Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:05, 20 February 2019

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

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

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

Additional notes:

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Stefan Molyneux

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

I am having a dispute with PeterTheFourth at the "Stefan Molyneux" article. Discussion can be found at Talk:Stefan Molyneux#White genocide conspiracy theory. Other opinions welcome. Bus stop (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bus stop: I guess posting it to the BLP noticeboard instead of the RS noticeboard means your argument is that 'hyperlinks can violate our BLP policies'? PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

A quick review , I believe that while discussing that Molyneux has views related to white genocide, calling him a conspiracy theorist is supported by only one source, and that language should not be included. Just because one believes in what would readily be considered a conspiracy theory does not make one a conspiracy theorist.) --Masem (t) 01:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth—we are not required to internally link in any and all circumstances. This is one in which we should not. The source itself is reliable. But it devotes all of half a sentence to the assertion under discussion. Furthermore—White genocide conspiracy theory is not a concise subject. It is a sprawling area for discourse. We are writing a BLP. It is unfair to Molyneux to both convey the import of that half-sentence in the source and simultaneously link to an article than contains an enormous number of wrongdoings grouped under the umbrella of "White genocide conspiracy theory". Use common sense. Misplaced Pages writes articles on well-defined and anodyne topics. And Misplaced Pages writes articles on amorphous and seriously disparaging topics. Do we know that the source is implying that Molyneux is "a neo-Nazi, alt-right, white nationalist/supremacist"? The source speaks for itself. Please look at this version of the article. It is the last time I edited it. Look at the first sentence of the "White genocide" section. A quote from the source tells the reader that "Molyneux subscribes to a conspiracy theory about a white genocide". What more do you want? It seems to me that you just want to link to the White genocide conspiracy theory article. Despite the fact that we do not know that the sprawling contents of that highly disparaging article are applicable to Molyneux. The White genocide conspiracy theory article can certainly be mentioned elsewhere in the Molyneux article. I placed it in the See also section. But other locations are possible. This is a WP:BLP issue. Our intent is to write conservatively about living people. And we are not required to use internal links. Like so many other things there is a proper time and a proper place. I don't oppose internal links. They are generally very constructive to an article. I don't think that internal link in this instance fairly treats the subject of this article. Bus stop (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• If it can be reliably sourced to the extent that it passes the BLP bar to include in his article that he supports a particular conspiracy theory (white genocide etc) and we have an article on that conspiracy theory, it can be linked from his article. The BLP is concerned with if material can be included. If that is passed, there is no policy reason that applies to forbidding relevant internal links to articles, the relevant guidelines for when not to link are MOS:OVERLINK and MOS:SOB. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Only in death—we would not be at liberty to tar and feather the subject of a biography even if it were not a BLP. I am ignorant of the policy, but I'm sure there is one, that compels us to paraphrase instead of quote a source. Bus stop (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • You dont appear to have understood my comment. If the material passes the bar to include in the article, then it can be blue-linked to a relevant article on the subject - that is a fundemental aspect of how[REDACTED] article links work. "I dont like the article its linked to" is not a valid reason to not link to it. If you are objecting to inclusion of any mention in their biography of their belief in racist conspiracy theories, thats a different discussion. Your comments about paraphrasing is irrelevant when referring to a specific topic. You dont need (and shouldnt) paraphrase specific subjects, as it will result in obfuscation and in this case, appears to only serve the purpose of deliberately not linking to a relevant article. If you are specifically paraphrasing in order to avoid linking to another article, you are not editing in a NPOV manner, and its also functionally idiotic as even if you paraphrase White genocide conspiracy theory to caucasian mass-killing plot theory, piped links would still be relevant. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the article, the way it's presented has huge synth problems. First, the wiki-link is inside a quote, further the source itself does not actually link to that article in that quote. Therefore we are adding our entire article load of meaning to that quote. That's OR/Synth. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Wiki-links within quotes do not have to be in the source as long as its clear that the article linked to corresponds to the source author's meaning. I dont see how it could be argued someone who pushes South Africa's white genocide meme is not what the author means. Its literally a white genocide conspiracy theory. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

That would be all well and good if you could prove that to be true. However, the source you provided here is not the source in the article, it has neither the same publisher nor writer. So, can you demonstrate that is what the source author means? --Kyohyi (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I dont need to. The author states he believes in a white genocide theory, we have an article on white genocide conspiracy theories. Thats as far as it goes. Unless you have some evidence that the author in fact meant something other than 'white genocide conspiracy theory'? If the only real argument is 'Well we dont know which particular white genocide conspiracy theory it is...' which is nonsensical. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, the burden of proof is on the people trying to include. It is the responsibility of anyone adding content including a wiki-link in an article to demonstrate that it is accurate. In this case it is your responsibility to demonstrate that the author means what our wiki-linked article says. If you can't do so, it doesn't go in. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Only in death—you say "Wiki-links within quotes do not have to be in the source as long as its clear that the article linked to corresponds to the source author's meaning." First things first: the wiki-link is not within the quote. That is because it is not a quote. It is a paraphrase. Secondly, it is definitely not clear that "the article linked-to corresponds to the source author's meaning." The author at Radio New Zealand has no awareness of the article that we are now considering internally linking-to. Therefore we have to use our brains. And we have to choose the better of two possibilities. The linked-to article addresses a subject that is poorly defined and sprawls over a large area. This is not a fault of the linked-to article. But it is a cautionary factor that has to be taken into consideration when contemplating linking to that article. It is simply a fact that some articles address subjects of limited scope and other articles address subjects whose scope is more amorphous. We have to think twice before linking to articles that include everything but the kitchen sink. Bus stop (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• As a wholly separate issue but tied with this, the naming of White genocide conspiracy theory is actually probably not POV compliant - we shouldn't call out conspiracy theories that directly as a title. But because we have the Armenian White Genocide article (a different thing altogether), then this article should be named "White genocide (conspiracy theory)" That may not seem like it would make much difference but in the linkage issue about, related to the Radio NZ article, you'd only like to "White genocide". --Masem (t) 16:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• The article White genocide conspiracy theory covers a lot of ground. It sprawls over a large subject area. It includes a large range of characters. It should be included as an internal link somewhere in the Molyneux article. But it should not be linked-to in the same sentence as Radio New Zealand reported that "Molyneux subscribes to a conspiracy theory about a white genocide". (That can be seen in this version of the article, edited by me. Note that you will find a link to White genocide conspiracy theory in the "See also section". I put it there.) We do not know that the author at Radio New Zealand endorses Molyneux's membership in the group of people described at our White genocide conspiracy theory article. That article is a laundry list of types of people. It begins by saying "The white genocide conspiracy theory is a neo-Nazi, alt-right, white nationalist/supremacist conspiracy theory..." Let us start with the term "neo-Nazi". No source whatsoever describes Molyneux as a "neo-Nazi". But what does the reader think when we cause an assertion by Radio New Zealand to link to White genocide conspiracy theory? Clearly the implication is that Molyneux falls under the heading Neo-Nazism. Of course we should try to avoid that. Even if this were not a BLP we should try to avoid misconstruing a person's identity. The article White genocide conspiracy theory cannot just be casually linked-to. That is because its definition is so amorphous. Bus stop (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Your issue is valid but that's an issue on the WGCT page that should be evaluated. I've actually gone and BOLDy adjusted the first sentence there to better define that the theory can be believed by, say, someone that is alt-right but not necessarily neo-Nazi as is the case here for Molyneux. --Masem (t) 23:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• It might make sense to reword that introductory sentence at 'white genocide conspiracy theory" - the theory has been advanced by white supremacists and neo-Nazis, but the theory itself doesn't hold an ideology. That said: reliable sources explicitly connect Molyneux's white genocide stuff to the white supremacist movement - so I don't see a huge problem here. Nblund 23:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• I have personally watched hundreds of hours of Molyneux's videos, and he never describes white demographic decline as a "genocide" nor a "conspiracy". Furthermore I skimmed all the sources that were supposed to substantiate the WGCS accusation, and none of them contained a pertinent SM quote. Opinion columnists parroting each other without ever citing any relevant direct quotes do not substantiate the allegation. If we include the WGCS accusation in the article at all it should be attributed inline, not stated as fact. This would be similar to the way Misplaced Pages reports SPLC blacklistings on BLPs.Jwray (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

"I have personally watched hundreds of hours of Molyneux's videos" - braver person than I. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

"I have personally watched hundreds of hours of Molyneux's videos, and he never describes white demographic decline as a "genocide" nor a "conspiracy"." I'm sure he never has and never will refer to his conspiracy theory beliefs as conspiracies. Most conspiracy theorists actively avoid using the word "conspiracy". As for whether or not he's ever called it "genocide", that's really immaterial. We have no requirement that a person be quoted as stating the exact names of whatever conspiracy theories they believe in order to report that reliable sources have stated clearly that they do. Finally, he may not have used "genocide", but he's used the terms "horrific violence", "crisis", "civil war" and "slaughter" in the titles of his videos. And it's quite certain it's a favorite subject of his, because even when he has the common sense to tone down the rhetoric just a tad, he still can't shut up about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The ongoing violence against whites in South Africa is a fact, not a conspiracy theory, regardless of who uses it as a talking point.Jwray (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I see this is turning into a bull session. Let's cut to the chase. The Radio New Zealand source does not support the contents of the "White genocide conspiracy theory" article—not by a long shot. Therefore the proper way to inform the reader of all relevant information without misleading the reader is to include the relevant quote from Radio New Zealand in the body of the article and the link to the somewhat related "White genocide conspiracy theory" article elsewhere in the Molyneux article. I am not 100% happy with this next suggestion but the best placement for the internal link to the "White genocide conspiracy theory" article is in the "See also" section. Unless anyone can come up with a better suggestion for the placement of that internal link. Bus stop (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Exactly how is the RNZ article not talking about the WGCT ? It's certainly not talking about the Armenian White Genocide in any type of context, but clearly elements of the right-wing WGCT. Is there a third meaning for "white genocide" that is out there? --Masem (t) 15:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The Radio New Zealand source does not support the contents of the "White genocide conspiracy theory" article—not by a long shot. That is simply and obviously untrue. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Masem—this is the source. The relevant quote from that source is "Mr Molyneux subscribes to a conspiracy theory about a white genocide and claims that violence is caused by how women treat children." That source also refers to Molyneux as "alt-right" and a "provocateur". I am arguing that the descriptions of Molyneux in the RNZ source are a world apart from the descriptions of people in the WGCT article, especially suggestion of Neo-Nazism. That is so far off the mark that it calls for caution in linking to the White genocide conspiracy theory article. Bus stop (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

That source also refers to Molyneux as "alt-right" and a "provocateur". I am arguing that the descriptions of Molyneux in the RNZ source are a world apart from the descriptions of people in the WGCT article, especially suggestion of Neo-Nazism. So you are arguing that there's no connection between the alt-right and neo-nazism? The very first sentence of Alt-right says: The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loosely connected and somewhat ill-defined grouping of American white supremacists/white nationalists, white separatists, anti-Semites, neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, neo-Confederates, Holocaust deniers, conspiracy theorists and other far-right fringe hate groups. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Even if Molyneux himself stays as far away from neo-Nazism, there's still the fact that the white genocide conspiracy theory has created strange bedfellows, and its certainly not our place to try to hide that connection. There is absolutely no way that by the simple act of linking to the WGCT that mentioned that its a theory held by neo-Nazis among other groups, that Molyneux is a neo-Nazi. --Masem (t) 15:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Masem—Why paraphrase? Why not just quote? The answer is that the paraphrasing is just a contrivance. It is a way of linking to the all-important WGCT article. This is a misuse of Misplaced Pages. Bus stop (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a misuse of Misplaced Pages. In what way? You have asserted numerous times that linking to the CT article is the problem (while simultaneously condescending to another editor for taking you at your word that it was that very linking with which you disagreed, although to your credit, you walked back on that) but you have not once given a policy based reason for why this is so. Those closest you have come is in your comment above, where you (hilariously) try to draw a distinction between neo-nazis and the alt-right. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Masem—besides, there is no reason for paraphrasing. It accomplishes absolutely nothing. Once again, let us cut to the chase. The source is saying "Mr Molyneux subscribes to a conspiracy theory about a white genocide and claims that violence is caused by how women treat children." Our article most accurately represents the import of the underlying source by simply saying "Molyneux subscribes to a conspiracy theory about a white genocide." End of story. The paraphrasing only serves as a vehicle for including the link to the hodgepodge of an article WGCT which includes everything but the kitchen sink. If we want to tar and feather Molyneux, we can do so by pretending that the RNZ source and the WGCT article are in sync with one another. But I don't think any of us think that is true. So why foist it on the reader? Bus stop (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I am probably one of the first editors that would be all over this situation if there was an issue of WP:LABELing and media spin, and all that, and even here, I see zero reason not to link, and we don't even need to quote RNZ directly. "RNZ claims that Molyneux subscribes to white genocide conspiracy theory." with appropriate linkage. We are not saying "RNZ claims that Molyneux subscribes to the white genocide conspiracy theory, which means he must be a neo-Nazi." nor implying that by linking to the theory's page. --Masem (t) 16:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

My mistake about something. And my apologies to Only in death. I had it ass-backwards. The article is presently using the direct quote. (In the past it had been using a paraphrase.) But that only makes the matter worse. We are inserting an internal link into a quote. I think this is sometimes acceptable and sometimes not acceptable. I don't think the nature of the White genocide conspiracy theory article lends it to insertion within a quote. Such an internal link would be better placed in the See also section. Bus stop (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

This is now the third time I'm asking you to justify your insistence that the link is "not acceptable". Are you going to answer me or just continue to ignore me? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

MjolnirPants—it is not acceptable because it is on too-broad a topic. Such internal links within quotes may be acceptable when the linked-to article is on a well-defined subject. (If we are referring to an "automobile transmission" we can link to our Transmission (mechanics) article. It is well defined. There can be no doubt about a source's intended meaning.) In this case the internal link should be in the See also section. Sorry for not responding earlier. I had to gather my thoughts. Bus stop (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

While the various facets of the white genocide conspiracy theory are fuzzy at the edges of exactly what it is, the overall concept, in contents of how RZH puts it, is correctly captured by the link. We don't have enough to know exactly how to "pidgeonhole" what Molyneux thinks related to white genocide, but that broadly the ideas he has expressed fall within the overall conspiracy theory. --Masem (t) 19:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

This argument is akin to suggesting that we can't call the sky blue because it's actually a light blue with some cyan undertones. It's nonsensical. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

By the way RNZ is not even devoting a full sentence to this topic: "Mr Molyneux subscribes to a conspiracy theory about a white genocide and claims that violence is caused by how women treat children." Information should be in an article but information should not be given more weight or prominence than suggested by the sources. I think the internal link within the quote adds prominence to that assertion. Bus stop (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

You're still not answering my question. Instead, you're trying to bullshit me by pretending that I haven't provided multiple sources asserting the same damn thing already. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

This is starting to seem like WP:Tendentious editing. Bus stop you continually repeat the same points while omitting what others have said previously. Again RNZ is not the only source that states SM's belief in WGCT and therefore your repeated assertions about the articles only mentioning WGCT for "half a sentence" is not only nonsensical, but untrue. Here are the other sources previously linked on Stefan Molynuex's talk page under the WGCT section:

• "In the last year, YouTuber Stefan Molyneux has done a series of videos warning of collapse and imminent civil war in which he interviewed some of the most prominent names on South Africa’s far-right, including Simon Roche of the rightwing prepper group Suidlanders"
• "...some of the far right’s biggest conspiracy theorists, like Stefan Molyneux, who regularly uses his platform to argue that blacks are genetically inferior intellectually to whites."
• "So why these rumors of an uprising against whites in South Africa now? Trump didn’t start them with his tweet. Tucker Carlson didn’t start them. I’ve been receiving emails for a year or two now from anxious friends abroad about tidbits they’ve read about growing anger towards white people here—mostly in the U.K. tabloid press or on the Twitter feeds of the Canadian right-wing provocateurs Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux. Not just from right-wing friends—from left-wing ones, too. "
• "Discussing the film with Southern, Molyneux alleged a conspiracy of silence from the media and NGOs on the non-existent genocide, and plumbed white nationalist fears, saying that “they don’t want to scare the whites in the west with what happens when whites become a minority in a highly aggressive and tribalised world”. " Pokerplayer513 (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Those sources look good, Pokerplayer513. I will concede those sources support the Molyneux alignment with the White genocide conspiracy theory article. I hadn't seen them or I skimmed over them. Question: why not add them to the article? My apologies if I've wasted everybody's time. Bus stop (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not see how these quotes prove that SM believes in the White genocide conspiracy theory. None of them even mention the conspiracy. One can believe in disparities in intelligence over large populations and in demographic changes in the West without believing there is some concerted effort to diminish white populations. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

If you continue to use this site for no reason other than your quest to whitewash the articles of right-wing figures I will ask an admin to block you from editing. You're a static IP, so don't think they won't do it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

MjolnirPants—you do not know that anyone is using the site to whitewash articles on right-wing figures. A point was made. Why not just respond to the point that was made? Bus stop (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Because said "point" is a blatantly false claim of fact that comes from an account with a history of making blatantly false claims of fact, who has never made an edit that wasn't in defense of a right-wing public figure. Seriously dude, I put the links to the evidence right there in my comment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Start advocating BLP violations on the BLP's of left-wing figures and I'll defend them as well. The fact remains that the posted sources do not show what you are claiming. What you are claiming is an interpretation of the sources. It's fine to have your own interpretation, but it's still OR and thus doesn't belong in a BLP. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

As I've already told you multiple times now; if you're just going to keep lying, I'm not going to discuss anything with you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

MjolnirPants—just respond to the points made. No need to talk about the person making the points. Bus stop (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm not debating reality with a proven liar. And I'm not going to repeat this argument with you because last time, you refused to answer questions, failed to address any of the problems pointed out with your arguments by multiple other editors, made numerous bare assertions without providing any rationale, and just otherwise refused to engage in a reasoned discourse, preferring to just keep repeating your nonsensical claims as if that would convince anyone. I'm not the first editor to point out that this is pure tendentiousness on your part, but I will be the one to ask an admin to do something about it if you can't or won't drop the stick. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

How can you call anyone a "proven liar"? That is mind-boggling. Bus stop (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Because it's true. The IP claimed that none of the sources I dug up, which Pokerplayer513 copied to this thread mention the white genocide conspiracy theory. That's not only demonstrably false, it's demonstrably false even if the sources consisted of nothing but the quotes I provided. The IP also has a history of making such demonstrably false statements, always in defense of a right-wing public figure. The IP literally just got off a six month block for exactly this sort of behavior, and immediately started engaging in it again. I've already pointed out to you once that I'd presented the evidence of this. But apparently, you need me to spell it out for you because you can't be bothered to click a link. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Their argument is in opposition to your argument. They were blocked but they are no longer blocked. They are not engaging in block-worthy behavior at this time. Bus stop (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I've already explained myself. If you don't think that's good enough, that's your problem, not mine. If you continue to beat this dead horse, I will ask an admin to topic ban you for a month or two. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it is improper to dismiss the comments of an editor on the basis that they were blocked recently. I believe they made a valid point. For the purposes of a productive discussion there is nothing gained by focussing on another editor's recent block. Bus stop (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Bus stop please read the previous/above discussion before commenting. MPants at work answered the question regarding whether or not SM believes in a "conspiracy." You even responded to his answer, but as has been the case with most of your edits on SM, you completely ignored what he said and continued with "I see this is turning into a bull session. Let's cut to the chase. The Radio New Zealand source does not support the contents of the "White genocide conspiracy theory" article—not by a long shot." If you still think the IP has a point, then state what you think that point is and we can proceed (please include policies and/or sources). I'll let you find the answer yourself because it's on this exact BLP page and explaining the same thing over and over (or in my case reading over and over) is tiring WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Further reading on "white genocide" and how it's a far-right fantasy Pokerplayer513 (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

We do not call another editor a "proven liar". Not even if they are an IP and not even if they were recently unblocked. Bus stop (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Bus Stop, why are you saying this to me? You reply has nothing to do with what I said. That's now two edits in a row on this page where you have just repeated what you said previously and again you're misrepresenting what others have said. This is not a WP:Battleground. You inability to respond to others in a constructive way leads me to believe you are either not editing in good faith or you lack the ability to. Either add to the discussion or don't post. All of this has been explained to you and I haven't seen anything change. Also, please check the Misplaced Pages:Mind your own business essay. I don't really know what's going on between the IP and MPants at work, but it's clear you don't either Bus. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 08:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Pokerplayer513: The IP has a history of making claims that are obviously untrue (such as in this thread, where they claimed that none of the sources you copied over here actually refer to the white genocide CS), and has has literally never made an edit that wasn't part of an attempt to whitewash a right-wing public figure, such as Molyneux or Ben Swann. You can see some more of their shenanigans lower down on this page. The IP had just come off a 6 month block for doing the very same thing when they posted that complaint about the lede at the Swann article. I've been dealing with the IPs rather obvious distortions and POV pushing since last May, and it's gotten to the point where WP:AGF is out and WP:PACT is in. I'm not asking you to get involved (I'm not planning on replying to the IP anymore myself), I'm just saying this so you can at least know what's going on. I don't use the term "liar" lightly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment — for the record, this SPLC page on Molyneux provides plenty of quotes with links that clearly show Molyneux's stated views on race . -Darouet (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Darouet—we should bear in mind that our own opinion of the SPLC is that "The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on far-right politics. As an advocacy group, the Southern Poverty Law Center is a biased and opinionated source. The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be properly attributed per WP:RSOPINION." Bus stop (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Or we could ignore that particular right-wing talking point -- especially since the page you're trying to undermine is a collection of Molyneux's own words. Or are Molyneux's own words "a biased and opinionated source"? --Calton | Talk 15:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Just for the record, Calton, I am not "trying to undermine" the page. I'm just trying to keep us on the up-and-up. We don't want to cast aspersions of racism on someone without fully examining what inarguably is a reliable source. If in our own estimation the source is "biased and opinionated", that is something we should bear in mind, even if it is Molyneux's own words that we are focussing upon. Bus stop (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Are you now asserting that those quotes from Molyneux are not racist? If so, you are begging for a topic ban per WP:CIR. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bus stop: understanding that SPLC is an advocacy group, I wanted to know Molyneux's actual opinions, and the SPLC website both quotes and links them. I have to write, I try to be skeptical of media claims of this sort - to verify a person's beliefs myself and satisfy BLP requirements - in this case Molyneux's words speak for themselves. - Darouet (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

FWIW we cannot take those quotes on the SPLC page ourselves and then call them "racist", that's OR. But we clearly have what the SPLC is saying among other sources to identify that several groups consider him racist, eliminating the issue. --Masem (t) 16:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Masem—we already have material deriving from that source in the article. I made this edit based on that source back in December 2018. It presents the conclusions reached by the SPLC and it attributes those conclusions to the SPLC. Bus stop (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm just concerned that Mjolnir's statement that implies we as editors can write in WP mainspace that some BLP is racist by simply reviewing what said person is known to have said. As long as teh SPLC is being attributed to that, we're fine otherwise. --Masem (t) 18:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

My statement implies no such thing and if you think it does, you have completely failed to parse it correctly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

MjolnirPants—my opinion on whether the quotes are racist or not would constitute original research. Bus stop (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Your refusal to answer the question is both noted and telling, by the way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You are asking me to comment on a subject of your choosing. Why would I pontificate on something as irrelevant as my interpretation of the quotes of the subject of this article? And wouldn't doing so contravene the notion of WP:FORUM? Are we supposed to shoot the bull whenever one editor poses a question to another editor? Bus stop (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You were already commenting on it. I asked you to clarify your comments. You refused to do so. Telling, if unsurprising. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

But I was not already commenting on it. That is the point. It is your initiative to open up a conversation as to my interpretation of the Molyneux quotes. Bus stop (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

But I was not already commenting on it. You are lying or incompetent to discuss this subject: , . ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

This just keeps going around and around in circles. If it helps, with absolutely zero authority, I declare MjolnerPants the winner, not so much because their arguments were much more convincing, remained on point, are free of logical fallacies, or what they have in directness they lack in tact, but because Bus stop's are far less convincing and remaining too on point, basically just spiraling into circulus in probando, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, argumentum ad infinitum, and other forms of kettle logic. We can argue "Did not" "Did so" for the rest of our lives and it won't get us anywhere. Zaereth (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Are you flirting with me? Because it's working. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

argumentum ad infinitum and other forms of kettle logic confirmed. I don't even know what's being discussed anymore. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I was gonna say the same thing. I couldn't possible name a winner without knowing what was being debated, and I lost track of what was being debated... --74.195.159.155 (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The RS cited above and in the article seem adequate to support a statement that Molyneux belives in / promotes a white genocide conspiracy theory. If such a statement is included in his article, it is consistent with general practices on here that the mention of the white genocide conspiracy theory (whether using those exact words or a paraphrase) would contain a wikilink to our article on that topic, unless the article is already linked-to in an earlier place such as at the beginning of the section Stefan Molyneux#White_genocide via a template like {{Main}}. -sche (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Justin Fairfax

Justin Fairfax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The following edit reverted by an admin: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?diff=881811889&oldid=881811624 I believe the edit is allowed by WP:BLP, as there is no doubt that Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax of Virginia has been accused of sexual assault (the Washington Post acknowledges that it previously withheld publication due to lack of corroboration, but the allegation was brought to them over 1 year ago). While the allegation was originally publicized by a Big League Politics, a site that is not considered reliable, it has since been reported by multiple major news outlets referenced by inline citations (as well as The New York Times). Fairfax acknowledges that he knows and had a sexual encounter with the woman who has accused him; he disputes that an assault occurred. This accusation is noteworthy because it has become a significant element of the current political climate in Virginia, as Fairfax would succeed to the governorship should Gov.Ralph Northam resign over unrelated allegations of racism. Maybe not coincidentally, the allegations against Northam were also published by Big League Politics. GeoGreg (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Drmies is pretty much correct that right now, its a bit too early to know if inclusion should be done at this point. We should always be careful of inclusion fresh allegations immediately after they are made, and instead wait at least a news cycle to see what happens, if there's an impact on his career, etc. Fairfax' situation is likely going to be amplified by Northam's own problems, but treat it as separate for right now.--Masem (t) 00:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Note: there is an RfC at Talk:Justin Fairfax#Request for comment on including sexual assault allegation. wumbolo ^^^ 20:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Someone argued on the talk page that including "fuck that bitch" comment attributed to Fairfax (Fairfax denied using that specific phrase) would violate WP:BLPGOSSIP. That is interesting, but incorrect because if it were true that Fairfax used that phrase, that would definitely be a big deal. Another editor said that inclusion would be unencyclopedic. Our article says "NBC News reported that Fairfax used a misogynistic profanity to describe Tyson". NYT describes that as "obscenity" and says Fairfax's chief of staff says Fairfax used a profanity, but not to refer to Tyson and not with those words. I'm a big fan of WP:NOTCENSORED and do not see how paraphrasing (and minor editorialising) is better than a quoting three words. Politrukki (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it isn't necessarily gossip, but WP:NOTCENSORED means that we can use profanity, it doesn't mean we have to. The fact that the New York Times declined to quote him directly, and the fact that a number of other sources seem to be wary about reporting this at all makes me think that paraphrasing is better than quoting. Nblund 23:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a difference between censoring something and presenting it in a more professional manner using a more clinical type of analysis. Sounds like pure gossip to me, however, because using profanities and words that really refer to dogs (and only to women as a comparison to biting dogs) is a rather commonplace thing in American society. (It's like calling someone a "pussy", a name that originally referred to cats, meaning "fraidy cat", yet people mistakenly assume it refers to a body part, in which case it makes no sense in that context.) Zaereth (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Vanessa C. Tyson

Vanessa C. Tyson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Professor Tyson now has a bio of their own, which looks okay for now, but might be worth watching. I hope that won't be full of Fairfax allegations later. Politrukki (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Jacob Wohl

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

There are 3 false/libelous statements on the 'Jacob Wohl' Misplaced Pages Page

False Statement 1: "Jacob Wohl (born December 12, 1997) is an American far-right scammer...." — This statement is completely false. While some of my previous business were the subject of government investigations, I have never been charged or disciplined in any way for "scamming", fraud or anything thing else of that type, nor any other crime.

False Statement 2: "Wohl is barred for life from futures trading due to defrauding investors in 2016 by posing as a hedge fund manager and real estate investor." — This sentence is completely false. I have not been barred in any way, shape or form from trading futures for any reason. I have however been barred from being a member of the National Futures Association, but as it states clearly on the NFA's own website, I was barred for "Failure to Cooperate with the NFA" (a group for which I was not a member at the time I didn't cooperate). This is an enormous and libelous mistruth that's been posted on my page. image.png

False Statement 3: "The NFA concluded that Wohl had made several material misrepresentations, including the implausible claim made at age 18 years old that he had more than "ten years of experience" as a fund manager." This sentence is false. The NFA banned me from becoming a member for "Failure to cooperate with the NFA (Rule C.R.2-5)" on only that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Reicher (talk • contribs) 15:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Note: there is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Jacob Wohl about whether OP has a conflict of interest with the article subject. wumbolo ^^^ 20:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• • @Jim Reicher: you post above saying "While some of my previous business were the subject of government investigations" seems to say that you are Jacob Wohl. If so you should declare a conflict of interest on your user page. It is clear that you are a WP:SPA. Undeclared + "SPA" + getting involved in a serious dispute often results in editors getting blocked, so I'd suggest making a declaration.

The 3 "false statements" above look to be pretty much true. You may have a legalistic, technical point in that the NFA cannot entirely by itself bar you from the futures markets. They are a self-regulating organization for the futures markets, and anything that they do can be undone by the actual regulator, the CFTC. You'd have to appeal to the CFTC however within a fairly short time period, to force the NFA to accept you as a member. If you are not an NFA member you are barred from taking a position of trust within the futures markets, i.e. you can trade for yourself but not act as a broker or anything similar. If you didn't cooperate with the NFA, your appeal would go nowhere.

So, with a very small amount of rewriting, your claim of libel has no basis. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The NFA case is a big deal (and should be in the article and lede) - We should however be technically accurate - the "barred for life from futures trading" seems to be possibly inaccurate. Icewhiz (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy, I changed the lead into "...by the self regulatory National Futures Association..." For the other claims, per Misplaced Pages policy on Conflict of Interest, please first verify and disclose that you are, actually, Jacob Wohl himself. Then please stay away from directly editing to this article or creating/editing articles relating to yourself, your family and your associated companies. We follow secondary (i.e. third party), reliable sources, not your original interpretation of primary sources, so please resolve your issues with the CFTC, the NFA and news media first, otherwise these appeals are baseless. Thank you. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 19:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: Jacob Wohl is now threatening to sue Misplaced Pages (archive). So I would assume that this Jim Reicher account is at least related to him or his family member/associates. Should I make a thread on WP:AN? @Smallbones: @Icewhiz:

@Jim Reicher:, to save your time and money, please use this link for instructions on contacting the Wikimedia foundation for your claims. We cannot solve it for you. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 17:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'll ask everybody to step back and calm down. If you accuse somebody of being a "fraudster" and he hasn't been convicted of fraud or something similar, you shouldn't be surprised if he starts complaining about libel and threatens a lawsuit. Before seeing the ping here I removed the "fraudster" in the first sentence, and was in the process of cleaning up a bit more. I am now removing myself entirely from this conversation and from editing the article. Threats of lawsuits, even off-Wiki, do have a chilling effect, even when the person making the threat IMO does not have a chance of winning the lawsuit, e.g. defending yourself from a lawsuit can cost money and time. BTW, I am not a lawyer. I would hope that nobody tries to inflame the situation and that an administrator locks down the whole article as tight as possible to prevent this from happening. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• That first sentence of the lede is absolutely not acceptable, as it is not objective or impartial at all. Recognizing that Wohl's on the notability scale for some of this stuff, it's still not appropriate to lead off with subjective labels over objective facts. Jacob Wohl (born December 12, 1997) is an American far-right conspiracy theorist, internet troll, online blogger, and a former columnist for the website The Gateway Pundit. should really be Jacob Wohl (born December 12, 1997) is an American blogger and former columnist for The Gateway Pundit, who is considered to be a far-right conspiracy theorist and an Internet troll. Same information but the tone is much more suited for the encyclopedia. --Masem (t) 19:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, the fraudster descriptor may be a bit subjective as only Snopes and HillReporter directly called him out on that, but he was indeed charged by the Arizona Corporation Commission for 14 counts of fraud, and was ordered to pay $32,919 in restitution as a result. The page has been updated to appropriately reflect this due weight. His current main career, widely repored, seems to be spinning conspiracy theories against politicians he doesn't like, so this really isn't something to dance around in "described as" about, as the "blogger" is quite inaccurate (no formal blogs, just a Twitter account), and his just a former columnist anyway. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 00:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that rushing to lay down all the negative aspects of him in the lede before addressing objective career elements sets a decidedly non-partial tone for the rest of the article which is against both BLP and NPOV. The labels and statements that he frauded people, that all can stay in the lede and be as early as the first sentence, and there should be no attempt to bury them, but they should come after neutrally and objectively stating what his career is/was. And FWIW I have seen people that only tweet their opinions called bloggers or analysis (Twitter is just meant to be a micro-blog anyway). At worst, the term "commentator" works. --Masem (t) 16:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• NFA - The language previously in our article, in my opinion, contained a bit of OR and was based in part on a PRIMARY source. I think I've rectified this with - combined diff. I opened a talk page section in Talk:Jacob Wohl#NFA to discuss NFA bit. Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Richard Blumenthal

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

Is this information that should be in the article? Pinging Markvs88. Bus stop (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Thank you for taking the time to do this, Bus stop. I don't see any reason why the information should not be included. It is a cited point, and the pages for Senators Joe Lieberman and Chris Dodd contain similar details. Markvs88 (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  Can you please identify the parts of Lieberman and Dodd's articles where it's falsely suggested they were having relationships with minors? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Not appropriate, certainly not based only on the source given. MPS1992 (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for your positive attitude towards my presenting this here, Markvs88. The wording that we are disputing has the implication of impropriety, in my opinion. Who cares where and how they met and what their age difference might be? And I would like to add that I am generally, but not in this instance, in favor of including information in some form. Bus stop (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Not at all, I feel that there's too much drama on the 'pedia due to ego conflicts. I have no particular love of this material (or article, as you can see from my edit history if you want to look), but it is a cited point and that I care about. Please also note that I don't generally do much on political and/or bio articles other than rollback vandalism. As for the point itself... it is cited, and it is common knowledge that he is 15 years older than his wife. I cannot see how censoring something that is common in the majority of other articles makes any sense, really. As to who cares, that's why we have the subsection in the first place, right? Per wp:wellknown the subject should be included with multiple sources. I will add a couple to fulfill that requirement. Markvs88 (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Just because something might be well known still doesn't make it appropriate to include. Unless we have a lot more quality RSes that speak critically of that age difference, we should not be calling out per our BLP privacy aspects. --Masem (t) 16:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Can anyone explain in detail why something fine in hundreds of other articles, including other Connecticut Senators Joe Lieberman and Chris Dodd is not okay here? That's not wp:npov, that's wp:censorship. Look, I'm not against a rewrite to make it more acceptable to all (though I don't see anything wrong with it now), but what you're saying is that a fact that at least two major newspapers and multiple TV news stations have covered is irrelevant is IMO a bit much. Markvs88 (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• It may be "cited" and "common knowledge" but it is far afield from the reasons for the notability of the subject of the article. It is therefore, I think, gratuitous. Bus stop (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Come on, this is very simple. The text, as written, suggests that a 31-year old Blumenthal was romantically involved with a 16-year old, which the cited source (a Heavy.com) does not at all support. The cited source clearly says "they started to date when Cynthia became an adult and began attending Harvard University" and that they married when she was a Harvard senior. Also, can anyone locate the text in the Hartford Courier where it says Blumenthal met Malkin when she was 16 - I can't find it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Again, I am not against a rewrite. I have to run right now, will reply about the Courant later. Markvs88 (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The circumstances of how a Senator met his wife are trivial unless it occurred through his public service. And the way the section was written did make him sound like an adult predator, preying on a teenager. I don't think this negative image was what the source implied. Liz 01:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Liz & Bus stop, are you aware of WP:WELLKNOWN? Your opinions are contrary to this, and you're both denying a fact that has multiple (major!) sources as inconsequential. Now, that said: I don't read it as questionable, BUT I'm (saying it yet again) open to revising the prose if it bothers some people. Please consider this below. Markvs88 (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• RFC is the problem with the " They met at a party in Greenwich, when 16-year-old Malkin, who was accompanied by her parents, was paired up with 31-year-old Blumenthal in a game of tennis." line, or the "who is 15 years his junior." line, or both? Personally, I would be satisfied with something along the lines of "...who is 15 years his junior. They met playing tennis at a party in Greenwich." Markvs88 (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Consider me another vote for the idea that this entire tangent is wildly undue and problematic. Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Dumuzid (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Bump it's been seven days and no one has decided to weigh in on the RFC. I'll give it another couple of days and then assume it is non-controversial. Markvs88 (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• What RfC? Are you referring to your comment above? As far as I can tell, every single person who has chipped in on the dispute has objected to the text that you want to add. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• It is not "non-controversial". It is "opposed". I don't think you've convinced others that this material warrants inclusion. You can present reasons why this material is important. I don't think you have done so. Correct me if I am wrong but your argument boils down to comparisons with other articles. Such comparisons are necessarily very imperfect. Therefore the most likely argument to persuade others would be the argument that the disputed material serves some purpose. But as I've said I don't think you have presented any argument as to the purpose served by this material. My understanding is that this is gossipy. My understanding is that the disputed material implies wrongdoing or at least impropriety. My understanding is that the material is trivial and that it fails to integrate into the overall subject of the article. Why do we want to know where and how he met his wife? Why do we want to know their age differences? Bus stop (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/Richard_Berthold

Hardly any content, poorly sourced, extremely biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.28.39.40 (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks well sourced. If there's not much content, WP:Be Bold and add some yourself.--Auric talk 00:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Erich von Däniken

Erich von Däniken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Editors have included information about the subject's minor brushes with the law in the article's lead (which were originally unsourced), have deleted information explaining the ideas of the subject from the lead, have deleted a line which included the number of books he has published and sold from the lead, and have deleted a quote and image from the article that illustrated the ideas of the subject. The majority of the article is not about the subject, but is devoted to debunking his ideas.

Please compare the current article and a previous version (before repeated deletions of the edits I made to improve it): https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Erich_von_D%C3%A4niken&diff=882774887&oldid=882774472

I'm only trying to fix the lead and add examples to the small section "Claims of alien influence on Earth", which presents the author's ideas. The rest of the article (most of the article) is devoted to debunking the ideas of the subject of the article and I have not changed any of that. Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The main thing that I have disputed is the addition of Crucifixion of Christ - Visoki Dečani Monastery as there doesn't appear to be any sourcing where von Däniken references it directly.--♦IanMacM♦ 09:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, you reverted all of my edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Erich_von_D%C3%A4niken&diff=882774887&oldid=882774472 Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Suzi Quatro

OK, I'm sure this question has been asked and answered many times, but a lot of people may not have seen those other discussions, and I'm one.

Normally, we accept off-line refs -- of course we do, without question. If your ref for an important fact is a book that's only held at a few libraries and is hard to get to, well... so? It's a perfectly acceptable source, and our assumption is that person citing the book is not just making it up or mischaracterizing what it says, absent some claim to the contrary. The reader is free to deprecate the material on grounds of not being able to check the ref, if she wants to.

However, what about fraught material about a living person? Assuming that the material is otherwise worth including... let's say it is "Person X was fired from Picture X because he had gained 50 pounds" for a (made up) example, but all the refs for this require a paid subscription, so that neither I, other editors, or the reader can easily check that the material actually appeared. Normally we assume that the person using the ref is reading it correctly, but... for fraught material on a living person, I would think that WP:BLP would override this usual practice? Right? I hope so. But what say you? Herostratus (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not clear-cut. What if uninvolved editor/s (perhaps found via Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Resource Exchange) confirms "Yep, that's what it says, alright."? Adding a quote to the cite could be helpful as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Right, if another editor vouches for it, yeah. Herostratus (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I could access the article on the The Herald (Glasgow) today again without issues, if that's not what you get add |subscription=yes or disable Javascript on their site. The complete reference on the BLP with the quote as suggested above would look like this:

{{cite web |url=https://www.heraldscotland.com/arts_ents/15415119.my-leathers-fit-me-real-nice-suzi-quatro-on-sex-drugs-and-rock-and-roll/ |title="My leathers fit me real nice." Suzi Quatro on sex, drugs and rock and roll |author=Teddy Jamieson |date=July 17, 2017 |work=] |quote=commenting on her appearance in Penthouse (NB: she didn’t take her clothes off) |accessdate=February 11, 2019}}

Decorate it with a Charles Shaar Murray and some of the other sources suggested on the talk page as you like, but never "pull"  good references without compelling reasons: Even if Penthouse turns out to be wrong, she confirmed it in that interview, it can't be slander  in conflict with WP:BLP. –84.46.53.230 (talk) 08:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Ben Swann

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.

Can somebody please correct the lede in the Ben Swann page? It claims he created the series, Reality Check, which he used to espouse conspiracy theories, such as Pizzagate, and those surrounding the Aurora, Colorado and Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings and the 9/11 attacks. As the body of the article and the RS's clearly state, these segments were on his personal YouTube channel. They were not a part of his Reality Check series. And you won't find any reliable sources that characterize the segments that way, and in fact, the Washington Post goes out of it's way to differentiate Ben Swann's reporting from the common conspiracies surrounding Sandy Hook. Despite this source being used as an RS in the body, the lede implies the opposite and has even caused people to believe that Ben Swann slandered the victims of the Sandy Hook. I made the following edit, which takes previously agreed upon language that better reflects the body and the sources to fix these dubious and unverified claims, but it has been reverted. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

You need to do some more fact checking. Reality Check was first aired on WXIX-TV, and was moved to his YouTube channel after he left WXIX. The WaPo article you cite may try to work in Swann's defense, but it does so by claiming that he's "Just Asking Questions". At least one of those talk page edits you linked to does not show what you claim it does. Seriously: Stop complaining and actually do the research. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that the Reality Check segments are on his YouTube. That does not change the fact that the Sandy Hook and 9/11 segments are NOT a part of his Reality Check series, and no reliable source claims they are as the lede does. Yes the Washington Post along with all other reliable sources claimed he asked questions because that's what he did. That's not really in dispute, so I'm not sure what your point is.--74.195.159.155 (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

That does not change the fact that the Sandy Hook and 9/11 segments are NOT a part of his Reality Check series That is simply not true.

That's not really in dispute, so I'm not sure what your point is Did you click the link that's on the phrase "Just Asking Questions"? If you didn't, that link explains it. If you did, and you still don't understand, then I'm afraid that's your problem, and I'm not willing to try to make you understand. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

You can interpret that source as saying it's a Reality Check if you want, but that doesn't contradict what the RS's cited in the article say or my edit and it's still contradicted by the segments themselves, which clearly show that his Sandy Hook coverage was on his Full Disclosure series and his 9/11 coverage was a part of his Truth In Media project. Also, we're supposed to go by Reliable Sources here, not RationalWiki--74.195.159.155 (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

...but it might be worth noting that RationalWiki claims that "Just Asking Questions" is "a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable". It does not claim that it is equivalent to "espousing conspiracy theories" which is what you seem to be asserting. Regardless, it's irrelevant to this conversation. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, if you're just going to keep lying I'm not going to bother engaging with you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Ashley Hicks

Entire section headed DIVORCE SCANDAL is drawn from tabloid gossip and an interview with his wife which contains many inaccuracies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabloidpurger (talk • contribs) 18:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks like an editor took care of this. Herostratus (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche

There are Twitter reports that the 96 year old conspiracy theorist has died. Obviously, much more reliable sources are needed to add his possible death to the BLP, but inexperienced editors have tried to add it. More eyes are needed in this article until things shake out. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

A quick google search reveals a number of obits. Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

His death is being reported by the New York Times and Washington Post. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes - they are all conspiring to make us believe he's dead! --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Corey Maggette

I have challenged and removed serious, unproven allegations. Please someone have a look to see if this material could/should be added back. Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I think removing it at this point is the right thing to do. Unless there is a conviction, or unless it explodes into some media frenzy such that we can deduce it will have a lasting impact on his life and career, then I don't think it wise to add unproven allegations. I'd wait a while to see how it plays out. Zaereth (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It's been readded Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Henry Kissinger

Calling Henry Kissinger a war criminal in the first line of his biography may offer a yuk yuk feel good moment for some "contributor," but it's the kind of aggressive politicization that makes serious people roll their eyes at the idea of Misplaced Pages as a source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.248.28 (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I have reverted the vandalism. Meatsgains 03:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Xavier Khan Vattayil

Xavier Khan Vattayil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

First off, eww. Second, this article is a mess and looks like it has always been a mess. User:Vinuantony1989 seems intent on maintaining it as a big pile of unsourced thinly-veiled promotion. So there's that, in case anyone wants to do anything about it, or even better, if someone happens to read Malayalam and can find actual sources to write an actual article with. GMG 17:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Andrea Mitchell

A new section "Lies in the correspondence from Warsaw" has been added to the Controversies section of Andrea Mitchell's page. There are no citations, it is unbalanced, and the tone is very aggressive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.222.213.116 (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I've removed that (twice) as unsourced and controversial. If it turns out that reliable sources report on some great public uproar, it might end up going back in.

That article has some other odd or inadequately sources sections under "Controversies" as well. MPS1992 (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

William Levada

I am the authorized representative of Cardinal William Levada, William Levada. He recently saw, and objects to, the last sentence of a quote on his page which asserts an unprovable opinion that the Cardinal is either a liar or out of touch with reality, both outrageous and emotional charges.

It does seem to violate the guidelines for BLPs in that, in contrast to the rest of the page, it is not written conservatively, gives disproportionate space to particular viewpoints, and is found only on a blog, not widely published.

The sentence in question is this (hope this is okay, I don't know what "link to a diff" means):

'So, Levada's statement is either an outright lie or evidence of a very narrow understanding and perception of reality.'

I have reviewed your guidelines, am what you would call a "newbie," and am reluctant to edit the page myself as an interested party. Hoping you will advise me the best path to take.

At a minimum I feel that sentence should be removed; however, that entire paragraph suffers from the same guideline violations.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ADSFRep (talk • contribs) 20:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

ADSFRep  Done I have removed the quote in its entirety as being cited only to a blog (citing another blog). Incidentally, if you intend to continue to edit here, you should probably choose a different user name, since your current name strongly gives the impression that it belongs to the Archdiocese of San Francisco, and usernames are not permitted to represent organizations or companies, but only individuals. You should also prominently indicate your external relationship with the organization on your user page, in accordance with guidance at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. GMG 20:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Apparently the user ADSFRep doesn't exist. The links redirect to Catfishy1968 (talk · contribs)--Auric talk 00:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Alice Eduardo

• Alice Eduardo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A blossoming hagiography, which I've trimmed to get nearer to encyclopedic standards. This really could use additional eyes, and an administrator's rev/deletion of copyright violation content--there may still be more lingering. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2019 February 16#File:Robert Goldston01.jpg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2019 February 16#File:Robert Goldston01.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Template:Z48

Zak Smith

Zak Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This page does not display any content relating to controversy surrounding the career of the subject. Specifically, announcements have been made by a number of role playing game industry publishers in the past week in response to sexual abuse allegations against the subject. Reasons for lack of content on the page have included lack of authoritative references, and the nature of the allegations. Content relating to the controversy has been removed by anonymous editors. The publishers have made their announcements on typical platforms for the industry. The announcements have been reported by industry related media outlets. The announcements have not been picked up by the mainstream media. The subject's involvement in the controversy should be reflected on the page in some way.

On Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Zak_Smith the subject's notoriety has been proposed to be too low to warrant a page. This may explain the lack of mainstream media coverage of the recent controversy. Either the subject is notable, and the content relating to the controversy should be referenced, or the subject is not notable, and the page should be deleted. Recent views of the page have far outweighed the views since the page was created in 2015, suggesting that the notability of the subject is largely due to this recent controversy.

If there can be agreement on the approach about how to proceed to include content relating to the specific recent controversy, then this would enable the editors of the page to proceed with confidence.

Merxa (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The last time there was a big go-around about RPG related content there was a lot of dispute over the reliability of trade publications to establish notability. I suspect the rather contentious consensus of that discussion would best boil down to the top tier publications being reliable for non-controversial claims and statements of undisputed fact. The situation with Smith doesn't match those caveats. However I think the reality is that Smith's article demonstrates a total lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage of his career. In fact the only article I've been able to find that unambiguously implies notability is a Vice article from 2012 which is about his relationship as it was perceived then with his ex. As such, we can infer that any notability he has is intrinsically tied to that relationship; if Misplaced Pages is unable to comment on the end result of that relationship, because that part of the relationship is absent from WP:RS it'd be almost perverse to allow the relationship, as reported seven years ago by Vice, to confer notability to Smith.

Of course, Smith hasn't been doing nothing since then. And it'd be easy enough to argue, for those who have ties to the industry, that Smith's contribution to We Eat Blood, while not the final straw that broke the camel's back, was a significant factor that led to the restructuring of White Wolf Publishing and the break of Paradox Interactive with Martin Ericsson. However, again, this is mostly based on back-channel chatter and not on reporting in reliable sources that, honestly, couldn't give two shits about the back-room drama of role playing games. So this poses a conundrum: a person who may be notable for his bad behaviour, but who is not notable enough for his bad behaviour to get comment outside of the back-channels of his subcultural connections. In light of this, I think the prudent course of action is for Misplaced Pages to say nothing; presenting a sanitized view of this figure's career would be far worse. Simonm223 (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Sukavich Rangsitpol

The Administration that Roll Back many people edited

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:MobileDiff/882183647

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:MobileDiff/882646613

3) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Special:MobileDiff/882687457

Paul 012

This administration Roll Back and remove reliable sources.

Thailand has never had discrimination about LGBT

he use the article as a source and out of the sources that the article used only one mention Sukavich Name

He deleted the fact that it was deputy minister idea and it has never been approved here in Thailand.

Someone should asked Thailand Ministry of Education before using the false information.171.99.10.12 (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

* LGBT Incident Human Rights Issues

On January 25th, Suraporn Danaitangtrakul, a Deputy Education Minister, proposed that the Institute set a new criteria to bar people with "improper personalities," but not certain groups such as homosexuals. Anjaree, a lesbian group in Thailand, supported Mr. Saraporn's ideas but said the term "improper personalities" needs to be more clearly defined. Furthermore, members of Anjaree are working with other human and civil rights groups to request that the ban be dropped and that an anti-discrimination clause be added to the charter of the colleges. They are currently planning a conference to discuss opposition to the ban. In a recent positive development, the Commission on Justice and Human Rights of the Thai Parliament has discussed the matter and decided that the ban goes against human rights principles.

This has never been approved because it probably was against the minister of education speech recorded by UNESCO.

* I strongly believe that, as a citizen of the world, any person has the right to learn

• and should be entitled to have access to education according to their competency and needs.
• It is essential that the government provide educational services that respond to the people’s needs.
• Education, therefore, has to be organized in such a way that people from all walks of life can participate in educational activities at levels and times of their preference.
• With regard to the learning society, as I mentioned earlier, optimistically, people from all walks of life should be able to have equal access to education according to their needs and potentials.
• All sort of boundaries, be their gender, age, socio-economic status, physical or mental disabilities have to be eliminated.

171.99.10.12 (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Computer Incident

Ministry of Education (Thailand) was using School-based management (SBM) in 1997. School-based management (SBM)

School-based management (SBM) in Thailand began in 1997 in the course of a reform aimed at overcoming a profound crisis in the education system.

authority for curriculum, budget, and personnel and virtually full authority for strategic planning. More teacher empowerment was a stated objective. Other objectives included increased discretionary resources to schools, increased evaluation of instruction, and increased community and parental involvement.

HOW ARE BUDGET DECISIONS MADE?

In most SBM systems, each school is given a "lump sum" that the school can spend as it sees fit. As outlined by JoAnn Spear (1983), the district office determines the total funds needed by the whole district, determines the districtwide costs (such as the cost of central administration and transportation), and allocates the remaining funds to the individual schools. The allocation to each school is determined by a formula that takes into account the number and type of students at that school.

Each school determines how to spend the lump sum allocated by the district in such areas as personnel, equipment, supplies, and maintenance. In some districts, surplus funds can be carried over to the next year or be shifted to a program that needs more funds; in this way, long-range planning and efficiency are encouraged.

At the very beginning, the crucial element to be considered for education reform is the management system. The administrative power, in particular, has to be shifted to local authorities, and local participation in the school management is essentially encouraged.

171.99.10.12 (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Computer Incident

Ministry of Education (Thailand) was using School-based management (SBM) in 1997. School-based management (SBM)

School-based management (SBM) in Thailand began in 1997 in the course of a reform aimed at overcoming a profound crisis in the education system.

authority for curriculum, budget, and personnel and virtually full authority for strategic planning. More teacher empowerment was a stated objective. Other objectives included increased discretionary resources to schools, increased evaluation of instruction, and increased community and parental involvement.

HOW ARE BUDGET DECISIONS MADE?

In most SBM systems, each school is given a "lump sum" that the school can spend as it sees fit. As outlined by JoAnn Spear (1983), the district office determines the total funds needed by the whole district, determines the districtwide costs (such as the cost of central administration and transportation), and allocates the remaining funds to the individual schools. The allocation to each school is determined by a formula that takes into account the number and type of students at that school.

Each school determines how to spend the lump sum allocated by the district in such areas as personnel, equipment, supplies, and maintenance. In some districts, surplus funds can be carried over to the next year or be shifted to a program that needs more funds; in this way, long-range planning and efficiency are encouraged.

At the very beginning, the crucial element to be considered for education reform is the management system. The administrative power, in particular, has to be shifted to local authorities, and local participation in the school management is essentially encouraged.

171.99.10.12 (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

References

1. Pageviews Analysis
2. Anonymous (1 March 1997). "Thailand: Gays and Lesbians Banned from Enrolling in Teacher Training Schools". Global LGBT Human Rights Organization. Retrieved 14 February 2019.
3. "Asia-Pacific Regional Consultation on Adult Education, Jomtien, Thailand, 16-18 September 1996: final report". Unesdoc.unesco.org. Retrieved 14 February 2019.
4. Gamage, David T.; Sooksomchitra, Pacharapimon (1 July 2004). "Decentralisation And School-Based Management In Thailand". International Review of Education. 50 (3): 289–305. doi:10.1007/s11159-004-2624-4. Retrieved 14 February 2019 – via Springer Link.
5. "Read "Improving America's Schools: The Role of Incentives"". Nap.edu. Retrieved 14 February 2019.
6. "Archived: Consumer Guides: SCHOOL-BASED MANAGEMENT". 2.ed.gov. Retrieved 14 February 2019.
7. Gamage, David T.; Sooksomchitra, Pacharapimon (1 July 2004). "Decentralisation And School-Based Management In Thailand". International Review of Education. 50 (3): 289–305. doi:10.1007/s11159-004-2624-4. Retrieved 14 February 2019 – via Springer Link.
8. "Read "Improving America's Schools: The Role of Incentives"". Nap.edu. Retrieved 14 February 2019.
9. "Archived: Consumer Guides: SCHOOL-BASED MANAGEMENT". 2.ed.gov. Retrieved 14 February 2019.

Jesselyn Radack

I removed some content from Jesselyn Radack regarding a lawsuit, as it appeared to be sourced to a mix of primary sources, and secondary sources that didn't look reliable. My edit, however, was reverted. I'd appreciate some help from editors with experience in BLP matters and more knowledge of the reliability of American political sources than I have -- I don't think the sourcing is sufficient but I could well be wrong. Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 10:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Secondary sources are listed on the bottom of the talk page of Jesselyn Radack. NigelRulesFine (talk) 11:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I reverted the edits per BLP. None of the sources meet our requirements for content about living persons. Woodroar (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Masood Azhar

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

Unsure if Azhar is dead, but listed as such currently. Target of defamation based on changes to place of death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patsfan2014 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that would be vandalism. Thank you for that edit. Bus stop (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Ben Shapiro

User Beyond My Ken reverted my edit in the article Ben Shapiro where I changed the caption from "(2016)" to "Shapiro in 2016", as the infobox caption is supposed to be stated in articles about invividuals (Michael Jackson, John F. Kennedy, Elizabeth II, et cetera). I changed it back to the way it's supposed to be stated. Just informing you that he might revert it back to the former incorrect way. Must be a new user who doesn't know much about Misplaced Pages. –Sullay (Let's talk about it) 22:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Apparently the user has done it in the article Richard B. Spencer as well (his edit). I don't know why he does it when several people have to tell him that his way to put the caption is wrong. User might be a troll. –Sullay (Let's talk about it) 22:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Sullay—we know that it is Shapiro because it is the Shapiro article, and we know that it is Spencer because it is the Spencer article. Bus stop (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, this might be better off at the Might Be a Troll noticeboard. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Must be a new user who doesn't know much about Misplaced Pages. Sullay, the next time you think to characterize another editor's experience, you may want to check their contributions first. BMK has been around for 5 years longer than you and has about 100 times more edits. You should probably try to discuss this with them, rather than running straight for a noticeboard. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, MPants. Actually, I've been here since 2005 (see User:Beyond My Ken/My backstory), so that's 11 years longer. As for the complaint, it has absolutely nothing to do with what BLPN is for, it's a stock content dispute. I happen to think that our readers are smart enough to realize that the picture at the top of the page titled Ben Shapiro inside the infobox titled "Ben Shapiro" is a picture of Ben Shapiro. Another editor told me on my talk page that if it wasn't labelled with the name, it might mean that the picture was of a "stunt double" or a "lookalike", ignoring, of course, that any such image would be deleted as soon as it was discovered.No, I stand firm, we should not treat our readers like idiots, and the caption should provide only the pertinent information not obvious from the image itself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Given his love of logical gymnastics, I actually wouldn't be all that surprised if he had a stunt double. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I've contributed to Misplaced Pages since 2009. Kept a long break, registered originally in the Finnish Misplaced Pages in 2014 and started writing there. I started writing in the English Misplaced Pages in 2016, that is correct. But never in my decade in Misplaced Pages have I seen a caption as idiotic as (2016). May I ask you MPants at work and Beyond My Ken, what do you think about the many articles I gave as an example of a normal caption (Michael Jackson, John F. Kennedy, Elizabeth II)? The vast majority of Wikipedians see that as a proper way to write a caption, but one user doesn't and thus rewrites Misplaced Pages into what he personally believes is the correct way to do things. –Sullay (Let's talk about it) 00:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTSPlease explain just what, exactly, is "idiotic" about "(2016)". Did you not understand it to be the date of the photo? Did you believe it referred in some way to his weight or his height or his eyesight or the RGB value of the color of his shirt?The point being, if you understood it was the date, then you have understood all the pertinent information that is in "Ben Shapiro in 2016". You already know that the image is of Ben Shapiro (unless you're of the "stunt double" school of thought), so the remaining semantic value of the caption you prefer is "in 2016". Would you be happier if the caption said "in 2016", because I could live with that, even though "in" is totally unnecessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:Manual of Style/Captions. However, note that this is a guideline and not a firm policy, thus can be modified to best account for variables in certain situations. (Please read the little box at the top.) Beyond My Ken is correct in that this is not a violation of BLP policy, thus bringing it here is just cluttering up this page, because there's nothing we can do from a BLP standpoint to help you. This is a content dispute that should be taken to the article's talk page. Beyond that, it's just a caption, so I see no need to get so worked up about it. Life's too short. Zaereth (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Sullay—the Infoboxes at Ben Shapiro or Richard B. Spencer have these names in bold at the top of the Infobox. Please tell me why the name is additionally needed in the caption.

This is also a beautiful solution. The name is not being used redundantly. And additional information is being provided.

I've taken the liberty of making this edit. Bus stop (talk) 02:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Potentially accessibility, but I am not 100% sure on that. --Masem (t) 04:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

How so? Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Would a visually impaired person not be able to see the name at the top of the Infobox? Bus stop (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not know for sure, but if there's any alt text on the picture (which there should be), a screenreader would start with the name above the infobox, then the alttext of the picture, and then the caption. That alttext may have enough text to put too much "space" in terms of language between the name and the date. --Masem (t) 04:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I see. I don't know about screenreaders. Bus stop (talk) 04:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

MOS:ALT – I think pretty much all images used in articles need alts specified, or else the screen readers read the file names, which is basically junk for the reader. I added an alt to Ben Shapiro and ran a screen reader emulator (VoiceOver), and it reads "Ben Shapiro, link image A photograph of Ben Shapiro speaking image link at link Politicon, link Pasadena, California, June 2016", which I think is good? Leviv ich 05:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I see. OK, if that solves the problem, great. Bus stop (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• I can't believe that this caption crusade is back. I don't care whether or not we include a subject's name in a caption, although that is a widespread practice on Misplaced Pages. I do think that a caption consisting of only the year lacks descriptiveness. I am also very opposed to putting parentheses around any caption. IAR is not valid reason for changing an informative caption to a caption that is uninformative and oddly styled. Sullay is correct.- MrX 🖋 12:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• It is neither "oddly styled" nor "uninformative". A valid concern was raised concerning accessibility for the visually impaired but that apparently was addressed. As far as "styling" is concerned, we provide as little styling as possible. There is no styling imparted by superfluous words. The less clutter, the better. As concerns a caption being uninformative or lacking descriptiveness, we have the "missing" information at the top of the image in the Infobox. We are only talking about an Infobox image. We are not talking about other images within an article. An Infobox image in a biography such as Ben Shapiro or Richard B. Spencer boldly displays the subject's name at the top of the image. Verbal text below the image is therefore freed up for the conveyance of other information. You are in essence arguing for redundancy. And I would contend that you are arguing for visual clutter. Bus stop (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Bus stop and BMK in that adding the name brings no value whatsoever, and creates visual and textual clutter. However, I will state that the amount of clutter it creates is immaterial and not damaging to the article. I mean, we display the title of articles in a big, serif font at the top, and then almost always start the first paragraph by repeating that title. I mean, I'm fairly certain that the person who clicks on a link to Ben Shapiro, and sees a page with
Ben Shapiro
across the top is not going expect it to open with a paragraph about some other political commentator born in 1984. SO I don't really care which way this discussion goes, though I'd slightly prefer to see it go the less verbose route. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding parentheses around a date is indeed oddly styled and uninformative. To paraphrase another editor, it's kind of idiotic. If a bold edit to a caption requires as much justification and mental gymnastics as I see in this section, it's fair to say that it was a bad edit to begin with. The visual clutter argument is pretty silly as well. - MrX 🖋 13:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the visual clutter argument is pretty silly. I said it. But it is silly. But the "mental gymnastics" to which you refer is not on the part of those trying to keep the Infobox simple. The "mental gymnastics" is on the part of those going to great lengths to oppose an eminently defensible move to omit superfluous information and to instead put other information in its place. The "other information" is actually new information (as opposed to redundant information) and to an admittedly slight degree this change reduces "clutter". Bus stop (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I haven't actually seen any captions encased in parentheses, though I noticed the OP seemed to be using parentheses to encapsulate the text of the various captions they were discussing (there may well be parentheses in BMK's edits, I'm just saying that I haven't seen them). I agree that there's use for parentheses around captions. I would also point out that there is just as much "justification and mental gymnastics" opposing the edits, here. That's part of the reason I'm rather ambivalent about the outcome here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

We see this a lot on Misplaced Pages. Those presenting the more farfetched argument accuse those presenting the more reasonable argument of being radical or proposing something outrageous. Perhaps Misplaced Pages is a microcosm of the real world. Bus stop (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

arbitrary break (Ben Shapiro)

Anent image captions in general - ADA requires accessibility for handicapped persons, so the test of a caption should be whether a blind person hearing the caption or text would reasonably understand what the image is. Frankly, were I to hear "2016" as the entire description of an image, I would have no idea what the heck the image was. In short, unless there is separate "alt text" for the image, the caption should be completely clear. Right now the ALT text does not give either date nor place, just "Ben Shapiro speaking.". For video clips, this is also a major issue https://www.3playmedia.com/2018/09/24/automatic-captions-wcag-ada-508-compliant/ In short, this is a far more complex issue than heretofore discussed. Collect (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Far more complex in what way? Are we incapable of creating ALT text saying "Ben Shapiro speaking at Politicon in Pasadena, California, in June 2016"? Aren't we talking about two separate channels for providing information? It would seem to me that we can tailor our information for the "channel" under consideration, providing more or less information as we deem optimal. Bus stop (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Collect, that's a problem consisting of missing alt text. If that's the extent of your issue with short captions, then I will happily add descriptive alt text for any such image that needs it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the ALT text was brand new this morning - and was not there when the issue of "(2016)" being a sufficient caption arose. Second, many people do use the captions to figure out what an image is (I suspect, in fact, that most people rely on captions), the ALT bit is simply a legal requirement entirely. This is an endemic problem on Misplaced Pages at this point, involving a great many images overall. I doubt that you have the time to correct more than a relative handful of the defective ALT labels and defective captions. See alt attribute http://jkorpela.fi/html/alt.html espec. http://jkorpela.fi/html/alt.html#captions "In particular, if the image has the empty string as its alt text, a user who does not see the image at all (and might not even know about the existence of an image) would still observe the caption text." That is , a person who viewed the page prior to this very morning would have seen (or heard) "2016" only. Nothing more. This is unlikely to meet with US law in that regard. Collect (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

If the problem you're referring to is people not requiring the alt text not knowing what the picture is of, I would direct you to the comments in this section pointing out that the images in question are on a page titled after the person's name, in an infobox with the person's name as a header. Anyone having difficulty figuring out that the image is of that person has much deeper problems than the lack of a caption.

Again, I'm not opposed to a more verbose caption. I would (mildly) prefer a less verbose one, but I really don't see how a more verbose one could damage the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

To me, the examples in WP:CAPTIONOBVIOUS just definitely prove why one way is better than another. I don't understand how anyone can argue against those examples, it's just so damn clear to me. But I guess reasonable people disagree on all sorts of things.

@Collect: Doesn't your screen reader read: "Ben Shapiro, link image A photograph of Ben Shapiro speaking image link at link Politicon, link Pasadena, California, June 2016"? Or does it come across as something different?

And even before the alt text was added, I don't understand how "Ben Shapiro link image image Ben Shapiro in 2016" gives any more information to the reader than "Ben Shapiro link image image in 2016"?

Obviously me using an emulator is not the same thing as an actual reader's experience with a screenreader.

I ran a little impromptu test yesterday on about a dozen very-high-profile biographies. This is what I found:

1. If you remove the "Name in Date" and replace it with just "Date", people will complain.
2. If you change it to "Location in Date", nobody really complains (or reverts)
3. If you provide more than "Location in Date", people complain.

"Location in Date" seems to be a happy medium. Even if no image alt is provided, the reader would still read the name of the person just above the image, and even the non-sighted reader would know what article they're on. And it's pretty straightforward to write an image alt that flows with the caption. Accessibility is very important, but I think that's more about writing good alts than writing bad captions. Leviv ich 16:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you were blind and you heard "2016" being the only info you had about an image, what the hell would you think it meant? A calendar? The ADA exists for good and substantial reasons. Blind people exist in this world. Collect (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

tbh, if I was blind and I heard "2016" being the only information about an image while I was on Ben Shapiro's page, I would assume it to be an image of Ben Shapiro in 2016. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Let me ring my small, useless, annoying bell here yet again. Collect, I agree with you that ALT captions are important and really should be informative and geared towards those who need them. I am not sure that's really what we're talking about here--as I am not sure making the regular caption conform to ALT standards is a good approach. Furthermore, I would argue, this is something we should do because it is unquestionably right to do so. If you predicate your support upon the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"), then we're going to have to think long and hard about the interplay between the ADA and Communications Decency Act s230. Let's do the right thing because it's right. But also, I would humbly suggest that we should keep the two issues (normal captions and ALT text) separate when appropriate. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

In the case at hand no ALT attribute existed for the image until this morning. Zero. Nada. Rien. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ben_Shapiro&diff=884048276&oldid=884035913 shows the addition of a very short ALT attribute. And assuming that blind people read is iffy. Collect (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The question is—does one aim conflict with the other? I'm trying to understand this. We construct articles for able-sighted people and we construct articles for visually-impaired people. At the moment I'm able to see, but I'm absolutely concerned with visually-impaired people as concerns constructing our articles. Bus stop (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

No, the two aims don't conflict. It's not like we are here, today, for the first time, considering how ALT and CAPTION interplays in an image for the non-sighted. It seems to me *cough* the internet has been around a while, and these things have been figured out. MOS:ALT is a damn good explanation. Nobody anywhere suggests that captions should be written for non-sighted readers; that's what ALT is for. The caption is for both the sighted and non-sighted. The ALT is to give non-sighted readers a useful substitute for an image. Honestly, we're not even arguing about anything here unless somebody thinks the current way Ben Shapiro is set up (with an ALT and CAPTION) is wrong; so far no one's said anything that's specifically wrong with the way it is now. (Talking about how it was wrong before it was edited is just a waste of time.) Leviv ich 17:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Levivich, I just wanted to be sure I wasn't misunderstanding the situation.

And thanks for the earlier link to WP:CAPTIONOBVIOUS. I think it is suggesting that superfluous information can be omitted. Bus stop (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• User has now been blocked under a[REDACTED] policy violation, discussion about what is only a[REDACTED] essay is not going to change that. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, the user was blocked for a procedural violation (3rr); that is in no way dispositive of the underlying issue. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, with all due respect to you also, this is the wp:blp noticeboard and there is clearly no blp violation at all. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I will point out that the present alt text is not appropriate, per our MOS. A blind person is not going to know what Shapiro looks like, so the text should be something more like "A middle-age Caucasian man speaking with his hands gesturing" or something like that. His name should not at all appear within the alt text. --Masem (t) 20:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

agreed, updated to that. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I like the idea of describing him as "A middle-age Caucasian man speaking with his hands gesturing" but why not include the name in the alt text? Bus stop (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hmm MOS:ALT gives the advice but I thought one wasn't supposed to name the person, but it seems in context of article about the person pictures, the person can be named, along with other descriptive elements. Either way, I think now this should be brought to a MOS board. I'm going to raise the question at MOS:ALT 's talk page. --Masem (t) 20:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• as an update, I have immediately been reverted by a user יניב הורון (Yaniv) with a block log as long as the original violator BMK https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%91+%D7%94%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9F Govindaharihari (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Inviting all editors to join the conversation about image alts here. Leviv ich 22:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Kim Kardashian

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

Like I noted at Talk:Kim Kardashian, Liselanora (talk · contribs) has repeatedly added disputed content to the Kim Kardashian article. The latest version of the content is seen with this revert by me. The concern is that the content that Liselanora is adding contains material about a supposed enemeies list (in previous versions), feuds, rumors, includes some trivial material, and includes some poor sourcing. Before I jumped in, Vistadan was reverting Liselanora. I left a message on Liselanora's talk page about WP:Edit warring. If Liselanora read that page, Liselanora should have realized that the next best course of action was to take the matter to the article's talk page. Instead, Liselanora re-added the material. And I reverted for a second time. Although it make sense to include some makeup and fashion material in the article, it should not be overly detailed and it should be supported by WP:Reliable sources only. Appropraite WP:Tone is also an issue. A "Fashion ventures" section was in the article, but it was recently removed. And we can see that it contained some poor sources.

Thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll start with, this subject is really far-removed from the subjects I normally read. I don't know much about the subject, and I had no idea she did anything other than appear on TV and look beautiful. It almost seems ironic that she made her fortune in make-up, because from what I've seen she's one of those many women who look a million times better without any make-up whatsoever.

That said, the edit in question looks way too promotional, describing too much detail of her specific products and where "you" can purchase them. It's poorly written and, on top of that, it's written in the second person. For example, I was very much surprised to find out that her app was not only shut down for unknown reasons, but her sisters were also shut down, but not at all surprised that it would cost "you" a monthly fee to use it. It also surprised me that the widespread backlash against her "kimojis" was "released" by Kim herself, unless she created the backlash as a publicity stunt which the edit doesn't say. (Seems to me that the feminists would have done that.) That's just a small sample of the poor writing. I don't have time to go through all the sources to evaluate them individually, and did not go through the history to look for other questionable edits, but from what I have seen, you were most certainly justified in removing them simply based on the writing and promotional tones. Zaereth (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Utsav Chakraborty

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

Wanted to check if someone could verify sources/remove template on top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketlag (talk • contribs) 02:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure I still understand how people on here do things, but I think you just said no? Ketlag Ketlag

Camille Rowe

In article:

• Camille Rowe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

user:

• User:Brownely2222 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

repeatedly inserting biographical details such as a specific birthdate without cite. Example edit-diffs: , , When pressed, they state that they have no cite and that it probably can't be cited to our reliable-sourcing standards (example: ) but they state that this is not a problem because it's so well known and other bio articles don't cite such details (see edit-summaries and my talkpage). For other details, they use social-media (instagram/twitter) as a ref, but the links (when they are even provided) make no mention of the claimed details. User was warned {{uw-biog2}} and I replied to their concerns on my talkpage, but the behavior has not changed. DMacks (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Pinging User:Melcous who also disputed the addition of bio content without source, and who was promptly and reverted without supplying a source supporting the content. DMacks (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Bernard Preynat

• Bernard Preynat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I created a stub; @Fram: has turned it into a redirect. I think there is sufficient coverage of this person to justify its own article, eg , , , (my French is rusty and a native speaker able too find more sources would be appreciated). Furthermore, a film has been made about him. Thoughts welcome. GiantSnowman 15:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

"Enough sources about him" is a WP:N argument. My redirection (to the film) is based on WP:SUSPECT (a part of our BLP policy, which overrules WP:N). He is only known as a suspect of crimes, not otherwise, and isn't convicted. As for notability, see the note at WP:CRIME: "Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." Fram (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

From WP:SUSPECT: "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." Fram (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

SUSPECT "applies to individuals who are not public figures". Is this person a public figure? GiantSnowman 15:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The person is clearly not a "public figure" as the film article mentions the person and the Wikilink to the person is an infinite loop back to the film article. Public figures must be known for something in their lives. He isn't. Collect (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

That circular redirect was created by Fram, overwriting the stub. GiantSnowman 15:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:CRIME says articles are permitted if the crime has "historic significance". Does this incident (the subject of a major film, implicating a Cardinal) have that?GiantSnowman 15:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

But even then (and is debatable if this is at that level yet) only if there is no other article where it may be included: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Misplaced Pages article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." Add some well-sourced background to the film article if you must, don't create a separate article about a BLP who is only one element in the story (the convicted higher church authorities who covered up the scandal are at least as important for the attention this case has had, the basic alleged crime in itself is just one of too many such stories around the world). Fram (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Correct. Collect (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Personally I dont think he rates a biography, mainly because of the arguments Fram makes - however RE public figure, senior members of large organised religions are by their nature public figures. They occupy public and prominant positions in their communities etc and have effective control over a large number of underlings. Eg this would be Bishops-upwards for Catholics. My understanding is Preynat was merely a priest? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Matt Bellamy

Since the 5th of February an IP has been adding poorly sourced info to this article violating the BLP policy, here is the latest. I have reverted several times (some with edit summaries) thinking they will quit but unfortunately not. The IP in question keeps using songmeanings.com, which I was led to believe is an unreliable source at Misplaced Pages. Other editors that have reverted said IP include Diannaa and Stwalkerster and as such, I mention them here. Would page protection be an unreasonable request for such a circumstance? Robvanvee 15:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Make a post on WP:ANEW as well. This is an edit war that's been going on for 2 weeks it seems, with an IP just re-adding the same low-quality unsourced information each time its removed. At this point, it doesn't seem like the IP is interested in engaging in conversation and a block is likely the only thing that will stop the information from being re-added. SWL36 (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

They have changed IP addresses several times so wouldn't page protection be better? Robvanvee 17:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I reverted it (and I think Diannaa did for the same reason) because it was an unattributed copy-paste from Muse (band)#Lyrics, which probably breaks the CC-BY-SA licence due to the loss of attribution. I've not checked more recent edits. stwalkerster (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Joey Gibson (political activist)

• Joey Gibson (political activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Joey_Gibson_(political_activist)#Rally
• Talk:Joey_Gibson_(political_activist)#Gibson,_Christian,_and_Patriot_Prayer_rally

Version 1 (older):

Gibson's political activity is frequently met with criticism. Nine days after a far-right advocate allegedly stabbed three men on the Portland TriMet transit system, Gibson hosted a rally met by thousands of counter-protesters.

References

1. Wilson, Jason. "'Alt-right celebrities' are holding a rally in Portland. Who are they?". The Guardian. Retrieved 27 February 2018.

Version2 (most recent version):

Gibson's political activity has met with criticism. On April 2, 2017, nine days after far-right advocate Jeremy Joseph Christian allegedly stabbed three men on the Portland TriMet transit system, Gibson hosted a Patriot Prayer rally which was met by thousands of counter-protesters. Christian was seen at the rally yelling racial slurs. Gibson denounced Christian's actions and said he ejected Christian from the event due to his "bizarre behavior".

References

1. ^ Wilson, Jason (June 2, 2017). "'Alt-right celebrities' are holding a rally in Portland. Who are they?". The Guardian. Retrieved February 27, 2018.
2. "Portland pro-Trump rally organizer: "I can't control everybody"". CBS News. May 31, 2017.

After some attempts to resolve the problems that I see in both these versions, I'm coming here for help.

There appear to be basic verification problems with both versions. The second version appears to confuse the timeline and references as well.

There appear to be two different intents here: To document the criticism that Gibson's political activity has received, and to document Gibson's relationship with Jeremy Joseph Christian. The first seems far better supported by available reliable sources, so both versions appear to ignore due weight. --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Sara Duterte

• Sara Duterte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Previous discussion: Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive277#Reviews_needed_of_some_articles_related_to_Rodrigo_Duterte
• Talk:Sara_Duterte#Criticism_and_Controversies

Edit-warring to include the previously disputed material.

This looks like an attack on Duterte. While there may be some material due mention, at best it looks like a lot of OR and material taken out of any broader context in order to attack Duterte.

Help would be appreciated. --Ronz (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks like massive content blanking without consensus to me. Oh fuck it, why not just blank the entire article because there are one or two things you don't like? Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

This article seems quite short. What is the "broader context" that you are edit-warring over? MPS1992 (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Come to think of it, User:Ronz, why do I suddenly worry when I see your username? What have you been up to in the past? I would love to be collegial, but this just seems weird. Why your sudden need to protect some politician in the Philippines? What are your ties to that region? It's fine not to answer these questions, perhaps I am just paranoid. MPS1992 (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution