Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Tulsi Gabbard

Can a candidate’s self-published site be used as a source for information about themselves in their BLP as long as the 5 criteria in WP:ABOUTSELF are met? There has been disagreement among editors on this point. Humanengr (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

If primary sources are disputed, e.g., "alternative facts" about the age, you could need a better source or a rough consensus. She uploaded a "Merry Christmas" video on YouTube, remotely related to the "multireligious" topic.^[1] –84.46.52.210 (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Thx for that. Can you address this objection by one editor:

”The inclusion of the word ‘multireligious’ in the sentence ’Gabbard was raised in a multicultural and multireligious household’ needs to be justified by contemporaneous sources (of which there are none) and is not supported by WP:CS.”

Humanengr (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Interesting example. I guess you could argue it is to some extent " self-serving" per WP:ABOUTSELF. I'd be ok with it with a "According to Gabbard..." if there's no conflicting sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Humanengr, the cited reasoning is an irrelevant attempt to impose one's own novel view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community. Xenagoras (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Be specific. We don't use self-sourced info if it's disputed by rs. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Not 100% true. If the BLP is responding via SPS to claims laid out by RSes at them as attempting to refute them (whether right or wrong about that), it is probably appropriate to include the BLP's SPS briefly to stay neutral. (something like "The NYTimes accused Smith of being racist, but Smith refuted this in a following Twitter message." sourced to the NYTimes' and Smith's Twitter) On the other hand, where the controversy is started by a statement from a BLP on their SPS, and RSes dispute that, its likely better to frame it from the RS and not use the BLP's SPS to start. ("Smith's claims on being non-racist have been refuted by the NYTimes" only needs the NYtimes sourcing). This should not be taken as a rule, but that there is sometimes need to do so. What we do want to avoid are the self-serving claims, those that attract no coverage at all by RSes. Including those, outside of standard factual biographical material, would be unduly self-serving. --Masem (t) 17:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Masem, I think "self-serving" means WP:ADVOCACY. Xenagoras (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Original responder addressed the situation where there is dispute from RS on a fact in a self-published source about self. I'll open another request on the more specific point. Humanengr (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The shorter summary by Snooganssnoogans is clearer. I dislike the US-centric "fact finding" about religious views and ethnic roots on the wrong side of OR and BLPCAT in BLPs. For multireligious I couldn't tell if that's a proper adjective, from my "DEnglish" PoV it's a red link. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd watch out and avoid personal sites as they likely have spin and fluff. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF is clear on this matter. If a self-published source contains an exceptional claim, it requires multiple high-quality sources. In this case, an exceptional claim led to this discussion and the multiple high quality sources do not exist to support the claim. Samp4ngeles (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Being raised in a multi-religious household is not an exceptional claim. According to a 2016 Pew Research Center study "[T]he number of Americans raised in interfaith homes appears to be growing. Fully one-quarter of young adults in the Millennial generation (27%) say they were raised in a religiously mixed family."[2] Gabbard is from the Millenial cohort.

If there were RS with specific fact allegations contradicting Gabbard, we could include both claims as indicated by Masem. But you have not yet identified any such specific statements from RS. Humanengr (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

At the moment the lede offers Hindu (given sources not checked, I believe it). The "Early life and education" section states "multicultural and multi-religious", but the given CBS source (text + video) doesn't support it (verification failed, or I need fresh coffee). While I trust that it's true, multi-religious is a red link, less elegant than your mixed, and not obviously relevant for this BLP. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Humanengr's explanation that being raised in a multi-religious household is not an exceptional claim. Xenagoras (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Fresh coffee. That 2019 CBS source states: "She comes from a multicultural, multi-religious family and, as a practicing Hindu, was the first Hindu elected to Congress." From this 2012 NY Times News Service piece:

Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat and an Iraq War veteran who won a seat in the House from Hawaii, is the daughter of a Hindu mother and a Roman Catholic father. She calls herself Hindu, a first for a member of Congress. Bui it is not quite that simple.

“I identify as a Hindu," Gabbard wrote in an email Thursday. “How­ever, I am much more into spiritu­ality than I am religious labels."

In that sense," she added,“I am a Hindu in the mold of the most famous Hindu, Mahatma Gandhi, who is my hero and role model."

Gabbard wrote that she "was raised in a multicultural, multiracial, mulitfaith family" that al­lowed her “to spend a lot of time studying and contemplating upon both the Bhagavad-Gita and the teachings of Jesus Christ in the New Testament."

Today her spiritual practice is neither Catholic nor traditionally Hindu.

“My attempts to work for the welfare of others and the planet is the core of my spiritual practice," Gabbard wrote. “Also, every morning I take time to remember my re­lationship with God through the practice of yoga meditation and reading verses from the Bhagavad-Gita. From the perspective of the Bhagavad-Gita, the spiritual path as I have described here is known as karma yoga and bhakti yoga."

I should add that as a cite. Humanengr (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe "multi-faith" is a better term. Gabbard has used that as well. Also see https://www.tulsi2020.com/about/about-tulsi-gabbard-my-spiritual-path. Humanengr (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, admittedly I'm rather paranoid with ethnic/religious info (example), but I have no problem with the Gabbard BLP or her Christmas + similar personal videos, not everything on her channel is self-serving campaigning. Apologies to Masem, a good place for my reply to Humanegr was occupied in an edit conflict, feel free to move this to a better place. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Given she is running for election, anything from her campaign site should be taken as self-serving, and should not be used unless confirmed by a third-party RS. --Masem (t) 03:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not including her campaign page as a cite, but you can see it is consistent with the material going back 8 years (and it elaborates more detail to show context). There are no RS that say she did not have a multi-faith upbringing. If there were, I would include both as conflicting claims per your earlier direction. I was mentioning the campaign page as an example of 'multi-faith' in lieu of 'multi-religious'. Humanengr (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Masem's assessment. Gabbard used the "multi-cultural, multi-religious" and/or "multi-faith" language at least twice during her 2012 campaign, as noted in the sources Humanengr mentions, which would have been self-serving and would have dispelled talk about her upbringing in the Science of Identity Foundation -- something that was local knowledge at the time. Broad claims by Humanengr about the number of Americans raised in interfaith homes do not apply specifically here and give no insight into Gabbard's religious practice in her early life. Furthermore, the sources from 2012 that Humanengr has dug up rely solely on statements from Gabbard herself and make no mention of her Science of Identity Foundation upbringing and therefore indicate a biased and self-serving nature. Beyond Gabbard's own words, there has been no secondary or tertiary analysis indicating a multireligious/multifaith upbringing. Samp4ngeles (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The text that you yourself inserted into the Science of Identity Foundation article stated: "Butler has said of the SIF philosophy of Bhakti yoga, 'It does not conflict with Christianity, with Islam, with any bona fide religious system.'" There is no contradiction between that statement and Gabbard's description of having a multifaith upbringing. The meditation practices taught through the SIF are not incompatible with the way the Gabbards have described elements of both Hinduism and Christianity being present in their home.

You are doing OR on other people's private religious beliefs. Ignoring the fact that 'cult' is the first of the MOS MOS:words to watch, you declared your opinion as: “It would be accurate to describe SIF as either a cult-like Hare Krishna splinter group (see [3]) or a fringe yogic sect, primarily due to its virulently homophobic and Islamophic teachings” to which Ronz, responded: “Samp4ngeles, regarding cult-like, fringe , and virulently homophobic and Islamophic: No. I fail to see how those are verified by the source you indicate, let alone represent a neutral presentation of the best sources.”

Yet you are continuing to push the 'cult' identification about SIF and Gabbard. Note that, per the WP Cult article, Catherine Wessinger (Professor of the History of Religions at Loyola University New Orleans) "has stated that the word 'cult' represents just as much prejudice and antagonism as racial slurs or derogatory words for women and homosexuals. She has argued that it is important for people to become aware of the bigotry conveyed by the word, drawing attention to the way it dehumanises the group's members and their children."

It is inappropriate and offensive for WP to be used to push this 'cult-obsessed' agenda. Humanengr (talk) 04:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

This is not OR -- it's just checking for RS. The 2012 article plainly says that the claims come from an e-mail Gabbard sent. And again, you're speaking in generalities with regard to Science of Identity Foundation not conflicting with Christianity, etc., while ignoring the the lack of secondary sources discussing Gabbard's actual religious practice in early life. And I have no idea how what you have just written about cults relates to this discussion, but these are baseless claims you are making about me pushing some sort of agenda and I ask you to be WP:CIVIL and take them down. Samp4ngeles (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, such material can be used. WP:BLPSELFPUB applies. Xenagoras (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

For those interested in bigoted attacks that Gabbard has faced regarding her private religious beliefs, see the sources cited here. Humanengr (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

This is really grasping at straws. The Gabbards aren't mentioned anywhere in that article, and Gabbard was one year old when this article was written. I am providing a URL for anyone to read the actual article: https://staradvertiser.newspapers.com/image/276169995/ Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Remotely related, I stumbled over "figures like Tulsi Gabbard" on another biography with a seven months old BLP/N info. –84.46.52.152 (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Fixed: 1+2. –84.46.53.160 (talk) 09:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Accuracy of claims made by climate change deniers

The editor Peter Gulutzan has since at least November 2018 repeatedly removed reliably sourced content on climate change denial / fringe rhetoric on BLPs by claiming that there is a BLP violation in covering inaccuracies made by prominent climate change deniers:

• Myron Ebell[4] (removal of content sourced to Climate Feedback)
• Guus Berkhout[5] (removal of content sourced to Climate Feedback)
• Joanne Nova[6][7] (removal of content sourced to peer-reviewed publications, Science magazine, PolitiFact, National Geographic, and the Pulitzer Prize-winning InsideClimate News)
• Ian Plimer[8] (removal of Climate Feedback)

There is a consensus on the reliability of Climate Feedback, which the RSP list[9] describes as "a fact-checking website that is considered generally reliable for topics related to climate change. It discloses its methodologies and has been endorsed by other reliable sources. Most editors do not consider Climate Feedback a self-published source due to its high reviewer requirements." It's starting to get tiresome to deal with these reverts of RS content, so I'd just like to get confirmation here that there is no BLP violation involved in adding reliably sourced content about the accuracy of claims made by climate change deniers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Have you discussed the issue with the editor on the various talk pages? I think we need to be very careful with a claim like that one removed from the Ebell article. The claim in question, "Ebell has falsely claimed that "the rate of warming according to the data is much slower than the models used by the IPCC."" is true so long as there is one example of it being true. Absent the context in which it was made we shouldn't include such statements in Wikipedia voice. Such a definitive statement should include a link to the original claim as well as an attributed explanation to why the claim is wrong. I didn't review the other examples but this first one certainly doesn't support the view that Peter Gulutzan's edits are problematic. Springee (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. In fact Snooganssnoogans did start a thread on the Myron Ebell talk page, I hope that editors will look at my reply there. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Taking the points in order:

(Ebell) On 30 November 2018 Snooganssnoogans started a thread on the Myron Ebell talk page beginning with the incorrect assertion that I had had said climatefeedback.org is not a Reliable Source. In fact I had said no such thing, I had said "Not compliant with WP:BLPSPS and WP:WELLKNOWN.", and on 30 November 2018 I replied on that thread with a full explanation about the cited author/editor, to which Snooganssnoogans did not reply. On 2 December 2018 -- without pinging me and without discussing my actual objections -- Snooganssnoogans started a thread on WP:RSN and got 2 editors to agree (one editor did not) that in general climatefeedback looked like an RS. On 3 December 2018 another editor re-inserted the contentious material in the BLP. I asked if others had opinions (nobody did), and I did nothing further. Would anyone like to finally address what I said?

(Berkhout) Once again, a WP:RSN thread Factcheck from climatefeedback.org as a source at Guus Berkhout. I participated, others disagreed, the material in question was re-inserted in the Guus Berkhout BLP, I did nothing further.

(Nova) Snooganssnoogans points to this edit by me on 12 September 2019 and claims it was about various wonderful publications -- which is false, as anyone who looks at the edit can see. The cited source was cup.columbia.edu, my edit summary was "Removed "Nova is known for promoting fringe views on climate science". Cited source refutes some statements in her guide, but does not say she is known for that. Poorly sourced material." Nobody disputed that (as far as I can tell), it was a fact that the cited source didn't say it, and the statement has not been re-inserted.

(Plimer) In this case my edit summary was "Additional source is not compliant with WP:BLPSPS, and also unnecessary, there is already a cite." i.e. I made no change to the content, so this doesn't fit with Snooganssnoogans's opening sentence that I "repeatedly removed sourced content". (In fact not only did I not remove sourced content in this case, I didn't "repeatedly" remove in other cases.) I believe it could be discussed on the appropriate talk page, and wonder what's wrong with that.

(consensus) I refer Snooganssnoogans to the essay don't quote essays or proposals as if they were policy. More seriously, the reference to WP:RSP (which most charitably can be described as having "limited status" the same as an essay) should not be brought into a discussion as if people who are referring to WP:BLPSPS (which is a part of a real policy) need to bow to it. In this case, I looked deeper at the claim that "most editors do not consider Climate Feedback a self-published source" and found that it was added by one of the 3 or 4 editors who thought it was not self-published, as opposed to 3 or 4 who thought it was. If someone wants to establish a consensus whether Climate Feedback meets WP:BLPSPS requirements, let's have a talk specifically about that (which as far as I know has never happened) and let's have it on the relevant page which is WP:BLPN (which as far as I know has never happened).

I would greatly appreciate a confirmation that Snooganssnoogans's points are without merit, because Snooganssnoogans has used the same points to accuse me of "tendentious editing". Regrettably an administrator (Bishonen) after 11 minutes agreed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Credit: The statement about "most editors" was made by Newslinger, here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

"The cited source was cup.columbia.edu". Just to be clear: this is a Columbia University Press book published by a recognized expert in the field of climate science. This kind of misrepresentation, one among many, amounts to WP:TE at this point. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Anyone who looks will see that I did not say there was anything wrong with Columbia, I said the cited source did not support the statement in the Wikipedia article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

(Question to all) Is Climatefeedback something should be treated like the Politifact? I don't recall the exact location but I think people recently concluded that Politifact should be treated as something similar to a think tank. Their opinions are often cited by others and often have WEIGHT. However, it was also felt that they aren't a source in and of themselves. Thus if Politifac says "Senator X was wrong..." that doesn't establish WEIGHT for inclusion. Weight would be established if CNN says, "According to Politifact, Senator X was wrong...". I think discussions around the SPLC have reached similar conclusions. If that same thinking applies to Climatefeedback then I think the Ebell content, as inserted way back in the day, didn't establish WEIGHT for inclusion. Stating a living person was "wrong" is something negative about them and thus the typical BLP concerns apply. That doesn't mean it shouldn't make it into the article but we really should be careful that we aren't over simplifying what might be a more complex claim. In general I would be uncomfortable with statements like the one in the Ebell article since it looks like a random sentence thrown in to discredit the person rather than true explanation of what is almost certainly a more complex position/claim by Ebell. - Disclaimer, prior to my responses here I was not familiar with Ebell. Springee (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative views, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism. — Newslinger talk 10:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC) Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment — Newslinger talk 01:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Describing WP:RS/P as some kind of WP:ESSAY doesn't match the effects of, e.g., "deprecated" on not logged-in users, for examples see WT:WHITELIST, WT:RSN, and WT:AFC. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

What I actually said was: most charitably can be described as having "limited status" the same as an essay. That charitable description is the WP:SUPPLEMENTAL guideline: "In comparison to policies and guidelines, information pages, like essay pages, have a limited status, as they have not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Springee, I don't think that's a good summary of the consensus on Politifact. Here's the recent RFC [10] and an earlier one [11]. The consensus to me reads that Politifact is a reliable source for factual claims, equivalent to a high quality news source. The only exception is that their specific truth ratings of a statement ("True", "Mostly False", "Pants on Fire", etc), and any kind of analysis of percentage of false statements should be attributed as an opinion. Just wanted to note that, I don't really have an opinion on Climate Feedback Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Nobody expects the spanish inquisition here: The Hill in a "Politifact fail" video on YouTube four days ago. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

RRC, you are correct. It was the opinion part that editors felt needed to be cited by others in order to establish WEIGHT. Do we think that is the same case here? If CF says Jane Doe made a false claim [here], should that statement have WEIGHT by itself or does that claim need other sources to establish weight? Also, should we just quote the high level claim or should the details be included. Again, I'm concerned about what look like random, negative statements without context. In general I think labeling people as climate deniers is problematic given the extremely political nature of the public debate. Springee (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Peter_Gulutzan here. As I understand, we are supposed to present all views of reliable sources in proportion... and for bios immediately remove poorly sourced contentious material.

• ClimateFeedback should be treated as an opinion blog site with recognition that the opinions come from credentialed academics (if verified). It carries some weight, but it's not the "supreme court" of climate change sources.
• My search for Myron Ebel at Duck Duck Go says most sources call him a director of a center at an institute, or head of the transition team, etc. Calling him a "denier" is a derogatory term, and cherry picking a particular source is not neutrally representing more than one source(s) available.
• Even the particular cited source (6 above) does not call Ebel a "denier."
• The source's opinions should be attributed as such, if you want to describe claims as "false" based on them.
• Factual accuracy and editing of material on Climate Feedback site: I spot checked this article looking at links to bios. Martin Singh's bio link gives a 404. This is a negative indicator regarding editing and reliability.

-- Yae4 (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Yae4: but if you searched for "Martin Singh, Postdoctoral Research fellow, Harvard University:' you would have found this. He is now at Monash University[12] which is probably why the link no longer exists. So the fact that page was removed is not a comment on the Climate Feedback site. The site has been discussed at WP:RSN[13] - people can read the entire short discussion, but here's the first two comments:

"An editor[14] insists that Climatefeedback.org is a self-published source run by nobodies and that we can't use it as a source for statements such as "Myron Ebell has falsely claimed that "the rate of warming according to the data is much slower than the models used by the IPCC." Climate scientists note that past climate models have accurately predicted subsequent rates of global warming."[15] Climatefeedback.org has been cited favorably recently by sources such as Deutsche Welle,[16] Columbia Journalism Review[17], Axios[18], and the Guardian which referred to climatefeedback.org as "a highly respected and influential resource"[19]. It would be good if the RS noticeboard could clarify once and for all whether this source, which other RS cite and describe favorably and which rely on assessments by actual experts, can be used as a RS, so that editors who want to scrub this source and related content from the pages of prominent climate change deniers will stop doing so (or conversely, be allowed to do so). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

"Hard to argue against Deutsche Welle, Columbia Journalism Review, Axios, and the Guardian. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

"*Generally reliable. With published editorial and advisory teams, a clear methodology ([20] [21]), and multiple endorsements from established reliable sources, Climate Feedback appears to have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy required of a generally reliable source. — Newslinger talk 10:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)" Doug Weller talk

None of that is relevant to the specific objections I made about the Myron Ebell cite, and I never said that climatefeedback.org is run by nobodies. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: I have no idea why you are telling me this as I thought it was obviously a response to the post above mine by Yae4 Doug Weller talk 16:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: It was about me as well, you quoted from the WP:RSN thread that I'd mentioned, starring Snooganssnoogans's claim re what I'd said, and I have no idea why. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, The fact that Singh's listing is out of date since around January 2017, or 3 years ago, and he reviewed 2 articles in 2019, including November, but they didn't update his info' is no reflection on their editorial performance or factual accuracy? With all due respect, I disagree. It's not a huge error, but it's an indicator; big errors start with small ones. His comments also struck me as being much too long, as compared with others, which is why I clicked. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

^This is a strange criticism of a RS. This well-regarded fact-checking website comprised entirely of recognized experts is unreliable because one author did not update his author bio on the website (moving from a postdoc to a tenure-track job) and because his comments are long. You do realize that author bios are usually written by the authors themselves? This applies to the author bios in peer-reviewed academic publications, as well as the folks who write op-eds for RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not here to exchange snarky insults. I stand by my original, concise list of comments above. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

To clarify my last comment ^, I did not see all your edits of your previous comment until after I replied.

So it might be good to review Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_own_comments: "even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes."

Also, referring to the heading here and at User_talk:Peter_Gulutzan#Tendentious_editing_on_climate_change_topics a review of Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#New_topics_and_headings_on_talk_pages: "Keep headings neutral" also seems appropriate. -- Yae4 (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans has accused me of tendentious editing at least four times (15:38 11 January, 16:00 11 January, 03:55 15 January, 14:19 15 January), and if that's accepted then Snooganssnoogans's request is taken care of. Incidentally Snooganssnoogans's claim "comprised entirely of recognized experts" is not an opinion I could agree with. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable. We are in a situation analogous to that with alternative medicine: the specialists who critique climate change denial typically do so in venues dedicated to the subject of denialism, because denialism itself is not a live controversy within the field. You don't publish papers in professional climate literature saying that $RANDOMDENIALIST is wrong because (a) it's obvious and (b) it does not advance the field of climate science. So we have a number of venues, of which this is one, where specialists gather to critique a specific aspect of pseudoscience. Obviously that critique necessarily personalises things (X is wrong to say Y is hard to discuss without naming X as the source of Y). That means we have to be careful not to slip into hyperbole, but the content linked above, doesn't do that. The only thing I would do is WP:ATT everything. Guy (help!) 15:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Include. Climate Feedback (RSP entry) is not a self-published source, just as the similar Science-Based Medicine (RSP entry) was determined not to be self-published in a 2019 RfC. InsideClimate News won the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting in 2013, and is not self-published because it has a sizable editorial team. The guideline on fringe theories makes it clear that "When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views." Climate change denial is contrary to the scientific consensus on climate change, and is a fringe theory because it "departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field". In-text attribution is appropriate in some cases, and I would reword some of the text to focus the criticism on the people's claims, and not the people themselves. — Newslinger talk 01:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I made five points on a talk page post, one of which was about InsideClimate News, I've withdrawn it. It's disputed whether Snooganssnoogans's edits have always met WP:BLP requirements, and whether Snooganssnoogans's requests or accusations are laudable, but not (as far as I can tell) whether pseudoscientific views should be pushed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

You've made some reasonable points, so I've taken a closer look at each of the edits listed in Snooganssnoogans's first comment in this discussion:

1. Myron Ebell (Special:Diff/871394198): The text in the article is consistent with the the Climate Feedback fact check, but in-text attribution of Climate Feedback would be appropriate, and the text should also state the year Ebell made the statement (2018). Something like 'In a 2018 Newsnight interview, Ebell stated that "the rate of warming according to the data is much slower than the models used by the IPCC", which was described as "factually inaccurate" by Climate Feedback.' would be fully BLP-compliant. It doesn't look like Ebell responded to the fact check.
2. Guus Berkhout (Special:Diff/919740851): This looks fine to me, since I don't consider Climate Feedback self-published, as explained in my previous comment. The text includes Climate Feedback's negative evaluation of the letter, but doesn't describe Berkhout or the other signatories with negative terms. However, the text could use some copyediting, and there's a typo in "scienctists".
3. Joanne Nova (Special:Diff/929091011, Special:Diff/915352813, Talk:Joanne Nova § A recent edit)
   • I agree that "known primarily for promoting pseudoscientific views on climate change and the harms of smoking" should not be used to describe the Heartland Institute, since Powell's book does not directly say that. The main article might have more supporting sources, but I'm not sure if they're relevant in the article on Nova. Alternative phrasing, such as "a think tank that opposed the Kyoto Protocol", would be better-supported and more relevant.
   • "The book argues that temperatures have not increased" is imprecise, as Nova's handbook states that "the world has not warmed since 2001". The text should add "since 2001".
   • National Geographic is one of the sources used for the text "The book promotes the myth that there is already so much CO2 in the atmosphere that adding more will not have an impact on temperatures." The magazine links to a UT News piece, which refers to a "myth" that consists of two claims: the CO₂ saturation claim, and the water vapor claim. Nova made the first claim in her handbook, but was silent on the second claim. I'm undecided on whether this is a potent enough counterargument to justify excluding "myth" from the text. There is probably some way to rephrase this unambiguously.
   • 'Her blog is described as "skeptical" of climate science.' isn't well-supported, since the cited NPR opinion piece doesn't explicitly mention Nova, but "a number of active bloggers".
   • There were other changes in those edits. No comment on these changes, since I didn't examine them yet.
4. Ian Plimer (Special:Diff/935260217): As I don't consider Climate Feedback self-published, I would keep the citation. The article text is unaffected.

— Newslinger talk 10:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This thread isn't about whether to insert that material (it already is inserted). It's about Snooganssnoogans's request. (Update: I removed some unnecessary words in that last sentence before there was a reply.) I want to discuss the edits, but does anyone object if we do so on separate threads? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, I added a thread related to the first accusation, my revert on Myron Ebell. I'd like to do one at a time. I think that "what should be in the Myron Ebell article" belongs better in that thread, and "should the Snooganssnoogans request be supported" belongs in this one. Some people have suggested that there should have been attribution (meaning there was an WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV violation too?), but I didn't bring that in because it is part of the WP:NPOV policy not the WP:BLP policy. And, as stated, I regard talk about WP:RS guideline as unnecessary. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Adding a couple more observations about Climate Feedback (aka Science Feedback and Health Feedback): It's a little early to claim good "reputation" for accuracy when they only had the notability tag removed last April related to Facebook, and a few months later were censured for a review of a video on Facebook: "The failure to declare to their readers that two individuals who assisted Science Feedback, not in writing the fact-check but in reviewing the evidence, had positions within advocacy organizations, and the failure to clarify their role to readers, fell short of the standards required of IFCN signatories."[22] -- Yae4 (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Michael McCain

Michael McCain

"As CEO of Maple Leaf Foods, McCain's handling of the 2008 listeria outbreak with frank and open communications made him a role model for crisis management.[[23]]"

This is overly promotional content with a dead source. According to policy, "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." Statement should be changed to reflect a more neutral tone, or at the very least have a verifiable source.

Bleepenvoy (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Removed the promotional line. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Disagree it was promotion. The Globe and Mail is a reputable paper, so a comment like this in his obit in that paper is not really promotion. As for being a dead link, a quick Wayback visit and edit added the archive there. Editors should be always checking archive.org for replacing dead links. If that source wasn't recoverable that way, I would agree the removal was fine. --Masem (t) 00:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Also found one academic paper reviewing the crisis management, as well as the fact the Canadian press named him business newsperson of that year for the handling. Definitely a notable facet of this person. --Masem (t) 00:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I would ask that the "role model for crisis management" bit be placed in quotes as it's still the opinion of a publication. So long as it's sourced and not stated as fact I have no further qualms with it. Bleepenvoy (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

It's on the border of needing quotes. There are likely more sources that can back that up, as the event and aftermath towards McCain's leadership and honest seems very well documented. --Masem (t) 06:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

In the interest of maintaining a neutral, disinterested tone, I attempted to incorporate that sentiment without stating it as fact. Bleepenvoy (talk) 08:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:COISOURCE having a lot of trouble considering the widespread conflicts of interest that exist here. Talk:Michael McCain expands on my concerns. I don't think it would be responsible or objective to relay potential PR intervention without expanding on these potential conflicts, and that seems beyond the scope of the article. I think it's best to be cautious here for the sake of being a neutral source.Bleepenvoy (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Note that per Wikipedia:Link rot, you should not generally remove content simply because the link is dead. This applies even if you looked for an archive and cannot find one. You should normally only do so if you have genuine doubts that the source verifies the content. If you cannot find a replacement link, it's generally best to simply keep the citation intact and leave it for someone else to deal with. This example actually perfectly illustrates why. Even if the source was not on archive.org, it is on archive.is which is no longer banned for their historic spamming [24]. More importantly "a reputable paper", let's remember that the paper part is still true. The Globe and Mail remains a physical newspaper. Considering the significance of the person, I think it's quite likely that either this exact story, or a very similar one was published in the actual newspaper. We have the author and date and title, so it's easily possible that we already have enough for a citation to the physical newspaper. We do not require sources are online, so even if this is only cited to the physical newspaper, that's perfectly fine. Nil Einne (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Bleepenvoy, here are the cites given for this small paragraph.

• CBC (you appear to accept this one)
• Globe and Mail (you consider COI through board members, it appears Masem and Nil Einne disagree with you)
• Case study in the peer-reviewed Public Communication Review journal. (you dislike "research performed by the PR firm")
• The Conversation ("serves only as promotional language")
• canada gov report that you call 'Weatherill' (you like, but I can't tell what is or might be used)

It appears you have strong opinion that there should be no review of this event, just given as a date and fact. But there's significant coverage that it has been used as a case study. Deciding Globe and Mail is in the bag for him is quite the stretch. The article in The Conversation isn't "only promotional", it's complimentary, which isn't the same thing. The Public Communication Review study has been referenced in 48 books. It seems this is strong personal bias on your part, not true criticism of the sources. tedder (talk) 09:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

For clarity, I didn't actually intend to comment on the use of Globe and Mail. That said while I don't know that much about the Globe and Mail, my understanding is Masem is correct and it's a reputable Canadian paper and therefore I'd consider excluding it simply because of board members questionable. Nil Einne (talk) 10:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm OK with leaving the positive stuff in so long as the potential COIs are enumerated and they're rounded out with opinions from independent sources. Bleepenvoy (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

What would that look like? "Globe and Mail, who has a board member in common with Maple Leaf, said McCain handled it well"? That's way out of proportion, I think. tedder (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

If there's any question, there's coverage of McCain's handling of the crisis from Financial Times (paywall), Wall Street Journal, Global News, and that's just 3 pages into a dated Google News search. There is clear "respect" for how McCain handled the recall crisis at the company, so calling it "promotional" in that regard makes no sense. --Masem (t) 17:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I restored and expanded it with these sources. It's a pretty clear consensus both here on WP and in the sources that it's worth including.tedder (talk) 05:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Jay Maynard

Jay Maynard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Discospinster constantly reverting sourced material from Jay Maynard article without comment, even as far as to remove the edits from the system entirely. Refuses to address the reverts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.50.12.149 (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

It is being reverted because it's not referenced by an independent reliable source. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

What's unreliable about the source? The source *is the work being referenced*. It's no less reliable than wikipedia edit history.136.50.12.149 (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Tapon Mahamud Jony

I am someone who is a big fan of a broadcast crew member 'Tapon Mahamud Jony' and I made an account on Wikipedia with his name. I have watched all of his interviews and attended his award-winning ceremonies. I once met him and told him about my interest to publish an article about himself and so I asked him to provide me some references where he was nominated for awards and achievements. Indeed it is an autobiography and all references are reliable. Please guide me on what changes are needed to publish this article about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapon Mahamud Jony (talk • contribs) 11:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Tapon Mahamud Jony: See this simple guide on how to write articles that won't be deleted. You need independent references by other people, not him. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Tapon Mahamud Jony: Since you aren't actually Tapon Mahamud Jony, I also suggest you ask for a rename per WP:REALNAME. Nil Einne (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I have done what you said. Can you guide what to do for now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapon Mahamud Jony (talk • contribs) 10:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Myron Ebell

Snooganssnoogans inserted this: Ebell has falsely claimed that "the rate of warming according to the data is much slower than the models used by the IPCC." Climate scientists note that past climate models have accurately predict subsequent rates of global warming. I reverted. Guy re-inserted (citing an additional source that didn't mention the claim). Other people who commented specifically about the Myron Ebell edit or the revert: Springee, Yae4, Newslinger. Should the inserted text be in the article? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• No. I reverted Snooganssnoogans's edit here with the edit summary "Not compliant with WP:BLPSPS and WP:WELLKNOWN." The cite is to this post on a website named "Climate Feedback" by Scott Johnson -- not a climatologist, just an editor who has a Master of Science degree (so does Ebell, big deal). There is no evidence that the post was subject to any editorial control, which is natural, Johnson's the editor. All that Johnson has done is say Ebell made an inaccurate statement based on excerpts from comments of threefour other people -- that do not mention Ebell at all. For each, Johnson says "This comment is taken from an evaluation of a similar claim." I concluded it's a self-published non-expert opinion, hence not compliant with WP:BLPSPS. As for WP:WELLKNOWN, I was referring to the words "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." I see no other sites that claim that Ebell said that and that it's false, so it's non-compliant with that too. Whether it also is non-compliant with WP:RS and WP:DUE looks probable but I didn't see a need to bring them up. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Additional details re the author: According to Climate Feedback Scott Kyle Johnson's title is "science editor" and he has a masters in hydrogeology from University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is a "geology instructor" for Coconino Community College, and also "part-time faculty" for Northern Arizona University Online. I am unaware of any scholarly articles. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes. The comments above are deceptive and disingenuous in a way that has now become Peter Gulutzan's trademark when it comes to climate change-related content. The source is not a blog post or whatever by some random called "Scott Johnson" or whatever it is that Gulutzan is now suggesting. The source is Climate Feedback, an acclaimed and recognized fact-checking website, and the claim in question by Ebell is reviewed by four recognized experts in the field of climate science (the editor for the particular post is Scott Johnson). The claim made by Ebell is a typical climate change denier claim that Climate Feedback has reviewed before ("The rate of warming according to the data is much slower than the models used by the IPCC"), so the reviews by the four recognized experts are re-used reviews from similar statements. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The person who writes the summary is the editor (the method is described on the about page for Science Feedback). The only text that says anything at all about Ebell is the summary. Therefore the description of Ebell is by the editor, Scott Johnson. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Seriously? He said it on BBC Newsnight. How much more public does it have to be? Guy (help!) 23:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• No. Ebell did make the statement, at about 5:11 in the Youtube video linked to at Climate Feedback's "claim review" page. The Independent article does not contain the quote being discussed here, although it does have other quotes from the show. My web news searches did not find any other source with the statement.

The statement has zero specifics - over what time period? which prediction out of hundreds or thousands that have been run? It is a statement that can be true or untrue depending on those details, which were not said.

Climate Feedback is known, but hardly "acclaimed." An "independent" review contained several criticisms, including one instance of "non compliant" and several instances of "partially compliant" with the IFCN code of principles.[25][26][27] They also were investigated found to have used two reviewers who "had positions within advocacy organizations, and the failure to clarify their role to readers, fell short of the standards..."[28]

So, we have a statement that was made on a show, an article criticizing the show for even having that guest (but not containing the quote), and only one source - a review website that has problems complying with their principles, and only re-ran an old set of criticisms of a statement that is so vague it could be true or false. -- Yae4 (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Given the dates and specific comments related to IPCC, it is not OR to determine that the comments in question in 2018 are related to this report "Global Warming of 1.5 ºC" Now yes, that's still a big report so its not easy to say specifically what model is being compared here, but we can clearly id what he was commenting on. --Masem (t) 01:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

We just don't really know. Maybe he refers to Figure 11.25 of the IPCC ar5 report, where the observations do indeed appear lower (i.e. slower rate of rise) than most predictions [29] (Thanks Judith Curry Climate Models for the Layman, p. 13). [30] But really, this is OR. -- Yae4 (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

There's more than enough detail in what he is stating in the video from BBC [31] to accurately ID it as the 2018 IPCC report. But you are right about which figure or date set within it he may be referring to to be able to be able to compare. He's also not giving any of his own date, just saying "the rate is actually lower than IPCC". --Masem (t) 03:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

You come here to emphasize how the website only partially complied with some of the ICFN's criteria after sifting through International Fact-Checking Network's assessments of Climate Feedback which are full of praise and which conclude that Climate Feedback should be accepted into the International Fact-Checking Network (and Climate Feedback is currently a verified member of the International Fact-Checking Network)? Per the IFCN, Climate Feedback had five instances of partial compliance. For comparison's sake, FactCheck.Org has four such instances[32], and the Associated Press FactChecker has five partial compliances and one non-compliance[33], yet these are indisputably RS. Furthermore, this quibbling over partial compliance is irrelevant: Climate Feedback was accepted into the International Fact-Checking Network, and it was showered in praise by the IFCN assessors. Your comment is incredibly misleading (come on, don't sift through primary sources that are full of praise and omit all the praise, and misleadingly tell everyone about the minor quibbling found in those primary sources) Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the comparisons. They are useful. I would expect a Climate/Health/Science Feedback's blog/site using credentialed "experts" to stand heads and shoulders above typical journalists, but they don't, which is disappointing. Yes, I am critical. With some exceptions, promotion at Wikipedia takes care of itself. I came here with relatively fresh eyes, and scanned the reviews. Yes there are positive things said, but "full of praise" and "showered in praise" are exaggerations. To my eyes, many or most of the positive compliments were offset by suggestions for improvements (which may be expected from reviewers). -- Yae4 (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Since I know little about the subject of the article I will offer just some general comments. First, it's not clear if this single sentence hanging out by itself is DUE in the article. The previous discussion established that it was reliably sourced but not it's WEIGHT. Typically if you have a long article and you have a single fact like this it's probably not DUE. If another article about the subject mentions this same fact/interview/claim then I think there is WEIGHT for inclusion. Really, how would excluding this single, by itself sentence change the reader's understanding of the Ebell? If it doesn't then it probably isn't due. Second, we need to avoid phrasing like "falsely claimed" as it can imply he knowingly lied. Is it possible Ebell was both sincere in intent but incorrectly read the data? Could his answer have been true if he was perhaps he was thinking of a different/older set of models/data? Do we know? As a personal example, I've talked cars with people who were incorrect yet sincere at the same time. They might be certain a particular car had a 6spd auto vs the 8spd it actually came with or that a particular feature was available in 2006 when the model first launched in 2008. That doesn't mean they are trying to lie or deceive. Describing their incorrect facts as "falsely claimed" could imply deception. I suspect we have all seen similar things happen on contentious talk pages. Someone (of course never me) thinks they are restoring long standing text but in fact are restoring a relatively recent edit. Both editors start a back and forth certain they are returning things to the consensus text. Both can't be right. If A describes B as "falsely claiming to have restored the consensus view" I can see B taking that as "B is knowingly lying". However, the phrase, "incorrectly claimed" or "mistakenly claimed" doesn't impugn B's integrity, only their understanding/knowledge of the facts. The policy debate end of climate change is certainly an area where there are a lot of passions and strong POVs. We really should make sure we pick very neutral language vs language that is technically neutral but still can be reasonably be interpreted as "we want to call this person a liar in Wiki voice". Springee (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Ebell's answer could have been true if he was thinking of a different/older set of models/data -- and I think the older the better, if his point was that the IPCC had sometimes had models that didn't quite fit data over a long term. For example, Zeke Hausfather in a different blog (one that actually mentions the IPCC as opposed to the one that Scott Johnson picked) compared projections in the IPCC First Assessment Report (FAR) of 1990 with 2016, thus: "Despite a best estimate of climate sensitivity a tad lower than the 3C used today, the FAR overestimated the rate of warming between 1970 and 2016 by around 17% in their BAU [Business As Usual] scenario, showing 1C warming over that period vs 0.85C observed. This is mostly due to the projection of much higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations than has actually occurred." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Reproducing my comment from the previous discussion:

  Myron Ebell (Special:Diff/871394198): The text in the article is consistent with the the Climate Feedback fact check, but in-text attribution of Climate Feedback would be appropriate, and the text should also state the year Ebell made the statement (2018). Something like 'In a 2018 Newsnight interview, Ebell stated that "the rate of warming according to the data is much slower than the models used by the IPCC", which was described as "factually inaccurate" by Climate Feedback.' would be fully BLP-compliant. It doesn't look like Ebell responded to the fact check.

— Newslinger talk 05:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

​​​ Did you watch the video? Ebell couldn't respond because they cut him off, and refused to let him say more to explain. This is similar to what is happening here at Wikipedia, at some articles and "discussions" BTW. And why would Ebell then bother to explain something that was only noticed at a review site that needs to increase their number of reviews (publish or perish)? Also, among the cricisms of Science/Climate/Health Feedback was some difficulty in commenting on reviews.

Re: Previous discussions, I note this review site has been discussed a few times, without particular consensus. [34][35][36][37]

Question: This source is used twice in Climate Feedback's article, apparently supporting credibility and accuracy. Isn't it a blog post ("blogposts" tag at bottom)? If so, this looks like a double standard here (as I was recently advised not to use NYTimes blogs as a source). [38] Plus, the author, Dana Nuccitelli, "has a Bachelor's Degree in astrophysics from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master's Degree in physics from the University of California at Davis." "He has also blogged at The Guardian," Is this the kind of qualifications needed? (because I was recently informed being an engineer with 40 years experience was not). [39]

I see that Snooganssnoogans added that Dana Nuccitelli quote re Climate Feedback 4 days after I had said how bad Scott Johnson's Climate Feedback post was. In a WP:BLPN discussion of Dana Nuccitelli's Guardian blog, four editors agreed that it can't be used for BLPs. But the Climate Feedback article is non-BLP so nothing can be done there. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

This is again an astounding misrepresentation. You're falsely claiming that the Guardian article is a blogpost?[40] There's a "blogposts" tag at the bottom because the subject of the news article is literally climate denial "blogs". How could you possibly skip over the entire content of the article and find some tag at the bottom, and then come here to claim it's a blogpost? First, you misrepresent the IFCN's assessments of Climate Feedback, which were full of praise and which resulted in Climate Feedback being accepted into the IFCN. And now this? And days ago, you were adding Daily Caller content and climate change denial rubbish to the Climate Feedback page? Apparently, to you, Climate Feedback is not a RS even though it was accepted into the IFCN with open arms, and a Guardian news article is an unreliable blogpost (when it's obvious not), but a far-right conspiracy website like the Daily Caller and the climate change deniers at Accuracy in Media are? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

​​ I asked a question. For why, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The_Guardian: "Most editors say that The Guardian blogs should be treated as newspaper blogs or opinion pieces due to reduced editorial oversight. Check the bottom of the article for a "blogposts" tag to determine whether the page is a blog post or a non-blog article."

Could an admin apply some of those "discretionary sanctions" I was warned about? I'm getting tired of these Ad_hominem attacks. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Alright, my apologies. That appears to have been a mistake. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Finally, "Sarphan Uzunoğlu wrote: They need to publish more often to meet IFCN's standards. Otherwise, methodologically and in terms of non-partisanship and transparency, they are a reliable organization who is recognized by many international news outlets and scientific actors. I suggest to accept them but give them feedbacks regarding regularity of their content publication regime." One could argue this "quote check" may have been done simply to "publish more often." I also agree using editors who are less qualified than the reviewers is questionable. Taking reviewers from a pool of volunteers also calls into question whether they actually have a "staff." -- Yae4 (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. We have a reliable source saying it, so we can quote that. Four top experts are quoted in the source as saying the opposite of what Ebell says. The credentials of the editor do not matter. If the source were a highly regarded newspaper quoting four top experts, would you complain that the journalist wo wrote the piece is not a top expert? Second-guessing the reliable source, speculating about who meant what, is also disingenious special pleading from PROFRINGE editors. Ebell's job is to claim that the climate experts are wrong, and that is exactly what he does here. Consequently, the experts say that he is wrong, and the experts are reliable sources published in a reliable source. This complaint has no leg to stand on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - The cited sources are fine, and special pleading from well-known climate deniers should be, well, denied. Everyone knows what Myron Ebell is at this point and trying to pretend otherwise is ludicrous. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• I'm going to agree with what Newslinger has said and suggested as text: its basically a better-wording issue to frame who said what, rather than to flatly say "falsely claimed" without any in-line attribution, given the slight bit of doubt over Climate Feedback. But otherwise the sourcing and statement are appropriate, the rewording takes the claim out of Wikivoice. --Masem (t) 17:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
• I'm going to disagree with what Newslinger has suggested as text: the words "factually inaccurate" should be attributed to the person who said them, Scott Johnson. It is normal when directly quoting somebody to say who the somebody is, as in the MOS:QUOTEPOV example. I believe that WP:BLP-violating text should be removed totally. But, since the attribution would imply agreement that Snooganssnoogans violated WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy by inserting "falsely" in Wikipedia voice, I realize this constitutes removal of the worst part of the inserted text. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• I also disagree with the suggested statement, completely. I won't pretend to fully understand application of WP:DUE, but this seems to be blowing a statement out of proportion. Also, I want to mention a contrast in treatment at a somewhat similar BLP article, with possible appearance of coordinated Admin action; and to ask if/where it would be more appropriate to bring up for further discussion? For Ebell here, we discuss adding a critical mention of a quote picked from a recorded video interview, with only one written source. In contrast, at Judith Curry I added a quoted mention and link to a report no one disputes she wrote and was published, "Climate Models for the Layman," with 7 citations (and possible over-quoting/copyright issue). Her blog links to a video interview where she discussed the report. The report and various statements are found in numerous sources (i.e. not just one). So, Diannaa then removed 6 of the citations (this doesn't need 7 citations)[41]. Dave souza removed the remaining statement (per talk, remove GWPF para – reliable secondary source needed).[42] Then, for the final stroke, JzG removed the link to the report (absolutely inappropriate external link to climate change denialism propaganda)[43]. Now I've asked for collaboration assistance on the article talk page, and provided several more citations, but none of the 3 above seem interested. Is this the norm at Wikipedia? -- Yae4 (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I checked those citations, and several of them don't even contain the quotation. Two of them are 25-min videos, and I don't have time to listen to them to determine whether or not either of them contain the quotation. — Diannaa (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This is about Ebell. If you want to talk about Curry, start a Curry section. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but the bigger question was if/where to discuss Admin actions. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, the passage in question is appropriate. We should have confidence in giving our readers facts, especially in this topic area. I think it's quite worrying when we starting letting climate-change denial chip away at a factual presentation of this topic. The source is fine for this purpose. I don't agree with the alternate proposal, for these reasons. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Michael Tarraga

Found at the help desk, it's no BLPPROD, but apparently a BLP1E with various BLP policy violations not limited to do no harm (see #Delhi gang rape above.) –84.46.52.152 (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a good candidate for speedy deletion, having a total of 6 sources consisting of 5 youtube videos and a book review that doesn't mention his name once. Aside from the rather novelesque writing, there are telltale signs that seem to indicate this may be an autobiography written by the subject himself. Zaereth (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Zaereth: Please note also that Tarraga and his associate Anna Brees (producer of two of the YouTube videos cited in the article) -- with in particular their wildly implausible allegations about Edward Heath -- have been comprehensively debunked by both Private Eye and the respected blogger Richard Bartholomew: see https://barthsnotes.com/2019/04/04/private-eye-explores-new-edward-heath-accuser/ . These people are conspiracy theorists who seem to think uncorroborated assertions on YouTube (which exercises no editorial control over content) constitute reliable sources. -- Alarics (talk) 12:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Alarics: The website barthsnotes.com doesn't constitute a reliable source either though. I removed the part of Ted Heath and all other names mentioned in the article. Except for Shirley Oaks as there were countless other people that claimed that they were abused there while in care. All other names are removed. I really wouldn't think that private eye is a reliable source either... It would be great if his life's story could remain standing without any names in it. The article was viewed at least 40 times per day, it seems there are people that are interested in his story.--Sparrow (麻雀) 🐧 14:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Zaereth: courtesy ping for awareness of the above comment from Alarics -- I believe that the ping from Alarics may not have worked for obscure technical reasons. MPS1992 (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks MPS1992. I didn't see the ping, but I saw the comment. I don't even need to know all that, but it is useful background information. The article has no sources and is full of BLP vios, so many that it's easier to list the policies not violated. I am particularly concerned about the naming of so many different people in this mess. I was hoping an admin would come along and delete it. When I get more time I may try to put it up for AFD, unless someone else wants to do the honors (hint hint) but I'm literally running out the door right now. Zaereth (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

User warned, obscure YouTube video removed again. –84.46.53.160 (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Please give me the weekend to see whether I'll find some more credible sources. There are no people mentioned in the article just the abuse the Michael claims that he suffered.--Sparrow (麻雀) 🐧 14:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Linda Bryder

This page is in violation of large portions of the biographies of living persons policy.

Sources are nearly all tabloid journalism, which consists of defamatory and libelous information. Sources are negative, questionable and written/referenced by unqualified people. Removal of such sources has been unsuccessful - editing blocked by a bot.

The page serves the only purpose of harming the subject - achieved subtly through negative references.

NPOV is not consistent where the anonymous writer has given their opinion on the subjects career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceNerd1900 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

What tabloid journalism? The sources there seem to be NZ Herald, the ODT, RadioNZ, NZMA's journal, Science Media Centre, NZ Skeptic (which I'm not sure is an RS, especially for BLPs but can't reasonably be called a tabloid journalism source), www.cartwrightinquiry.com (which seems to be some sort of blog with uncertain editorial oversight so is unlikely to be an RS especially for BLPs but again doesn't seem to be tabloid journalism). None of these can reasonably be described by tabloid journalism, except for the crap NZ Herald regularly pulls from Daily Mail and similar sources like news.com.au. But although I didn't look at the stories, the fact these are local stories makes this very unlikely and I think they're also from before NZ Herald really did that. (Also I saw Chris Barton as one of the authors.) I mean okay, NZ Herald's own reporting can be a but questionable at times on some issues, but it's generally still far from tabloid journalism and especially in serious issues like "The Unfortunate Experiment" it's unlikely they were anything like that. (This doesn't mean their reporting would be perfect, but it's not accurate to describe it as tabloid journalism.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the article, I think a big problem is the lack of any other real info about her work. The book she wrote received is likely what has received the most attention by far, still she is a Fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand so I assume there is other stuff covered in WP:RS. Nil Einne (talk)

Pablo Lyle

Pablo Lyle

The category in the Pablo Lyle Wikipedia biography is libellous and slanderous.

I tried to edit and now it has been locked...and its unedited. This is my edit...that includes their misintentions with more detailed information. Their short blurb appears to be nonfiction but its actually full of errors...and out of context and most importantly out of context with the video footage being used to make the accusations. Its biased and very onesided. Once again while being a short blurb of the incident it is libellous and slanderous and can be punishable in the court of law for writing a bad take on the incident.

The real,longer and uncut version: On April 2019, Lyle without consideration for his Miranda Rights may have admitted to punching 63-year-old Juan Ricardo Hernández (of Cuban origin) during a road rage incident where Juan Ricardo Hernandez leaves his automobile unattended about 5 cars behind Lyle and approaches and engages the chauffer of the automobile SUV (a family car) where Lyle was a passenger. They were at a Stop Light and major intersection in Miami, Florida. The victim was hospitalized and died four days after his road rage incident which engaged the passerbyes occupants of a family car/vehicle.[3] Lyle was charged with manslaughter after the man of mature aged died. He had been originally charged with battery before Hernandez died. There is a video of the road rage incident where the victim leaves his compact car unattended about 5 cars behind, he was obviously the driver of his compact car leaving his car unattended during a Stop Light at a Major Intersection. Juan Ricardo Hernandez then approaches enraged to engage the chauffer, Lyle and his children whom were passerbyes at a Major Stop Light Intersection. Juan Ricardo Hernandez engages the family whom were in a family car, an SUV stopped at a major intersection. Lyle's children were passengers in the car. Lyle in a dubiously sketchy video is perhaps then seen running to punch Hernandez. Miami is full of random violence and crime even in traffic like the Dominican Republic and various parts of Florida and the Caribean which all lead to massacres. Many intersections are really to be avoided and really its a Stop and Go at Your Own Risk Intersections Regime. Apparently, gangs are more adept at law and managing the courts than the courts themselves. Why would gangs want to own the streets and major intersections. The trial is still on going but may end soon. [4] If convicted of manslaughter, Lyle could face up to 15 years in prison.

There are many major criminal incidents in Miami against tourists. Many appear to be mock crimes or repetitions of tourists being mugged and with the Miami Yacht industry apparently some are lured into yachts and raped. Do notice the recent mass murder crimes against families in traffic even in Mexico in Sonora. A family on a rural road headed to Sonora was killed in an incident that took the lives of 3 female adults and 6 children from the LeBaron family, a Mormon American Family returning home. The survivors are the father Mr Baron and 3 children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6C0:C000:4A86:40CC:9574:69E2:B1C3 (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

There are so many problems with this I don't even know where to begin. First and foremost is that all of this needs to be sourced to reliable, secondary sources. BLP rules are very clear about that, especially when naming victims and other people. And while we do give a bit more latitude on talk pages, BLP rules apply here as well.

This reads like a police report, with the exception of all the editorializing. By that I mean phrases like "without consideration", "may have admitted", "he was obviously", "enraged to engage", "dubiously sketchy", etc... These are not simple facts but conclusions on the part of the author. And even if we whittle it down to the "factual" stuff (by that I mean info that would be regarded as factual if verifiable, but lacking reliable sources it's just fiction) the info is way too detailed. All we really need is the gist of it; a summary. This is an encyclopedia, so we don't need a play-by-play.

Then there is the matter of weight. By adding so much detail about this one incident, you're giving it a lot more weight than the rest of the article. Does his notability for this incident outweigh his notability as an actor? You should want to be very careful about giving so much weight to a single incident, especially in such a very short article.

Finally, just by looking at the article, it does not look like the subject passes WP:WELLKNOWN. He may be an actor, but there is just so little coverage in the article that I seriously doubt he rises to the level of celebrity or public figure. As such, I believe WP:BLPCRIME applies, which says we should leave out everything about this incident unless/until a time comes that he is convicted in a court. Zaereth (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Lots o suppression, protection, looks like it has been sorted. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Natalie van Gogh

Hi. I wanted to get further clarification on this edit. I'm not saying it's a bad edit, but I'm not clear on the policy relating to this. The editor states it is per MOS:BIO, and I see this section. That states it should not go in the lead, but should it be in the article? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Removing it from the lead is warranted, but I don't see an issue with including that sourced information in a different section of the article. That "A transgender woman has been hailed a history-maker after becoming the first-placed female finisher in a major cycling event" seems relevant enough for inclusion and does not violate any policy. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Jacob Wohl

Jacob Wohl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's a dispute over whether to use Category:21st-century American criminals. I oppose it's usage until there's a reliable source to say he has been convicted of a criminal offense in a court of law. Another editor points to the fact that he's already categorized as Category:American fraudsters, which is a sub-cat of Category:American criminals by crime.   I think there's sufficient sources to say he's been found to have defrauded people, and broken the law, and been penalized for doing so. But, I don't yet see a source to say he's been criminally convicted. It's my understanding, that with a BLP, we don't categorize somebody as a criminal, unless they are convicted of a crime, even if sources say that they committed an act, which is normally considered a crime (e.g. fraud). I think this case shows a flaw in how the categories are organized. I haven't found a source that clearly settles the issue either way (to definitively say he's been convicted, or he's never been convicted, of a crime). Maybe I missed a source, in which case, I would be happy to be proven wrong. --Rob (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that it is only a matter of time before he manages to get himself convicted of something, rendering the question moot in his instance, but I think that you are right to err on the side of caution in the meantime. Leaving Wohl's antics to one side, I think that you might also be right that there is a flaw in the category nesting. It seems that the US makes a distinction between civil and criminal fraud so that not all people found to have committed fraud would necessarily be criminals. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

While I happen to agree with you on the first point, that doesn't make the question moot—someone should not be categorized as a criminal without having actually been convicted of a crime, regardless of their propensity to brush up against the law. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

All I meant is that if he were convicted then he would no longer illustrate the potential problem with the category nesting as he would then belong in both categories, although potentially for separate reasons. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have the page on my watchlist since I've edited it quite a bit, and I'm baffled as to why Koavf keeps restoring the category. They are absolutely correct that American fraudsters is currently a subcategory of American criminals, but they have been informed that Wohl has not been convicted of a crime, so re-adding the category is miscategorization. I agree with Thivierr that the fraudsters category should remain, and given that Wohl is a prime example that not all fraudsters are convicted criminals, it should probably be recategorized. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that the article says that he is a "fraudster" and a lot of sources say that. I searched for the definition of fraudster and I found this "someone who commits the crime of fraud". A lot of sources call him fraudster. So should the word "fraudster" in the lead be removed and replaced by accused of fraud?.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Wohl is many unmentionable things, but until he's convicted in a court of law, he's entitled to a presumption of innocence like everyone else, and should not be described as a criminal until and unless he's found or pleads guilty to a crime. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

He's not known as a criminal, categories should be definitional. Guy (help!) 16:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Gurbaksh Chahal

Gurbaksh Chahal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Gurbaksh Chahal is a well known entrepreneur, author, and philanthropist who also had a domestic violence dispute from many years ago. Many of the wikipedia editors that have been trolling this page have continued to only highlight this negative dispute while deleting all other accomplishment. From his early life, awards, written works, notable career achievements, accomplishments, and philanthropy have all been removed with the singular focus of this article to be regarding his domestic dispute including placing it in the lead sentence of his page. I would encourage editors and administrators to look at the last few vandalized edits made from November 24, 2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gurbaksh_Chahal&oldid=928084378 and compare it to the edits made today to the article. As you can see the article was shrunk in half with the focus toward his domestic dispute and is dangerously libellous. I am not asking anyone to white wash this article, but requesting support from administrators to write this in the same light other notable biographies of living persons are written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PunjabCinema07 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Collapse prolonged of topic, going nowhere discussion

Restored awards and honors and philanthropy sections. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC) Crystallizedcarbon, I have reverted your edits. See the section on the t/p. Also, it might be prudential to note that the article has been subject to a whole lot of meat-puppetry and paid-editing-rings in a quest of whitewashing before EPC got rid of them. ∯WBGconverse 12:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC) Crystallizedcarbon, I would recommend you and other wikipedia editors try to restore this page to follow wikipedia WP:BLP standards. Winged Blades of Godric is amongst one of the three editors that have hijacked this page to be written in a negative and libelous manner turning this into a WP:Attack_pages. I am not suggesting to whitewash this page in anyway, his domestic controversy should be on his page, but that is not what subject is known for or the reason subject has a wikipedia page. There is no reason it belongs in the preamble of the page MOS:INTRO. See also WP:AVOIDVICTIM. The article's subject is notable for being a known entrepreneur, an invitee to the Oprah Winfrey Show, played a role on The Secret Millionaire and for his philanthropy/awards. I have reviewed the history and whenever any other editor such as Joydeep ghosh has tried to help write this article to WP:neutral point of view, was attacked with the page locked and further being vandalized. I urge others to look at the edits made by Winged Blades of Godric,Lepricavark, Chisme in the archived talk pages and suggest this page to be written in WP:BLP standards. PunjabCinema07 (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC) The above individual is here for nefarious purposes and is quite possibly in the pay of Mr. Chahal himself. The charges of trolling and vandalism are reminiscent of the type of language used by previous meatpuppet accounts on Chahal's page. This particular meatpuppet seems a bit more familiar with basic Wikispeak, but the telltale baseless rhetoric is still there. While I am currently seeking to reduce my time spent on Wikipedia, I will gladly do whatever it takes to ensure that the above account is no more successfully in its meatpuppetry than any of the previous troublemakers. Lepricavark (talk) 13:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC) Lepricavark please always assume good faith. Nevertheless I was expecting this attack as others very well did with Joydeep ghosh. It's clear that you and the other two editors have a personal bias and interest in making subject come out negatively. I can only hope Crystallizedcarbon and other editors investigate this further and discuss how to best deal with this page.PunjabCinema07 (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC) Winged Blades of Godric I would urge you to stop vandalizing this page as you continued to do so today. You should also disclose if you are getting paid to write negatively on subject. PunjabCinema07 (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC) PunjabCinema07, please read WP:NOTVANDAL and retract your statement. Editing disputes, especially when the quality of the sources is highly questionable, is ABSOLUTELY not vandalism. Ravensfire (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC) Ravensfire Perhaps, you may want to see all the vandalism Winged Blades of Godric did today on Gurbaksh Chahal and you can decide from there. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gurbaksh_Chahal&action=historyPunjabCinema07 (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC) PunjabCinema07, I did when I first read the report. Their edits ARE NOT VANDALISM. You may not like them but they were made in good faith. You have been pointed multiple times to pages defining what's is and is not vandalsism and you are clearly ignoring that advice. Your persistence in labels edits you don't like as vandalsim when they are not is getting into personal attack territory. Ravensfire (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC) Ravensfire I have no desire to attack anyone and I would expect the same respect and rights given to me. I sincerely believe what is happening to this page is WRONG and can only hope OTHER editors and administrators will agree. PunjabCinema07 (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC) Please note that I have opened an ANI thread to discuss PunjabCinema07's behavioral issues. That is, of course, separate from any further content discussion. Lepricavark (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC) Please also note that I have asked the administrators to investigate the continuous vandalism made by you and, Winged Blades of Godric and Chisme. The amount of vandalism taken place today is beyond outrageous and I hope the administrators hold you all accountable. PunjabCinema07 (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC) Hello @Winged Blades of Godric: blanking both sections does not seem to be justified since each is referenced by at least one secondary reliable source. I disagree that the news section of Sify is non RS. that article was sourced from the Indo-Asian News Service. Same thing applies to Entrepreneur. I see no indication in the article of it being a self publication or not having been subject to editorial control. The author was a deputy editor of that publication (see here). On a closer look, I do agree with you that other sources from Yahoo! or Business Wire are questionable, so I have restored only the content sourced by the reliable sources and combined both sections into one. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC) Crystallizedcarbon, perhaps you may want to see all the vandalism Winged Blades of Godric did shortly after I made this BPLN. I suggest you revert all of his changes from the page. PunjabCinema07 (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC) Hello @PunjabCinema07: Please remember to assume good faith and review WP:NOTVANDALISM. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC) Crystallizedcarbon judging from all the further negative edits that were made by Winged Blades of Godric shortly AFTER I made this BLPN announcement makes the intentions of this editor suspect. I hope you can in good faith help review this page and bring it to BLP standards. PunjabCinema07 (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC) @PunjabCinema07:, we talked about this, remember. You really might want to stop with the WP:ASPERSIONS.-- Deepfriedokra 18:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I have copy edited and tried to make it less tabloidesque-- less lurid. The content that remains is supported by the sources, but I would appreciate someone previously unconnected with the article looking at it.-- Deepfriedokra 09:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Joseph Boyden

Controversies surrounding genealogy and tribal affiliation in Joseph Boyden bio are one-sided, subjective, poorly notated or not notated at all. Many claims posted in this section are clearly libellous. The tone of the opening paragraph of Controversies surrounding genealogy and tribal affiliation says it all. Wikipedia editors who are trolling this page have only continued to highlight subjective and false statements and refuse to allow objectivity or additional fact, while at the same highlighting false and unverified rumour. Please find a fair balance of facts and the deletion of opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miigwaansaag (talk • contribs) 04:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

That section might be improved and probably should be more concise. You can propose changes on the talk page of the article and suggest improvements, specially if you can provide additional reliable sources with an opposing point of view, but blanking a whole section referenced by multiple secondary reliable sources as you did, is not the right way to go. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Supun Halangoda

Supun Halangoda ] (Born 29 of April 2000) is young Programmer and an Engineer in IT Infrastructure in Cloud computing, Servers, Routing and Switching. He started his first organization in 2017 which was known as App Factory LK, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supun Halangoda (talk • contribs) 14:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Supun Halangoda:, neither this message board nor Wikipedia is the place for autobiographies. Please see WP:NOTLINKEDIN and WP:AUTOBIOG: Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is an example of conflict of interest editing and is strongly discouraged. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:BASIC may be of help to you. If you conclude "Yes, I have those sources, no problem", move on to Help:Your first article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Joanne Nova

Snooganssnoogans inserted or re-inserted text about Joanne Nova. I reverted, it was re-inserted, and that's water under the bridge. But Snooganssnoogans has revived the specific matter of my revert by objecting that making it was wrong, and so I will ask the much narrower question: was my revert justified?

• Yes.

(a)) Snoogansnoogans added that Nova is prominent for "promoting pseudoscientific views on climate change". But the word pseudoscientific does not appear in the cited sources. (This wording was changed on January 20 but that does not affect the question.) So WP:V failure.

(b) Snooganssnoogans added a cite to Katherine Bagley in insideclimatenews.org without in-text attribution. I know now that some insideclimatenews.org reporters (not the publication itself and not Bagley) won a Pulitzer. But there are concerns about their bias, for example Jillian Melchior's lengthy National Review article InsideClimate News: Journalism or Green PR?: "The little that is known about InsideClimate News raises questions about conflicts of interest as well as about the publication’s ability, and proclivity, to report fairly and without bias." So WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV failure.

(c) Snooganssnoogans added that Nova's The Skeptics Handbook promotes "various falsehoods", citing a book by geologist James L. Powell pages 99-101, visible here. Example: Nova [said "Satellites ... show that the world has not warmed since 2001". Powell refutes by saying 1998 had an El Niño and 2008 had a La Niña and 2009 turned out to be hot, but 1998 was not Nova's start point and 2009 wasn't Nova's end point (the book is dated June 2009 so she wouldn't have known what 2009 would be). So Powell is indeed debunking but cannot say that her statement about the period she's talking about (2001-2008) is false. Thus Powell never says "falsehoods", it is a Snooganssoogans word and it is unsourced. So WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION failure. Notice as well that Snooganssnoogans only cites Powell, not The Skeptics Handbook, so WP:BALANCE failure.

(d) Snooganssnoogans changed "the book promotes the view" to "the book promotes the myth" and added a cite to an article "Climate Change Myths: Sorting Fact From Fiction" in National Geographic. I don't worry re WP:LABEL but National Geographic is not the true source, it mentions Joanne Nova without refuting her and then provides a hyperlink with the caption "Continue reading this myth ...", linking to a University of Texas site that is now apparently moved to this post in the University of Texas newsletter by Cory Leahy (whoever that is), saying "They also argue that water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas and therefore increases in CO2 shouldn’t be a concern. These claims have been made in recent years by Hungarian physicist Ferenc Miskoczi and other scientists. They were repeated in the Skeptic Handbook, published in 2009 by science writer Joanne Nova." Er, in fact The Skeptics Handbook contains neither the word "water" nor the word "vapor". So Leahy's attack is either obsolete or it is mistaken, and either way shows that the article cannot be trusted. So WP:RSCONTEXT.

(e) Snooganssnoogans changed a reference to the Heartland Institute so that it says "known primarily for promoting pseudoscientific views on climate change and the harms of smoking". But this is the article about Nova, not about Heartland and certainly not about smoking, so irrelevant.

(f) Snooganssnoogans changed "She [i.e. Nova] has claimed ..." to "She has falsely claimed ...". (By the way she was merely agreeing with another person's claim but let that go.) Subsequently there is a statement that Politifact says the claim is wrong, but that does not justify putting "falsely" in. So WP:WIKIVOICE.

I ping the two other editors who specifically mentioned Snooganssnoogans's accusation about this revert or my reply: Bishonen, Newslinger.

Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

(a) "Pseudoscientific" should be used because that's consistent with WP:FRINGE.

(b) InsideClimate News is a Pulitzer Prize-winning news outlet. Clearly RS.

(c) The cited Columbia University Press book says of the four central claims in Nova's book, "Each of the four points has been claimed by deniers, debunked by scientists, claimed again by deniers, debunked again, and now shows up once more in The Skeptic’s Handbook." The author, who is the recognized expert James Lawrence Powell then proceeds to debunk the falsehoods in more detail. That's also why we should use "Pseudoscientific" in #A.

(d) The National Geographic is citing reports organized by the Jackson School of Geosciences (at the University of Texas at Austin) on the most common climate change denial myths (which includes Nova's pseudoscientific works). You say the book doesn't mention "water vapor" specifically in the context of "carbon dioxide is already saturated to the max", but she expliticly talks about how "clouds and humidity" account for "more than half" of the effects of carbon (which is the same thing).

(e) It's clearly important context for readers to tell them what the Heartland Institute is, because the name of the organization may mislead readers into thinking it's a credible research organization.

(f) We should say "falsely claimed" for falsehoods. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

A comment only on point (f) above. The language "facilely claimed" absolutely requires in-line attribution as to who is asserting the claims are false, to avoid appearing as WP is making the stance that the claims are false. In the current situation, while the sentence with "falsely claimed" includes at least one organization that says way, that needs to be in the sentence in question itself as it reads still that WP is calling it out. Otherwise you have to leave the language as just "claimed" and then follow it with the counter proof. --Masem (t) 17:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• An IP tried to comment by inserting Yes here but another editor speedily reverted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Poorly sourced assertions of asexuality.

Can people familiar with WP:BLP policy take a look at what is going on in the articles on Emilie Autumn, Janeane Garofalo and Mary Cagle. These articles were cited as examples of poorly-sourced statements regarding individuals being asexual during the ongoing dispute about the same question regarding Pauley Perrette, and after I checked and removed the statements on finding that the sources were poor, other contributors have since apparently decided to edit-war over them, rather than resolve the issue. 165.120.15.119 (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

You have yet to properly explain why you think LGBTQ Nation isn't reliable. Adam9007 (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The IP is asserting that this source from LGBTQ Nation is unreliable because the word "quiz" appears in the title. The article has an extensive, well-written description of asexuality. Yes, the article only mentions Autumn and the others in a list of celebrities who are asexual; however, looking at the about page of the source, it appears likely that the source has good editorial reviews in place. Further, with a name like LGBTQ Nation, it stands to reason that they will err on the side of caution and get confirmation before outing a person's sexuality. —C.Fred (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I am not asserting that the source is unreliable because it has 'quiz' in the title. I am asserting that it is inappropriate to use an article that only mentions the individuals concerned in passing as a source regarding their sexuality. I am also somewhat baffled as to why this is seen as such an urgent matter that people are attempting to edit-war the content into the articles, and to get the articles protected in order to prevent my participation, rather than discussing it properly. It took a warning that I would report the matter at WP:ANI to get any discussion started at all. And I would have hoped that long-standing registered users of Wikipedia would know better than to edit-war over contentious WP:BLP material, when the relevant policy is so clear regarding the need for caution. 165.120.15.119 (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

No single source should be used to classify someone's sexual orientation unless that source is the person being classified (for example, see WP:BLPCAT). If LGBTQ Nation is the only source describing a person as asexual, then that would not seem to be sufficient (and a quick Google search found a similar list from Glamour that describes their shared asexuality as "alleged" [44], although some of the individuals do seem to have made several public statements confirming the information, such as Garofalo). Multiple sources or a public statement by the article subject should be used for sensitive classifications. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, wallyfromdilbert. That was my interpretation of WP:BLP policy. 165.120.15.119 (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Can we use both the new source and the old one to source it? Adam9007 (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm also not seeing where in WP:BLP it says that multiple reliable independent sources are required. What am I missing? Adam9007 (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Adam9007, the policy says "according to reliable published sources". Also, you may want to read Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#Sexuality, which explains the importance of self-identification and reliable sourcing for sexual identity labels. If a person's sexuality is relevant to their biography, then there should certainly be more than one source that has mentioned it. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert, That's about the categorisation of articles, which is different to whether or not the article mentions a particular detail. Also, are you sure that the fact that 'sources' is plural means there has to be more than one, rather than it referring to sources in general? Adam9007 (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Adam9007, a general principle in BLP policies is to have multiple reliable sources for contentious information such as labels especially for issues of personal identity. For another example, see WP:BLPSOURCES: "When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources". Also, categorization abides by the same standards for inclusion as all content in an article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

categorization abides by the same standards for inclusion as all content in an article Does it? I was under the impression that categories are not article content, but navigational aids. Isn't it possible for an article to include a statement about one's sexual orientation or whatever but not be included in the category (e.g. if the person is not well-known for it, but just happens to be so)? Adam9007 (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Further to this, it should be noted that the LGBTQ Nation article isn't the only example of poor sourcing regarding this matter, and these individuals. This source was only cited after I had removed such assertions regarding sexuality based on other questionable sources. This isn't just about one source, it is about the need for proper sourcing in general. I can't help feeling that somehow WP:BLP policy is being read backwards, and that people think that the appropriate response to something being removed because sourcing is poor is to restore it as soon as possible, with whatever new questionable source Google can throw up. 165.120.15.119 (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I have just had to revert yet another violation of WP:BLP policy on the Emilie Autumn article, where a Twitter comment was being cited. A comment that is entirely unclear as to whether Ms Autumn in fact currently identifies as asexual [45] Assuming of course that this really is Ms Autumn's Twitter account. Is there a policy on verifying that Tweets actually come from who they claim to? 165.120.15.119 (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes. See: WP:TWITTER. Zaereth (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:TWITTER doesn't actually explain how one verifies that the account belongs to a particular individual. 165.120.15.119 (talk) 02:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

It is well known that for Twitter, you are looking for the blue checkmark on the user's icon, to indicate a validated account (where, as we are told by Twitter, a team verifies that someone famous on twitter is actually who they say they are). That's only establishes that, for example, Perrette's posted that statement with "Ace" that is being used to say she is asexual. There is no issue with WP using that to support a self-claim by her, but the statement itself is still vague and does not directly state that (though it is the most logical conclusion, but we can't work on the assumption for BLP). --Masem (t) 02:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. This isn't about Perrette though. Twitter was being used for other individuals. I see that Emilie Autumn's Twitter account is in fact authenticated, which at least answers one question, though it doesn't resolve the issue as to whether "Press asked if I still consider myself asexual. Shared revelation: Wasn't that I disliked sex, just nevr been w/ any1 who was any good @ it" is a valid source for a statement that she currently considers herself asexual. Personally I'd describe that as ambiguous at least: possibly deliberately so. 165.120.15.119 (talk) 02:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

As it was brought up before with Perrette, the statement from the authorized Twitter account needs to be direct and clear. I don't believe that statement from Autumn's account is. --Masem (t) 04:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: I believe, if we aren't going to take self-written Twitter posts on face value (as WP:TWITTER says we are allowed to), then we need to pitch WP:TWITTER right out the window. WP:TWITTER is there for a reason. It allows us to use "Self-published and questionable sources" in articles about that person "as sources of information about themselves" "without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field". WP:TWITTER is part of WP:V, you know the big, huge Verifiability policy. So, if we aren't going to listen to part of our own verifiability policy, what are we going to listen to? Either scrap it or abide by it and let's. move. on. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:45 on January 24, 2020 (UTC)

It's not that the message is on Twitter, it is that if you were to say, "does Autumn's statement say, with zero doubt, she is asexual?", and you can't say that for sure, then we can't take that as a "face value" statement. If she wrote "I'm asexual." directly like that, we'd be fine. But she evaded a direct answer there. It is OR to make that great an assumption about that. --Masem (t) 04:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

If that Twitter post has any value to this discussion, I would think it would be against describing her as asexual on her Wikipedia page. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Then WP:TWITTER needs to go in my eyes (yeah, for another discussion, fine), because it's in clear contradiction with other rules and is clearly ignored and overruled but OR of all things. V is overruled by OR. Verified, self-written posts covered under WP:V are still considered WP:OR, something is wrong....very wrong. We are overruling someone's actual, verified words (via their actual verified accounts) on a platform for putting these words out into the world, 200+ characters at a time, as original research rather than verified speech. We continue to fail and fail miserably. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:20 on January 24, 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not picking up whatever it is that you're putting down. Perhaps you may be misreading something in there? The problem is that the line being used to support the claim is based on a loaded question. Her response was about the only thing you can do and not give any sort of direct answer, either as an affirmation or a negation, which either way would lend credence to the presupposition. I see it the way Wally does, but others may not. That's the very definition of ambiguity, thus there is no logical way to hold this as an affirmation of the presupposition. Zaereth (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, my comment was about her evasion of the question, not anything to do with Twitter. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Zaereth: My issue/question has been (which no one has been able to answer) is, if WP:TWITTER is a rule (and an extension of WP:V) saying basically a tweet from a person (whoever, doesn't matter, person A) and used on their Wikipedia page (person A) is a boiled down direct quote from that person. So, why are we dancing around that? Why are we saying it's OR? It's an extension of WP:V! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:40 on January 24, 2020 (UTC)

What part of her Twitter quote directly states she is asexual? That's the key here, everyone else you're discussing is irrelavant (in that you are right about this otheriwse being allowed by TWITTER). We cannot make even the tiniest leap of logic or obvious assumption when it comes to BLP, and that's what is being asked of us to take the tweet as given, which does not directly speak to if she is asexual, and make that conclusion. That is 100% not allowed on a BLP. --Masem (t) 07:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: Again, I've said this repeatedly, why are we (the Wikipedia community) forcing people to basically say one way or another who or what they are (ie: their sexual identity) for our articles? Who the f*ck are we to ask people of that? We should take people of what they say as face value and say "Person A potentially expressed that they were asexual in a tweet, but further information about this was unavailable, so this could be untrue." and leave it up to the reader to decide. Why do we have to remove it? Leave it up to the reader! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:44 on January 24, 2020 (UTC)

We generally respect people's personal privacy by allowing them to decide if they want material about their sexual identity discussed on this encyclopedia, unless it is something widely discussed in reliable sources. We do not post gossip or speculation and "leave it up to the reader". That is entirely inappropriate for a WP:BLP, regardless whether the statement was made on Twitter or not. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, that's what WP:TWITTER is for! Why am I the only one who reads this thing?! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:24 on January 24, 2020 (UTC)

No. WP:TWITTER merely clarifies under what limited circumstances Twitter etc can be used as a source. It does so solely because under most circumstances Twitter etc can't be used at all. Nothing in it amounts to an assertion that ambiguous comments about sexuality sourced there must be included in a biography. 165.120.15.119 (talk) 06:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

" why are we (the Wikipedia community) forcing people to basically say one way or another who or what they are (ie: their sexual identity) for our articles?" We aren't. To the contrary, what we are saying is that poorly-sourced and ambiguous comments on the matter aren't sufficient grounds to discuss a persons sexuality at all. 165.120.15.119 (talk) 07:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

But that's exactly what we are doing. We are removing someone's sexual identity from a major website until they come out yet again for us (Wikipedia) and say in "unambiguous language" that they are this or that or some other thing. We are, essentially, forcing someone to say what they are for our articles. When, to most of us, it's been made pretty damn clear. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:47 on January 24, 2020 (UTC)

• Opinion - My opinion is that we leave sexuality and gender identities out unless they are either explicitly stated in a solid reliable source and preferably with statements quoted by the person in question (e.g., [46]). If Time were to report that Rock Hudson is gay, but they do not quote him, I'd say we attribute it to Time or (more conservatively) wait for confirmation/denial from the person. For social media, just go by WP:SOCIALMEDIA. Verified accounts only. It's got to be unambiguous though, like Janelle Monáe's coming out. The Emilie Autumn one linked about is not crystal clear, so we air on the side of caution. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

What EvergreenFir said. More importantly, what WP:BLPSOURCES said : "When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: The Asexual Community isn't going to accept that. It's been pointed out (repeatedly) that other sources (ie: media coverage, further tweets), by them offline and here on Wikipedia, doesn't normally come along. To be honest, on the subject of media coverage (which everyone is harping on), I have never seen any media coverage on someone annoucing that they were Asexual or Ace. So, that's probably not gonna happen. We may have to take what we have, use it via WP:TWITTER (under WP:V) and move on. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:44 on January 24, 2020 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer:, that isn't the statement of a WP:NEUTRAL-focused editor, it is the statement of an activist. We don't, and never have, taken into account what a community accepts as a standard for reliability or notability. The Ace community can take whatever solace they want from whatever poorly-sourced lists they want to feel included but we cannot. We have all agreed to follow the Terms of Service as part of posting here and those Terms make the BLP sourcing requirements incumbent upon every editor. The wishy-washy, if you look at it in the right way, not even always necessarily from the actual person's account standard you've been pushing here is obviously a violation of those requirements, as has been explained now by many other editors. Telling us to simply accept these unreliable words and move on is completely unacceptable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: While I appreciate the title, I am not an activist. I saw a group of people who didn't understand what was going on, I explain things, I am continuing to explain things. I am not ace, I do have Aspergers. I don't like to see anyone getting treated differently....period! I don't care if you are gay, straight, black, white, fuzzy, or whatever. I see someone basically picking on someone, I am going to stand up for that person. Doesn't make me an activist, makes me a good person.

Now, if we are going to talk about the Terms of Service of Wikipedia, we also accept that we will follow WP:V. WP:TWITTER is a part of WP:V. WP:V is actually mentioned in WP:5P. No one is looking at that, mostly because it could end this entire thing. They'd rather ignore the entire WP:V section and pave that over for WP:OR, which makes no sense. So, if you want to talk Terms of Service, sure. What about WP:V? Let's talk that. Because we have that, it's there, and no one is doing a damn thing about it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:18 on January 24, 2020 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer:, if by "nobody", you mean to somehow exclude the IP editor, wallyfromdilbert, Masem, and Zaereth then, sure, no-one is looking at it. What I see, by contrast, is that your interpretation of both WP:V and WP:TWITTER has been "looked at" by multiple other editors who have patiently explained that you are ignoring a part of the very policy section you are pointing to. Specifically: 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity WP:V also says: While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article... and further goes on to say: Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy. Using unclear, indirect, or uncertified sources violates the verifiabilty and NOR policies and cannot be sustained in BLP articles. It's as simple as that. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: Well, I think it can be argued that there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. I don't know where OR plays a part in a verified Twitter account. OR is something that someone posted that they heard from someone else (ie: hearsay). This is a "direct electronic quote from that person". We have beyond a reasonable doubt (to use the legal definition) as to the authenticity of who wrote it and what it means. This is clear to everyone except for 4 people. Gatekeepers, anyone? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:53 on January 24, 2020 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: If you don't know how WP:NOR applies you aren't reading it. Clear and unambiguous statements are fine, ones requiring reading into them are not. Perette's statement in particular, and others listed above in general, require reading into them. You yourself have been the most prominent voice here trying to provide the "necessary" reading. You even talk about "trying to explain things". If you have to explain what a person's tweet about themselves means, then by definition that isn't a clear and unambiguous statement. You are trying to frame it as four against everyone, but what I see is you against everyone else who has expressed an opinion. This suggests you might want to also read WP:CONSENSUS. I hope these links help. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

By the way, persons are generally mediocre sources for facts about themselves. They're seldom neutral. People will say they were influenced by Jean-Luc Ponty when they weren't, because it sounds cool. People will say they were born in 1949 when they were really born in 1946. People will say they were first-string in high school when they weren't. And on and on and on.

What you want is reliable neutral observers with standing. Not "I was born in 1946", but a birth certificate. Not "My stuff is really a lot like Thomas Wolfe's" but an literary scholar saying that. And so forth.

People will play cute with a lot things including their sexuality -- which after all changes with time and circumstances is and hard to pin down, even in one's own mind. Sexuality can be very complicated. You want to be be super careful here. You need extraordinarily good sources for talking about stuff like that.

You also need an extraordinarily good reasons, particularly if there's a dispute. An article is really there to cover what makes the person notable. For a writer, what books they wrote, what their writing style was like, how reviewers viewed them, what their sales figures were, who they collaborated with, what era they wrote in, who they influenced and were influenced by, and so forth. We also usually include a bit of personal data -- the names of their spouses and few tidbits like that -- but that's really secondary. It can be dispensed with. If there's dispute it should be.

There are some people whose sexuality is an important part of why they are notable -- their books or songs are about that, or whatever. That's fairly rare. There are some people who are quite famous and whose sexuality is a matter of widespread discussion in notable and reliable publications and you can't really ignore it. That's fairly rare, and of course you're going to have lots of good sources in that case.

Otherwise, stop it. Leave the person alone. They're a real person with a real life and not your plaything. Write about what they did and leave their private life private. Herostratus (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

You know, I have to salute this. I really don't have time to dig deeply into this at the moment, but I would say that, unless a person is notable for their sexuality, then it is a private matter that we shouldn't mess with. In many cases, the person themselves may not really know. That's part of life's journey. And it's not always that people may be flat-out lying (which they may), but the one person in the entire world that we know the least --and lie to the most-- tends to be ourselves. The entire field of psychiatry is built on that principle.

Personally, I think we should avoid Twitter unless a particular tweet is being discussed in reliable sources. There's just too much to cherry pick from, and, as this demonstrates, they can be far too open to interpretation. In example, if I tweet, "It's Friday. Love flying but hate airports." you could easily infer from that that I'm traveling today, but you could not unequivocally say that. The statement is ambiguous and open to interpretation. Whether implied or not, if you have to infer the meaning then it is really not meaningful.

I immediately read the statement as "I like sex but have really high standards." I don't know if that means asexual or "if you want something done right you gotta do it yourself", or that "only certain things do it for me"... An example of a statement we could possibly use would be "Yes, I am." or "No, I'm not and never was." (The question itself is nonsensical, because people don't just change their sexuality, and perhaps she's just making fun of it.) And the fact that she doesn't confirm nor deny is a great indication that she likely wants to keep it private. Zaereth (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Something has gone wrong, here. I'm seeing speculation about a person's sexuality being defended under the framework of protecting privacy. It is not up to us, as editors, to define someone else's sexuality. Speculating on whether or not they are really asexual is nosy at best, and wildly inappropriate at worst, and whether or not they change how they describe themselves is none of our business, either.

It's also probably worth thinking about why this is important to some editors. It's not up to us to validate their interests, but compassion is also important. People naturally want to know who is similar to them, and dismissing this as gossip is badly missing the point. That doesn't mean it belongs, but hold off on preemptively assuming that someone is lying about their own identity. Grayfell (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

If the statement given in Twitter was "I'm asexual", and there was clearly nothing else around it to identify it as sarcasm or as a joke, then we absolutely must take that without question, and not try to play games "But everyone knows she's slept with X!" or the like. The core to this specific situation is that the tweet is vague and deflect the specific question about being asexual. We can't use vague responsible, even if reading them as affirming asexuality is nearly obvious. --Masem (t) 02:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Jim Gardiner (Chicago politician)

I was perusing this article, and I noticed that most of the sourcing for it is from a political attack website, which pretty much has turned the Wikipedia page into another attack site. I don't believe we can call the website a reliable source, but I have not very involved in BLP's, so I felt I should reach out to people with more experience to look at any issues here. Angryapathy (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Good Lord. This is a horrible article. Not just in its format; but obviously non-neutral point of view. It's one big dumping ground, it seems, for people who do not like the BLP. The content is not encyclopedic; and the tone makes Gardiner seem like a terrible person: which is not his notability for inclusion at WP. This needs a good scrubbing to remove "list" style content that looks like it's 90% negative and mostly tabloid in nature. Maineartists (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Croats of Serbia

Since I have no wish to edit war, I am reporting this case, as it is a problem [47]. Several names which are listed are not per BLP (no RS, some are not even Croats of Serbia etc.) Please take a look. ty Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the names again. WP:BURDEN requires that the burden on adding sources is on the person who wishes to add the text. --Jayron32 16:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. Sadkσ (talk is cheap)

Mooji

I'm in dispute with another editor over the inclusion of a self-published blog-post as a source on the page about Mooji, who is both a living individual, but also a cult/new age group leader. Therefore his page refers both to him, and to his spiritual group. This is the link I am trying to keep. It's a high-quality source which I believe is necessary for the neutrality of the page. It is written by a former devotee of a different new age figure, Gangaji.

Without the link to this article then all we have is a puff-piece written by members of the Mooji group. They want included that they have "refuted" the cult allegations and are denying any bad thing said against him, but they don't want Wikipedia to link to the article that sets out the criticisms. But it's not for Wikipedia to present Mooji entirely as his followers see him. His divinity is not a matter of objective truth, and there has been so much controversy over this figure in the past year that at least one link to the case against is needed.

Could some more knowledgeable Wikipedian please step in and make a judgment on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.18.242 (talk) 11:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a self-published, primary source from a (possibly rival?) religious organization and in no way meets our strict requirements for WP:BLPSOURCES. Woodroar (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I support Woodroars policy comments, not allowed. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I take your point about that article (though it's a pretty decent discussion, it's clearly self-published). But I have edited the article again to show that Mooji's moving image appeared in a recent Netflix documentary on cults. I have included a link to the exact point on the video. I argue that this is significant because, although brief, it's a mainstream source. Perhaps my wording needs some editing, but can this inclusion in the article please stand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.18.242 (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I've removed it. While the title of the documentary episode is "Cults, Explained", the source neither calls Mooji a cult leader nor calls his...religion? philosophy? organization? whatever-it-is a cult. We can't combine parts of a source to say something that the source doesn't explicitly say. That's WP:SYNTHESIS. At most, we could rewrite one of your sentences (Footage of Mooji was part of a montage showing "a new generation of leaders who are using the tools of online social media to attract fervent online followers.") but even that would be a stretch. After all, the "mention" is so trivial that they didn't even bother to name him. Woodroar (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so I've added a different source, an Indian magazine article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.18.242 (talk) (UTC)

I'm not part of the Mooji organisation. I posted the original link by the Mooji organisation where they discuss the cult allegations themselves. Then people repost these self published criticisms (again) and everything gets deleted. Now there is no information about the issue at all. So it's just an advert again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funplaysapart (talk • contribs) 08:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

So - is there still a case for this page being a candidate for deletion? Because, honestly, nobody cares about Mooji apart from (1) members of the cult, or (2), opponents of his cult. So the page will either be an advert for the cult, or will contain self-published critiques of the cult, but unless he goes full Jim Jones we are simply not going to see neutral mainstream sources deal with him at length. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.18.242 (talk) (UTC)

It's already been deleted once. Suggest it if you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funplaysapart (talk • contribs) 12:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

It's unlikely to be deleted at this point. There's significant coverage in reliable sources like The BBC and The Guardian, and also less-significant coverage in The New York Times and (now) Outlook. That being said, the article does need to be rewritten based on these sources. I'll lay that out on the Talk page shortly. Woodroar (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Elsie Sunderland

This stub article is in need of attention. It is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_scientists.

Given that it consists entirely of material copy-pasted from the Harvard website, it certainly needs attention. 165.120.15.119 (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Jaggi Vasudev

The entire article has been edited in the last few weeks in a way that definitely seems to violate BLP guidelines of NPOV, V & NOR. Some specific issues:

• Opinion pieces from websites have been used as citations to include accusations of murder and criminal charges. One of these articles has been referenced 9 times across the article, and another has been referenced 4 times to perpetuate a particular POV. References also include links to an online forum.
• There is a whole section titled Family, which talks exclusively about his wife and supposed murder, and his daughter's marriage. It uses three sources. One source is a non-English source and Google translate suggests that this article is not news coverage but more of an opinion piece. The second source is a news article about someone who tweeted such accusations. The purpose of this section seems to be to create a lot of smoke and imply that where there is smoke there is fire. The third source here is about the daughter's marriage. The wiki text (since edited) used the word "lavish" to describe the wedding, though the cited source described the wedding as simple. This edit combined with the fact that neither the daughter nor the daughter's husband are notable enough by themselves for their marriage to be included in this section, seems to suggest that the purpose of including this was to imply that an expensive wedding took place.
• Another section on political and religious affiliations synthesizes OR out of opinion pieces and reads like an editor's opinion rather than something from an encyclopedia
• The first paragraph also includes this OR.
• A group of editors seem to have monopolized edits to this page and are reverting other edits. An associated page Isha Foundation is also being edited by the same set of editors. This page was deleted twice as being not notable by one of them. Both deletions were reverted later. A page deletion by itself could have just been a case of difference of opinion in notability, but combined with the above factors, it seems to indicate a very biased set of edits.
• One of the editors referred to the subject of the article as a "dimwit" in the talk page. Once again, taken in isolation, this might not be a big issue, but considering the above points, it suggests a lack of objectivity in the editing approach.

I request other editors to take a look at this page and bring it up to standards. Tamilmama (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Tamilmama, If you are not aware then you should familiarize yourself with WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. Wikimedia foundation has fixed guideline that pseudoscience should be labelled as such. I referred to him as dimwit because he is dimwit. Water doesn't have memory, blood doesn't have magnetic field and eating during lunar eclipse doesn't cause cancer--that is clear thing and reputed scientific magazines refuted these claims. He still wants to propagate these claims, so, Wikipedia's policy of WP:FRINGE applies here.

I don't have any opinion on his political or religious affiliation and neither I added it. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Harshil169: WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE doesn’t apply on BLP. WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE is meant for articles like 2012 phenomenon or The Face on Mars. Creating a whole section on his personal beliefs doesn’t make sense to me and per me is totally unworthy. Secondly the citations like The Quint, The Wire, Scroll.in fails WP:RS, especially in case of BLP. Wikipedia is not a platform for debunking claims. Personal blogs can be used for it. I am looking forward to restore this[48] version, as no proper consensus has been established since last July. These topics had been discussed multiple times in the past, yet no consensus has ever been established. Cheers!! ML ⁹¹¹ 21:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

My Lord, umm, no. RSN is that way, where you need to prove how outlets having won multiple Ramnath Goenkas or subject to critical acclaim over NewYorker fails RS. The sources dictate the levels of coverage and not our personal feelings. ∯WBG^converse 11:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The Ramnath Goenka award is given to individual journalists, not to publications. Being a recipient of the award is also no guarantee of that particular journalist being completely unbiased and factual in the future. With that being said, none of the sources whose opinions you've quoted (or the ones that you're defending) in this article are recipients of the award. 2409:4072:6394:A403:7D27:BB7E:7D23:DDCE (talk) 13:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Cool story, WP:RSN is that way. ∯WBG^converse 13:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Please acknowledge whether or not you understand that the award is not given to publications but individual journalists. You've stated this lie several times on the article's talk page as well to assert the credibility of your sources. 2409:4072:6394:A403:3840:8833:D0DA:98F6 (talk) 14:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

We don't find any coverage on the relation between Vasudev and Hinduvta. The sources cited are very well known for their bias, and per me fails WP:RS at very first place. Is this just the coincidence that ONLY these portals are trying to establish relation between Vasudev and Hinduvta? I don't see any coverage on it by reliable news outlets. Apart from that, I see the obsession of labelling him as supporter of Hindutva revolve around the portals like The Quint, The Wire, Scroll.in. ML ⁹¹¹ 18:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Harshil169: Pseudoscience? You made ***41 edits*** to the page in December (it received only 100 edits in total) and deleted chunks of factual content on the UNITED NATIONS Millenium Peace Summit, WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM, Global Landscapes Forum, etc. from top tier media sources: Forbes, The Hindu, The Economic Times and The Indian Express. And the reason you provided was - "WP:NOTNEWS. These things are blatant WP:RECENTISM. Doesn't matter in encyclopedia."

Even now, after its been brought to the BLP Noticeboard and you've been informed by @My Lord: that Pseudoscience doesn't pertain to BLP, you continue to war on the page. And I see that you're doing similar stuff on the connected Isha Foundation page. :::You put a very serious allegation and cited an article from Firstpost. And shortly thereafter, blocked someone trying to provide a counter POV even though they used the exact same source as you had - Firstpost. And you didn't even offer a reason for the block. Its plain to see what's going on here. So rather than preach to @Tamilmama: on Pseudoscience, I'd ask you to educate yourself on BLP policies and how not to violate them. Jp7311 (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Jp7311, by this language, you made my case stronger. Thank you for using it. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 13:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Jp7311, what does Pseudoscience doesn't pertain to BLP even mean? A line can be probably devoted to his speaking at WEF, GLF and all that. ∯WBG^converse 13:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The sources connecting Sadhguru to BJP and "Hindutva", fail to stand the test of even the simplest scrutiny. Besides him stating on several occasions that he has no political leanings, he has endorsed several parties and leaders directly in opposition of BJP many times.

Some sources:

• Sadhguru has endorsed and shared the dias with Pinarayi Vijayan, Chief Minister of Kerala and member of the Politburo of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (a bitter rival/critic of "Hindutva" and BJP) for doing remarkable work in the state.
• Former Chief Minister of Karnataka from the Indian National Congress, Siddaramaiah, has endorsed Sadhguru (and vice versa) on several occasions. Congress in Karnataka is the strongest political opponent of Bharatiya Janata Party.
• Former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, Chandrababu Naidu, shared the dias and exchanged pleasantaries with Sadhguru after breaking off his Telugu Desam Party's alliance with Bharatiya Janata Party.
• Current Chief Minister of Delhi, Arvind Kejriwal of Aam Admi Party, who is BJP's biggest political rival in the state has been praised by Sadhguru since the very beginning of his political career.

Coming to the articles that are referenced to connect Sadhguru with Bharatiya Janata Party and Hindutva, there are some very strong issues with their credibility.

The first reference article (cited as source No. 30) has been written by Girish Shahane, an art gallery curator and has been referenced multiple times throughout, as pointed out by another editor. This article is a loosely-sourced opinion and thus falls under the WP:OR category.

This article shows no primary sources or proof that Sadhguru has ever endorsed BJP’s sociopolitical ideology directly. It makes references to a Hindu (not Hindutva) belief, a clearly fictional story, an anecdote of Sadhguru finding an “ellipsoid” in Turkey and referring to it as a Shiva Lingam (another Hindu belief, not Hindutva) and Sadhguru speaking about the existence of Pagan temples in Europe as "proof" for his supposed endorsement of BJP or Hindutva politics.

The article then makes the false allegation that Sadhguru doesn’t acknowledge the Bhakti movement or the influence of Christian and Islamic cultures in India, and makes ZERO references to primary sources for backing up the same.

Sadhguru has acknowledged Bhakti movement in his writings, he has also written highly of several Sufi (Islamic) saints and their (positive) impact on Indian culture, and also speaks highly of Christianity and Jesus. The other two referenced articles from Scroll.in and The Wire are also opinion pieces that provide loose commentary on these connections at best and list absolutely no primary sources to undoubtedly prove that Sadhguru's sociopolitical ideology is the same as Bharatiya Janata Party.

Since these articles fail to prove strongly that their conclusions are backed up by primary sources, they fail WP:SECONDARY and should thus be discredited for encyclopedic purposes.

I can go on, but this evidence should be enough to clearly point a pattern of biased and malicious editing which can also be seen throughout the rest of the article. 2409:4072:6394:A403:3E:D32C:23C1:F736 (talk) 07:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

References

• There is no prohibition on using non-English sources. Multiple pieces (including academic scholarship) have described and discussed the subject's religio-political ideology; trying to counter reliable sources by deriving from other sources is not how we proceed and is termed as original research. Get your rebuts published over any RS, and it will be incorporated. Nothing to see over here. ∯WBG^converse 11:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Excuse me? Read what I've said again. I have not once referred to any "non-English sources", nothing you've referenced in the article can be construed as reliable. Just because the platform where an opinion is published might be considered by you as reliable doesn't make the opinion itself reliable. **There has to be some scrutiny of the material itself, or you can perhaps write "As per Girish Shahane" to precede any arguments made by him. Of course, Shahane is not noteworthy enough for his opinion to count on its own, so how does it somehow gain credibility through the publication? This is also the case with the majority of other sources in this article.
  • The article has clearly been published with shoddy sources, which I've described in detail above, but of course, you haven't bothered to respond to any of them. If you're going to talk about academic sources (which are behind paywalls and inaccessible to people like myself, I'm assuming you have access), then we can have a separate discussion, wherein I would prefer it if you'd provide the full text of these purported academic sources where the merits or demerits can be discussed.
  • You cannot just badger a WP:BLP on the basis of fringe opinions. Unless something has been proven without a shadow of a doubt with primary sources, it cannot possibly be stated as fact. The qualification of a source as a secondary source alone shouldn't take away the burden of proof that said secondary source has to derive its conclusions from verifiable primary sources. That is not how an encyclopedia is written or referenced.
  • Like I said previously, I can continue dissecting every single issue with this article and its sourcing, but it would perhaps be better for you to clear this first. Also, I would request you to stop attempting to indulge in WP:GAMING and WP:LAWYERING to bully your way out of these issues. Kindly state your rebuttals in clear words. Thank you 2409:4072:6394:A403:7D27:BB7E:7D23:DDCE (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

IP, Why don't you log in ? If you are a blocked/banned user (and we have many on this topic) then you are not welcome to edit anywhere on Wikipedia (not unless your original account is unblocked). I have no idea what this link [49] has to do with this discussion. In any case, As far as I can see, the edits by WBG are reliably sourced. If you want something to be updated Please provide RS to back up your claim on article talk page. DBigXrayᗙ 13:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your completely unfounded insinuations but I'm neither banned nor am I interested in registering an account on Wikipedia. It is completely my choice whether I want to do so or not. As far as you are concerned, haven't you been warned for your edits to this very page just a couple of months ago? If you and Aruneek categorically state on record that you stand behind every source in the article, I'll take it to WP:RS and use this discussion for further proceedings against your WP:BIAS induced editing behaviors. Just my perception, we can let arbitration decide whether its true or not. 2409:4072:6394:A403:3840:8833:D0DA:98F6 (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Go wherever you wish to go. ∯WBG^converse 14:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Please confirm for the record, as an editor, your endorsement for every single source in the article as it stands today. Thank you. 2409:4072:6394:A403:3840:8833:D0DA:98F6 (talk) 14:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• • We don't bother to fact-check secondary sources, once it passes WP:RS and your first and third points are entirely bogus. Arguments of him propagating pseudoscience have been noted by multiple quarters, which removes the need for attribution. ∯WBG^converse 14:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

    • I have not once disputed the pseudoscience aspect of this article, so what are you on about again? I see a serious lack of reading comprehension since you've either purposefully or just absent-mindedly misquoted me twice now within the span of 4-5 responses. Also, please describe what constitutes as "we", I thought you were an independent editor just like myself so I'd appreciate it if you stopped speaking on behalf of Wikipedia in its entirety. Like I said, I will take all of your dubious sources to WP:RS, but I'd appreciate it if you can confirm, just for the sake of future arbitration proceedings, that you stand behind every single source in the article right now with your understanding of Wikipedia, RS and other policies. Thank you. 2409:4072:6394:A403:3840:8833:D0DA:98F6 (talk) 14:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

      Reading our arbitration policy might prove beneficial. Also, you need to move WP:RSN not WP:RS. I have been here for years and unless you are editing logged out, ought to have a better idea of community's interpretation of policies. Also, this is not some kind of litigation forum. Go wherever you wish to go. ∯WBG^converse 14:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

      • Don't worry Aruneek, my only intention was to make things easier to interpret for others in future proceedings. You can choose to either indulge or ignore (you've chosen to repeatedly ignore so I won't bother at this point). Your being here for years or not makes no difference to the weight of your edits or arguments, and if you're in gross violation of a Wikipedia policy, you're going to be just as liable for punishment as anyone else, so please get that straight. Any editorial privileges or experience that you may have with Wikipedia is to facilitate better work for the project, not for you to indulge in WP:LAWYERING against newer users. 2409:4072:6394:A403:3840:8833:D0DA:98F6 (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

        My current user-name is Winged Blades of Godric, not sure why you keep referring to my earlier pseudonym; it may be construed as a form of harassment. Feel free to have the last word and do whatever you wish. ∯WBG^converse 14:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

        • It is a former username of yours that I'm more familiar with than your current one so I'm using it to refer to you. If there's something about it that makes you uncomfortable, please let me know and I'll refrain from using it in the future. This I'll do out of the kindness of my heart, not due to a violation of WP:HARASS which I suggest you read in its entirety and refrain from making such accusations in the future to shift the direction of an argument. Thank you 2409:4072:6394:A403:3840:8833:D0DA:98F6 (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

          Lol. You can continue, as you wish. ∯WBG^converse 14:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

          • Thanks Aruneek, lmao 2409:4072:6394:A403:3840:8833:D0DA:98F6 (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I would also like to request an editor to kindly remove all WP:NONFREE sources as most of them are used as supplementary sources anyway. One authentic source per statement is enough. 2409:4072:6394:A403:3840:8833:D0DA:98F6 (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Read the policy, you cite. ∯WBG^converse 14:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

remove sources ? under which rule ? please read the links before you post them. DBigXrayᗙ 14:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The policy is for content and not sourcing, but the point stands. If you can get the same impact from a non-paywalled source, why do you need to pile on a nonfree source on top of it? Either way, if you wish to defend the inclusion of these sources, please (since you have access to them) quote the entire relevant section of the papers in your sourcing so that the material can be verified by other editors. Of course, you're under no obligation to do so, but I would personally perceive it as an honest effort to wanting to improve the encyclopedia on your part. If you're not interested, then due to the existence of other sources for the same statements, it would perhaps be in the best interests of the readers to remove such sources altogether. I will still make an honest attempt (upon your rejection of my request) to find these documents through WP:LIBRARY, but at some point a decision has to be made with consensus and I'll look forward to it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4072:6394:A403:3840:8833:D0DA:98F6 (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Make a request over article t/p, as to what sources you wish to be quoted. ∯WBG^converse 15:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Sources #72 and #73 in the current version at the time of this comment are the ones that I'd like relevant sections to be inserted in the reference area for. Thank you for being cooperative Aruneek. 2409:4072:6394:A403:3840:8833:D0DA:98F6 (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

No the point doesn't stand. It doesn't work that way. You cannot ask editors to remove valid sources simply because you don't have access. you can use WP:REFDESK or ask for the quote on the talk page. DBigXrayᗙ 15:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Again with the WP:LAWYERING? If you can read the discussion I've had with Aruneek, you'll know that we've reached an understanding regarding this. I don't want to re-state everything, just read what I've written exactly above your comment. I would also recommend that you don't attempt to harass me, you've been accused of it by several people in the past, and you've received your fair share of sanctions as well, so please demonstrate some learnings from your past experiences. 157.46.108.234 (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Harshil169:

I was wondering if you could please respond to the questions I had asked before. I'm having a hard time understanding some of your actions on this page. I'll restate my questions below so that its easier for you.

(1) On November 5, 2019 - you deleted a chunk of content on the UNITED NATIONS MILLENIUM PEACE SUMMIT, WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM and other important developments. The sources were solid - Forbes, The Hindu, The Economic Times, etc. But you deleted it all. And I don't see that there was any discussion on the Talk page. 2 weeks later when someone had reinstated it, you deleted it all again. And the reason you stated was "Removing content per Talk Page consensus". But I don't see that there was any discussion about it though, so consensus would not have been reached. Would love to know why you needed to get rid of it, thanks. Jp7311 (talk) 05:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Jp7311, We don't mention about all things which he spoke at multiple places because we are not newspaper. Refer point number 4 which clearly says we are not diary. We just mention things which are encyclopedia worthy and can matter after 50-100 years. For an example, you can refer to Narendra Modi, which is good article but has NO MENTION of all of his speeches. Here is consensus about it. Also, not that page had resume template then. So, it was necessary to remove these details to remove that problematic template. Hope it clarifies. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 05:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Harshil169 I'm afraid that's not a good enough argument. I'm sure you're aware of wiki's policies around editing to make the platform more robust. The information you deleted is not mentioned anywhere on the page, and you deleted large sections in one go. This is not a case of reducing redundancies as you're claiming. In fact, I don't see any of these noteworthy engagements mentioned anywhere anymore. Speakers often put some of their key speaking engagements on their pages. And the United Nations, World Economic Forum...these aren't your run of the mill organizations. So it does not look good at all for you that that you deleted this.

Also, could you be a little more respect please of your fellow editors? A little more civility. You didn't care to discuss this on the Talk page with folks who may have spent valuable time contributing to the page. And in fact when someone saw what happened and restored it into some semblance of what it used to be before you went at it, you once again immediately deleted it all. Some would call that vandalism. Your motivations to remove factual data from this page seem very high. And I do think you broke more than a few rules here. So please take care not to repeat this, thanks. And I look forward to continuing our discussion on the points below because you also deleted their entire body of literary work. I would like to discuss why please. Jp7311 (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

(2) Then on December 31, 2019 you you deleted some information about the Isha Yoga Center which some others might have been interested in. But the reason you stated was "It is related to his CULT." So would that be the reason why you deleted the content?

@Harshil169: Still waiting for you to please explain why you called Jaggi Vasudev's organization a Cult, Here, and again Here. You have also referred to the subject's words as "gibberish", added content which you referred to as "Adding his nonsensical health claims" and "more nonsense". Jp7311 (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

(3) The same day, Dec 31, you deleted a List of 29 books and cited - "Wikipedia is not catalogue to list all of his books// This is suitable for his personal blog or cult's website// Period". I'm curious why? Because I've seen the pages of many authors who have a 'Literary Works' or 'Publications' section where their work is listed, with descriptions etc. On the CULT thing, are you sure you're have enough of a neutral POV? Thanks Jp7311 (talk) 06:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Jp7311, We only list notable books in literary section which attracted significant book reviews and reception. Regarding point 2, what do you mean by "others might have been interested in". This is encyclopedia and we don't add everything. This is not diary or website of the foundation. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Harshil169 Ok lets start with the "others might have been interested". Everyone is an editor, and everyone is welcome to contribute. So, if someone else has put some information up on the page that you don't think should be there - well you have to take it to the Talk page and have a discussion about it. One editor can't just swoop in and decide that it has no place. Wikipedia policy is also clear on this. On your deletion of his entire body of literary work because you don't think it has sufficient "book reviews and reception" - I'm sorry but that won't pass muster with anyone. You should have discussed it with the other editors on the Talk page. And been more thoughtful about axing content so swiftly. Jp7311 (talk) 08:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Jp7311, that's what I did. Just look at the second section of talk page. There is consensus between two editors who took part. See Recentism in article" section. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 08:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Harshil169, No that's not at all what you did. You wanted to delete a huge section of the page, and took it to the Talk page on Nov 8 under "Recentism in Article". There, within an hour you got support from DBigYray who agreed with you. But as even they suggested, you didn't even wait a day to see if others, maybe the editor who had contributed the content, had a different POV for debate and discussion. You went ahead and deleted that huge amount of factual content the same day. You did not bring this to the notice of the any editors. In fact, the only user you chose to bring this to the attention of, was Admin Bbb23. Please could you explain why you chose to get specifically and only Admin Bbb23's opinion on this? And why you didn't wait for others editors active on the page to get involved? I hope you are aware of Wiki rules on canvassing? Jp7311 (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

In fact Harshil169, after you deleted all this content on November 8, 2019, (not even waiting a day after bringing it to the Talk page, nor tagging the contributing editor to discuss it), clearly Admin @Bbb23: didn't approve of your action and REVERTED the edit citing "(talk) too much sourced material to remove without discussion - take to Talk page". After that there was no further discussion with anyone on the Talk page, much less with Bbb23 who had made the revert. But 2 weeks later, on November 25 you AGAIN DELETED all the same content saying "Removing content per talk page consensus". Please explain why? Jp7311 (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Harshil169:, the truth of the matter is that, as a result of your disruptive editing, on November 18, 2019, Admin @Bbb23: sanctioned you with a 1-week block citing "Disruptive editing: including WP:NPA, retaliatory abuse of process, failure to collaborate, abusing other editors of misconduct in content disputes". This block was for November 18-25, 2019. And on November 25, the VERY same day that your block was lifted, you went back and made the same edit that had made on November 8, 2019, and which Bbb23 had reversed on November 8, 2019, and sanctioned you for with a 1-week block. Would you care to explain why? Jp7311 (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Jp7311, thanks for using this language. You gave me third content which can be used against you. And yes, you can do anything to me. I don’t have any fear of your threat. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 17:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Harshil169: you have just left a lengthy message on my Talk page, threatening to block me. You wrote "Disclose that how you’re associated with Jaggi and his organisation. Do you consider him as religious or spiritual master? You must disclose it under COI. Your edits are problematic and can lead to block on you."

I can certainly see how my comments on this noticeboard, could be problematic for you given your actions. But, even if I did have a COI which I don't, I have never made any edits to the Jaggi Vasudev page, so your warning is rather odd. If I didn't know better I'd think you were trying to intimidate me. Please rest assured that if I were to mysteriously get blocked and disappear off this thread - well, others would miss me. :) And that would in itself get you, or others, the kind of attention that I'm sure you are not looking for. Also, this is the second time you have posted a threat to my Talk page so you may want to quit it. And think twice about editing the page of a person you characterize as speaking "nonsense" and "gibberish" and leading what you call a "CULT".Jp7311 (talk) 08:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Harshil169, because of your second attempt at harassing me on my talk page, @Kashmiri: advised you to take back your warning along with the threat which I am happy to see that you did. However, rather than apologize, you deleted your comments, along with those of Kashmiri from my Talk page. I must advise you against deleting conversation from other editors' Talk pages, especially comments of others.

THIRD ATTEMPT AT HARASSMENT by @Harshil169:

Furthermore, having done that, you have just now made a 3rd threatening statement targeting me, just a few sentences up on this noticeboard, saying "You gave me third content which can be used against you. And yes, you can do anything to me. I don’t have any fear of your threat." I object to your language "which can be used against you" and view it as yet another attempt to intimidate. As for my "threat", to be clear, I have never threatened you. Factual discussion on the BLP noticeboard of potentially disruptive or even libelous actions of an editor does not constitute a threat if conducted in accordance with Wiki policies. You may certainly face consequences as a result of this discussion, but one doesn't need to threaten another person for that to happen. The facts will speak for themselves. On the other hand, you have just made your THIRD attempt at harassing me. Jp7311 (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Emily Bausback

Biography of a young star athlete has apparently been commandeered by the subject or associate. Lots of unsourced biographical content and photos, turning this into a personal scrapbook. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

It was a bit fanzine, I have added back a photo. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Very fanzine. The COI account has been temporarily blocked. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Kelly D. Holstine

Major editing by Ms. Holstine herself. She's not logged in, and the edits are all from a few IPv6 addresses, but in one edit in the series she says that it is indeed her. I'm not sure what the appropriate action to take is, but thought I'd bring it to the attention of folks who do. I did place a comment on the talk page, but more edits to the page by what appears to be the subject of the article went in this morning. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Stevo Todorčević

For more than last three years the content of this biography is subject of censorship and vandalism. It is not possible to add valid content based on the most reliable sources (RCS Fellowship Citation and Appraisal, Sets and Extensions in Twentieth Century, p 290-320, Stevo Todorcevic - The Mathematics Genealogy Project). People who tried to write this biography strictly following BLP guidelines were harassed and chased away. As a consequence of this vandalism and harassment the reader cannot learn that Todorcevic is a world leading set theorist and logician, whose research results were praised by math greats, Erdos and Kurepa. An extensive description of his contribution to pure mathematics in a span of more than 40 years, is reduced to just two research results from the beginning of 1980s. The top two research positions he held with Princeton and Berkeley, Tarski lecturer, invitation to Berlin ICM, introduction a completely new mathematical object - rho functions, his advisory work, his family and residence info are meaninglessly removed from the biography.

To learn more about the vandalism and censorship this biography is exposed to, read the biography talkapge and this biography version.--A. Perun (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks like there's a bit more going on than what was just said this archive, for example is very illuminating. A Perum himself declares a COI towards the subject on his home page as well. It looks like this is a long standing issue with a Perun Pinging JBL also pinging David Eppstein as both have had past experience with this user as well.

The TL:DR version - looks like A.Perun is trying to puff up the biography and has been told not to quite a few times going back years! Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Necromonger, your TLDR is an excellent summary. (There have also been a series of sockpuppets engaged in the same behavior, but at some point an SPI was run and apparently A.Perun is not one of them. It's a bit odd!) --JBL (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The SPI can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vujkovica brdo/Archive. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Necromonger: Be careful. A.Perun did not declare himself COI, actually he referenced the accusation against him thrown by David Eppstein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.243.245 (talk)

Given the IP engagement here and below, it may be time for another trip to SPI. --JBL (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Rick Castro

The SPA Eigilvesti (talk · contribs) has been occasionally editing Rick Castro since 2007, and frequently in the last 10 months. All the user's edits have been to the Rick Castro article, or to add Castro's name to another article. The material added has not been, as far as I have noticed, particularly problematic, but the user consistently adds bare urls as references, and the purported sources sometimes do not have any connection to or mention of Castro. The user has never responded to talk page messages. Eigilvesti and I are responsible for 95% of the edits to Rick Castro in the last 10 months. I would appreciate other eyes on the article. - Donald Albury 14:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Why Cue

please look into this page Why Cue for deletion as I do believe it doesn’t meet wiki notability requirements, potentially spammy and does not present references in reliable sources 67.81.121.57 (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Michael D'Andrea

This article is now subject to speculative editing about the potential death of the subject.

As Wikipedia is not the news, I do not understand the rush to include a single sourced claim, by those antagonistic to the subject, of his death. That has now lead to a 3 sentence rebuttal also being included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slywriter (talk • contribs) 16:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Given that the source of the claim is from Middle Eastern papers (and not even something like Al Jazeera, which I wuold consider a respected source for ME news) the claim should be removed until we have better sources covering it. --Masem (t) 17:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

As US sources have now denied it, I have removed (before seeing this comment). I do not believe 1R applies when protecting a BLP from rumor, but if I am wrong I'll accept that. As usual, the attempt to beat the news means articles are being edited in haste on thin sourcing and belief that any RS qualifies for inclusion.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7937895/CIA-boss-Soleimani-assassination-killed-plane-crash-Afghanistan-Iranian-news-claims.html.

Slywriter (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

More so, the sources being used for the US denial are not RSes - we've deprecated the Daily Mail, and the Mirror is too close to tabloidish. Basically, there's effectively no good RS reporting on the Russian claim nor the US counterclaim, so removal is the best option until we get more concrete details (if we do ) from RSes. --Masem (t) 17:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

As an editor who cleaned up the information, I endorse the removal. The sourcing was shaky at best. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

And just to add a bit more, the crash is being covered in reliable sources eg BBC but not one mention of D'Andrea's name has been given in these, showing that the reliable media is very much doubting the Russian claims. --Masem (t) 19:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree with above. But why was the "Early Life" section removed? It seemed sourced and relevant, no? Elle Kpyros (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Fat fingered the removal. Restored now. Slywriter (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm back. It seems Pending Changes protection just means an editor with privileges drives by and accepts a section called 'death rumours' without checking any conversation occurring. I've again reverted but the likely false information will remain live until the next drive by 22:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slywriter (talk • contribs)

Strange that nobody here seems to have run a Google search for other sources of the claim, as there are quite a few of them that are normally considered reliable: [50][51][52][53][54]. Not that death rumours are that important in someone's biography; nevertheless, once they reach mainstream media, I think they should at least be acknowledged by Wikipedia. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: The sources you've provided are reporting on Iran's and Iranian media's claim of D'Andrea's death (and, in several cases, the bizarre nature of those claims and reports), but they are not, themselves, confirming the reports. Perhaps if these rumors prove false, we can include information about the Iranian misinformation campaign. Or, if the rumors prove true, we can report on verifiable facts. But until we have verifiable facts, there is no rush. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Alex Wilcox and Jet Suite

G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion Alex Wilcox is alive, not famous, and he commissioned his employees to make this page FOR him to serve as promotion

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JetSuite — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.198.76.100 (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The articles you link are not eligible for G11. They are not particularly advertisorial in tone, and both have been around about 6 years; I see no direct evidence they were created by his employees, and even if they were, having a conflict of interest is not forbidden so long as the article itself has text which is compliant with Wikipedia policy on WP:NPOV. I don't see any major problems with those two articles. --Jayron32 18:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Josip Pečarić

Can someone with both an ability to read the sources in this area (not me) and a neutral point of view on Croatian-Serbian relations (I know, a tall order) take a look at Josip Pečarić, please? I tried today to take out the more obviously partisan attack-page aspects of our article (e.g. emphasizing his failure to obtain certain faculty positions, instead of the positions he actually did obtain) but was immediately reverted. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

While I can't help with the sources, I can say that the article needs a lot of work to even make it coherent. It's written with a thick Eastern European syntax and I believe the translations are much too literal. A lot of it has this really choppy form with many redundant statements, and statements that really have no context. A lot of it reads as meaningless, unless you already know what it's talking about, and many things, like failing to get a job, are just bizarre at most and trivia that no general reader would care about at least. Hopefully, someone who can go through the sources will come along and fix these issues. But in the meantime, I'd feel better removing any possible BLP issues until that happens. Better to err on the side of caution. Zaereth (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The bizzarity + trivia are the facts this man pointed at in his interview referenced in the article. His PhD thesis was reviewed by three Belgrade university professors and rejected for many errors found in. One of the Thesis reviewers was late M. Asic, professor of mathematics at the Ohio State University. This review can be found in the University archives along with the PhD thesis. Pretty soon all Belgrade University PhD theses will be digitized and online accessible. Wait and see! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.243.245 (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok. And what does that have to do with the price of rice in China? By that, I mean, who cares? What is this information supposed to be telling me? It's not encyclopedic information unless there is some significance to not getting a job. That happens to everybody who has ever looked for a job. Most people eat dinner and bathe too, but it's not encyclopedic to report it. So what good is it? Zaereth (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

For sure, the price of rice in China is encyclopedic information. I guess you are ten year old person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.243.245 (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

On Wiki-calendar, 11, which is about as long as I've been participating at this noticeboard. That's a common English metaphorical expression, which I explained means "Who cares?" "What does it matter?", which you still haven't explained. That's the problem in translating literally, because much of the meaning is often lost. Zaereth (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't entirely understand this entire discussion, but regardless of who and how many people reviewed Josip Pečarić's thesis and what they said about it, it's irrelevant to us if the only way we know this is from the thesis itself. If Josip Pečarić mention the early failings with his thesis (I guess he eventually fixed the problems since it sounds like he earned his PhD) in an interview I guess there is a chance it may be worth mentioning this in the article, but it would need to be mostly based on what he said in the interview with only some limited additional support from the thesis itself, if even that. Nil Einne (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but would add that, if the info is worth mentioning then there should be some point. We're either missing a bunch of valuable stuff that ties this article all together, or something's been lost in translation, or I don't know what. But the article as written is mostly a bunch of incoherent statements like that. Someone who speaks both languages fluently needs to step in and sort it out. Zaereth (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that there was a lot of strange material in the article, and that the coverage was WP:UNDUE. Pečarić does appear to hold some fringish right views, however, as supported by some of the Croatian newspaper sources that have been included in various versions of the article. I looked a little further and found also this article in English from N1 (TV channel) which substantially discusses Pečarić's non-math book, and which in this context uses the words "Holocaust denial". It looks like there's enough there that something should be in the article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear all (well, not the ranting IP), as this discussion gets more concrete, may I invite you to participate on the article talk page? More eyes and voices there would certainly be a good thing. (Russ, I think you're probably right, but definitely that needs to be hashed out by people without axes to grind.) --JBL (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

173, I have deleted your comments. Please provide sources to make such allegations or don't make them again. I will ask for you to be blocked if you violate WP:BLP again. Nil Einne (talk)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bettina_Arndt#cite_note-quals-4

Libelous modifications — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.135.201 (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Bettina Arndt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Are you asserting that reference 4 ([55]) is a problem? Is there something that is "libelous"? Please quote a bit of text in the article or the reference to make it clear what you believe is the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Don't see anything obviously libel. Article includes an interview where she doesn't dispute/disprove the findings. Slywriter (talk) 02:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Normally, I'd point to WP:BLPCRIME, and say not to include unless a conviction is secured in a court of law. (And before anyone says it's not a crime to call yourself a psychologist, read the source. Apparently it is in Australia.) However, this person may be an exception to BLPCRIME, if she falls under WP:WELLKNOWN, which by the looks of the article, she just may. If so, I'd expect a lot more sources to be reporting on this than the primary source that did the initial investigation. And I'm not too sure about the reliability, as the site is described as both news and satire, and the source is more than a bit tablidish bordering on op/ed. I would want to see wider and more neutral coverage before saying that WELLKNOWN comes into play. Zaereth (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)