Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:19, 14 December 2022

• WP:BLPN
• WP:BLP/N
• WP:BLPNB
• WP:BLP/NB

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

Additional notes:

• Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
• For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
• Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation

Patrick Shyu

https://en.wikipedia.org/Patrick_Shyu Patrick Shyu

The article doxxes a YouTuber "TechLead," who is a fictional satirical YouTuber persona, not to be confused with the individual. The article is primarily a negative hit piece. The YouTuber "TechLead" is a fictional character who makes exaagerated claims based not on fact to gain attention. It is libel to take unbased claims from a fictional character and to then attribute them to a doxxed individual. Misplaced Pages should leave YouTuber drama to YouTube, rather than assuming everything they see on social media is real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techleadhd (talk • contribs)

• There is no "doxxing" since reliable sources already identify this character by his real name. I see this article is now at AfD, so may be deleted. As a general observation, it's amazing how many times people complain when called out on their unpleasant behaviour, though. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
• Patrick Shyu identifies himself as TechLead on his personal websites offering training courses: . Note that the bio on each page links to the YouTube channel in question without mentioning anything about satire, and the YouTube page links to Shyu's business pages without any mention of satire either. I don't think the "fictional character" explanation holds weight, personally. White 720 (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

  Clickbait videos on YouTube should not be presumed to be fact, especially when published under a pseudonym. I think Misplaced Pages should draw a line here, instead of publishing articles based on clickbait. "TechLead" is a fictional character who intentionally presents controversial viewpoints for attention & discussion - not to be confused with any individual person. Also, the article seems to only cherrypick negative points - I don't see the purpose of this, as it is clearly not biographical or unbiased in nature, but rather serves as a hitpiece to defame/harm a YouTuber's real name & reputation. YouTubers have a lot of haters by the nature of the industry, but Misplaced Pages should leave YouTuber drama to YouTube. When there are real factual news publications (such as Reuters, AP, Bloomberg, etc.,) and not gossip publications (like Business Insider) that publish fact-checked articles about a YouTuber, then a non-biased biographical entry may be merited that properly summarizes both the pros & cons of an individual. It's stunning that even though the YouTuber "TechLead" amassed popularity to over 1 million subscribers by delivering value, the Misplaced Pages entry is almost entirely negative remarks on a 2-3 controversial videos out of the 300+ videos he made - obviously written by haters in an attempt to cause personal harm & harassment. Techleadhd (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

  Then he should discuss that with youtube, we can't ignore the information cause he doesn't like it. Are you the individual? You were also asked at the AfD discussion if you have some relation to the subject of the article, given the similar user name.That is a conflict of interest if you are. Oaktree b (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Techleadhd stated on his user talk page that he is associated with the content creator. Exactly how wasn't divulged. But a clear COI. Liz 07:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

To be transparent, I am the person in question and am raising the concern that this article destroys my chances of job employment & future prospects. The YouTube channel is published under a pseudonym as a fictitious persona. This is done in order to disassociate the satire, attention-grabbing clickbait, and controversial topics that I sometimes challenge myself to approach on YouTube from my real identity. I think it would be more accurate to publish this post under the pseudonym "TechLead," rather than attributing a fictional persona with my real name. At the minimum, it should be clarified that this is just an on-stage character and his words do not necessarily reflect my own personal beliefs. I don't believe it is a conflict of interest to correct the misconception that a YouTuber character = real person. This is obvious for anyone who has ever met a YouTuber, as they're quite different people in real life and often "normal" and pretty nice people. I'm astonished to see someone who didn't get the satire (which is understandable as it can be subtle) but to then publish a Misplaced Pages article about that under my real name. Techleadhd (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

If this is so concerning for you, why do you make it clear that Techlead and Shyu are the same person on various webpages, e.g. here? I am thinking we are dealing with a troll here. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The page you're referring to is a training program, where I break out of character and refer to myself by my real name. The content is also entirely different and educational, compared to the satire & clickbait on YouTube. It is like saying "Heath Ledger is 'The Joker' and in this program will teach you how to become an actor." Let me summarize my points:

• There is a difference between author and fictional character. Most YouTube videos are authored & acted by the same person due to budget constraints. I play the fictional character "TechLead," acting as a highly exaggerated version of myself, hence the pseudonym. On rare occasion, I will break out of character but it is simply inaccurate to think that these 2 are the same people, and to claim for example that "Heath Ledger said he wanted to bomb a hospital." TechLead is a show about a stereotypical arrogant "tech bro" character, where every line is scripted. It is subtle like a reality show but generally fictional in nature.
• Misplaced Pages should leave YouTuber drama to YouTube. The defamatory claims against 'TechLead' are often made by other clout-chasing YouTubers who will say anything to gain views. It is a world of clickbait. Under the clause of "non-notable person," the article should be removed because most YouTubers are really not notable and only relevant for their 15 minutes of fame.
• The article breaks NPOV (non-biased point of view) clause. It is obviously written by a few "haters" in negative light. This is clear because the article constantly refers to 'Patrick Shyu,' rather than 'TechLead' in an effort to defame. If the article were trying to be useful & informative, it would be titled under the more commonly recognized YouTube channel "TechLead." Further, the article is nearly purely negative yet the channel clearly has demonstrated popularity with over 1 million subscribers. It cherrypicks a few unbased allegations made by other YouTubers & gossip, but with no real factual sources. The article is clearly non-neutral and serves no other purpose than to harass & defame.

YouTubers are pretty nice & kind people in real life, not over-the-top characters as portrayed on-camera. They typically don't respond to 'hate' because haters are part of the industry. I believe a line is crossed when that hate shows up on Misplaced Pages and breaks the fictional character reaching into real identities, as that can cause reputational harm. Techleadhd (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, "reputational harm" does tend to occur if you post multiple misogynistic comments on Twitter for the whole world to read. Who knew? Black Kite (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

To provide context, the tweets were deleted and apologized for. The Misplaced Pages article never mentions this. The original intent of the tweet was that "women should not be programmers," but this was misinterpreted to think that women were the problem, rather than the programming industry being the problem. In reality, it was a "clickbaity" way to support women by drawing attention to how hostile the programming industry is towards mothers (and fathers too). A reworded tweet "the programming industry doesn't do enough for mothers" wouldn't have gained as much attention. The fictional character name is used for such controversial remarks (and oftentimes with exaagerated prose) to start a discussion, though I would never even approach such a topic under my real name. Historically, authors would often pose controversial ideas expressed through fictional characters, and through that achieve positive change in society. Therefore in reality I actually heavily support women in tech, although this viewpoint is narratively reversed in the "TechLead" character to make a point about how tech does not support mothers enough. Politics aside, I believe Misplaced Pages to not be the platform to memorialize clickbait. Techleadhd (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

It's clear that your tweets about women in tech were deleted, but not as clear that you apologized for them. (To the contrary, this news article says that you pushed back against your critics, telling them to "get into Google first" before calling you sexist.) Do you have a self-published or reliable third-party source that contains your apology? Also, is your Twitter account written by you, or is it by the supposed fictional character "TechLead"? White 720 (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

On a general level, I don't believe Misplaced Pages should be the platform on which to debate YouTubers on the validity of clickbait, and to demand for clickbait to be explained to them or suffer the repercussions of having it associated with their doxxed real names. Obviously, even Misplaced Pages editors use pseudonyms and understandably many people separate identities online. The Twitter account for TechLead is also made as such, and it should be clear that in many cases it isn't even always a single person behind an account or the script of a video. Many YouTubers use ghost-writers who help with scripts. TechLead is a fictional character operated under an LLC - an exaagerated character made to gain views. While many do not realize, YouTube is more of a business entity and not an individual.

Now regarding your question specifically, that article is from Business Insider, which is not the most reputable reporting. They are also in it for views. If you're seeking another apology, I am happy to issue an official one right here on behalf of the character "TechLead is sorry and retracts all statements." The "get into Google first" phrase was subtle satire, perhaps a poorly made joke whose tone could not be understood through text alone, but it was sarcasm. Twitter is not the most expressive platform. In either case, whether you accept the apology or not on an individual level, I believe Misplaced Pages should (a) not associate YouTuber characters with real identities and (b) should not be the place to debate whether clickbait is real or not, instead relying on harder facts. Techleadhd (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

"To provide context, the tweets were deleted and apologized for," you said. I asked where your apology was, and you offered a retraction without any indication about what you were sorry for, other than for "all statements". Considering that the TechLead character (which I associate with you, whether you like it or not) posted a video last month called "why Kanye West is right", which has been condemned for its antisemitic material and suggestion that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion might be real, I'm not really ready to accept a generic apology offered in a Misplaced Pages thread. White 720 (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the "Kanye West is right" video, it was actually an attempt to dispel anti-Semitism by exploring extremist beliefs more deeply rather than simply casting them aside. Why do they believe what they do, and how can we address those at the source? The original working title was a less juicy "Is Kanye West right?" but that wouldn't have gotten views. The video was later removed in any case. I occasionally challenge myself to tackle controversial topics - not all of them come out well but occasionally some do. The material is published under a fictional character, often in an outlandish tone of voice. While you may believe that the content is anti-Semitical (from the clickbaity title), it is actually the opposite in intent. Some of the material simply presents a counterpoint for perspective, and may not reflect my own personal beliefs. I'm not sure if it makes sense for me to sit here and explain each video and the satire underneath... happy to do so if you want though.

Your statement above seems to indicate a non-neutral point of view, as you harbor negative opinions for TechLead and are using Misplaced Pages as a way to punish by misattributing the fictional character's statements to a real person. Your refusal to accept an apology indicates you rather believe what you want (ie., that TechLead is a horrible person), even though he has clarified these statements. On that note, the other points in the article are mistaken too. For instance, the AlgoPro episode was amicably settled privately and much more complex (only one side was ever told). The Tren Black criticism on the online course was mostly made up, as he never even enrolled in the course. Many points in the article are simply untrue or lack full context. Most YouTubers generally don't respond to haters, who are usually chasing clout.

My suggestion would be if you have an issue with the character, to make a few videos on YouTube criticizing the character 'TechLead.' Doing this on Misplaced Pages and attacking the doxxed name seems an inappropriate use of the platform. Techleadhd (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Casting aspersions on an editor's behavior, such as by stating without evidence that I "harbor negative opinions for TechLead", is discouraged by Misplaced Pages policy. If you would like to include additional information in the article about you, and a conflict of interest would interfere with that, please suggest revisions and sources on the article's talk page. White 720 (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Why are are you discussing a clickbait headline "Kanye West is right"? Right in which regard? This is insane.

I'm not sure if I get this right. But I don't hope that you are defaming him on the basis of headlines.

(Michael OO Viera is my identity) 130.225.188.128 (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. The page is outrageous.

@Tristario has also expressed grounds for removal, given the contentious nature and weak claims, and I would appreciate if we can have this page removed. Techleadhd (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I understand that it would be frustrating dealing with a page describing you on wikipedia which you think is problematic, but it is probably better to avoid using words like "outrageous" in order to keep the discussion civil.

As it is the discussion for deletion was closed as a consensus to keep. In my view, I think the article should have been deleted, but since that discussion has been closed the article will have to stay for now. Perhaps after about six months, (the recommended time to wait) I can try renominating the article for deletion, and it can be seen if the community comes to a different consensus.

I'll have a look at the article more thoroughly (sometime soon) and see if I think the sourcing is good enough for the more contentious parts. Besides that, if you can provide a self-published source (a blog post, video, tweet etc.) perhaps apologising or giving clarity to these things (per WP:BLP if a subject has denied something that should be included in the article, and it can be a self published source) that could also be included in the article Tristario (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your attention. I'm not sure why the discussion for deletion was closed, but in my view the author is one of my YouTube critics who wouldn't let the issue rest. You can find a video with context on this Misplaced Pages article here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQQT6r0qQIg. I have noted my view that this is defamation and that the doxxing/attribution of my name with a fictitious online persona damges my reputation & chances of employment. Techleadhd (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll have a look at that video soon. I would strongly discourage you from making aspersions about wikpedia editors like that though per WP:ASPERSIONS (ultimately their motivations for making the article are irrelevant, anyway, the question is whether it complies with wikipedia policy). Tristario (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, deletion discussions are usually closed after about seven days, which is why it was closed Tristario (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

No problem!

The worst part of your thread and some other threads here is that some of the users

completely fail to take a conservative approach.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

"Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy."

They actively defend what is written in any regard. I understand that ... if it isn't about

the entire reputation of a person. But when a person's entire reputation is at stake, including carriere, etc. - you gotta be very, very careful. You just can't find the slightest amount of humbleness or conservativeness in their approach in some of these cases. 130.225.188.128 (talk) 05:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The sourcing for those tweets isn't very strong, Business Insider isn't always a great source, and on the reliable sources noticeboard here there are some mixed views on The Quint, with some suggestion that it shouldn't be used for notability. Some of the other sources in that article also seem of questionable reliability, such as Candor and Reclaim the Net.

So I think given the contentiousness of the claims and the weak sourcing, there do seem to be grounds for removing some or all of this content from the article Tristario (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I've had a very hard time following what this discussion is all about. It starts out talking about doxxing the subject and his pseudonym, yet that makes no sense since nearly every source makes it clear that the two are the same person. The subject doesn't seem to have gone to any great lengths to hide it, and in fact seems to have made it as obvious as possible. Then there is a lot (and I mean a lot) of talk about how the pseudonym is simply a fictional character, yet that sounds a little after the fact given that none of the sources make that distinction, and normally they would. (And if I read the word "clickbait" one more time my eyes are going to glaze back over and I may just turn to stone. We get it already.)

I've read the sources about the tweets, and those look like well-written news articles. Not op/ed pieces or tabloidish in any way. It appears they've done their research. Given the number of sources, I have a hard time foreseeing this getting through AFD. (Personally, I think we need much higher standards, but there are many who think every article should be saved as if it were a drowning puppy, and they like to hang out at AFD) All in all, though, I find this whole thread to be confusing and I'm not sure just what the complaints are. If you are the subject and think you're being treated unfairly or misrepresented in the media, why not simply contact them and try to set the record straight. I'm sure they'd be happy to give you an interview. Since we go by what the sources say, that's the best way to effect change in your Misplaced Pages article. That's what any good PR rep would tell you. Zaereth (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. To clarify, while it's not exactly a secret who the actor for "TechLead" is, the actor & character are really different people. "TechLead" (the YouTube character) is portrayed as an exaagerated persona with extreme/controversial beliefs made for YouTube. This is not the same as the real-life actor "Patrick Shyu," who may not even share the exact same beliefs. I believe the Misplaced Pages article, should at minimum, be titled as "TechLead (YouTuber)" rather than under my personal name. My personal name is also never referred to in the YouTube videos, because I am "in character" on there.

As for engaging with the Misplaced Pages writer, I'm happy to have a conversation (my contact information is online easily) and await any correspondence. Our deletion discussion seems to have led to a standstill, and so some moderation may be appropriate. Techleadhd (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome, but I don't think you're quite picking up what I'm putting down. Nearly every source, from the first NBC article to the last, use your real name and Tech Lead as the name of your youtube channel. We have to summarize what the sources say, so we can't just turn around and make this novel interpretation that Tech Lead is now some fictional character. We need to find that information in reliable sources. If you're the subject of the article, then you and you alone have the power to influence how you are portrayed in those sources, or to set the record straight with them. If I were you, I'd contact Business Insider, Candor, NBC, or whoever, and see if they would like to get your side of the story. I'm betting they would. You can also use your youtube channel to help, such as putting in a disclaimer or talking about it in one of your videos, because it's apparently not clear to people watching them. That in turn may be picked up by reliable sources. Having a conversation with a Wikipedian would not help, because that would be original research at best, and as a tertiary source we just don't do that. We're bound by what the secondary sources say. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 04:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

So to respond, for about 90% of the videos, I'm in-character. It's a running joke and my longtime viewers know it's all subtle satire comedy, and I'm not really like that in real life. As others in this thread have noted, the sources here are not really reputable... Business Insider or Candor publish a lot of gossip, and they confused "TechLead" for a real person. A lot of these journalists can't tell the difference. I think the Misplaced Pages page is also fairly negative (non-neutral) and in that sense an inaccurate portrayal. To me, it's obvious that this is trying to harm reputation because the article is published under my real name rather than the more commonly recognized "TechLead (YouTuber)" title.

I should clarify here that I'm just a normal individual programmer who started a YouTube channel. I'm just one person, don't have a PR rep. I was surprised to find someone writing my biography on here, apparently misthinking that this "character" I created is now myself! When most people meet me in real life, they always say "wow you're much less crazy than I thought you'd be." Well yeah, because I'm usually "in character" on YouTube. It's all been for fun, sad to see this article now impact my employment chances and tarnish my name. Techleadhd (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The YouTube video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQQT6r0qQIg&t=473s clarifies this distinction between character & actor, from the source. Techleadhd (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I cited your video to note that you identify your posts as satirical. I don't hate you and I have no intention of harming your reputation; to the contrary, your success as a media personality makes you notable enough to merit an article, in my opinion (and in the consensus of other editors, at Articles for Deletion). If you'd like to continue this conversation, we can do so using this site's community features. If you believe that there is libelous content in the article about you, see the instructions in WP:LIBEL. White 720 (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Let me address the article.

• The page should be titled "TechLead (YouTuber)". For most YouTubers like Pewdiepie, their stagename is used in their Misplaced Pages. It is more precise to say "TechLead is acted by Patrick Shyu," rather than to say "Patrick Shyu, also known as TechLead." The reason is because TechLead is just a very, very small part of my identity - it captures about 1% of my life actually, since YouTube is something I do for fun. For this reason, I think it's simply erroneous to title this page under my name since this persona does not capture me as a person, nor is it representative. TechLead's views are satirical & controversial by design, this should be clarified to avoid libelous claims.
• My salary at Facebook should be confidential information. While the numbers may have been referenced in a video on occasion, those are not exact figures and I think it just looks distasteful to keep re-mentioning it.
• I'm not actually negative about Facebook's working culture, in fact I praise it a lot in many other videos. Some videos are negative on Facebook, some videos praise them. At a time when being negative about Facebook was gaining a lot of media attention, it made more sense to play that angle. Overall, Facebook is a great place to work.
• Obviously I disagree that Million Token would be a "pump-and-dump," as explained in other videos, it is technically impossible to "dump" into one's own liquidity, which is the case at the launch of a token. Actually, much of the token was later generously given for free back into the community. And while liquidity was removed, plenty was added as well and in fact in UniswapV3, liquidity must be repositioned (it is only static in V2 typically), there's no other way to do it in V3.
• AlgoPro/AlgoExpert should preferably not be mentioned, as both parties settled privately and agreed on a non-disparagement clause. It's a done case. While the way this article is phrased makes me look bad, the case has been settled to all party's satisfaction. Leaving out that resolution just makes it sound negative.
• The "women in tech" tweet was satirical rage-baiting done "in-character" and the tweets deleted - this should be clarified ideally, I tweeted under the character name. Further, the article lacks significant context because my point was to actually gain attention to support mothers in tech, having witnessed a mother at Facebook quit her job because Facebook did not allow her maternity benefits. I saw her dreams shattered and so heavily support women in tech. The tweets were retracted in any case since people didn't understand.
• The "Diversity is garbage" videos did not oppose diversity, but rather supports diversity on axis beyond just race & gender.
• The "Black Lives Matter" videos were removed and retracted, but it's relevant to note that later the BLM movement was discredited for buying mansions.
• I did not threaten to doxx Tren Black, I simply knew his identity. The rest of the drama occurred between the other parties.
• Lastly, this article should at least mention the hundreds of positive life-changing videos in my opinion. This is why I find the entire page non-representative, since it seems to ignore all the highlights. My opinion is that TechLead is a positive influence on society, if you can understand the character and dig beyond just face-value. If you take him at face-value, you'll have a negative view. He's also not me.

Techleadhd (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll request that the page be moved to TechLead (currently a redirect) since there are no other pages with this name. I can make other edits in response to your changes. It would help if you could publish information independently, or work with press outlets to do this, as over-reliance on self-published sources is not generally accepted on Misplaced Pages, particularly for self-serving claims (my attempt to cite your own YouTube video was reverted for this reason). White 720 (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your conceding to move the page.

As for the accuracy of information, this is why I have suggested to simply leave "youtuber drama" to youtube, simply because it's all just drama & gossip ("pewdiepie said X, but he really meant Y, and then he said Z, then made a follow-up video saying W." There aren't hard facts because imo, it's just not really newsworthy hence why I think there's a case for the entire page to just be removed. The speculative criticism is a catalog of unbased allegations from viewers, for which the YouTuber never got a chance to respond. Techleadhd (talk) 06:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I want to add that I believe the article, as is, is of non-neutral POV and non-conservative - both of which are necessary for biographies of living people. In my view, a neutral article would capture the top 10 (or top 20) most popular videos and summarize them. You can easily find the list on TechLead's YouTube page, but his most popular video includes lessons on how to code, passive income, or stories on dealing with a fictional ex-wife (loosely based on real life). For any criticism, it would make sense to also sort any reaction videos by popularity. From my perspective, the Misplaced Pages author has cherrypicked a few minor points of criticism and made an entire Misplaced Pages biography based on that. It's non-representative of who the character is. I understand that while some Tweets or videos may have gotten a few thousand views, that is not exactly newsworthy nor necessarily should every piece of criticism be engraved on a Misplaced Pages biography. People have varying views of YouTubers (and the truth is even I myself quite dislike the arrogance of this character "TechLead"), but he is quite popular as well and imo the reasons for this popularity should be the bulk of the article, rather than an entire page of what is seemingly criticism. Techleadhd (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

There is an RFC on the proposed page move. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Sam Brinton - only arrested but that's been put in the article under the section heading "Criminal history"

Doug Weller talk 16:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I've changed the heading title to "legal issues", no opinion on the content. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this incident should be in the lead section but I also have no clue on the depth of coverage on this person outside this incident. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

"Deputy Assistant Secretary of Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition in the Office of Nuclear Energy" does not seem like the sort of position that normally makes a person notable, nor do criminal charges of stealing a suitcase. Cullen328 (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I beg to differ. This person is paid by the American public to protect the integrity of nuclear-related matters. I have no tolerance for any attempt to downplay that someone seems to have been put in an extremely important role that has the potential to put your and my life in danger if done incompetently and is apparently a serial luggage thief, indicative of deep-seated issues and of being unfit for the role. This person was notable enough for a Misplaced Pages page from long before the controversy, obviously in some part due to their identity. It's not like this incident is going to lessen their notability, so I don't really agree with your point, at all. 2600:1012:B02E:D11D:A9D1:DDEC:D707:D404 (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The role is highly notable as it is a Senior Executive Service position in the U.S. government, i.e. in the "class of federal career officials who rank just below top presidential appointees in seniority".--FeralOink (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The sourcing for this isn't very good, this seems to be largely covered by unreliable and right wing non-mainstream publications. I just removed some other poorly sourced content from this article, which should not have been in there Tristario (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I have now replaced the sources for this with more reliable sources Tristario (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

No, the position wouldn't pass WP:NPOL (and Brinton's a career civil servant rather than a political appointee, so NPOL is dubious grounds here anyway). But, the individual appears to also be a high-profile figure who's been given significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events. The article subject seems notable to me, though the article generally could be expanded if someone wants to put in the work. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The revised heading title of "Legal issues" looks good to me. I concur with Hemiauchenia's rephrasing and recommend that it remain like that until there is a reason to change it. I am aware of the second felony charge and of a warrant issued for arrest but we uphold the concept of innocent until proven guilty in the U.S., which is the locale for these events.--FeralOink (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Michael Brescia and Andreas Strassmeir

The Misplaced Pages bios of two apparently still living persons highlight allegations of their involvement in a terrorist attack for which they have never been criminally charged. While the Aryan Republican Army does have some notoriety even apart from this, Michael Brescia and Andreas Strassmeir almost certainly would not have individual articles if not for this aspect of it. The Michael Brescia article has existed since 2006, and this seems never to have been raised. DefThree (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I thought this would get more of a response by now. I don't know whether these individuals count as public figures, but either way, they were never even charged let alone convicted in connection with the bombing. Per WP:BLPCRIME, is it really OK for Misplaced Pages to highlight such allegations? DefThree (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:CRIME it looks like these articles should be merged into Oklahoma City Bombing, although I notice their names aren't even mentioned on the page of the main event (which makes it seem even more questionable that they should have their own dedicated pages). I haven't looked at it much but I agree these articles seem questionable Tristario (talk) 05:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd actually be inclined to merge Brescia to Aryan Republican Army, where he is discussed. It's not clear whether there's anywhere to merge Strassmeier, but I've deleted the section in his article on the OKC bombing as incredibly tenuous scandalmongering Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd agree with that merging. I'm not sure what to do with Andreas Strassmeir, he does seem to have some notability, but it's almost entirely in connection with the Oklahoma City Bombing (and his connection and involvement in it seems speculative). I'd probably be inclined to support deleting it per WP:CRIME unless anyone has any other thoughts Tristario (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hunter Biden laptop controversy

The article begins with the unsourced sentence: "The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves a laptop computer that belonged to Hunter Biden". We need a source for this claim, so our readers can check our work, but a search hasn't yet produced a good one.

We of course have lots of sources that literally use the phrase "Hunter Biden's laptop" or similar verbiage, but none that feature an unabiguous, straightforward assertion the laptop is known to belong to Biden. In contrast, we do have sources saying the laptop lacks a clear chain of custody and it remains a possibility that the laptop was a copy, not a device owned by Biden.

CBS News recently released a major story in which it characterized the device as "what's believed to be Hunter Biden's laptop". I have one source that says "almost no one disputes" authenticity, which is pretty damn close to meeting WP:V, but not close enough.

Can someone find a good source that verifies the currently-unsourced sentence? Alternatively, what would be the most appropriate way to fix the first sentence so that it's Verifiable? Feoffer (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The easy fix would be to say "involves a laptop computer that purportedly belonged to Hunter Biden." which clearly follows all sources. Masem (t) 04:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

"...purportedly..." kinda reads like "alleged", though. GoodDay (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I read through the RFC, and the whole problem is that editors appeared to be talking WP P&G as "word of God". Yes, in many situations we don't want to cast doubt on fact by our novel inclusion of "alleged", "purported" or whatever, but when the sources themselves are the ones to do that (and we should be looking at those that are more recent than around the time of the original NYPost story), we are not creating the issue. But that RFC seemed to be "won over" by the insistence that "alleged" is a Bad Word we should not be using, rather than actual consideration of the sources. Masem (t) 13:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The closer stated "editors opposing the adjective produced a plethora of recent RS that did not doubt the connection," sources like this Guardian piece which includes this The existence of emails about getting Buckley Carlson into Georgetown has been known for some time, thanks to a laptop once owned by Hunter Biden that was obtained by Donald Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and pushed to media in 2020. There is no doubt those emails between Carlson and Biden exist. There are several other sources presented in the RFC that very simply call it "Biden's laptop." Nobody used BLP as a justification for any !vote in the RFC. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

But that it was Hunter's laptop -- based on the sources I saw -- was not a universally held idea. Just like we would not promote a new scientific theory as fact in Wikivoice if that theory doesn't have clear universal agreement in core RSes, we should not be doing the same with matters involving a BLP (we need to be even more careful and take the middle-ground route). Masem (t) 13:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Ernie, you've made this argument a number of times on talk pages and now here. RS say that some of the emails have been verified, per experts they retained. Neither RS nor WP editors currently dispute this. Do you deny that these emails could have been copied onto the device that the appeared at the repair shop? Do you understand that other, counterfeit emails could have been added to such a device and are among the 100,000+ files that have not been verified? Do you disagree that no information contained within the files has verified the ownership of the device itself, or that all the files could have been copied onto a device that was never owned by Biden? Those are the open questions among sources and WP editors who disagree about attributing ownership of the device to Biden. I'm asking this because arguments that conflate ownership of the device with authentication of a small subset of the hard drive files are not consistent with any RS narratives of the matter. The discussions over the past several months have concerned what we say about the device, not whether some of the files were accurate. SPECIFICO talk 14:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

We go by what RS says. You're free to speculate all you want, just not in article space. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I was asking whether you disagree with the fact that verification of some of the files do not support a conclusion about the device. SPECIFICO talk 15:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

No I don't disagree with that. I think this paragraph in this Vox piece best describes my thinking on the issue - Some commentators did go too far in asserting that this was part of a Russian plot, when the evidence hasn’t emerged to back that up. The Biden campaign similarly sought to cast doubt on the story by alluding that it could be Russian misinformation — when the underlying emails appear to be authentic. But in general, major journalism outlets did try to assess whether there was genuine news there. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

An RFC on this matter was closed in September 2022, with the decision being that the laptop was owned by H. Biden. A challenge to the decision was made at WP:AN & was turned down. Are we going to respect the RFC decision or not? GoodDay (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

As I pointed out, the RFC was a non-admin closure. I didn't realize because they didn't disclose with {{Non-admin closure}}. The list of "inappropriate closures" includes The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial, which this clearly is. Just on that, yes, we need to discuss this again. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps another challenge of the RFC decision (at WP:AN), would save time. Otherwise, the dispute between editors will be non-stop. GoodDay (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Muboshgu The WP:NAC was noted and a much-discussed point in the subsequent request for close review at ANI. After extensive review from all sorts of admins and experienced editors, the close result of that discussion was that the close of this RFC was not bad enough to warrant overturning. Even if the RFC was not decisive, the subsequent discussions should still have weight.

If new editors bring in new opinions, or significant new sourcing shows up, I think a new RFC may be appropriate. But that doesn't really seem to be the case at current. I think the best course of action is to find some compromise phrasing that doesn't directly violate the spirit of the RFC PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that it was brought up in the ANI. I clearly didn't read the whole thing. Nevermind that then. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay, please, stop misrepresenting the RfC, which was singularly, explicitly, and exclusively about whether to use the word "alleged" in the first sentence of the lead. SPECIFICO talk 04:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Open up a new one, then. An RFC that will put an end to the continuing dispute over whether or not H. Biden ever owned the laptop-in-question. Then request that only an administrator can close it. PS - Year ago, I did recommend that only administrators should close RFCs. GoodDay (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion about the lead on the talk page, with some proposals. Hopefully some previously uninvolved editors can join us there and offer input. Namely I've proposed a new first sentence that would avoid any controversy regarding the current wording. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The new lede sentence resolves all of my concerns. Great job! Feoffer (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Having lost an RfC, this is forum-shopping.

When reliable sources reported the story in the New York Post, they reported all the information as an allegation. However, as the story went forward, reliable sources began referring to the laptop as Hunter Biden's.

We had an RfC where it was agreed that we should not use the term alleged because it expressed doubt Having lost the RfC, an editor who voted in favor of "alleged" decided to use a synonym for alleged.

While the RfC was a non-administrative close, there's no policy that says an administrative close is any more authoritative. The correct approach would have been to challenge the close rather than ignore the consensus of editors.

The claim that "Hunter Biden's laptop" did not necessarily belong to him is bewildering. In the English language, adding "'s" means that something belongs to the subject. If you prefer, we could change "a laptop computer that belonged to Hunter Biden" to "Hunter Biden's laptop."

In fact there is no question the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. The only doubt comes from Hunter Biden who said he was not sure the laptop belonged to him: there "could be a laptop out there that was stolen from" him.

Anyway, there is no BLP issue. The information is reliably sourced, not contested by the subject and is not an allegation of wrong-doing. It is not against the law in the State of Delaware to own a laptop.

TFD (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

And who might you be accusing of forum shopping? OP was not around at the time of the September discussion or RfC. SPECIFICO talk 22:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The sources presented in the RFC clearly showed the key RSes split on the ownership, though there was far less dismissal about the possibility that the laptop could be Hunter's. As there is no universal agreement among the major sources, presenting it as fact in Wikivoice is inappropriate, but the new wording still captures the fundamental point. And the entire story around that laptop is a BLP matter, in addition to an AP2 matter. Masem (t) 23:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Masem Andre🚐 01:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Masem Particularly in the AP2 sphere, I'm sure there are statements which do not receive "universal agreement" from all RS, but are still presented as fact on Misplaced Pages. That's why we rely on the whole body of RS, and summarize what a majority of RS say. I believe the relevant policy is WP:DUE: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources"

I'm not aware of any policy, generic or BLP-specific, that requires that something receive universal coverage by RS before we cover it. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

There isn't but we really should be thinking about this more. For something as controversial as the laptop story, it would be far better to wait to see how the long-term views of the topic are before we get too far in depth. We are not required to be up to the minute on the news, and we can avoid a lot of disruption (particularly in the AP2 area) by waiting to know the actual shape of what we want to write about instead of building that bicycle on the fly. Masem (t) 02:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Thing is, in this case, we HAVE waited. The story broke over 2 years ago. It wasn't until 2021 that more RS started reporting the ownership as being hard to dispute (like Politifact and The Guardian), and only this year more RS are completing forensic analyses that further solidify that conclusion (like Washington Post and CBS). PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

If there is still analysis of the laptop to the point that it remains unclear what any of it means or implies (ignoring the ramblings of Fox News as this being a smoking gun), then there is still a good reason to wait. You can still report on uncontested facts about the situation but any commentary or analysis remains too soon. Masem (t) 14:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I disagree wholesale with that. That is a standard which has not typically been applied in the AP2 area. Particularly when covering the last US presidential administration, as soon as a multitude of RS came on board with a topic, or a particular analysis or assertion, it was publishable here. The relevant policy, again, is WP:DUE. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• You know, one day folks will realize that private conversations gleaned from a hacked PC of a private citizen, who never held or ran for office, should never have been presented in a newspaper for obvious political reasons, to start with. But then, that’s why the NYPost is a tabloid considered by WP “generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics”. If this citizen did something wrong, then prosecute him. Now, we have Musk claiming an “awesome” discovery that Twitter was a lobbying arm for the Dems, when it appears that they simply were following a Twitter policy of not allowing posting of hacked material – which I really wish people would respect. Otherwise, leave the citizen alone. I’m just glad I’m not related to a politician in these days of gotcha politics. Meanwhile, until there is a trial – or even a charge – let us soften the language. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

  The material was not hacked - Twitter admitted that it was a mistake to suppress the story on those grounds. Hunter is a notable person, just like his brother Beau, Roger Clinton, Don Jr, Ron Jr, Chelsea Clinton, etc. There are many private citizens who become notable and therefore encyclopedic. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hacked has a fuzzy definition. It was private material of a private citizen published for political reasons by a political rag. Has Hunter been charged with a crime? Is anyone with the wrong surname fair game? Perhaps notable for the NYPost -- but for an encyclopedia? I didn't say delete the article. I said soften the language. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• Hunter Biden is only a public figure because of many years of false allegations, ridiculous conspiracy theories, and smears by partisan opponents, including smears by the conservative morality police who arouse condemnation of his personal behavior. Otherwise he's a dime-a-dozen elite lawschool grad. SPECIFICO talk 00:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  I read over the Hunter Biden page. I didn't get the sense that he was a saint. Adult children (in the 21st century) of US presidents, due tend to get news media attention & thus become public figures. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Furthermore, there is no bright line between "private citizen who deserves privacy in their affairs" and "public figure who deserves scrutiny of their affairs". Running for office or not, is neither here nor there. Editorial judgement is required. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  We shouldn't take the stance that a public figure is one that deserves scrutiny, only that by being in the public spotlight, their affairs may become subject to scrutiny by reliable sources. Hunter Biden is a person that was a private figure that was suddenly thrust into the public view because of the NYPost article and subsequent followup by the Republicans, but that doesn't make him a public figure, for the purposes of WP:PUBLICFIGURE. That's the BLP caution that needs to be taken as these articles are written on WP. Masem (t) 13:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  I agree Andre🚐 18:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Well this is getting kinda confusing. What kinda person is Hunter Biden? Is he somebody that can do no wrong & has done nothing wrong? or has he done questionable things? That seems to be the core of this entire editorial dispute about the guy, on Misplaced Pages. I've never met the guy, so somebody enlighten me. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

We say what RS say. But we have to take care not to accuse him of crimes or unethical behavior that there is no evidence to support. Andre🚐 18:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

To clarify. Stories about his having used drugs or having left his wife for his late brother's widow, were false. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I think he does have a history of drug addiction, but that doesn't come to us from the laptop that I know of. Hunter Biden purchased a gun during a time in which he has now acknowledged he was struggling with drug addiction – an issue now under federal criminal investigation because federal law requires purchasers to attest that they aren’t users of or addicted to illegal drugs, CNN has reported. Federal prosecutors are weighing possible charges related tax violations and for making a false statement related to the gun purchase, CNN reported. See WP:BLPCRIME. Andre🚐 18:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I just wanted to be sure, we weren't presenting him as a saint. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The Hunter Biden article clearly discusses the pending tax issue and the drug issues. So I don't even know why you think he's being presented as clean. Still, the Hunter Biden laptop hasn't led to any new or credible evidence of illegal or unethical activity. Andre🚐 19:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The H.Biden laptop's talkpage, is becoming a huge mess. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Mentioning non-notable non-public lover of family annihilator?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm having a (short, civil, nothing daunting) discussion with @Jack Sebastian at Talk:Watts family murders#Watts' mistress' mention about including the full name of the lover. His argument is that she has been covered multiple times in RS over the years since the murders, which is true. In May People covered the release of a police interview she'd done several years ago and mentioned her name. (I'll let him comment if he thinks I've misstated his points.)

My concern is that she's not a public figure and most of the coverage (maybe all recent coverage?) has been involuntary. She's not doing interviews, she may have changed her name to avoid attention. The inclusion of her name IMO doesn't add anything for the reader, and I feel like it has the potential for doing harm to this living person. She's literally known only for a single event she wasn't actually even involved in. She was just the apparent motive, and knowing her name doesn't change that for the reader, so I don't see any benefit to including the name, vs. the huge potential for damage if we do include.

At any rate, we could use another set of eyes. Thanks! Valereee (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

If the person isn't notable enough to have their own Misplaced Pages article, then naming them is absolutely pointless for the average reader. A name without a face is meaningless filler. It'd be just as meaningless if we called her Jane Doe, so unless there is an aricle to go look up there is no real value in including the name. This really goes for anybody, be it friends, family members, spouses, children, parents, coworkers, etc. Nobody knows these people, and the average reader just doesn't give a rat's ass. In these cases, a generic descriptor will work just fine.

In the case where naming the person has the potential to cause harm, we should definitely not name them. There is no reason to, but a good reason not to. Those friends and family members have a right to their privacy, and there is no overriding public need to know this name, then we should not name them. This is especially true for children, who cannot even consent. We shouldn't name victims of crimes, which would just victimize them more, and by the same token we shouldn't name someone's mistress or love affair unless the name is somehow vital for the reader to understand the story, and more than 99% of the time it's not. The argument that we should simply because it's found in reliable sources doesn't hold water. Just because we can doesn't explain why we should. We don't give all info provided by any source. We summarize the sources, which means cutting out all the unnecessary filler and whittling it down to the nitty gritty, and if there is no compelling reason to name someone then we should leave it out and use generic descriptors instead. Zaereth (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I would only consider including the name like that if it helps in the flow of prose, rather than excessive pronouns or generic titles. If you only need to mention the person once or twice, avoid the name at all costs. Basically in agreement with Zaereth's view. Masem (t) 23:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I was largely on the fence here, and am very glad that User:Valereee had sought to widen the circle on the discussion here. My concern is that, apart from an interview given to the Denver Post back in 2018, she has remained private. While that interview has been viewed as a PR spin, to try and cancel out the media's portrayal of her as some trampy mistress who set her boyfriend on a course towards murder, not a peep has been heard from her since. During the trial, Watts offered her up as the real murderer, which made her notable as more than just the girlfriend of a killer, but posited her as the killer herself. Of course, that was all legal, plan-b bs, but it is an other point of apparent notability.

She appears to be actively avoiding media scrutiny, and is - as Valereee stated, seeking to change her name to put her connection to this monstrous crime and, by several accounts, went into witness protection after the trial. And it needs to be stated that she doesn't appear to be trying to make bank off her 5-minutes of fame/notoriety (which imo would cancel out any concerns about naming her), which supports the argument of her relative non-notability.

I personally don't want to perpetuate any sort of media hounding of Ms. Kessenger, but we have to consider how we handle any BLP-related matters of this sort. We have to apply the same litmus for inclusion to her that we apply to everyone else peripherally related to a violent crime, right? I am glad for some guidance on this matter. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Typically we would want to actively avoid naming non-notable people who are peripherally related to a violent crime unless there is some good reason (that is, improves the reader's understanding of the subject) to do so. As Masem Zaereth points out above, calling her "Jane Doe" would provide exactly the same additional reader understanding of the event, so not a good reason to name her. Valereee (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I would vehemently oppose the use of 'Jane Doe' as a pseudonym for Ms. Kessenger, as the immediate connotation is usually that of either an unsub or an unidentified victim. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

No one is suggesting we actually use Jane Doe. (For one thing, we'd only do that if RS used it, and they'd only do it because that's how she was identified in court documents.) We're just pointing out that using her name provides no additional understanding for the reader than using Jane Doe would. It's just a way to illustrate why we don't think including her name is useful to the reader. Valereee (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Would it be reasonable to mention her existence without naming her? That the person in question had a romantic interest on whom they tried to pin the crime may be a reasonable part of the narrative, but it doesn't mean we're forced to publish her personal information, including her name, if she is otherwise not someone notable enough to mention further. --Jayron32 14:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  Her existence is mentioned. Valereee (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it was - and reinforced by an interview that she herself gave.

For me, the entire matter pivots on that interview she gave to the Denver Post. She gave it to offer her thoughts on the murders and to try and distance herself from any involvement or wrongdoing. She involved herself in the process. I'd mentioned elsewhere that - for example - media allows for the exclusion of the children of American presidents...so long as they avoid the media. This is the difference between the differing levels of media coverage of Obama's children and trump's children, or Jimmy Carter's brother. Had Ms. Kessenger not been proposed as a potential suspect/co-suspect by the Watts defense lawyers, had she not given a self-serving interview, inserting herself into the circus, this would be a very simple matter. I get that we have something of a moral responsibility to protect people's privacy, but does our obligation to do so if the person sheds her own privacy, only to regret it later? The fact that she did so is reliably-sourced. She appears to have been the motive for the (unwitting and unknowing) murder itself. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Jack, I agree with basically everything you say, and still think this is not a BLP violation for all those reasons. But at the same time, I still come back to valereee's threshold question of what is gained by including the name? As far as I can see, nothing at all. Combine that with the possibility of harm, and it becomes an easy decision for me. Were there some real utility in the article, I think you would have a compelling case, but I am not seeing that--though, as ever, reasonable minds may differ on the matter. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

She appears to have been the motive for the (unwitting and unknowing) murder itself. But how does her name add anything to that fact? Valereee (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

We're not here to play "gotcha" with people, as though by giving the one interview, she suddenly forfeits all rights to being respected. We should not go out of our way to identify otherwise private people (even if their name is known through public sources); quite the opposite, we should go out-of-our way to let private people have their privacy if they are not otherwise notable and where their name serves no additional informational purpose other than mere identification. Playing the "she gave one interview one time, and so now she's fair game" is unseemly, and also besides the point. --Jayron32 16:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

My apologies, Jayron - the intent of my posted arguments aren't an attempt at 'gotcha'; the issue is that she opened the door to that media attention, just like Eric Trump, Chelsea Clinton, Richard Jewell and Linda Tripp. This isn't punitive; its encyclopedic. My issue isn't this issue; it's the dozen or so other situations that will emerge.

I'd also point out that the edit-warring at the article by User:Valeree needs to stop immediately; it is corrosive to collaborative editing and presumptive of the discussion outcome. Calling the inclusion a BLPvio when virtually everyone here has stated otherwise is disingenuous. We need to use the system in place to resolve the problem; Valeree's actions are only serving to muddy the discussion waters and quite possibly earn them a block for tendentious editing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Jack, can you point to another editor who thinks the name should be included? The ONUS, as has been mentioned, is on you to establish consensus for inclusion. Dumuzid (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The level of public-ness of someone like Eric Trump is not under question here, and is irrelevant to this discussion. You can't name an obviously public figures who have lived their lives in the spotlight and then say "see, that's the same as this woman who got frustrated with not being left alone, and gave an interview one time to try to set the record straight." That's a total false equivalence. Also, and I cannot stress this enough, literally no comparison to any other person makes any difference here. Every case is unique, and should be weighed against the facts of that one case and against Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Bringing up any other topic is irrelevant here. --Jayron32 15:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Dmuzid, I wasn't the one who added the name. And the arguments I've seen here seem to suggest that both positions make valid points; I will again point out that there is a - a significant RS that mentions her by name, and she contributed to that pile of RS, and b - it was stated from the beginning that whatever choice is made will send ripples through BLP articles; I want to ensure that we are all on the same page, as we will all undoubtedly end up running into these sorts of issues again. - 17:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Jack Sebastian (talk)

Jack, I am certainly one of those editors who thinks there are valid points on both sides here; that does not, however, equate to ambivalence on inclusion. It looks to me like a clear emerging consensus that the name not be included. Moreover, even though I agree with you that this is not a BLP violation, multiple good faith editors disagree with us on that. I think given that and WP:ONUS, removal for at least the short term is warranted. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Once they give an interview under their own name (not anonymously) with informed consent the presumption of privacy goes out the window. I'd lean towards not including on due weight grounds (most sources don't seem to name them) but the privacy issue is open and shut. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd agree with the undue weight argument, but she's not mentioned but once. If we choose to remove a person's name who was peripherally involved in a violent crime, but later gave an interview about her involvement, and later decided to shed her own name-changed identity to write to her former boyfriend (aka, the convicted murderer), how do we evaluate her privacy then? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Meh. People give interviews because if they don't, social media speculates about their possible involvement. I'd argue a single interveiw can be purely defensive and not a toggle switch that makes them a public figure. The second interview...yeah, that's probably inviting attention. Valereee (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully, you should feel free to offer a reliable source as to her motives for giving a paid exclusive interview with the Denver Post. If you jump into the waters of public opinion, you are going to get wet. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Jack, you keep inserting things above previous responses. They should be inserted after previous responses. Valereee (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• The notion that speaking to a reporter once about a horrific crime means that the presumption of privacy goes out the window is ludicrous here on Misplaced Pages. There is no reason to mention that name, many reasons not to, and I agree with Valereee that doing so is a BLP violation. Speculating about a block for tendentious editing is way out of line. The name is not going to remain in that article. I advise Jack Sebastian to drop the stick and move on. Cullen328 (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  This is an extreme example (perhaps the most extreme I've ever seen) but whatever rule we have has to apply universally. Interviews given with informed consent to the press or academia under your own name make you fair game. If someone didn't want to seek publicity they could give them anonymously, give them semi-anonymously, give them off the record, or not give them at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  HEB, that's a pretty extreme interpretation of what an interview means when not giving one on the record means the media is still camped on your front door and twitter is still speculating that you may have been an accomplice. We're expecting someone to balance "if I give an interview, at least my story will be out there, but my name will forever and ever be included in the WP rticle about this hideous crime." Valereee (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  The media is going to camp out and twitter is going to speculate regardless, defensive PR is still PR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  Again, meh. I don't think we should be naming people caught up in something like this for the simple reason they gave a single interview. That feels punitive. Valereee (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  99% of cases in this class are not "something like this." If we want to discuss making violent crime an exception we can but this particular example is not representative of the larger issue. Also again we are in agreement on whether or not to include the person's name in the article, we just disagree on why. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  Well, yeah. If this were about Polly Parker's album release and someone was mentioning her non-notable friend Josie Jones as someone she had collaborated with, and Josie had done an interview about it to clarify that she didn't actually have a role, I wouldn't be concerned. This is a hideous crime, and this woman was for the perpetrator the apparent motive. I almost can't imagine something more nightmarish than to be in this situation. Valereee (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, there's an element of "willfulness" that is missing from this, for me. Now, I don't believe anyone forced the person in question to participate in the interview, but there is no doubt she was being sought out and was thrust into the spotlight not of her own accord. As with most things, I don't think we can apply a hard and fast rule here, and I trust the wisdom of consensus to judge on a case-by-case basis. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  This is where our role as compassionate people crafting a dispassionate encyclopedia becomes so difficult. Some say that is the hardest part of editing and a balance that is struck in the heart rather than in policy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  I concur with Cullen. We shouldn't publish the name of a private individual who was tangentially connected to a notable incident, both as a matter of policy (WP:BLPNAME) and as a matter of human decency; by naming her, the Misplaced Pages article is likely to be one of the first results for anyone searching her name, and remain so for a long time after the incident fades into memory. The whole point of BLP is to prevent that kind of harm. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  +1, I won't repeat them but I agree with all of Cullen and HJ's comments above. Levivich (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Would opinions vary greatly if the subject of this discussion chose to shed that anonymity by writing to the former boyfriend - aka the convicted multiple murderer? Our policy to protect people's anonymity only should apply to those who don't selectively utilize it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  It might change my opinion if I thought the name added anything to the article. But as far as I can tell, it does not. Therefore no change here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Not mine. Why add useless information to an article? I mean, I can find a source that says capacitors were used on the space shuttles. Does that warrant mention in the capacitor article? Of course not, because they're used on everything and we don't have room to list everything, nor is that the purpose of an encyclopedia. We are here to provide a summary of all knowledge, not all knowledge, and the very nature of summarizing means cutting out all the trivia and non-helpful stuff out, and giving the main points as quickly and efficiently as possible. What good reason is there that this should be in the article, and why is it so important to you? Zaereth (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

As I've pointed out, I have practically zero interest in the article or the former Ms. Kessenger. What I am concerned about is that when we have multiple RS mentions of a person, do we opt to give them anonymity when they are not directly involved in the event? Is it a matter of triviality or notability? I am asking because - as I have repeatedly stated - this is going to come up. A lot. And knowing where we fall on this issue is kinda important. And I'd point out that we are considering mentioning her name when she remains in the news, apparently choosing to discard that anonymity. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

If you think an RfC is needed about whether giving an interview turns a non-notable person into a public figure for purposes of being mentioned by name in articles about subjects where they were peripherally involved, you could start one. Valereee (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Linking the Daily Mail to support a statement about a living person does not help your case, that's just not respectful of this noticeboard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The Daily Mail says one of Chris Watts' fellow inmates said so? No. But even if the NYT were reporting it, how does her name add to the reader's understanding of the subject? And how does her writing to him somehow shed her anonymity? That just feels punitive to me. Valereee (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

How, precisely, are punishing her for her choice to discard her anonymity?

And it bears mentioning again that I am cool with whatever you guys choose to decide, but you have to spell out how it fits a certain policy/guideline for inclusion or exclusion. I have no dog in this fight, except for a better understanding how to apply the decisions we collectively make here to other BLP articles? Where is the line for providing privacy to someone who alternately uses it as a shield before discarding it at their convenience? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Being mentioned as the lover in an article about a man who killed his entire family because he wanted to be with his lover is a negative outcome. Doing it because she gave a single interview to me feels like she is being punished for giving that interview.

If you think more clarity is needed, start an RfC, per my comment above. Valereee (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Jack, I think this is where we're talking past one another a bit. For some people here, this is a straight BLP issue, and fair enough. That's a clear enough policy. But for me, and it seems like some others, we're talking more about editorial discretion. There are certainly things that would fit guidelines and policies and yet not improve an article. The question for me here is a balancing test between possible harm to the person in question and benefit to the article. Since I see nothing on the latter side, the judgment call is an easy one for me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Their name is unnecessary in understanding the situation and the person is pretty much a low profile individual. So keep it out per WP: NPF. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

So, as I sift through the opinions offered, this sort of situation would seem to be governed by NPF and editorial discretion as to the application of guidelines regarding this. Fair enough. This is why I suggested in article discussion that Valereee initiate discussion here, to widen the circle of opinion. Apart from some assumptions that I had some ulterior motives, some really good opinions were offered. Thanks for those. I can utilize them should this sort of situation recur.

TL;dr - It seems that the consensus is leaning hard into not mentioning the girlfriend by name due to NPF, and not BLPvio (which it isn't if she doesn't use that name anymore). Further, as a summary of knowledge, and not the knowledge itself, we don't need to mention it, as interested readers can explore and discover for themselves her name and the particulars of the subject. Is that a fair assessment? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd agree that the clear consensus is not to mention her. I think there's clear consensus that one of the reasons is that her name isn't important to the reader's understanding. I don't think there's consensus that this isn't a BLP issue, there are varying opinions on that. Ditto whether she's a non-public figure or not, there is some variance in opinion on that. But consensus not to mention, yes. Valereee (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe learn how to quit while you're ahead, V. She's changed her name, so using her former name isn't a BLPvio, and apart from using The Force, there isn't anything to support that belief, and even less support for edit-warring that viewpoint into a false emergency. I agree that the article doesn't require her name for understanding, and those readers who want more can explore the links. That's' the policy/guideline on point, as it has purpose for other BLP's beyond this conversation/sitch - again, the sole point of my involvement in the matter. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Is there a policy or some such that says using a former name wouldn't be a BLP violation? I'm not aware, but that could 100% be my own ignorance. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, it's not a case of either or. That's a false dilemma fallacy related to affirming the disjunct. I'd say it's a violation of BLP policy, in particular BLPNAME and BLPPRIVACY, unless there is some good, compelling reason that the name should be included because the reader needs it to understand the story. As the SPJ would say (and I wish more news agencies would follow these ethics):

"1.) Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness. 2.) Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information. 3.) Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do. 4.) Balance a suspect’s right to a fair trial with the public’s right to know. Consider the implications of identifying criminal suspects before they face legal charges. 5.) Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication. Provide updated and more complete information as appropriate. 6.) Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent. Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment."

Beyond any policies or code of ethics, it really just goes to basic human decency towards our fellow human beings. We shouldn't publish things just because we can. There should be some reason why we should. Zaereth (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Dumuzid, not that I'm aware of (apart from deadname, of course). There are many editors here that probably know that policy better, and I hope they'll chime in, but I'm struggling to come up with a reason why it would make any difference. Valereee (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know, there isn't. But I think that the fact that she changed her name, moved away and - apart from apparently writing her ex-boyfriend in prison, has avoided revealing anything else about herself. All we were discussing including was that information which was already publicly given through RS. That doesn't scream BLP violation to me at all; at best, it was a judgment call, and certainly not edit-warring against good practices to call it a BLPvio. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

We don't actually know that she's changed her name, and even if she did, I'm not aware that would in any way affect whether or not naming her is a BLPvio. Again, I think you're misunderstanding how seriously WP takes BLP. Not sure what apart from using The Force, there isn't anything to support that belief means, but a potential BLP violation is actually one of the few things considered urgent on WP. That's why there's a 3RR exemption. Valereee (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

We actually do, though. There is a source at the time that says she was changing her name back in '20, and a recent source that states that she revealed her new name to the murderer in a letter. So that is a dead-end path. And please, do us both the kindness of not schooling me on matters of BLP; I'm particularly aware of them. It is not a BLPvio to report their RS-noted name, and even less so since these same sources report that the name was indeed changed. Stop beating a dead horse. The matter was settled on something else entirely. I have no problem helping you understand a policy, but I've already explained it thrice. I think we are done here. Go find something to edit and fidn another windmill to tilt at. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Diffs? Sources? And yes, even if something is reported in RS, we may decide not to include per BLP. Again I think you are misunderstanding the importance of BLP. We try to be very careful because these are real, live, breathing people who can be harmed in real life. Valereee (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages editor abuse of power and repeated vandalism

Hello, I am writing to you concerned about Misplaced Pages editor Wes Sideman (whom I have linked to below). He has committed multiple counts of vandalism and seems to have an obsession with this television character “Chad Johnson” from the TV show “The Bachelorette” and his Misplaced Pages page. He continues to change the notoriety of Chad Johnson from his TV shows, to his arrest records attempting to defame him. Those charges were dropped and as you can see in the video below, his girlfriend admits no assault happened. Apparently Wes Sideman knows more than the two people actually involved in the incident. Wes Sideman also continues to remove any remotely good press about Chad from the Misplaced Pages page. For some reason Wes has been monitoring and harassing this Misplaced Pages page for over two years now. If you have time, I would ask or suggest that you look into doing something about this Wes Sideman moderator using an abuse of power on Misplaced Pages. It is my request that you block Wes Sideman from the ability to continue to abuse his editorial power on this page. Please ensure that he can no longer remove positive articles, add false negative information, and generally continue his vandalism of this page. Thank you.

Examples of Wes Sideman’s edits - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Special:MobileDiff/1116808783 Wes Sideman’s page - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Wes_sideman&action=view Chad Johnson’s Misplaced Pages - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Chad_Johnson_(TV_personality) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.192.116.74 (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Wes sideman Valereee (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any vandalism or "abuse of power". The only material removed was cited to the Daily Mirror, which is NOT a reliable source. If material is to be added to Misplaced Pages, it needs to be cited to a reliable source. Wes sideman did exactly describe the reason they removed the material, but instead of finding a better source, it looks like you have edit warred with them, and then ran here and falsely accused them of vandalism. Not a good look for you. --Jayron32 14:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Paul Charles Farrer

• Paul Charles Farrer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am not sure whether this newly-minted BLP passes WP:GNG, but it's certainly having WP:BLP issues right from the get-go, citing a source of Church Militant (website) which is of course not a WP:RS. Elizium23 (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I went and nominated it for AFD. No way they are notable, and the entire article appears to be some sort of WP:COATRACK anyways. --Jayron32 16:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Elon Musk

That Elon Musk has criticized Black Lives Matter is not documented by any source. I have made all my remarks here https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Elon_Musk#%22and_has_criticized_the_Black_Lives_Matter_movement_%22_is_not_backed_up_by_any_source_and_should_stand_in_its_own_sentence_in_any_regard But to sum up my most essential remarks: The Misplaced Pages article links this article from Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2022/11/23/musk-wars-with-the-left-left-suggests-activists-killed-moderation-plan-and-baits-black-lives-matter-supporters/?sh=67b70a152aaf that doesn't in any way definitely say that Elon Musk has criticized Black Lives Matter. The article talk about a tweet that could appear to have a critical attitude toward Black Lives Matter movement. Forbes' article links an article that shows this tweet https://gizmodo.com/elon-musk-tweets-cop-killed-unarmed-black-man-ferguson-1849815713 In the tweet he doesn't even mention Black Lives Matter, but the Ferguson protests. We could say he has been critical of the Ferguson protests. To be very specific, he has been critical of "Ferguson Protest's use of a slogan" Whether that is equivalent to being critical of Ferguson Protests, in general, is also questionable. It is not in any way equivalent to being critical of Black Lives Matter. That's not just poorly sourced, but not sourced in any way.

My name is Michael OO Viera, and I have a few gaming videos on Youtube. I say that because I have seen people on the Elon Musk talk page questioning the trustworthiness of "IP users". Please, tell me if I can do more to confirm my identity. Thank you. ‪176.22.160.62‬ (talk) 05:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

All I had to do was a quick Google search and I found plenty of reliable sources relating Musk's statements to attacks on BLM and black Twitter employees. See some examples:

• https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/elon-musk-twitter-ferguson-protests-obama-b2231181.html
• https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-mocks-staywoke-shirts-twitter-black-lives-matter-dorsey-2022-11
• https://mashable.com/article/elon-musk-stay-woke-twitter-shirts-black-lives-matter
• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-23/elon-musk-makes-fun-of-twitter-t-shirts-linked-to-blm-protests
• https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/elon-musk-black-twitter-influencers-hate-speech-rcna59474

Those were all from the first page of results. The Forbes reference should probably be replaced with one or more of these, yes. Silverseren 05:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

None of those sources confirms that he has criticized Black Lives Matter ... 176.22.160.62 (talk) 06:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Every source you have just posted contains somewhat the same story as in Forbes.

A story about Elon Musk making fun of "Stay Woke" shirts. Making fun of Stay Woke shirts is not = criticizng Black Lives Matter.

You aren't automatically criticzing Black Lives Matter because you are critical of the so called Woke movement.

We don't even know whether Elon Musk was conscious about the shirts were made for the black staff - even if he was, it doesn't qualify him as a criticizer of BLM

I have already adressed all the other issues. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 06:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/independent-media-bias = left-wing

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/nbc-news-media-bias = left-wing

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/bloomberg-media-bias = left-wing

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/insider-media-bias = left-wing

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/mashable = left-wing

Oh god ... what is this even.

But the sources fail too if you look at them with scrutiny 176.22.160.62 (talk) 07:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I would recommend this discussion on allsides -- perhaps not an absolute authority. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

But as the IP points out, these all are talking about Musk tweeting in a mocking post of t-shirts with a Stay Woke hashing on it. There is no explicit connection to Musk and BLM, these sources all bring it up to try to suggest an association but that's too weak for BLP principles. We certainly can talk how Musk is critical of the "woke" movement (there have been other incidents), but we can't jump to BLM from that. Masem (t) 14:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Critical of the right's caricature of the "woke movement" anyway. "Woke" just means being aware of systemic/historical bias/injustice, which is why the shirts have ties to BLM. When people who care about that kind of thing hear the right's anti-"wokeness" rhetoric, it's easy to take it as face value, i.e. not the generalized reactionary resentment it usually is, but actual criticism of concern for systemic racism. In any event, because of that distinction, I agree that partaking in some vapid lib-owning isn't the same as "criticizing BLM" directly. "Criticizing" implies intent. It would be more accurate to call it "insensitive" or something (at the risk of invoking another caricature). There may be a way to combine it with coverage of this kind of comment, though? — Rhododendrites \\ 15:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

We do want to be carefully of a claim that Musk may be racist or similar views similar from compiling RSes of his social media posts that do not directly spell out what he believes. Thats OR. Also we don't need to laundry list of every tweet that was found to be be offensive but had no followup. We want to summarize his views, not document every awkward social media post. Masem (t) 15:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Exactly 176.22.160.62 (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The Independent is a reliable source and that story also says "(Musk) then criticised Black Lives Matter protestors. He said that the shirts stemmed from the protests in Ferguson, Missouri, and that those protests were misguided. "Hands up don’t shoot" was made up,” (Musk) said. “The whole thing was a fiction.”" Whether that's enough for a mention, I'm not sure. Black Kite (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

He didn't criticize the Black Lives Matter protestors. It's an interpretation based on the tweet you can find in this article

https://gizmodo.com/elon-musk-tweets-cop-killed-unarmed-black-man-ferguson-1849815713

He is criticizing whether some physical circumstances surrounding an event took place that a slogan refers to, and he links a federal investigation report that found no evidence that Ferguson held his hands up when he was shot - something which Independent leaves out ... so no, it isn't a reliable source ... in this regard.

The problem is that he isn't criticizing the political symbolics of the slogan either.

Neither can we say the report itself is critical to Black Lives Matter. No, it isn't, it just comments on whether some physical circumstances surrounding an event really happened, and that is what Elon Musk is commenting on. You can't just interpret your opinions into this. You might argue it sends anti Ferguson protests signal, or you may extend it even further to that it sends anti Black Lives Matter signals. But it's speculations. The problem is too that just because you once apparently hints something that doesn't automatically mean that it is relevant to your entire biography, wtf?

176.22.160.62 (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The Independent article quite literally says that he criticised the BLM protestors. That's a near verbatim quote from the Independent. You don't just get to say "Well, I don't think he did" and then nullify the plain language of The Independent. It is a reliable source, you dear random dude from the internet, are not. --Jayron32 15:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

We know what Musk wrote, which didn't mention BLM at all, but the Independent makes the claim it was. We know that the Independent made an assumption here and claimed something Musk did not say directly. As such, we would need to include that claim with attribution to the Imdependent if we were to include it. Masem (t) 16:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Attribution is fine. Claiming that an actual reliable source is wrong because we think so is not. Stating "According to The Independent" is fine here, but unless we have a correction OR we have other equally as reliable sources broadly disagreeing or countering the statement (and silence is not disagreement), then the statement is backed up by a reliable source. --Jayron32 16:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The source isn't necessarily wrong. It's just an interpretation or an assumption as said.

The problem is that you absolutely refuse to look into the source. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

We ate not blind to problems with RSes that are making interpretive statement from typically short social media posts. Not in this case with the Independent (it appears as a valid conclusion), but if they said from Musk's tweet that Musk was critical of MLK Jr., that would be something we'd question even if inclusion was necessary. Masem (t) 16:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, the Misplaced Pages article doesn't use the article from Independent, but two sources from Bloomberg and Forbes where no support can be found.

With regards to the Independent article

We must make objections to the claim that Independent is a reliable source.

A source isn't just either unambiguously reliable or not unambiguously reliable. Reliability depends on subject that is being covered as welll.

Independent are left-leaning

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/03/07/how-left-or-right-wing-are-uks-newspapers

https://adfontesmedia.com/independent-bias-and-reliability/

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/independent-media-bias

Considering Elon Musk is a polarizing figure and has recently shown support for a Republican figure (stands on Elon Musk Misplaced Pages page too) https://www.google.dk/search?q=elon+musk+polarizing&ei=3xyRY9WXCfCwrgS89LOQDA&ved=0ahUKEwiVg7D2z-j7AhVwmIsKHTz6DMIQ4dUDCA4&uact=5&oq=elon+musk+polarizing&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzoKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzoFCAAQkQI6BQgAEIAEOgsILhCABBDHARDRAzoOCC4QgAQQxwEQ0QMQ1AI6BQguEIAEOgQILhBDOgQIABBDOgcILhDUAhBDOgsILhCABBDHARCvAToKCAAQgAQQxwMQCjoGCAAQFhAeOgUIABCGAzoFCCEQoAE6CAgAEBYQHhAKOgYIABAeEA06BwghEKABEApKBAhBGABKBAhGGABQuwFY7CNgzSRoCHABeACAAXKIAZsPkgEEMjUuMpgBAKABAcgBCMABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

Considering all the polarization around the hate speech versus free speech debate, the Twitter drama, and that Elon Musk has taken the "pro free speech at the expense of hate speech" stance which is anti-left/democratic, etc.,

and democrats losing trust in Twitter after Elon Musk's takeover https://morningconsult.com/2022/11/17/elon-musks-politically-polarizing-effect/

Considering that the Independent's story about Elon Musk doesn't just revolve around Elon Musk's actions that are apolitical.

But revolve around Elon Musk's actions that are political(ly questionable), and that those actions get depicted in a way that is, anti-left,

for example anti-BLM and anti-antiracism such that it fits into the rethorics of the bias of the newspapers.

Considering that Independent's story appears to be an outliar (Dumuzid did a mini research on that too)

Considering that the information on the Misplaced Pages article was added 1 day after the event took place and hasn't passed the test of time at all

and suffers heavily from recency bias.

Considering it fails "Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages or on passing comments. Any passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. References must be cited in context and on topic."

on "passing comment" - and "unclear or inconsistency passages" because the paragraph of the article in question contains

"He then criticised Black Lives Matter protestors."

<- "He said that the shirts stemmed from the protests in Ferguson, Missouri, and that those protests were misguided."

which isn't consistent or clear - being misguided isn't a critique either, if anything, it's a critique of those who have caused the misguiding (who is not mentioned),

even if that seemingly is a critique, it fails "open for multiple interpretations", and the connection between the opening statement of the paragraph and the rest of the paragraph is definitely not clear or consistent.

Considering that the article was written by https://www.independent.co.uk/author/andrew-griffin whose area of expertise is "Technology editor and science reporter" thus fails https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:GREL&redirect=no . You guys aren't analyzing your sources, lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.188.128 (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

- CONSIDERING ALL THIS, I don't think we can take this source or the information in the Misplaced Pages article seriously. At least not yet.

In any instance, using the Bloomberg and Forbes articles as sources have to be fixed. What do you think?Dumuzid (talk · contribs)130.225.188.128 (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

We need quotes from Elon Musk, not from left-wing media.

If you look in the paragraph you talk about, it refers to the tweet you can find here

https://gizmodo.com/elon-musk-tweets-cop-killed-unarmed-black-man-ferguson-1849815713

which I have commented on. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Your casting of aspersions against news sources that report things that you don't like is only reflective on you, and not on their reliability. --Jayron32 16:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm just looking into the source.

Why do you refuse to talk about the content that the source covers? 176.22.160.62 (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Because you are straying into WP:OR territory. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

No, that is what you are doing

"Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages or on passing comments. Any passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. References must be cited in context and on topic." 176.22.160.62 (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages prioritizes secondary sources. While I quite agree with you about claritty, passing comments, attribution, etc. The Independent Source says what it says. It's perfectly fair to point out that it's an outlier or the like, but to say "I think their interpretation is incorrect" is a non-starter. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say their interpretation was wrong. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

But I'm strongly questioning that we can use that interpretation from Independent based on this Tweet

https://gizmodo.com/elon-musk-tweets-cop-killed-unarmed-black-man-ferguson-1849815713

which Indepedent refers to in that very paragraph of the Independent article

as a source confirming that Elon Musk is criticizing Black Lives Matter.

That's not well sourced in any way.

Well, some people already said, we could attribute the claim to Independent.

Alright, that's ofc. possible - I didn't mean to disagree in that regard 176.22.160.62 (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, this is your "original research" as we would term it around here. I don't necessarily think we should use the Independent quote, and there are arguments to be made against it, but "here's my reasoning as to why they are wrong" is just not what we're after. It can be a compelling argument in real life, but Misplaced Pages is weird. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

First of all. I'm glad that we can agree that the Misplaced Pages article isn't backed up by any source.

The Misplaced Pages article uses https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2022/11/23/musk-wars-with-the-left-left-suggests-activists-killed-moderation-plan-and-baits-black-lives-matter-supporters/?sh=650c6fb12aaf

which says "bait". It uses an another Bloomberg article that says "links"

Maybe you're right about original research. But I'm just trying to understand the source in question from what the source itself covers.

But I guess you are right that that is allowed to use interpretive claims.

"Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source. "

But I'm still questioning whether Independent is a reliable source.

The problem is here that a source isn't definitely reliable or not reliable. Reliability depends on what you cover.

We know Independent is left-wing medium - I posted a source before (I could try to look for more sources perhaps).

If a left wing medium covers a person whom we know have been criticized sharply by the left (because of hate speech issues) and indeed criticizes him in a way that is in harmony with the left wing agenda (pro Woke movement, etc.), then it is strongly questioneable whether we can call the source reliable. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree it's not backed up by any source, though I don't necessarily think it belongs in there. In real life, criticizing the rationale behind reporting can be very convincing. I think you make a fairly good case here. But on Misplaced Pages, we default to secondary sources like the Independent. That's some evidence for the proposition put forward. They interpreted the evidence, and I don't think that interpretation is wildly off, even if I don't agree with it. So we don't (on Misplaced Pages, at least) get to say "I have the superior interpretation, so the source is incorrect." But then you're getting closer to Misplaced Pages arguments. Noting bias is fine; it's usually not a reason to discount a source, but can certainly make attribution seem appropriate. A better argument here would be "no other reliable sources interpret this the same way" (which is true, from the little investigation I have done). THAT is a convincing Misplaced Pages argument. You can say "as a total outlier from a source with a known bias, it isn't really WP:DUE to be included in this manner." You will basically always be on firmer ground if arguing about what the secondary sources say rather than why they say it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

"it's usually not a reason to discount a source, but can certainly make attribution seem appropriate."

Yeah, glad we can agree on that.

Thanks for your inputs - I'm not a Misplaced Pages editor admittedly.

Alright. It is worth noting, if anyone missed it, that the Elon Musk article doesn't use the source from Independent, but from Bloomberg and Forbes. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Appreciate your neutral take. This will probably be the last comment on the subject because it's taking time from my study.

I wanted you and other people also to take notice of how it is written in the Misplaced Pages article

"He has promoted conspiracy theories relating to the attack of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's husband, and has criticized the Black Lives Matter movement, specifically stating that "hands up, don't shoot," a rallying cry that arose after the 2014 shooting of an unarmed black teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri was based in "fiction."

I find it inappropriate that the story about "criticizing" BLM doesn't stand in its own sentence. I don't think it is appropriate to connect it to a conspiracy theory.

I hope, sincerely, you will strive for increased neutrality! Cheers. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

By the way, another problem to add is recency bias. This information was added approximately one day after the event.

It seems very desperate. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

That's not how this works. Misplaced Pages does not analyze what people said or did. It summarizes the analysis of reliable sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

"Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages or on passing comments. Any passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. References must be cited in context and on topic." 176.22.160.62 (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The quote from The Independent is not unclear or inconsistent. It is in plain English and rather easy to follow. Again, if you have a source that itself says the Independent is wrong, then we have something. Unless and until you have such a source, you don't have a leg to stand on. That doesn't mean we must include it, I agree, but your multiple attempts to argue that The Independent should not be used merely because you think it is wrong (without any evidence that it is other than your own analysis of the information you have chosen to highlight), that's a non-starter. If you think it isn't wrong, then I'm not sure why you're arguing? I'm fine with deciding that we don't mention the conclusions of the Independent; I don't really have a dog in the race here. I just don't like to see people repeatedly making bad arguments. --Jayron32 17:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I would like you to check the conversation between me and Dumuzid. I think we can agree on something. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

And thanks for your inputs about original research issues. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The Independent is a reliable source quoting it is perfectly fine. Due may apply as this is recent, but no other issues apply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

This "reply section" is outdated,

check my reply

23:36, 7 December 2022 130.225.188.128 (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

No, it is not reliable in this instance as I have thoroughly explained in

23:36, 7 December 2022 reply 130.225.188.128 (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Not only does this source completely fail if you look it with scrutiny which me and Masem have done

which apparently is not allowed because that is "original research".

It also fails internally (in itself). It fails at so many parameters that I can't believe it, lol. 130.225.188.128 (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

New information has been added in my long post written 23:36 8. december

The article from Independent also fails https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:GREL&redirect=no

@Jayron32 @Dumuzid 130.225.188.128 (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright. I hope you have read 23:36, 7 December 2022

We need to talk about this passage too

"He subsequently tweeted criticism of Twitter executive Vijaya Gadde's policies to his 86 million followers, which led to some of them engaging in sexist and racist harassment against her"

The passage is completely meaningless as it isn't relevant to Elon Musk's critique, this isn't relevant to Elon Musk's person either.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220428030308/https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/04/27/technology/twitter-elon-musk-news

Look at the source - the article says nothing about whether Elon Musk's critique is sexist or racist or inspires it or anything alike, and Elon Musk isn't responsible for "some people" (2 people or more) in his large following.

As I pointed out in the talk page - it is, frankly, extremely trivial that at least "some people"(2 people or more) engage in sexist or racist attacks if a person with a following of many million people criticize a woman who has held "censorship"(it's a private company though) power over million of people (to the better or to the worse).

This is extremely trivial such that you can't expect anything else. And it's still not relevant to Elon Musk. If it is relevant to Elon Musk because he is a "polarizing" character, then use

the word "outrage" which the article uses too. The New York Times article actually sums up the events as "In tweets, Musk takes aim at Twitter executives, creating outrage."

So why would the Misplaced Pages editor cherrypick the detail of that situation that is centered around the racist and sexist attacks against Ms. Gadde? If you wanna sum up a situation in short detail, you wanna sum it up generally, instead of cherrypicking specific detail of the situation.

When it happens that those detail also coincide with framing Elon Musk sexist or racist in subtle way, it's very critical. 130.225.188.128 (talk) 07:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I just made these article edits to try and address some of the points discussed above. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Genuinely, thank you for taking my concerns seriously. I think there is likely much more about the article that can be discussed, but I don't have more to add - other than something that, honestly, must be a very, very uncontroversial suggestion.

"He has promoted conspiracy theories relating to the attack of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's husband."

Elon Musk's statement about the slogan in question isn't a conspiracy theory which no sources suggest either, thus shouldn't be connected to the first verb of the sentence. 130.225.188.128 (talk) 08:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that concern was already addressed by the edits I made. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes. The article is getting better definitely.

I will give you two suggestions now

The first suggestion:

I have made a suggestion on the Elon Musk talk page which has been ignored for days now with regards to the first sentence

"Elon Reeve Musk FRS (/ˈiːlɒn/ EE-lon; born June 28, 1971) is a business magnate and investor."

This suggestion is very close to undiscussable imo.

It is absolutely undiscussable that Elon Musk is an entrepreneur.

This seems to be his most common label, and the label can even be found on book covers too.

https://imusic.co/books/9798648453920/caleb-bennett-2020-elon-musk-paperback-book

https://www.saxo.com/dk/elon-musk_paperback_9781761036835?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI7N-E3KHr-wIVAwWiAx3wWgINEAQYAiABEgIm-PD_BwE

Otherwise:

https://www.biography.com/business-figure/elon-musk

https://astrumpeople.com/elon-musk-biography/

"He is not only an entrepreneur but " (they make it sound like it is obvious for everyone)

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61234231

"Born in South Africa, Mr Musk showed his talents for entrepreneurship early, going door-to-door with his brother selling homemade chocolate Easter eggs and developing his first computer game at the age of 12."

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/061015/how-elon-musk-became-elon-musk.asp

On Investopedia they have even put him under the section "Entrepreneurs".

I can't even find any sources that call him an investor - I can find sources that talk about how "he invested in x company" how he was an "investor in this company". Finding sources that describe him as an investor, in general, seems very difficult and even if such sources exist, they must be very underwhelming compared to the sources that call him entrepreneur.

I have seen sources that call Elon Musk an inventor (the danish Misplaced Pages call him that actually), but I find that is likely to be disputeable, but I don't know.

One thing is sure "entrepreneur" should be included in the sentence before "investor".

"investor" should probably be removed too. "business magnate" can arguably stay, but

"entrepreneur" should come first.

The second suggestion:

With regards to:

"Musk's statements have provoked controversy, such as for mocking preferred gender pronouns, and comparing Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau to Adolf Hitler."

Adolf Hitler analogues are extremely common and have been seen on both the right-wing and left-wing, thus

this analogue does not give us insight into Elon Musk's views. We have to understand how he used the Adolf Hitler analogue to

emphasize his view. He used the analogue in the light of the https://en.wikipedia.org/Canada_convoy_protest .

Another problem is the use of the word "controversy". This problem might extend to many Misplaced Pages articles.

Many Misplaced Pages editors refer to reliable sources, but might forget:

Generally reliable in its areas of expertise

The problem of the word controversy is https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/controversy?q=controversy

"public discussion and argument about something that many people strongly disagree about, think is bad, or are shocked by"

The problem is that lots of newspapers, including reliable newspapers, use this word in a completely careless way.

The word describes a quantity, MANY people. But if they are not referring to any polls, human research survey, etc., or if they don't work for an institute that conducts such surveys, then they can't just

throw that word carelessly.

Words such as "controversy" should be replaced with words such as "heated discussion" rather.

I have seen a discussion on this problem on Danish Televion TV2 News among Danish mainstream newspaper editors-in-chief

before (I might be able to find it later ...) 130.225.188.131 (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

We should be careful with a source that reaches takes the same basic facts as other sources yet reaches a different, more negative conclusion. This is especially true when we can look at the facts and in good faith say, those facts don't mean what the source is saying. Springee (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, first of all, it's helpful to un-indent these threads from time to time, so I'm doing that now. It's running right off the right side of my screen. Like trying to read a totem pole.

I really haven't been following this discussion too closely. Entrepreneur, investor, mogul. Tomato/Tomaato. These are little details that should be worked out on the talk page. That's not what this noticeboard is for.

I do agree with you, 130, that in most cases people use the word "controversy" incorrectly. Usually you see this here in so-called "controversy sections", where suddenly any dispute, lawsuit, spat, traffic ticket, or any negative thing a person has ever done --real or perceived-- is deemed a "controversy" and lumped into a single section. This causes all sorts of problems, not the least of which is throwing the entire article off balance by loading all the heavy stuff on one end. (Do that on a plane and you'll crash.) However, I looked at the section you're speaking of and that is one case where we're actually using the word correctly, so I'm not sure what the complaint is. Either way, this discussion is no longer about anything that is a real BLP issue, so I'd suggest taking it to the talk page. Zaereth (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I kept it to the talk page. You just get ignored. Anythingyouwant actually fixed the concerns that were brought up in the beginning.

IT appears like Elon Musk's biography has been attack of political motivations clearly.

Check

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Elon_Musk&type=revision&diff=644912934&oldid=644895983

The Misplaced Pages page even used to call him an entrepreneur - ofc. lol.

It's horrifying.

There's also a guy https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Elon_Musk&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/User:QRep2020

who systematically insert negative information and stories about Elon Musk in every article that is related to Elon Musk, lol.

The guy disagreed with two of my suggestion WITHOUT giving any reason. I tried to ask him - still didn't give me any reason. 130.225.188.131 (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

See, this is where I get confused, which is part of why I haven't been following along too closely. The first link you just provided was just the insertion of the letters "IPO", which for all I know stands for "Illustrative Purposes Only", or "International Press Organization". Possibly vandalism but was reverted as a good faith edit. Whatever the case, I have no idea why you're showing it to me, but it has me utterly confused.

The next link is the history of the Musk article, but why you're linking it is a mystery to me. Am I supposed to see something there?

The third link is to someone's user page. It says something about Musk, but no clue what I'm supposed to glean from that. If people on the talk page are having the same problem, it could be the reason you've gotten no reply. I certainly don't know how to reply, except to let you know we seem to be having some communication problems. I'm really not very interested, though, and I think this particular conversation has run its course some time ago. Zaereth (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

My bad. I did actually make a couple of editions to my post right after I had posted it. It's a bad habit - editing my post after I have posted rather than before posting.

I was just pointing out that the Misplaced Pages article on Elon Musk in the past was more objective.

Secondly, I just wanted to cast light/warn you on the actions of the user QRep2020 in the history page of editions and

to cast light on all the user's editions. I apologize if this is not the right place to do it. Please tell me if there is a page to report users.

I don't want to highlight the specific actions the user has done - just casting light on the user - because I don't have the time.

Nah, my suggestions were specific and clear and were also finally met.

I do disagree too that I should have kept all this to the talk page. Some of the content was framing Elon Musk subtly as a racist, sexist and frame him as a criticizer of BLM without being backed up by any sources - it is close to defamation.

Look at my first thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Elon_Musk#Replace_%22highly_polazring%22_with_%22highly_discussed%22_and_remove_extremely_trivial_story

The first respond I get is from "Slatersteven":

"Because RS say it?" from a guy seemingly questioning my motives - and I still don't know what RS is, honestly, and I tried to ask him - I didn't get one.

The next reply I get is from "Muboshgu":

"I would argue saying he has '86 million followers on Twitter' is trivial given that an estimated half of them are bots"

He is not making any point here or replying to my concerns, but just seem to have an issue with Elon Musk.

I also get a reply from "QRep2020":

"Disagree against both recommendations"

Without giving any reason.

Therefore I came here because the talk page is a complete shitshow. Content with the possibility of damaging one's reputation shall be taken very seriously, it didn't get taken seriously, therefore I came here. 130.225.188.131 (talk) 03:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright. Entrepreneur or not is not about defamation. The case that started my thread has ended. My bad. I will keep the rest to the talk page. At the end it's worth noting that QRep2020 has been banned from the page before. I had no idea about this until I went into his Misplaced Pages page. It doesn't come as a shock. https://www.reddit.com/r/elonmusk/comments/u86csy/guys_we_succeeded_qrep2020_is_now_indefinitely/. 130.225.188.131 (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

unblocked. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Based on the discussion above I agree that we shouldn't report that Musk said things about BLM. It appears that there are no quotes from Musk about BLM but a few sources that interpreted his quotes to be an attack on BLM. This is a general issue with a lot of the press when dealing with controversial figures. They often take comments that are compatible with a view that is considered negative and then take those views to mean the negative thing. Rather than differing to "it's a RS" we as editors should question when a source appears to be jumping to a conclusion. While it would be OR for us to write " took the statement to mean Y" we can decide if other sources didn't reach that same conclusion then perhaps this isn't a good conclusion and should be left. Deciding to include poorly founded conclusions about controversial figures is a systematic bias that exists in Misplaced Pages and is a reason why we should be very careful with BLPs. Disclaimer: I've been accused of being anti-Musk and anti-Telsa. Both are true and a largely avoid editing those topics for those reasons. Springee (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with everything. I'm the person who wrote this thread, and I have been on an interesting journey learning the policy of Misplaced Pages, etc. But I have lost all faith in BLP and maybe HASS https://en.wikipedia.org/Humanities,_arts,_and_social_sciences . I have spent a lot of time putting fine arguments forward, referring to Misplaced Pages policies, and followed the principles of WP:AFG, etc. But at this point I can't any longer. The Elon Musk article has been captured by activists, and at this point I regret that I even tried to make it a neutral and a valid encyclopedia entry because I think the best that can be done now is to let the article become obviously partisan such that no one in his/her good mind buys into it, but laughs at Misplaced Pages instead. Sometimes I have wondered whether that is actually the goal of one of the editors, lol, and whether I should contribute to that goal (but I won't).

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public. Yeah, Misplaced Pages articles on HASS subjects are doomed. Have fun. Jatlin1 (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Victor Davis Hanson

Victor Davis Hanson The last section of this article "Democratic Party Criticism" is full of inaccuracies violating the policy on biographies of living persons. It says Hanson "supported the views of the QAnnon movement," which he never did, nor does he even know much about QAnon movement. We have no idea if QAnon agrees with him. But that is irrelevant. It would be like writing under the Democratic Party entry that it supports anti-Semitism of Al Sharpton, Talib, Omar because they are leading members of the Democratic Party. It says he "compares the Democratic Party to Joseph Stalin." Besides the problematic issue of comparing a country to a person, which Dr. Hanson never did, the article cited doesn't have any mention of Stalin in it. He said America is becoming Sovietized and pointed out the many similarities to the Soviet system. He never sought to "clear the attackers from the attack" on the Jan 6. Your editor also "Three days after Donald...stormed Capitol...." Dr. Hanson supported the Jan. 6 rioters. The article sited to document this was written an entire year later and the date is on the article. The last quote in that section -- ""revolutionaries seeking to overturn the history of the United States without going to the ballot box."-- is no quote at all from the article cited.

We had an assistant edit this entry out and Misplaced Pages locked him out for attempting to edit out the lies here.

We would like this section deleted from the article on Victor Davis Hanson so full as it is with inaccuracies, false accusations, mistakes and just simply lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:59C8:310B:FB10:2172:6E1C:15CD:727F (talk)

You are absolutely correct that some of this information is not reflected in the sources, and it appears another editor is already working to clean it up. However, you should know that Misplaced Pages has strict rules about conflict of interest, and editing pages of people you are associated with is not allowed. If you have any further issues, I suggest making a post on the article's talk page declaring your interest in the subject and suggesting specific changes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Thebiguglyalien has it all correct. I initially removed the QAnon bit, but then the entire section, as it was entirely primary sources and no indication that it was due for inclusion. That said, yes, please declare if you have a conflict of interest regarding the article subject. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Kristian G. Andersen

"The authors were criticized for failing to disclose potential conflicts of interest." This is defamatory. There were no undisclosed conflicts of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.182.145 (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, there's nothing wrong with having a COI in and of itself, and nothing illegal about failing to disclose one, although it would probably get one criticism. However, that was not found anywhere in the cited source, and that is a problem, so I removed it. It also seemed really out of place, like it was just tossed in there after the fact. Possibly vandalism? I don't know because I didn't scan the history for when it was first added, but it has no context and I see no reason to have it in that particular spot even if there was a good source. Zaereth (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

What a terrible article. The bulk of it (i.e. COVID!) probably should be relegated to some of the bajillion other articles about COVID. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Leon Black

Information about a recent court case involving Leon Black, which is well-sourced and neutrally worded, has been removed by editor SPECIFICO (talk · contribs).

WP:BLP#People accused of crime says that "For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material ...", however, Black is very much a public figure. So I don't understand the argument that including information about the court case is a BLP violation.

What is the consensus from folks here? Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Black would appear to fall under public figure as a high level businessperson, so yes, the removal of a lawsuit against (not just an accusation) seems wrong. Masem (t) 21:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that anyone can sue anyone else. It hasn't even reached the stage where the complaint might by summarily dismissed by a court as frivolous, malicious, time-barred, or whatever. It is not getting ongoing media coverage, and there are millions of wealthy business people who get sued every day for all kinds of things. In fact, their wealth invites such suits. If this gets to the next stage and is demonstrated to be significant and a matter widely reported to the public, that merits a mention. I don't see that this has met the test at this time. SPECIFICO talk 21:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I tend to generally agree with your approach here, but at the same time, I think these things can hit a critical mass where simply the initiation of a suit sort of demands coverage if it makes a big enough splash in the RSes. This one for me would probably clear that line, but reasonable minds may certainly differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: To respond to a particular point made about the possibility that the case may be "... summarily dismissed ... time-barred, or whatever", this is from the Insider article which I had cited in my initial edit: "Pierson is able to pursue legal action against Black due to New York's Adult Survivor's Act, which opened up the state's statute of limitations for abuse cases on November 24." And this is from a recent CNN article: "Adult survivors of sexual abuse now can sue their abusers in New York – even if the statute of limitations on their claims has expired – under a state law that goes into effect Thursday. The new law gives adult survivors of sexual assault one year to file lawsuits against their perpetrators." So it appears the case won't be dropped due to statute of limitations reasons. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• While you're quite right about the statute of limitations issue, I cannot help but nerd out momentarily as I am not sure whether or how courts might interpret the doctrine of laches with regard to these claims, and it does not seem to be specifically addressed in the legislation. Ok. Back to your regularly scheduled programming! Dumuzid (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  I have no idea about that, but there are bigger cases based on the same legislation: Writer E. Jean Carroll sues Trump under new N.Y. sexual assault law, so I guess we can wait and see what happens. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

You may be more familiar with this than I am. I have seen it mentioned only because a series of SPA editors have wanted to add it to the WP page. Lawsuits against wealthy people are not generally considered significant until they've met the intial standards of plausibility and process. OP, do you have any published commentary as to the credibility and seriousness of the allegation? SPECIFICO talk 22:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

A lawsuit against a public figure reported by reputable sources (here. Nytimes, cnn, wsj) is something hard to bury under BLPCRIME. If it was only based on court reports or weak sources, then I would agree we could ignore it, but that not the csse. Masem (t) 22:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

"... do you have any published commentary as to the credibility and seriousness of the allegation?" It seems too early for that kind of analysis to be available, all the media reports I have seen are simply quoting the different attorneys, and reviewing the legal filings. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The fact that it's too early for that is exactly why it's too early for inclusion in his biography. We need to be cautious. I have no idea about this matter, but we do know that involved parties may want to rush such content into the encyclopedia prematurely, so there's a bit of an inherent bias toward including UNDUE negative material. SPECIFICO talk 23:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

But what does Misplaced Pages policy actually state (or is there a cultural precedent that is generally followed by editors)? For example, it seems that Masem has different ideas on this. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

See WP:RECENTISM. Policy is not written like laws, nor should it be, because there is no way possible to create a distinct policy for every single possibility or combination of factors that may arise. I agree with Masem, that if this was a non-notable person we wouldn't even consider adding this, but for a person as notable as the subject, there is no point in trying to protect their right to be innocent until proven guilty. That said, we are not a newspaper, and we don't have to rush into it heads in the sand and butts in the air like a newspaper either. That's the problem with news, because they give up-to-the-minute coverage, so in the initial stages of any event coverage is spotty and unreliable at best. They're just starting to assemble the pieces of the puzzle at that point. I see no harm in waiting until the story unfolds a little more and we actually have a much better picture. Zaereth (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Another section of this BLP is titled “affair” but the section describes accusations of much more than an affair, so I suggest modifying that header. Black countersued that (first) accuser and others for conspiring against him, but that countersuit was dismissed. The first accuser was Guzel Ganieva, and the more recent accuser is Cheri Pierson, both represented by Susan Estrich Wigdor LLP. Given the widespread coverage in RS’s, it would seem appropriate to briefly mention the second accuser, and Estrich, and also Black’s dismissed countersuit, in the section now inadequately titled “affair” together with Black’s denial. The second accusation is closely related to the first, so the whole thing has been going on for quite a while. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Right, it's definitely not a one off random thing, or coming out of the blue. Updating some of the language, as proposed by Anythingyouwant, would help clarify this content. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

What "whole thing"? SPECIFICO talk 04:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Wigdor’s court cases against Black (both involving Epstein), and Black’s countersuit. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Two clients of the same lawfirm do not merge so that we should call them a single "thing". These are two complaints, they have been reported distinctly at different times and they have distinct facts and weight in sources. SPECIFICO talk 13:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why we are all here, discussing about inclusion of more information surrounding these events. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Christine Lagarde

I came across a posting at WP:NPOVN about the article for Christine Lagarde, and the use of convicted criminal in the first sentence of her article. The first sentence was Christine Madeleine Odette Lagarde ... is a convicted criminal, French politician, and .... I've revered the addition of convicted criminal in the first sentence, details are still in later part of the lead. I thought this more a BLP issue than NPOV one, so I've cross posted here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: The addition of the word "criminal" was recent vandalism. I have removed it from the heading later in the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Leah McLaren

• Leah McLaren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Any opinions on handling the sexual assault allegation that has been added to the article here? I had already removed these additions before semi-protecting the article on BLP grounds. My impression was that this would need reliable sourcing, and the cited blog post on Medium does not qualify per WP:MEDIUM. Thanks. 01:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC) Paul Erik 01:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Semiprotection was a good call. I agree with your reverts. Anybody can self-publish any accusation. That doesn't merit inclusion in Misplaced Pages. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm mixing two subjects together, but the similarities are 1:1

Does this imply that the "Sexual misconduct allegations" section on Elon Musk's page should be removed that is entirely based on one outlet Business Insider citing an anonymous source?

I have already made a thread on problems in the Elon Musk article here in Biographies_of_living_persons and the talk page is gigantic. Question is whether

" This page is being discussed at the biographies of living persons noticeboard, since it includes information related to a biography of a living person. Please discuss policy compliance issues there. "

should be added.

-Michael OO Viera 130.225.188.128 (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Business Insider is a (somewhat) reliable source reporting on the first-party allegation. That's not self-published. Medium is a self-published worked, which can never be used on BLP (per WP:BLPSPS) for controversial material. Masem (t) 03:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah, self-published too, missed that one, thank you 130.225.188.128 (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Shlomo Rechnitz

This Misplaced Pages entry is about a living person. At some point in the past, a lot of contentious (and possibly libelous) material about companies associated with the person was added. I became involved with the entry because the person was mentioned in a story I was working on and I found his Wiki page. I discovered that the material was not about the man, but about his company.

Much of the material appeared to be hearsay. One of the references was from a Union that was attacking the man. "Video: How Brius nursing home tycoon Shlomo Rechnitz bilks seniors, taxpayers". National Union of Healthcare Workers. Retrieved February 23, 2021. I considered that this was bad for Misplaced Pages, which is being used as an attack on the man.

I first removed that material (in June 2021) and it was immediately reinstated by another user, Smntstatus. Smntstatus was trying very hard to retain this damaging information.

I had a lot of things going on, so I didn't have time to do more until recently, when I tried again. This time, I removed only a small part. Smntstatus has reverted my removal, and has ignored the logic set out above and in the Talk page.

Also, to try to stop me cleaning up with Wiki entry, Smntstatus is accusing me of being paid by the subject of the page. - this is a ridiculous lie. I don't know Rechnitz, have never contacted him and I am not being paid to do anything.

All I know is that this BLP entry is a hatchet job to blacken the name of Shlomo Rechnitz and it should not be in Misplaced Pages. I don't really want to be doing this, but this entry is a stain on Misplaced Pages and by Misplaced Pages's own rules, these unfounded allegations should not be included in a BLP.

After some investigation, I think I know why Smntstatus is trying to hurt this man. (but unlike the way he is trying to hurt me, I won't say unless pressed) What I'm trying to do is to maintain the quality and value of Misplaced Pages.

I believe the whole "Controversies" section about Brius should be removed. The rest of it should be labeled "Religious Views" and that section should be lowered on the page. Someone else can decide if this section should be included in Misplaced Pages.

I decided I would try removing one Brius paragraph at a time, starting with the most obvious allegation that was a lie. I wanted to see what Smntstatus would do, and I wasn't disappointed, he ignored all of my research because he is trying to inflict pain on the person.

Here is the gist of a small paragraph that I just tried to delete: The whole paragraph is about a company apparently "overpaying" related companies. This was documented by mainstream media - but they never followed up to say they got it wrong when the Auditor proved them wrong in 2020.

Eventually, the State of California had the state auditor review the case. The state auditor said the allegations were all a lie, that the payments were normal, and the Medicare program was not caused to overpay. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/12/31/brius-nursing-home/

So I removed that paragraph and all my findings are listed in the Talk page. Smntstatus wants the lies and allegations to remain and he reversed the removal. He is being unreasonable and will not discuss it.

I am requesting help with improving this Misplaced Pages entry, because I expect Smntstatus will attack anything I do here, even though it is documented.

--Photoloop (talk) 08:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I have removed some items in the controversies section that doesn't satisfy WP:PUBLICFIGURE assuming that he is one. However, I have not had a chance to look at the Brius accusations and whether they represent what RS say about it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Is four years enough time elapsed to remove a possible undisclosed payments template? Is there much justification for keeping it there? Tristario (talk) 11:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I kind of feel like it should stay until someone goes through the page and fixes whatever the UPE may have done? Valereee (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm going through and removing items based on weak sources. However, a lot of the positive items are sourced to different Jewish press sources, and I am unfamiliar with their reputation and standing to evaluate them. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Two items: One is that the article should reflect what RS say about Rechnitz and you should not be removing things just because you conclude they got it wrong or have not updated the situation appropriately. Second, is your edit conflicts with Smntstatus on this article extend back at least a year. This person is also reverting without discussion on another issue so I have given them a warning for disruptive editing in ignoring WP:BLPUNDEL and notified them about this discussion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I have made several revisions to condense the section and maintain WP:BLPBALANCE. Photoloop, I don't agree with removing the Brius controversy based on your interpretation of what the auditor said. Instead, it is appropriate to add what she said at the end of the relevant paragraph on related party transactions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Mikkel Svane

Mikkel Svane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Mr. Svane's former employer (who is my employer as well) Zendesk created this page in 2021 by disclosing a conflict of interest and submitting the page to Articles for Creation, where it was approved by @Nathan2055:. However, now the page prominently accuses Mr. Svane of covertly manipulating the page in violation of Misplaced Pages's Terms of Use. I don't see any evidence of this and making unfounded accusations of misconduct so prominently on the page seems like a BLP violation itself?

However, separately, the notability of the page has been questioned for over a year. WP:BLPDELETE also applies, as the subject of the article has repeatedly tried to delete the page. I think it needs to go to "Articles for Deletion" to get a consensus on whether he qualifies for a page anyway, but not sure if I am allowed to nominate it myself, due to my conflict of interest or does someone else need to start the nomination? Alisonmassie (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Alisonmassie: The page does not "prominently accuse Mr. Svane of covertly manipulating the page in violation of Misplaced Pages's Terms of Use". The page bears a standard template indicating that " article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments"; it does not accuse Mr. Svane himself of being the undisclosed paid editor. This template is clearly in error: the original author had disclosed his status at Zendesk long before this article was published. Therefore, it is a simple matter to just remove the {{undisclosed paid}} template, which I have done. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 18:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Alisonmassie: PS: regarding the page deletion: Mr Svane's own opinions on the existence of the page are not entirely relevant, unless the page exists solely to detract from his reputation. This page does not. It may well contain some incorrect information, and Mr Svane or any of his friends or associates are free to make edit requests at the article's talk page to correct the errors. But Mr Svane, as a former CEO of a major corporation who received a fair amount of press coverage for his leadership at Zendesk, clearly merits inclusion, in my opinion. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 18:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Onjali Q Rauf

The section on 'Views'in the page Onjali Q Rauf with subsection 'Transgender People' is libellous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mule75 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I cleaned it up a bit. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. The page is now locked. However, I think the part about the content of her speech at Woman's Place (which is still there) is also libellous. Mule75 (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Also 'sparked a backlash in the children's community' is nonsense - what even is the 'children's community'? Unsurprisingly there is no citation. This is just a person out to libel Ms Raúf. Mule75 (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I removed the remaining content in that section, not because it was defamatory, but because the sources did not support it. General Ization 19:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Excellent. I agree. Thank you. Mule75 (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

David Lifton

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

I'm not sure if this is the proper forum for this. A new editor has changed David Lifton to note that he died the other day, but I cannot find any reliable sources for this. The editor who made that change appears to be the same one who mentioned it in THIS conspiracy forum. Not sure what to do in cases like this. -Location (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I also cannot find any reliable source announcing his death, and have reverted the recent changes (which had problems beyond adding today as the death date). As it's a BLP, I think such unsourced information cannot remain in the article, even with a {{cn}} tag. Levivich (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Cathy Areu

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

The subject currently has a very brief biography. The lead section is one sentence, name nationality, occupation per MOSBIO. The subject was recently arrested. The arrest information was added to the lead section and the body. I would leave it out of the lead section for now until the case is resolved and we can determine how much weight should be given compared to the rest of her bio. I have started a talk page discussion. Another editor believes it belongs in the lead. Other input would help, thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Molly Robbins

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

Folks, this article is written like a PR piece and needs some heavy clean up, if anyone has time. Thanks.—ukexpat (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Molly Robbins -Roxy the dog 22:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Newsweek staff

• Naveed Jamali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nancy Cooper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• AdagioMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am concerned by the recent additions to the above articles by the user AdagioMan, which seems to written in a way designed to attack the subjects , rather than to be encyclopedic. The underlying sources may have some merit to be included in the articles, but would need to be completely rewritten. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Naveed Jamali had several statements criticizing Newsweek in general, sourced to articles that don't mention Jamali at all, thus becoming an off-topic WP:COATRACK. @AdagioMan: you have been editing for a long time. You should be aware of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP by now. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLPBALANCE should also be kept in mind. BLPs need to be balanced at all times, it isn't appropriate to have them temporarily unbalanced until other material is added Tristario (talk) 10:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Using the occupation parameter in an infobox to state that someone is a "cult leader"

Sigh. I'm probably going to regret this and noticeboards really aren't my forte, but I think that greater awareness might bring me some peace of mind here. I'm also stressed out and dealing with some complicated real life matters and I don't want to have this on the back of my mind when I'm trying to deal with everything else. If I'm in the wrong, I'm in the wrong. If this is really nothing and it really is just me, I'll stand down.

So, the article I'm talking about here is Billy Meier. The issue is the thread title. Currently, the infobox states that his occupation is "cult leader and author". That's contentious and I'm not sure the sources given are suitable for that purpose. It seems unnessecarily sensationalist. I tried to remove this because I'm wary that this could violate WP:BLP. My change was reverted. I tried to start a talk page discussion and so far it looks like no one agress with me. I'm pinging SchmuckyTheCat and LuckyLouie so they are aware of this discussion.

The only reason I am even aware that this article even exists is because a new editor was upset about all of this and made that very clear in their mentorship question. See User talk:Clovermoss#Question from Uleih on Billy Meier (13:49, 11 December 2022) for that. I probably could have dealt with this better but at the same time I'm not sure what else I could've really done. There's a part of me that's anticipating an even worse reply than the last one calling me a clown. I doubt that what our conception of a neutral article on this figure would look like are not aligned but I do think that calling someone a cult leader as their occupation is not ideal. Apparently there have also been issues with SPAs removing this content repeatedly...

The impression I got was that the precedent/sources for saying he's a cult leader is in this previous talk page thread: Talk:Billy Meier/Archive 2#Sources to consider, re: FIGU a cult, Meier a cult leader. In my opinion, calling someone a cult leader is a pretty big deal and passing mentions of this isn't really enough. I think that it's possible some of these sources could be used elsewhere in the article. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, x described this as "a cult of personality" or something like that. But there's really no context elsewhere in the article apart the lead that mentions he founded a UFO religion.

My main concern is that if my gut instinct is right and I'm not getting this out of nowhere, the content should be removed. Given how important the BLP policy is. But I'm also not going to edit war. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Per MOS:CULT, "cult" is always used pejoritavely, and is something that scholars of new religious movements avoid using. It's also inconsistent with how we describe the leaders of other UFO religions, like Marshall Applewhite and Raël (at least in the lead section). Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

When we call out professions, this should be actual vocations, and not loose titles of what they do that isnt a career path. The body can describe someone as a cult leader, where there is room to included the sources and reasoning why it applies, but that is simple not a recognized vocation. Masem (t) 23:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think we should avoid using "cult leader" to describe a person in Wikivoice, and I think the Manual of Style is correct to discourage it. However, the message left on your talk page was inappropriate, and it's entirely reasonable for you to challenge it or simply disregard it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah "cult leader" probably doesn't belong in anybody's infox. Two articles about people who definitely were cult leaders start with "Melvin James Lyman (March 24, 1938 – March 1978) was an American musician and writer, and the founder of the Fort Hill Community, which has been variously described as a family, commune, or cult" and "George Feigley (June 23, 1940 – April 13, 2009) was an American church leader. He has been described as a sex cult leader". And these people were cult leaders, in that they were surrounded by people who basically worshiped them, considered them the wisest of men, and would serve them and follow them down basically any road. Meier's article doesn't indicate he's got anything like that. So in his case it's not so much that "cult leader" is pejorative, it's that its not even true. But I can't think of anyone dead or alive that we would flat out say "cult leader" in the inbox. Write about in the article. Herostratus (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Since this is about the infobox, then the answer seems quite simple to me without the need to get into all the reason why it is also bad to use in the article text. It is simply not an occupation, which is "a job or profession". It's similar to a problem that recently occurred over at the Bobby Beausoleil article, where someone was trying to list his occupation as "unemployed". Sorry, but that is not a job or profession. Neither is a cult leader. Zaereth (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm also pinging JoJo Anthrax to also notify them of this discussion since they have since posted on the talk page after I started this discussion: . I feel like removing cult leader from the infobox is a sensical change, which is why I was surpised I was reverted in the first place. Thoughts about using it elsewhere? That was the main point I was trying to get across in the original thread, that if it's somewhere it should be cited with context in the article itself. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Clovermoss for the ping. As I wrote here, I propose removing cult leader as Meier's occupation and instead use it as a "Known for" descriptor. Contrary to some comments above, there are ample sources reporting Meier as a cult leader (see this for some of them). To not identify him as such in the infobox and the article body would seem to me an example of WP:PROMO by omission. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The problem with those sources is that only two of them even use the term "cult leader", and one of those two is noted as not being a good source. If the only good source actually describing him as a "cult leader" is a single reivew with a single mention, I'm not feeling that there is a lot to justify including it in the infobox. A discussion in the body about the group would be more nuanced. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the sourcing for this in wikivoice does not seem great (per Bilby). I also don't think that's an appropriate use of that part of the infobox, a "Cult leader" isn't generally an occupation, apart from in some very particular scenarios maybe. I think the best thing to do here is to just not include that entry of the infobox. Some more detail about the "cult leader" aspect could be included in the lede as well as the body, as appropriate Tristario (talk) 10:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

There has been a two more talk page comments since I started this discussion at Talk:Billy Meier#Someone upset about this article on my talk page with a request that the discussion remains centralized at that page. The reason I started a discussion elsewhere is because I was worried about possible BLP implications and I thought broader input from people would be useful. Should this stay here? The BLP noticeboard template mentions that policy compliance issues should be discussed here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Probably best it stay there, unless some impasse is reached and the discussion stalls out. I have this page on my watchlist, so I generally leave my 2 cents here and people can do with it as they wish. (I try to limit the number of pages that I watch, mainly because I'll never remember to remove them later.) People may continue to comment here, so I'd suggest just considering what they have to say. This page is archived fairly quickly, so if no one comments in a few days it will just disappear into the abyss. Zaereth (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

My concern is that if it stays at that talk page, "cult leader" will stay in the infobox and we will have some sort of conflicting consensus. This is one of the new comments on the talk page thread as a reponse to getting rid of cult leader in the infobox by SchmuckyTheCat:

Because as a daily job he's a cult leader. He has a big farm where all the cultists live. He communicates with other cultists globally. He manages who gets paid from the cult's funds. He delivers messages to cultists about what's what. He's the leader, of a cult, and that takes up the majority of his time. While these guys are dead (hint, hint about the future) Misplaced Pages doesn't hold back from calling David Koresh or Marshall Applewhite cult leaders. The same as Billy here, there day to day job was leading a cult.

There are various reasons this is not a good idea, as expressed by others on this noticeboard. There's MOS:CULT, the sourcing in general is really weak as described by Bilby, and it's inconstistent with other articles per Herostratus. The article still describes his occupation as a cult leader in the current version of the article. I haven't tried to remove it ever since my change was reverted. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC); edited to ping the person whose comment I'm referring to Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

ROFL! And I don't use that acronym lightly. I may have to check out the talk page now for some more entertainment. That seems easily dealt with, though, because the entire argument quoted above is one of the most basic logical fallacies, called affirming the consequent. "I play football with my friends. Football is a profession. Therefore, I am a professional football player." Sorry, but neither arguments hold water. Zaereth (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Rubbish. If you're paid to pay football with your friends then yes, you're a professional footballer. Meier is paid to administer, lead, and organize, his cult just as any other kind of corporate admin. His corporation is just based on selling his religions that comes from his stories about riding around the universe and time-traveling with aliens.

It's well-documented that FIGU is a cult, with all the negative assertions that go with it. He's the leader, in both the figurative sense of it being based on him, but also his control of finances and the relationships of the people. BLP is not SPOV. If he's a cult leader, so be it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with nearly everyone else here that cult leader is unlikely to ever belong in the info box as an occupation. Probably never in the info box point blank. If editors refuse to accept the consensus, well BLP is a DS area and BLP is one area where topic bans should be imposed readily. Nil Einne (talk) 04:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution