Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:17, 15 May 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
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Arvin Vohra

• Arvin Vohra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are several incomplete or out of context quotes on this page, which is the page for the potential Libertarian Party presidential nominee in 2020. Examples:

1. Rather that quoting the original person, quotes are coming from people quoting the person. The original quotes are easily accessible in the articles referenced on the page. I have fixed one of these, but there seem to be quite a few. 2. Opening sentences of satirical articles are placed as if serious, without including relevent information of the rest of the article. 3. Relevant information missing, literally including political views! Why are a candidate's political positions missing? These are easily available through project votesmart and other sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.195.214 (talk) 02:29, March 17, 2019 (UTC)

Adrian David Cheok

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brian Wong

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quantitative evidence:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

1. https://www.sauder.ubc.ca/News/2011/In_Living_Colour_-_Brian_Wong_takes_Silicon_Valley_by_storm

Polish American Congress on Jimmy Kimmel

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

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

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

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

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

Olavo de Carvalho

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

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

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

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

Agreed:

• No opposing views.
• No balancing aspects.

Disagreed:

-Which opinions are stated as facts?

-Where's the attack? Please provide examples.

-Which biased sources are given undue weight?

-Which language is judgmental? Please provide examples.

-Please provide examples it is written like a tabloid.

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

Shakula34:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Shorten

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

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

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

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

K. K. Aggarwal

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

STEM School Highlands Ranch shooting

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

Laura Loomer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marek Jan Chodakiewicz

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

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

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

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

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

Kellie Maloney

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

Ray Blanchard

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

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

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

James Cappleman

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

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

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

Ilhan Omar arrest

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

• Talk page discussion
• Diff of contested edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guy McPherson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: Category:Climate change deniers

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Category:Climate change deniers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

(I don't know where this should go, but I went with this board because it relates to the BLP policy.)

In December 2015, this category was deleted as a result of a CfD and a parallel discussion at BLPN (Archive 231). There was consensus to delete the category on grounds of being "contentious", but was this decision appropriate? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean, its clearly true it is conscientious, but that (in and off itself) should not be grounds for deletion. The problem would be inclusion, and that maybe grounds for deletion.Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Having waded through much of the prior discussion, the only valid difficulty in having such a category AFAI can see, is the name. This is one of those situations (like pro-life/pro-choice) where the commonname is unfortunately somewhat 'loaded'. I obviously agree with Slater above that inclusion criteria need to be clear and might be difficult to enforce, but that in itself is not a reason to NOT have the category.Pincrete (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

When I started the BLP discussion I put a notification on all affected BLPs and pinged all participants in the CfD, and I explained what event had caused me to start it. The BLP participants were Peter Gulutzan MastCell Masem N-HH Prhartcom RevelationDirect JBL NorthBySouthBaranof TPX KarasuGamma M.boli Niteshift36 Milowent Anythingyouwant JRPG Jonathan A Jones alanyst Bonewah Zaereth Jess Bluerasberry Ssscienccce Marcocapelle agr Collect Softlavender Ryk72 AusLondonder Govindaharihari Sphilbrick Guy Macon Mangoe The Anome. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for pinging me. I suppose this is related tangentially to post-1932 American Politics, from which I am indefinitely topic-banned by User:NeilN (who has not been around to respond to my unbanning request at his user talk), but I do stick with what I said before about this category, FWIW. Cheers! Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Opposed to "denier" category. Denier is often flung as an insult, it sounds like the person is being accused of having a psychological problem, i.e. in denial. That makes it a BLP issue. The other problem is that there is no clear definition, you can find people with opinions all over the map labeled "deniers." Bjørn Lomborg for example appears in somebody's list of Top 10 Climate Deniers. What he denies are the economic benefits and urgency of addressing climate change. In my own practice I've stopped using the term except for a few unambiguous cases, since "denier" too often means somebody who fails the speaker's purity test. Thanks for the ping, Peter Gulutzan, and thank you for being a fair-minded and generous-spirited person in Misplaced Pages discussion. M.boli (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support restoration but it would be very recommendable to add "activist" or something similar that stresses the definingness of the characteristic. So Category:Climate change denial activists or Category:Climate change scepticism activists. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Your suggested "activist" has caused me to re-think my opposition. The inclusion criterion–what people would have in common–would be opposition to addressing climate change. I still don't like the "denier" label, but you have have captured a crisper definition of what would make this a useful category. M.boli (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose anything with "denier" in it. It is a term invented by the opposition specifically to imply that it is like Holocaust denial. Using a loaded category that the proponents of a position use is nothing new; both "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" were chosen to imply that the opposition is against choice or against life -- and we use the more neutral and descriptive Anti-abortion movement and Abortion-rights movements. Climate change denial is not only loaded, but it is a term used only by detractors. Nobody calls themselves or their group Anti-life, Anti-choice or Climate change denial. (Strange that we disambiguate Anti-life as a pejorative term, but Anti-choice redirects to Anti-abortion movement. Seems a bit POV to me.) Oddly enough, Holocaust denial is used by many holocaust deniers, who see it as an accurate description based upon them (correctly, in their view) denying that Hitler killed millions of Jews. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support restoring - the term is used extensively by sources, hence not "POV". Of course whether or not it is included in a particular article can be POV. That does not make the term unencyclopedic or not useful.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved in this again. —⁠烏⁠Γ  │ 09:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose "Denier" is a pejorative term, not merely descriptive, and open to interpretation. Our article on Climate change denial defines it as "... part of the global warming controversy. It involves denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific opinion on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions." That is very broad and subjective. Who decides what doubt is unwarranted, for example? Are people who say it may already be too late then to be labeled climate change deniers based on the last prong of the definition? In addition we do not have a good way to cite sources for inclusion in a category, and BLP demands strong sourcing for controversial claims. And who is important enough to be included? Does the category cover every politician who has a Misplaced Pages article and is on record as expressing doubt about the reality of human-induced warming or has opposed measures to stop it? That might include most members of the U.S. Republican party and quite a few on the growing European right. That would make the category too broad to be useful. The decision to remove this category was correct and should stand.--agr (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support in principle I recognise the sentiments of those who object to the word 'denier', despite it being a commonly used term - however it shouldn't be beyond us to find a) a more neutral descriptor b) to establish objective criteria for inclusion and c) as with all cats, inclusion criteria should include that this is a significant defining feature of the individual, which is covered in the text of the article in some depth. I endorse that this would be a useful cat and am somewhat surprised that it was deleted.Pincrete (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: I never thought this category was a BLP concern worth much consideration. If someone is of the opinion that climate change does not exist, why would this category addition be considered anything but simply descriptive, if not positive? The primary reason we fret about this is not because of the use of the term denier, but because we think it labels such people as having significant deficits in knowledge and/or cognitive abilities. Surely we can come up with something like Category:Flat Earth proponents that would get consensus?--Milowent • 13:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• The problem is that you can spend all day searching and fail to find a single peeson who is labeled a climate change denier and is of the opinion that climate change does not exist. You will instead find the following (listed in order from most unreasonable and unscientific to most reasonable and scientific)

Conspiracy theorists who think all climate scientists are lying (but who, in general, accept that the climate changes from natural causes).

People who don't deny the existence of climate change but believe that the magnitude is smaller than the climate scientists say it is.

People who don't deny the existence or magnitude of climate change but believe that human activity is a smaller factor than the climate scientists say it is.

People who don't deny the existence or magnitude of climate change or how big a factor human activity is but believe that it is beneficial instead of being harmful.

People who don't deny but believe that we are on the brink of a naturally-caused ice age prevented only by human-caused warming.

People who don't deny but believe that geoengineering can reverse human-caused climate change.

People who don't deny but believe that humans can adapt to changing climate.

People who don't deny but believe that the computer simulations are flawed. Pretty much everyone agrees that previous computer simulations made predictions that turned out to be wildly wrong. People in category 8 believe that the same is true about current simulations. Climate scientists say that they have fixed the problems and the simulations are now accurate. But of course they said that the last time too.

People who don't deny and accept the climate change simulations but reject the economic simulations -- again pointing out that no economic simulation has ever been able to successfully predict the future economy.

People who don't deny but doubt that increasing the size and power of the government is the solution, arguing that those with the most money generally get the government to do what they want done.

People who don't deny but believe that it isn't enough for North America and Europe to reduce CO2 emissions while not putting any limits on Asia, India, Africa, and South America

People who don't deny but believe that it isn't enough for the US to reduce CO2 emissions while not putting any limits on the rest of the world.

People who don't deny but believe that it isn't enough for California to reduce CO2 emissions while not putting any limits on the rest of the country or the rest of the world.

People who don't deny but believe that it isn't enough for Los Angeles to reduce CO2 emissions while not putting any limits on the rest of the state, country or world.

All of the above views are regularly called "climate change denial" in the popular press. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I think you have strengthened Marcocapelle (talk · contribs)'s point above. The common thread is do nothing about climate change. A category tying them all together could have utility. (Your assertion about not finding any flat-out deniers is wacky however.) M.boli (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

They also often switch from one of those positions to the next when too many people see that the first one is untenable. This is because they only care about doing nothing about climate change and not about the reason for doing nothing - it is only a pretend reason anyway. The underlying cause is market fundamentalism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Guy Macon, there are gradiations like this all over wikipedia regarding categories. Climate change is not unique. We are tying to create categories that help our readers, and no category is perfect. Indeed I just found out about and wrote Orlando Ferguson after chiming in here earlier with my reference to Category:Flat Earth proponents. Doctor Ferguson (who was not really a doctor) did NOT believe the earth was completely flat, instead, he thought there was some elevation change topping out at the north pole, and that the earth was SQUARE. But I still put him in Category:Flat Earth proponents and he definitely should be there. Here, if the consensus of mainstream news reporting is that someone is a climate change denier, some category seems appropriate, because it can help our readers. Nuance can be shown in article content. Indeed, it can be the case that someone falling in your category (the "most reasonable" in your hierarchy) is just making an argument to support his general opposition to any intervention steps, although he actually believes like US President Trump that China invented global warming as a hoax. . But if some comedian makes a random joke about global warming one day, that doesn't merit inclusion.--Milowent • 19:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Orlando Ferguson died over a century ago. The category we are dealing with primarily involves living people and, under BLP, our standards are much higher. Indeed, dealing with people who expressed doubts 5, 10, 15, or 20 years ago about humans causing global warming and then died presents yet another problem. The further back you go, the less certain the science was. Are they all deniers?--agr (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

*Oppose. As I just tried explaining to an editor who can't seem to grasp the issue....... Aside from the word "denier" being loaded with implications, it's not really accurate. For example, I have a userbox that says I am skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. According to him, I'm a "climate change denier". Skeptic means I am not convinced and have doubts. Not denial, doubts. And Anthropogenic means man-made, not all. Do I deny that there is climate change? No. Do I have doubts that it is primarily manmade? I do. But labels like "climate change denier", regardless of how many media sources recklessly use the term, is not necessarily accurate. As an encyclopedia, I think we should strive for accuracy. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The whole problem with categories that include WP:LABEL language is that we cannot provide a source at the category page as required by BLP. Yes, on the main page of a categorized BLP that should be sourced, but we're still using labeled language, so factual inclusion may not be there, just the perception from a few members of the press or the person's peers. We should not have these types of categories where inclusion is based on a subjective evaluation of the person by other sources. --Masem (t) 13:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I was a significant contributor to both discussions above, which I suggest people read, and I haven't changed my mind. I don't like BLP categories which are controversial or can be considered as derogatory, and I especially don't like them when the criteria for inclusion seemed to be subjective, ill-defined and poorly implemented. For example the orginal list included a "lead author of Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,' of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Third Assessment Report on climate change" and also included a minor UKIP politician where the sole reference in support of the categorisation was some retweets (not even tweets) an account in his name had made. As far as I can tell the whole category seemed to be little more than a list of individuals whom some editors didn't like. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose "denier" label support other neutral categorization to be decided Misplaced Pages has challenges tagging people who support fringe ideas. This proposal is similar to many others I have seen. We look for third-party verification of these things, which is a bias of Misplaced Pages which has benefits and drawbacks. I like that Misplaced Pages maintains its quality control; I regret that we do not have good systems for helping researchers identify obvious information like "who has published a paper confirming a certain concept". The longer term solution to this problem that I see is modeling this kind of issue in Wikidata, probably through the meta:WikiCite project. There are maybe 500 people who have contributed significantly to that project and many more would do more if it were more developed. I think there is community consensus within that project that people want to be able to query Wikidata to generate lists of things like who affirms or rejects various positions in publication. Lists like this are likely to become part of Wikidata culture because that project has so much more power to quickly verify these claims than Misplaced Pages. I like that Wikidata makes it relatively easy for people to enrich data for such purposes; I regret that we currently lack training materials and that anyone wanting to do this will have to be patient and persistent as they ask questions to human for support in an environment without sufficient documentation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support restoration (until a more neutral term is found). Understanding that the term Denier may be used subjectively, Climate change denier is a useful descriptive category when applied correctly and it is a term that is used extensively by reputable third-party sources. Until such time that a more clearly objective neutral name for the category is chosen the category and its title Climate change denier should be restored. ~ BOD ~ 15:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• Alternative suggestion. Since one mother category would be Category:Climate change skepticism and denial, why not call it Category:Climate change skeptics and denialists? That way, it would also contain scientists who rejected the concept before there was a consensus. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Since the opposition seems to be based on the perception that the category itself is "perjorative", surely there is some title that won't be seen that way? Perhaps Category:People who've decided humans had a good run.--Milowent • 19:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose As the title is obviously pejorative in nature, and intended to be so, and is not a self-ascribed attribute to those who would be in such a group, it violates several policies and guidelines. Sort of like having a category for "Self-Hating Gnarphists" or "Gnarphist Nazi-Fascists" or the like. Collect (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
• oppose Since this is a pejorative label, it's a problem (as I said last time) that it tends to be stuck on anyone who deviates from a certain political orthodoxy, even if they agree with the core thesis of anthropogenic climate change. It's not a clear binary like "did a certain even occur" is. I doubt the will of the community to police the category even if it is very narrowly construed. Mangoe (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kevin O'Brien (Newfoundland and Labrador politician)

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

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

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

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

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

John Smelcer

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

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

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

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

Amy Sequenzia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:BLP currently says:

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

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

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

Do people feel this is right?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

vallancien guy

Guy Vallancien 

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

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

A. Wallace Hayes

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

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment