the controversy page, two AFDs
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy (keep; 2/2008)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008 (keep; 1/2009)
At the Iseman page two AFDs and two DRVs
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicki Iseman (no consensus, 2/2008)
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 1 (endorsed, 3/2008)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicki Iseman (2nd nomination) (delete, 4/2008)
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 4 (overturned, 5/2008)
Today an involved party, Steve Schmidt (in a Substack post) has confessed to being aware of and complicit in the coverup of the affair, which is jaw-dropping news. Schmidt is one of the people most recently falsely accused of pedophilia (this time by Megan McCain) and after a twitter war between the two, he posted this confession, excoriating and insulting McCain. In posts to two admins I've requested adding the pages to watchlists. Since this controversy has all the elements of great personality bashing (sex, politics, journalism, resentment, and a former The View panelist), I expect MSNBC to cover it tonight and everyone else to cover the coverage tomorrow. So far I'm seeing the NYMag and Salon move forward but the bigs are waiting or still writing. I'm not calling for any action as of this date stamp, but thought it might be wise to raise general awareness before these articles are mentioned in media (as I've seen already once today) and before the influx of partisans starts to relitigate it themselves, as have already started. BusterD (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- New movie with Woody Harrelson, perhaps? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Mike Crapo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Crapo
It is so obvious that the selection of details about Mr. Crapo included in this article are design to paint him in a less than favorable light. I would suggest that it be edited to include only general information about his origins, education, family life, etc. All of the political stuff and the inclusion of his DUI arrest are obvious character assassination attempts. If a political history is to be included, it should be comprehensive and not cherry-picked as is currently the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayniack (talk • contribs) 11:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- All of the political stuff in an article about a US Senator? What are the specific concerns? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- I've condensed the Drunk driving arrest section as it was previously a bit lengthy. Meatsgains(talk) 15:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, but IMO it should be condensed even further: It probably warrants no more than 2 sentences. Wikipedians tend to be terrible at distinguishing verifiability from encyclopedic noteworthiness, not understanding WP:PROPORTION or WP:RECENTISM. It's worse with politicians: see also Jeffrey Wood, whom apparently, per Wikipedia, has done absolutely nothing of note besides go to college, get married, and drive while intoxicated more than once. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Themis Prodromakis
New article has been drafted here by an editor at University of Edinburgh. Have been advised of this and informed the editor that this will need Conflict of Interest review. They are a new editor and were not aware of the COI guidelines, or the WP:GNG guidelines for that matter. In any case have advised them that the article needs citations throughout and wiki links and to comply with COI and WP:GNG. As I myself am employed by the university, I want to be very transparent here about the article and recuse myself from any further involvement in favour of more independent COI/GNG review. Many thanks, Stinglehammer (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Age fabrication
Overwhelming amount of unreferenced WP:BLP information. Rewrite, or AfD perhaps? --Hipal (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- I removed some of the most obvious problems. Probably does need a rewrite, as it stands now it's basically List of people who misrepresented their age at some point in time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'd say delete. Other than Wikipedia and sites mirroring Wikipedia, I find no good, reliable source that uses nor gives any definition of the term "age fabrication". "Age hardening", yes, but nothing from any books, news, scientific or psychological journals, or reputable websites. Zip. This is pure OR and synth. Zaereth (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Looking at a possible AfD, I see some merging possibilities. At the top of the Age_fabrication#Sports section, there are links to four articles or article subsections:
- Age requirements in gymnastics#Age falsification in Age requirements in gymnastics ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Age fraud in association football ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Figure skating#Age eligibility in Figure skating ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Cheating in baseball#Age fabrication in Cheating in baseball ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- These appear considerably better referenced than the Age fabrication article. If there's related content in Age fabrication not in these related articles, then it should be merged regardless, as Age fabrication should be summarizing only. --Hipal (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Looking at a possible AfD, I see some merging possibilities. At the top of the Age_fabrication#Sports section, there are links to four articles or article subsections:
- I'd say delete. Other than Wikipedia and sites mirroring Wikipedia, I find no good, reliable source that uses nor gives any definition of the term "age fabrication". "Age hardening", yes, but nothing from any books, news, scientific or psychological journals, or reputable websites. Zip. This is pure OR and synth. Zaereth (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- There is probably a lot of salvageable info there. The lede is pure OR. It's a made-up term by the author, and we can't have an article on a term we made up. That would be name fabrication. (See what I did there?) The term is awkward, because it implies something entirely different. "Fabrication" is most commonly synonymous with construction. That's why when I first saw it I was thinking, "How can you build something using age?" It comes off as nonsensical. Now, "age falsification" may be a different story. That's clear and may possibly have some sources out there.
- But that brings us to the next problem. Such an article should be notable enough to make a decent article that is something better than a dictionary definition. Like age hardening, we should have a lot of very good sources in my opinion. And we should use examples found in those sources, and not make it a place to name everybody we thinkm, personally, should be used as an example.
- The rest of it should go into the articles of each individual subject, NPOV withstanding, where it can be properly weighed and balanced with the rest of the respective article. This is, after all, information on living people, and list articles shouldn't be used to circumvent due weight in my opinion. Zaereth (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Maryanne Demasi
Maryanne Demasi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article has been tagged since 2016 with {{Undue weight}}, and concerns have been raised on the talk page that nearly the entire article is centered on negative reception of two episodes of Catalyst (TV program). While no doubt these episodes were controversial and received press coverage, is the structure and tone of the current article acceptable per WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:PROPORTION, etc.? Does the subject even warrant a distinct biography, or merely perhaps a redirect to Catalyst (TV program)? I'm not advocating for white-washing, but I believe the the opposite of white-washing is shit-piling: taking only the most titillating and controversial aspects of a subject, and downplaying or ignoring other coverage. And even if an individual happened to be somehow be independently notable only and entirely for 2 controversial TV episodes, I think there are much better ways to write and structure such an article. Thoughts? --Animalparty! (talk) 04:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- I suggest trimming the article back to focus on the person rather than the Catalyst shows, and also trim back anything that's not covered by independent sources to avoid acting as a soapbox for her or her critics.
- The Catalyst (TV program) article appears to cover the controversy about the shows in enough detail. --Hipal (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
RingID
There's been a slow-burning edit war at this orphan article since it was first brought to my attention in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benjamin.Olivier/Archive, between one editor with a clear COI in favor of the subject, and a number with apparent POVs against (although I'd hesitate to assume COI). After the COI editor, Isaaceldon76, finally escalated to legal threats, I blocked indefinitely both for NLT and UPE. However, keeping DOLT in mind, I'm aware that there's content in the article that reflects poorly on living people, and I'm not sufficiently familiar with the quality of South Asian tech industry sources to assess their reliability, so I bring the matter here for review.
Also, I know this isn't AN, but since I have an audience: My past edits to this article have been in that gray area between administrative and content, removing promotional edits in one direction and BLPvio in the other. I felt that they landed far enough on the administrative side of that area that it was acceptable for me to block, but I welcome any critique. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 15:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- WP:BLPCRIME is indeed an issue and it looks like Firefangledfeathers addressed it by removing their explicit identities,[40] but I'm not sure if the remaining detail is still too excessive under the policy. It should focus on the company rather than what happened to the people. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Mondo
Someone change the name from: Brad Gesimondo, commonly known as Brad Mondo to: Brek Gesimondo, commonly known as Brad Mondo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.133.146 (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- I've reverted the vandalism. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Wayne Siegel
Ran across this BLP article Wayne Siegel. Initially I was going to place a simple unreferenced header tag; but then thought perhaps the article itself might warrant an AfD nom since I could not find reason for inclusion even under general notability. Does this line: "awarded a three-year grant in composition from the Danish Art Council" meet with WP guidelines for WP:MUSICBIO? Tried searching online for other notable mentions. Maineartists (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Mr._Bond_(musician)
Mr. Bond (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Austrian data protection and privacy laws do not allow the full name of accused to be revealed in Austrian legal system, especially if they have not been convicted or sentenced yet. There is no verdict yet either. The press reports that the identity of the captive alleged to be Mr. Bond was doxxed by means not conform to Austrian Data Protection Act. Please remove the defamatory article about this individual. [41] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weimaren (talk • contribs)
- I've done some cleaning up, and I expect there needs to be another comb through. I also think it's quite likely that this article wouldn't pass WP:BLP1E. More eyes would be appreciated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Tamzin did some revdels, and got oversight involved. I think the article is ok now, but I plan on looking into an AfD tomorrow. Thanks Tamzin and unidentified oversighter. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, while the article had only mentioned this in the infobox previously, Bond was convicted and sentenced, and I've clarified this with a source that was already in the article. Also, obligatory reminders that: 1) Austrian law doesn't decide what is published on Wikipedia, nor does any legal system except those the Wikimedia Foundation is subject to, and 2) "defamation" is not a synonym for "unflattering content"; if someone is a neo-Nazi, we're allowed to call them a neo-Nazi. But yeah, that said, under our own policies there weren't reliable sources giving his full name, so that's been oversighted. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)