Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive284

Luke Bronin

See also: my rejected 3O request and Jack's WP:RFPP Horse Eye Jack's AN/3RR report

• Luke Bronin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Eddie Perez (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2602:252:D91:E650:1006:1361:4BC3:27F2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This IP has been adding and removing content from these two articles without, it seems, a regard for what sources say on the matter. I have been disputing with the IP on my removal of content not cited by RS ([1] [2] [3]). This is while Horse Eye Jack has been disputing with them over at Eddie Perez (politician) for the IP's even more nonsensical changes ([4] [5] [6] [7] [8]). While we do have WP:NOT3RR#EX7, I am trying to not keep reverting them, so I really don't know what the solution for this is. Fresh eyes would help, though. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if its political stuff? The IP is removing negative info from one page, and adding it into to another. ahh look here two sides of a primary for mayor. Enough to request page protection for both?. Curdle (talk) 10:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

And now another IP has shown up...coincidentally, it has been editing both articles too, as far back as 2013. Curdle (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Curdle and Horse Eye Jack: I warned the new IP just now. Hopefully, that will put this to rest. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Betül Tanbay

Betül Tanbay has asked me by email for the removal from her article about the paragraph on her recent detention and release by the Turkish government, on the basis that it is inaccurate and not an important part of her story. She has supplied no sources to me that could be used in place of the three sources already used there for this incident. I am unsure whether the paragraph should stay. Anyone else have an opinion here? WP:AVOIDVICTIM may be relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if AVOIDVICTIM really covers it, as that is really intended more for victims of another (ie: rape victims, molestation, etc...) not so much victims of the system. However, I think other parts of policy come into play. In looking at the sources, the first is a very short news article about 6 people being arrested, but doesn't go into any detail and only mentions Tanbay once. The second is a primary source, consisting of the very appeal for release that the article talks about. (Not mentioned in secondary sources anywhere.) The third is apparently about her release, but is in Turkish so no idea if it gives any substantial info. This doesn't show a great impact on her life and career, so per WP:BALANCE I think it can probably be removed.

On top of that, the rest of the article is sourced almost exclusively to primary sources, which suggests she may not even pass GNG, but most certainly not WELLKNOWN. Per BLPCRIME, I think this info should be removed until/if the time comes that a conviction is upheld and it is widely reported in mainstream media. Zaereth (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree, and have removed the material on that basis. MPS1992 (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Eric Swalwell

The headline of Eric Swalwell bio is that he is a Russia-gate conspiracy theorist. The source for this claim was poor and disreputable. This sentiment by the editor for this claim was politically motivated by recent events and lacks credible evidence for the claim.

 Done GiantSnowman 09:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

And the page is protected requiring logged in users for editing for the next year, due to high profile political activity including running for president at the moment. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

ANZØR ALEM

Anzør Alem Artistes congolais

References

Did you have a question for this noticeboard about this person? What is your question? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

We also don't seem to have an article about this person.--Auric talk 18:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Gerhard Meisenberg

This article has been tagged as an attack page twice, once in August of last year [9] and a second time, by a different person, yesterday. [10] Several other users have tried to address some of the article's problems, but there has never been any long-term improvement, so it was suggested that I should raise the issue here.

In its current state, the article is about 90% negative, and most of the negative material is poorly sourced. Here is my analysis of the article's sources. Most of the article's sources contain no actual commentary about Meisenberg or mention him in only one sentence, and almost a third of the sources (five out of 17) literally don't mention him at all. Of the three sources that do criticize him in more than a single sentence, one appears to be self-published, and the most recently added source is a book that hasn't been published yet. (Amazon gives it publication date as May 21.)

Based on how scanty Meisenberg's coverage in reliable sources has been, I am not sure if this individual is notable enough to deserve his own article, so if someone else wants to create an AFD discussion for this article, I would approve of that solution. Otherwise, I would like advice and help about bringing this article into compliance with BLP policy, which requires articles about living people to be better sourced than this one is. 2600:1004:B128:E28D:7523:957D:6FF8:7502 (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Details about sexual harassment lawsuit added to article

Can some others please take a look at the newly added "Lawsuit for Sex and Age Discrimination" section in Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai? It's a serious issue but the manner in which it is described in the article might raise BLP concerns especially since these are allegations raised in a lawsuit that has not yet been tried. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

So, I think the source is certainly good and reliable, but I agree, it verges on BLP issues. Before even getting there, I would say the current section is WP:UNDUE; while it deserves mention, one article, no matter how reliable, is a thin reed for that large a section. Just an unsolicited opinion! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Same. The existence of the suit merits attention, but we shouldn't be naming names at this point. A brief subsection that the suit exists, and that it was filed for sex/age discrimination is fine. Anything more until there's actual court actions is too much. --Masem (t) 21:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. The source is solid, but this content clearly raises BLP and UNDUE concerns for the school's page and at Prabhjot Singh (physician). Obviously the allegations are serious, but this much content should never be based solely on the plaintiffs' side of a lawsuit.--Mojo Hand (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep, create history of institution article This organization has gone through billions of dollars and created many stories around itself. Its story cannot be told in one Wikipedia article. Wikipedia has no shortage of space. Put this entire narrative into a new sub article, which would also make space for any number of other stories to also be collected and curated. I agree with avoiding the BLP issues but in this case I think the target is mostly the institution, not individuals, so this narrative could omit mention of people per BLP policy and still keep the story and public record. I do not necessarily think that starting a new subarticle is a lawsuit is ideal, but editor attention often begins with lawsuits and we do need someone to make a space for many kinds of stories about this organization. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I am the author of the original item on the lawsuit. I think to omit it entirely is not just. The allegations are very, very serious - and they are spelled out in a very, very detailed legal filing in a federal court. This is not some frivolous, off-hand comment at a cocktail party. The suit has also been covered in several news media of high regard, including Science. Two of the people named in the suit are well-known worldwide in their fields and by no means are 'private individuals' in their professional capacities. We are not discussing something that allegedly occurred in their private lives but something that allegedly occurred in the course of their employment at a major medical institution. The issues raised in the law suit have significant implications for science, medicine, and public health. So, these are assuredly public matters, pertaining to a pubic institution and involving public figures. Drs. Sing and Carney have their own wikipedia pages, and I believe that mention of their names in the entry here is reasonable given their stature in the field. Right now, the paragraphs in question have been moved. Shall I take another pass at writing one and post it here?Eksilverman (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I have yet to see anyone argue for omitting it entirely (here, at least). Rather, my point, at least, was that it's just a bit too large and detailed right now. It certainly has coverage in reliable sources. It certainly deserves coverage, but the original section was disproportionate to the coverage of the lawsuit, and should be a bit more careful with regard to a pending lawsuit. Allegations, after all, are not facts, and we should avoid portraying them as such. At this point, until there is more coverage (e.g., an outcome to the lawsuit) we should leave it fairly generalized and just a few sentences (I'm thinking two, but as ever, your mileage may vary). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Well said. Allegations are not facts, and, in the American legal system, it's usually in the plaintiffs' interests to widely publicize the allegations, while the defendants are advised to make no comment pending litigation. That's not to say we shouldn't cover this lawsuit, but, per BLP and UNDUE, I would limit it to one paragraph on the school's page, and a sentence each on Dennis S. Charney and Prabhjot Singh (physician), at least until the information is more developed.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

How about: In April 2019, the Icahn School was named in a lawsuit filed against Mount Sinai Health System and several employees of the Icahn School's Arnhold Institute for Global Health.[29] The suit was filed by eight current and former employees for age and sex discrimination, including against the Dean of the Icahn School, the Director of the Arnhold Institute, and the Institute’s Chief of Staff. Allegations also include improper reporting to funding agencies, misallocation of funds, failing to obtain Institutional Review Board approval prior to conducting research in violation of Mount Sinai and federal guidelines, and failing properly to adhere to the guidelines of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act or HIPAA.Eksilverman (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Naming specific positions is akin to naming the people, they should be omitted. It can be assumed that with the list of charges in the lawsuit that some of the upper management are going to be specifically named in the suit, and until there's clear merit to the suit, we shouldn't name them. --Masem (t) 14:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

A proposed revision: "In April 2019, the Icahn School was named in a lawsuit filed against Mount Sinai Health System and several employees of the Icahn School's Arnhold Institute for Global Health.[29] The suit was filed by eight current and former employees for age and sex discrimination as well as improper reporting to funding agencies, misallocation of funds, failing to obtain Institutional Review Board approval prior to conducting research in violation of Mount Sinai and federal guidelines, and failing properly to adhere to the guidelines of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act or HIPAA."Eksilverman (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I would only add a statement from the school that denies this claims, eg from here [11], eg "The school denied the charges and will defend themselves from the suit." (or something like that). Otherwise fine. --Masem (t) 14:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I think this complies with both BLP and DUE. More can always be added as events unfold.--Mojo Hand (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Added the paragraph to the page, in line with comments, and also cited a new development in the case/affair.Eksilverman (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Thurnscoe - Notable People

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

In the article headed 'Thurnscoe' and the section for 'Notable People' the citation for Alan Moore, refers to the wrong Alan Moore. The Alan Moore from Thurnscoe should read,

       'Alan Moore was born in Thurnscoe on the 18th December 1944. He was educated at Houghton Road Junior School prior to attending The Hill School. He then went on to Mexborough Grammar School, were he met a young lady, Beryl, who would eventually become his wife. Alan has lived and worked in Thurnscoe, for most of his life. He is proud of Thurnscoe and it's people, the most genuine people, on the planet. He has had a total of seven books published on Amazon an  d is also proud of that fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiggasdad (talk • contribs) 

I've removed it completely, thanks for the heads up. GiantSnowman 17:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Polish American Congress on Jimmy Kimmel

An editor is insisting on adding diff to Polish American Congress about the BLP Jimmy Kimmel. Past edits - diff also included Wikipeda stating in its voice that the "incident also included the show host repeating WWII-era Nazi propaganda". Originally this was sourced to [12] - Canada Free Press (per Wikipedia - an "online conservative tabloid") that does not seem to be a source appropriate for BLP. And now (what appear to be copies of the first source) - [13] (phi966.org seems to rail against mainstream media and has a whole section promoting various theories - see 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash#Conspiracy theories) The second source this seems to be an obscure internet portal. All 3 links contain rather strong accusations vs. Kimmel. Some prior discussion User talk:Piotrus/Archive 61#BLP sourcing. The Polish American Congress (the PR piece being issued by someone affiliated with them) itself has received little independent coverage (there are some pieces by people affiliated or paid by PAC), independent coverage includes incidents such as - [14][15][16][17][18]. Icewhiz (talk) 09:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Is this a BLP-problematic sentence or not? (merged)

See [19]. We had several back and forth reverts here between me and User:Icewhiz, and I think we need a BLP expert third+ opinions. While I think the mention of this incident is worded neutrally and has no bearing on BLP, the other editor clearly feels differently. Thoughts? PS. Regarding the sources used, they are a minor Polish-American NGO and a P-A news website. No better sources could be found for this incident. I feel that the sources suffice for neutrally worded report of this incident. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

See section above "Polish American Congress on Jimmy Kimmel". The "minor NGO" site promotes consipracy theories on the TU-154 crash. And the "news website" is a web portal filled with advertising and very little news.Icewhiz (talk) 05:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I still don't see what makes any of them unreliable for a simple statement of fact that PAC criticized a TV show host for using a Polish joke. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like there is a more reliable source like PAC itself or a mainstream media site. Still, I don't see how a mention of such minor criticism would be a BLP issue. Don't bother replying, the two of us disagree on this and this is why we need a third opinion rather then n-th back and forth. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

K. K. Aggarwal

There has been a long-running no-discussion edit war on K. K. Aggarwal over whether we should include the claim that he was once listed as "Chief Patron" of a predatory open-access publisher. The sourcing of the claim is a blog post by Jeffrey Beall, who arguably meets the "recognized expert" clause of WP:SPS, so I think it is reliable (despite the fact that for unrelated reasons Beall was later forced to take the whole blog down and we only have an archived copy). But that alone does not necessarily mean that the claim should be retained in the article. Anyway, finally semiprotection has forced the person or people who want to remove this claim to use the talk page and start a discussion at Talk:K. K. Aggarwal. Let's reward this good behavior by contributing to the discussion there. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Bill Shorten

Currently Bill Shorten is one of the two people expected to become the next Australian Prime Minister, and since just before the election was called (it ends in two weeks, to great relief), there has been a push to prominently feature a rape allegation made against Shorten in the article. The allegation surfaced about 6 years ago and related to an alleged incident about 30 years prior. The police investigated and found that there was no case to answer and no charges were laid. As the Australian media chose not to cover it during the investigation, it only hit the media for about one news cycle, when Shorten announced that he had been investigated and that the investigation had been dropped. It was mentioned a couple of times in the following months when the accuser claimed to be pursing other action, but since then has had almost no mentions in the media, and no other actions have eventuated. As far as I can tell it has not had any impact on his career.

The consensus was originally not to include the material, but recently a short description was added under "personal life" [20]. However, since the election was called there have been ongoing attempts to provide greater emphasis on the accusation by placing the text in it's own subheading of "Sexual assault allegation" and locating it under "Leader of the opposition" rather than in "Personal life" [21]. My feeling is that this is undue, so I have reverted accordingly and raised the issue on the talk page, but the IP has not engaged there. Is this being undue an accurate reading, or should it be given greater prominence? - Bilby (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree. Including any content anywhere in Wikipedia based on allegations alone seems very questionable to me. And with an election campaign underway, Wikipedia must work even harder to avoid adding defamatory content to articles like this. HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I very much agree with that point and I feel exactly the way you do. It seems to me very risky to include any questionable information, which can serves wrongly in this very sensible moment. Wikipedia should share trustful and neutural information, because it is not a tabloid which tries to target the attention of the large public to an obscure news.--Jeremydas (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

STEM School Highlands Ranch shooting

There is a discussion regarding the gender identity, name, and pronouns of a juvenile suspect in this recent shooting. Funcrunch (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Laura Loomer

Over at Laura Loomer, multiple editors are adding "well sourced" BLP incest claims, which are based on zero evidence. The victim has previously received death threats from people of similar motivations. wumbolo ^^^ 22:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Wumbolo this seems to be a wild mischaracterization of the content in question. Reliable sources report that Wohl and Loomer were "investigating" a claim that Ilhan Omar married her brother. This is a wild unfounded conspiracy theory, but basically everything that Wohl and Loomer say is a wild unfounded conspiracy theory. We absolutely shouldn't treat these claims as credible or give them undue weight, but we can mention them if they provide useful context and are covered by reliable sources. I'm open to a discussion here, but you haven't actually responded to my talk page comment. Nblund ^talk 22:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

USA Today? Really? For allegations like that? You are very lucky that you are not already blocked. MPS1992 (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what would be blockable here, and I think you may be misinterpreting the point of the edit. I don't think it's accurate or even plausible, and I don't want Wikipedia to present it as such. This is obviously a hoax by a person with a long history of hoaxes, but Wikipedia covers hoaxes all the time. Loomer's own page cites a number of equally ludicrous conspiracy theories that she has advanced. The claim was covered by USA Today, Vox.com, the Daily Beast, and Daily Dot to note a few. Wohl's entry includes an even more detailed rendition of the conspiracy theory. Nblund ^talk 00:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it's important for an article about a conspiracy theorist to explain their theories, because it gives the reader some insight into their character, personality, motives, and psyche, helping to establish a theory of mind about the subject. However, I think we have to be very careful on how we do that. We should make very clear that the info is bogus if we're giving bogus info. And if the info is bogus, then there is no point in naming real people, because there are enough conspiracy nuts out there who will read that and only that. Just say "congresswoman" and leave it at that. Unfortunately, the sources cited are about on par with TMZ or the National Enquirer. Better sources would be preferable, but then again better sources likely wouldn't touch this. Zaereth (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources could always be better, but I wouldn't go that far. USA Today won a Pulitzer Prize last year for explanatory reporting, etc. It is a reliable source for factual statements. The article's many redundancy and organizational problems should be discussed on the article's talk page. Beyond that, this info is clearly supported by reliable sources, and the wording seems relatively neutral. Removing Omar's name is an interesting idea, but this isn't the only incident connecting the two. Since Omar has been a target of Loomer's for a while, almost to a defining degree, this seems like it would be conspicuously confusing to readers. Grayfell (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, if there's a trend of singling out certain individuals, then that would make sense to name them, but I wasn't really getting that impression from the rest of the article. (Perhaps that could be made clearer? Or, since I don't follow politics and have no background info, maybe I just missed it.) It looks like there have been some changes since I last looked (I'm a slow typist who often gets interrupted), so the latest phrasing does seem better. Zaereth (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, she got banned from Twitter for rumor-mongering about Omar, and the entry also mentions an incident where she shouted questions about the brother marriage claims at her during a campaign event. I think the chronological structure may sort of obscure that point.Nblund ^talk 00:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Olavo de Carvalho

Wikipedia is not a forum. Page Olavo de Carvalho is not respecting WP:BLP.

• Judgmental language.
• Stating opinions as facts.
• No opposing views.
• Undue weight given to biased sources.
• No balancing aspects.
• Written like a tabloid , WP:BLPGOSSIP.
• Attack.

Please moderate.--DDupard (talk) 11:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

You have not provided evidences of what you're saying.

Agreed:

• No opposing views.
• No balancing aspects.

Disagreed:

-Which opinions are stated as facts?

-Where's the attack? Please provide examples.

-Which biased sources are given undue weight?

-Which language is judgmental? Please provide examples.

-Please provide examples it is written like a tabloid.

Shakula34 (talk) 08:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Shakula34:

Section 'Bio' is incomplete, early years, professional life, and influences (some infos in Biblio),

Section 'Views' is incomplete, see Conscience and truth, Cultural hegemony, Globalisation, New Atheism (some infos in Biblio),

See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for more answers. As is, article does not provide understanding.

Possibly also, a clear indication that subject has become controversial would probably help. --DDupard (talk) 09:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. You certainly have a point here. The problems, as I see it, are more nuanced than the notion of "attack" conveys though. More than a malicious intent to smear him there are objective informational biases -- as he is essentially known for his controversies, there isn't a lot of information about him or his non-controversial ideas (if these exist). I'll try to work on it. Shakula34 (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Shakula34 ; Actually there are many articles on his published works (in Portuguese) (I could cite at least a dozen) and some on his role in Brazil in English. .--DDupard (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Adrian David Cheok

Adrian David Cheok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article on Adrian David Cheok would benefit from a check by experienced editors. I suspect that the BLP policy has been violated in a few places.

There's been repeated Edit Wars; at least one article editor has been blocked and a new one has emerged recently only to undo edits or delete whole sections with confrontational language.

I have contributed edits attempting neutrality and objectivity but as a human being I am subjective too and not an experienced editor so help from experienced editors would be appreciated. Starting this page in good faith hoping it helps to improve the article; I worry Edit Wars will continue otherwise.

• As reported in the Talk page for the article large edits by anonymous users are falsifying information by redacting it, the removal of legitimate sources used as references, the deletion of the entire Controversies section and the edit summaries by an anonymous user referring to the subject of this article as "The Professor" appear as biased Conflict of Interest.

Can an exprienced and neutral editor help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Predicatecalculus (talk • contribs)

---

On 18 May 2019 Bilby deleted the page Adrian David Cheok claiming "(G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: Foundational copyvio from https://web.archive.org/web/20101112001709/http://www.ece.nus.edu.sg/staff/bio/cad.html)". Adding for the record!

Predicatecalculus (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

James Cappleman

This is regarding a "NPOV dispute" where it is stated, "This article was clearly written by James Cappleman or a biased supporter. In the last election in April of 2019 Cappleman won by 25 votes in a ward of more than 50,000 residents. He is widely known for being one of the most corrupt and dishonest members of Chicago's City Council. Clearly 50% of the voters in the last election understand this. His lies, unethical, discriminatory and yes, illegal acts have been documented in mainstream news sources for years and will be added to this article."

There is no information within "NPOV dispute" that backs up these claims that are clearly libelous.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Uptown resident (talk • contribs)

@Uptown resident: thank you for raising this issue. The inappropriate material has been removed by User:Bbb23 and they have also left a warning for the user that added it, who will probably be blocked from editing if they continue with such behavior. I've watchlisted the page just in case. MPS1992 (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Ray Blanchard

The article has been edited in a way that is not entirely neutral, not enough sources are cited, there are 2 errors (somewhat) in the bottom of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeoss Chrysalis (talk • contribs) 07:38, May 13, 2019 (UTC)

@Yeoss Chrysalis: you need to give more information about what you think is wrong with the article. It's only been edited five times this year, only one of those edits was substantial and that one was in January. Also, when you post to discussion pages like this, please finish your edit with four tilde (~) characters, which will sign the edit so others know who you are without having to look in the edit history to find out. Neiltonks (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The article has been trimmed and there are 34 sources cited. The errors were fixed in February.--Auric talk 21:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Guy McPherson

Green C. removed copious amounts of information but left potentially libelous content.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guy_McPherson&diff=896997148&oldid=896994688

Green C continues to vandalize my edit corrections to a previous and incorrect edit that does not represent the facts of what Guy McPherson does, says or believes. Green C also continues to restore potentially libelous material from questionable links. Green C also removed a photo of a shirt with the logo of Guy McPherson's website stating it was potentially COI and promotional, which is nonsense. Photos of individuals in Extinction Rebellion Tshirts abound.

His edits are arbitrary and suspicious and he changed information that was corrected by Guy McPherson himself. 68.129.132.213 is Guy McPherson. How do I know? I'm his partner, PESchneider, and was sitting next to him editing the site when Green C began to vandalize the site. Who knows best what Guy McPherson means than McPherson himself. Please stop Green C from changing these edits anymore. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=896994688&oldid=896992738&title=Guy_McPherson

Green C. removed copious amounts of information but left potentially libelous content. And now that ass has permalinked it so it will only show his incorrect edits.

PESchneider (talk) 04:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I informed this editor multiple times about WP:COI but they continue to edit war adding promotional material and deleting critical POVs in total disregard for our rules and how Wikipedia works. I've add a COI tag to the top of the article. I'll be reporting it to the COI noticeboard as well. -- GreenC 04:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Followed up at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Guy_McPherson. -- GreenC 05:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I suspect the only WP:COI is Green C's for refusing to allow corrective edits, for removing photos from Guy McPherson, and for not having a conversation with me about the edits he was concerned with. He did not "talk" to me. He did not ask me about my edits. He began an editing battle that I was not even aware of at first. However, when my edits did not stick, I became perplexed. And lo, a vandal was at the gate. It would seem that Green C has a vendetta against Dr. McPherson and will not allow any positive, scientific articles to be posted. Now there is evidence of true WP:COI by Green C. He is very quick with removing them and keeping the defamatory and libelous, unscientific, articles on the BLP. Is that Wikipedia's idea of neutrality? Only negative articles? I hope not. I will regret all my donations to the Wikster over the years.

PESchneider (talk) 06:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC) 14 May, 2:26am New York.

Frankly much of that material reads like puffery.Slatersteven (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I admit I am new to this editing of Wikipedia and am still learning much about how this even works. All the cute code is darling. Still learning. I was unfamiliar with this three-revert-rule and did not understand why my edits were not sticking. The warring was begun by Green C, who, having more experience as an editor and knowing the rules better than I do, and without contacting me at all to talk about my edits, removed my valid, and cited edits which were not promotional. The critical POV was not from a reliable source and is potentially libelous. A critical POV by Michael Mann that I attempted to add was also removed by Green C. It seems Green C broke the The_three-revert_rule. Now, how about a team of actually neutral editors to assess this situation objectively? Is Wikipedia capable of that? I keep asking for a team to help with this, and not just someone's opinions, or references to "puffery", which is an unhelpful comment by Slatersteven. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule PESchneiderPESchneider (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC) 2:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC) New York.

An article should not be a list of everything they have done, from the fact they tweet to they have published a lot of stuff. Before I fetched up it might have well have been a CV.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

PESchneider, you're a new user, but you need to be very careful about making comments like "This could become a legal issue as it seems Wikipedia promotes the misrepresentation of an individual on his BRP" as you did on your talk page. You're risking a block, per WP:NLT. If you believe that something in the article rises to the level of "libelous," then you should contact [email protected]. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Ilhan Omar arrest

There is a dispute over whether or not to mention that Ilhan Omar was arrested for trespassing at a hotel in 2013. The arrest is briefly mentioned in a 2018 article from The Minneapolis Star Tribune about her House campaign. The authenticity of the arrest and mugshot (though not the arrest report itself) were confirmed by Snopes in a May 3rd article. The charges were apparently dropped. I have not found coverage of the incident in other reliable sources beyond those two. and Omar herself has not commented on the arrest.

• Talk page discussion
• Diff of contested edit

Should this be included in the article? Thanks Nblund ^talk 21:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Editor seeking to add the material here (someone else initially asked about it). I'd also like to hear opinions on the claim that inclusion of this information, which is reliably sourced, constitutes a BLP violation, as was raised by another editor. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks like there are additional sources - e.g. AP from Oct 2018. Omar was (and is) a WP:PUBLICFIGURE at the time of the publications - so there is no BLP issue here - only a question of DUE, though given multiple sources spanning some time.....Icewhiz (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that AP story was brought up on the talk page: it's a WP:SYNDICATED reprint of the Star Tribune story - exact same title and byline, so it doesn't really add anything to weight. I don't know if i'd call it a "BLP violation", but WP:BLP applies to any material related to a living person. Nblund ^talk 21:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Seems to me there is more of a WEIGHT problem than BLP when it comes to someone briefly held for a misdemeanor charge resulting from a demonstration with charges dropped. As she is a politician, I don’t have a BLP problem if it is stated in the context of a demonstration along with her explanation and the fact that this was used against her by detractors. But, it doesn’t weigh much. O3000 (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

That's how it was presented before the info was removed. From the prior version:

In 2013 Minnesota police arrested Omar for trespassing after she refused to leave a hotel lobby where the Somali president had delivered a speech; the charges were subsequently dropped. Omar's political opponents would later utilize a mug shot from the arrest in attack ads against her during her 2018 run for Congress.

I agree it weighs only enough to warrant a brief mention. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, if it doesn't have WP:WEIGHT, it is a BLP issue to bring up an arrest in addition to WEIGHT. O3000 (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe that's what I said, and something would only have no weight if it wasn't covered in reliable sources (which would indeed be a BLP issue—and is not the case here). Do you believe the above text conforms with your suggestions? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

"BLP issue" just means it applies to a biography of a living person. WP:BLP, in essence, just says that we have to strictly adhere to the content policies (including npov) when editing material related to a living person. The edit in question doesn't include Omar's response,because we don't have that. It can't say whether she was part of a demonstration, because we don't have an RS for that either. It probably also can't say the mugshot was used in attack ads, because the Tribune just mentions a single website.* The edit gives the impression that this was a major issue in a contentious campaign, but it clearly wasn't. The batshit crazy brother-marriage claim has more coverage. *total side note I really doubt the MN 5th Republican party had the money for multiple ad buys. If they did, they should have spent it on a Go Pro for Zielinski instead of making her film this hostage video Nblund ^talk 23:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)WP:WEIGHT is entirely about fairly representing what reliable sources say in proportion to those very reliable sources. We can certainly give no weight to claims made in a small number of reliable sources. Let's look at a hypothetical example. Say that 10 sources state A and 10 sources state B. You would expect our coverage to be roughly even in prominence. If there were 11 sources stating A and 9 stating B, our coverage would still be roughly even but A would have marginally more prominence. Now if 15 sources stated A and 5 stated B, we could clearly give preference to A but acknowledge that B is a minority position. But let's say that 18 or 19 sources stated A and only 1 or 2 stated B. At that point, we really need to ask ourselves if we should cover B at all. It is an extreme minority position getting very little coverage. B could simply be an error that made it to print. BLP requires that we write conservatively, and in most cases this means ignoring claims from an extreme minority as well as coverage from only a very small number of sources. Woodroar (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Let's not compare apples and oranges. Those other claims about her marriage have been debunked based on what I've read. This, on the other hand, has been confirmed by reliable sources (see above). In response to the other point, it is, again, an improper reading of WP:DUE to say that a biographical fact that has been covered in multiple reliable sources has "no weight" because it's been addressed by two instead of three or four. The sources that have addressed it include Minnesota's largest paper (The Star Tribune) and a reliable and widely read fact-checking cite (Snopes). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I would say the sources provided are inadequate to establish sufficient WP:WEIGHT to warrant any mention at all. VQuakr (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you arguing that the provided sources are unreliable? WP:RSP shows established consensus for Snopes's reliability, and the Star Tribune is the largest, most reputable state-wide paper in Minnesota. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

VQuakr referred to weight, not reliability. Having a reliable source for something is only one of the requirements for inclusion. Zero^talk 02:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Clearly had no long term effect on career, and coverage was rather small nor created a large controversy. It should be omitted. --Masem (t) 01:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Masem. People who attend demonstrations and sit-ins are routinely arrested and released. Zero^talk 02:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

So only large controversies warrant mentioning? I struggle to see the logic in that reasoning. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

It's a combination of BLP and UNDUE/WEIGHT. IF this was something only picked up by a few sources, and found no legal liability, then this has zero impact on the person's long-term importance and can be safely ignored. --Masem (t) 03:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no BLP issue when the information is factual and the wording is neutral and adheres to the sources. Second, not every fact of an individual's bio, particularly facts on an already-light section (this was under early career but could also fit under early life) requires "long-term significance." I'm not buying into we should whitewash this article because of fuzzy, subjective standards. WP:PUBLICFIGURE requires that we document events like these (arrests, convictions, etc.) positive or negative if they receive mention in multiple reliable sources. Also, to Zero's point above: Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources... The reliability of a source is probably the most important criterion for determining weight. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Our BLP policy is designed around a "do no harm" type thing, meaning we should use care and other considerations of what material to include and not to make a mountain out of a molehill. Just because this even can be documented doesn't mean it should be included, as WP is a summary work, not a full-blown biography. PUBLICFIGURE does not require us to include it, only that when someone is a public figure we should not be considered to victimizing relatively unknown persons. --Masem (t) 04:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

"We consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources", not mere existence. This story is covered in one local news source and one source that, as WP:RSP#Snopes notes, has limited utility for assigning weight because it specializes in fact-checking fringe beliefs. Considering that Omar gets national coverage that is on par with a mid-tier presidential primary challenger, that's extremely minimal. Nblund ^talk 12:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

"The reliability of a source is probably the most important criterion for determining weight." — Absolutely not!! This is 100% wrong. Zero^talk 12:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Actually, it is absolutely 100% correct. This is directly from WP:WEIGHT: Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't say that just because a source is reliable that we include it. Basically, we're looking at how many reliable sources picked this story up and how long it lasted in the news cycle. There's only been show a couple bits of local coverage, and that's simply not prevalent in all bodies of reliable sources we'd usually consider for figures in national politics. --Masem (t) 16:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

That does not say what you think it says. nableezy - 16:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

No we should not, if she was not charged she did nothing wrong in the eyes of the law.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree with most here, not needed at all. She wasnt charged and it has had no impact and is barely covered in later sources. nableezy - 16:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Clearly the coverage is limited, and this is certainly not a major scandal. However, BLP does not require that we omit negative information simply because it is negative ("cause harm"). WP:HARM#TEST lays out some helpful, far more specific guidelines, asking editors to consider 1) whether the information is public, 2) whether it is factual and verifiable (definitive), and 3) whether it is given due weight. In this scenario, 1) and 2) are clear: the information is public and has been fact-checked by reliable sources. There is clearly disagreement on 3), and while I acknowledge that this arrest received less coverage than say, the legal issues of Beto O'Rourke to name an example, it still carries enough weight for simple inclusion when a national fact-checking site and a state-wide paper both make note of it. I think that the ill-defined criteria being argued for here about weight and "BLP" are dangerous, because they are too easily stretched or contracted to fit editors' personal opinions about politicians and what information about them should be presented. Weight is not a simple "include or don't" test, it's an analysis of how much attention should be given to something. Based on the admittedly limited coverage, I do not think this content should be addressed with more than two brief sentences, but I believe it would be a mistake to leave it out entirely. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

BLPs today tend to end up attracting lists of everything negative that happened to the BLP that is reliably sourced, adding that information as it happens. This is basically the equivalent of WP:PROSELINE, a natural result of an open wiki that is under constant improvement. But with BLP in play, we do have to consider how this fact matters in 5-10-20 years down the road, and barring any weird trajectories with her career, I fail to see how a arrest for trespassing that was ultimately cleared up as something of a notable point of her career to be documented years from now. A compariable example: we rarely include celebrities getting things like speeding tickets or similar minor law infractions, unless that has impact on their career. This is the same sort of thing. Ask yourself if this is something that is essential in a summary about her, and at the present time, I think that answer is clearly "no". (You are absolutely right that there's nothign about the BLP or sources to otherwise stop this from being added.) --Masem (t) 16:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree with the prevailing trend: even a mention of this is undue weight. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Brian Wong

• Brian Wong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's an ongoing court case concerning Brian Wong's indictment of sexual assualt, but there appears to be a WP:SPA continually adding a growing expanse ff language that appears in clear violation of WP:BLPBALANCE. Earlier edits have already been flagged and addressed as such, but similar edits continue to be added (eg. [1], [2])-- User:GatoradeFrost

I don't know whether the material belongs in the article (Wong has not been convicted), but I do know that the section about it is WAY too long, too detailed, and full of inappropriate material, e.g., court case numbers. It's seriously WP:UNDUE. I'm tempted to remove all of it and let someone responsible add it back in if they think it doesn't run afoul of WP:BLPCRIME. There are some IPs in a specific range whose handiwork all this is. Other stuff about Wong's company, Kiip, being sued have also been added/edited by the same IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed on the WP:UNDUE and noticed the same trend with the IP range(s) making these edits. Considering the same IP ranges already had edits flagged & removed under WP:BLPBALANCE--rather than removing the whole section, perhaps the best course of action would be to revert to one of those revisions where editors already corrected the issues (eg. 1, 2). Also, not sure if it'd be premature to resort to WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE for those IP ranges, considering the ongoing BLP/vandalism issues? --GatoradeFrost (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

At the very least we need to ensure all content is properly sourced. I've just removed some content exclusively sourced to court records or similar per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Some of the other sources like some ad news sources also seem questionable Nil Einne (talk) 06:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)s

In the light of day, I've reviewed the section and removed it entirely. Large pieces of it are WP:COPYVIO. Other parts are repetitious. The whole thing bares no resemblance to good encyclopedic writing. And many parts, if not all of it, smack of BLP violations. I consider what I've done to be an administrative action.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Removed parallel IP edits from a Wong-related page. If it is a BLP violation in one place, it remains a BLP violation elsewhere. Collect (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• The IP added back the material. It was an improvement as he appears to have eliminated the copyright violations. However, it still leaves us with BLP issues that must be addressed. I undid the IP's edit, citing WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:BLPCRIME and referring the IP here. It's also very poorly drafted, cited, and messy, and I have no interest in fixing those aspects. It would really help if experienced editors addressed the policy issues. The initial question is quite simply should the alleged sexual assault be included in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Original IP here. Just saw this page. it seems what was flagged as BLP issues were fine with editors at least from a sourcing perspective and no mentions of it previously while there were specific issues today regarding it. I had researched and consolidated the various sources who provided the information as well as the well known news entities. Seems like no editors cleaned it up on what was or was not relevant. I'm still learning how this works so learning the rules along the way. Ad exchanger is considered reputable source within the advertising space Wong was in but not that well known outside of the advertising community (think more industry specific publications).

Thoughts on whether or not sexual assault allegation (in this case a grand jury indictment should be included): If it was a normal executive or CEO running a company, the answer likely should be no. However, Brian Wong made himself continuously relevant to the media within the last 10 years across hundreds of media outlets, exposed to millions of people, speaking around the world, doing book tours, etc which is representative of someone who is a celebrity and considered semi well known figure.

Many actions were taken as a result of the sexual assault allegations including being removed and replaced as CEO of Kiip, various entities deleting any association with him and distancing themselves, so without this context, it is very difficult to explain any of this result.

Regards to use of primary sources like Travis county records and court documents: As I mentioned, still learning the rules along the way and learning about the sensitivities of such issues. Primary sources were mostly used to supplement and provide more details and support the info the reputable secondary sources has mentioned through media reporting.

What is the reason allegation or conviction of sexual assault or criminal charges are included in such biographies? Is it to provide a neutral stance on the person that is true good and bad? To warn the public so they can make a more informed decision, etc?

At least for now, won't make any more edits regarding this and leave it to the editors to decide.

"If it is a BLP violation in one place, it remains a BLP violation elsewhere." Could you judge based on the actual writing and evidence presented. The original information on Kiip was written by a PR company or internally and outdated. This has led to various inaccuracies some entities uses wikipedia as a starting source for research or info and cite the info (everything from funding quoting from $15 million to wikipedia $32 million to Brian confirmed $40 million etc). Most recent corporate valuation of $25 million posted by 1800-junk founder via twitter and confirmed by Brian. Additional information added were those presented by Kiip or Wong confirmed himself. Corporate lawsuit is irrelevant to BLP as it is the actions of the corporate entity and not a specific individual. Any information if added would have been before any announcement of sexual assault allegations. The corporate lawsuit issue dealt with user data privacy collection without consent even while the app is turned off and should be considered relevant to the corporate entity.

":I don't know whether the material belongs in the article (Wong has not been convicted), but I do know that the section about it is WAY too long, too detailed, and full of inappropriate material, e.g., court case numbers. It's seriously WP:UNDUE." It is very hard at this point to get a balanced view because much of the details presented is from the State of Texas as the plaintiff, and the details from the sexual assault victim. The information from Wong's side has only been his legal counsel proclaiming it was consensual sex (which is what happens in most cases whether or not one is guilty) so there is not much info to go on from the defense side other than the legal counsel quote. The whole issue falls on whether or not it is consensual sex. However, to have an indictment and court dates means that there is at least some credible evidence to go on vs. just a sexual assault allegation without evidence. More info was added so that what is irrelevant could be removed and edited out and there is enough info to be summarized. As time passes, some of the sources get pushed down in the search engine and become harder to find making it harder to put together a complete and hopefully accurate picture.2001:569:7E43:7900:6487:DFEC:8CC7:10E2 (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

"However, Brian Wong made himself continuously relevant to the media " I can deal with. WP policy states that material violative of WP:BLP is not allowed on any page at all. Next, WP is not here "to right wrongs". Lastly all articles must meet WP:NPOV and, intrinsically, being personally involved in any article makes it difficult to follow that imperative. Too many articles have people seeking "to right wrongs" and "tell the naked truth" (far too many), but that violates the very basis of Wikipedia. "Indictments" are not the criteria which mean "truth." Clay Shaw and other cases attest to that. By the way, if you are personally involved in any way at all, WP:COI is "must reading". Collect (talk) 05:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Admin Bbb23 told me to shorter my response significantly so will only respond to address the relevant points as well as to make my case that Brian Wong is a public figure and BLP: Crime does not apply.

No conflict of interest: I don't have a conflict of interest as per the wiki definition pointed to by user Collect. Currently it is very hard to get a neutral point of view without much information from the defense to go on and much of the public information is provided by the plaintiff which is the State of Texas.

Brian Wong is considered to be a public figure and thus would not fall under BLP:Crime which covers non-public figures.

Relevant Definitions: "(WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN" Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#People_accused_of_crime

"A public figure is a person, such as a politician, celebrity, social media personality, or business leader, who has a certain social position within a certain scope and a significant influence and so is often widely concerned by the public, can benefit enormously from society, and is closely related to public interests in society.[1]" Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure

Brian Wong is between the boundary of portrayed business leader and media personality or both. What evidence can we show that this might be true?

Quantitative evidence:

Brian Wong is a Linkedin influencer given exclusively to 500+ people in the world and has over 715,800 followers: In addition to the hundreds of media interviews and news articles which I won't list, his Linkedin is followed by over 715,800 people. These are professionals with real profiles and linkedin considered him a business leader and influencer. Source: https://www.linkedin.com/in/wongbrian

Linkedin definition of an influencer: "LinkedIn Influencers are selected by invitation only and comprise a global collective of 500+ of the world's foremost thinkers, leaders, and innovators. As leaders in their industries and geographies, they discuss newsy and trending topics such as the future of higher education, the workplace culture at Amazon, the plunge in oil prices, and the missteps of policymakers.Our list of Influencers includes Richard Branson, Bill Gates, Arianna Huffington, and Mary Barra." Source: https://www.linkedin.com/help/linkedin/answer/49650

What does this mean: It means the media helped to establish his credibility and has built trust not only within the advertising industry but also with the general public as well. To professionals, he would be a business leader while to the general public, it would be a social media personality (analogy: think of the dragons in the dragons den show). The media reports briefly what happens but fails to provide some of the evidence behind what they say so people don't have an opportunity to judge for themselves. Moreover, his legal counsel specializes in cases where public figures including sports stars or politicians are accused of sexual assault and defends them.

Brian Wong meets the Instagram definition of a public figure with a blue check mark: Instagram has a "Verified badges help people more easily find the public figures, celebrities and brands they want to follow. Learn more:" What is a verified badge? "A verified badge is a check that appears next to an Instagram account's name in search and on the profile. It means Instagram has confirmed that an account is the authentic presence of the public figure, celebrity or global brand it represents." Source: https://help.instagram.com/1080769608648426

Brian Wong's instagram account was public which he used to promote himself which was later made private due to the criminal investigation. Even though it is now private, the account has the blue check mark given to public figures, celebrities and brands. Please see: https://www.instagram.com/brianwong/

Summary: The question is would you consider Brian Wong a public figure based on some of the information presented, the media, and other sources point him to be such or it is something he is trying to establish as his image. If you consider him a public figure based on the definitions and information presented, then BLP: Crime would not apply and the criteria for well known would apply meaning the indictment information would be included after the editors take out some of the info which may not meet wikipedia guidelines or BLP. Without a place for such information to provide a middle ground and for people to look at the primary evidence and judge for themselves, you would get many more instances of people basing their opinion on speculation vs. presented evidence up to the point the public knows. 2001:569:7E43:7900:443E:87E7:5889:412A (talk) 07:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Getting a "blue check mark" is not listed as a basis for notability in any of the notability guidelines. If you would like it added as "proof of notability" then I suggest you post on the guideline talk pages and see if you can get this new "notability standard" utilized. I rather suggest that this proposal would not be accepted, but you are welcome to propose it. Collect (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Collect: This has nothing to with notability guidelines. The IP is clearly saying that a blue checked Instagram account means that the person is a "public figure", not that a blue check means the person meets our notability guidelines. We wouldn't even be arguing over this if the Wong article doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. I'm not very knowledgeable about social media. I know that a blue-checked Twitter account means only that the person has been verified to be who they say they are. Is Instagram different? Even assuming it means something more at Instagram, I don't see how that's relevant to whether the public figure prong of WP:BLPCRIME is met. Our standards matter, not a third-party's. What needs to be done here - and probably better on the Wong Talk page - is a discussion (RFC?) as to that issue. If there's a consensus that Wong is a public figure, there still has to be a discussion about what material/how much material may be included in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

My response was specifically aimed at the "he is notable ergo he is a public figure" conflation. Apologies if my answer was not sufficiently clear. Having a "blue check mark" does not mean one is a "public figure". More clear? Collect (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, my understanding that the checkmark on instagram works just like with Twitter, it means that they have verified that the person behind the account is the name the account presents. While these favor public figures, they are not exclusive to public figures and thus have no impact on our notability considerations. --Masem (t) 14:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

As best as I can tell, Wong has been replaced as CEO at Kiip due to the charges (not convictions) of sexual assault, and that's well sourced in RSes [22], [23]. This clearly qualifies as a career-affecting issue, so it should be covered, just not in as much detail eg "In March 2019, Wong was indicted on charges of sexual assault that were claimed to have occurred during the 2016 SXSW Festival. Kiip has denied the event occurred. Kiip's board replaced Wong as CEO after these charges were made public." (I would readily add Kiip is a public figure, due to his past success, so this is not a question of victimizing some non-notable person). --Masem (t) 14:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Masem here. If he's been replaced as CEO because of these charges, then that's fair to put into the article. Language above looks fine, although I think it should read "Wong has denied..." rather than "Kiip has denied..." BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

also agree with Masem. He is no longer CEO, (and there is good sourcing on that) so that should go in, but one or two sentences is plenty enough detail. And put it at the end of the section on Kiip...I think giving it it's own section is giving it to much weight as at present its only an indictment. Curdle (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes I mean "Wong has denied...", my typo :P --Masem (t) 14:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@ user Collect. What I originally pointed out is that Instagram blue check mark is only one small piece of evidence and cannot be taken alone as an indicator and that this information has to be taken along with his hundreds of media appearances, interviews, live talks, etc. I also mentioned Linkedin promoting him as a trusted business expert and giving him Influencer status which is only given to 500+ people in the world as I mentioned in my reply above (and much more exclusive than Instagram blue check mark which can be given even to minor public figures e.g. C lister actresses. Instagram indicates someone is a public figure but not how prominent they are as a public figure.) as well as over 700,000 Linkedin followers which are real people and significantly more than most public figures. These evidence when taken together should be addressed instead of addressing selective evidence that Instagram blue check mark does not mean public figure and therefore he is not public figure. Moreover on Brian Wong's public Facebook page which he manages himself with over 10000 followers, he listed himself as a public figure. Source: https://www.facebook.com/pg/brianwongkiip/about/?ref=page_internal

The question is: is Brian Wong a public figure based on these evidence as well as the hundreds of media mentions, his personal interview, giving life and success tips, etc taken together. Whether or not he is will help to build a case law justification like insurance company paper trail for future situations and if others challenge the decision. The second is if he is a public figure how much in depth he should be covered. The more popular and famous a public figure, the more in depth the coverage. Then links to the relevant sources. For someone to appear on Inc magazine and BNN Bloomberg business section front cover online, and sent to over 10 million people (including 2x for BNN Bloomberg's 5+ million twitter followers) that sexual assault indictment occurred is a big indicator for notability. If someone is not notable, then they would not be worth mentioning in the major news publications and may only appear in minor local news. Brian Wong didn't get removed from the company due to the sexual assault indictment but due to the fact that he hid this critical information from the board which they only learned due to it coming out in the news and put the company at risk which warranted being removed as CEO.2001:569:7E43:7900:1D50:E8D7:9B40:7034 (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Another issue I wanted to bring up is editor revival of dead links via archive.org for Brian Wong page and others which are no longer valid: I'm not sure if it is always something done or dependent on circumstances because some organisations, newspapers remove the article in question due to it no longer being accurate, wanting to distance themselves from potential negative news, no longer promoting the person. I don't know if these should be included or each verified as to the purpose it is removed. E.g. not archived correctly vs. deliberate removal. Something minor which could be clarified 2001:569:7E43:7900:1D50:E8D7:9B40:7034 (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

If reliable sources are used in an article, we do prefer that these get archived ASAP. I can see a situation where a paper pulls a story, with an official errata, before it has any impact, in which case yes, we should not include the archived version. But for example, when the initial report creates the incident (ala the January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation situation) we should keep the archived versions of the original archives. But this is a case-by-case situation. If it is otherwise an acceptable RS, it should be archived. --Masem (t) 01:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification on the link matter. A few more clarifications: Brian Wong didn't say that he was innocent even though he may think this way. It was his lawyer talking to the media that it was consensual sex and the lawyer has experience with high profile media cases so it is standard language whether or not they are guilty. This is what you are supposed to do which is to remain silent and let the lawyer handle it for you because anything you say can be used against you. Proposal for public person as well as notability: Public person: If the social media account is controlled by the person and they self identify as a public person publicly in addition to a blue check mark, I believe this should be good enough to fit the public person criteria. Whether they are famous or warrant mention aka. notability is another matter. Notability: user:collect talked about this a bit so I would discussion my thoughts on notability a bit. I think if one can be a Linkedin Influencer given only to 500+ people AND remain there for 2+ years (first year could be testing if it is a good fit, there is interest in their content) can be one of many indicators to seriously consider that someone is notable and warrants further investigation into their background for more evidence. The criteria is more objective because it is not a paid membership one signs up for and there has to give evidence to be top or widely known in their field and appeal to Linkedin audience to quality. To get this Linkedin status means that the person is 1) top of their field and has authority or perceived authority to speak on the matter and other people would listen 2) produce content which either/and promotes the field or advances some of its understanding. 3) wider appeal which is relevant to a more general audience and higher chance of overlap with being a public figure. There is being notable among the general public e.g. Dr. Oz from his own show vs. a specialist known for being top in their field and being widely respected among their peers but unknown to the general public (only seen in university websites/industry publications). I'm not proposing this as a criteria for notability but as an indirect indicator of notability that if someone has this influencer status, further investigation to prove notability is warranted (basically high chance that the time spent to collect evidence and to prove the person meets the Wikipedia notability guidelines would not be wasted).2001:569:7E43:7900:14C0:761:1FFE:584C (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

User: Collect wanted more information that Brian Wong is a public figure. I included quote from Brian Wong UBC interview back in 2011 of his intention to become a public figure. “At UBC, Wong majored in Marketing, with a minor in Political Science. He says his decision to pursue business studies was influenced by his father, an accountant who started his own firm. “He showed me what was possible in this mysterious, elusive business space,” Wong says, “and it became very intriguing to me.” And as for his Political Science studies? “I always wanted to be a public figure, so I wanted to have that formal educational experience.”" 2001:569:7E43:7900:74C1:EE4F:280B:91FA (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

References

John Smelcer

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Smelcer (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have some concerns about the nominating statement Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Smelcer (2nd nomination) in the AfD for John Smelcer, an author who may, or many not, be a member of a native American tribe, as he claims to be. Nom, User:Dennis Bratland calls Smelcer "a pathological liar or suffer of Narcissistic personality disorder/megalomania" accuses him of "crimes" and listed the page [24] as a "Crime-related deletion discussion. I BOLDLY removed the "crime" listing. Smelcer is a poet and writer who claims to be a native American - his father denies it, but a tribe has registered him. His "crime" is to have published work that claims to have been written by a native American author. The reasons I bring this here are 1.) I cannot find that any sort of criminal charges have been laid agiainst him, let alone a conviction, and 2.) labeling a living person "pathological liar" with "Narcissistic personality disorder/megalomania" seems slanderous.— Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs)

Looks like a BLP violation to me, I would report this at ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

will do. Thanks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Kevin O'Brien (Newfoundland and Labrador politician)

There is a reference to allegations of treats made against the Gander and Area Chamber of Commerce but no reference to a report by the Commissioner For Legislative Standards for the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly in April 2014 that finds that the allegations were unfounded and false..?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.boli (talk • contribs) 14:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

(No the preceding unsigned comment was NOT made by me! Signing bot's mistake. My only intervention was to copy-edit the section title. M.boli (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC))

Do you have a source?Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I edited the article to include the fact that O'Brien denied the allegations, which is supported by the RS. If there's an RS stating that they were unfounded and false, that should be included. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

If they were found to be untrue there would be an argument for removal. It would depends on the degree of controversy caused.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

vallancien guy

Guy Vallancien

guy vallancien is a french surgeon, honorary professor of urology, member of the french academy of medicine, member of the parliament office of evaluation of scientific and technological choices, president oh CHAM ( convention on health analysis and management He is a pionier in robotic surgery and has published 350 scientific papers, served as adviser of different ministers of health and wrote books on the relation beetween humanity and artificial intelligence— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Baeny (talk • contribs) 17:05, May 15, 2019 (UTC)

This is a noticeboard for issues related to BLP articles. If you think that Vallancien should have an article in the English wikipedia, you're very welcome to create one. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

A. Wallace Hayes

At the page on the Séralini affair, there are BLP issues about how the page refers to A. Wallace Hayes, the editor of a scientific journal. Among other things, editors disagree about whether it is appropriate to describe him as a former tobacco industry executive when that was only a brief part of his career and the page is not about tobacco, and the degree to which it is appropriate to describe accusations that were made against him without also presenting his rebuttal. There is a discussion at Talk:Séralini affair#Wallace Hayes. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Fact-check: his denial printed in the NYT article is presented in the article and has been for a long time unless I'm mistaken. You added a direct quote from it recently. You cannot not know this. IMO, since everything in the entry concerning Hayes is carefully sourced to RS, the real problem with the original post -- which misrepresents whether or not Hayes' rebuttal is in the WP entry on the Séralini affair -- lies elsewhere. What about Séralini's BLP rights? Hm?? SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Vladimir Kuzov

During the AfD for this article, some pretty serious BLP concerns were brought up in regards to this article. The consensus ultimately was to keep it, but given the nature of the allegations, some more eyes wouldn't hurt here. If anyone is particularly familiar with the reliability of Bulgarian sources, that would be especially useful. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Does BLP policy forbid the use of sources noted for tabloid journalism as the only source for something involving living persons?

WP:BLP currently says:

This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.

We have consensus that certain sources noted for tabloid journalism like Daily Mail and The Sun are so bad at fact checking etc that there are very few things they can be used for especially on BLPs per WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. But for other sources primarily known for publishing tabloid journalism things are less clear cut. (I will refer to such sources as tabloids for brevity, please don't confuse this with the tabloid format.) For example for Daily Mirror and New York Daily News, the summary in our perennial sources guidelines says "is a tabloid newspaper that publishes tabloid journalism." (Editors may disagree on whether these descriptions are accurate so I'm not talking about any specific source only the general concept.) It seems clear per the wording of our policy and what editors are saying at #Tommy Robinson, that their inclusion isn't precluded by BLP when we do have other sources. And IMO there would be a few cases when they would be useful despite simply repeating what is said in some other source we use.

But the number of cases relating to living persons is likely to be fairly small if we can't use them as the sole source of information. A simplistic reading of our policy suggests this is the case. But is it the correct interpretation? I found Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 39#Clarification question on the policy which is slightly old now and predating even the deprecation of Daily Mail, that seems to have come to a different conclusion. The intention of the policy is to forbid tabloid journalism wherever it occurs. Mostly this came up in relation to tabloid journalism from source not mostly known for it. However some editors also opinioned that sources known primarily for tabloid journalism are not forbidden per se, only when they engage in tabloid journalism. (Nowadays, this wouldn't apply to deprecated sources like Daily Mail etc.)

Do people feel this is right?

Nil Einne (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not intending this to be a RfC or something needed a formal close, nor am I suggesting the policy needs clarification. I'm asking because when composing a reply for the Tommy Robinson discussion, I originally was going to mention that tabloids are also sometimes useful to flesh out details of something covered in better sources. But when reading our policy carefully I wasn't sure this is allowed. Yet IMO from previous discussions I've been in this is still how the policy is generally applied. Tabloid are sometimes also accepted for simple statements of fact. (To be clear, all of this is only for sources not deprecated.)

We still need to consider whether it's appropriate based on editorial judgement etc. So actual tabloid stuff still stays out e.g. whatever random person someone 'hooked up with', how they cheated on their spouse with 30 sex workers in one night or that they ate a hamster. Likewise a real name or birthdate only covered in tabloid sources should generally be excluded.

But it may be appropriate to mention a significant award someone received even if the sole source is a tabloid. It's a legitimate question whether the award is actually significant if it was only mentioned in a tabloid, but I would suggest it can happen. Another example a court case receives a lot of attention, maybe even the verdict. Sometimes this coverage is enough for us to mention it in some article. But by the time an appeal succeeds, no one cares any more. Even if available, we aren't supposed to use court records. However it may be appropriate to include limited info on the appeal even if the sole source is a tabloid. We would need to consider the possible effect on other living persons etc.

In case it isn't obvious, I chose these examples because they IMO illustrate a problem with completely banning tabloids from BLPs, there is the potential to harm subjects.

I'm putting aside op-eds or columns by the living individual concerned, as well as interviews or responses only mentioned in such sources. I think at a minimum the principles for self published sources apply. I.E. Limited use if they aren't unduly self serving, taken our of context and don't affect others etc. (They aren't self published, but I don't think it's sensible that when someone says something on their website we can use it, but not if it's in some tabloid even when we have confidence the source didn't make it up.)

Nil Einne (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

In general no, but I can see allowance in the case if the tabloid's coverage creates a controversial that is then well-sourced by the RSes, then including the original article by the tabloid to provide readers a mean to flesh out the details for themselves. --Masem (t) 18:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

No, policy is clear we cannot use only a tabloid source for a BLP claim.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

This should be the case. Tabloids are not reputable sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

John R. Bolton

User talk:82.207.187.7 has been repeatedly introducing defamatory content to the page. Toa Nidhiki05 12:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Conrad Black's hagiography of Trump

Is it a BLP or NPOV vio to note that Conrad Black wrote a hagiography of Trump a year before he was ultimately pardoned by Trump? Virtually every RS that is covering Trump's pardon of Black note that Black wrote a hagiography of him, often in the headline itself about the pardon. Here are how some RS are describing Black's book about Trump:

• "glowing" book[25][26][27][28][29][30][31]
• "flattering" book[32][33][34][35][36][37][38]
• "hagiography"[39]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  It seems per your own source list above that "glowing" or "flattering" are more common in usage in RSes and are more reserved and cautious in tone. If you have WaPo saying "hagiography" I don't think this is a BLP vio, but NPOV would have us use the more common usage here. Icewhiz (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  I was not arguing that we should use the term "hagiography" per se (I'd personally opt for not using the term for the mere reason that most readers won't know wtf a hagiography is) - I was more broadly inquiring whether we can note that he wrote a favorable book about Trump in the context of the pardon. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  Other than terminology/wording (and possibly attribution for the conjunction) - I do agree that mentioning the two close to one another and possibly tying them together with some appropriate wording (I'd suggest following wording used in 2-3 mainstream sources) - would seem DUE for inclusion. Icewhiz (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) So, the only one of those sources that includes "hagiography" is the WaPo Analysis (read: opinion) piece, which has the term in context as Trump pardoned billionaire Conrad Black, who a year ago published a book called “Donald J. Trump: A president like no other.” The book is more hagiography than biography. Concur with Icewhiz, with respect to the use of that term explicitly, this is a question which answers itself. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• If RSes are making the connection between the hagiography and Trump's pardon, then its fine to say that with some type of attribution since this is a somewhat contentious claim that the book caused the pardon. "Several journalists observed that Black had written a "glowing"(sources) and "flattering"(source) hagiography-like(sources) work about Trump a year before he was pardoned." or something to that extent. --Masem (t) 14:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  Would tend to agree, its out there but its not proven.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson

Tommy Robinson (activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Over at Tommy Robinson a dispute has arisen over the use of this source [[40]] over claims he had headbutted a man. The claim is this is not an RS (and thus is a BLP violation [[41]]). Now as far as I know the Mirror has not been declared not reliable, and thus there can be no objection to using it as a source. I would like further input.Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The Mirror is one of those irritating sources where there's no consensus on reliability (at WP:RSP for example) so it needs to be used with caution. For that reason, I'd be wary of using it as the sole source in a BLP, but in this case there are other sources for the same incident, from the BBC and the Independent for example, so it's probably OK. But then again, since those other sources are cited, is including the Mirror one actually necessary? It doesn't seem to say anything the other sources don't. Neiltonks (talk) 12:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Neiltonks - there are already two good RS sources (three, really), so why bother with including the Mirror if there isn't a need? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I would agree, except (as I said) it is being objected to on vociferous "its a BLP violation" (see my talk page) grounds. Except (as far as I can tell) its not. If it were the only source I could understand the strength of the opposition to its use, its not though.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Aha, hadn't seen that rationale on your talk page. Agreed, BLP isn't an issue here... BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure the source adds much, but I agree including it isn't a BLP vio since the material is sourced elsewhere and the Daily Mirror hasn't yet been found to be equivalent to Daily Mail. If people want to remove it because of citation overkill they should, but not for dumb reasons. Nil Einne (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

And now they are edit warring over it, which is why I brought this here. They seem to be unduly desirous to remove this.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I agree with you that there's really no good reason why this source shouldn't be included. However, the statements in the article have other, undeniably reliable, sources and I just wonder whether it's time to WP:LETITGO - the article isn't seriously diminished by a lack of this source, and there are probably more important things for us all to do on Wikipedia. I'm not criticising your actions at all, incidentally, it's just that I sometimes find walking away from an argument like this one is the best thing to do. Neiltonks (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Because I cannot see why this user has reverted three separate edds unless it is to establish a precedent (I note he has used similar arguments on other pages as well). Because it seems to be a user is trying to circumvent RSN and impose (by edit warring and hectoring) their own RS polices. At first I just assumed it was a user who did not understand BLP, now I am less sure. I am not sure this is going to go away, sure they will get their way at Tommy Robinson, in this instance. But I am sure this is not going to be the last of this users war against the tabloids. They need to be told (and learn) they are wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Slatersteven there is a serious issue. The source itself may not be needed, but it's completely and utterly unacceptable to WP:CRYBLP to remove a source without justification. I'm a stronger supporter of BLP and so utterly hate it when people misuse BLP to try and get their way. It's extremely harmful for actual BLP problems when people do that, so yes it's a very serious thing, not something trivial. Nil Einne (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC) 20:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

BTW, it should be clear there are cases when tabloid sources, in addition to other supporting sources are important even in BLPs. One example would be some cases where a something originated in a tabloid, but was widely covered in other sources. Examples where this may arise could be John Higgins and Mazhar Majeed which includes the defunct News of the World. Ted Cruz 2016 presidential campaign, Tiger Woods which includes the National Enquirer. And Paul White, Baron Hanningfield which includes, yep you guessed it, Daily Mirror.

To be clear, I'm not saying it's necessary to include the original source in all cases, or in any of these cases but rather there are definitely cases where their inclusion is fully justified in accordance with level of coverage and other sources. (Such things are hard to search and demonstrate given WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but one possible example is Profumo affair. While not a BLP, Christine Keeler only passed in 2017, and it is a FA which uses/used [42] at least one direct case of Sunday Mirror.)

Other possible examples may be that in rare cases, it may also be better to include tabloid sources in addition to other sources when the level of coverage is different or the number of non tabloid sources is limited or are so spread out it's easier to use a tabloid source in addition to other sources rather than 10 different sources. (To be clear, consideration needs to be made of the appropriateness of including the sources, or covering the material in all such cases. But there are definitely cases when it does arise.)

If someone wants to change policy to completely ban the use of tabloid sources in BLPs, they are of course welcome to try although likely they'll want to explain how to address the issues I mentioned. WT:BLP is thataway and WP:RfC outlines how to start an RfC. In the mean time, we'll go with the policy we have which heavily restricts the use of tabloid sources in BLPs notably basically forbids us from including something only covered in tabloid sources, but doesn't forbid their use in every and all instances.

Again, it's perfectly fine to discuss whether this source adds anything or it's inclusion is harmful considering the specifics of the case. In this case, there has been zero explanation for why the inclusion of this source is harmful in BLP terms considering it doesn't seem to really cover more than is in the other sources. As already said, this may mean there needs to be due consideration of whether to exclude it, not because such sources are forbidden, but because it adds nothing. But it is utterly unacceptable to claim that policy forbids the use of all tabloid sources in all cases related to BLPs. I don't think I can emphasise enough that claiming BLP supports something which it doesn't or BLP concerns arise when they don't is incredibly harmful to real, actual BLP concerns.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I still find the way this was handled incredibly harmful to BLP given the insistence and edit warring, with no real discussion in a meaningful place (i.e. not user talk pages) or from what I can tell no actual policy supported outline of why there were BLP concerns anywhere. But I withdraw and apologise for the WP:CRYBLP claim. When I made it, I was under the impression a bright line violation had been made which IMO pushed it over the line onto cryBLP territory, but it seems there was no bright line violation. Nil Einne (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• It's absolutely a BLP violation. You are mistaken. --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  Then explain why in accordance with policy. You still haven't done so despite a large number of editors pointing out it isn't, based on actual policy including the policy you keep citing. And heck this process started before this discussion even began. It's unacceptable and as I said, incredibly harmful to actual real BLP problems to keep claiming something is a BLP-vio when you can't outline why. If it were acceptable, I could delete all the text in Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump claiming BLP and citing some part of BLP policy that doesn't actually support my actions. When questioned I could demand someone else opens a discussion before the material is restored. When the discussion is opened, I could largely ignore it and finally just say "It's absolutely a BLP violation. You are mistaken." and expect people to take me at a word. Clearly this isn't how things work. Actually I'll probably be blocked if I try that. Nil Einne (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  Is three a large number? I guess it's a larger number than two... It's fairly simple, and Neiltonks has already figured it out above. This article is right down the middle of tabloid journalism, which is quite rightly prohibited on articles on living people. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  As already outlined by multiple people, BLP sources explicitly does not say tabloid journalism sources are prohibited. It clearly says that material solely source to tabloid journalism is prohibited which does not apply here, since it's not the case. So far the people who say it's not a BLP concern are User:Neiltonks, User:BubbaJoe123456, User:Slatersteven, User:Emeraude and myself User:Nil Einne all of these from the time of my first revert, as well as User:Ianmacm and User:The Four Deuces. The only editor who find BLP problems is you. For what is ultimately a minor issue, yes this is a lot of people. Nil Einne (talk) 07:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  That is a fair and succinct summary. Emeraude (talk) 08:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• I decline to discuss further with people who think restoring a poor source to a BLP to make a procedural point advances our project. I've escalated this as it has now become a behavioural issue. Thanks for your time. --MarchOrDie (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  Enough, you are not the arbiter of what is and is not a BLP violation, you have been told it is now, now drop the matter. If you satart up after the page is unprotected I will take it to ANI, you have now enters the realms of wp:tendentious and wp:disruptive.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  I have now started an ANI, enough is enough.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  Fill your boots. We've got a much better source at the article now. Live and learn, eh? --MarchOrDie (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Amir Tessler

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

Amir is an Israeli child actor. He played the lead role in a popular movie and there's some of coverage on him on RS. However, I don't think he's notable enough to have an article written about him. When I first found the article I marked it as a stub, but I'm beginning to think this article shouldn't exist right now. Maybe in the future, he'll be successful and notable - but not now. Would it be okay to nominate as AfD? Alex.osheter (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

AFD it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Just did, feel free to weigh in. Alex.osheter (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Jos B

Jos B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

His article states that he's the prime suspect in the Death of Nicky Verstappen (no source for this), and also a YouTuber. The article relating to the murder is very interesting, but I don't think this alleged murderer is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. The editor who created this article is fairly new and stated this is their first of many articles about Youtubers "who have been arrested and/or convicted concerning for example child sexual abuse".

• WP:CRIME - There's already an article about the murder itself, and it seems like Jos B is only known for this alleged murder. According to the editor (with no source), he also has a history of child abuse.
• WP:PERP - Despite there being an article, the article fails this PERP as well. The victim is only famous because of the case, and the motivation/execution seems pretty standard. The event itself however, is notable because it's a very interesting cold case.
• This is an article about an alleged perpetrator.
• The Dutch Wikipedia doesn't have an article about him, only about the case.
• There are four (?) other suspects, do they deserve their own Wikipedia page as well?

Alex.osheter (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The claim of being a suspect is sourced, just not in the lede. But I think there are serious notability issues here. He seems to be notable for a crime he was not prosecuted for. But even if he is, last time I checked being guilty of a crime did not make you notable.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Seems to have been dealt with.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Yep. I'd suggest keeping an eye on the editor, since they stated they plan on making similar articles in the future. Alex.osheter (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Well I no longer know who it was.Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

This is the user, User:PhotoandGrime (Pieke Roelofs). I went through their contributions and there seems to be a similar-type article on Steve B. Is there a template for new users that explains the rules about notable persons? Alex.osheter (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I should mention that the Steve B article and another Julie Van Espen (all by the same editor) could be combined into a new article titled something like "Death of Julie Van Espen", since there's a case to be made on the notability of the event itself. here and here.

Alex.osheter (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Marek Jan Chodakiewicz

At what point description of someone as right-wing activist, and accusations of anti-semitism (in lead) become a BLP issue? See [43]. Comments appreciated. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, he looks like "a controversial historian" based on the publication by SPLC [44]. However, I would not put this claim by SPLC to the lead of the BLP page because SPLC is an advocacy group. My very best wishes (talk) 21:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
• Rafał Pankowski is a professional left-wing activist, not any more reliable than Chodakiewicz.Xx236 (talk) 09:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  So can we write that Chod. is a right-wing activist? François Robere (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Clearly lede due. Chodakiewicz is active in writing, publishing, and political rallies - in Polish. He was profiled by the Southern Poverty Law Center twice - 2009, 2017 (and SPLC is generally lede due). Covered in media as such - e.g. DID A POLISH FAR RIGHT ACTIVIST HELP DONALD TRUMP WRITE HIS SPEECH IN WARSAW?, Newsweek, 2017. Academic works - e.g. Marlene Laruelle and Ellen Rivera, “Imagined Geographies of Central and Eastern Europe. The Concept of Intermarium,” IERES Occasional Papers, no. 1 (March 2019). His published work (recently, not so much in English - so this dates back a bit) - has been criticized in a review for : "In fact, there are conspiracies everywhere in this book, but the author offers no names, no institutions, no objectives, and no strategies. Whoever these apparent evildoers are, they are undermining the Intermarium’s return (and he stresses a return following the example of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth before 1772)[45] or in this WP:RS on historiography: "Chodakiewicz's work represents the most extreme spectrum in what is considered the contemporary mainstream ethno-nationalist school of history writing[46], "Chodakiewicz is perhaps the first historian in the postcommunist period who consistently casts Polish-Jewish relations in terms of conflict and uses conflication as an explanation and justfication of anti-Jewish violence in modern Poland" [47]. A preponderance of WP:RSes covering Chodakiewicz as a subject, in English, focus on these aspects in his proffesional writing and/or on his political activism in the Polish far-right (writing, rallies). Icewhiz (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Due. Critiques that appear in our article (my own summary in parenths):
  • Jan T. Gross: ideologue of the far right, antisemitic
  • Piotr Wrobel: visible political agenda, doesn't like Jews
  • Antony Polonsky: clichés of old-fashioned nationalist apologetics
  • Joanna Michlic: ethno-nationalist historiography, attempts to erase the "dark past" by showing only a "good past", prejudicial views towards Jews and other minorities
  • Łukasz Kamiński: doesn't accept Polish responsibility for the Kielce pogrom
  • Karl A. Roider: (presents right wing narratives), "conspiracies everywhere"
  • Laurence Weinbaum: "pseudo scholarly screed", "contextualizes" (justifies?) Polish violence against Jews
  • Dovid Katz: nationalist polemic, implicitly calls for disenfranchisement of Russian-speaking minorities, comes out again “homosexual frolic” and feminism, disguises Polish nationalism and anti-Jewish sentiment as objective historical research
  • Maciej Janowski: (ideologically-motivated writing)
  • Rafal Pankowski: denies Polish responsibility to antisemitic attacks, claims Jews were responsible for the hostility of their Polish neighbours, repeatedly connects Jews with Communism

François Robere (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Due, per coverage in RS. SPLC is generally reliable & due for their coverage of right-wing and far-right personalities. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
• BLP vio - can't put that in the lede. Maybe in the source. And Francois Robere, I indicated to you earlier already that repeatedly referring to this individual as "Chod" can be seen as an attempt at insult and a BLP vio itself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  Jeez - I seem to recall a particular editor, commenting above, who IIRC has advocated for SPLC designations in a whole raft of white supremacists designated by the SPLC. In this case this designation is further covered in a secondary fashion in WP:NEWSORG and academic sources as well. What pray tell is different with this individual that makes mentioning the SPLC (profiled twice (2009, 2017), one must note) designation UNDUE for this particular US-based individual? As summarized in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources - the SPLC is generally considered reliable - definitely for an attributed statement. In relation to coverage in independent sources of this individual - the SPLC designation is quite significant in terms of breadth of coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Scofield, Be (2018-03-08). "The Gucci Guru: Inside Teal Swan's Posh Cult". Be Scofield. Retrieved 2018-11-16.

Teal Swan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The link above is suspended (https://medium.com/suspended)

It was has been suspended due to out of context and false content.

Please take this reference of Teal Swans Wikipedia information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.191.1.45 (talk) 13:13, May 18, 2019 (UTC)

I've fixed the dead link. Please discuss this on the talk page. --Auric talk 18:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Kellie Maloney

At the article Kellie Maloney, TellyShows (talk · contribs) is persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced information, particularly birth dates. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Does nobody else care for WP:BLP? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Next time that TellyShows (talk · contribs) does this I will block them, unless somebody here gives me a really good reason why I shouldn't. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Request to desist ignored, so blocked. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Amy Sequenzia

Amy Sequenzia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm seeking advice regarding the appropriateness of including an alleged claim about autism activist Amy Sequenzia and, by extension, other notable non-speaking autistic self-advocates. Many of these people use facilitated communication, which is considered by skeptics to be a psuedoscience. However, FC has also been the subject of many studies discussing best practices and confirming authorship (i.e., Syracuse University). Sequenzia herself has talked about establishing best practices for FC.

Previous edits to the article have included skeptic Steven Novella's claims that, essentially, whoever is facilitating her words is influencing them. He has never met Sequenzia, and I don't believe that simply making a claim means it is worth considering. This one in particular, I feel, is WP:GRAPEVINE or at least WP:BLPGOSSIP; it accuses her of being a fraud. (Information about FC which only provides studies about it being debunked also occurs on Sue Rubin's page.)

Is there a policy regarding people whose authorship over their words is being challenged? The area is a particular interest, and I'd like to know the proper way to move forward for articles like these. --Anomalapropos (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I am going to post this elsewhere to get some input from people who might know some of the scientific background. My gut feeling is that whilst this is tragic, if there is an issue of pseudoscience we do not get to ignore it on BLP grounds. I think care should be taken with calling anyone a fraud. But I am no expert on this, and have never even heard of it before.Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

This is easy: do not include per WP:BLPSPS. The only source for the criticism is a self-posted blog post by the skeptic person. That's a no-go. Even if it was the case that Novella's claims were published by a reliable third-party source, one critic about here doesn't have the weight to include on a BLP. --Masem (t) 17:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The article asserts, in Wikipedia's voice, that Sequenzia in an author who has "typed" a book and numerous articles. Is "facilitated communication" what's being described with those assertions?

Because, if so, the article absolutely needs to make that clear up front. "Facilitated Communication" is very different from the non-fringe definition of "typed" that a reader would naturally imagine. Not just mechanically different, but different because it carries built-in questions about authorship. ApLundell (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

She has described herself as being able to type independently for short periods of time, and can also use Rapid Prompting Method, which is... not as controversial, but the method is more independent than FC is considered to be. I think Masem got to the heart of it, though; use an RS. I believe that answers the question for the time being! --Anomalapropos (talk) 02:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, the facilitated communication article describes the technique as "discredited," saying "There is widespread agreement within the scientific community and multiple disability advocacy organizations that FC does not work, and that the facilitator is in fact the source of most or all messages obtained through FC." I don't know if this applies to Sequenzia's case. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not FC is discredited, the specific text added [48] still raises BLP questions about Sequenzia herself. Its still a BLPSPS issue, and it starts to get into coatracking skeptic aspect of whether FC is legit or not (a broad issue) onto a BLP. --Masem (t) 21:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

It's really a fundamental issue, though. If FC is discredited, then essentially everything about Sequenzia in this article (other than the fact that the person actually exists) becomes highly questionable, at best. The Sue Rubin page handles this very differently (although there's lots of RS about Rubin in particular and FC. Not sure which approach is best. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

It's part of a bigger problem with the article.

If "her" writings come from FC, then even "her own" writings are actually disputed third party assertions about her, and should be treated as such. It's weird that Wikipedia presents them as factual, undisputed first-party sources. ApLundell (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

We have to use what the RSes are repeating as her words. The sources that quote her appear to be RSes, but are not putting asterisk or the like to say "we question if this is what she actually said due to FC." It is not our place to put that into question; the RSes have to. --Masem (t) 23:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Well put, I'm convinced. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

But we cannot totally ignore WP:FRINGE. This is like Channeling - we do not write as a matter of fact that Ramtha wrote this and Ramtha wrote that because there is no evidence that channeling actually works. Same with FC. I do see the problem here: I could also find only one source with a scientific attitude that mentions Sequenzia in connection with FC - Novella's blog. But heaps of gullible rags like PuffHo which accept FC at face value.

So I do not know what to do. But this article is still not acceptable the way it is. I guess we'll have to wait until reliable sources notice this. For instance, until Novella republishes his article on Science-Based Medicine.

Until then, we should at least add "discredited" in front of the FC link, the way we write "pseudoscientific" in front of "Intelligent Design" in articles about ID proponents. --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The Fringe aspect deals with FC. Unless multiple non-SPS sources are stating that Sequenzia is contributing to the disputed aspects of FC, her article should not be used to continue the debate about the fringe nature of FC. What I've seen in the RSes with what we are considering to be her words do not bring up anything about trying to prove FC is valid or contest those that dispute it. (Whereas in intelligent design, most of those are involved in the advocacy and debate about its nature. --Masem (t) 03:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

That is weird. If Ramtha says something, do we just accept it too when he is not talking about channeling? Do you know that people have been accused of rape because of autistic persons' alleged statements under FC?

With "The Fringe aspect deals with FC", you did not exactly address my suggestion of adding "discredited". Should we replace "facilitated communication" by "the discredited technique of facilitated communication"?

Also, all the self-sourced statements should go: one, because they are self sourced, and two, because they are generated by the unreliable method of FC. Two reasons why they are not RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

We are not going to question statements that she has made (with the help of FC) that have been published by RSes, assuming the RSes have not questioned those sources. That's a non-starter, regardless if FC is considered discredited. We are not going to use a BLP page to continue the debate about the problems of FC, unless the BLP's specific role in that discussion is documented. --Masem (t) 04:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

"Questioning" is one thing, but stating, as fact, in Wikipedia's voice, that she "typed" those articles is irresponsible. If a BLP subject claims to have ridden the Loch Ness Monster, we don't state that as fact, even if no RS has bothered to dispute it, we state that they claim to have ridden the mythical beast.

This article doesn't even mention FC until halfway through (And then, only in passing), even though the reader's interpretation of the entire article hinges on their understanding of this fringe practice. ApLundell (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:V has a mantra, "verifyability, not truth". I recognize that due to FC, there may be doubt by some as to whether she actually was the "author" of the words these interviews us, but per WP:V and other policies, it is not the place of a WP editor to ask that question. It would have to come from the RSes that are publishing her words. And this issue with FC is that it is not a universal farce like the Loss Ness Monster, but that there's evidence to support that a fair number of the facilitators are actually authoring what these ppl type, but which leaves open the reasonable possibility that there are facilitators that are not influencing the person typing. In other words, the claim that Sequenzia is typing these words with the help of FC and not influenced by them is well within the realm of possibility and not immediately a bunch of BS, even given the discredited nature of FC. If the RSes talking with her do not bring this up, nor can we. It is fine to make sure it is clear that she does use FC before getting into any statements about what she wrote, because it becomes clear then that its not the traditional "writing" that one usually thinks of. --Masem (t) 13:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I never said that the article should "question statements that she has made (with the help of FC) that have been published by RSes". Did anybody else? If not, why did you invent that non-starter and call it a non-starter?

I also never wanted to "use a BLP page to continue the debate about the problems of FC". I just wanted to add a few words that put FC in perspective. You still have not answered my question about that. Neither have you addressed my suggestion about removing self-sourced statements. Instead you talk about new stuff which you invented and which you reject. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Asking to add the "discredited" term of FC in this article about a person is putting in language that questions how reliable her own words are, which is something WP editors cannot do under BLP and NOR, without other sources that specific state they question her words being her own can be found. You have one such source, but that is a BLPSPS and that's not sufficient, it has to be RSes. And unless other RSes talking about her specifically put doubt into the veracity of her own words, we have no reason to start to doubt her own SPS sources; we have to take that as verifyable information. Now, its fair to say in these statement to be clear that these are how she wrote in her blog or the like, which, having established she uses FC, allows the reader to come to their own conclusion. --Masem (t) 13:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Readers are always allowed to come to their own conclusion. There is no way to force them to think one way. The most you can do is consciously omit relevant information, thus leading the reader into one specific conclusion. And that is exactly what you are doing.

So you want to keep the citation "Sequenzia, Amy. "Amy Sequenzia". www.facebook.com. Retrieved July 1, 2017." and you defend it using strawmen and other non-sequiturs. I wash my hands of this. EOD as far as I am concerned. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, in that facebook post, which is criticism of someone else, I would delete it the same reason not to use the source that prompted this section that questions her writings as being her own. It's a BLPSPS, but in this case, towards one of her critics. We do have the immediately source before that from a third-party that covers it and avoids the BLPSPS issue.

But the other SPS sources from her that are from her blog, as long as they aren't speaking out about others and only describing her own case, those are fine. Those don't fail BLPSPS. --Masem (t) 16:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I removed that line, FYI. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

These are all good points. I will try to find more sources which question Sequenzia's use of FC and report back. Ylevental (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

This is really a tough case. If the subject of an article was quoted in RS stating that they had climbed a mountain called K6, which is the tallest in the world, but we had multiple RS stating that K6 didn't exist (but without mentioning the article subject), then putting those two pieces together might be a WP:SYNTH issue, but could probably be managed. This seems more like a case where there were several RS interviews with "Bob Smith, ambassador to the US from XYZland," and there was a Wikipedia article about Bob Smith. At the same time, there was an RS-based article on XYZland that said it didn't actually exist, but none of the RS in the XYZland article specifically mentioned Smith. Agree that the right approach is to see if we can find RS that both mention Sequenzia and FC. This article mentions both, but doesn't say that Sequenzia uses FC. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The case I think is here is that there is strong debate whether FC is legit or not with the current consensus falling on "not". But the consensus does not seem to eliminate that FC can be legit in some circumstances. Unlike the case of K6 here or the Lock Ness Monster, where there is universal conclusions they don't exist, there is not a universal conclusion that FC cannot work - there actually might be legitimate FC cases. Its just that proving FC is wholly discredited is near impossible due to the types of studies that can be done. That's why I've said that WP cannot take the stance that it is considered 100% fringe, and need to find sources specific to her case here that question if she is really saying what others have said she has. --Masem (t) 17:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure the case for FC is that strong. In fact as far as I can tell all tests have shown it to be false.Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Wrong. They showed it to be unreliable. The issue I have is that all of the users who think it is required to be on her page have already decided that facilitated communication is a hoax. The fact of the matter is that there are non-speaking autistic people who can now type completely independently and who got their start by using FC or RPM. The studies proved FC to be unreliable in scientific tests. They didn't prove that every single person who uses facilitated communication is a liar, and there are no reliable sources saying that Sequenzia herself (or any other prominent FC user) is a liar. --Anomalapropos (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually as far as I can find all studies found that in all cases some or all of the facilitated communications where actually partially or wholley the work of the facilitator. Can you find one peer reviewed double blind test where this was not the case? Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm still doing the research. However, I don't need a "peer-reviewed double blind test" to believe someone who now types on their own when they say that facilitated communication helped them get to that point. This is my issue. The claims are all "where's the science," "where's the science." You need evidence-based studies to be able to justify providing FC as a therapy. I don't need a study to tell me what I can see with my eyes. Studies have gotten it wrong before. --Anomalapropos (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

But again, we're at "verifyability not truth". It's clear that FC is questionable, but in context of anyone that is talking about what Sequenzia, no one (yet) has thrown out the question in a usable source if the words they published from her are legit or not due to the debate about the validity of FC. We can say, broadly, that the words of the class of people that use a facilitor may actually be more likely the words of the facilitor; that's fine to explain the fringe issue. But we cannot say, without specific reliable sources, that the words claimed to be from Sequenzia herself, who otherwise does fall into this class, are likely influenced by the facilitator. Thats the BLP problem. It is BLP and SYNTH to apply the aspect that applies to the broad group down to the individual without sources to specifically apply to the individual. --Masem (t) 18:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Then we say "she has made use of the discredited FC, but is able to type without assistance".Slatersteven (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I added her responses to criticism of FC. I re-added the Steven Novella criticism right before, but if it's still not okay, feel free to remove it. Ylevental (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I removed the "without evidence" bit as that casts doubt of her statement in WP's voice, but the rest seem fine. I would encourage to find more though. --Masem (t) 19:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I thought it was established that Novella's blog isn't an RS? WP:NOR --Anomalapropos (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

How about "according to", then its not in our voice.Slatersteven (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I fixed it accordingly Ylevental (talk) 11:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

And my mind has now wholly been changes, this is a discredited fringe practice that has not been demonstrated to have an validity. Thus anything that is acquired by it cannot be considered reliable in any way shape or form. Given the universal (not even almost) condemnation of this practice by all the studies done on it it is not down to us to prove anything. It is down to those who wish to use statements acquired through it to prove they are not fraudulent. We do not have to disprove eyewitness sightings of UFO's or Nessie, so why this? People really do need to see when they are being given leeway.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that thirdparty sources that have interviewed/quoted her (eg not her blog) do not put any question of doubt that she is responsible for the words they link to her. That's the issue here is that while FC is clearly questionable in that field, there's nothing directed towards how Sequenzia's use of FC is bogus or not. It is fine to establish fairly early that her communications are through FC, and that should give the reader a bit of red flag to question things, but WP cannot directly put that issue without violating BLP. --Masem (t) 18:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant, we do not say "ahh but maybe this medium has communicated wit Elvis, prove she has not". If the method has been disproved we do not have to prove that an individual practitioner is in fact achieving the results the method has been shown cant achieve. We should not be using words that may not be hers, as they cannot be shown to be hers, and the science has disproved the method used to acquire those words.Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

If we were talking about a medium, I would agree. We're talking about someone with a severe communication handicap. It is a lot more nuanced than "this is bad science". Remember, FC is a matter on the facilitator, not the person with the handicap. --Masem (t) 20:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Frankly (and this is the reason for my change of heart) they are disturbingly similar, except that whereas they both involve someone claiming to be passing on someone elses messages only one involves the possible exploitation (and abuse in someone cases) of another human being. Indeed your statement is exactly why it should be down to the facilitator to prove they are in fact passing on the facilitateds message, and not down to us to prove they are not. These may not (and we have very good reason, the same reason we have to doubt any medium (even untested ones) to think these may well be the facilitators words.Slatersteven (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

But here, we're talking with a person with a disability, and not the person that would be committing the "fraud" (the facilitator). If we were talking the case of the medium, either the argument would be for using the medium's statements on the dead person's bio page, which we'd never do, or we'd be talking about the medium on their BLP page, at which point we'd likely include the criticism raised about their methods. This is a different situation, in that we're talking about a living person of which there are valid questions about the words attributed to her got there. Its a fair-enough question, but it should be one that we are repeating that question from reliable sources, and not trying to question her words ourselves, unless it is clearly bogus. I am not even sure after reading literature on her if she still uses FC or can type for herself, and lacking any clear evidence to suggest that any of her writings are coming from a facilitator, we have to treat it as an "innocent before proven guilty" case, and assume that as long as the RSes trust that these are her words, then we have to trust that these are her words to. I'm all fine with identifying that she had used FC, which an informed reader can make a distinction that there may be some doubt, but we cannot positively express any doubt unless the sources do so as well. --Masem (t) 14:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

But the issue is the same thing the word of a practitioner of a discredited fringe practice. We do not know these are her words, and someone has refused to be tested, so it cannot (and they refuse to allow it) to be confirmed. Fringe is clear we do not give equally weight to finger theories as to mainstream ones. Thus an expert saying"X is the situation" even in a blog out weighs the Fringe practitioner saying the opposite, even in an RS. So until it can be shown thee are her own words, in proper scientific studies we do not have to (and should not) give the claim they are as much weight as a claim (and we have a source saying just that) they are not. You are correct, this is a BLP and as such we cannot attribute words to the subject unless we are sure they were said or written by the subject, if there is any doubt we must not attribute them to the subject.Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The weight of respecting BLP per BLP policy I think takes much stronger precedence here. We have to have some reason to doubt for Sequenzia's specific case that the words claimed to be hers are not hers (again, under BLP). No RS at this point has suggested this about Sequenzia's work. And it is OR to say "FC is discredited sot Sequenzia's words may not be her own." because we don't exactly know if she used FC in all her communications or not. We don't question what interpreters say that their foreign speaker is saying. We don't question what published say that a person said in a private interview (Unless we're talking the Daily Mail). BLP's spirit would say to give them the benefit of doubt until its clearly a lie (riding the Loch Ness Monster) or if reliable sources give us the reason we should throw doubt at the situation. BLP outweights FRINGE here without the sources for arguing about the specific person here. --Masem (t) 13:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

And yet, people keep putting Novella's opinion back into the article. I'm seriously regretting having asked for help on this, because all I did was draw the article to the attention of the fringe theory folks. And apparently now am being sanctioned about continuing to remove it, even though everything I've read in the policy states it doesn't belong there (and no one has explained to me how it has; they've all kind of just tiptoed around it). Not a great experience on Wikipedia so far.

Also, Slatersteven, FC is not universally discredited. I've named people and provided links to research that you keep conveniently ignoring. Please stop pretending this is an open-shut issue. --Anomalapropos (talk) 09:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Noting that this exact issue was brought to the RS notice board for some reason. Don't see why it needed to be repeated elsewhere. --Anomalapropos (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Stacey Dooley

Criticism 2019 https://www.dailysabah.com/turkey/2019/01/22/bbc-series-falsely-portrays-turkish-beggar-as-syrian-refugee

In 2019 Dooley was caught out by a Turkish Newspaper over her report Sex in Strange places. In the episode, removed from the BBC Iplayer, Dooley paid to interview a woman claiming to be a Syrian sex worker who was, in fact, Turkish. The misrepresentation has not yet been addressed by the BBC or by Dooley and casts a shadow over her entire reporting career. Investigation into Dooley's claims27

This looks more like an RS issue then a BLP one. What article is she used as a source in? Found what the issue was, its the article about Ms Dooley.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

"... casts a shadow over her entire reporting career"? Surely any blame here might lie partly with the woman herself and/or with the research team employed by the production company? I can't believe that Dooley would have to do her own research for a series like this. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I have no comment on what Ms Dooley does or does not do. But I would suspect that this is not going to cast any shadow over her career. This report is at least as shoddy as anything she (or her team) have done.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I can also find no coverage at all of this supposed "controversy". That it's been removed from iPlayer is unsurprising; the BBC routinely remove programmes from free streaming 30 days after broadcast, to protect their commercial arrangements whereby their content is sold on to UKTV for rebroadcast. (The episode is still listed on the BBC website, and will presumably reappear on iPlayer for 30 days after its next repeat.) Total non-story. ‑ Iridescent 16:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Every time I edit that passage I get the same feelings, its a nothing (and may not even be true).Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph in question pending an actual reliable source. The Daily Sabah is the de facto press agency of the Erdogan government, and can't be considered a neutral source on the topic of criticism of Turkey, and there doesn't appear to be the slightest hint of actual neutral coverage suggesting any controversy. There's also a three-year gap between the actual broadcast of the programme and the supposed concerns being raised. ‑ Iridescent 16:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

So pleased she still has her day job to fall back on. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Tom Burke actor - private info

• Tom Burke (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Alexandra Dowling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi,

Hope this is in the right place. Advised to post here for help keeping an eye on pages for Tom Burke and Alexandra Dowling. Someone keeps posting private information. Both actors prefer to keeps their private lives private but someone seems determined to post it on these actors wiki pages. I've amended them back to remove it twice but obviously can't keep amending. It's an invasion of privacy as unless it's been sanctioned by the actor involved (very unlikely) how do I sort this out please? Many thanks for any help.

Angie 22/5/19 82.11.245.194 (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I presume you mean Tom Burke (actor)? —C.Fred (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

And both articles have been protected to prevent new and unregistered editors from changing them.

BTW, the standard of inclusion in Wikipedia articles is not what the subjects sanction; it's what has been covered by reliable sources. So the problem with the additions is not that it's private information so much as that it's unsourced information. That typically rules out tabloids; it would take coverage in more mainstream publications to warrant inclusion (provided it meets the definition of the term per the infobox). —C.Fred (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi - yes that's the two pages and yes there is no tabloid or mainstream publications citing or confirming the info. My concern was the tenacity of someone who constantly sought to add the update with no grounds to do so that meet wikis criteria. As mentioned I was advised by the help forums just to post so it could be kept and eye on if it becomes unlocked again. :) If I need to do this somewhere else please let me know. Many thanks

Angie 22/5/19 82.11.245.194 (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Mark Levin

I'm not going to try to "convince" whomever is responsible for the totally biased diatribe you published against Mark Levin that they were wrong in doing so; I'm just going to publicly state herein that you liberal a-holes will NEVER receive a donation from me again - DON'T even ask! Here's hoping and praying that Wikipedia suffers bankruptcy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:7d49:3400:1402:40dc:fec3:48ac (talk • contribs)

That's fine. Since you don't seem interested in convincing us of a problem, nor in helping to solve that problem, whether real or perceived, I have absolutely no idea what has got you all worked up. Complaining about a diatribe in the middle of your own diatribe makes me suspect this is more an inner, personal issue than anything to do with the article. (It's amazing what we subconsciously reveal about ourselves and our own insecurities when attacking others.) I'm sure we'll survive, and if a problem truly exists with the article, perhaps someday someone will come along with the hutzpah to do something about it. Zaereth (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

What actually is the problem?Slatersteven (talk) 08:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm thinking this is one of the "online platforms are biased against right-wingers" people. I didn't see anything on the page when I looked a few days ago that could come close to being described as a diatribe. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 19:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Rand Flem-Ath

It's necessary to include the history here so that this can be put into context. Thank you for your patience in reading. It’s come to my attention that a long-time editor on Wikipedia is once again attempting to manipulate the site in order to fulfill a personal vendetta against me. A clear conflict of interest. The first attempt to do this happened after he had been forced to apologize to me (in writing, by the university that employs him) for a vicious online ad hominen attack. In 2012, he used one of his own students as an unwitting proxy - that’s if the student even existed - to create the original page, “Rand Flem-Ath”. It was full of inaccuracies and outright lies. (It’s safe to say that when Wiki Education was introduced, they did not envision that it would be abused in this way.) When Wikipedia Administrators became aware of the circumstances of the page’s creation, they removed it - everything that he had written - and substituted the neutral POV, minimal version. He’s now attempting to succeed where he failed before, by again putting my name on a ‘wish list’ of articles he wants students to create or edit. Perhaps he thinks that enough time has gone by that this new effort won’t be noticed. Or he believes that his academic persona and long familiarity with Wikipedia will give him a free pass. So that, despite his demonstrated personal animosity towards the BLP subject, and his history with that page, that he will be free to edit it with impunity or encourage students (over whom he has a position of great authority) to edit it. An example of one slight-of-hand manipulation is exhibited here: “The role of the work of the Flem-Aths should also be considered in books about Atlantis by [name redacted] and others. Together, these may make the case for notability that is required by Wikipedia.” This is the most sickening, cynical aspect of this situation. The person he is trying to bring onto my page is associated with Nazis. This teacher is brazenly trying to convince the student (a person reliant on him for a grade) to set up a ‘guilt by association’ status for me on one of the most popular websites on the planet, simply because I offend him by writing about Atlantis, and he can’t forget the fact that he went so far over the line in attacking me that an apology had to be issued. This trivialization of the horror and terrible suffering inflicted by the Nazis - just so that a personal grudge can be satisfied – is contemptible. An Administrator - Bkissin - has rejected – for other reasons – I don’t think s/he is aware of this history - the most recent attempt to hi-jack the page. And now – May 15 - this instructor, who has had years of experience editing Wikipedia – has assumed a hands-on approach with the page to try and ensure its acceptance. I realize that an Administrator’s workload is heavy – but I would ask that someone keep a fresh eye on the page with my name on it. The first note on my Talk page was placed there in anticipation of exactly the situation that has now arisen. It’s regrettable that my concern has turned out to be justified. Please be alert for this. Flem-AthRand (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Flem-Ath, while I will certainly keep an eye out for any spurious claims or attacks, I just want to give you a slight warning that the article, as currently constituted, does not seem to me to meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. I certainly don't mean any offense by that! You are far more notable than I am, for instance. But without some citations that are more in keeping with our policy on reliable sources, I would have to say I'd vote the page should be deleted for now. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that's what he's saying. He was happy that the article was previously deleted, but asserts that it was brought back in an attempt to meet WP:NOTABILITY just enough to keep the article up. Alex.osheter (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it looks as though I slightly misread! I do think, in its current state, the article should obviously be deleted. Thanks for keeping me honest! Dumuzid (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

You know, something resembling evidence for your claims would be good to have here if you expect editors to act on your behalf. --Calton | Talk 22:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Especially since no editor has touched the article in two years, and no accounts unrelated to the original reporter have touched the talk page in 3.5 years. —C.Fred (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

All a bit odd, but yes I think an AFD is in order.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

They might be referring to something like this. @Hoopes: - you mention Rand Flem-Ath on your own talkpage, do you wish to make any comment about this? MPS1992 (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I need to get this straight because at first glance this seems to be an attack on a respected professor (not an instructor, John Hoopes is a full professor).https://anthropology.ku.edu/john-w-hoopes#link1] There is a deleted draft of the article, the discussion is at [[49]] I have absolutely no doubt that the student actually existed and the suggestion that he might coerce students to write lies about Flem-Ath is disgusting. Here is an earlier version that was stubbed.[50] Here are his current comments to a student who has been drafting an article unaware that an article exists. User talk:Indianasorell/sandbox/Rand and Rose Flem-Ath And this? "The person he is trying to bring onto my page is associated with Nazis." Is he accusing the student of being associated with Nazis? If not, User:Flem-AthRand, who are you accusing? Because at the moment I think we should be more concerned about your allegations than any possible changes to your existing article. Doug Weller talk 17:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I forgot, here are some articles where we mention him.[51] Doug Weller talk 17:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Calton: I appreciate your concerns. At the time of the page’s creation, it emerged that a couple of editors/Administrators shared this person’s contempt for all things ‘Atlantean’ – and had exhibited an extreme bias against me. So, several neutral Administrators were assigned (I don’t know the inner workings of how it came to pass) to privately communicate with me via email. Despite Wikipedia’s transparency there are obviously, documents, etc. that cannot be posted in a public place. The Wiki page was subsequently removed and reposted in the form it has held since 2012. That action of neutral Administrators who had studied the situation speaks for itself.

Alex.osheter has identified the issue exactly and has caught the circular argument going on here. The only person who ever pretended to consider me ‘notable’ enough (aside from my wife on a good day!) for a Wikipedia page was the one who had it created in the first place for the sole purpose of skewering me. Now, this new attempt to resuscitate the page has been declined for ‘lack of notability’. And so, the pressure is on to come up with a reason, yet again, why I am notable enough to remain for a fresh round of skewering, complete with spoon fed suggestions to the student to ensure that the page passes muster.

Thank you, Dumizid, for your civil tone. I’m not offended at all. My aim in life has never been to be ‘notable’. I am a private person. Have no social media presence. To my publishers’ chagrin, partake in only minimum publicity to fulfill a book contract. This is one of the many reasons that this experience is so troubling. Although, it helps to live in the grand isolation of Haida Gwaii where Mother Nature still has a great say in the reliability of the electronic revolution and where the culture generally considers adults who do seek gratuitous attention as being either unintentionally humorous or sadly lacking! That kind of thing is considered suitable for children before they learn better. Around the age of four.

Doug: Being new to this, I thought that it would be protocol to keep names off this noticeboard. It wasn't necessary. Anyone who follows up on the subject can see the history and the names of the persons involved. As stated, earlier, this Professor was forced to apologize in writing to me by his university. He obviously, never forgot it. Then, was stymied in his attempt to create a page about me in 2012. Just because you don’t like the truth of the sequence of events does not mean that they did not happen.

Please calm down. I did not accuse the student of any such thing. I don’t think that he has any idea of his role in this. If you’d read the material correctly, instead of becoming angry, it’s clear that it is his teacher who is urging him to include the Nazi connotations, which further proves my point. It’s not an accusation. It’s an ugly fact. You seem to think that because a person is a Professor with long association here that he is immune to a conflict of interest.

Your self-righteous defense of him might be admirable under other circumstances. However, your tone and aggressive attack violates many BLP policies (see below*) and ignores the significance of how my page came to be created at all.

I have every right to defend myself, yet again, against a person who, although articulate and active in this community, is, in my opinion, misusing his position to enact a personal agenda.

• “Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself.

Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest.’

I realize that, given the character involved, these are unique circumstances, hopefully not encountered very often on Wikipedia. I don’t know. As I said when the proposal to delete first came up – considering that my ‘notability’ was determined by one person only, who had an agenda, that deletion seems the right choice in the face of such bad faith. As the subject of the page, I would ask that deletion be seriously considered.Flem-AthRand (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I hardly think that an Amazon book review is significant and it was a long time before your article was created. In any case we are talking about a student editing your article. Doug Weller talk 20:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The penny dropped. It'll be Frank Collin better known as Frank Joseph he's talking about. He wrote a lot about Atlantis. Rand, I'm sure you aren't a Nazi and a lot of non-naziz have worked with him, used his material or been published alongside him as in Kenton's book Forbidden History. Did you complain about him being included in that book? Doug Weller talk 21:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm writing to address some of the claims made here. Rand Flem-Ath writes, "It’s come to my attention that a long-time editor on Wikipedia is once again attempting to manipulate the site in order to fulfill a personal vendetta against me. A clear conflict of interest. The first attempt to do this happened after he had been forced to apologize to me (in writing, by the university that employs him) for a vicious online ad hominen attack." I would like to reassure Flem-Ath and the other editors responding to this discussion that I am not trying to fulfill a perrsonal vendetta against him. The incident to which he refers did not involve Wikipedia, but rather a response to his request (via my employer) for the removal of an unfavorable review that I posted of his co-authored book, The Atlantis Blueprint: Unlocking the Ancient Mysteries of a Long-Lost Civilization (2001) on the Amazon.com website. He took offense at certain words I used and interpreted it as a vicious personal attack. I disagreed, but gave him the benefit of the doubt, apologized, and removed the review. That was eighteen years ago. Flem-Ath's current comments appear to be in reference to User:Indianasorell/sandbox/Rand_and_Rose_Flem-Ath, a draft article that was rejected by User:Bkissin on 2 May 2019 on the basis of violations of Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Five_pillars. This article was created without my prompting by another person who thought that the topic was notable enough for inclusion. I provided edits and comments on the draft in the user's sandbox. If you review User_talk:Indianasorell/sandbox/Rand_and_Rose_Flem-Ath, you will see that my first query was whether the author was aware of the article Rand Flem-Ath, which was not originally cited. As I wrote, "given that he was found to be notable as an individual author, this argues for the notability of Rand and Rose Flem-Ath as a couple", especially because they were the co-authors of a work on which the article focused. (I do not know whether this is sufficient basis for the creation of a new article rather than additions to the existing one.) Whether User:Indianasorell is able to address these issues or not to the satisfaction of Wikipedia editors is completely up to them. I am sorry that Flem-Ath thinks I have a "personal vendetta" against him. That is simply not true. I am most definitely not "attempting to manipulate the site in order to fulfill a personal vendetta" against him. Hoopes (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The Wikpedia article Rand Flem-Ath was created on 9 November 2012 by a user who felt that the author's work was notable enough to warrant a brief biography. On 8 December 2012, the article on Flem-Ath was added by another user to Category:Canadian writers. The Flem-Aths' work became directly relevant to the 2012 phenomenon specifically because of its references to a cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis that numerous people--including Graham Hancock in Fingerprints of the Gods, in which he attributes significant influence to the Flem-Aths--were relating to a Maya doomsday prophecy. Flem-Ath also states, "This teacher is brazenly trying to convince the student (a person reliant on him for a grade) to set up a ‘guilt by association’ status for me on one of the most popular websites on the planet, simply because I offend him by writing about Atlantis, and he can’t forget the fact that he went so far over the line in attacking me that an apology had to be issued." Again, I disagree with the assertion that I went "so far over the line in attacking" him. Flem-Ath's work comes up from time to time with reference to the stone spheres of Costa Rica, a topic with which I have been engaged for some time, because these are addressed in a chapter in his co-authored book, The Atlantis Blueprint. While we may disagree about interpretations of Atlantis, these objects and other things, I am definitely not seeking to set up a guilt-by-association status for him at all. It is a fact that Frank Collin (who writes under the pseudonym Frank Joseph) is another contemporary author who has written a number of books about Atlantis, having published at least eight titles on that topic (according to the article about him on Wikipedia). I do not know that author's work well enough to know whether he has made any specific use of Flem-Ath's theories regarding Charles Hapgood, cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis, or the location of Atlantis in Antarctica. In my own comments, I did not make any mention of Joseph's past or present political affiliations or opinions, which may well be irrelevant to his books about lost continents. I was simply making the suggestion that Flem-Ath's books about Atlantis may have been relevant--and therefore notable--in light of subsequent publications by others authors, such as Joseph, on the same subject. (This includes a 2010 book by Joseph entitled Atlantis and 2012: The Science of the Lost Civilization and the Prophecies of the Maya.) For example, it was clearly relevant to Hancock and Wilson. Hoopes (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer to leave the issues of Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Five_pillars to User:Bkissin and other Wikipedia editors. However, it is my own opinion that this author's notability derives from the many references to his work in Hancock's Fingerprints of the Gods and also the extensive references to his work in Beyond the Robot: The Life and Works of Colin Wilson (2016), a recent biography of author Colin Wilson by Gary Lachman whose index notes discussion about Flem-Ath on pp. 280, 287, 288, 307-9, 311-12, 313, and 331-33. With regard to issues of Wikipedia:Notability, I would refer specifically to the comments on p. 465 of Hancock's book Fingerprints of the Gods in which he refers to the Flem-Aths comments on his own book The Sign and the Seal and how their theory "made perfect sense of all the great worldwide myths of cataclysm and planetary disaster," "provided a solution to the problem of the extreme suddenness with which the last Ice Age in the northern hemisphere melted down after 15,000 BC", "solved the mystery of the exceptional worldwide volcanic activity that accompanied the meltdown", "answered the question, 'How do you lose a continent?', and "was solidly based in Charles Hapgood's theory of 'earth-crust displacement'". I would also refer again to multiple sections of Beyond the Robot (2016) by Gary Lachman, especially pp. 279-280, in which the author details the significant and influential relationships among authors Wilson, Flem-Ath, Hancock, John Anthony West, and Robert Bauval, all of whom are represented by current Wikipedia articles. It has been clear to me that Wilson, Hancock, and Lachman all consider Flem-Ath to be notable. I recommend that, in keeping with Wikipedia policy, this issue be decided on the basis of the secondary literature rather than on the basis of personal opinions. Hoopes (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I hope it clears up the issues raised above. I'd deal with the notability issue elsewhere, but I am concerned with what I see as BLP violations at Talk:Rand Flem-Ath where in 2017 Flem-Ath wrote "that it was probably created as an act of revenge by a person who was disciplined by his employer because of a vicious personal attack against me in the past" which is clearly completely false in all its charges, with more in the same vein added this week. I'll be deleting it as some point if there are no objections. Doug Weller talk 09:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• Exciting! First of all, Hooper, Fingerprints of the Gods won't add to Flem-Ath's notability unless reliable (not fringe) sources discuss that connection. Fringe doesn't become notable from being mentioned by other fringe (Wikipedia:Walled garden, indirectly, provides a good argument for that). But that's by-the-by. Flem-Ath, Hooper mentioning the relevance in relation to this Collins dude is hardly an attempt to smear someone by way of association, especially not given the neutral description Hooper provided of how that connection might aid in establishing notability. I find your accusations here to be quite distasteful--and if it is true (is it?) that you contacted someone's employer to complain about an Amazon review, that's about as low as it gets. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

It's Hoopes, not Hooper, but thanks for your comments, especially about distasteful accusations. Yes, I do understand that, "Fringe doesn't become notable from being mentioned by other fringe", but the question then becomes one of who determines what's "fringe" and what's not. Fingerprints of the Gods was published by Random House and many people clearly regard it as credible. It has been cited by many other publications, blogs, podcasts, etc. and is identified as having had a major effect on popular culture, including its influence on the 2012 phenomenon and Roland Emmerich's film 2012. Is Fingerprints considered "fringe" while other nonfiction books by Graham Hancock are not, or is all of this author's nonfiction work to be put in that category? (His most recent book has been published in the U.S. by St. Martin's Press. What are the criteria for identifying something as "fringe"? The Celestine Prophecy, also published in 1995--but self-published--spent 165 weeks on the The New York Times Best Seller list but is something many would regard as fringe (even though it is not yet identified as such in Wikipedia). Flem-Ath's notability is discussed at length in a recent biography of author Colin Wilson by Gary Lachman that was published by TarcherPerigee. Would that be a "non-fringe" source? Who makes the call? How? Hoopes (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hoopes, sorry about mistyping your name. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

So, "fringe," for me at least, has little to do with the size or history of the publisher of a work. It has little to do with the popularity of a work. The Celestine Prophecy is described as a novel, so "fringe" is a bit beside the point. What is more important is how other people and publications in the field regard the work. If a majority of people think you're wrong about something, you are quite literally on the fringe. To be fair, it has been a long time since I considered Fingerprints of the Gods, and perhaps it has a different reputation now. In my own very anecdotal experience, it certainly seems "fringe," but I can certainly be proven wrong. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies, Dumuzid, and Hoopes: it's fringe without a doubt. However, Hancock is a reliable source for his own opinions and experience, and he explains in detail how a letter from Flem-Ath helped him write the book. I can take it to RSN but I'm confident we can use it. Doug Weller talk 18:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Weller, I agree 100% with the above. However, the fact that Hancock's opinions are useable does not move the needle for me on notability, if you see what I mean. Again, just how I see it. If the weight of opinion is against me, I will not kvetch. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I suppose that such a thing (that letter) may help, esp. if the publisher is notable and it's a popular book. But still, if Erich von Daniken had written up how much I had helped him with this or that, maybe some stuff about some Bosnian pyramid, surely that doesn't help establish notability. It might make for a nice note in my biography, but it shouldn't help make me notable. I think the more relevant question is whether Fingerprint dude thinks he's writing fiction or not. Is he is, great. If he's not, it's fringe, and if it's fringe everything he says should be taken with a grain of salt. Drmies (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies, Dumuzid, and Doug Weller: Since definitions are key, I interpret the use of the term "fringe" here to be shorthand for fringe science as currently defined in Wikipedia: "Fringe science is an inquiry in an established field of study which departs significantly from mainstream theories in that field and is considered to be questionable by the mainstream." However, mainstream is currently defined as, "current thought that is widespread. It includes all popular culture and media culture, typically disseminated by mass media." Given mainstream trends, it might be argued that antiscience has become mainstream. It is defined as, "a position that rejects science and the scientific method. People holding antiscientific views do not accept science as an objective method that can generate universal knowledge. They also contend that scientific reductionism in particular is an inherently limited means to reach understanding of a complex world." I think it is essential to distinguish among fringe science, pseudoscience, antiscience, and mainstream knowledge, especially in the application of Wikipedia policy. There are articles--and sources cited--that fall into all of these categories. Some authors are WP:N specifically because they represent questionable minority views. Those are especially noteworthy when those perspectives move from being "fringe" to being "mainstream" (for which the criteria are unclear). The situation becomes even more complicated when perspectives claimed to be science are actually religious or spiritual views such as creation science and intelligent design, occult or New Age beliefs, or represent other ideologies, including political ones. These are not trivial distinctions and dismissing an author's views as "fringe" in a consideration of notability opens a huge can of worms. Are the perspectives of NRMs by definition "fringe"? Can they be "fringe science" if they are religion, but not science? What about more mainstream ones such as Mormonism or Scientology, both of which also intersect with pseudoarchaeology? I think these are significant considerations, especially because Wikipedia articles plan an active role in shaping both fringe and mainstream perspectives on all of these topics and there are active concerns with both neutral point of view and ideological bias on Wikipedia. The distinction between fiction and nonfiction is not trivial, either, and should not be a subjective matter of opinion. The author generally knows what's intended, but there are exceptions in which fiction is passed off as nonfiction. The work of Carlos Castaneda would be an example of that. However, The Celestine Prophecy, described as a novel but often regarded with its sequels as having elements of a nonfiction self-help narrative, might be on the line. Discussions of fiction/nonfiction issues with respect to sacred texts such as the Bible and the Book of Mormon on Wikipedia would still be required to maintain neutral points-of-view. Hoopes (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Hoopes, for your thoughtful post, and I agree, there is much ratiocination to be done. Again, simply for me, notability must be a bit of a more objective inquiry, and not particular to any group or specialty interest. The test for me is something like "is the average person likely to have heard this name at some point?" and not "if you listened obsessively to Coast to Coast AM in the late 90's, would you know this person?" (I mean no disrespect by this characterization; I count myself among that group!) Thus, Graham Hancock is absolutely notable. He gets regular coverage outside of his particular "specialty" and I think there's a very good chance that any given person will have at least heard the name, even if they are not familiar with Mr. Hancock or his work. Mr. Flem-Ath strikes me differently (though I could be proven wrong). All the references I have seen are within the "in-group" of Atlantean/Ancient civilization theorists. So, I hope I can at least make clear why I think that Mr. Hancock is absolutely notable, but a mention by Mr. Hancock does not in and of itself confer notability on others. All the best. Dumuzid (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Dumuzid Some additional support for the issue of Wikipedia:Notability that should meet your test of "is the average person likely to have heard this name at some point?": The work of the Flem-Aths was prominently featured in the documentary film The Mysterious Origins of Man that was aired on NBC to a national audience on February 25, 1996. This television program was discussed in detail on the talk.origins website (see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom.html). Hoopes (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

[redacted] Flem-AthRand (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• Flem-AthRand, I redacted this entire post of yours and I encourage you not to reinstate it until we figure some things out. I will NOT hesitate to block you at least temporarily if you restore it. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Justin Amash

This congressman yesterday became the first Republican congress member to call for Trump's impeachment. Subsequently, the page has been full of BLP vios and vandalism, and there is every reason to believe it will continue. More eyes needed. I just deleted a sentence in his lede which claimed that he owned a firm that did extensive trade with China, sourced to a far-right crackpot website. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the page and will also keep an eye on it. This is likely to continue. Meatsgains^(talk) 21:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The editor Rusf10 is now edit-warring Karl Rove's opinion of Amash as a fake conservative into the article, and using this opinion to rebut multiple RS descriptions of Amash as a "very conservative" member of Congress. The text misleadingly presents the issue of Amash's conservatism as "some say he's very conservative" (citation: all reliable sources) whereas "others say he's not conservative at all" (citation: Karl Rove). On the talk page, the editor is suggesting that RS are unreliable on this issue because of "media spin" and maybe because the media is trying "to smear Trump". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: First, can you please tone down the WP:PERSONALATTACKS? Second, can you also please explain why a non-partisan website ranks his actual record as one of the most liberal among Republicans? [52]--Rusf10 (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

This is the methodology that measures conservatism and liberalism on that website: "In a nutshell, Members of Congress who cosponsor similar sets of bills will get scores close together, while Members of Congress who sponsor different sets of bills will have scores far apart."[53] Since Amash cosponsors a lot of bills that relate to non-interventionism and criminal justice reform (issues that disproportionately attract Democratic cosponsors), his ideology rating gets dragged down by liberal "gravity". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

In other words, he votes differently than most of his party. You added in the part about criminal justice reform yourself which actually makes no sense since congress recently passed a bi-partisan bill on it (so it's not just a Democratic issue). Furthermore, looking at the ranking of Senators, the website is spot on with Inhofe being the most conservative and Collins and Murkowski being the most liberal. Similarly, they rank Joe Manchin as the most conservative Democrat. The analysis is valid.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The website looks cosponsorship, not votes, in its measure of ideology. Keep up. This is a perfect example of why WP:SYNTH is a thing, and why we're not supposed to interpreting raw data to draw wild conclusions. Also, I don't understand what you're trying to say about the First Step Act (one of many criminal justice reform bills). Amash didn't cosponsor it, and if he had, his score would have moved towards liberal, because of who the cosponsors were (Democrats and moderate Republicans). Had he cosponsored a hypothetical Repeal the First Step Act bill, his score would have moved towards conservative. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Fonda Hawthorn

Fonda Hawthorne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The biography states that Fonda Hawthorn was a Republican and that is not true. She was an elected DEMOCRAT from 2013-2015. Please fix it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.202.15.251 (talk) 20:16, May 22, 2019 (UTC)

It's been removed.--Auric talk 14:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Stuart Reid (Scottish historical writer)

My name is Stuart Reid and I am a Scottish children's author, not the other Stuart Reid (Scottish historical writer). I do not have a Wikipedia page but because my namesake Stuart Reid (Scottish historical writer) does, this causes a great deal of confusion in schools.

Since I became a full-time author in 2012 I have performed in almost 2,000 schools, libraries and book festivals around the UK, Ireland, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Hong Kong, India and Australia, performing before quarter of million children. My live events can cause a great deal of excitement and pupils are often asked to research 'the author' or write a biography prior to my arrival. Obviously, with two Scottish authors of the same name, albeit widely different genres, this can cause the children some problems.

Occasionally, teachers are surprised by my appearance too, usually asking which skin care products I use (I am a youthful 51 years old, whereas historical writer Stuart is 65 years). There was even one (mildly threatening) visit to a school in Northern Ireland, where one teacher was not entirely happy when he 'discovered' I was a former soldier of the British Army (wrong Stuart). He did not believe my denials, and regarded me with great suspicion throughout my visit.

Once, an editor from Jane's Defence Weekly emailed me to write an article on Scottish involvement in the French Revolution between 1789 and 1799. My books are about boogers, butts and big bottom burps so sadly I had to pass on that commission. And as I have never met my namesake, nor can I find his contact details online, I could only suggest that the editor contact the Scottish historical writer's publisher.

My first book 'Gorgeous George and the Giant Geriatric Generator' won the Silver Seal at the Forward National Literature Awards in 2012, and was Top Pick in the Daily Record. My 7th book 'Gorgeous George and the Timewarp Trouser Trumpets' won the silver medal at the Wishing Shelf Book awards 2018. My 8th book 'Incredible Iron-Bru-Man Incident will be launched on 20th July 2019.

I have performed at dozens of book festivals inc. Wigtown Book Festival on 3 occasions and at over 250 shows at the Edinburgh Fringe.

I will let you judge whether I can be considered to be a valid subject article. Thank you for your time.

2A02:C7D:2E0D:5500:48EC:CF74:4D20:A40E (talk) 08:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. Reid. I'm afraid you're in the wrong place, but that was an interesting read, nonetheless! May I please direct you to Requested articles. Good luck. El_C 08:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

For the moment, I added a template at the top of the Stuart Reid (Scottish historical writer) article that highlights the potential for confusion... BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I cant see a template??? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@BubbaJoe123456:, I couldn't find any such change, so I used {{Distinguish}} --Auric talk 14:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Since you asked so nicely a googled a little for sources WP would find acceptable for an article [54] (based on that image in Daily Record, do children think you will eat them?). IMO it looks thin, but there may be better sources elsewhere. The Daily Record (Scotland) article looks kind of useful, but unfortunately we don't like to trust tabloids when we write about living people. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Mr. Reid, could you list the title, and pub. date of each of your books? Thanks. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Suggestion: Since you are the subject in question (presumably) and also an author, I'll help break down a few of the complexities of Wikipedia. Your list of accomplishments sounds noteworthy indeed, but what we need are reliable sources, preferably secondary sources, ie: newspapers, magazines, book, book reviews, television interviews, etc...) before we can create an article about you. Tabloid sources don't really cut it, so feel free to click on the blue links for more info. If you truly want a Wikipedia article (and I'd think carefully on that, lest you end up with more than you bargained for), since you are the subject, then you probably know more about what has been written about you than anyone. If you can find such sources and present them here, or at WP:Requested articles, that would go a long way to helping your goal. Ideally, there should be enough info out there to write a decent article. If there's not, you can always consider giving interviews and putting yourself out there, so reliable sources will take notice.

By the way, your Gorgeous George character wouldn't happen to be based on the professional wrestler, would it? (Just being a Curious George.) Zaereth (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• not to mention that fact that George Galloway is regularly called "Gorgeous George."

Dito George Clooney. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• I think we can have an article, he passes WP:AUTHOR because of the coverage the "Gorgeous George" books get, including reviews. Plus there have been profile/feature articles about him; and other news coverage of him. User:Zaereth, do you want to create it? If not, I would be glad to write it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

If I only it were the history of steel or the neuropsychology of dogs, I'd be prepared. Time is never on my side. (Summer in Alaska is a mad rush to get everything done before winter. Good thing the sun stays up 20 hours out of the day.) Writing is the easy part; everything else takes time. If you've done the research already then I say go for it! Zaereth (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Will do.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Geoffrey Rush

3 posts by 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:FCDA:360:83FC:88C3 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), each defamatory, 3rd containing threats of violence -

• List of judges of the Federal Court of Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - diff [55] (Justice Michael Wigney heard Rush defamation case), &
• talk page of Geoffrey Rush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - diff [56] & diff [57]. IP has 2 warnings, 2nd specifically about BLP. Find bruce (talk) 09:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Ignoring the rest the call to kill someone was unacceptable, and I have reported this to ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully this has not been dealt with.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it has been.--Auric talk 12:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)