Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Hanna Holborn Gray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the body of the article about Hannah you mention that she was at Northwestern University, Evanston campus, however in the chronological listing you don't mention Northwestern Unversity!!!!!She was also Dean of Woman at NU. Please contact her office or Northwestern University and correct this omission. Much appreciated.......Quecumquae sunt veritas!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:b02b:848e:f936:e48c:c029:4e95 (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2017‎

• Glenn R. Simpson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"However the Republican donor soon dropped out of what Simpson and Fusion GPS were doing. The Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign for president picked up the deal with Fusion GPS and funded the remaining political assignation of Donald Trump before he was elected the 45th President of the United States"

There are so sources. This Fusion GPS ordeal is conspiratorial so keeping the pages as informative and perhaps unassuming seems important. Currently, the article does not source and does not seem to provide a verifiable, neutral point of view.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:547:901:6570:79dc:deea:ae1e:8a5e (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

• Cosmo Jarvis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello,

The information presented here on Cosmo Jarvis is not up to date and ignores many developments in recent years. Especially in '2010 to present' section - here there are many informations which are lacking or which, if included while others are not, creates an article which requires more detail and overall context to shed light on his recent works (especially as an actor in theatre, TV and FILM)

(see here) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4008605/

His involvement with 'Hawke the movie' while correct information should not be featured at the expense of other, more notable, widely distributed and arguable more significant works.

I am suggesting the need for a revision/update on this page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.215.89 (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor has been repeatedly trying to remove/whitewash sourced negative material from Mikhail Blagosklonny and from the associated article Oncotarget. The IP claims the source is unreliable but the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 197#Retraction Watch on the same source for other BLPs is that it's reliable (and it's used similarly on many other BLPs). More eyes on the articles would be welcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The link you provide is about Retraction Watch which is also being discussed in the talk page of this article. Stop confusing the two sources. This is about Jeffrey Beall's list which is a self-published blog and has no place on a BLP per WP:BLPSPS. Note the discussion you link to even says that Beall's list is worse than RetractionWatch.40.134.67.50 (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is an odd mis-reading of WP:SPS. Beall is an expert in predatory and otherwise dodgy academic journal publishing^[1][2] and is well-recognized for this expertise.^[3][4] Beall's List therefore fits squarely within the meaning of reliable sources in the very policy you cite: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Emphasis in the original. Continuing to edit-war to remove the information cited to this source has every appearance of tendentious editing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Eggishorn: Please finish reading the paragraph in WP:SPS which says Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. Second emphasis mine.
• In any case, I was referring to WP:BLPSPS which clearly states Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. Emphasis mine. 40.134.67.50 (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retraction Watch is a good source for "predatory journal", which can now be supplemented with The Scientist also saying it's considered predatory.[1] However the current sourcing is very borderline for supporting the other BLP-allegations. I suggest the direct BLP-allegations be removed per BLPREQUESTRESTORE policy, pending the result of the open RFC at Talk:Oncotarget#Threats_of_retraction. Alsee (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lets please clean up the process on this - it is a total mess

We will only address Beall and Retraction/Scientist in regard to the BLP here - Oncotarget and academic journal guidelines are not part of this Discussion - however, anywhere the BLP is mentioned, BLP guidelines must be applied.

Wiki guides us on this by stating that biography of living persons must be the highest quality sources, and if you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out

As the other editor has mentioned the burden of proving that it is a high quality source is on the editor who adds or restores the material and I firmly believe you have not proven that these are high quality sources - you are mearly referencing a bunch of coverage about a group of poor sources. Moreover, even if I agree with you that these are of the highest quality of sources, there are still not multiple third-party sources making the same claims. Even tho its your job to prove this I will give you some guidance...

Overall, all of these sources present little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines which are exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering and sensationalism attributing material to anonymous sources and using weasel words: (sign of poor source)

1. Both Retraction and Beall cite anonymous sources for their claims on this BLP subject this gives me a reasonable doubt as to their authenticity (sign of poor source)

2. Beall's List uses nothing but weasel words i.e. Possible, potential and probable. (sign of poor source)

3. The article from the Scientist contains multiple inaccuracies and it is apparent that the article involved no independent reporting. The writer has merely incorrectly paraphrased portions of a Retraction Watch article and placed an outsized reliance on a defunct website. Since it was published they have issued corrections on their article.

1 2 and 3 show that these sources are miles away from "high quality" sources needed for BLP pages - if good sources at all, they are an excellent example of circular reporting and basically repeating gossip. Ivan Oransky, a founder of Retraction Watch is also the deputy editor of The Scientist and the coverage of Retraction Watchlist article was a poor attempt to create a third party source. Overall, the body of these three sources applied to this issue are poor sources, if sources at all.

Moreover, even if we agree with you that Beall, Retraction and Scientist are of the highest quality of sources, there are still not multiple third-party sources making the same claims.

1. Beall is claiming (from an anonymous source) that Oncotarget peer review is questionable and BLP subject is gaming the system - noone else has ever claimed that. (sign of poor source)

2. The Scientist is not making the same claim as Retraction - it was literally two different claims all together (albeit due to the fact of thee poor editorial quality of the Scientist article which is highlighted by the subsequent correction)

To momentarily step away from BLP policy - one of Wiki's five main pillars concludes that to remain neutral an editor must cite notable sources especially when controversial, and goes on to specifically say about BLP that we must remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (The Scientist) relies on self-published sources (Beall) or relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards (anonamoys sources in Retraction and Beall's post) - however, Wiki makes perfectly clear Never use self-published sources as sources of material about a living person

Putting comments like these from such bottom end sources on BLP pages is reckless

I have created a Wiki account and will continue to monitor this issue @MakinaterJones — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.139.102.133 (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The information that is repeatedly posted on this is not accurate, useful or relevant. It is also offensive. Especially since these are unproven ALLEGATIONS. This information is libelous, defaming and potentially unlawful. Jazzjock251 (talk) 05:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the information per WP:BLPCRIME. Not a wellknown figure and these are just accusations. The one source that was included is minimal. It is a small piece tacked onto an article about someone else also accused of sexual harassment at Berkeley. To be included in the article we would need much more coverage of the incident. The statement that he was fired was not mentioned in the source at all. ~ GB fan 18:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been re-added, and I've removed it again. fish&karate 14:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction was a bunch of gibberish. For months it’s been removed and readded. The article falsely claimed that scandals had to involve a violation of law, which is not true for many Obama administration scandals. A terming of alleged legal but improper conduct as illegal is a major BLP offense. That introduction is not worthy to be part of an encyclopedia. 2606:A000:6444:4700:59D0:5215:432B:C56 (talk) 02:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals are still attacking this page. BLPEnforcer (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Whether or not the amount of content about the Schwahn sexual harassment allegations is WP:Undue needs some looking at. I state this because he is not as famous as Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey and others affected by the Weinstein effect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept allegations, reduced verbiage and identification of so many other persons who are only marginally connected to the allegations. Collect (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Collect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor with all of 25 edits basically restored the excess material and I am officially banned from touching it now on the BLP issue -- so will someone please address the matter? The article again links to a great many people tangentially involved, and goes to more detail than the entire rest of the BLP has! Thank you. Collect (talk) 13:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Already reverted by Darkness Shines. Obviously the article needs to be watched tho. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And re-reverted by the new editor who now has 27 edits. And I am still banned from touching it. Collect (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you banned from reverting? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom banned me from making any additional reverts for BLP reasons, and I am restricted to 1RR on all pages, and I can not edit or comment on or discuss anything remotely connected to "American Politics" on any page of Wikipedia whatsoever from 1 AD or so to infinity. Was the decision rational? No. But it was their decision, even when an editor wished on my talk page that my wife would die of her melanomas. And one of the evidence givers was ready to report me when I discovered he was a major plagiarist. I am not going to appeal unless and until some of those folks recognize that my BLP positions are what Wikipedia policies call for. But I sure as hell am not going to waste my life holding a "grudge" about any of this. ArbCom has the right to make decisions, and the obligation to live with them. Collect (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, see the first letterhead quote box. I've never doubted your ability. I'm much more versed in PAGs today than I was back when your case was filed, and just wanted you to know that you have my support if you decide to appeal. ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following allegation or what our readers could perceive to be a politically motivated "legal analysis" has been challenged as a BLP violation, especially considering it strays off-topic about the pardon itself and attacks the BLP. It was removed from the article twice. The editor who is now edit warring to keep it in, Softlavender, said in her edit summary that the article is not a BLP, seemingly to justify the BLP vio. Pardon of Joe Arpaio is already a highly volatile article that was relentlessly targeted by a persistent sock farmer and keeping it free of BLP vios has not been an easy road to hoe. Input, please? ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a violation. SPECIFICO talk 13:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a WP:BLP violation as a couple of editors have already told you. By the way, you're edit warring to remove scholarly content: [2][3][4] - MrX 13:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's an RS-cited analysis of the Pardon of Joe Arpaio, which is what the wiki article is about and why we actually have the article (we have the article because the pardon generated too much controversy and analysis and objection to fit into any other existing article). The quote is actually a fairly standard analysis of the pardon and notes issues that were brought up by numerous legal and political analysts. Softlavender (talk) 13:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree for the following reason: the statement is riddled with noncompliant value laden labels and challenged as a BLP vio per WP:BLPSOURCE and WP:V because it contains "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." It is cited to a "Perspective" which is the author's POV about Joe Arpaio, and not about the pardon. The headline substantiates the latter: The problem with Joe Arpaio’s pardon isn’t the process. The problem is Joe Arpaio. The inclusion of the author's unsupported allegations are highly defamatory which dismisses any ambiguity that a BLP vio exists. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Definitely not a BLP violation. It's well over the line into silliness to argue that Wikipedia may not contain material of that sort. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: Since when is The Washington Post a poor source? Also, the Cornell Law professor's view is supported by links throughout The Washington Post article. Did you think that no one would check? I have to say, you are teetering perilously close to being taken to AE so that your repeated provably false assertions and blatant misuse of policies and guidelines can be examined. I suggest you reel it in a bit.- MrX 14:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, as that is under their "Perspectives" by-line, it is an opinion piece, not a news report, which should be avoided in contentious topics for facts, though here it is being used for opinion and attributed opinion, at that. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, not an issue - like everyone else (except Atsme) already said? It's not being used as a source for facts and no one appears to be suggesting that it should be. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue I really see with it is a bit of coatracking attacks on Arpaio by the selection of the quote that attacks Arpaio; the 2nd last paragraph "In other words, Trump pardoned Arpaio because of his actions as sheriff, actions that are consistent with the platform on which Trump campaigned and has attempted to govern. Those actions were appalling — and not only is Arpaio unremorseful, but Trump has actually held him up as a model to be emulated" is a better summary that should be included since it's the core of Chafetz' point - Trump pardoned Arpaio because his actions were consistent with Trump's values, in Chafetz' opinion. The source is otherwise fine. --MASEM (t) 15:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, thank you for your thoughtful input. I'm of the mind that in addition to WP:BLPSOURCE, there is WP:REDFLAG which also applies in this case. The value-laden labels are defamatory and usupported. Racial profiling is much different from being a racist, especially when one's grandchildren are of the race a BLP is being accused of being racist toward. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"BLP" is short for "biography of a living person". Biographies don't have races. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And pigs don't fly - so what is your point? ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was simply a reminder that the acronym BLP refers to the biography, not to the person. You said "... a BLP is accused ..." instead of "... the subject of the BLP is being accused ..." or just "... Arpaio is being accused ...". Not a big deal, but it is easier to communicate if we don't conflate the person with the biography. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV, one of three core content policies of BLP

It is unambiguously clear to me that the verbal attack against Arpaio by Chafetz who described him as a "xenophobe and racist" in a POV piece is a BLP vio, and I am dismayed that some of our veteran editors are not seeing it. Continuing along the same lines as what Masem described above as "coatracking attacks on Arpaio", I have listed the applicable policies I believe are unambiguous with regards to that quote:

1. WP:IMPARTIAL, which states: A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The title of the Chafetz "Perspective", The problem with Joe Arpaio's pardon isn't the process. The problem is Joe Arpaio, further supports my position. The spin-off article is supposed to focus on the pardon, not the character of Joe Arpaio which brings us to the next issue...
2. WP:POVFORK: A POV fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. POV forks are not permitted in Wikipedia. The attack quote helps to confirm noncompliance with this policy as well. The article was created as a spin-off of Joe Arpaio by a blocked sock master. Much of the clean-up being done now is subject to WP:BMB policy as well.
3. WP:BALANCE which ...involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint. A personal attack on Arpaio by Chafetz in a POV article is not a disinterested viewpoint.
   

One last point, the unsupported Chafetz allegation is contradicted by factual information about Arpaio, who is the son of immigrants, has been referred to as "a doting grandfather" of 4 children adopted by his daughter, each of different ethnicities, and his son's wife being Latino. I think strong political views too often create NPOV issues that may make editors less sensitive to BLP policy which unambiguously states: material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this noticeboard is to get a sanity check on your view after it's been rejected on the article talk page. If nobody agrees with your interpretation of site policy, there's really nothing to be done and it will be time to move on to other matters. SPECIFICO talk 16:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've expressed your POV and so has Nomo, and your arguments are not convincing, (and our past history accentuates my need for additional neutral input). Masem's view was impartial and he saw it as "bit of coatracking attacks on Arpaio by the selection of the quote" to which I responded. Nothing is keeping you tethered here, so feel free to move on to something else, and allow me to be the one who decides if my concerns have been addressed. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: It's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kendall-K1, what? *lol* Why are you here? Nevermind, don't answer. ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Atsme, I think you're misunderstanding multiple policies, and then citing them very aggressively and refusing to listen to correction. You are misusing the highly inflammatory term "defamatory" in a way that suggests a great deal of confusion on your part. You are also confused about WP:NPOV, which applies to Wikipedia editors and edits, but not to the authors of third-party sources (which are governed by separate guidelines and policies). You seem to view opinionated criticism of Arpaio as abhorrent, but you cite opinionated praise for Arpaio (for instance, his "grandfatherly doting") as not only legitimate but "factual". This last issue suggests that you're bending policy to fit your pre-existing agenda when it comes to the article subject. Of course you don't deserve to be attacked by IPs/sockpuppets, and if I can help put a stop to that, then please let me know how. But you really need to stop posting, take a deep breath, and consider some of the things that people are telling you. We're getting into competence/WP:IDHT territory here, so let's turn the ship around before it goes much further. MastCell ^Talk 21:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I commented above, but I think Atsme has a point here, though agree other points are wrong. When I read Chafetz's statement, it comes down to "Don't blame the process; blame Trump for valuing what Arpaio values which goes against Chafetz's values". Whether Trump's, Arpaio's, or Chafetz's values are right or wrong is not what we should be trying to discuss on WP. To that end, we don't need to address claims Chafetz makes towards Arpaio to still get to Chafetz' point above, but the quote chosen was the one that 1) didn't get to the core point and 2) chose the most "vile" terms to paint Arpaio here. That's a coatrack for a BLP. The source is fine, the opinion seems fine, but the means of inclusion were not correct per NPOV. Unfortunately, its very easy when it comes down to politics and identity/social issues like this that editors that feel strongly for or against issues related to a person, and see a RS that expresses those same points, and be clouded in seeing what is appropriate and inappropriate to include. This is happening both ways here with this article, Atsme's not helping much, but they are right that the selected quote raising many POV questions when there are more direct, to the point, but less BLP-ish quotes that can be pulled from the same source instead. --MASEM (t) 22:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether the chosen quote accurately represents the opinion piece is a question of WP:NPOV and editorial judgement. It is emphatically not a WP:BLP issue, and presenting it as such muddies the waters significantly and impedes an appropriate resolution. This is where competence comes into play. (Substantively, it seems to me that the chosen quote is, in fact, an appropriate representation of the author's thesis; it doesn't appear to be taken out of context, or otherwise used in a misleading or counterintuitive way. But again, this is a question of editorial judgement to be solved on the article talkpage, not a BLP issue, and Atsme's harangues here are thus counterproductive). MastCell ^Talk 22:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it is a BLP issue. It's accusations from an opinion piece, and we have to tread very carefully with those. If the article was the BLP about Arpaio himself, then maybe they would be appropriate there, but we're talking about the pardon, and here, Chafetz's opinion on the pardon. What he thinks about Arpaio is unimportant to that, outside of saying how they align with Trump's (in his opinion). So there is zero need to bring in any of the accusing language towards Arpaio in this article about the pardon to still hit Chafetz's key point in his essay. --MASEM (t) 23:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • It may be a BLP issue, but it is no way a BLP violation. The BLP policy is not meant to shield public figures from legitimate criticism. Your view about what part of that criticism should be in the article may be perfectly valid, but no more so than the numerous other editors who have a different view.- MrX 23:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sourced and attributed criticism of Arpaio is perfectly valid on the biographical page about Arpaio. But it is inappropriate when it is not central to the point of the page about the pardon, which is more an issue due to criticism of Trump and the pardoning process, rather than Arpaio himself. It's a coatrack issue. Per BLP we are meant to write impartially and that means in this case avoiding quotes that coatrack unnecessary opinions that are not essential to Chafetz's argument. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, my focus is on the article, not the politics. Any use of contentious labeling raises a WP:REDFLAG for me, especially when there are other options to describe a person. Your use of "abhorrent" is a bit dramatic considering I'm a pragmatist, not a paralogist. From where I sit, competence is required for writing descriptive prose without using value laden labels. I came here in GF for input (discussion), and presented evidence to support my position and why I believe the quote to be noncompliant with BLP. I know we're not dealing with a BLP article but the person being disparaged is a living person and BLP policy applies everywhere on WP. I don't think we're as far apart as you seem to believe. We are expected to show a high degree of sensitivity where a BLP is concerned - you could say CIR applies to such editorial judgement. BLP policy unambiguously states that we must strictly adhere to NPOV, V and OR. The challenged edit clearly does not strictly adhere to NPOV and resulted in disparaging a BLP which is what made it a BLP vio. Do you see my point?

Arpaio is a living person, and NPOV is indisputably connected to BLP policy. Masem identified it as "coatrack for a BLP", WP:BLPSTYLE addresses the coatrack issue. He also said that "the means of inclusion were not correct per NPOV". I agree, it's noncompliant which brings us back to BLP policy. You said, "opinion piece is a question of WP:NPOV and editorial judgement." Yes, the way you put it is a bit conservative in my view but I will accept your explanation and say thank you very much. Quoting Yogi, When you arrive at a fork in the road, take it and we're there now, so here is my summary in a nutshell: noncompliance with NPOV that results in disparaging a living person (anywhere on WP) is a violation of BLP policy. A coatrack attack on a living person is noncompliant with BLP. I'm not wanting to get anyone in trouble for reverting or insisting it be included - I just want the quote removed. Calling someone a racist and xenophobe is far from showing a "high degree of sensitivity to a BLP", particularly when there is no proof that he is racist (per his own family structure) or a xenophobe - his parents are Italian immigrants (Latin). Oh, the irony! That is what I tried to demonstrate above. I'm appreciative of the input from you and Masem - I thank you both kindly - and I hope you can get the sock farm fenced in and site ban the farmer before he wears down all of our good admins. They all deserve a raise for what they've endured over the weekend. Enjoy your evening. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The material – as it's written – appears to be a BLP violation per WP:BLPSOURCES. The source, as an opinion piece, lacks meaningful editorial oversight, which means that it's a questionable source and hence not a suitable source for contentious claims about living persons. If the material is truly noteworthy, it should be easy to find a reliable source for the material. Politrukki (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is only a suspect in the Killing of Nabra Hassanen.It is violation of WP:BLPCRIME to say he is the murderer or use a copyrighted image in the article under fair use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oathsparty (talk • contribs) 04:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC) Further the title :Darwin Martinez Torres, murderer of Nabra Hassanen is wrong he is only a suspect — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oathsparty (talk • contribs) 04:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An admin has speedy deleted the file under criteria F7 (invalid fair use rationale) Neiltonks (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Mary Hayashi and I am a former California politician. I was told to post here regarding concerns about the Wikipedia page about me, which includes two dedicated "Shoplifting" sections.[5]

In 2012 I walked out of a high-end retail store in San Francisco, but had forgotten about a blouse, skirt, and pants (worth $2,500) in my bag that I had not paid for.[6] As a result, two years later my competition for the Democrat seat launched a smear campaign called "Mug Shot Mary" with its own website and promised to make sure everyone knew about the incident.[7] The current Wikipedia page says I claimed to have a brain tumor that caused me to shoplift, but I have denied this. The case was eventually dismissed on March 5, 2015, but by then the political campaign was long over and the press did not cover the dismissal.

While this incident was unfortunately a part of the 2014 political race, the Wikipedia page contains more than 10 paragraphs about this situation and two sentences about the entire 2014 campaign. I have been told this violates Wikipedia's policy here against an article that is "temporarily unbalanced" and that someone here might be able to help. Aunt Mary San (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the section summarising (or quoting from) the personal statement; the section is sufficient without it. I'm not inclined to have the article discuss the denial of having had a tumour; Ms Hayashi could have (but apparently didn't) instructed her lawyer not to make statements along these lines, and it's odd (to say the least) to have a denial about it after the trial or dismissal or whatever. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled also by the notion that the charges were "dismissed"; the sources say that Ms Hayashi pleaded no contest, which contradicts the assertion of dismissal. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shortened version looks good. I rewrite a bit about the election that seemed a little biased as well. ValarianB (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi All. I’m glad to see the section shrinking, but it still seems to cite a lot of op-eds and have redundant content. Hopefully I am not being too pushy – I respect Wikipedia’s editorial autonomy. But I want to bring a few points to your attention for closer scrutiny:

• The following sentence is cited to an op-ed labeled “Opinion Shop” and is redundant with another sentence in the section: ”During the campaign, Hayashi repeatedly denied that she was responsible for the shoplifting incident, again citing a medical condition and distraction.”
• This sentence is also cited to “Opinion Shop” and hardly seems neutral/factual: “Her shoplifting conviction proved too damaging for her to overcome.”
• It seems extraordinary that a biography on my entire life story and all my years of public service would have a dedicated section regarding a misdemeanor.
• The first sentence says I was charged with shoplifting. This second sentence effectively defines shoplifting and is somewhat redundant with the sentences before/after it: ”Prosecutors said that Hayashi had taken the items into a dressing room, put them in a shopping bag, and walked out of the store.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BD87:6730:B83D:9B02:61F8:9C65 (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it's covered in the biography is that it received significant attention in e.g. newspapers. If sources need to be upgraded, I'm sure that can happen. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any such upgrading should be done right quick, because my itchy fingers are heading towards wholesale deleting anything sourced to a piece entitled "Opinion Shop". MPS1992 (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Boston Herald article seems to have been made into a WP:COATRACK for criticism of sportswriter Ron Borges, mostly introduced with this one-off edit a few months ago, duplicating similar content on the biography page. An anon tried to remove it a while ago, but was reverted for vandalism by Materialscientist. The amount of space spent on Borges seems grossly undue at the very least, and I have reason to believe the account responsible belongs to a rather persistent hoaxer whose work I’ve seen before, making me suspicious that the content is mostly fabricated. However, I know nothing about either subject, so I’m asking here for more eyes on both articles, with a view to removing (and possibly hiding) the content.—Odysseus1479 02:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the content. Neutrality^talk 04:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Janet O'Sullivan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There was a recent article about the subject which suggested she celebrated the death of a pro life campaigner. It has been suggested on twitter that this was done to discredit her. While I suspect that some version will end up in the article on wikipedia about it the current wording and placement seems likely to cause pain and damage to an otherwise low profile individual who is currently not campaigning. The link to the diff is [8]. I would appreciate someone more experienced with BLP and low profile individuals taking a look and giving a recommendation please. ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 22:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fellow editors, Is this source[9] sufficient for inclusion of "conspiracy theorist" in the lead sentence; per this edit? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You linked a Google search of the author's name, I think you meant to link the book? Greenwood is an academic press and that source is peer-reviewed, I don't see why not. It's not exactly an extraordinary claim, it's well documented that Chossudovsky subscribes to and promotes a number of well-known conspiracy theories. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are (w.r.t the link). I have amended it in the comment above. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyddlestix: Where is the peer review documented? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to find a link to document that, but: Greenwood is a well established and generally well-regarded academic press, I'd be very surprised if they publish anything that isn't reviewed. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Appreciate it. I note that the imprint on the book itself is Praeger, which is part of the same ABC-CLIO group; so not affecting of the general well-regarded-ness. There is a distinction between "reviewed" and "peer-reviewed"; the latter a technical term with a specific meaning. (Even in the "what I did on my holidays" world of some fields.) I would concur that it is unlikely for the book to be un-"reviewed"; I do think it is unlikely to be "peer reviewed", simply because it is not a research paper. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the source is a politics reporter and former fellow of the Shorenstein Center at the Harvard Kennedy School. The press is reputable. Furthermore, this source, even though it is RS, is not even necessary. Literally half the Chossudovsky page is about the conspiracy theories that Chossduvosky personally promotes or that his conspiracy website promotes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous sources in that article that amply justify the description of "conspiracy theorist". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen, just to confirm, conspiracy theorist is a derogatory term, see the lede of Conspiracy theory. WP:LABEL states that value laden labels (my underline) may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.^{Atsme📞📧} 14:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ryk72, the question isn't whether the source you give is sufficient. Even if it isn't, we can simply summarise what is in the body of the article, which is more than enough to use "conspiracy theorist" as a core description. Given the feedback already supplied here, I will reinstate it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claims in ledes don't need sources; ledes should summarise articles and the article itself should have sources, which this one does. That book is clearly RS - written by an academic, published by an academic press. Praeger is a predominantly academic press, now owned by Greenwood Publishing Group so it was almost certainly peer reviewed; the book has a reasonable number of scholarly citations and reviews in scholarly journals. And I'm sure it would be no problem to find and add numerous additional reliable sources backing up the term in the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is normally the case. However the WP:BLP has a separate requirement that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" - this applies to the lede as well for biographies of living people. No exceptions. In practice this means biographies generally follow the 'doesn't need an inline cite if its something uncontentious', but any contentious label gets an inline citation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To add to what Oid stated, it requires in-text attribution which I explained above, just below Cullen's comment. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So we should list all the people who have described him as a conspiracy theorist? That seems like an unattractive way of writing... I also think it matters that the article doesn't tell us there are people who dispute the idea that he is a conspiracy theorist. Why on earth is this in doubt?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We really need to get that policy clarified - this is exactly the same issue that came up in the recent rfc at Jared Taylor (where attributing it would make the article into a laundry list of "x, y, z, c, s, h, and w all describe this person as..."). Note that the consensus there was ultimately to use the label without attributing it. Probably something that needs case by case evaluation, but I don't think that policy should necessarily prohibit calling a spade a spade when very large numbers of RS agree that it is one. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, just pick your most RS, attribute the value laden label using inline text attribution and be done with it. You can add 1 or 2 other third party RS that support it. It's really very simple to do it correctly. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FALSEBALANCE - that creates the impression that it is the view of only one or two sources when in reality the view is widely held and the characterization treated as factual by RS. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. You dont need to overcite. The lede is still a summary of the body. If it has multiple cites in the body that describe him as a conspiracy theorist you just pick the strongest one for the inline in the lede to satisfy the BLP requirements. Its not creating any false balance as there are plenty in the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this reasonable line of policy and logic is what leads to the disconnect of such labels in the lede and body in a properly developed BLP article. Take a person such as this guy who clearly is regularly called a conspiracy theorist in sources. In the body of a proper BLP, we'd start with their early life, their career, and then likely move on to criticism of his views and opinions, at which point we could include the laundry list of sources that describe his as a conspiracy theorist, with appropriate inline attribution (even if it as simple "He is frequently considered a conspiracy theorist by the media", without having to name all names. This is all well as good. We would not include these claims earlier before introducing his career because narratively it would not make sense 99% of the time - someone usually becomes labeled as a theorist due to the path their career takes, not because they set off in life to become one. So in the body, we're in good shape, no issues.

But then suddenly, this approach completely changes for the lede, per arguments presented above. We suddenly focus on calling a spade a spade, rather than follow the same logical flow that the body developed (career path and then criticism/labeling). And while I would agree that as long as we have the body well sourced that we don't need the lede to be sourced, this suddenly "reordering" of importance, particularly when we're talking broadly-shared criticism rather than 100% factual data, is problematic and will make it harder for people seeking the citations for the "conspiracy theorist" claims to find them. Arguably, this is one of the ultimate forms of POV pushing, even if that POV equates to the near majority public opinion about someone. The court of public opinion is not a reliable source, effectively. I know I've argued many times on this before and I don't want to repeat myself, but when it is phrased in the context of how we need sources in the body and the ability to leave sources out of the lede, the issue takes on a new light that shows this as a serious BLP/POV problem. To stress: in cases like this, its not an issue of having the claims of things like "conspiracy theorist" in the lede (as long as sourced in body), just the fact that editors want to strive to push those aspects out as the first sentence rather than focusing on the 100% factual "who, what, and where" parts of a BIO that nearly all other biographical articles are written to. --MASEM (t) 20:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eloquent explanation, Masem. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @ OID, I'm not sure we're discussing the same thing here. I agree with what you wrote about needing citations above, my issue is with textual attribution (ie, a lede that says "BuzzFeed has called Joe a conspiracy theorist" when in reality 40 major newspapers and multiple academic works agree that he is a conspiracy theorist, and no or very few sources contest that). My point is that there's a point where that policy reaches a reductio ad absurdum that should really be fixed. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reading that (yes, very confusing) policy line, "in-text attribution" could just be "by multiple sources" or something like that. Volunteer Marek  06:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But honestly, even that isn't necessary. When something is the main reason someone's notable, and is described as such by so many sources, common sense argues against attribution. This appears to be a misapplication of the policy, along with a good bit of WP:WIKILAWYER thrown in. Volunteer Marek  06:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem extends from the fact that the person is notable for what other people think about them, which is not a factual element ("X is a conspiracy theorist" is a statement of opinion; "Most source think X is a conspiracy theorist" is a statement of fact). Nowhere else on WP do we start an article (BLP or otherwise) with a non-factual statement. In no case of a first sentence in a lede do we talk about how great certain past world leaders have been, how terrible and vile that dictators and warmongers in the past have been, how well a creative work has been taken, how poorly taken the worst movie flops have been, how successufl a business has been, etc - except on this slim subject area of BLP articles of people and entities linked to the alt/far-right of late. I can fully understand why it seems sensible from "common sense" that we should lede off with that - the bulk of the media talks poorly of these people, we should reflect that, etc. etc. but that's ignoring the situation of the media today where there is no separation of fact and opinion. WP:RECENTISM is very important to keep in mind here. We bury our heads to the problem when we say its okay to consider the court of public opinion as "factual" to put these opinions front and center before any other non-disputed factual elements have been laid out. As a non BLP example. take Ishtar (film). It's claim to fame is being one of the worst films ever made. Does the article lede off with that? No - it gets past the facts (type of film, when released, who starred, who made, what the development was) and then introduces this worst-film-ever element by the last part of the lede. Same with these BLPs. Get a few sentences past the non-controversial facts that is written in a disinterested and inpartial tone, and then you're in the clear to establish why that person is really notable, if those core facts are not the reason why. There is zero policy or guideline that requires the lede sentence to establish notability, only that the lede at some point needs to state the reason for notability. But pushing these types of opinions to the first sentence is pretty much a POV against BLP that only occurs in this subset of articles, and it is inexcusable for us being an impartial work as well as against core policy. --MASEM (t) 07:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is undermined to the extent that it's incorrect to say this is a new development, pertaining only to alt-right dudes. (Anyway, is Chossudovsky alt-right? Not that I'm aware of...) I doubt you'll be persuaded by other examples, but: David Irving. Surely you don't see a problem in that first sentence... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Masem's explanation again...there are key points in his explanation that are indisputable because they are unambiguously supported by policy. I will also note that the following 2 replies are suspect at best. It is an unusual pattern for new editors to jump right in at BLPN. Perhaps CU needs to investigate. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James McEnteer, in the highlighted excerpt from Shooting the Truth: The Rise of American Political Documentaries, appears to suggest that Michel Chossudovsky's view is correct. The term conspiracy theory implies falsity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotyacd (talk • contribs) 21:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC) The article is transparently biased even if its one-sided assertions are supported by equally biased though conventionally accepted sources. In fact, as evident from some of the very material presented in the article, Michel Chossudovsky is an accomplished member of the academy who has dedicated himself to the pursuit of knowledge which is suppressed in the academy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotyacd (talk • contribs) 22:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• “whom some consider to be a conspiracy theorist”. 221.121.135.92 (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, I think there's too much focus on where those descriptions enter the lead paragraph, but this isn't something unique to conspiracy theorists or the alt-right. Marshall Applewhite was a cult leader, Pygmalion is a melodrama, and Pinochet was a dictator. BLPs also generally don't begin by reciting the chronological career path of the subject - otherwise the entry for Richard Branson by describing him as a high school dropout. Nblund ^talk 00:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question is how describing him as a conspiracy theorist adds to the article. Readers can make up their own minds after they read the body of the article. I see no multitude of sources saying he is a conspiracy theorist 221.121.135.92 (talk) 06:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

People keep adding to Emmerson Mnangagwa's infobox that he is "President (designate)". As far as I can see we have no source saying this is the case - ZANU-PF sources have said they expect him to be made president on Friday, but an expectation doesn't seem to me to constitute a formal post that should be in an infobox. (Zimbabwe simply has the position as 'vacant'). I'm out of reverts, largely to IP editors, so thought I'd see if anyone else thought this was an issue. TSP (talk) 13:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moot now. fish&karate 14:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• May be moot but Wikipedia shouldn’t be used for crystal ball predictions 221.121.135.92 (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[10] — please chime in. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also [11]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed all the garbage and warned the editor doing it. fish&karate 08:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who has promptly put the names back again. Editor has now been given a final warning. fish&karate 11:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ritchie333 has informed me that by removing this BLP-related nonsense, I am now involved in a content dispute so cannot block the user. Please would another administrator keep an eye on this. fish&karate 11:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am keeping an eye on it. The problem is if you call another editor's edits "garbage", and "nonsense", it makes it difficult to take administrative action without the other party crying foul. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The user (User Drupadmalik) added it a third time ([12]). Someone else removed it, so that's fine, but he/she is just going to keep adding it, despite the warning on their talk page. I would appreciate someone else reviewing this, and I recommend a block. fish&karate 10:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As good as my word, blocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Trump and Hitler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Eyes welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 03:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that opus was created by User:Kingshowman. It should be G5ed.- MrX 04:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, user blocked. Acroterion (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, how about something like Nazi-references in politics? I think there´s some amount of at least primary sources. ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's not like Hitler - he's like Mussolini ([13], [14], [15]) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all, —PaleoNeonate – 11:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Eyes are needed at this article. There have been repeated deletions of text and poor sourcing in any version. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that he's WP:Notable. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At initial glance there's a lot of issues with sources which conflict with WP:BLPPRIMARY. Watchlisted, but will not have time to make any edits for at least a few hours. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Erika Guevara Rosas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This has in recent days become an extended resume/promo for the subject, with a mix of unsourced and poorly sourced content cultivated by a few [[WP:SPA]s. Needs a lot of attention, and perhaps a return to stub format. 2601:188:180:11F0:885A:A64B:EED6:3A14 (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which version below best meets WP policies based on the refs given? We are having an NPOV vs BLP dispute

1) Cheng often posts his views on socio-political issues in Singapore on Facebook, and is known for attracting controversy at times for his strong views^[1] and for cyberbullying a professor at National University of Singapore whose viewpoint he disagreed with.^[2]

2) Cheng often posts his views on socio-political issues in Singapore on Facebook, and is known for attracting controversy at times for his strong views^[1] and comments against viewpoints he disagreed with.^[2][3]

-- Jytdog (talk) 07:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC) (amended per suggestion away down below Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

• I'd say User:Mailer diablo's edit (2) is more wikipedia policy correct, tagging him as a cyberbully seems a bit undue. Thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 08:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• According to the talk page, the Independent ref is being debated. That assertion in version 1) is a rather strong one (because cyberbullying has a very particular meaning and connotation, especially in Singapore law), and it warrants a strong reliable source. I had difficulty finding additional sources in my research that will back that particular assertion (partly because mainstream media generally do not criticize establishment politicians, and I also find that a problem myself). But what I did manage to find are sources that will back the more general statement in version 2) above, and hence it is reworded so that even if the Independent ref was removed for whatever reason, the statement is still able to stand on its remaining source. I think the word "negative" may be added to the word before "comments against viewpoints...", but I'll leave it for the community to determine if it is suitable to do so. I am also open to any other alternatives as long as it complies with WP:BLP. - Mailer Diablo 10:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• His online conduct wrt Professor Ian Chong is clearly an act of cyberbullying.^[1] There is enough coverage of this from various news source and screenshots of his Facebook page to verify what he wrote.

-- Jane Dawson (talk) 10:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a reliable source which labels it as such? Even so, is such a loaded term necessary? fish&karate 10:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Also the independent is not the paper it used to be. It has taken a decided turn to the tabloid. I would go with 2 unless more sources can be found describing his actions as cyberbullying. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Quoting from The Online Citizen, "But with their silence, the likes of Calvin Cheng threaten to make the entire Media Literacy Council a farce. How exactly do they credibly conduct public education and advise the Government on the appropriate policy response for cyber wellness, if one of their former Council members is consistently known for threatening, bullying tactics online?". --BukitBintang8888 (talk) 11:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Another quote from a different article from the independent = It was earlier reported that MLC council member and former NMP, Calvin Cheng, had seemingly threatened and insulted an NUS prof, Dr Ian Chong, on Facebook .--BukitBintang8888 (talk) 11:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  So, a blog and the Independent again (and this time not using the term)? I think item 2, it means essentially the same thing and is less perjorative. fish&karate 12:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If cyberbullying is a criminal offence in Singapore and the subject has never been convicted, then it could be WP:Libel to label him as such. Description 2 for sure to err on side of caution 221.121.135.92 (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore law is irrelevant here in WP. Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I will note a few things to folks ringing in here: a) this article has a very long and ugly history of PROMO editing (trying to pump up his CV and remove/downplay negative content) including apparent sock/meatpuppetry, and b) Singapore has laws controlling public speech in several ways, including online public speech and the press, c) so the "authorized press" there is not exactly free or neutral; d) and User:Mailer diablo at least, has already said that they feel constrained by those laws: ... I've added the proposed changes. There are other personal comments he has made on Facebook that has attracted flak, but unfortunately I can't add any para-phrases due to Singapore law (they come from non-establishment sources) .....

So the discussion about the The Independent is somewhat constrained by that context. I will note that as far as I can tell The Independent has managed to retain its license in Singapore, even in that constrained environment.

Because folks are questioning "cyberbullying" on the basis of questioning the reliability of the Independent in Wikipedia for this statement, I have asked people at RSN to come here and comment on the reliability of The Independent for this statement in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither version really complies with the spirit of WP:BLP. We do not need to use more words than are really useful for our readers:

Cheng is known for posting his views on Singapore social and political issues on Facebook, and for commenting on the views of others.

covers the territory clearly, and can save a couple of paragraphs. And we do not need to expound on every "controversy" in detail either. Gosh, a short couple of sentences would be a lot more useful than the mishmash on the BLP currently. The BLP now is too long by half, with every "appointment" the person has ever had listed as though it were of international importance. Collect (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Collect thanks for weighing in. The article could very much use more eyes, especially ones not from Singapore. The deal with the online commenting thing, is that Cheng was actually on a board set up by the government of Singapore to promote online civility at the same time he was doing this stuff. One of those kinds of comments received significant coverage outside of Singapore (the "killing children of terrorists" thing") In the small world of Singapore with its approach to free speech and monitoring/control of public behavior, Cheng's online activity is not a small thing.

User:Jytdog The press release in 2012 seems to be wrong. The Media Literacy Council was set up to promote Media LITERACY not civility. See their own website currently https://www.medialiteracycouncil.sg/About-Us/Vision-and-Mission Nowhere is civility mentioned. 43.252.213.37 (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stunning effort to rewrite history. Jytdog (talk) 07:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jytdog Would not count that out! But that means the references have to be updated and ‘online civility’ is no longer accurate 43.252.213.40 (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was accurate during the time that Cheng was on the board, as the citations in the article make very, very clear. I will not respond further on this. Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the overall article, yes it is still very detailed but the detail is at least now not skewed puffery (the article looked like this at one point, under relentless promotional pressure. I would be interested to see how you would trim the article from where it stands now. Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy for more editors outside Singapore to come in and do the editing (or trimming/addition, whichever is the best outcome). We definitely can use a couple of fresh set of eyes here. - Mailer Diablo 01:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a quick Google news search. Only found a few local newspapers covering the “killing terrorist thing” from 2015 when police reports were made, and in 2016 when it was reported he was neither arrested nor charged. Definitely no “significant coverage outside of Singapore”. Would love to see some examples before commenting further. The international coverage is about Amos Yee, which I feel is taking up too much space on the article. 221.121.135.92 (talk) 04:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are correct that the world doesn't care much about Cheng. Really just The Star from neighboring Malaysia had an article on it, and another mentioning Cheng in the context of Yee being arrested after commenting on Cheng's post: (article. The Star has mentioned Cheng only a few times, so yes the "killing the children of terrorists' remark and its relationship with Yee deserves weight. Jytdog (talk) 05:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so there isn’t “significant coverage outside Singapore”. One article in 2015 in a neighbouring country. The second is about Amos Yee and doesn’t even mention the remarks outright. In that case, I agree with User:Collect. Condense the entire paragraph about the remarks into the description he suggested. Take out all the non-essential stuff. 221.121.135.92 (talk) 06:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to anything else he is done that is significant. Jytdog (talk) 06:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia is not really a disinterested "neighboring country." The Star (Malaysia) has a Singapore Bureau, and Singapore was a part of Malaysia for some years. Singapore is only about 50 sq. mi. in total area, and for The Star to ignore Singapore would be like France ignoring Monaco, roughly, or Italian papers not writing about Vatican City. It is not like Singapore is a really large area, really. It does not make the article of international significance. Collect (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the article would survive a deletion discussion....kind of borderline except for local coverage. Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I fail to see why there has to be anything at all following "his strong views...", but if I just had to choose which one follows policy better, then I would choose to follow it with 2)"and comments against viewpoints he disagreed with". Huggums537 (talk) 06:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is "known for his pro-establishment views" (ref from the South China Poat - the only thing they mention about him per this search)) The sources provided in the examples make it clear that he does the cyberbullying when people criticize PAP/the government. Jytdog (talk) 07:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think proving he is in fact guilty of cyberbullying is insufficient to justify not following the BLP policy that "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Just because it might be true doesn't mean that saying his Facebook posts are controversial isn't quite enough for the reader to determine further research is warranted in regard to his character/behavior. Wikipedia should probably avoid being the forum to make assessments about his character and/or behavior, especially since this enters dangerously close into the realm of influences and opinions. Your original post asked which edit follows policy better according to the sources provided, not which one is more true according to other sources found elsewhere. I responded correctly, I believe, to your original question. This idea that "We are having an NPOV vs BLP dispute" is a fundamentally flawed premise since BLP should almost automatically "take precedence" knowing that it is such a highly sensitive issue with possible legal ramifications much like copyright takes precedence for similar reasons. That being said, if you were to change the sources to exactly match what you are claimimg, (the specific mention of him bullying), then I would agree with you. Huggums537 (talk) 08:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If The Independent in Singapore can be persuaded to add the word "cyberbullying" to the original article, would it address the above concern? It can be arranged.118.189.8.225 (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I amended the options per the proposal by Huggums. Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this were any other article, then I would say maybe that would address the concern very well. However, since this is a BLP, and all indicators seem to point out that the subject of the article would not want these statements made about himself, then we should exclude them since WP:Blp states, "When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.", "When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic", "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced.", and "When in doubt about whether material in a BLP is appropriate, the article should be pared back to a policy-compliant version.. Huggums537 (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is known in public for expressing his views on Facebook, a continuation of his involvement in politics as a commentator (and attracting controversy for doing so). [This is found in ref 1 above]. It is important enough for inclusion in the lede as a general point and that itself should be relatively uncontroversial. - Mailer Diablo 05:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Jytdog, I commend you for your efforts since you are really bending over backwards to get the "truth" out there in a relatively NPOV way, but is it really necessary? Are these "cyberbullying" incidents among the things the subject is mostly notable for? Couldn't it be explained in terms not as less flattering as "cyberbullying"? Why such fierce opposition to not just use more laid back casual language? Huggums537 (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. What you wrote above about the subject not liking something, is not relevant in Wikipedia. We had advocates for Richard B. Spencer pounding Wikipedia all summer trying to get us to remove "white supremacist" from the article about him, because he says that he explicitly has said "I am not a white supremacist"; however many independent RS describe him that way. That is an extreme case but useful to illustrate the point. In this case it is very clear that Cheng has cyberbullied. He does that; the Independent quotes him doing that and describes what he is doing, not using that exact term, but we summarize sources, we don't quote them. There are lots of Singapore-based blogs that go into more detail on this but I am not citing them, since we don't use blogs for BLPs. The ...constrained nature of the press in Singapore, and Cheng's location in alignment with the powers that be, makes this a bit more difficult than it would be usually. But the correct answer is pretty clear here, at least as long as the article remains as detailed as it is. Jytdog (talk) 03:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I can agree he's notable enough for attracting controversy, but can't we summarize sources just as effectively without using the "C-word" in order to be on the safer side of BLP? Huggums537 (talk) 07:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on Siegfried Borchardt. He's a German neo-Nazi. The article started off as a translation from the German Wikipedia. The translation was rather literal and had German grammar constructs, so I've copy-edited it to try to make it read better in English. However, I'd appreciate more eyes on it, particularly from anyone who can read German and can check the current article against the original, or is familiar with the German political scene, as I won't have picked up on any factual inaccuracies as I don't speak German.

Also, I'm not sure whether he's actually notable enough for an article as seems to have only been involved in local politics, so views on this would be appreciated too! Neiltonks (talk) 13:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources don’t seem to be major. Don’t read German so can’t know for sure. Suggest list for deletion 221.121.135.92 (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vilayanur S. Ramachandran Since Nov 12 NeuroWIKI99 has made a series of edits in which he/she has used the edit summary to make personal attacks against Neurorel. Note that NeuroWIKI99 is attempting to add information about Neurorel in the edit summaries. These are the only contributions NeuroWIKI99 has made.Here is the most recent example:

• 18:41, 22 November 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-405)‎ . . Vilayanur S. Ramachandran ‎ (→‎Testimony at the Lisa Montgomery trial: NeuroEL (AG) - why all the efforts to discredit and portray VS Ramachandran in a negative light. You do it on multiple WIKI sites. You're not balanced in your edits, your intentions are questionable!)

Neurorel (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Neurorel: This is not really a BLP issue, it's a behavioral issue. If you want to report NeuroWIKI99 this can be done at WP:ANI but I don't think you will get anywhere with that, it is a pretty garden variety disagreement over content with allegations of bias. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get more eyes on this? This article has been plagued with single purpose accounts and socks who either add unsourced content, ([16]) whitewash reliably sourced claims they don't like, ([17], [18]) or swap out sources for self-published content like IMDB because the broadsheet source said something negative? ([19]) It's like pushing a rock up a hill. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Might need to either semi-protect it, or if the main SPA(s) is the problem, 500/30 protect it. Either way, they could place edit requests on Talk, so that shouldn't be a problem. Softlavender (talk) 11:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, trying to push through improvements in the face of sockpuppet and SPA opposition is a Sisyphean task. IMO, when there is evidence that socks and SPAs are involved in disruptive editing, the response should be immediate and indefinite extended confirmed protection, along with indefinite blocks for the offenders. Half-measures like short-term semi-protection may be effective against vandals, but socks and SPAs operate on a much longer time-scale. It's imperative to make it as hard as possible for the hydra to sprout new heads. If the reason you want more eyes is to build consensus for that WP:BLUELOCK, I've seen enough already; I'm with you.

—Syrenka V (talk) 11:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Nandini Sree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I just began cleanup of this article for the Article Rescue Squadron (ARS), and created its ARS rescue list entry. In the process of converting its references from bare URLs to full list-defined references, I found that all three of the English-language sources (I do not read Malayalam) refer to Nandini Nair, rather than Nandini Sree. I'm wondering if this article could be a hoax (or a confusion), attributing information about one individual to another individual. Alternatively, it could be a matter of two names for the same person, but so far I have been unable to verify that. If it is a hoax, probably the best solution would be to move the page to Nandini Nair, the person named in the sources, in a way that does not leave a redirect from Nandini Sree.

I first became aware of this article while doing proposed deletion patrolling, and I had never heard of either Nandini Sree or Nandini Nair before. If these two people are the same, I would really appreciate a link to a source explaining that; I have been unable to find any such.

—Syrenka V (talk) 10:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]