Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:03, 30 July 2023

• 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.

• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

BLPs created by User:Davidcannon (un-archived)

Note that I have manually unarchived this thread. See also WP:ANI#Davidcannon's_BLPs. El_C 04:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)>

For some background, reading this conversation is useful context. Davidcannon is an adminstrator that has created 600+ articles, many of them which are BLPs. From a brief spotcheck, I'm not sure going to ANI is the best course of action (and honestly the idea terrifies me when it's not really something I've tried to do before). Two of the articles they've created have recently been deleted: Laisa Digitaki and Samuela Matakibau. However, the brief spotcheck has somewhat convinced me that not all of their biographies are like this. There does seem to be issues every once and awhile in regards to controversial unsourced information . 600+ articles is a lot of articles to check and I thought that maybe here would be the better place to fix any problems that may be identified. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, some articles that could likely use a second set of eyes include:

1. Ben Padarath
2. Angie Heffernan - done
3. Sakiusa Tuisolia - done
4. Viliame Naupoto - done
5. Willem Ouweneel
6. Jimi Koroi - done
7. Pita Driti - done
8. Ballu Khan - links added
9. Peter Ridgeway - done
10. Imraz Iqbal - done
11. Richard Naidu - done
12. Meli Bainimarama - done
13. Litia Qionibaravi - done
14. Viliame Seruvakula - done
15. Vyas Deo Sharma - done
16. Akuila Yabaki - links added
17. Saula Telawa - links added
18. Jone Baledrokadroka - done
19. Naomi Matanitobua - links added
20. Jale Baba - done
21. Sakeasi Butadroka - done
22. Kolinio Rokotuinaceva - done
23. Lagamu Vuiyasawa - links added
24. Asesela Ravuvu
25. Asenaca Caucau
26. Simione Kaitani - done
27. Kenneth Zinck - done
28. Ofa Swann - done
29. Injimo Managreve
30. Kaliopate Tavola - links added
31. Ateca Ganilau
32. Petero Mataca - links added
33. Rakuita Vakalalabure - links added
34. Daniel Fatiaki
35. James Ah Koy

There may be more. I'm going to be taking a break for now. As I previously stated, more eyes and input is welcome. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm also pinging The Wordsmith because of the aforementioned discussion that started this thread. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Davidcannon's speciality on Misplaced Pages was Fiji and its unstable politics. As far as I am aware, he created well-sourced articles (but with embedded external links rather than references), but the links were mostly to Fijian news sites, and many years later, the links no longer worked and Davidcannon deleted them. Some of these links could be restored using web archives. For example, looking at the just-deleted article Laisa Digitaki, the references to fijitimes.com are recoverable, but references to fijivillage.com and fijilive.com appear not to be. I know there's a bot which can recover dead links, but for it to run, we would have to first restore the dead links preferably without removing subsequent improvements to the article, and we would end up with an article which has not been substantially updated for many years with some unrecoverable links and dubious notability. I certainly do not have the interest in Fijian politics to want to tackle this myself. Two editors currently active in that area are @IdiotSavant: and @Thiscouldbeauser:, would you have any interest in working on such articles? As you're not administrators and can't see the deleted article we're discussing, perhaps we could move it to draft space and blank it if you're sufficiently interested to assess it. (I am aware that User:Everyking was desysopped for offering to restore a deleted edit (but he did not actually do so upon reviewing the edit), so I want to make it clear I have no intention of undeleting this article without a clear consensus to do so.)-gadfium 00:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest raising it with Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Fiji, which does have some active users (people who did bios of MPs elected in the 2022 Fijian general election would be a good start). I'm currently doing a bit of cleanup for that project, and focusing on BLPs at the moment. I'd noticed that lots were created by Davidcannon, but not the removal of dead sources. I'll start checking for them, and see what I can do to restore them. Though there is an underlying issue with source availability for that period of Fijian history - major media outlets don't have archives going back that far (some having scrubbed them to avoid trouble with the military regime), and we've also lost the East-West Centre's Pacific Islands Report mirror of news coverage. Some of the latter is archived, but its very haphazard.

WRT the specific article, there appear to be sources available on RNZ. -- IdiotSavant (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Given the similarity of content, references for Laisa Digitaki should be available on Angie Heffernan.-- IdiotSavant (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

So you mean articles about Fijian politicians? Sure, I can create a few of them in the coming weeks if I find enough good info. I haven't created articles about people themselves before though. A quick Google search for Laisa Digitaki comes up with a deleted Misplaced Pages page, a LinkedIn profile, social media accounts (Facebook and Instagram) and articles about her from generally unreliable sites (i.e FijiLeaks and Fiji News Wars, the latter is a blog hosted on Blogspot which I only found out about today and the former being a site is often critical of Frank Bainimarama and claims to be like WikiLeaks), as well as other random stuff, e.g an e-book on Google Books about her and several other coup-era Fijian politicians and two random TikTok videos. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 05:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Its more a case of trawling existing articles, checking whether links have been deleted, restoring them, and adding other references as required (oh, and adding them to appropriate WikiProjects, because not everything seems to be appropriately tagged). Required skills: using the wayback machine and reference templates, and searching appropriate news sources (Fiji Sun, Fiji Times, Fiji Village, RNZ).-- IdiotSavant (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. There was still this content that I removed after you striked as Angie Heffernan "done" . At least from what I've seen, I'm concerned that some of these articles wouldn't follow WP:BLPCRIME. An example is Ben Padarath – he was never elected as a politician (WP:NPOL) and there's a whole section with mostly unreferenced content detailing his alleged crimes. It's been like that since creation . Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

There's definitely a problem there with undue focus (I assume because of when it was written), but the article may also need expansion - there's stuff he has been convicted of (see here and here), but its not in the article. OTOH, that's not especially notable, and honestly barring the sedition charge, he's not someone I'd remotely consider creating an article for if there wasn't one already (so maybe he's a candidate for AfD?). Regarding sedition, where there doesn't seem to be a conviction yet, is there a guideline for political crimes? Because for a lot of Fijian political figures there's a history of oppression by the military regime, sedition or equivalent charges brought and later dropped, and not including them would be leaving out something very significant.-- IdiotSavant (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Gadfium "I am aware that User:Everyking was desysopped for offering to restore a deleted edit". This is well before I started serious wiki-editing. However, a more recent counter-example is Micaela Schäfer, which I deleted per WP:G10 / WP:BLPDELETE and was subsequently restored by SoWhy who cleaned it up and fixed all the BLP violations. There was a thread at AN running at the time, where I explicitly stated I had no issue with SoWhy doing this. So I think that's your answer - ask if The Wordsmith is okay with you restoring the article for the purposes of fixing the BLP issues, and if they are, then just do it.

A further point that's worth mentioning is that WP:BLPPROD originally only applied for articles created after the policy was introduced in 2010. Then, in 2017, this grandfather clause was removed by consensus. So at the time Davidcannon removed the dead news links, he might have reasonably assumed BLPPROD didn't apply because the article was verified at one point. Ritchie333 10:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

We used to have a grandfather clause? Are there any others that are still in effect? It seems bizzare to me that we could ever decide anything by consensus and then go "but it doesn't apply to any articles created before now". I'm interested in the rationales that were used at the time. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people/Archive 7#RfC: Remove the grandfather clause? for further reading. Ritchie333 11:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Just to briefly clarify that, it was a very unusual situation that led to the grandfather clause being created. The BLPPROD process was created because we had an absurd nightmare of something like 80K completely unreferenced BLPs, and one camp was mass summary deleting them while the other thought we should try sourcing them all instead of deleting. As part of the compromise for dealing with them, the grandfather clause was established to prevent people from just tagging them all at once while the effort to source them was underway. The Wordsmith 16:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 and Gadfium: I do object to restoring the history of those two articles either in mainspace or anywhere else, since the contents of them are bad enough that they'd be a gross BLP vio in any namespace. Pretty much all they covered was allegations of crimes committed and being investigated. What I can do is email the deleted versions (and the sources used, if you like) to any editor interested in rewriting. I have no issue with a bio (or even a stub) for those subjects being recreated if it can comply with our policies, just not the history of those two. The Wordsmith 16:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I've gone through 2004 Pitcairn Islands sexual assault trial, largely written by David, and the amount of unsourced depictions of underage sexual activity are beyond the pale, and if a new editor did that, I'd revert and redact it. And to make it abundantly clear, my issue here is adherence to WP:BLPSOURCES and our longstanding policy is that unsourced claims involving living persons should be removed - I have no opinion on the content. Ritchie333 14:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems like his contributions were mostly in 2004. Were the inline sourcing requirements different then? Was he an administrator then? Misplaced Pages policies and BLP (if it existed) enforcement may have been more lax then. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

No. BLP was first started in 2005 by Slim Virgin, who was probably one of the greatest Wikipedians to ever exist and someone I very much admired and looked up to, and even then it took many years to build and refine this policy into what it has become today. Rules were definitely much more lax then (it was basically the Wild West in those days) and not many people gave much thought to the real-world repercussions of the things we do here. Misplaced Pages has grown up a lot since those days, but there is still a lot from back then that needs to be cleaned up. Thank god we had someone with the knowledge and foresight of Slim Virgin. She has been sorely missed. Zaereth (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I had quite a few arguments with SlimVirgin back in the day, but BLP was one of her greatest contributions. I do know it wasn't taken as seriously as it is today at first. We had Rachel Marsden in 2006, Badlydrawnjeff in 2007, and Footnoted quotes in 2008 which especially strengthened it by creating BLP Special Enforcement. Even until late 2009/early 2010 there was a strong minority who felt that completely unsourced BLPs weren't a problem and it led to that mass deletion and the establishment of WP:BLPPROD. Yes, Slim will be missed but she helped get us where we are today. I probably wouldn't go bringing Davidcannon's articles up at the dramaboards since it was absolutely a different time with looser standards, but we do need to clean up the mess now by making them conform to Misplaced Pages's current BLP standards or summarily deleting them. The Wordsmith 17:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe pin this to keep it from archiving again until the list has a chance to be seen by more people? Valereee (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely. I had my own disagreements with some of Misplaced Pages's policies when I first started, in particular the whole "Verifiability not truth" phrase (which I still think is very poorly worded) but I had a great discussion with Sarah in which she explained the reasoning behind this seemingly contradictory statement, and in her reasoning I agreed entirely. I actually never had much interaction with her aside from that, but over the years you get to know people even if you don't interact. The first article I worked on was the flashtube article, which was mostly just a bunch of really plausible-sounding bunk that people made up because it sounded good in their heads. Same with the tempering (metallurgy) article, or the basic fighter maneuvers article. They were dreadful, but most Misplaced Pages articles started out that way. It was new territory and people were creating articles by the thousands each day. It was a very different time. I wouldn't waste a lot of energy assigning blame or shame. Like anything, we just have to tackle these things as we find them and move on to the next. Zaereth (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

She sounds amazing. I don't think I ever personally interacted with her, but I'm familiar with the username. I had no idea that she was instrumental in starting WP:BLP, we really should have a "history of Misplaced Pages" outlining the major changes we've experienced throughout time. I've noticed some stuff has changed since I started editing in 2018, I can only imagine the scale at which other who have been here for longer experience that. I agree that tackling this and moving on is the best course of action. If I had known that I could've just unarchived the thread, I don't think I would've started the ANI one. I just wanted to make sure these issues didn't disappear into a void and then someone else a decade later would be here to say something. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

She did some great things, but she could be absolutely infuriating to argue with. She also had a flair for the dramatic and a habit of unnecessary escalation, sandbagging discussions she didn't like and even wheel warring; there's a reason she has at least 3 or 4 Arbcom cases named after her personally. The Wordsmith 18:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks like RfA was in June 2004. And yes, sourcing requirements were far different then. Valereee (talk) 11:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note that I've used Template:DNAU at the top of this thread to prevent archiving; once the thread is concluded anybody can just remove that line to allow the bots to archive it as normal. The Wordsmith 18:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Not sure where to put my own comment. Feel free to move it or remove it. I've only just seen this, as my attendance on Misplaced Pages is intermittent at the moment. Most of the BLPs in question are Fijian biographies. There was a military coup in 2006, and many of the online sources (news outlets, etc) got censored. A lot of them have not been restored. Much as I would like to go back and add sources, I cannot do so when they no longer exist.

I fully support the BLP rules, and will fully support the deletion of any article of mine that cannot reasonably be made to comply with the rules as they stand. David Cannon (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Davidcannon: Thanks for the response! I realize that not everyone is on Misplaced Pages 24/7 (I once took a year wikibreak myself) so I'm glad to hear from you even if it wasn't immediately. IdiotSavant has had some luck with finding sources that were archived, but as you implied, many have been lost to time. If you have some extra time, maybe you could try to help? Many hands make light work. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, if you had any questions about how article creation standards have changed, maybe Ritchie333 or The Wordsmith would have some useful advice? I haven't been around as long as they have. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice :-) And yes, I'll be happy to return to the project to help with the cleanup whenever I've got time. Looking forward to it!David Cannon (talk) 06:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I found an archive of a book printed in 2005 about the Coup itself; click on the button for the pdf. If anyone needs to source basic facts about the coup, you can probably find it here. I used it on the Ateca Ganilau article but couldn't source everything there. Denaar (talk) 03:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Note - another resource to help with these: Australia and New Zealand Reference Centre Plus on EBSCOHost has the Fiji Times from the relevant period.--IdiotSavant (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ritchie333, 2004 Pitcairn Islands sexual assault trial is far from from irredeemable. Doing a google search I found plenty of sources which can be used to improve the article. It's not the sort of subject matter that I'm willing to touch but the material is there. I found a broad range of material at , , , , , , , , , , , , and . I was recently watching a current affairs show about it here in Australia on our ABC so it's still highly notable and anyone who knows how to effectively search google can find plenty of material. AlanS 11:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@El C: I'm grateful that you un-archived the thread, but I'm wondering if maybe it should still be here? It's been 4 months already... Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Bob Morley & Arryn Zech

In this case, all the sources are citing the now-deleted claims published on Zech's social media. The Daily Dot source is highly questionable on its own, and delves into speculation and gossip. Popculture also seems questionable, and also relies solely on the self-published content. The Girlfriend Magazine article is unreliable; it is a teen magazine gossip column with no byline and no editorial policy. Distractify is plainly unreliable. The Daily Planet I'm not sure on in general terms; it seems to have an editorial policy but I can't find any discussions on its use as a source. In any case, it is still based entirely on the social media posts. The sources being "as good as we can get at the current time" is absolutely not a valid reason for using substandard or marginal sources for highly controversial negative claims in a BLP.

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.

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

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

Reasons I believe it violates the biographies of living persons policies

WP:V

Misplaced Pages:Point of view Specifically the indication of relative prominence of opposing views.

This is in regards to the wikipedia page of Bob Morley (actor), the page cites gossip websites including a statement from his ex where she alleges abuse. Upon trying to add other information representing other sides, or more importantly adding life altering events such as knee surgery and marriage, gets instantly removed. The information has the same citations from news sites as well as videos from public appearances of the involved individuals. A timeline of his relationship with his current wife, providing another viewpoint on the accusations (with the same citations as the first accusation) has been deleted as well. Every addition is rejected even providing sources (the same sources as those added before)

Could someone take a look at it? It would be of my interest to add to the article in a way that represents all events and sides.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam4R4O (talk • contribs) 04:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Cheating allegations does seem like WP:BLPGOSSIP and the cited sources are not the strongest. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I'd say that in this case, the sources are as good as we can get at the current time. Also, the additional citations added to give "another side" of the story have been even worse than the existing sources. Also, I have serious questions as to whether the person who posted this original inquiry is doing so in good faith, considering their thinking that geekspin and Hollywood life are reliable sources, when it is clear they are NOT. A LOT of page have been editing that page and removing/adding content recently, and the OP is one of those people, causing the page to be muddled beyond belief, leading to situations which almost lead to edit wars. It is really bad.Historyday01 (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

We've discussed the same thing in the Bob Morley talk, so I'll not repeat too much from there, but one thing I want to point out is that this comment (Perhaps, but I'd say that in this case, the sources are as good as we can get at the current time.) to me is all the more stronger reasons to not include these claims (or drastically reduce how much we're talking about the claims).

Our requirements for how reliable sources should be, should not be lowered because one topic is less covered. Soni (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

That's true. I only added it originally because I was under the impression that it was the "right" thing to do, and never expected this much discussion about it. Historyday01 (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

This is Misplaced Pages, we have discussions that can go far and wide over the most trivial topics heh. Sometimes, people just have strong opinions about policies we use here. And so long discussions often go in circles and need explicit closes.

But also, we need to be extra careful when talking about living people we directly affect by just "what goes into their article" so the extra concern and scrutiny is warranted here. Soni (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I can understand that. Historyday01 (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

There needs to be a clear consensus before restoring any disputed content without fixing the issue which are the sources supporting the contentious claims. Are there are no better ones out there? If they aren't touching the topic, wikipedia shouldn't either. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

You stated in a recent edit that "compromise text doesn't address the problems with the given sources", and I have to thoroughly disagree with your argument, as I would say NONE of the sources cited in the compromise text I came up with are unreliable. Some sources added by other users are, but the ones I added are reliable, plain and simple. Apart from talking about this on this discussion, there are also the various ongoing discussions on Talk: Bob Morley. I would hope you involve yourself in the latter. This is NOT the time to be acting boldly.Historyday01 (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

You're going to have to explain why continuing to use those same sources fixes the issue on how DUE this is. It doesn't meet WP:BURDEN nor WP:ONUS if people are disputing its reliablity on a BLP matter. Soni, maybe you can explain since you originally raised that objection. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Removed my previous comment. Please see my comment at the end of this discussion with new proposed text.Historyday01 (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Honestly I'll be frank and say I'm out of my depth on this one. I genuinely think DUE concerns are met with that wording, so if there's a deeper BLP related reasoning behind why they aren't, I don't know it yet. Happy to be informed correctly, if it's a case of me being not well informed. Else I think this wording is acceptable enough. Soni (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

You had a problem with the sourcing itself. I did and a couple of other editors have agreed with removal per WP:BLPGOSSIP. To be clear, did you believe the reliability of those sources met wp:v but not WP:DUE originally? You had mentioned a heightened standard for BLPs. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, did you believe the reliability of those sources met wp:v but not WP:DUE originally? That's more or less how I understood it. For a claim that's exceptional (the way it was originally phrased) these sources weren't enough. Since WP:DAILYDOT implies it's not an unreliable source, so to speak, but also not the most reliable?

For the claim phrased later Morley's relationship with voice actress Arryn Zech ended on Valentines Day 2019, with Zech later accusing Morley of emotional and verbal abuse I considered it okay because it met the threshold of being WP:DUE for me. The claims are made in a single sentence without implying either side's correctness. I considered Daily Dot to be a single source sufficient to support that claim (or similarly phrased).

That's pretty much the extent of how I understand it now. Sorry my BLP knowledge doesn't go deep enough, so I get the "BLPs should be held to a higher standard" but I don't know if this statement still breaks that expected standard. Hopefully that clarifies my stance and also where I'm confused on our usual way of doing things. Soni (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

What makes me doubt the seriousness of dailydot's article (besides having dubious strength as a source for wikipedia standards when it comes to contentious issues or claims: WP:DAILYDOT + Nociteboard) is their speculation about Taylor's involvement despite the fact that she was never named (appeals to speculative adverbs like "seemingly" - speculations are considered counterfactual fallacies: articles containing fallacies should be avoided - the writer also appeals to "weasel words"/"glittering generality": "Many are now accusing Taylor of being a hypocrite" WP:BLPGOSSIP). From how I perceive it, its tone and sentences are quite "gossipy", even more so considering that Zech's claims about cheating and alleged verbal/emotional abuse were never accompanied by any proof, screenshots, mention of a formal report or anything: claims require specific evidence.

Besides, as I said in a previous interaction, I think that if the claim is mentioned, the nature of it should be clarified. This was done only through social media, not before any authority (police or judicial). There are no charges or contentious situation legally reported by an article (as for example occurs in the article about Marie Avgeropoulos, where it is specified that the contentious situation involved charges that were later dropped by her boyfriend who had the injuries - this was also reported by outlets like the LATimes and People - it is worth mentioning that the latter can certainly be considered more reliable than dailydot, but even so the encyclopedia advises against using it as a source when it comes to contentious issues).

To summarize, I think that at least the nature of the claims (social media) should be specified in Zech's article where for now the claims are still mentioned. Without a clarification of this type, I think that the article in a first reading can give the impression that there were formal allegations.

I believe that for now this is all I can say about the solidity of the sources and the wording used in the article. Editngwiki (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. If I understand you correctly, the claims should be mentioned on Zech's page but not Morley's? Is that correct? Historyday01 (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Historyday01 I hope not. As I've said to you earlier, BLP or sourcing issues do not vanish just based on what article we're editing. If the sources are spurious enough to not support adding claims of abuse to one page, then they cannot be added to the other.

I think there's enough consensus of the same on this noticeboard to require removal. I will do so now (and we can re-add sections if there's consensus to add parts of it) Soni (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

That is true, I suppose. Not going to repeat what I've seen in other comments, but currently there doesn't seem to be any consensus on this topic (I don't think), from reading this discussion. I'd be fine with having it removed from the Zech page for the time being until a consensus is reached. Regardless of the consensus decision reached on this topic, would it be ok to use the Daily Dot and Popculture.com articles as further evidence of Zech's bisexuality? The Daily Dot quotes Zech as saying "When he found out that I am bisexual, he was furious", while the Popculture.com article says "Zach claimed Morely was "furious" after she revealed she is bisexual". Historyday01 (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Historyday01 I saw a clear consensus, but I'm happy if someone else uninvolved (and not SPA, duh) wants to re-evaluate or formally close this. It looks unclear at a glance, but that's almost all because of back-and-forth threaded discussion after discussion on this, which only very involved editors have an interest in.

And while it's not clearly specified by every single editor (because the question being asked was slightly altered every few replies), this is roughly the stances from the messages I saw (apart from myself) -

• In favour of removal - Morbidthoughts, Editngwiki (SPA, well supported with policy arguments though), ScottishFinnishRadish, Zaereth, Kizo2703 (SPA)
• In favour of adding watered down text on either page - BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4, Lexaevermorewoods (SPA), Historyday01
• No clear opinion on this - Skywatcher68, Adam4R4O (SPA)

As I have an involved opinion on this, I did not evaluate policy backing behind each stance (WP:PNSD), but IMHO it still does not support adding the text. So yes, I did see a clear consensus (which I'm happy to be corrected on, if it changes/someone else wants to confirm it) Soni (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd say that's a pretty good run-down of the opinions at this point. I would say it is leaning toward not adding the text, but I'm not sure how SPAs factor in, when it comes to a formal closure. Historyday01 (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• As for sexual orientation, I surprisingly cannot find a policy about that. But as before, I think primary sources are fine when noting it. So long as we're only noting down the bisexuality without getting into any other BLP issues, I think that'll be fine. Soni (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  Great. As it turns out, I had already added the sources there, and one of those bots added the sources in for the sentence "Her bisexuality was previously confirmed in media reporting in July 2020". Historyday01 (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  As for her sexuality, she mentioned it in these panels:

  2020, March: The Chicago Comic & Entertainment Expo (C2E2) - 4:30.

  2020, May: RWBY Live Stream GalaxyCon - 23:07

  2018, July: Montreal Comic Con - 5:20. It is mentioned by her coworker, Lindsay Jones ("Me and Arryn are bi").

  2013, June: RT Podcast Ep. 121 - 22:35. It is mentioned by Miles Luna, her ex.

  There are records that she has been openly bisexual since at least 2014 (via her old tumblr account @hazleapricot: screenshots 1 and 2 + more vaguely when she said she "is part of the LGBT community"). However, I have not found an article or interview from that time, but perhaps the video of the conventions will be enough, especially the one from C2E2 (2020). Editngwiki (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for providing those. Historyday01 (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  I found the method to close the discussion (Marking a closed discussion).

  Unless someone has something else to contribute, I guess we can proceed. Editngwiki (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  My understanding is that to close a discussion, we need an uninvolved editor, so no one here that has commented so far. Historyday01 (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  I have minimally edited the article as I feel it is not necessary to preserve the reference to Dailydot's publication because 1) it is a subtle way of including the claims that we already discussed extensively here and 2) because the article already includes a reference that can also be used for this topic: the interview conducted by Dunkelman, where the actress mentions her sexuality on two occasions.

  a) Min. 0:50 - Zech mentions how she sits and the stereotype of how bisexuals do.

  b) Min. 36: 5-38: 20 - After a fan asks about her dating experience. (in the article I referenced this last part of the interview in particular since there Zech refers to what her dating experience is like as a bisexual).

  I hope we can close this discussion soon. It has been a pleasure working with all of you. Sorry for the delay! Editngwiki (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  I will not revert @Historyday01's edit. But as I said before, I think that including Dailydot's article whose headline and text contains the allegations is an unethical way of including them when the discussion has not been officially closed. The persistence in including it seems suspicious to me, especially considering that there are other resources and (in particular) a reference that was previously used by Historyday01 in Zech's article.

  From what I saw, the previous interactions got a bit aggressive and I hope this discussion can be closed soon. Editngwiki (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  Ok. While I disagree with you, as I've made clear in this discussion, and as I said in my recent comment on your talk page, I only think it should be included until an administrator ends this discussion, and then included (or not) depending on how they end this discussion. Not acting "aggressive" or "unethical" in any of my edits, just trying to preserve the status quo of the article until the discussion concludes with a closing statement by an admin or non-admin (there are multiple ways of closing a discussion). Currently, a request to closure was posted by @WikiVirusC on May 4th, but there has been no action on that since the request for closure was posted 70 days ago. I don't know if there is anywhere else to post about a closure request, but that page seems to be the best (and only?) place.Historyday01 (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Should also include Arryn Zech in this discussion, as it is the same topic/sources. The information has been disputed being included in Morley's article back when it first happened, it recently got added back in after Zech's page was created a few weeks ago. I added her into this discussion. And since we are here on noticeboard, while not on her page, Eliza Taylor's name keeps being added into the accusations, and she wasn't even named in Zech's statement. Some of those gossip sources inferred she might of been referring to her when she said "a girl", but BLP wise I don't think we should be including her name at all especially with lackluster sources. WikiVirusC 13:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps. I think the current compromise text (at the end of this discussion) I just added in works to clear up a lot of the issues with the previous text. This discussion is muddled by people like the OP who want to "balance" out the page by adding in subpar sources (like links to Instagram and YouTube), which are not acceptable in contentious issues like this. I would say that Eliza Taylor shouldn't be added to Zech's page. Of course, Taylor is on Morley's page, but shouldn't be connected to the accusations as current sources only speculate that Zech is referring to Taylor (who she doesn't mention directly), which isn't enough evidence to keep her there. I will say this whole discussion has been a learning experience... I suppose. Historyday01 (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I think the current text on the matter in both pages is fine. It's brief, to the point, and not too detailed about the nature of the claims or Taylor's may-have-may-have-not involvement, just says clearly that there was a relationship and accusations without getting into the weeds. I feel reasonably certain that Morley's fans are still going to attempt to force their narratives in both pages regardless of how impartial we are or how much we do or do not mention or if we mention anything at all, and I don't think we should omit the topic altogether, so I think it's best to just have this brief summary and leave it at that unless better sources arise. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 17:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  I came up with new compromise text at the end of this discussion, which I believe addresses the issues people are having so far in this discussion, by not mentioning the accusations at all. Since there was, apparently, too much disagreement about the previous text, I see no reason to even try to defend it. It just seems like a waste of energy on my part. Historyday01 (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment@Discospinster, @–DMartin, @Skywatcher68, and @Editngwiki your comments in this discussion would be appreciated.Historyday01 (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain how you chose this list of users per WP:CANVAS? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing because it's because we left comments at Talk:Bob Morley.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I see a lot of participants missing if that is the case. Should they be notified? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I believe everyone else I didn't mention in my previous comment is mentioned at the end of this discussion.Historyday01 (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I just chose those on the talk page discussion. Historyday01 (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Not notifying everyone in the discussion is WP:VOTESTACKING Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I did not add those people to "stack" the vote, I just believed, incorrectly, that most of those in the talk page discussions were already here. It's as simple as that.Historyday01 (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• I don't really have any opinion here; I only stumbled into this while patrolling recent changes one day. I did ask Google about this just now and found at least one accusation that Zech has been lying; whether or not this has any bearing on recent edits, I don't know.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Hmm. Well this supports the case for the compromised text I note in another comment. Historyday01 (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment As I stated on Talk:Bob Morley, I would be willing to reduce it to the following compromise text: Morley's relationship with voice actress Arryn Zech ended on Valentines Day 2019. I have since removed the following sentence, per the below discussion: Previously, his relationship with Zech had only been rumored. If this text was chosen, it could avoid us delving into the accusations (as it doesn't mention them at all), and it may address some of the other comments on here. If accepted, similar text could then be added to Zech's page. Historyday01 (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  If two people were dating, and the only coverage was rumors until after the relationship ended, is it really biographical detail necessary in an encyclopedia? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  If all the page is saying is that they were in a relationship, I do not see that as controversial or violating ANY Misplaced Pages rules. Morley and Zech are notable figures, plain and simple. The least we can do is mention they were in a relationship, and then add warnings in hidden text telling people to add nothing else. Furthermore, adding something about the relationship would make it easier to push off the bad actors who are editing the pages of Morley and Zech more easily than getting into endless edit wars. So, in that sense, the compromised text would have further value. Historyday01 (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Why even mention the second sentence? Has Morley confirmed the relationship? How are these sites ascertaining there was one beyond looking at her postings? Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  I suppose, but I only added the second sentence because it is another source (which mentioned they were rumored as being together). However, I wouldn't be altogether opposed to getting rid of the last sentence. It appears that Zech posted about this relationship a LOT (including photos of them together, from what I've seen), but since she deleted her Twitter (I noted about the archived tweets on the Wayback Machine at Talk:Arryn Zech#Relationship with Miles Luna), and likely similar posts on Instagram (which is notoriously hard to archive, from my experience, apart from using sites like Ghostarchive or Archive.is, as the Wayback Machine isn't always good at saving such posts), so there isn't as much evidence on her side of the relationship. I would guess that would be the same for Morley. I haven't done a deep dive through his Twitter or any other social media, but if I have to guess, I would think he did the same as Zech and deleted his photos/tweets which showed her. Historyday01 (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  This all sounds incredibly gossipy and unencyclopedic. What is the point, and what am I supposed to learn about the subject by reading this? This just reads like the stuff of tabloids, not what one would expect from an encyclopedia. Zaereth (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Ok. Saying "Morley's relationship with voice actress Arryn Zech ended on Valentines Day 2019" (the compromise text) doesn't seem gossipy or anything like that. Honestly, it seems like the blandest text possible, devoid of any controversy, and I'm not sure why anyone would have an issue with it.Historyday01 (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Personally I prefer @Soni's edit, and I believe the whole statement from Zech had many inconsistencies, and, at times, involved mind reading and super hearing. I don't think it's a reliable source, but I'm willing to compromise if it keeps it entirely on her page and not darkening others with accusations in which there's no legal resolution, since there seems to be no other resolution for @Historyday01. Lexaevermorewoods (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  Hmm. Well, as I said in other comments recently on here, I'd be fine with keeping it removed from Morley's page (where it is currently not present, as it was removed near the beginning of this discussion), and keeping it on Zech's page (since she is the one who made the accusations), where it currently reads as follows:

  Zech's relationship with actor Bob Morley ended on Valentines Day 2019, with Zech later accusing Morley of emotional and verbal abuse. Previously, Morley's relationship with Zech had only been rumored. Historyday01 (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  I searched for interviews given by both during 2025-2019 and neither names the other. Sometimes they made comments about a "boyfriend" or "girlfriend" without giving specifics or names. The only article in which Zech is named says that the relationship was merely rumored. I have not been able to find a source that lives up to the requirements of the encyclopedia.

  Bearing this in mind, I agree that bringing this issue up can give the article a "gossipy style" that we clearly want to avoid here. Editngwiki (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, that is the one article I found earlier. Would it be ok to mention Zech's accusations on her page, but not Morley's? Because I would be completely fine with that compromise, and with leaving Zech out of Morley's page. Historyday01 (talk) 03:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment: I think it would be in the best interest of all of us to conclude this discussion relatively soon, either toward removing or keeping the content, at least in the next couple days (I'm not sure how long BLP discussions typically run). I think it would do a disservice to keep this discussion dragging on. As such, @Discospinster, @WikiDan61, @–DMartin, @TimeTravellingBunny, @Kizo2703, @Lexaevermorewoods, and @Isaidnoway your comments in this discussion would be appreciated. @Morbidthoughts, I believe that's everyone from Talk:Bob Morley and Talk:Arryn Zech, but if I missed someone (that isn't already here), I apologize in advance for that.Historyday01 (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Note that multiple accounts participating in this discussion have few to no edits outside this topic (and not many edits overall). If there will be someone evaluating consensus at the end of this, I'd recommend taking that into account. Soni (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  That's true. Users like Lexaevermorewoods, TimeTravellingBunny, and Kizo2703 are single-purpose accounts.Historyday01 (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be removed from Zech's site too, cause it's nothing else but gossip. Loud and clear.

And, since all of THEIR proofs of the relationship on SM are either deleted (Morleys' acct) or Zech doesn't have Twitter acct anymore, it's just hearsay. Kizo2703 (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, I am suspicious about your reasoning since you are a single-purpose account, as you admitted yourself on April 6. You have also made strange legal threats in the past as well. Also your argument is illogical since Zech's accusations were posted on her Instagram, which is still active, and Morley still has a Twitter account. So I wouldn't call it "hearsay". Historyday01 (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, was expecting this, but unfortunately for you, have I done something NOTRIGHT until now? Because I'm not the one who used questionable sources. I just sent screenshots of your texts. Did anything happened to anyone yet?

Zech's accusations were posted on her Instagram, but NO SINGLE POST they were in relationship. Same goes for Morley's Twitter account - no single post about them. Only rumors on third party accts. Sorry.

As of for me being a single-purpose account, yes, on this, my free time account. Kizo2703 (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

But, since you cleaned up Morley's site, do as you wish, as long as you don't touch it ever again.

However, given that we concluded that its gossip we're talking about, it should be deleted everywhere. Kizo2703 (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, another strange threat from you, which is per usual, considering you ARE a single-purpose account, falling in line with what is stated at WP:SPA. Who is this "we" you are talking about? Again, your argument is strange as it implies that people never delete posts from their social media accounts, even though people regularly cull their feeds. In any case, I don't expect any rational argument from you on this topic. Historyday01 (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment for closer: When closing this, if it is decided to not include these accusations of abuse in either article, could you note whether we should use the sources "The 100' Star Bob Morley Accused of Abusive Behavior" & "'The 100's' Bob Morley accused of abuse" even if we are removing the abuse allegations. I tried to remove them from page because of redundancy of her bisexuality being "confirmed" by media, but it was put back in with an explanation(on my usertalk page) that more media reporting is needed media reporting is better to confirm her bisexuality. I don't see the point of having a content/BLP discussion on my talk page, so I have asked for it to be done here on this noticeboard or on Arryn's talk page. For reference the linked article don't really report on her bisexuality so much as just quote her statement of Morley's alleged reaction to her bisexuality. Editngwiki (talk · contribs), brought up several examples of her bisexualities earlier in this discussion, but Historyday01 (talk · contribs) says it's better to use media reporting. There are examples of Zech stating it herself such as in the one Youtube Video. I say the quote that is already in article describer herself as "a bisexual" was enough, and if we need more(which I don't think we do) the youtube clip of her saying she is bisexual could be a second reference. I don't have an issue of mentioning her bisexuality, but I don't see point of removing the abuse allegation, but putting in multiple sources that literally have the abuse allegations in title, when it is completely unnecessary. WikiVirusC 16:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

  Sigh. The YouTube videos mentioned by Editngwiki are nice, but I just don't believe they are sufficient on their own. If there were BETTER sources, I'd be more than happy to use them in the article, but the the articles on PopCulture.com and The Daily Dot seem to be the best sources on the topic. Adding more links and sources about someone's sexuality is BETTER than having less. Not sure how you don't get that. I am generally wary of using YouTube videos as sources and only use them, personally, as sparingly as possible. In some cases, where there are YouTube interviews, its fine, but I'm just not sure about those YouTube videos, as those moments are buried within the "RWBY Voice Cast Panel - C2E2 2020" (its over an hour long), "RWBY Live Stream with Lindsay Jones, Kara Eberle, Barbara Dunkelman, & Arryn Zech" (its over 50 minutes long), "RWBY (Ruby, Weiss, Blake, and Yang) Cast Q&A Montreal Comiccon 2018 Full Panel" (its over 41 minutes long), "RT Podcast: Ep. 221" (its over 1 hour and 43 minutes long). Is citing those long videos going to help users? I would say not, as they may have to muddle through a lot to get to what is cited in the text. I would argue the same goes for Zech's former Tumblr, a reblogged post and two screenshots from said blog here and here. I do not understand, for the life of me why any of those sources would be better than the articles in PopCulture.com and The Daily Dot. The inclusion of such links to YouTube and Tumblr would, as I understand it, run afoul of WP:BLPSPS and WP:ABOUTSELF, at minimum.

  Otherwise, I've observed some people try and add in YouTubers as a reliable source to some pages and began a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard back in July 2022 stating that YouTubers aren't usually a reliable source. So, I am very familiar with people using YouTube as a source. As for the rest of your comment, I felt that your edits on the page were renegade edits since the standard for sourcing someone's stated sexuality, from my understanding, is lower than the reported accusations, which are the reason this discussion began in the first place. I would NOT say the additional sources are redundant, but just provide more information on her bisexuality. I never said that "more media reporting is needed to confirm her bisexuality", although I admittedly did cause some confusion by using words like "support" and "proof". Instead, I said "media reporting ALWAYS helps in these cases , rather than just interviews", which I still believe. I am glad to hear that you don't see "an issue of mentioning her bisexuality", and know there is an issue with having "multiple sources that literally have the abuse allegations in title", depending on the consensus here. Honestly, if I was to use social media as a source for Zech's bisexuality, it would be a challenge since Zech has rarely talked about her social media, and am not sure if citing the Instagram post which had her accusations against Morley would be any better than the current articles cited. Even worse, Zech no longer has a Twitter account, so what social media posts could you even cite?

  Trying to look through her tweets to find the "right one" which states she is bisexual would probably be a fool's errand to be honest. I even found one Tweet in which she reportedly said she is bisexual (if the Google search which said the text stated "'m bisexual I still cross my legs though when I sit but I love women and men and I find women of all types far more attractive then most men" had any validity) but it isn't even in the Wayback Machine or Archive.is, sadly. For many other people, it is relatively easy to find information about their sexuality. For Zech, it is a challenge as she seems to rarely post about being bisexual, and she no longer has a Twitter account (where people usually post these types of things, or at least they used to). Just thought I'd put this all out there for the record, as I'd say that WikiVirusC's arguments are wrongheaded in more ways than one. I will say that I've learned from this discussion to be even more wary about adding in "controversial" things to bio pages and will either not add those things in the future, or go out of my way to begin a discussion on said inclusion, so a discussion like this never occurs again. I am hopeful that the closing of this discussion will hold off any people vandalizing the pages of Zech and Morley as well. Historyday01 (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Youtube or Youtubers wouldn't be the source, the source would be Arryn herself. The redundancy wasn't the source(s), it was the mentioning her saying she was bisexual twice. Anyways this isn't an issue about her sexuality or the sourcing I am bringing up, its a BLP issue about the accusations against Morley. WikiVirusC 17:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. I still feel like citing the Instagram post would have the same problem, as it could have the abuse accusations in the title. However, in theory, I suppose you could word the title of the Instagram post, using Template:Cite Instagram, to ONLY talk about her bisexuality (as writing the entire title of all of Zech's accusations in the title would obviously make the title far too long to be useful to anyone). Even so, I am very wary about citing the YouTube videos, and even more about the Tumblr (which has been deactivated). I mean, even WP:RSPSS states in their summary that "most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all", adding that "content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. However, many YouTube videos from unofficial accounts are copyright violations and should not be linked from Misplaced Pages". Furthermore, WP:YOUTUBE states that "many YouTube videos...are copyright violations and should not be linked...links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis" and WP:VIDEOLINK says that video links "must abide by various policies and guidelines" and be "carefully and individually evaluated for inclusion." Only the "RT Podcast: Ep. 221" video would fulfill that standard, as the "RWBY Voice Cast Panel - C2E2 2020" video was uploaded byFandom Spotlite which is not a verified official account, with the same being the case for the "RWBY Live Stream with Lindsay Jones, Kara Eberle, Barbara Dunkelman, & Arryn Zech" and RWBY (Ruby, Weiss, Blake, and Yang) Cast Q&A Montreal Comiccon 2018 Full Panel" videos, neither of which have verified accounts. As a reminder, for YouTube verified accounts it is affirmed that such channels are authentic and complete. Now, that doesn't mean that all the videos are great, and people/organizations which are notoriously awful could be verified, but it is something to keep in mind.

In the past, I used to be gung-ho about citing self-published sources and got angry when they got removed, but I've learned over the years that self-published sources should be used very sparingly. Otherwise, I am glad to hear that you don't have an issue with "her sexuality or the sourcing". While saying all of this, I still personally don't see an issue with citing the Daily Dot or PopCulture.com articles, with a caveat that if the consensus does lean in favor of removal (which it seems it is), then perhaps there could be some hidden text (on Zech and Morley's pages) noting to not re-add the accusation and citing this discussion or something, right near the article(s) cited. The same could be the case if the Instagram post by Zech is cited instead. I suppose, in retrospect, I am somewhat glad this was added to this discussion, but on the other hand, I feel that these discussions of reliability of sources might be better suited for WP:RSN, just saying.Historyday01 (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• Include allegations, per comment in below section. (No one seemed to want to continue the discussion, so changing my suggestion for continuation to an include !vote)--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Argument for continuation of this discussion

Comment: I think I'm now very much in the minority, but I do want to make an argument that more discussion should be had here.

• As I understand, Zech self-published psychological-abuse accusations against Morley via Twitter and Instagram. A few mid-tier reliable sources picked those allegations up, including the Daily Dot , Girlfriend (magazine) , Distractify , and a few sources I haven't heard of, like DailyPlanet (which included discussion of what appeared to be a response by Taylor, Zech's wife) and The Tempest . Zech later deleted her self-published claims her Twitter, but her claims are still on her Instagram account. I understand there are a few side issues, like whether Zech also accused Morley's now-wife of abuse/an affair, but, as I see it, the abuse allegations are the crux, no? The key question is whether those allegations should be included.

I think this is a complicated issue worthy of more and—due respect to the participants (who have had to discuss several different aspects of this)—more focused discussion. Part of me would obviously prefer a stronger source—because more reporting than "picked up her tweets/instagram" would be nice. At the same time, ... while I'm not coming out one way or another just yet (I think I need to read the opinions of some more editors), I actually think WP:PUBLICFIGURE might advise in favor of inclusion? If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article Notice that inquiry says we should focus on the documentation of the allegation, not documentation related to the underlying charge. Maybe it's a close call, but I don't see any reason to think the various sources just copied each other—the Daily Dot relied on Zech's twitter (and took screenshots of the note attached to her tweet), while Girlfriend magazine relied on her Instagram, yet the quotations in the Girlfriend piece are present in the Daily Dot's screenshots. (And of course, when several mid-tier reliable sources report the same thing ... that surely adds to the strength of their reliability.) That said, one semi-confusing aspect of WP:PUBLICFIGURE is the term "notable"—as I've understood it, WP:NOTABLE doesn't usually apply to article content.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying. I fully support keeping the accusations on each page (although I have come to accept that the consensus is on the opposite side, hence my recent comments accepting that reality). On the other hand, I also feel like this conversation is going in circles and going nowhere at this point, which is why, personally, I think a resolution would be better, even if it isn't the result I agree with. Zech didn't actually delete her claims, as they are still there on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/CCMDmz8FPwF/. However, her Twitter account has since been deactivated. In terms of the sources you point out, people have grumbled about Girlfriend Magazine (it was originally included in an earlier version of the text), and as noted above, but the strongest ones were Daily Dot, Popculture.com, and Den of Geek. There's also an article in The Music which says Zech and Morley were rumored to be in a relationship. As for Distractify, I thought that was a pretty unreliable, and it is a bit tricky for the DailyPlanet as Taylor doesn't specifically mention Taylor. with the article saying "Taylor never officially mentioned Zech’s statement but still managed to break her social media silence." That was an issue previously in this discussion as the aformentioned articles had said Zech was talking about Taylor, but she never specifically mentioned Taylor, only referring to a "girl". A little skeptical of The Tempest here as their about page says "page not found". I can, personally agree that WP:PUBLICFIGURE favors inclusion, but sadly I don't think many agree with that. And, personally, I'm a bit lost in the policy arguments too. All I can see is that people don't favor inclusion at the present time. And I'm not sure if the closer will say there is a consensus here or not, because the number of SPAs contributing complicates any possible determination of consensus in this discussion.Historyday01 (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the Music article really works—I think we should be centering on the abuse claims and, at least for now, not caring about just stating whether or not they were in a relationship—honestly I think the above discussion got a bit sidetracked on more minor issues that could be addressed separately. But I wonder if maybe this would be appropriate for an RFC.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with excluding the Music article, and only included it originally to support the assertion that Zech and Morley are in a relationship, but I admit that it isn't a great source for that. I also won't disagree that the above discussion probably did get a bit sidetracked on various issues. Some of that is likely my fault, but I was trying to make the best of a bad situation, as assumedly the consensus seemed against inclusion. However, I'm not sure if addressing the issues separately would be productive or having a RfC only because I am concerned that the discussion would be sidetracked by the same issues, as, likely, the same participants would be present, including some of the SPAs who contributed in this discussion. Historyday01 (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like more discussion is going to happen, hoping we can get a closure from the request I previously made. WikiVirusC 19:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I hope so as well. I would like there to be a closure. It seemed that Jerome Frank Disciple wanted to continue this discussion, but has made no additional comments since May 5th. Historyday01 (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, no one else seemed to want to participate in the discussion, so alas. I'll update my comment to a !vote--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I am, personally a bit tired of the discussion at this point, as it seems to be going in circles, so a closure is a good idea. Historyday01 (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Note that the below content was posted in a different section, I have moved it here for consistency. The Wordsmith 14:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm also wondering what's keeping the Bob Morley & Arryn Zech thread from being archived. Last post I can see is from June 26. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

It's the donotarchiveuntil setting under the header which is stopping it being archived I think before 2033. This can be removed if people feel the thread isn't needed anymore. Nil Einne (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I missed that you were talking about the section currently below and not this one but it's the same reason. The code to prevent archiving was added here by User:WikiVirusC I assume because of their earlier closure request . IMO it would be better to just remove the closure request Misplaced Pages:Closure requests#Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Bob Morley & Arryn_Zech & allow the thread to be archived since I don't feel the thread needs formal closure and after 98 days I'm not sure one is forthcoming. IIRC it's also possible to just request closure of the archived thread. Nil Einne (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I was hoping someone would do a closure as there was a dispute on whether to use sources that included the now removed allegations in their titles. I felt they weren't even needed for citations as other references did the job fine, but it was added back into article after I initially removed them. I added a comment to discussion asking for this to also be evaluated by closer , but clearly never has. More recently someone else tried to remove the disputed source again last month, but it was added back in with edit comment "I think it should stay UNTIL the discussion on the noticeboard is concluded by an admin". WikiVirusC 15:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is to gain consensus before reinstatement of disputed edits; including citations, per WP:BLPUNDEL. People that continue to reinstate without this consensus should be given a CT/BLP alert and reported to ANI or AE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Joan Bennett

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.

As discussed at Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Joan_Bennett_Playboy_edits. the user ScoobieDoobie999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is trying to expunge all references on Playboy-related articles to a certain "Joan Bennett", who was a playmate of the month in 1985, citing privacy concerns. While I understand the concerns of the user (who presumably is closely connected to the subject), I simply do not agree that this is a violation of the persons privacy, given the public nature of the information. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)#

Got to agree. There is no breach of privacy that I can see in noting that an individual appeared in Playboy (and was presumably paid to do so). AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

That said though, the sourcing for the dates of birth on the lists is questionable. I'm not sure if the original Playboy magazine issues give the dates of birth. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. The original Playboy magazine had model profiles that would list date of birth and other facts of the model. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I think including her name in lists is fine, year of birth is fine, but I admit - the list with people's full birth dates and heights seems odd when the person isn't notable enough for their own article. Denaar (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

But are they a reliable source? In a field where perceived age can be of benefit, are we relying on them? This isn't part of their journalism. This is a magazine which routinely retouched the photos of their "playmates". Does Daisy Mae really like men with big dogs and slow kisses in the rain?? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

User is still making problematic edits. Ban them. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

ScoobieDoobie999 has now been indeffed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Am I the only one who questions whether we should have lists like that when AFAICT, for most of the people listed the only sources seem to be Playboy and associated sites or databases? I suspect most of these people were covered in reliable secondary sources but I don't really know. It would be good if people added such sources if they do exist. Nil Einne (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The individual "List of Playboy Playmates of xxxx" lists do seem unnecessary, given that there are only 12 entries per year (these could probably be consolidated into decade lists) and the lack of secondary sourcing for many of the models, but the List of people in Playboy by decade lists (which only include the name) seem reasonable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Multiple BLPCRIME issues with Long Island Serial Killer article

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.

An arrest was made yesterday in the Long Island serial killer case, which has the usual consequence of people wanting to name the recently arrested person. I removed it as a blpcrime violation, since it seems rather unnecessary when it's been less than 48 hours since an arrest.

A discussion is in place on the talk page, but wanted to give a heads up in case anyone wants to join the discussion.

Edit: Changed title of this post since the old one was rather non-descriptive about the problem.

Awshort (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• Inviting all here to participate in the RFC regarding inclusion of the suspects name at Talk:Gilgo Beach serial killings. Iamreallygoodatcheckers 05:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Jorit

I think the article is turning into a WP:ATTACK as there is big amount of space (now 9 lines of text) to detail a minor event in the artist's career, and they are doing this by inserting parts of text that are not in the sources and not related to the artist's work. In addition, a website called "italy24" is being used as a source for some parts, which seems amateurish, with poor English and which treats the event in an unprofessional manner. To say, in 5 days the article has received 420 views.--Mhorg (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted based on BLPUNDEL. I agree on italy24, suspecting that it is a news aggregator since it doesn't list the journalist or editorial board. I also question why TASS was used as a source. I do not have any opinion about UNDUE or BLPBALANCE issues outside of those sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

BLPUNDEL requires that consensus be achieved to reinstate material IF the deletion was made in good faith. As I say in my reply to Mhorg, his false claims that the info he deleted was not adequately sourced mean his edits were not in good faith. If he had read those cited articles, then he would have seen that every statement he deleted was in fact backed up. Saying otherwise is disingenuous. The ONLY divergence between the articles cited and the passages deleted is that in one sentence I translated into English a statement by Jorit. 72.86.133.238 (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

You should assume good faith that Mhorg sees problems with those sources along with the weight of your information. You also bear the WP:ONUS of gaining consensus to reinstate this disputed information. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I stop assuming good faith when an editor lies. If Mhorg's case is merely about undue weight, or he does not like a particular source, then he should not try to hide behind a false claim that the statements in question are unsourced. Having done so, he has demonstrated bad faith about as clearly as an editor can do. Furthermore, Mhorg has already sought consensus for both UNDUE and for that particular news article on Talk, and he didn't get it. The onus belongs as much on Mhorg as upon me, which is why he sought it to begin with. But WP editors circling the wagons and defending other editors' indefensible excision of material they just don't particularly care for is pretty much just another day at Misplaced Pages. A bare description of the controversy, with Jorit's artistic theft, his dishonest propaganda, and his evolving lies is an unflattering look for Jorit so we can't have that. 72.86.133.238 (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I would be more convinced that you are correct about UNDUE with this supposed "minor" event if (A) it were not a huge controversy in Italy, and (B) if there were not a section approximately as long at the end of Jorit's page that describes at excessive length the fact that he was merely nominated for a prize. A one-sentence statement would be sufficient to convey that info. In any case, your edits of this page deleting most of the description of the controversy have not been made in good faith. You claimed that you were deleting things that are not backed up by the sources, but that is false. Everything you delete is sourced. So your justification for making mass deletions is in bad faith. You deleted virtually all the context that would make clear what the dispute is over the mural and why it's controversial. Whether you trust "italy24" is really neither here nor there because there are other articles and trusted sources that also state what little is being sourced on Jorit's page to the one "italy24" article. 72.86.133.238 (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Frankly from the tone of your comments I don't think you should be touching the Jorit article point blank. Also if you feel some sections of the article are full of fluff, the solution is to fix those parts of the article. It's not to "balance" it out by adding excessive poorly sourced negative material. If you think it is, then it's a reason for you not to touch BLPs point blank. Likewise refusing to accept good faith BLP concerns and BLPUNDEL is another reason you should not be touching BLPs. And to be clear, we don't give a fuck what is going on in online forums. If you cannot find reliable secondary sources that cover it, then 1 billion people screaming bloodly murder in 1 million online forums is 100% irrelevant to wikipedia. And to be clear, if there are no reliable sources discussing something, then it is basically unsourced. It doesn't matter how many forums or other unreliable sources you can find, unreliable sources do not count as sources. This means if italy24 is not a reliable sources, and it sounds like there is good reason to think it is not, and definitely TASS also is generally not a reliable source; so any material sourced solely to them can reasonably be called unsourced. Nil Einne (talk) Nil Einne (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I didn't source anything to either of those sources. You plainly don't understand much of anything about this controversy, the number of high quality sources on the subject that are available, or the edit warring of Mhorg. There was nothing excessive about the short description of the controversy, which Mhorg has persistently kept reducing to a virtually incomprehensible squib no matter which editors added the information. His "undue" claims are made utterly preposterous by the fact he complains repeatedly about detail that is absolutely necessary context for this controversy even while he says nothing about the lengthy "Acknowledgments" section that exists merely to state that Jorit was nominated for a prize he didn't get. And I should not have to keep pointing out that an editor who makes bad faith statements - claiming falsely that statements aren't backed up by the citations - cannot legitimately be assumed to be acting in good faith. I'm a professional historian and I know a thing or two about the need to reject bad-faith claims. The result of Mhorg's bad faith is now manifest: a 3 sentence description that is nearly meaningless to any reader who doesn't know the information that Mhorg has once again successfully pushed off a cliff. From the tone of your comments, I don't think you should be pointing fingers at anyone else. 72.86.132.107 (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Being a professional historian does not absolve you of the ethical standards of Misplaced Pages. If these happen to be more stringent than in your domain of history research, then you will either have to live with that in your Misplaced Pages editing, or propose changes to policies such as WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:DUE or (this noticeboard) WP:BLP; these are not wired in stone, and there are likely still some missing nuances that should be proposed and consensed on; in principle there could also be major changes if consensus were obtained by transparent, structured, rational discussion.Please remember that editors here are volunteers and are not obliged to search for references to justify content that has problems in the sourcing. Instead of a personal attack against Nil Einne, I would recommend that you follow Nil's advice: if you feel some sections of the article are full of fluff, the solution is to fix those parts of the article, keeping in mind Misplaced Pages's policies and accepting advice or fixes from others if you are unfamiliar with them. Boud (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Nil Einne engaged in a personal attack, while simultaneously missing the point that an editor acting in plain bad faith has (as so frequently on WP) appealed to an evolving litany of WP standards to justify deleting well sourced info he started out wanting to exclude. It was a crusade of excision in search of a reason. Coincidentally, his preferred blurb on the controversy now aligns almost perfectly with Putin's propaganda and tells readers virtually nothing meaningful about why Jorit came in for intense criticism. I couldn't care less about the fluff on this page. I mention it only because context matters: an editor deleting virtually everything unflattering to Jorit because it's supposedly "undue" has also been content with letting equally lengthy but flattering fluff remain in place. His reasons, some flat out false, are actually pretexts. That's one of the things that historical training instills - you must treat someone who misleads about source information as non-credible otherwise you're likely to be played. 72.86.132.107 (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

You are incorrect about Nil making a personal attack: Nil described your editing behaviour, not your intentions.You wrote (about one or more people): "info he started out wanting to exclude"; "a crusade of excision"; "actually pretexts"; these are personal attacks - they negatively describe people's intentions; and "supposedly "undue"", which asserts that the judgment of "undue" was deliberately misleading. Boud (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC) (quotation marks added for clarity Boud (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC))

Why do WP editors almost invariably talk nonsense in any debate about standards? You accuse me of engaging in a personal attack against Nil. Why exactly? I did NOT question his intentions. I merely deflected back at him the dismissive statement he made about me ("Frankly from the tone of your comments I don't think you should be touching the Jorit article point blank"). It's nonsense to say I engaged in a personal attack but Nil did not.

I did not write about "one or more" person, that's more nonsense. I described ONE person, Mhorg's, behavior, viz that he deliberately used false claims about the citations to justify what he had already done repeatedly in deleting sourced info plus citations introduced by other editors than me. And you along with some other editors are effectively (even if you don't intend to do so) running interference for Mhorg by refusing to make anything of his manifest attempt to mislead. Good faith stops being good faith when it proves itself to be bad faith. How is that hard to understand? The knee-jerk defense of openly bad faith editing at WP once again proves it's futile to try to add any factual information that ideological, partisan, or various other trolls will invariably succeed in resisting. 72.86.132.107 (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

You wrote: "You accuse me of engaging in a personal attack against Nil". Wrong: I wrote "(about one or more people)" to clarify that I didn't try to sort who the personal attack(s) was/were against, even though in fact you did write "Nil Einne engaged in a personal attack". I wrote "You are incorrect about Nil making a personal attack". Saying that you are wrong about Nil making a personal attack is not a personal attack against you; it says nothing about your intentions; it only says that your statement was incorrect.The statement by Nil, "Frankly from the tone of your comments I don't think you should be touching the Jorit article point blank" seems to be a judgment that you don't yet seem to be familiar enough with Misplaced Pages principles and recommending that currently you don't directly edit the article; it does not attribute any negative intent to you. So I don't see how it's a personal attack. Misplaced Pages principles are for protection of the encyclopedia, editors and living human subjects, not for revenge or making people feel bad.The words "(about one or more people)" are mine, not yours. You wrote, "I described ... behavior, viz that he deliberately used false claims". That is incorrect: "deliberately" (at least in this case) is not a description of behaviour; it is generally very difficult to infer intent, and WP:AGF means that we assume accidental rather than deliberate errors or misjudgments.There is concrete work taking place on the article and on the talk page; you are welcome to help, but you would have to assume good faith on the part of all the editors involved. Boud (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC) (Corrected: I did in fact state "Instead of a personal attack against Nil Einne". Boud (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC))

You seem to continue to misconstrue both what I said and what you said. You definitely accused me of attacking Nil ("Instead of a personal attack against Nil Einne..."). What I said to Nil that you objected to was just a response in kind to what Nil said to me - thus my point, which you keep missing, that you are playing the typical WP editor game of circling the wagons against IP editors while disregarding complaints about what some of you are actually doing. In particular, you and the others kept ignoring that Mhorg has a record of repeat reversions always with the result of making a travesty of this topic on Jorit's page - a travesty that looks like something from Putin's propagandists. And now that you yourself have tried to make some pretty modest improvements to that Putin-friendly description of the controversy, you find that Mhorg is back at it again, reverting edits about the most embarrassing stuff and blowing smoke on the Talk page. Face it, Mhorg is not editing in good faith. He demonstrated that by his false claim that the citations didn't support the statements he was deleting. Mhorg reads Italian and could reasonably have assumed that most or all other WP editors would not call him out for lying about the content of Italian news articles. Mhorg's behavior closely parallels that of another ideological troll editor I encountered years ago, Niteshift36, who spent years using every excuse to exclude unflattering material from Pam Bondi's page. Same MO, same excuses for constant reversions, same quibbling about plainly established facts, same misrepresentations of facts, same insinuations that I was up to no good because I edit via IP. Historians are trained to identify bad faith arguments. Mhorg is operating in bad faith just as the preposterously disingenuous Niteshift36 did, who, I should add, received a lot of support for a long time from WP editors who should have known better. 72.86.133.127 (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I have used {{s}} to strike out my error above and add a brief correction. Boud (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and please drop the other nonsense about "you are welcome to help". I did help, I created a very solid and brief description of the controversy. For which I received a ton of abuse and zero support from you lot, and now you have locked me out of editing the page. That's not what most people would describe as "welcome". 72.86.133.127 (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm only on this page for a different discussion, but maybe take a step back and a deep breathe. Editing on Misplaced Pages isn't always easy especially in controversial areas. I think if you look at how other editors are dealing with this page it's obvious they don't all agree with one viewpoint. Misplaced Pages works by consensus, so you need to convince others of you point and that's not so easy if the your butting heads with them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I make a brief reflection that I hope is not intended as a WP:PA: how is it possible for an anonymous user to be so deep into the dynamics of Misplaced Pages? Mhorg (talk) 07:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

As someone who edited as an IP for sometime I had a fairly good knowledge of the backpage working of Misplaced Pages before making an account. However I was also aware, even before making an account, of bad faith actors misusing the anonymity that comes from IP editing. Ultimately the bounds of AGF mean it shouldn't be used as evidence of wrong doing, unless there is other evidence of problematic behaviour. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree unless there is some specific evidence of sockpuppetry, it's not worth worrying too much about whether the IP is an illicit sock. However it probably is worth worrying more about the fact the IP continues to speculate about a living person . While this was partly in response to speculation from Mhorg which IMO was also unnecessary, that speculation seems less harmful and slightly more germane to the discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

And now they're casting aspersions at Niteshift36. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I put one warning here, but each time that user grabs a new user's computer requests an IP from 72.86.132.0/23 (or so) the old one has presumably already been released for providing to other subscribers of that (not very anonymous) ISP. Boud (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC) (Clarify with more formal language than "grabs". Boud (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC))

"Grab a new IP"?! I have a new IP assigned to me. Yet another demonstration that the vaunted presumption of good faith applies only to WP editors and never to the IP trash you treat as 'the help'. And here you're having a serious discussion of whether I should be banned though all my edits of the page have been productive and my descriptions of them accurate. Can't help but notice however that there has been zero discussion of whether to ban the WP editor who repeatedly vandalized the page and gave misleading justifications for doing so. You've blocked the IP from continuing to make productive edits, but not blocked the WP from continuing to revert productive edits. 72.86.132.193 (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

As I said I was an IP editor for a long time, I rarely found an issue editing. I'm not saying it didn't happen, it did. But your continued battleground mentality and aspersions at other editors is why your running into issue. I can but suggest trying to work in a more collaborative manner. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Working in a collaborative manner becomes nearly impossible when WP editors instinctively rush in to attack IP editors without bothering to investigate the context, just because a biased WP editor identifies the IP as the enemy. Your experience may be that it doesn't often happen. Mine is that it happens quite often because it's easy to go looking for WP allies and it works. There's always at least one person who's willing to be used to that end. And so it is that nobody has yet told Mhorg that HE ought to change his mentality, even as he seeks once again to excuse Jorit for blaming NATO over Russia's killings. 72.86.132.193 (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:MGTADOT Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Says the guy who first jumped in to do Mhorg's bidding. Very impressive. How many days did it take to get back (most of) the information you rushed to delete? 72.86.132.193 (talk) 04:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

4 days to confirm consensus because that's how wikipedia is supposed to work. Not the edit warring and the battleground mentality you have pushed to WP:RGW. There is no rush to do things your way on your timeline. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Nonong Ballinan

This page has been under serious defamation and other uncited, false claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.153.186.170 (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The page has been semi-protected for 3 days. Hopefully, the vandalism will not continue afterwards. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

It continued. Requesting semi-protection for a longer duration now. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Emily Austin (journalist)

I just created Emily Austin (journalist). The Emily Austin page redirects to Emily Austin Perry. There are no other Emily Austins here. Is it possible for someone to cancel the current redirect and instead place one so Emily Austin (journalist) redirects to Emily Austin. Apologies if this isn't the right page to post this. MaskedSinger (talk) 04:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@MaskedSinger, I found this at WP:RFD: "f you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. For non-controversial cases, place a technical request; if a discussion is required, then start a requested move."

It seems non-controversial to me, so I'd try that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

thank you! MaskedSinger (talk) 11:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion is closed. Is it possible for someone to archive the discussion so it doesn't clog up the talk page. Thank you. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Grant Guilford

This page regularly acquires content that breaches the BLP policy. From a careful review of the policy the breaches include elements of tone, balance, attack page, use of unsourced and poorly sourced material, and gossip. It is time consuming to repair. Is there a better way to manage this issue? Thanks for your consideration.ShearpinQA (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Idris Elba's third child

An IP highlighted on the Idris Elba talk page that he has 3 not 2 children. It appears that Elba discussed this with the Daily Mail back in March, but hasn't been picked up by other outlets. The other child is older (31), and has stayed out of the spotlight. The IP links to a podcast by Smartless, and the best non-DM source I can find online is PopSugar. DM is unusable and PopSugar doesn't look much better, could the podcast be used? It is Elba talking about himself, I'm concerned about BLP issues. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Well he's also talking about his child so I wouldn't say it's just Idris Elba talking about himself. IMO it's best to just remove the number of children from the infobox and reword the article so it mentions his son and daughter without talking about how many children he has. This seems to be a good example of what I've discussed before WT:BLP of why we should interpret WP:ABOUTSELF strictly and exclude mentions of third parties even as they involve to spouses and children. If the other child has stayed out of the limelight for so long and even now that Elba has talked about it, no RS seems to think it is important enough to mention, why should we? Yes just mentioning they exist might not be that much but it still provides more info than we seem to need. If at some stage RS do pick it up then yeah we can mention it but let's wait until they do. Nil Einne (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't spotted that, but you're right. This is a BLP subject talking about another person. I've change the article so it's silent rather than incorrect. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Seeking correction to one of the A Martinez entries

This entry https://en.wikipedia.org/A_Martinez mentions a radio career that is wrong. The radio career belongs to this person https://en.wikipedia.org/A_Mart%C3%ADnez . The radio career section should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.51.203.165 (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

That information was added in one edit a few days ago. I've reverted it. Woodroar (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Wil Wheaton

Was this an appropriate removal? 2601:240:E200:3B60:9592:2091:C98F:C348 (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on everything changed, but the removal of unreferenced or poorly sourced content is not controversial. This appears to be a content issue, I suggest raising it on the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

John Bird, Baron Bird

The issue at hand started with 62.6.167.166 removing a quote from John Bird, Baron Bird on the grounds that the quote was taken out of context. @M.Bitton reinstated the quote on the grounds that the IP did not present evidence for the quote being taken out of context. M.Bitton subsequently claimed in a talk page discussion that the quote should be kept because the subject reportedly has not denied the quote attributed to him. However, in doing so, M.Bitton provided a reference containing this statement about the quote: "the press has a tendency to run with a quote out of context."

In my opinion, whether or not there is a denial of something which evidently originated in a tabloid is irrelevant. Tabloids are best ignored unless there is acknowledgement of what appeared in said tabloid is completely accurate. In this instance, there doesn't seem to be any.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Actually, the issue started when the IP kept insisting that John Bird was misquoted (not quoted out of context as suggested above). For the rest, and to avoid wasting time addressing what was said and in what context, I will simply direct the readers to the article's history. Many other sources were provided on article's talk page and more will shortly be added here. In the meantime, I will ping CodeTalker (the other involved editor). M.Bitton (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  I hereby direct you to the original edit summary in full: "This is a brief edit to take out a misrepresentation of his views and what he said. It was taken out of context".   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  This was a misquote and he was completely misquoted I left the link to the article's talk history for a reason. M.Bitton (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  A) Before being removed by the IP, the content has been in the article since 2018. B) There is nothing remotely defamatory or libelous in the statement in question. C) As promised, here are the supporting sources:

  1. "Bird, who called himself a “working class Tory” in 2010 and now describes himself as a “Catholic Marxist” – “largely to piss people off” – has a vision that is radical, but not revolutionary."
  2. "In a past interview he has described himself as a 'working class Tory'."
  3. When asked about a 2010 Daily Express article where he wrote that his “guilty secret” was his identification as a “working class Tory,” he commented that the press has a tendency to run with a quote out of context. Instead, he takes a different position, that of a “working class Tory with Marxist revolutionary tendencies” – a “real mix-up.”
  4. I’m John Bird, described in Misplaced Pages as a working class Tory, founder of The Big Issue; Cross bencher, ex-slum boy, ex-offender etc. And I want you to join me in putting meat on the Conservative “build back better” bones, by kicking up a fuss with your MP, and getting under the skin of the Government.
  5. In a 2010 interview, Bird said more about his own worldview. He confirmed what many had suspected for a long time. “My guilty secret is that I’m really a working-class Tory. There, I’ve said it. I’d love to be a liberal because they’re the nice people but it’s really hard work – I can’t swallow their gullibility and I think their ideas are stupid,” he said.
  6. I have no idea if Mr Bird would be willing to take on such a role but in 2010 he did confess to The Sunday Express (25 October, 2010): “My guilty secret is that I’m really a working class Tory. There, I’ve said it.” And went on “I’d love to be a liberal because they’re the nice people but it’s really hard work – I can’t swallow their gullibility and I think their ideas are stupid.”
  7. Founder of The Big Issue and crossbench member of the House of Lords, Bird’s rise up the greasy pole... “Someone said to me, ‘How did you get into the House of Lords?’ and I said, ‘By lying, cheating and stealing’.” Confessed in 2010 that “my secret is that I’m really a working-class Tory. I’d love to be a liberal because they’re the nice people, but it’s really hard work. I can’t swallow their gullibility.”
  8. Here's a video (published on the Big issue website) that shows him admitting to everything that the express has attributed to him (watch from @6:00).

  Since the "working class Tory" description keeps coming up in various RS years after he said it and is repeated by himself, I see no reason to exclude it from the article. M.Bitton (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  I see no reason to doubt that he made the statement. Even where he says "that the press has a tendency to run with a quote out of context" he does not deny that the quote was correct. It is also not clear to me whether he is referring to the Express taking his quote out of context or to later reports quoting the sentence without the rest of the statement in the Express (I tend to the latter interpretation). Also notice that in the same article he is quoted as still referring to himself as a "working class Tory" (with an added qualifier): "When asked about a 2010 Daily Express article where he wrote that his 'guilty secret' was his identification as a 'working class Tory,' he commented that the press has a tendency to run with a quote out of context. Instead, he takes a different position, that of a 'working class Tory with Marxist revolutionary tendencies' – a 'real mix-up.'" Therefore I see no reliability issues here. The only question is whether a statement to a tabloid thirteen years ago is WP:DUE. Judging by the evidence provided of how often it is repeated it most likely is. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

References

1. Jeraj, Samir (3 Aug 2020). "John Bird: "I have never lived through anything else like this – and no one else has"". New Statesman. Retrieved 23 Jul 2023.
2. Bristow, Tom (15 Oct 2012). "Big Issue founder John Bird on how Norwich helped inspire his latest project". Norwich Evening News. Retrieved 23 Jul 2023.
3. Lally, Catherine (23 Jul 2023). "Lord Bird: 'I had to go into prison to learn to read and write'". Varsity Online. Retrieved 23 Jul 2023.
4. Bird, Lord (9 Jul 2021). "John Bird: I need your help to safeguard the interests of future generations". Conservative Home. Retrieved 23 Jul 2023.
5. Kahn-Harris, Keith; Thorpe, Krystle; Sheppard, Oliver (21 Nov 2022). "Magazine for the Poor". The Battleground. Retrieved 23 Jul 2023.
6. Home, Conservative (7 Apr 2013). "Lord Bates: John Bird - the anti-poverty worker who sees through anti-poverty campaigners. He's needed in Downing Street". Conservative Home. Retrieved 23 Jul 2023.
7. Withers, Matt (26 Feb 2020). "Who is on the BBC Question Time panel tonight?". The New European. Retrieved 23 Jul 2023.
8. Burns, Andrew (26 Feb 2016). "Big Issue founder John Bird makes maiden speech in House of Lords". The Big Issue. Retrieved 23 Jul 2023.

Dan Patrick

I have been attempting to add information about Lt. Governor Patrick's role in censuring and requesting the termination of a professor at Texas A&M university for making disparaging remarks about the administration. I have cited a reputable news source for the addition, but a user has repeatedly removed the submission as 'unsourced'. According to my interpretation, I have met the W:V requirement of "providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution", and given the nature of this story as one of censorship, it is of concern that the story itself is now being censored. If the problem with the inline citation is that it occurs after multiple sentences from the same source, and the citation should be added after each individual sentence, the editor should have recommended those edits, rather than flagged the entire edit for removal, per W:BLP "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it".

Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/2600:4040:5504:D00:60F8:77FA:6D0A:CBF5

• Your edits to Dan Patrick (politician) have not included any citations, inline or otherwise. -Ljleppan (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The ip must have conflated including citations in their edits about the controversy to a related article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Another(?) editor has reinstated with the citations. I have some concerns how much weight should be assigned to this controversy in the Patrick and Dawn Buckingham articles. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the Buckingham article, but I'm not convinced it should be in the Patrick one at all. The paragraph there begins: "Following a March 7th, 2023 guest lecture by Texas A&M professor Dr. Joy Alonzo Patrick's office urged the university adminstration to fire Dr. Alonzo." However, I don't see that either source cited explicitly says that Patrick's office encouraged Texas A&M to fire Alonzo: just that A&M were "in contact" with Patrick's office, which is a much weaker statement. And none of the sources I have looked at seem to say that Patrick was directly involved in any of this. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I have a strong negative opinion of "something just happened, let's note it on multiple pages" (the idea behind WP:Recent as a guideline). It doesn't seem to belong in a "biography of Dan Patrick" or "biography of Dawn Buckingham" article, if Dr. Joy Alonzo had their own page, it would be appropriate there. If it's a notable enough event it might warrant it's own page, but I don't expect it does. Denaar (talk) 12:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

It is also added to the John Sharp (Texas politician) article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Schafesd: @Oak Azimuth: @1990'sguy: who have recently been editing about this issue in the articles. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Also @Thenightaway: Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the content isn't appropriate to add per WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. That said, it's better now (on the Patrick article), having been significantly trimmed compared to the WP:UNDUE version originally added. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Soh Rui Yong

There has been slow editing tug-of-war between anonymous editor(s) and other registered editors (now, it is largely me) on Soh Rui Yong BLP that's there ever since... the article was created. Many of the recent anonymous edits are promotional(, ), npov (), or spiteful (). Many of these edits were either reworked to be less promotional, or reverted. While the IP addresses involved are different most of the time, it is my belief that many, if not most, of such edits are by one person moving between the countries which the IP addresses are assigned to. The belief largely stems from the use of language in the edits. (there are other off-wiki stuff as well, but it is all circumstantial, and I didn't "keep the receipts".) I appreciate second or third eyes independent of myself or the subject to look at the article and tell me that I may have or have not been overly sensitive on this BLP. Also given that by now, I am one of the largest contributors to the page (going by xtools, edit counts and number of characters introduced), I appreciate for any feedback on my editing on this article. Thanks! – robertsky (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Martha Chizuma

• Martha Chizuma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The section on 'Controversy' is worth validating. Because the person talked about is the 'director of anti-corruption there is a risk that content and references in this section is designed to cast doubt on the individual rather than reflect accurate information.

On 11 May 2021, the public appointments committee rejected the appointment of Martha Chizuma as the director of the anti-corruption bureau. Martha Chizuma was accused of being unprofessional when a phone recording between her and unidentified man was leaked. In the phone call, she alleges that judges and magistrates are also part of a corruption syndicate. Members of the diplomatic missions faulted Martha Chizuma for recruiting a United Kingdom Agency to do investigations on behalf of the anti-corruption bureau. On 6 December 2022, Chizuma was arrested in connection to a leaked audio clip in which she spoke with another person about the fight against corruption in the country. She has since been released on bail the same day of her arrest.

I hope you can review this content and reference material for accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:27B6:ED01:D850:2C25:4DBB:447B (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I've edited to remove one apparently outdated "controversy" regarding CAP rejection. It didn't seem to matter much in the larger current picture of her other apparent controversies: phone leaks, foreign involvement in operations, and arrest. But if a larger picture develops in the future indicating more lasting relevance, the CAP opposition text might have a place. For example, a controversy (ie, being a whistleblower, political persecutee) has the potential to become a separate part of notability. I think the revision history indicates this and other issues are best addressed at the article's talk page. I left a word there, too. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 02:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Sinéad O'Connor date of death

Sinéad O'Connor's death was reported today (https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66318626 and dozens of other sources) but reliable sources at this time are not listing today (or any other day) as the date of death (e.g. from that source we have her death was announced on Wednesday evening). Lots of good faith editors have attempted to helpfully add 26 July into the article as her date of death. There's some concern that several of us who have been removing the date as unsourced are close to 3RR (I've reverted death date additions twice, for instance, and @MIDI stated on the talk page that they wouldn't make more reverts). While the BLP exemption to 3RR may apply here I thought it was worth bringing it up on this noticeboard since I never feel super comfortable going over 3RR one way or the other and I figure people who monitor BLPN would be able to help. Thanks! Dylnuge 23:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC) (edited 23:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC))

It looks like the BBC is heavenly leaning on the information from the RTE published here. Why do you doubt the date? The Banner talk 00:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Because even the RTE source doesn't outright say that she died on 26 July, just that the death was announced on that date. Within that ambiguity it is possible that O'Connor died on the 26th, and it's also possible she died one or more days earlier. Without a source that says something like "O'Connor died on 26 July 2023" we cannot either. All we can verifiably say right now is that the death was announced on that day. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

This is correct; sorry that my original post was confusing. The BBC, RTE, and other sources don't list a specific date of death right now, only that the death was announced today. Once reliable sources are reporting a specific date of death it should be included. Dylnuge 01:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Sideswipe9th. An article about a recently deceased person still has to comport with WP:BLP: WP:RS only; no WP:OR, no false attribution of sources. No citing to a date of death that isn't reliably published. These will come in time. JFHJr (㊟) 02:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I think @Dylnuge: and I are probably in agreement on this; it's not necessarily a case of "what do we write?" (as Sideswipe9th says, we just need to say "X's death was announced on 1 January" or whatever). Instead, we need to see how best to deal with the good faith edits of others – those who do assume that the date of announcement is the same as the date of occurrence and in doing so violate WP:V. I held off reverting ad infinitum, because in my mind this wasn't exempt under WP:3RRBLP#7 as I couldn't really describe this as particularly contentious. That's the $64,000 question I suppose – are reverts like this exempt?

This is far from the first time this has all happened, and plenty of times the date of death turns out to be totally different. My essay is WP:MABEL. MIDI (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe full page protection with the date removed? I guess pages often are protected without regard to the WP:RIGHTVERSION? —DIYeditor (talk) 08:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

At the moment, there's no consistency in the way this is represented in the various places within the article. The article text correctly says no date of death has been announced but the infobox has the 26th, sourced to the BBC report which gives no date. What do we do regarding the infobox in these cases? Remove the death date altogether? I assume so, because anything else is WP:OR. Additionally, the lede says 'July 2023' and the short description just '2023'! Neiltonks (talk) 08:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Do we even know she was alive any time this year? This month? Why say anything, just leave it blank until we know something firm. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The Times is stating "Sinéad O’Connor, musician, was born on December 8, 1966. She died of undisclosed causes on July 26, 2023, aged 56" in their obituary. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the BBC is saying she was found unresponsive at 11.18am and pronounced dead at the scene , so the actual DOD is probably going not going to be pinpointed until the coroner's report, unless the police say something in a statement. Black Kite (talk) 11:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Police did say there was nothing suspicious about her death. Masem (t) 13:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, though I don't see that makes a difference to the DOD. There's nothing there to say she didn't die the previous day, or even earlier. We simply don't know. Black Kite (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

That does make several sources (The Times, The Guardian, BBC) stating her date of death as July 26 (and none contradicting it) so I think it makes sense to include it in the article now.

I am curious (independently of this article) if others think that "pronounced dead on Date" should or should not be treated the same as "died on Date" in the absence of any other information. My gut assumption would have been yes, since I suspect that's the date that winds up on a death certificate and so on unless there's strong contradicting evidence, but it's true that it's not quite the same. Dylnuge 14:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Pronounced dead is distinct from clinical death. Being "pronounced dead at the scene", as per BBC's current front page means that O'Connor was declared legally dead at 11:18 BST on 26 July, shortly after being discovered, however that's not a confirmation of when she clinically died. As before, there's no confirmation of when she actually died, which could have happened any time prior to being discovered. As such I would still err on the side of caution for now and say that she died in July 2023. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Definitely agree it's different, just wasn't sure if there was a standard around what "date of death" means in a Misplaced Pages article if a legal date of death is known and a medical one is unknown. I would have thought that in lieu of a distinct medical date it's reasonable to use a legal date that's reported in reliable sources.

I don't feel super strongly here. I can see the argument for removing the date and agree with your preference for being cautious and going for eventual correctness over immediate reporting. I'm not sure this is feasible from an editing perspective though, especially since there are multiple sources now (The Times, The Guardian, NME, probably more) that say "died on 26 July" with no distinction between legal and medical death; that seems to meet WP:V, even if all those sources might later update their stories with a clarification on clinical time of death. And even if the consensus is for excluding the date, it'd be extremely difficult to maintain that (short of full protection, which would be harmful in other ways since there's lots of editing going on), though that's a poor argument for inclusion. Dylnuge 16:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

We certainly use "best known" dates of death, very often. Most subjects are not internationally famous, and the best source you ever get on when they died is when they were "found dead". Subjects who are either very famous or who died of highly predictable causes (e.g. a long illness) have certain medical dates of death, but this isn't true for almost all biographical subjects who die unpredictably or of undisclosed causes. Vaticidalprophet 16:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I remember an unexpectedly contentious dispute I had about this with another editor several years ago. It was on a page for an individual who was found dead at her home, though relatives mentioned to the press that she was thought to have died a few days prior. I wanted to use "c. Discovered Date", but the other editor was very insistent that only the date the subject was found and thus legally declared dead should be given in the article. Eventually there was a compromise in which we used legal death in the IB and such but included a footnote about the circumstances. As you point out, it would stand to reason that at least some discrepancy between biological and legal death is bound to happen for virtually any death that happens outside a medical setting, and it seems rare for any subsequent medical findings to be publicly released. But I also agree that since O'Connor was so famous, this may be an exception and additional information could very likely become part of the public domain.

I think the article has handled this ambiguity well so far if it wants to wait for these findings, and has fully explained the situation in the article text. Though I have edited on an article which handled it in a different way (but it was not anyone's first choice). Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Honestly at this point I am far less concerned with whether the article says "26 July 2023" or "July 2023" or "2023" or "found dead 26 July 2023" than I am with the edit warring happening between people who disagree on it. It's no longer a "simple" unsourced BLP issue. Dylnuge 03:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I was only looking at the article as published and was unaware how much edit warring there has been on the matter. Though I'm not too surprised to learn this: it seems like one of those deceptively small decisions that balloons into a much bigger dispute among editors, because there often turn out to be many possible ways to address it. I initially thought there was a consensus in favor of switching it to "July 2023" for now and just explaining further where necessary. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Thankfully the edit warring has slowed down or stopped and it seems "July 2023" has been settled on for the moment, probably because A) there's now an RS saying "unknown" (), and it's easier to point to a source than to argue a negative, and B) the page traffic has dropped a bit, so there are probably less editors doing a "drive by" fix of the date. Dylnuge 18:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Repeat unsourced edits of "forced" disappearance on BLP Fu Xiaotian

The BLP Fu Xiaotian has been the subject of an editor's repeat unsourced edits characterizing Fu's disappearance as "forced." BLP requires "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard."

The editor has not provided any RS (or in fact any source at all), and appears to say that they will not be doing so ("I'm not debating this."). There is no attempt to satisfy WP:ONUS. Nor does any currently cited source describe Fu's disappearance as "forced."

I have removed the unsourced claim of "forced" three times within a 24 hour period, and do not wish to exceed 3RR or engage further with this editor.

However, unsourced contentious material is currently in the article (currently in form of the category, "enforced disappearances in China"). It really ought to be removed immediately.

And so I raise the issue here. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the (so far) unsupported category. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The sources cited certainly don't seem sufficient to support an assertion of 'forced disappearance'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the page the primary issue being raised is that some editors feel that you are hounding them. Is that not context you think its important to include in your summary of the situation? You appear to have cherrypicked which part of the dispute to bring here in such a way as to maximize your chances of obtaining a favorable outcome. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

This is WP:BLPN. Let's stick to looking at the disputed article content here - which isn't supported by the source and thus violates WP:BLP policy. Any claims of 'hounding' belong on WP:ANI, if anywhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is BLPN... When you bring an issue here you are expected to provide adequate context... JArthur1984 has not done that. This doesn't actually appear to be a BLP dispute at all, it appears to be a dick measuring contest. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Don't be absurd. An unsupported assertion of 'forced disappearance' of a living person is a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

It is, but the context of the violation is being misrepresented. It does in fact appear to be a multipage dick measuring contest which none of the editors involved should have indulged in. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell two people who used to be seen in public all the time have not been seen in public for a while. There seems to be a connection between the two. One user wants to say "forced disappearance" on both articles, the other "disappearance from public view". It is completely normal that someone who works on one article works on the other, too. Maybe there is more to this "hounding", but we'd need to see some evidence. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

It might be normal, but JArthur1984 doesn't mention a second article at all. I stand by my assertion that the selective disclosure of context by the OP was misleading. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#User:JArthur1984_Hounding. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Love it, apparently we're having a "who can provide context in the least helpful way" contest. I declare them both winners/losers! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Correct. We're supposed to keep the discussion here restricted to the content disagreement. Presumably so the discussions don't spiral as they have here. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@JArthur1984 your exact words here were "I also do not want to debate". Please don't quote other people in a way which appears to make them look bad when you can be quoted in the exact same manner. AlanS 15:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to have created confusion. When I replied to that editor I should have put "debate" in scare quotes -- i.e., I did not want to argue. You can tell from the rest of edit that you have linked that I have always remained open to discussing sources and policies. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Conversation about the hounding started here. There are LOTS of sources saying Fu disappeared. Is ANYONE here willing to say that she may have disappeared by her own choice? I accept that using the term "Forced disappearance" may be an inference in the sense that it's not the exact language in the sources, but I don't think any reasonable person would say that an "unwilling disappearance" is meaningfully different from a forced one. NickCT (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Which sources say "unwilling disappearance"? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

In what way do you imagine this person "disappeared"? Do you think she disappeared by her own volition? NickCT (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't use my imagination, I use sources. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I imagine the Stasi would have liked you. But then, that's unsourced.... NickCT (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, they were big on sources. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Touché NickCT (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate you've got a valid opinion. But you got called by a WP:HOUND's howl. So I'm not sure your revert was valid. NickCT (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from with the social context being the PRC but I agree with Random et all that we do actually need something which says forced disappearance or uses disappeared as a verb. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

That's fine. And that's a valid opion. I opened up an RfC on this topic at Qin Gang. The problem is that a WP:HOUND poisoned the waters by bringing the conversation here in the first place. NickCT (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you should take a step back, the personal conflict between you and JArthur1984 is IMO getting in the way of building wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

He actually wasn't hounding me. He was hounding a differnet editor. Anyway, the proper place for this conversation is ANI. NickCT (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Looking for sources myself, I did a quick skim of "Fu Xiaotian has disappeared" and everything I can find is "rumor" and innuendo - and should we even be mentioning "there is a rumor this person had an affair?" - wouldn't that in and of itself be something to be a bit cautious about even if "the rumor" is sourced? Denaar (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

All this talk of "hounding" is not something of great relevance to BLPN. If editors feel there is something there that warrants attention, please take it to ANI not here. JArthur1984 was right to bring concerns here if they were being ignored in the article and talk page. It was not forum shopping and it was not wrong to not bother to mention irrelevant stuff like the "hounding" allegations. If we do not have sourcing that mention this being an enforced disappearance then we do not use the category. Editor's deciding that this fits their own definition of a "enforced disappearance" is not sufficient. If there is no category that fits, that's fine. We do not need a category for everything about a person. From my experience "enforced disappearance" is often something that is only really talked about when the person has "missing" for quite a long time, significantly more than the time period that has elapsed here. As our article enforced disappearance mentions, it also often means the person has been murdered. That may be a reason why sources are not yet talking about Fu's fate as a "forced disappearance", I don't know, ultimately it's not for us to decide why sources are doing what they are doing, but summarise what they say. Nil Einne (talk) 03:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

re "deciding that this fits their own definition of a "enforced disappearance" is not sufficient" - I think this is really the core isse. This is a debate about semantics. We all agree this person mysteriously vanished after falling out of favor with the Party in China. The only question is whether that's fairly described as a "forced disappearance". NickCT (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree to nothing of the sort, since I am not in the position to make any such judgement with any degree of confidence, and I don't believe any other contributor in this discussion is either. Not that it makes the slightest difference, since we don't base content on our coming to agreement over statements not supported by reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Correlation is not causation. Misplaced Pages is not here to document your guess of what happened. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Two people have stopped appearing in public in a country where people sometimes stop appearing from public because of forced disappearance. And we have an authoritarian, secretive and uncooperative regime acting in a secretive and uncooperative way. It's similar to the Covid origin argument "why would the Chinese government act like this if they had nothing to hide?" Well, that's just what the Chinese government does. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

It is at best original research to interpret a reliable source as saying something it doesn't say. There's no room for speculation or interpretation based on country conditions. In this case, I think more facts will come out in time. It can take longer than some prefer. JFHJr (㊟) 19:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Seeking help correcting page re Stan Rose

• Stan Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm the subject of this page: Stan Rose

There are two notices, and I believe both have been resolved or are no longer relevant, but have no idea how to get the notices removed. 1) "reads like an advertisement" - I don't believe this is the case. It follows the guidelines and reads similar to other biologist/entrepreneurs; 2) "lack of references"- there are many references cited. Thanks for your help reviewing the page and hopefully removing the tags Srose39 (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

That article has zero independent, in-depth sources. It should be put up for deletion. MrOllie (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Each statement in the page is referenced with a link to a published article, either from well-established independent sources or the URLs of well documented entities. If one is missing it can be added - or the statement deleted Srose39 (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The references are a collection of company statements and press releases, many of which don't mention the article subject at all. The article doesn't show that it meets either WP:GNG or WP:NPEOPLE. If this is the best sourcing available we're going to have to delete the article. MrOllie (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I have reviewed WP:GNG and WP:NPEOPLE. Over the next few days, asap, I will be replacing references that do not comply with those standards, as well as any content that does not. Kindly allow time to make the necessary updates so that the article does not need to be deleted 2601:18E:C101:1340:5166:970D:BDA1:4846 (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Mr. Rose, it would be helpful if you logged in before each post or edit. Keeping only one account is also the best practice for an inexperienced editor. If you forget a password, it can be recovered instead of making a new account or editing logged out. Also, you should stop editing the article about you. See WP:COI and WP:AUTO. Otherwise, more time would not bring your autobiography up to standards required by WP:BLP. Several editors are looking for good sources on your behalf in the deletion discussion, and are coming up empty handed. JFHJr (㊟) 20:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Srose39 Based on your username I assume you are the subject of the article. If that is the case you should also read these: WP:Conflict of interest, WP:Autobiography, WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and make sure to declare your conflict of interest (see: WP:DISCLOSE on how to do it). -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance. I am new to editing. I happened to read the article (which I did not create) and wondered why it was tagged. The first thing I did was to note that I am the subject of the article (see top of this thread). I now see there is a process WP:Conflict of interest, which recommends noting the COI in the Edit Summary. I have tried in good faith to be transparent and helpful, but now understand that other editors should handle this. There is another good source I found that may be useful, but will leave that to others: https://www.newspapers.com/image/529144177/?terms=%22Stanley%20Rose%22%20CEO%20&match=1

The Capital Times,

22 Apr 2004, Thu · Page 56-57 Srose39 (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Warren Forest

I'm having trouble getting a grasp on WP:BLP. An IP editor removed a woman's name from Warren Forest. I reverted it, not seeing a problem with having the name. They reverted back citing a letter from a prosecutor's office. I now think maybe it should be removed? And if we remove hers, should we remove the names of all the victims? I posted on the Teahouse about it and a user suggested I post here. Thanks. Closhund/talk/ 07:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:NPF, WP:BLPNAME are policy. This did not require a prosecutor letter to stop inclusion. If the alleged victims are still alive, they should not be named.Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I'll scrub the article. Thanks. Closhund/talk/ 07:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution