:Hi there, and thanks very much for bringing this to our attention. However, our article doesn't have a photo. I think what is happening is that you're seeing this on google or some other search engine. Search engines use algorithms to search for any relevant images to show the reader, but they don't always get it right and often end up showing a photo of someone completely different. Maybe there is no online photo and it just found something with a similar name. Whatever the case, we have no control over what google does, so you would have to contact them to report any problems. Thanks. [[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 01:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC) |
:Hi there, and thanks very much for bringing this to our attention. However, our article doesn't have a photo. I think what is happening is that you're seeing this on google or some other search engine. Search engines use algorithms to search for any relevant images to show the reader, but they don't always get it right and often end up showing a photo of someone completely different. Maybe there is no online photo and it just found something with a similar name. Whatever the case, we have no control over what google does, so you would have to contact them to report any problems. Thanks. [[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 01:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC) |
||
== Luis Moreno Ocampo == |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Moreno_Ocampo&diff=prev&oldid=1178469255 This was reverted] as alleged [[WP:LIBEL]]. However, Dixon himself is described by [[Jurist (website)|Jurist]] as an expert in international criminal law with particular expertise in cases involving alleged genocide and crimes against humanity, having acted in cases before the [[ICTY]], [[ICTR]] and the [[International Criminal Court|ICC]]. His several third-party sources cited [https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2023/08/opinion-claims-of-genocide-push-nagorno-karabakh-further-from-peace/ here] and [https://tgchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Expert-Legal-Opinion-Rodney-Dixon-KC.pdf here] do support his statements. |
|||
Later, third-party sources have not corroborated [[Luis Moreno Ocampo|Ocampo]]'s bold claim of genocide during [[flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians]], most notably [https://www.ungeneva.o,rg/en/news-media/bi-weekly-briefing/2023/09/press-briefing-united-nations-information-service-7?fbclid=IwAR0RKijFSq1mPvnG4i3xWr0As2P3YUkHhulyA5zAunfUysvLS6lmoZg3Wvw UNHCR], [https://azerbaijan.un.org/en/248051-un-team-completes-mission-karabakh UN fact-finding mission on the ground] or Russian peacekeepers in the region. On top of that, such an accusation without trial looks problematic due to [[presumption of innocence]]. Yet, there are strange regular attempts to promote Ocampo's opinion, while UN assessment gets marginalized: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flight_of_Nagorno-Karabakh_Armenians&diff=prev&oldid=1178073162], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flight_of_Nagorno-Karabakh_Armenians&diff=prev&oldid=1178312106]. As such, I think [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Moreno_Ocampo&diff=prev&oldid=1178464403 this] is not libel and could be reinstated in the article. ~~~~ |
|||
| Variable | Value |
|---|---|
Edit count of the user (user_editcount) |
36485
|
Name of the user account (user_name) |
'Brandmeister'
|
Age of the user account (user_age) |
418850264
|
Groups (including implicit) the user is in (user_groups) |
[
0 => 'autoreviewer',
1 => 'extendedconfirmed',
2 => 'reviewer',
3 => '*',
4 => 'user',
5 => 'autoconfirmed'
]
|
Rights that the user has (user_rights) |
[
0 => 'autopatrol',
1 => 'extendedconfirmed',
2 => 'review',
3 => 'autoreview',
4 => 'autoconfirmed',
5 => 'editsemiprotected',
6 => 'createaccount',
7 => 'read',
8 => 'edit',
9 => 'createtalk',
10 => 'writeapi',
11 => 'viewmyprivateinfo',
12 => 'editmyprivateinfo',
13 => 'editmyoptions',
14 => 'abusefilter-log-detail',
15 => 'urlshortener-create-url',
16 => 'centralauth-merge',
17 => 'abusefilter-view',
18 => 'abusefilter-log',
19 => 'vipsscaler-test',
20 => 'collectionsaveasuserpage',
21 => 'reupload-own',
22 => 'move-rootuserpages',
23 => 'createpage',
24 => 'minoredit',
25 => 'editmyusercss',
26 => 'editmyuserjson',
27 => 'editmyuserjs',
28 => 'purge',
29 => 'sendemail',
30 => 'applychangetags',
31 => 'viewmywatchlist',
32 => 'editmywatchlist',
33 => 'spamblacklistlog',
34 => 'mwoauthmanagemygrants',
35 => 'reupload',
36 => 'upload',
37 => 'move',
38 => 'skipcaptcha',
39 => 'ipinfo',
40 => 'ipinfo-view-basic',
41 => 'transcode-reset',
42 => 'transcode-status',
43 => 'createpagemainns',
44 => 'movestable',
45 => 'enrollasmentor'
]
|
Whether the user is editing from mobile app (user_app) |
false
|
Whether or not a user is editing through the mobile interface (user_mobile) |
false
|
Page ID (page_id) |
6768170
|
Page namespace (page_namespace) |
4
|
Page title without namespace (page_title) |
'Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard'
|
Full page title (page_prefixedtitle) |
'Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard'
|
Edit protection level of the page (page_restrictions_edit) |
[]
|
Page age in seconds (page_age) |
539523838
|
Action (action) |
'edit'
|
Edit summary/reason (summary) |
'/* Luis Moreno Ocampo */ new section'
|
Old content model (old_content_model) |
'wikitext'
|
New content model (new_content_model) |
'wikitext'
|
Old page wikitext, before the edit (old_wikitext) |
'{{short description|Wikipedia noticeboard for discussion of biographies of living people}}
<noinclude>{{Pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>{{/Header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| archiveheader = {{NOINDEX}} {{archivemainpage|WP:BLPN}}
| maxarchivesize = 290K
| counter = 353
| minthreadsleft = 1
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| algo = old(9d)
| archive = Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
}}
== [[Javier Milei]] ==
There is currently an NPOV discussion on the [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Javier_Milei|NPOV Noticeboard]].
:Whatever discussion there was is long finished, no new comments since 6 September. Commenting so that the archive bot does its thing. [[User:Madam Fatal|Madam Fatal]] ([[User talk:Madam Fatal|talk]]) 17:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
:The discussion may have been finished, but on looking at the article I can't help but think that it still very much needs attention, particularly since this person is the leading candidate in Argentina's upcoming elections. [[User:Ostalgia|Ostalgia]] ([[User talk:Ostalgia|talk]]) 21:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
== [[Priya Venkatesan]] ==
{{archive top|Deleted. No outstanding BLP concerns remain. [[WP:NAC]]. [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 21:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)}}
Please delete this page since it contains inaccurate, misleading, defamatory and biased information on the person the subject of the biography. The following links accurately represent my public image, as a prominent stakeholders in the precision medicine and oncology community. I am an elected member of prestigious medical societies: the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer. Additionally, I have many publications that received notable recognition from the scientific and medical community.
http://www.haysdocumentationspecialists.com
LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/in/priya-hays-60866025/
Advancing Healthcare Through Personalized Medicine Second Edition: https://www.springer.com/us/book/9783030800994
Twitter post of ASCO Connection mention of Second Edition posted by Springer: https://twitter.com/SpringerClinMed/status/1486036036018917377
Book review of Second Edition by Doody’s Medical Books Reviewer:
http://www.doody.com/dej/PublicTitle.asp?ISBN=9783030800994#Title
Research Features edition of Advancing Healthcare Through Personalized Medicine https://researchfeatures.com/documenting-dramatic-evolution-personalised-medicine/
ASCO Post Book Review of Second Edition:
https://ascopost.com/issues/may-25-2022/a-second-edition-adds-new-value-to-personalized-medicine/
Cancer Immunotherapies: Solid Tumors and Hematologic Malignancies: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-96376-7
Precision Oncology article (on page 98)
Open Access Government (pagesuite-professional.co.uk)
I am kindly requesting that you delete this biography page or delete the current content and replace with this accurate information. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Priya.hays|Priya.hays]] ([[User talk:Priya.hays#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Priya.hays|contribs]]) 16:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I have nominated this article for deletion due to [[WP:BLP1E]] concerns (see [[WP:Articles for deletion/Priya Venkatesan]]). [[User:S0091|S0091]] ([[User talk:S0091|talk]]) 22:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
::{{ping|Priya.hays}} Hello Priya, are you there? The deletion discussion (linked above) could use your input according to comments there. Cheers! [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 05:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
== Emily Austin and Emily Austin Perry ==
Last time I brought up [[Emily Austin (journalist)|Emily Austin]] redirecting to [[Emily Austin]] instead of [[Emily Austin Perry]] it went down like a lead balloon. I fought the good fight and when the motion got resoundingly beaten, I accepted that decision. No problem.
I'm only writing now because twice in the last couple of weeks, there were considerable spikes in page views to [[Emily Austin (journalist)|Emily Austin]]. 9,738 on September 2 and 12,065 on September 16. Does this in any way change things vis a vis who [[Emily Austin]] should redirect to? [[User:MaskedSinger|MaskedSinger]] ([[User talk:MaskedSinger|talk]]) 19:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
:IMO this is one of the consistent errors of RM -- titles are navigational aids, not statements of something's value, and because Wikipedia is a living document it is a feature rather than a bug if navigation methods change routinely as their targets ebb and flow. Having said that, 1. by prior experience with RM this is still extremely unlikely to get through, 2. this is technically the wrong forum, and 3. in practice the least bad solution for a lot of these is to propose a disambiguation page rather than a primary topic. [[User:Vaticidalprophet|<b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b>]][[User talk:Vaticidalprophet|<b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b>]] 19:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
::Thanks for responding. I looked at the noticeboard for page moves and its only for requested moves. I wasn't going to go through process again unless people thought there was merit in doing so. Where is the correct forum to write post this?
::My point then and now is that you have someone who is known as Emily Austin vs someone who sometimes is referred to as as such. For 100+ years, Emily Austin Perry was the most notable Emily Austin, but I would counter that in 2023, she isn't. If everyone else disagrees, fair play :)
::All I'd like clarification on, is at what point, this could change? I won't bring this up again till that happens. [[User:MaskedSinger|MaskedSinger]] ([[User talk:MaskedSinger|talk]]) 19:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
:::I agree Vaticidalprophet that there's a big difference between proposing a disambiguation page vs a redirect so when will depend on a lot on which one you're asking about. This case is somewhat complicated, Emily Austin Perry is clearly a way more significant figure in terms of long term significance frankly if you want to put it in numerical terms by at least one order of magnitude than Emily Austin the journalist is. This is tempered by the fact Emily Austin Perry has multiple names. But still this extreme difference in long term significance means that any proposal to make Emily Austin the primary topic is only likely to succeed if Emily Austin gains that long term significance which is likely to take many years at a minimum barring something extraordinary. You won't need something quite so extreme for a disambiguation page, but still some indication that this is is someone of wide interest e.g. coverage over a longer term and in sources which are more selective in what they cover would likely help. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 09:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
::::Thanks for your very thorough answer. I really appreciate it. So the spike in views doesn't change a thing and thus there is nothing to do here now. [[User:MaskedSinger|MaskedSinger]] ([[User talk:MaskedSinger|talk]]) 16:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::BTW, while not relating to living persons, I've often considered [[Java]] a good example of the complexities of what is the primary topic for an article. I think for the entire life of the articles [[Java (programming language)]] has gotten more views than [[Java]] which is (and has generally been) our article on the island. Currently it's [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Java_(programming_language)&action=info 143,468] vs [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Java&action=info 52,464] over 30 days and at least so of those 52k were likely people wanting to go to the programming language article or somewhere else (whereas probably very few people ending up on the programming language wanted to go elsewhere, except maybe a few for [[Java (software platform)]] or [[JavaScript]]). And I think the view counts have had a bigger differences in the past. I'd actually hardly be surprised if at least in the early days of our articles, more people also wanted to go to [[Coffee]] or something related to that rather than the article on the island. However whenever it's come up, the consensus has generally been strongly against the programming language being the primary topic, and fairly against even Java being a disambiguation page. (There have been some cases when the situation was changed but I think these were all fairly unilateral moves.) Editors just fundamentally disagree that an island of 152 million people, currently the world's most populous island, should be anything other than the primary topic. (Noting also the names of pretty much everything else came from the island one way or the other.) While the issues when you have two humans are obviously not going to be the same I think it does illustrate why for better or worse, editors may not just take view counts or what readers are looking for as the ultimate arbiter. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 13:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::I get what you're saying and it makes sense. I'm not sure if you read it, but the point I was making in the [[Talk:Emily_Austin_(journalist)| original discussion]] was that I can't imagine anyone is searching for a minor personality from 150+ years ago.
::::::On top of this is the fact that I don't understand the conflict - Emily Austin Perry is Emily Austin Perry. Emily Austin is Emily Austin. So if anyone is looking for Emily Austin Perry, this is what they'd search for. Surely a person who is current and relevent and who is called Emily Austin would trump one of the 30 names Emily Austin Perry is referred to.
::::::Additionally, if you look at pageviews for [[Emily Austin Perry]] you will see 2 recent spikes and these are due to the times that people were looking for [[Emily Austin (journalist)|Emily Austin]]. So it's clear who people are looking for. If it was the case you brought up where you're talking about a country fine, but here we have 2 people. Hopefully common sense will prevail. [[User:MaskedSinger|MaskedSinger]] ([[User talk:MaskedSinger|talk]]) 17:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
== When is it ok to hyperlink [[Far-right]] in BLP ==
I have a concern related to linking [[Far-right]] (also linked as [[far-right politics]] within a BLP. I'm posting here to get editor thoughts. A typical example can be seen here where we state that sources have called a US politician "far-right".[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauren_Boebert#Tenure] There is no dispute that media sources have called Lauren Boebert "far-right". My concern is our definition of "far-right" clearly associates the term with Nazism in the third and fourth sentence of the lead as well as with a lead picture that includes the Nazi flag. While we can clearly see that the sources use "far-right", in most cases we don't know what they mean by far right. MOS linking [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#General_points_on_linking_style] notes that we should be careful when using hyperlinks, "link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author.". Clearly we aren't linking within a quote when saying "sources call [person] [[far-right]]". However, we are implying that our definition corresponds with their intent. The problem is "far-right" (and other similar terms) can cover a range. A "far-right" US politician might be described as such because they are a strong supporter of gun rights ("guns for all!") and strongly oppose illegal immigration ("deport all illegals"). This would be especially true if they are part of a group of hardliners who frequently hold up bills to get what they want. That doesn't mean they are in any way shape or form related to Neo-Nazis. However, a hyperlink to [[far-right]] does imply the association. Something similar is true on the left where someone like Bernie Sanders or AOC may be called "far-left" but we wouldn't reasonably associate them with Maoist or Stalinist type communism. Is there a good way to handle this? Should the Neo-nazi etc associations in the [[Far-right]] article lead be toned down? Perhaps made more like the lead of [[Far-left]] which has fewer obviously negative associations. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 15:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:Whenever use is appropriate linking is appropriate, the exception is quotes which should in general not contain links that the original quote does not. Also a note that we don't use "far-left" in either the Sanders or AOC articles because we lack reliable sources which refer to them that way, not other concerns. Perhaps a better example would be subjects who actually are far-left? [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 15:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lauren_Boebert&diff=prev&oldid=1176714319 "This shouldn't be linked since we don't know that the people who call her far right agree with the Wiki definition which includes neo-nazism. This is similar to why we don't include hyperlinks in quotes"]. Lol, no. This "rule" does not exist. [[User:Zaathras|Zaathras]] ([[User talk:Zaathras|talk]]) 16:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::You are correct this "rule" doesn't exist. However, I'm arguing that the same thinking that resulted in the MOS section I quoted should apply in this situation. You are free to provide a logical reason why you think I'm wrong. Dismissive "lol" type replies should be kept to user talk pages. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 16:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
{{cot|Discussion about a possible canvassing violation that has devolved into back and forth arguing. {{u|Springee}}, in the future please ping someone from the discussion, or note that you've alerted someone in the discussion and explain the reason for the notification to avoid canvassing concerns. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 00:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)}}
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bill_Williams&diff=prev&oldid=1176723385 This] is also a pretty blatant [[WP:CANVASS]] violation, and may have to go to [[WP:AE]]. [[User:Zaathras|Zaathras]] ([[User talk:Zaathras|talk]]) 16:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::It might be canvasing if this was a RfC or similar question. I pinged the editor in question because they raised the exact point I am asking about here. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 16:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:::If thats what you wanted to do you should have pinged Bill Williams in your question with a link to them raising this exact point. Canvassing was not the answer, its just misleading to everyone who comments in good faith because you haven't been transparent with us. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 16:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::::It isn't canvassing and Zaathras's bad faith accusation speaks more to their own POV rather than to the issue at hand. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 16:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::Next time ping them in the question on the noticeboard and link to where they've raised this point. Then it won't look like canvassing, which this completely does. Are you in the process of notifying the other editors who had opinions about this in that discussion or was that your only notification? [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 16:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::This discussion is off topic. {{u|Bill Williams}} specifically mentioned this issue a while back so I notified them as the discussion may be of interest to them. Canvasing doesn't apply when we are having a generalized discussion vs trying to make an article level change. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 16:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I appreciate that there may be some sort of misunderstand here but canvassing applies to all discussions. If thats the only person you meant to notify then it absolutely was canvassing and you owe Zaathras a pretty massive apology for your baseless allegations of editing in bad faith. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 16:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Again this is off topic. Zaathras's opening dismissive comment doesn't reflect a good faith attempt to address my question. Instead it can reasonably be seen as an attempt to derail the discussion. I don't agree my notice to BW was a violation of canvasing and to come out with such a strong accusation first rather than just asking on my talk page strikes me as a second accusation of bad faith. None of this off topic discussion is addressing the question at hand. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 17:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::You solicited the opinion of a linked-minded participant of a past, similar discussion. That is canvassing. Period. [[User:Zaathras|Zaathras]] ([[User talk:Zaathras|talk]]) 20:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::Please review WP:AGF. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 21:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Zaathras's opening "dismissive" comment was precisely on point: we follow what reliable sources say. Whining about being disagreed with is unbecoming, as is responding with "Please review WP:AGF" when someone points out that you have run afoul of behavioral guidelines –– especially right after you yourself have claimed that your opponent's effort to engage with you {{tq|doesn't reflect a good faith attempt to address my question}}. This is all kinds of messy, Springee. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 21:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::Zaathras is welcome to say they disagree with my concern and provide a reason why. They did not. "Whining" about canvasing etc when this is an open discussion isn't helpful. Zaathras might have honestly been concerned about canvasing and could have said so in a good faith way. Your comment about "following what sources say" suggests that you have missed the question. At no point has anyone, myself included, suggested that we not include a DUE comment like "sources say [person] is far-right". I assume you don't mean that the cited sources include a hyperlink to the Wikipedia [[far-right]] article. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 22:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::This is how Wikipedia works. If sources reliably call someone "far-right" then we include the term and wikilink it so that readers can easily learn more about the topic. You may not like that this means Boebert is conceptually associated with other far-right things like Nazism but that's not up to you. See Rhododendrites' comment below. This isn't complicated. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 23:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::"Zaathras's opening dismissive comment doesn't reflect a good faith attempt to address my question." and "Please review WP:AGF." don't really go together... You can't stamp all over AGF and then demand that others adhere strictly to it... Thats a double standard and a hypocritical one at that. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 23:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::That is a fair point. In return I will note that Zaathras opened with a less than good faith set of comments. It certainly is harder to assume good faith in return under such circumstances. That said, I'm open to appologizing for failing to AGF if Zaathras is willing to do the same. It would be good to stick to the concern, even if ultimately others don't agree. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 00:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I don't see the bad faith, but then again you don't see the canvassing so I guess we both have blindspots. I've said as much as I think is relevant on the topic, I'm not here to badger you and I'l take a seat to let other editors with different views have their say. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 00:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Wait a minute, you admit you wronged editor A, but will not apologize to editor A without a deal that editor B (who pointed out your error) apologizes to you for something? [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 00:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Umm... no. Zaathras joined the topic with a condescending reply and falsely suggesting I claimed some rule existed when I did no such thing. They followed with a clear, public accusation of canvasing. That is reasonable grounds on which to presume they feel I was operating in bad faith. It is certainly understandable that a reasonable editor may view those as less than good faith behaviors. This isn't a RfC where the ratio of !votes matter. This is like the recent ONUS discussions [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Onus] where getting a range of views is helpful. Another editor who has seen the same issue may have other examples (thus illustrating a wider issue) or different insights. Example excluded, this isn't an article specific concern so we can discuss it in general terms. So, no, the ping doesn't violate CANVAS and Zaathras was welcome to raise the concern on my talk page rather than here where it simply sidetracks the discussion. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 00:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Umm... yes. Springee, are you even aware that you have now spent more bits and bytes discussing ''me'' than you have spent discussing what you came here to, um, discuss? I think this pretty much concludes that your initial BLP filing is on such weak ground that you're no longer even trying to defend it. [[User:Zaathras|Zaathras]] ([[User talk:Zaathras|talk]]) 00:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
{{cob}}
:The crux of the argument would seem to be that the line at [[MOS:LINKSTYLE]] which explicitly concerns quotes should be applied to text outside of quotes because {{tq|we are implying that our definition corresponds with their intent}}. I'd disagree with the premise, except insofar as absolutely everything we write is indeed based on what someone else has written. As for the more general principle, we also call her a gun rights activist, linking to the article [[right to keep and bear arms]]. We link to that article even though it includes gun rights in Mexico, despite the fact that she has never (AFAIK) advocated for gun rights in Mexico. This is a less loaded <small>(pun acknowledged but not endorsed)</small> example, but just to say that many articles cover broad subjects with many dimensions, and not all of them have to apply. Any use of left/right labels provides a reductive summary of what someone's actual positions are, but it's a standard way to talk about it, for better or worse. Sources are typically going to call someone a "far-right politician" when they have expressed support for some ''range'' of far-right ideologies, not absolutely every single one of them. If the sources say someone holds "a far-right stance on immigration" that's not sufficient to call someone far-right without that qualification, but when someone (like Boebert) holds many such positions it should be unsurprising that she receives the broader label. Once that's established, linking is basic wiki style. — <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 17:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::+1 to this. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 21:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::In general I'm not opposed to such a hyperlink. However, I think we have a BLP concern when we even imply that a person is supportive or associated with neo-nazis. I do agree that we don't specifically claim that whom ever is using the "far-right" label is implying nazism but I think even the implication is a BLP issue. Perhaps the solution a better intro to [[far-right]]? [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 22:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:::Perhaps things are fine the way they are? [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 23:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::::Perhaps. But if others have seen similar things perhaps this is a broader issues. I guess trying to figure out how to ask it in a broader way would have been helpful. There often seems to be a conflict when trying to ask a generalized question that people get hung up in the details of the specific example. Conversely, if you don't provide an example then people ask for one. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 00:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
:My impression is that this issue perennially arises because there is a conflict in how two different groups of people use this word. Experts in the fields of political science and political philosophy seem to define far-right as something rather similar to fascism, and our article on [[far-right politics]] seems to follow the lead of these fields (as it should). However, US journalists covering American politics seem to use it to refer to hardliners in the Republican Party who have staunch right-wing viewpoints, without necessarily meaning they advocate for a militaristic ethnostate or something. So yes, we always come back to the argument "well the sources say it, so should we", but at the same time we do typically recognize that journalists often make errors regarding the physical and biological/medical sciences, so why would social sciences be any different?
:All in all I'd suggest that we'd have less of these disputes if we only used such labels when academic sources (in relevant fields) use them and/or when a very high quantity or quality of news sources use them. And then the wikilink is of course fine. We'd want usage from respected and nonpartisan political analysis organizations, or experts in political science or political philosophy (perhaps reported on in the media), not just a handful of Vox thinkpieces, casual usages in an everyday news article about logjams in Congress or whatever, advocacy orgs like [[Media Matters for America]], and the like.
:None of this is to meant to be a specific comment on Lauren Boebert or any other specific scenario. I'm not that familiar with what she's up to and try to avoid having to hear too much about these people. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 23:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::This is a serious problem with political comments reported on Wikipedia. The terms ‘right-wing’ and ‘left-wing’ , ‘far right’ and ‘far left’, do not have any agreed meaning in the real world, and it is unrealistic (and arrogant) for Wikipedia to assume that when anyone uses the term e.g. ‘far right’ they mean exactly what is said in our article on the subject. Therefore, there should not be a link. I have no view on Lauren Broebert as such – this is a general comment. [[User:Sweet6970|Sweet6970]] ([[User talk:Sweet6970|talk]]) 12:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
:::Having an "agreed meaning" is not relevant to the discussion. Note that there was [[Talk:Lauren_Boebert/Archive_2#RfC_about_adding_%22far-right%22_to_the_lead|an RfC in 2022]], where the OP made the same (ultimately unsuccessful) argument they are making now. The closer did touch on the question of linkage to the article, but noted it, quote {{tq|"...is not a problem of the article about Boebert"}}. [[User:Zaathras|Zaathras]] ([[User talk:Zaathras|talk]]) 13:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
::::If an expression has no agreed meaning, then we cannot know what anyone means when they use the expression. Therefore, we don’t know that they mean the same as what is in our article. Therefore we should not link our article. [[User:Sweet6970|Sweet6970]] ([[User talk:Sweet6970|talk]]) 14:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
::::The closer also suggested that perhaps this may be an issue with the linked article. Please keep in mind that I'm only using these articles as examples. The issue of implied meaning is broader than just this example. Sweet6970 seems to get to the heart of the issue, "If an expression has no agreed meaning, then we cannot know what anyone means when they use the expression." [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 14:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|If an expression has no agreed meaning, then we cannot know what anyone means when they use the expression.}} I'm sorry but I find this to be the most outrageous form of pedantry. It can be said about literally anything. You have provided no evidence at all to suggest that there is any doubt as to what "far-right" means –– you've just tried to shift the burden of proof onto others. As a thought experiment: please prove to me that mathematicians and laymen mean the same thing when they say "circle" or "the number three", using only reliable sources. It's too bad that the Nazis have given all those other [[Donald_Trump#Racial_views|"very fine people"]] on the far right a bad name, but them's the breaks. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 15:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::A definite, narrow term like ‘the number three’ is not the same as a broad term like ‘right-wing’ ,‘left-wing’, ‘far-right’ , ‘far-left’. Speaking as a Brit, I have noticed that the political spectrum in the USA is completely different from the spectrum in the UK, so that ‘right-wing’ and ‘left-wing’ mean different things according to which country you’re talking about. [[Godwin’s law|And please do not make irrelevant comments]]. [[User:Sweet6970|Sweet6970]] ([[User talk:Sweet6970|talk]]) 16:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Speaking as an American who lived in the UK for many years, I do not agree that that is the case. There are of course differences, but "completely different" is an absurdity. That's why you see e.g. [[Far-right_politics#/media/File:Charlottesville_'Unite_the_Right'_Rally_(35780274914)_crop.jpg|European symbols of the far-right like the swastika at American far-right rallies]] –– and indeed, sometimes [[Modern_display_of_the_Confederate_battle_flag#/media/File:02019_1209_(2)_Nationalist_attack_on_an_LGBT_equality_march_in_Rzeszów.jpg|American symbols like the Confederate Battle Flag at European far-right rallies]]. And of course none of this is "irrelevant". [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 16:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
::With respect, Crossroads, I don't see this as a problem. Sure, people are always arguing about politics. But the solution is not to restrict sourcing only to academic journals in a field where coverage by academic journals is sparse. In practice this would lead to a huge number of articles about politicians missing key information about their political stances (in Boebert's case actually not, since she's high-profile enough to be discussed in academic work, and for the record often explicitly as "far-right" [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/13540688231157579][https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13183222.2023.2168959][https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3001369&_scpsug=crawled,11658,en_63dfac8980407a7f831beb0e0f29809fadc405841b8aa2d4f1f371f6ed71aff6][https://www.proquest.com/openview/686893856b02f3f12d6861b508fdbef3/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1975][https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/asj.21004.fun]). Secondly, I'm not convinced that there is a real difference between academic and journalistic understandings of the term "far-right". Just because most people are loath to be associated with Nazis doesn't mean that we should make an exception to the rule that we follow the best sources available, nor –– as has been suggested above –– that we should carve out some unique exception to [[WP:LINK]]. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 14:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
:::In fact, journalists do not use political terms in the same way and lack the expertise. That's why analysis by journalists is not considered rs in Wikipedia.
:::Remember when Lord Jeffrey Archer was speaking on CNN about the death of Princess Diana? America's major cable news outlet managed to mangle two titles in a major news story. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 15:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::::Your first point is simply incorrect. Nothing in [[WP:RS]] suggests that analyses by journalists are generally unreliable. They just need to be attributed. This is all made very clear in [[WP:NEWSORG]]. Repeatedly insisting that journalists use the term "far-right" differently from poli-sci experts without providing evidence is tiresome. I'm an expert and I have not found this to be the case.
::::Not sure how to address your comment about Jeffrey Archer speaking to CNN because it doesn't seem to me to be on-topic. Are you really suggesting that being an expert on the pomposities of the British caste system has anything to do with matters of practical importance? It's perfectly possible to understand that the British right are often royalists (though I would argue that this is not necessarily more pronounced among the British ''far'' right, for whom white supremacy and anti-immigrant sentiment really forms the central ideological commitment –– just as it does in the U.S.) without caring at all for such anthropological curiosities. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 16:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::Are you sure TFD is incorrect? That would imply that no RSs ever use a loose/non academic definitions of this or any other commonly used terms? Suggesting that some or even many reporters do stick with a clear, academically rigorous definition (do we have a copy of that definition) may be true. But you are suggesting that all sources, even ones like VICE and Mother Jones (to pick on a few) would use an academic definition at all times. That seems to be a stretch. Since you say this is an area you know outside of Wikipedia, what source you would point to for the definition and what evidence do you have that the definition is never used loosely? Also parallel examples like TFD's are on point here. While I opened this discussion with a specific concern related to [[far-right]], this certainly isn't the only example of a loose definition being used by non-experts. Consider a light hearted example, imagine an article that says, "may sources called the court hearing a [[circus]]". Perhaps tigers were on trial :) [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 17:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::TFD does appear to be incorrect. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 17:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Consider two possibilities and there relative likelihoods. One, that all reporters for all sources we would ever cite are going to cite have a strict and academically correct definition for any term that otherwise may be vague or imprecisely used in common speech. Two, that at least some sources we might use do not use a strict and academically correct definition at all times. Option two certainly looks more likely to me. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 18:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::::You can present an infinite amount of straw people for consideration, but consensus will only be reached when you contend with what other editors have actually written. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 18:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm hoping that we can find some balance where we call can win. I do see what is being claimed. The claim was that the media is always using the term within an academic definition. How would we prove that? Certainly there are other examples where the media isn't as careful with definitions. Firearms rights people love to point out failures to distinguish between magazines and clip or semi-auto and auto firearms. Why would we assume that reporters writing for sources with a clear POV are going to be precise in their choice of words vs picking terms that may have an emotional hook with their readers? [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 18:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::You appear to be exaggerating the claim that was made for dramatic or rhetorical effect. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 18:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Thanks Horse Eye, and agreed. As I argued above, the burden of proof should be on those making extraordinary claims. In this case, the extraordinary claim is that journalists who are ordinarily considered reliable sources for reporting facts are too ignorant of what the term "far-right" actually means to be considered reliable when using it. Asking me to prove that this term is ''never'' used loosely is of course not the appropriate bar, and the example of a term like "circus" being used metaphorically entirely misses the point. Sources which describe Boebert as "far-right" are not doing so metaphorically, and we have no reason to suppose that they are at odds with academic usage. Indeed, I cited five examples above where academics describe her as precisely that. Since I now find myself repeating myself (and growing rather frustrated), I'm going to take this page off my watchlist for a while and step back from the discussion. I've made my position as clear as I can. If anyone would like to discuss with me in a more informal setting on my talk page they are welcome to do so. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 18:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::You specifically claimed expertise in this area. Are you saying that to say we should trust your word more than someone else's or are you saying that because you can provide some sort of evidence/data to back your views? Consider that the NYT warns we need to be careful about sources that mix reporting of fact with opinion of the writer [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/public-editor/an-uneasy-mix-of-news-and-opinion.html]. We generally trust reporters to convey facts. We also generally say opinions need to be left to subject matter experts. So should we trust that when a source uses a loosely defined term that they are using it in a strict sense? Or should we listen to the NYT and be careful about the mixing of opinion/subjective claims and facts? [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 18:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Did you just attribute the opinion of the independent Public Editor to the NYT in a complaint about mixing opinion with reporting? Does that seem ironic to you? [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 18:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Did the NYT run the article? The author does appear to have a background in the field ([[Margaret Sullivan (journalist)| Margaret Sullivan]]). [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 18:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::The Public Editor is an employee of the NYT, their job is to provide independent criticism of the paper... They do not speak for the paper and they don't publish articles they publish editorials (opinions). [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 19:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::Before I go, to briefly answer Springee's question about definitional sources, I'd suggest [https://ctmorse.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/global-vrwe-threat-and-response-mapping_think-piece_-final-17022022.pdf this recent report by the UK's Royal United Services Institute]. See the definitions on p.9, and e.g. this pertinent quote: {{talkquote|While South African VRWE [violent right-wing extremism] discourse is largely based on locally relevant narratives, especially in the last few years it also borrows from international narratives. In particular, US-specific issues such as libertarianism, gun rights, hostility toward mainstream media, anti-authoritarianism, and ‘MAGA’ (Make America Great Again) slogans and narratives have gained increasing traction in the South African VRWE space online. The close connections between VRWE online movements in the US and South Africa was also demonstrated by the fact that the blocking of social media accounts and communities engaging with QAnon conspiracy theories following the January 6 storming of the US Capitol also affected South African accounts and online discourse significantly.}} Anyone who tells you that the far-right doesn't operate as an international (or at least trans-Atlantic) movement isn't clued in to the relevant academic literature. Again, hit me up on my talk page if you have any further direct questions for me, including requests for additional bibliography. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 18:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::It is true that these terms mean something in political science but they have become extremely dilute in general sources. Perhaps a [[WP:POLRS]] in the image of [[WP:MEDRS]]… [[User:Barnards.tar.gz|Barnards.tar.gz]] ([[User talk:Barnards.tar.gz|talk]]) 15:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
We should link it when the term is used, and we should use the term when multiple reliable sources do so. I think it's important that the lead of the [[Far-right politics]] article continue to make it clear that the term refers to multiple possible associations but does not imply that each association must be true for the term to apply. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 15:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
:This to me is overlinking. The purpose of linking is to "increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand." Readers of [[Lauren Boebert]]'s article are not going to say, "Her political views are really interesting, I want to read about Hitler and Mussolini." Furthermore, we don't even know if that is what the sources meant.
:If you think her article should have a link somewhere to the political grouping she probably belongs to, I suggest [[Radical right (United States)]].
:[[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 17:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
::Which just brings us full circle because [[Far-right politics#Radical right]] is ~90% of the US section at Far-right politics. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 17:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
:::Then link it to [[Far-right politics#United States]]. I might point out that the radical right in the U.S. developed independently of the extreme right in Europe, has been studied separately and differs in a number of key areas. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 18:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
::::That is linking it to far-right politics, the question is about whether to link it to far-right politics or not... Not what section of far-right politics to link it to. We can do that second question after we've answered the first. If we dug up [[Henry Ford]] do you think he would agree that the the radical right in the U.S. developed independently of the extreme right in Europe? Note that they've been studied separately, but they've also been studied together. Yes its true that they've been studied separately, but you appear to be implying that they haven't been studied together which is untrue. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 17:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::You're assuming that "Far right" is about a coherent topic rather than a hodgepodge of things that have been called far right. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 01:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::When we link a word to an article the assumption is that the article is about what the word means in the text. If it doesn't, then we are misleading readers, which should not be one of our objectives. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 01:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
:I am not going to try to fight from my angle that we should be waiting for years (at leat 10) before we start using labels in wikivoice, as I think as long as there is a sufficiently strong demonstration via a source survey that academics and most media sources routinely use the term that we are then good to use it - id just prefer to see far more caution here. But I will stand on the issue that calling that out in the first sentence of a BLP is very much inappropriate per NPOV's tone requirement. Take any politican that is in the more moderate range (liberals and conservative) and you never see the person's political leanings in the first sentence, though usually is included in the first paragraph. Calling out politicians as far right in wikivoice (when appropriate) in the first sentence creates an attacking tone for telhe rest of the article. We (as a whole) are far too focused on calling out these people for their negatives and as such struggle to write appropriate tones for them. That's a much larger concern. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 18:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::For interest: an opinion piece in today’s ''Guardian'' arguing that there is no agreed meaning for ‘centrist’ in British politics. [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/26/cuts-war-brexit-all-fuel-the-battle-for-the-centre-ground-but-no-one-really-knows-where-that-is] It ends: ‘{{tq|The UK is at a potential turning point, with most voters concluding that nothing works. In such a striking context, the media should stop applying the term “centrist” as if it is self explanatory. Meanwhile, no leader should depend on “the centre ground” as a reliable guide. “Centrists” do not agree on where they are, how they got there and where they need to turn next. They do not concur because there is no clearly defined terrain in politics marked “the centre ground”.}}’
::If there is no agreement, even in single country, as to where the centre is, there can be no agreement about what ‘far right/left’ means.
::[[User:Sweet6970|Sweet6970]] ([[User talk:Sweet6970|talk]]) 14:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
== [[Richard Eastell]] ==
Apologies - I am new to this and trying to understand how to resolve this article on my father (Eastell). The user that created the article keeps reverting people's changes, making it very skewed towards one investigation (in which Eastell was found innocent), and is consistently doing so without explanation.
As it stands, this page is harmful to Eastell and goes against Wikipedia's guidelines on Biographies of living persons in several categories - in particular:
- Guilty unless proven innocent: There are four "controversies", not one confirmation of a crime or misdemeanour having been committed (in one case the exact opposite)
- Neutral point of view: The way the article has been written since its creation is clearly trying to make Eastell look like a guilty party
- Further reading, External links, and See also: Again, Only negative things have been linked here - the first link only serves to attempt to make the subject look bad purely by its presence (he only appears in the references of the article and is not a subject), and the second link was someone Eastell was the whistle-blower on, yet it is placed there to make it look like he was involved alongside them (which is simply not the case). <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:AFrozenCookieMonster|AFrozenCookieMonster]] ([[User talk:AFrozenCookieMonster#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/AFrozenCookieMonster|contribs]]) </small>
:You're deleting material that meets our content policies, not least because it comes with sources that meet our guidelines. Blanking this material isn't going to stand. Please learn more about editing at Wikipedia, and then discuss on the article talk page, proposing the edits you have in mind and giving the reasons, in connection with our policies. Using the talk page (instead of editing the article directly) is especially important given that you have a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] with respect to this article. [[User:Nomoskedasticity|Nomoskedasticity]] ([[User talk:Nomoskedasticity|talk]]) 16:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::Deleting this material is not good enough. You are blanking content which meets Wikipedia's guidelines. Please use the article's talk page instead and explain why this material should be deleted. ''[[User:FlutterDash344|<span style="color:yellow">Flutter</span><span style="color:#87CEEB">Dash</span><span style="color:#CBC3E3">344</span>]]'' ([[User talk:FlutterDash344|<span style="color:#680C07">'''''talk'''''</span>]]) 22:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
* I actually wonder if those first two paragraphs are not [[WP:UNDUE]] for what appears to have been a fairly minor issue. I am always concerned when a BLP on a subject that is notable for one reason ends up being a laundry list of "Controversies". I'm tempted to remove them. The last sentence is a bit of a nothingburger, as well. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 12:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
::I disagree pretty strongly that this is a "minor issue". Most academic researchers are ''never'' involved in incidents like this. There's a reason it ended up being covered in repeated stories in The THE (and covered also in a separate publication): it is in fact an ''unusual'' thing. Consider the components: Eastell published a study where the drug maker did the research/analysis while Eastell himself didn't have full access to the data -- and other researchers took the view that the study overstated the benefits. Meanwhile he didn't disclose limits on access to the journal. And, the GMC uses the words "untrue" and "misleading" claims to describe what he did. Again -- all covered by a series of THE articles. Where I agree with you is re the final paragraph/sentence; this seems like more of a minor dispute. [[User:Nomoskedasticity|Nomoskedasticity]] ([[User talk:Nomoskedasticity|talk]]) 12:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
:::I see you are the original author of this article (written in 2009) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Eastell&oldid=319492232]. The original article seem like nothing more than an effort to publicize an academic controversy. A web search of "Richard Eastell" (both general search and news search) doesn't turn up anything about this controversy in the top pages I looked at. Looking at the current article I'm not sure about the NOTABILITY of the person and the article raises serious BLP concerns given it suggests academic fraud is the primary notable factor. I would say they are only marginally notable and given more than half the article seems to be to emphasize what Black Kite noted to be a fairly minor issue (I tend to agree) it's probably best just to AfD the whole thing. If not then the controversy section needs to be removed and the related content cut way down. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 00:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
*I didn't read the whole article in detail but zooming out it does seem like something that results in a person leaving their academic position is likely DUE (or more correctly should be included per BALASP). However, the See Also tags that were restored look problematic to me. Both effectively state that the people involved committed academic fraud. It doesn't appear that the disputed edits state that as fact thus, for the same reason we wouldn't include a "BLPCAT:academics who committed fraud", we shouldn't include see also links that do the same. Also, the argument that the content meets our content policies based on sourcing is weak. Yes, it needs to meet WP:V but that doesn't mean it should be included per BALASP. We have a new editor who read the article and felt that the content in question, in effect, failed BALASP and BLP concerns (my read of their arguments). The responses here feel a bit too much like biting the newbie who's base read has merit even if they don't know the correct ALLCAPS words to reference in their arguments. The correct answer here is probably a middle ground between outright removal and status quo. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 13:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
*:Other than the controversies, all the information is from the University of Sheffield or a paper authored by Eastell. Based on that, he fails notability.
*:The controveries themselves are also non-notable. The Times Supplement story for example reported a GMC decision where Eastell was found "negligent" but not "deliberately dishonest." The GMC makes hears cases about doctors every day and they don't become notable unless they attract wide media attention.
*:The article should be deleted. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 01:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
:I have nominated the article for deletion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Eastell]]. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 15:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
== [[Elizabeth Berkley]] ==
I hope this is the right place to ask this. She has two different birth years 1972 and 1974. Here's a few newspaper articles from the 90s. They're dated May 1996, August 1996 and April 1998. And respectively list her age as 23, 24 and 25 which all match up to a 1972 birth year [https://books.google.com/books?id=c7wiAAAAIBAJ&pg=PA35&dq=elizabeth+berkley&article_id=4775,5937602&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwicidKkpMGBAxXnl4kEHalqBbM4ChDoAXoECAUQAg#v=onepage&q=elizabeth%20berkley&f=false][https://books.google.com/books?id=578zAAAAIBAJ&pg=PA52&dq=elizabeth+berkley+24&article_id=3682,3769538&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjFs4TvpMGBAxUPlIkEHdueAYAQ6wF6BAgLEAE#v=onepage&q=elizabeth%20berkley%2024&f=false][https://books.google.com/books?id=lwkFAAAAIBAJ&pg=PA15&dq=elizabeth+berkley&article_id=2815,425839&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjF8KShpMGBAxXmrIkEHb7oDmMQ6AF6BAgFEAI#v=onepage&q=elizabeth%20berkley&f=false]. And these were published at time where journalists were less likely to copy information from internet websites.
Also here's a Los Angeles Times magazine from the end of 2012 which says she had just turned 40 [https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-xpm-2012-jul-31-la-et-mg-elizabeth-berkley-baby-son-story.html]. Her high school yearbook is also on Classmates and she's listed as a senior of Calabasas High School in 1990[https://www.classmates.com/siteui/yearbooks/209654?page=38&searchTerm=elizabeth%20berkley].
The only thing I can find that supports 1974 and would probably be considered reliable is this interview from Newsweek which is dated April 2008 and where Berkley says she's 33[https://www.newsweek.com/qa-elizabeth-berkley-85945]. I don't wanna outright say that she's lying about her age, but that's not uncommon for celebs to do so. For instance, Octavia Spencer admitted she had been lying about her age up to until a few years ago. And while some celebs do graduate a year or two earlier, it's usually mentioned in other articles. And I can't find anything that says Berkley was 15/16 when she graduated high school.
Asking for a consensus on what should be done on her Wikipedia page? Do we either
A) Remove the birth year that's currently listed(1974) and put in a note saying that there's conflicting info regarding her birth year.
B) Put in both birth years and cite the sources.
or
C) Leave the 1974 in the article as it comes from the subject herself. [[User:Kcj5062|Kcj5062]] ([[User talk:Kcj5062|talk]]) 16:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
* Celebrities have regularly been found lying about their age, that's not unusual. People are not reliable sources for their own personal information. If there are reliable sources supporting 1972 (which there appear to be in this case), leave it in. If there aren't, leave the birth date out completely. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 16:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
*:It's a normal thing to do. I'm no celebrity but I round my age all the time for those that ask out of morbid curiosity. [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 19:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
* I agree with [[User:Black Kite|Black Kite]]. In an informational conflict, the [[WP:BLPSPS]] is a contentious source. OP's understanding of journalism in context is correct: they didn't check other sources, but took the subject's word for it, as is still done in most interviews. Because the BLPSPS sourced material conflicts and is contentious, it cannot support a later birth year, but the same sources may continue to support other prose. Cheers! [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 19:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
*:And on the other hand, you can't [[WP:SYNTH]] a birth date. Better to leave it out if you need to guess matriculation age and then do math on top of the reference to determine a birth year. [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 19:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
*::@[[User:Black Kite|Black Kite]]@[[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]]
*::Is there a way I can do a RfC here? There's an editor over at Berkley's page that seems pretty adamant about leaving the 1974 birth year up. [[User:Kcj5062|Kcj5062]] ([[User talk:Kcj5062|talk]]) 04:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
*:::Sorry, this is not [[WP:RfC]] so we shouldn't, can't, and hopefully don't RfC here. But at RfC they RfC, allegedly. [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 04:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
*:::Maybe open a request on the article talk page? [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 04:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
* I have removed the 1974 date as it is only sourced to a flaky celebrity website and, as the OP says, better sources suggest 1972. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 17:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Black Kite|Black Kite]]
*:Watch out for the user Quaerens-veritatem. He's pretty determined to keep the 1974 date up. He actually accused me of disruptive editing. [[User:Kcj5062|Kcj5062]] ([[User talk:Kcj5062|talk]]) 20:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
== Ben Aulich ==
{{archive top|[[WP:Articles for deletion/Ben Aulich|Deleted]]. No outstanding BLP concerns remain. [[WP:NAC]]. [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 03:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)}}
Can some people please check new article [[Ben Aulich]]? It contains many negative claims about living people and criminal cases and conduct, and I can't access the sources to check if it is a fair and due article respecting all aspects of [[WP:BLP]] (like [[WP:SUSPECT]] and so on), or a hit piece / one sided view. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 07:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:Seems to be written by someone close to Aulich, with a lot of citations that are more about his opponents that don't even mention Aulich. Maybe an attempt at synthesis. Not sure if this is a BLP1E. [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 17:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::After review, I've nominated this for AfD.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ben_Aulich] [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 22:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]], it's straight up [[WP:ADVOCACY]] and [[WP:RGW]]. The material you removed gives that away. Google Britney Higgins or Bruce Lehrmann if you want to get an idea for the motivation for that article given that's the bulk of the material that you removed, which had nothing to do with the subject. It's a hit piece on Shane Drumgold. The stuff about referring to a respondent in a civil dispute as being prosecuted speaks to the loaded language being used. [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']]<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]]</sup> 11:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
== Tommy Villiers ==
[[Tommy Villiers]] sent me an email about four hours ago to ask that the family tree be removed from his article. I believe this was admissible per [[WP:BLPPRIVACY]], seeing as its only sourcing was to specialist peerage books, but I wanted to check in just to be sure.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">[[User:Launchballer|<u style="color:#00F">Laun</u>]][[User talk:Launchballer|<u style="color:#00F">chba</u>]][[Special:Contribs/Launchballer|<u style="color:#00F">ller</u>]]</span> 05:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
:Your edit seems BLP-good to me. ''If'' there's a BLP-good source for it, maybe he can be mentioned at [[Villiers family]]. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 07:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
:Removing the family tree seems fine from a privacy perspective. Removing ''any'' mention of the Villiers family I pause at because of the image management implications -- the meme of the indie musician with rich/well-connected parents is well-known, and something people it applies to generally want to downplay. I see Grabergs disagrees, though, so just noting that for wider discussion. (This is of course assuming a usable source covers it.)
:Given [[Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 195#Words (Piri & Tommy song) (nom)|the DYK situation]], "Tommy Villiers sent me an email" makes me pause a little. I'm still AGFing about the cause of the articles, but are you in contact with Piri & Tommy? [[User:Vaticidalprophet|<b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b>]][[User talk:Vaticidalprophet|<b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b>]] 11:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
::I'm not necessarily against it, but I'd like to see BLP-good sources about Tommy Villiers the singer make the connection, not some OR:ish connection of dots. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 11:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
:::Piri I contacted in February to ask if she would consider donating images for her article, and I've been to one of her concerts and [[Template:Did you know nominations/Concert abuse in 2023|tried to attend another]]. This is the first time I've had anything to do with Villiers (he contacted me using the contact form on my website). I've had no further contact, all the articles were written entirely at my option (my autism means I write exclusively about special interests).--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">[[User:Launchballer|<u style="color:#00F">Laun</u>]][[User talk:Launchballer|<u style="color:#00F">chba</u>]][[Special:Contribs/Launchballer|<u style="color:#00F">ller</u>]]</span> 12:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
::::I think removing the tree was a good idea either way. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 12:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::I was using the one page of [[Debrett's Peerage]] available on Google Books preview for the immediate family, a copy of [[Burke's Peerage]] at [[Fulham Library]] to take me up to [[Thomas Lister Villiers]], and then a source about Lister Villiers to take me up to [[John Russell, 1st Earl Russell]]. Both peerage books are reliable per [[WP:RSP]], but I wonder if they both come under [[WP:DUE]] as they exist in no further reliable sources (well, thepeerage.com, but that's a self-published blog).--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">[[User:Launchballer|<u style="color:#00F">Laun</u>]][[User talk:Launchballer|<u style="color:#00F">chba</u>]][[Special:Contribs/Launchballer|<u style="color:#00F">ller</u>]]</span> 12:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::I think having the tree in there was probably [[WP:UNDUE]]. I'd consider those sources reliable, and I don't think it's [[WP:SYNTH]] to assert that he's a member of the [[Villiers family]] on those grounds (others would probably allow less latitude), but the fact that it's taken that much work to assemble the genealogy suggests to me that it's mostly a genealogical curiousity—out in the Oort cloud of younger sons of younger sons, where membership in the family hasn't brought them noticeable levels of prestige. (I brought his [[George Villiers (1759–1827)|great-great-great-great-grandfather]] to GA some years back; it makes a good read, if I do say so myself.) [[User:Choess|Choess]] ([[User talk:Choess|talk]]) 19:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
: Being a member of the Villiers family seems to be trivia, given how many generations they are removed from important/wealthy members of the family. I agree with the removal and there's no reason to mention it unless RS specifically make the connection. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 20:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
== [[Karen McCarthy Woolf]] year of birth ==
Please see [[Talk:Karen_McCarthy_Woolf#Removing_year_of_birth_from_Karen's_biography]]: should we remove this poet's reliably-sourced year of birth because her friend says she is "uncomfortable" with it? I've replied fairly negatively, but thought I'd best check here as I'm not familiar with such requests. [[User:PamD|<span style="color: green">'''''Pam'''''</span>]][[User talk:PamD|<span style="color: brown">'''''D'''''</span>]] 20:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
:Generally, we often give special consideration to subjects who request their birthdate be removed, and will often remove a full birthdate from an article upon the subject's request, because with identity theft and whatnot, it is considered a privacy issue by many, and we respect that. In such cases, we would generally use just the year instead. In this case, all we have is the year, and there is not as much of a privacy concern for that, at least from our perspective, but there may be some unforeseen reason the subject feels it is, and I would at least try to treat that with some weight and respect.
:The thing about birthdates is, it's really just statistical data, not much different from height, weight, eye color, favorite cereal, etc. Albeit, nice info to have when we can get it, nine out of ten times it really adds no useful information that the reader absolutely needs in order to understand the subject. In other words, most of the time the article will read just the same without it, so that's another thing to weigh. In some cases it's necessary to distinguish between people with the same name, but the question I would ask myself is, is the date really necessary or can we do without it? To help, BLPPRIVACY says that a birthdate should be found in multiple sources, which as I read it means not one, not a couple, not even a few, but ''multiple'' sources, such that we can reasonably infer that the subject is ok with us publishing it too. (If they did, at some point we'd expect they they would've contacted those sources and asked for the date to be redacted, which any good RS will do upon request.)
:So, in deciding this, I would have to weigh all those factors against each other and see which way the scale tips. It may be best to leave it, omit it, or simply narrow it own to a decade, such as the 1960s. However, the other issue we have is that the request comes not from the subject, but from some anonymous person claiming to be a friend, so that adds a whole new level of iffiness to the whole equation. I suppose in this case I would want to hear it directly from the subject before making any decision. [[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 22:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
::Ageism is definitely something that happens. I can imagine that the subject of a BLP looking for employment, romance, or an audience might not want it known that they are in their late 50s, etc. I have no idea whether this might apply in this case, but it should be considered in general. So, yes, I think there can be significant privacy concerns even for year-only birthdates. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 05:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
:The year seems ok per [[WP:DOB]]. We ''can'' remove it per [[WP:BLPKIND]] policy, it's editorial discretion where to draw the line in this case. I'm ok with removing it as a courtesy, but redacting is to far IMO. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 08:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
== [[Coco Lee]] ==
{{archive top|Behavior goes to [[WP:ANI]]. Especially legal threats, below. The BLP issues should be addressed on the article talk page. [[WP:NAC]]. [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 02:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)}}
Hi there. I’m not familiar with the procedure but I guess this is probably the right place to address the issue.
Please see:
[[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Competence_is_required]], the article’s talk page, and the page’s history. Thanks!
(missing signature for [[User:Dustfreeworld|Dustfreeworld]] ([[User talk:Dustfreeworld|talk]]) 21:52, 27 September 2023)
:Hi Dustfreeworld. Wasn't sure which one of you I was talking to at first. I get a much better idea of the dispute from the history than from either of those other two pages, but I do declare, that is quite a lot of history to go through. My suggestion when coming to boards like this is to try as clearly and concisely as possible explain what the problem is from your perspective, so we can go into it knowing what we're looking for. Remember, we're new to this dispute, so explain it like you're talking to a newcomer.
:The first thing I will note to everyone involved is that potential BLP violations should be removed from the article and not be restored until there is consensus to do so, not the other way around. With BLPs, it's far better to err on the side of caution, even if other parties feel (maybe rightfully so) that the info should be there, we need to reach a consensus before restoring it.
:Next, the article needs a lot of work to make it read like an encyclopedia article. Currently, it's more like part bio and part gossip column. I get really, really nervous when I see nearly every sentence supported by 3 to 5 or more refs. In some cases, two or three concurring refs are good for info that is likely to be disputed. People often have a tendency to think the more refs the better, but too many like that actually throws up a big red-flag for synthesis. Most times a single ref can support multiple sentences, entire paragraphs or even entire sections. There is usually very little reason to to use multiple refs for a single sentence unless y'all are combining them to come to a novel conclusion Let alone multiple refs for each and every sentence. It makes the whole article look like synth, even if it's not.
:Then, we seem to have a lot of really exhaustive details, especially surrounding her death and medical history. The extensive lists of medical information is worrisome in itself, because all of that needs extremely good, [[WP:MEDRS]]-compliant sources, which I doubt we have there. Encyclopedias are quick reference sources, which people can use to get a quick handle on a subject without being bogged down by all the intricate details. They're not supposed to be full novellas about the subjects. We're here to provide a summary of all knowledge, not all knowledge. The trick is being able to summarize it all into a relatively small and easily absorbed package, and in that it needs a lot of work. I don't have time for that right now, but what I would suggest is going around and viewing good articles on other celebrities, such as [[Kim Kardashian]], and note the differences in tone, formatting, brevity, and coherence. I hope that helps, and good luck. [[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 02:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
:Dustfreeworld should not have tied ANI into this. I posted there a couple of days ago because they had not engaged in the discussion starting on September 13 about sources for the cite check that they had initiated [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coco_Lee&diff=prev&oldid=1175232125][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coco_Lee&action=history]. In the mean time, they reverted the article and posted a template on my talk page. I understand the importance of concensus but they seemed to be ignoring good faith discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coco_Lee&diff=prev&oldid=1177225627]. The article's [[Talk:Coco Lee#September 2023 verification|talk section]] is where the content and sources are being explained. [[User:Vacosea|Vacosea]] ([[User talk:Vacosea|talk]]) 04:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
::User:Vacosea, please stop your continual and deliberate false accusations, which I perceived as <s>libels</s><ins>personal attacks</ins>. And please note that, as you have already been told (and you seem to be ignoring), potential BLP violations should be removed from the article immediately per [[WP:BLP]]. For those who want to know the truth, please see the reply I posted at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Competence is required|ANI]]. Thanks. --[[User:Dustfreeworld|<span style="color: navy">'''Dustfreeworld'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Dustfreeworld|talk]]) 19:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Dustfreeworld|Dustfreeworld]] I'm going to reiterate what I said on [[WP:ANI]] here: do not use words like {{tq|libel}} towards other editors on Wikipedia, as that can be considered a violation of [[WP:NLT|No Legal Threats]]. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 17:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
::::Absolutely no legal threats here. I’m not billionaire and definitely won’t spend money to take legal action on this kind of things ;) I’m just describing my feelings. Perhaps I should say “personal attacks” instead? --[[User:Dustfreeworld|<span style="color: navy">'''Dustfreeworld'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Dustfreeworld|talk]]) 17:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
== Roza Otunbayeva ==
Recent additions at [[Roza Otunbayeva]] might need a few more eyes on them, as they appear to be deliberate additions of negative content. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: darkgreen">''Thebiguglyalien''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: sienna">talk</span>]])</small> 22:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
:The recent history indicates the following [[WP:BLP]] concerns: 1) [[WP:UNDUE]] discussions – whole subsections – of third parties (a meta BLP concern: even a Hollywood actor gets mentioned); and 2) [[WP:BLPCRIME]] accusations of wrongdoing that are not adjudicated as such. The negative prose is supported by an inordinate amount of background about third parties. That said, a politician being accused of rights violations as a member of government may be biographically significant if it's reflected in significant coverage by reliable sources. In my opinion, that threshold is met. It's a question of paring down all the prose, keeping reliable refs, to say the subject "was accused by international bodies and individuals of having committed several human and political rights violations and failures during her tenure." There's just very little room for it in her biography here. [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 00:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
== Allan R. Bomhard ==
{{courtesy link|Allan R. Bomhard}} [[User:Caeciliusinhorto|Caeciliusinhorto]] ([[User talk:Caeciliusinhorto|talk]]) 18:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Nature of dispute: I have had a biographical entry on Wikipedia going back at least to 2004. Once that entry got finalized, it remained essentially unchanged for the better part of two decades. That is to say, for the better part of two decades, no one questioned my scholarly credentials or the content of my biographical entry. Then, for no apparent reason, my biographical entry recently got changed. The earlier version was a short, FACTUAL description. The current version, however, is no longer factual. Instead, it is a rather biased, unflattering OPINION. I have requested that the earlier version (with some minor updates) be RESTORED. For details, please see the lengthy “talk” section associated with the entry, which appears to have reached an impasse. Consequently, I am resorting to the dispute resolution process to resolve this issue. I feel that this is important, not only for restoring the factual content of my own biographical entry, but also for Wikipedia itself. If this can happen here, it can happen elsewhere and to others, thus affecting the integrity of Wikipedia as a whole and raising the question as to whether Wikipedia can still be seen as a reliable, unbiased resource. Thank you. Allan R. Bomhard. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Arbomhard|Arbomhard]] ([[User talk:Arbomhard#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Arbomhard|contribs]]) 17:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
See [[WP:DRN]], where this discussion was moved from. [[User:NotAGenious|NotAGenious]] ([[User talk:NotAGenious|talk]]) 18:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
:The version of [[Allan R. Bomhard]] that Arbomhard prefers is an unsourced BLP. It was taken to AfD for that reason. The current version uses sources that meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability to describe Bomhard's scholarly contributions; the existence of these sources is what saved the article from deletion. The current version also omits the biographical details from the version that Arbomhard prefers, not because anyone wishes to suppress those details, but because we have no sources for them. If Arbomhard wishes any of those details to be restored, all we need is for reliable publications sourcing them to be supplied.
:If Arbomhard also wishes to suppress the scholarly published criticism of his work, that is a different issue. We also have many other published scholarly works by others about Bomhard's work that are listed in the article but not really used for its content (the reviews of his books). It is possible that our article's description of his work could benefit from expansion based on these other works, but Arbomhard might not like the result, as the ones I checked were somewhat negative.
:It is important here to keep in mind that, especially for topics that might be considered [[WP:FRINGE]], neutrality does not mean the suppression of all opinions; it means accurately reporting the consensus of mainstream opinion. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 18:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
::A dispute about this [[WP:BLP|BLP]] is also pending at [[WP:ANI]]: [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#COI_editor_Arbomhard]]. I advised bringing the issue about this BLP here, and advised waiting rather than filing at [[WP:ANI]]. One editor took my advice, and another ignored it; that is the way it is. I will point out that in Wikipedia a short description is only considered FACTUAL when it is attributed to [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 20:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
:::[[User:Arbomhard]] - You want the old version of your biography restored, but it was removed because it is unsourced. Can you provide sources that will support a version of your biography that is essentially the same as the previous version, but is sourced? If so, that can be considered. If not, not. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 05:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
::::I think we can be more positive: with [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], all of the material Arbomhard wants restored is non-problematic and can be included. The problematic part is that Arbomhard is requesting reversion of the entire article to that version, leaving ''only'' the biographical material and removing the criticism of his scholarship. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 06:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::Come on, David. A biographical entry should be just that. Criticism of my work on Nostratic properly belongs in the Wikipedia entry on Nostrattic (together with positive comments by qualified linguists). And yes, there is plenty of criticism to go around. I have always welcomed feedback, both positive and negative, and I have always tried to address concerns in subsequent versions of my work on Nostratic. [[User:Arbomhard|Arbomhard]] ([[User talk:Arbomhard|talk]]) 16:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
:{{ping|Arbomhard}} Robert McClenon & David Eppstein are right in saying that you need to provide reliable sources for any information that you want to add to the article, and I have nothing more to add on that point. I do think it is worth explaining, however, that you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works when you write that {{tq|Once that entry got finalized, it remained essentially unchanged for the better part of two decades}}. Wikipedia articles are never finalised: they are always open to change and improvement. The fact that nobody edited the article in nearly 20 years does not mean that it was fixed in that state forever; most articles which have not been substantively edited since 2004 are {{em|bad}} by the standards of 2023 Wikipedia and are in dire need of change! [[User:Caeciliusinhorto-public|Caeciliusinhorto-public]] ([[User talk:Caeciliusinhorto-public|talk]]) 09:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
:Please refer to the "talk" section under my biographical entry, where I clearly demonstrate the bias involved in the current version of my biographical entry, and I have demonstrated that the sources cited in the current version unequivocally do NOT (!) "meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability" -- one in particular is quoted out of context and attributed to someone who is neither a linguist nor a Nostraticist, though it is claimed that he is. It is both hypocritical and an embarassment, to put it bluntly, to hold this up as an example of "reliably sourced" information and then criticize me for not providing "reliably sourced" information to back up the claims made in the earlier version of my biographical entry. Moreover, I have offered to supply "reliably sourced" corroboration of the statements made in the earlier version (the one I prefer) of my biographical entry, but no one has yet stated what is actually required. I have also pointed out that my life is an open book and that any required sources are already freely available on the Internet. Check the information about me on E. J. Brill's web site, for example. I do not wish to suppress any published criticism of my work -- most of it is already freely available on the Internet anyway. However, I do object to the fact that supportive reviews of my work were not also included! This gives a very distorted picture, to say the least (for details, see the most recent additions to the "talk" section under my biographical entry). I agree that nothing is "fixed forever", and I have myself suggested several minor changes to bring the earlier entry up to date. I stated a fact when I claimed that "Once that entry got finalized, it remained essentially unchanged for the better part of two decades". This can hardly be disputed. When I said "got finalized", I was referring to the fact that there were very early versions of my biographical entry that were modified to the version that remained essentially unchanged for the better part of two decades, [[User:Arbomhard|Arbomhard]] ([[User talk:Arbomhard|talk]]) 15:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
::That a problem (an unsourced article) persisted for a long time (two decades) does not mean we can then never fix the problem. You can read about our sourcing requirements at [[WP:RS]]. You can list any sourcing that meets that standard at [[Talk:Allan R. Bomhard]] - either to support biographical details or to reference views of your work. If you do so, you should do so without focusing on other editors or attacking them - such attacks are a violation of our policies ([[WP:NPA]]). You're being extended leeway here because you're new and we know that changes to a biography can be upsetting to a subject, but there is a limit. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 15:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
:::Thank you. That is helpful. [[User:Arbomhard|Arbomhard]] ([[User talk:Arbomhard|talk]]) 16:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
:::As instructed, I have added links to reliable source material on the Internet on the talk page accompanying my biographical entry. As an aside, you are correct, I am new to this. It is not my intention to be rude, only to rectify what I see as an injustice (bias), and, yes, it is very frustrating when I try to correct that injustice and am met with resistence (what I have called "roadblocks"), some valid, some not so valid. Please let me know what else I can do. And, as I becoeme increasingly familiar with Wikipedia's protocols and requirements, including behavioral requirements, I will try to respect those requirements, though I may need a little help and patience here. I apologize if I have offended anyone. [[User:Arbomhard|Arbomhard]] ([[User talk:Arbomhard|talk]]) 17:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
== Oleksandr Yaroslavskyi ==
{{la|Oleksandr Yaroslavskyi}}
Can someone take a look at this and tell me if it looks entirely like a commissioned PR job to them as well? We've had plenty of those from that part of the world and looking at the article's history it looks like it has, for years, remained an unreferenced mess of weasel words and puffery to make an oligarch look like the second coming of Jesus Christ, with regular additions/removals/changes made by SPAs. I don't have time to try to fix the article (I could just butcher it, but it would be less than ideal), but if anyone could confirm my suspicions and, at the very least, put some appropriate tags and remove the more egregious bits, that would be a huge upgrade over what we have now. [[User:Ostalgia|Ostalgia]] ([[User talk:Ostalgia|talk]]) 07:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
:Fixing it would require a cleaver. There's almost nothing that can be remedied without blanking. Instead of treating this as a [[WP:BLP]] problem, have you considered [[WP:AFD]]? If you'll AfD, I'd advise not butchering. But if you won't, then by all means, your gripe requires you to use the cleaver. I've watched the article and will support if necessary. Cheers. [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 23:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
:* {{lafd|Oleksandr Yaroslavskyi}} after all. Cheers. [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 00:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
== [[Tarique Rahman]] ==
The two Wikipedia articles [[Tarique Rahman]] and [[A. Q. M. Badruddoza Chowdhury]] are wrongly pointing out that [[Tarique Rahman]] was the President of Bangladesh. No such references and citations exist either online or in hard copy either as this is a factually wrong information. [[Tarique Rahman]] was never the President of Bangladesh. [[Special:Contributions/103.131.80.155|103.131.80.155]] ([[User talk:103.131.80.155|talk]]) 12:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
:This was a recent unexplained change made by an IP user; I have reverted it. [[User:Caeciliusinhorto-public|Caeciliusinhorto-public]] ([[User talk:Caeciliusinhorto-public|talk]]) 13:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
== [[Banjska attack]] misinformation: Serb casualties ==
In the [[Banjska attack]] article infobox it says "6-10 killed" on the Serbian side but this is not true. It is based on outdated info and rumors and speculations.
[https://indeksonline.net/ekskluzive-trupat-e-dy-serbeve-te-vrare-ne-veturen-e-policise-se-kosoves/?mibextid=Zxz2cZ Citation number 1] says: "Four Serbs killed" [https://www.rferl.org/a/kosovo-police-officer-killed-serb-north-kurti/32606755.html This report from Radio Free Europe] says that reports of a fourth attacker dead were incorrect.
[https://shqiptarja.com/lajm/pergjaket-veriu-i-kosoves-burime-te-policise-se-kosoves-8-serbe-te-vrare-6-te-arrestuar Citation number 2] says 8 killed from "police sources" but it was as the event was happening (September 24)
[https://telegrafi.com/avokati-serb-stojkoviq-numri-serbeve-te-vrare-ne-sulmin-terrorist-ne-veri-shkon-deri-ne-10-ka-edhe-te-plagosur/ Citation number 3] is from a Serbian lawyer's tweet in which he predicts there might be 7 to 10 killed (September 25)
The most up to date information from reliable sources all state that three Serbs were killed (and one Kosovo police officer):
From [https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20230928-serbia-observes-national-day-of-mourning-after-clashes-in-kosovo France 24] 28 September: "Three Serb gunmen were killed in an hours-long firefight with Kosovo police"
From [https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/serbia-investigate-killing-policeman-northern-kosovo-vucic-2023-09-28/ Reuters] 28 September: "Three attackers and a Kosovo Albanian police officer were killed in the skirmishes."
From the [https://apnews.com/article/kosovo-serbia-clashes-raid-police-f671bd21560f60bdca72d2daf7ce50ef Associated Press] 29 September: "Kosovo police on Friday raided several locations in a Serb-dominated area of the country’s north, where weekend violence left one Kosovo police officer and three Serb insurgents dead"
From [https://www.dw.com/en/deadly-kosovo-clashes-spark-fear-of-escalation/a-66965912 Deutsche Welle] 29 September: "In the ensuring firefight with Kosovar security forces, three attackers were killed"
And there many more sources which can be found saying that just by googling.
Please someone help fix this incorrect information. I would do it myself but article is blocked from editing. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2605:8D80:6C2:86A:DDD:52BA:10FE:4EFF|2605:8D80:6C2:86A:DDD:52BA:10FE:4EFF]] ([[User talk:2605:8D80:6C2:86A:DDD:52BA:10FE:4EFF#top|talk]]) 18:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:[[Talk:Banjska attack]] is the proper place to present this evidence and make your case. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 19:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
== [[Duane Davis (gangster)]] ==
Recently in the news for obvious reasons. I am concered regarding inclusion of allegations by Davis that [[Sean Combs]]/Diddy ordered the hit on Tupac prominently in the lead of the article, which are not included at all in the [[Murder of Tupac Shakur]] article. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 22:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
:I don’t understand why it is not included in that article, it is not libellous, nor a biography of a living person so doesn’t need to be substantiated, and there are plenty of sources, including reliable media coverage [[User:Alexanderkowal|Alexanderkowal]] ([[User talk:Alexanderkowal|talk]]) 09:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
::[[WP:BLP]] does not just apply to articles that are directly about a living or recently deceased person. It also applies wherever living people are mentioned, even if the article is not about them. [[User:Lard Almighty|Lard Almighty]] ([[User talk:Lard Almighty|talk]]) 09:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
:::[[Sean Combs]] and [[Duane Davis (gangster]] are living persons. The policy on [[WP:V|verifiability]] is non-negotiable, so that anything in Wikipedia needs to be substantiated. If there are plenty of reliable sources, find one that is suitable for coverage of living persons. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 17:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
== Proper application of WP policies to [[Kevin Sorbo]] article? ==
A talk page discussion with one other editor, @[[User:Ramos1990|Ramos1990]], is approaching an impasse with respect to what content meets threshold-eligibility criteria for inclusion in an article on the public figure, actor [[Kevin Sorbo]].
I have not edited the article itself, and I do not believe they have edited it since the beginning of our discussion. Everything has been civil and the whole discussion can be found at [[Talk:Kevin_Sorbo#No_politics?]].
This editor's history more than demonstrates (to my satisfaction, at least) that they are here to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. I hope that my own history demonstrates the same.
My concern, as you will find detailed in the talk page, is that this editor is relying upon what I think is a misinterpretation of [[WP:NOTNEWS]] and [[WP:NOTGOSSIP]] in order to selectively exclude unflattering information about the subject—including even positions the subject has publicly professed and which have also been reported by independent media.
I link to their short edit history in our discussion.
Information added by third parties and supported by good sources that this editor has removed include two allegations of sexual misconduct, public efforts to undermine medical consensus on vaccines during a pandemic, and a public effort to present the breach of the U.S. Capitol as a false-flag operation.
The idea that such public positions are categorically excluded from Wikipedia on the grounds that Sorbo is notable only as an actor (who is not running for office—''their example'') seems to me a strong misreading of the relevant Wikipedia guidelines.
We would both be grateful for any input from a third party more knowledgeable about the relevant policies governing biographies of living persons.
Many thanks for your consideration –
Cheers, [[User:PatrickJWelsh|Patrick J. Welsh]] ([[User talk:PatrickJWelsh|talk]]) 02:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
:Just wanted to add some context. The content under discussion is not being "selective" but that some editors (usually IPs) are adding content that is seemingly for defamatory purposes only such as that Sorbo was somehow against vaccination when in reality he himself was vaccinated. Other strong accusations require strong sourcing (which other editors reverted through the years by the way), not weak sourcing. Wikipedia entries should be encyclopedic - not everything online about a person belongs on wikipedia - this is respected in general for many biographies of other public figures. Much of the issue revolves around sources that react to tweets or barely mention Sorbo, not comprehensive sources.[[User:Ramos1990| Ramos1990]] ([[User talk:Ramos1990|talk]]) 05:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
::I'm not going to look into this myself but to state the obvious, some anti-vaxers have received at least some vaccinations themselves. Anti-vaxers include people with a wide variety of unscientific believes about vaccinations from complete opposition to a variety of unscientific claims about certain vaccinations or vaccination components. So if Kevin Sorbo has received some vaccinations this probably should be mentioned if sourced but it doesn't mean he isn't anti-vaccination. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 11:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
:Just to share on this board the one comment this post has elicited on the article talk page:
:::Thanks for the post on the noticeboard.
:::I agree with Ramos1990, Emir of Wikipedia, Ponyo, and Blablubbs on the sexual misconduct removal for very poor sourcing and potential WP:SYN on one of them. Much stronger sources are needed and I could not find any online. No issues were ever raised legally or seriously by either women. No recent updates at all on this either. [[WP:BLPREMOVE]] applies here.
:::In terms of the politics stuff, it does not seem like much of the content is relevant to the article. Much of the sources revolve around commenting on Sorbo's tweets - which can be taken out of context and slanted by any source. I agree with Ramos1990 in that not everything that is published on a person belongs on Wikipedia. His views on vaccines are not relevant anymore. The pandemic is gone and since he did get vaccinated to do filming in another country, it makes no sense to use Wikipedia to spread such content per [[WP:BLPGOSSIP]].
:::In terms of political views, everyone has one and everyone has an opinion on every topic. But that does not mean it belongs on Wikipedia. It can be challenged and removed either way since it is true that political affiliations do change and is a private matter. Even if reliable sources exist, that does not mean it belongs in the biography of a person. From what I looked at, Sorbo is barely mentioned in passing on the source for CPAC and for the other stuff like his opinion on the vaccine stuff, it is all based on his tweets and end up being opinion pieces than true journalism. These are not news. I am sure you can find actors commenting on almost any topic from natural disasters to political candidates especially through twitter, but much of this is not relevant to the biography and requires higher quality journalism than opinion pieces.
:::We should really strive for better sourcing and better relevance when controversial matters are being considered on a biography page. We do not want Wikipedia to contribute to defamation or misinforming about an individual if we can avoid it. It should contain neutral content too.[[User:Desmay|desmay]] ([[User talk:Desmay|talk]]) 19:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
::::<p>The pandemic isn't over or gone but either way whether it's over is largely irrelevant to anything. If Kevin Sorbo was spreading nonsense about vaccines and this was well covered in reliable secondary sources then this is likely something we should mention no matter what's going on with COVID-19. Also as I said before, the fact Sorbo eventually got vaccinated is largely irrelevant. In fact, if Sorbo was trying to kill people with his tweets, and then got vaccinated himself for work; this if anything may be an even greater reason why sources may call him out for it. Ultimately the key thing that matters is coverage in reliable secondary sources. </p><p>Sorbo is only really noted as an actor rather than for any medical expertise, so there's less reason to add other random crap he said, no matter how harmful per [[WP:UNDUE]]. But if it's well covered in reliable secondary sources, especially secondary sources from after those tweets indicating long term significance, then yes this is something we're likely to cover since it's no longer [[WP:UNDUE]] as reflected in the sources. No matter whether people want to believe nonsense about the pandemic being over or eventually getting vaccinated somehow excuses any harm Sorbo did to others by his tweets. </p><p>One thing I would agree one is we do need quality sources. Looking at this [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Sorbo&diff=prev&oldid=1160509466], the sourcing for the vaccine thing was Huffington Post which isn't a great source for this kind of thing, and appears to be from the time of the event so a double whammy. </p><p>But I noticed something else there. We included some nonsense Sorbo talked about Hollywood disliking christians sourced only to Fox News, a source known to be problematic for politics which this clearly is. I looked some more and found further nonsense sourced to Daily Express. WTH? I can understand why the OP has concerns when people are removing stuff sourced to La Times while leaving stuff sourced to Fox News and Daily Express! A cleanup of all nonsense in the article may help reduce the OP's concerns. I removed the two obvious standouts but I expect there is more. </p><p>[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 12:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)</p>
:::::Hi @[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]],
:::::Thanks for chiming in! However, if material sourced to Fox News and the Huffington Post is not up to standard, then about 80% of the article needs to be deleted. (See [[Kevin_Sorbo#References]].) He's just not famous enough to be covered by mainstream news outlets. But in some circles, at least, his social media presence is considered notable. Would something like this [https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-hercules-kevin-sorbo-became-a-bizarre-lib-bashing-trump-troll] from the Daily Beast be enough of a source to establish that?
:::::My proposal was to include the (to many people) unflattering information repeatedly removed by other editors on the grounds that this is at least as notable and sourced as the other material, rather than to remove everything not sourced to major media outlets. As far as the NYTimes, the AP, or NPR are concerned, Sorbo is basically a non-entity. But I'm assuming this does not matter to folks who non-accidentally find themselves at his Wikipedia bio.
:::::For background, the reason I went to the article was to see why Sorbo was hired as a spokesperson for an advertisement aired multiple times on the right-leaning Rumble's livestream of the second GOP primary debate. The article did not answer that, but a news search on his name turned up and abundance of material that did. Pretty much all of the coverage, though, is in tabloids or highly partisan sources. See, e.g., the results here [https://news.google.com/search?q=kevin%20sorbo] or at the search engine of your choice.
:::::I would welcome further comments from you or anyone else on how best to approach this.
:::::Cheers, [[User:PatrickJWelsh|Patrick J. Welsh]] ([[User talk:PatrickJWelsh|talk]]) 17:01, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
:[[User:PatrickJWelsh|Patrick J. Welsh]] ([[User talk:PatrickJWelsh|talk]]) 23:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::I agree with Nil Einne - ''"Sorbo is only really noted as an actor rather than for any medical expertise, so there's less reason to add other random crap he said, no matter how harmful per WP:UNDUE."'' The sources being used should be much higher quality and should explicitly detail, not just mention some any effects of his random tweets. No reliable source has claimed that his tweets are doing damage to the public. That would be an interesting piece indeed. I have not not seen one that does such a thing. Most are op-ed or poorly written non-journalism articles. He generally does not make a splash in the headlines. And [[WP:UNDUE]] does apply here. We need higher quality sources than just random little articles showing tweet wars. In general tweet and tweet-related articles are a very poor sources for wikipeida. It is not even journalism and look very amateurish and sloppy. Since Patrick Welsh kind of confirmed that - ''"Pretty much all of the coverage, though, is in tabloids or highly partisan sources. See, e.g., the results here [31] or at the search engine of your choice."'' then, per [[WP:NOTDIARY]] we should weigh the relevance of material being presented as it says ''"Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overly detailed articles that look like a diary."''[[User:Ramos1990| Ramos1990]] ([[User talk:Ramos1990|talk]]) 17:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Hi @[[User:Ramos1990|Ramos1990]],
:::::::Thanks for continuing to follow this! Would you mind elaborating your views on what, in this case, counts as an adequately good source? Because, as I state above, the standard that @[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] suggests would require deleting almost all of the article, which I think would be a disservice to readers.
:::::::I am fine either way, but the standard should be consistent between positive and negative coverage with respect to [[wp:undo|do or undo]] coverage. After all, that he consistently tweets the way that he does is not (I don't think!) in dispute. (Just see [https://twitter.com/ksorbs] and jump around in the history as you please.)
:::::::Tweeting vaccine misinformation to 1.8 million followers very possibly has lead to easily avoidable deaths. I do not think, however, that the article should speculate on this. Readers can make their own connections.
:::::::Finally, it is important to distinguish using Twitter as a source (which it almost never should be) and reporting on statements (or a pattern thereof) made by a public figure on the Twitter/X platform.
:::::::Cheers, [[User:PatrickJWelsh|Patrick J. Welsh]] ([[User talk:PatrickJWelsh|talk]]) 18:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
== Andrea Montanino ==
*{{la|Andrea Montanino}}
The page is poorly reference and clearly self promotional <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/62.4.151.195|62.4.151.195]] ([[User talk:62.4.151.195#top|talk]]) 15:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Simon Hooper ==
During the Tottenham v Liverpool football match 30/9/2023 someone edited this man's page to put abusive language about him in Polish. What initially shocked me was that they originally referred to him as a Jewish referee although that word was quickly removed by somebody.
I haven't edited this page because I believe Wikipedia should see the abuse and find out who the offender was and take very strong action against them. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Trevorius|Trevorius]] ([[User talk:Trevorius#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Trevorius|contribs]]) 17:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:The vandalism has been cleaned up but this article still isn’t acceptable, as about 80 percent of it is devoted to two controversial incidents he’s been involved with during the current season, which is [[WP:UNDUE]] for someone who’s been a top class referee for five years. There ought to be other material in reliable sources that could be used to make it more balanced. [[User:Neiltonks|Neiltonks]] ([[User talk:Neiltonks|talk]]) 12:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
== [[WP:SUSPECT]] and [[QAnon]]-adjacent POV at [[James Gordon Meek]] ==
The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Gordon_Meek&oldid=1177989399 current state] of this article speaks for itself. The person covered in it is a former senior journalist from ABC News who was recently prosecuted and convicted for child pornography charges (see [https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/james-gordon-meek-abc-news-producer-sentenced-prison-1234835726/ here]). The article is now littered with irrelevant factoids, QAnon-adjacent [[Dog whistle (politics)|dog-whistles]] and unreliable sources, including two explicitly pro-Pizzagate sources (a [https://rumble.com/v34akeh-pizzagate-propagandists-become-pizzagate.html Infowars video] and [https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/ex-abc-journalist-guilty-child-sex-abuse-material-years-pizzagate a Evie Magazine piece]).
'''Some issues I've noticed:'''
* The article HEAVILY implies that Meek commited multiple sex crimes other than the ones he was convicted for (precisely, he pleaded guilty one count of sharing and another of possessing child pornography; he was never convicted for anything other than that). This is a [[WP:SUSPECT]] violation.
* The article suggests that the FBI was aware of Meek's criminal activities since 2016 and did nothing, even though none of the sources support this claim. This is probably a [[WP:Hoax]].
* The current version of the body is so detailed that it reads more like an amateur detective novel than a well-summarized encyclopedic article. You can delete 80% of the "Investigation, Arrest, Conviction" section and nothing valuable would be lost.
* The article is filled with [[Wikipedia:Citation overkill|WP:CitationOverkills]], blatantly unreliable sources (Twitter posts, statements from the prosecution, court documents, explicitly pro-Pizzagate publications, etc.) and original research.
A talk page discussion [[Talk:James Gordon Meek#Overly detailed?|here]] was opened to address some of those issues, but the discussion went nowhere.
'''Some QAnon diffs:'''
* user @[[User:Virginia Courtsesan|Virginia Courtsesan]] adds [[WP:INFOWARS]]'s Rumble account [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Gordon_Meek&diff=prev&oldid=1172127348], as well as a pro-Pizzagate Evie Magazine piece [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Gordon_Meek&diff=prev&oldid=1169747219], as sources to the article to subtly make the point that Meek was an anti-Pizzagate journalist from "mainstream media" ABC News. In reality, [https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-abc-pizzagate-idUSL1N39W381 this claim was debunked by Reuters.]
* a news article is used out of context to make the statement that Meek was "either being aligned with - or turning a blind eye to - a shadowy world of ill-doings among the D.C. political elites".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Gordon_Meek&diff=prev&oldid=1168313233]
* this edit SYNTHs up the statement that Meek's alleged crimes were being covered up by unnamed people, using Twitter as one of the sources. The same edit also implies that Meek had meetings with "important people" set up by someone called George Nader.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Gordon_Meek&diff=prev&oldid=1173089245] Just like the previous diff, none of this is relevant to the actual facts of the matter and only works to promote the Pizzagate "sex-trafficking elite" talking point.
All of those diffs echo talking points directly associated with the [[QAnon]] conspiracy theory. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Gordon_Meek&oldid=1177976837 tried to remove] the conspiracy stuff from the article, but [[User:Virginia Courtsesan|Virginia Courtsesan]] (who wrote 63% of this article and is responsible for all of the diffs shown above) reverted me. [[User: SparklyNights|SparklyNights]] 01:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
::To clarify, after Sparkly threatened to ban me (not an admin, of course) it seems he's intent on misrepresenting matters. I'm very much anti-QAnon and anti-conspiracy, the Rumble/Infowars link was only provided in the sentence dealing with the fact misinformation had been spread about Meek's case, necessitating major outlets like Reuters to fact-check it. Wikipedia was thus used to help prevent the misinformation. Absolutely nothing was being presented as true and sourced to Infowars or anything remotely Pizzagate-y or conspiracy, I'd be the first to raise complaint if I noticed something like that. I removed the link when asked (though I still maintain that where you had Tucker Carlson, Glenn Beck, Infowars and others spreading "Meek is innocent, this is a frame-up, biggest news of the year!" hyperbole...before Meek plead guilty, it's notable to link to their stories and reference the furor...while obviously making it clear their sensationalism is not relied on as fact, it's presented as a source for the viral misinformation about the case. Sparkly is pretending to present a Reuters fact-check to prove the Wiki article is incorrect, but the statement in Wiki is literally "Meek did this mild X thing, this was misrepresented in a series of viral misinformation - this was debunked by Reuters". I'm the one who put the Reuters fact-check in to ''prevent'' misinformation being spread.
::I have no idea what Evie Magazine is, but I feel like classifying it as "pro-Pizzagate" is probably a false smear - a quick glance at https://www.allsides.com/news-source/evie-magazine-media-bias shows it is ranked the same as the [[Wall Street Journal]] as "leans right", not even "right", muchless conspircy/far-right (but again, I've never heard of it before this). Again, I'd already removed the link as per a Talk Page discussion, before Sparkly came here to make his accusations (though again, I feel the link was used appropriately and raise an eyebrow at seeing Sparkly's definition of the magazine, since a search on Google for Pizzagate+Evie+Magazine turns up no results suggesting his accusation is true on a glance).
::I'm accused of [[WP:HOAX]] by this author for a statement which, if he were to look at the links on the page, is reported by the Department of Justice without any other source ever contradicting it (but since it's a primary source it can't be used as the footnote-citation per Wiki standards)....to claim this is a "hoax" is bordering on bad-faith ad hominem attack.
::The article is only 25% the length at which we need to consider whether it is too long and detailed, it literally consists of only two parts. "Meek's Career" and "Later investigation, charges, conviction". While Sparkly insists that Meek hasn't personally given a jailhouse interview confirming some details, it's notable that he hasn't denied them even in the legal process.
::Can every article use work to clean up language to be more perfectly neutral, sure - but this is hardly what Sparkles claims it to be. Coming into the article for the first time threatening that he is going to '''ban''' users who disagree with him, suggests an unwillingness to speak rationally. A glance at the talk-page shows I'm engaging with another user there and working to help ensure everything is neutrally-phrased and tidying up language to ensure it's clear that we only mention the misinformation because the misinformation was itself notable to the case, multiple articles were written '''about''' Rolling Stone's efforts to deceive, etc.
::Claiming "statements from the prosecution" cannot be used, even when the Prosecution obviously secured a conviction/guilty plea and the statements are those being quoted in the Washington Post...seems again like a bad-faith misrepresentation of matters.
::Claiming "A talk page issue was raised but discussion went nowhere" is a misrepresentation of the fact he literally first touched the article, and talk page, '''four hours''' before coming here to claim it's all "going nowhere". Meek was sentenced yesterday, I understand new people are seeing the article and have strong opinions - I welcome them all and all positive contributions on the article's talk page. But threats to ban me, then reporting me to BLP when I tell him to restrain the threats and focus on positive conversation, is thinly-veiled at best.
::Tellingly, the user has made literally zero suggestions of how things could be re-phrased or re-worked to ensure there's no accidental misunderstandings by readers, or to ensure nothing negative about a living person is used inappropriately. He has simply deleted 80% of the article and come here to say we can delete 80% of the article and not lose anything he considers of value. But a neutral walk through Meek's beginnings, his motivations described by himself, his work - are all intended to offer balance and show how, the words of the judge (not quoted since only in primary documents), even heroes fall. [[User:Virginia Courtsesan|Virginia Courtsesan]] ([[User talk:Virginia Courtsesan|talk]]) 01:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
:::What i left you was a [[WP:WARNING]], that does not imply that I was going to ban you. Users who are not admins can give others warnings, including warnings that mention that the warned user might get blocked.
:::About Evie Magazine's article, this is what it said: "'''interesting how the people who vehemently criticize any initiatives that raise awareness of child sex trafficking seem to possess questionable moral traits.''' (...) '''Considering Meek worked with the government, and with the news of the new bill to conceivably broaden the definition of 'sexual orientation,' it's possible Pizzagate isn't far-fetched at all.'''" There is no ambiguity here, this is a pro-Pizzagate piece.
:::Plus, the statement that was sourced by you with the infowars source does not state that there was any misinformation related to Meek's works related to Pizzagate. What it implies, without any ambiguity, is that it was ironic how this anti-Pizzagate journalist turned out to be a target of a sex crime investigation. The pro-conspiracy tone is obvious here. [[User: SparklyNights|SparklyNights]] 01:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
::::The statement is "In 2017 Meek wrote an article about Russian disinformation wherein he referred to "the debunked Pizzagate conspiracy theory", which drew viral attention with exaggerated suggestions Meek had said much more", I do not think that can possibly be read as pro-conspiracy or presenting that it's ironic how an anti-pizzagate journalist was convicted of whatever...it addresses the fact there '''was''' notable viral misinformation which exaggerated a single sentence Meek had once written. If you can think of a better way to phrase the same information, I'm certainly open to seeing it written more bluntly or whatever. That's material for the talk page, or be bold and add your improvement to make sure nobody else draws the same (erroneous) conclusion you've drawn from reading the sentence. Again, Evie Magazine and Infowars were only linked as having gone viral for their exaggerated claims, followed immediately by the link to the Reuters fact-check showing it was a gross exaggeration of what he'd actually said. (and they were removed per talk page discussion anyways, before you made this complaint - again you only found the article four hours ago, maybe give it a little time to engage with the various editors on the talk page and offer your suggestions other than just calling for tremendous amounts of deletion. I'd love to see a list of say, five sentences you think are problematic, and how you think they would be better phrased or whatever...on the talk page. [[User:Virginia Courtsesan|Virginia Courtsesan]] ([[User talk:Virginia Courtsesan|talk]]) 01:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::The actual full quote of what you wrote, as shown [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Gordon_Meek&diff=prev&oldid=1172127348 here], is: {{Tq|"In 2017 Meek wrote an article about [[Russian disinformation]] wherein he referred to 'the debunked [[Pizzagate]] conspiracy theory', which drew viral attention after his guilty plea to judge [[Claude Hilton]]."}} The quote you provided was the version you edited AFTER I complained about your edits. Again, the obvious insinuation here is that this "mainstream media" journalist who hated Pizzagate turned out to be a bad person himself. That's what any normal person reads when they see this article. I believe you should just admit that what you did was wrong and move on, there is no hope in defending any of this. [[User: SparklyNights|SparklyNights]] 02:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
:::I literally edited it when you said you read it as pro-conspiracy, to make it more clear it wasn't meant that way - it was meant to be debunking the claim which doubtless leads readers to the Wiki article to see if it's true that Meek "claimed he had debunked Pizzagate", etc. You said you read something into my wording that I certainly hadn't intended to be read into it, I promptly changed the wording to be more clear so nobody else would make the same assumption you'd made. That's...handled appropriately. Then AFTER that, you came here to claim nothing was being done and claiming it was a pro-Pizzagate article and accusing me of writing a hoax, etc. I'm trying to be reasonable - and I certainly admit that if my earlier writing of the sentence led you to interpret it as pro-conspiracy, rather than anti-conspiracy, then I was wrong in my wording. Good thing I changed it as soon as it was pointed out you read it as meaning the opposite of what was intended? I mean you could write an entire paragraph about the stupid fake screenshot people are sharing that spreads misinformation, and media's efforts to fact-check it...but I think it might be WP:UNDUE in that case. It merits a sentence that explains what Meek DID say, that conspiracies emerged afterward saying Meek claimed far more than that, and that Reuters is clear it's a gross exaggeration/misinformation. If you can put all of that into a more succinct sentence, I'd be happy to see it, honestly. [[User:Virginia Courtsesan|Virginia Courtsesan]] ([[User talk:Virginia Courtsesan|talk]]) 02:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Also, it seems that you had made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1169299018 another pro-Pizzagate edit] to the [[Pizzagate]] page. The edit stated "{{Tq|In 2023, attention was drawn to the fact disgraced [[ABC News]] senior producer [[James Gordon Meek]] had written an article about [[Russian disinformation]] wherein he referred to "the debunked [[Pizzagate]] conspiracy theory", which drew viral attention after his guilty plea for child sex offences.}}" Can you point out why you wrote that?[[User: SparklyNights|SparklyNights]] 03:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Exact same reason, if I am mis-using the word "viral" to mean "misinformation" as you claim I am, and I have corrected it to be in-line with suggested improved language - why are you still here? I maintain it is viral and/or misinformation and/or disinformation - Reuters agrees with that. Obviously there are thousands of people who are sharing the nonsense "James Meek claimed he debunked Pizzagate, but he was convicted!" but the effort is to use the Wikipedia article to show all that Meek said is "X" in an article on Date Y, but that people then took it viral...and include the Reuters fact-check as a footnote to it. I really do not understand the problem, and I especially do not understand it where it was corrected and re-worded the first time someone said they had read/misread it as endorsing the viral information. Can we shake hands and stop bickering? I'll be the first to apologize, I'm sorry. [[User:Virginia Courtsesan|Virginia Courtsesan]] ([[User talk:Virginia Courtsesan|talk]]) 04:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
:{{ec}} I'd note that starting off with a long post tends to make it difficult to receive much attention on most noticeboards, but if you then follow this up with an even longer back and forth between the existing editors, you've made it even less likely you'll received any useful help. However briefly, I'd have to disagree that it's a [[WP:SUSPECT]] violation to report that someone was accused of multiple other crimes but in the end their plea deal was for a lesser crime. It's a very common part of the plea deal process that the prosecutor may agree to only prosecute a limited number of crimes. The key issue is whether these other accusations were covered sufficiently in reliable secondary sources. Especially if they were covered in reliable secondary sources at the time of conviction or after the conviction; or if they were discussed in court as part of the plea deal as reported in reliable secondary sources. Also if the suspect was initially charged with more crimes but these were dropped as part of the plea deal then this normally should be reported if well covered in reliable secondary sources. Meek also seems likely to be a public figure (award winning journalist) [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 04:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
::Also I'd say feel free to remove anything sourced exclusively to court documents or other unacceptable primary sources. If an editor reverts such removals, you can ask for them to be blocked or topic banned for a BLP violation. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 04:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
:::{{ec}} As probably my final comment on this matter, I will say that if all you have is a fact check, it's likely unnecessary to present something which allegedly went "viral" on conspiracy theorist websites or other unreliable sources especially on a biography article just to debunk it. The only chance it could make sense is if it's widely reported in reliable secondary sources in relation to the subject that such claims went viral. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 04:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
::I don't think there's anything sourced exclusively to court documents or other unacceptable primary sources, the only "primary sources" used are in the "Career" portion not the "Crime" portion, as there's an attempt to avoid the article being overly weighted toward the crime...so Meek's position and actions on the House Committee are lifted from House.gov, his early career is from his own online bio on his own website, etc...nothing that the subject of the article would mind. The only facts on the WP article about the crimes should all be sourced to, typically multiple, reliable secondary sources. [[User:Virginia Courtsesan|Virginia Courtsesan]] ([[User talk:Virginia Courtsesan|talk]]) 04:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Well that's not correct. I just removed some excerpts from court documents images that someone thought was acceptable in a BLP. Whoever did this should be topic banned if they ever try it again. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 04:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
:::BTW, while not as serious a BLP violation, it's very unlikely there is any reason to include any thing about his position or actions if the only source is some House Committee document. If no one else cares about whatever this was, then nor do we. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 04:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
:The article is a mess, and clearly not acceptable per WP:BLP policy. Sourcing is suspect, even from a quick look (e.g. citing ghbase.com, a Ghanaian tabloid website, for a story with no connection to Ghana [https://www.ghbase.com/pizzagate-meet-james-gordon-meek-wife-jessica-lenard-divorce-and-relationship/], or the highly-questionable use of a YouTube channel [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCe57Y1XDPg] for what appears to be allegations about a ''Rolling Stone'' editor), padded with non-consequential trivia (e.g. Meek writing a letter to a newspaper: removed here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Gordon_Meek&diff=prev&oldid=1178026250]) and making thoroughly misappropriate use of sources (see e.g. here, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Gordon_Meek&diff=next&oldid=1178026250] where I've removed what is blatant synthesis, turning a comment about Meeks career in intelligence into supposed commentary on the crimes). [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 05:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
{{admin note}} This subject [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Extra_Eyes_Please_on_James_Gordon_Meek is now being discussed at ANI]. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 04:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
:Courtesy ping @[[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]], @[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]], @[[User:SparklyNights|SparklyNights]], @[[User:Virginia Courtsesan|Virginia Courtsesan]]. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 04:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
== Irakli Garibashvili ==
This isn't to report a BLP violation ''per se'', but there's a dispute at [[Talk:Irakli_Garibashvili#Should_the_lead_image_be_changed?]], and reversion levels in the associated article that aren't past 3RR yet, but with four users, including myself involved, it would be good for a 100% uninvolved party to come in and douse some water on the situation. Cheers, <span style="font-weight:bold; color:SlateBlue;">[[User:Edward-Woodrow|<span style="color:SlateBlue;">Edward-Woodrow</span>]] • [[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|<span style="color:SlateBlue;">talk</span>]]</span> 12:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
== Dario del Bufalo ==
*{{la|Dario del Bufalo}}
The article is poorly sourced, with several claims not backed up by realiable and independent sources and it seems self-promotional. Its relevance should also be considered. Thank you. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/79.42.221.81|79.42.221.81]] ([[User talk:79.42.221.81#top|talk]]) 07:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Simon Ekpa ==
*{{page links|Simon Ekpa}}
Apparently this person has claims a nationality of a "government in exile" ([https://punchng.com/ipob-ex-nigerian-athlete-simon-ekpa-to-return-medal-gives-reasons/?utm_source=headtopics&utm_medium=news&utm_campaign=2021-09-12], [https://newswirengr.com/2021/09/12/ex-nigerian-athlete-vows-to-return-awards-medals-in-solidarity-with-ipobs-agitation/]) and a lot of users are commenting on the article's talk page asking for it to be changed. I am uncertain how to proceed. Do we allow self-identification of nationality or do we adhere to government documents! [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 18:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
:TBH I'm not sure his G in E is more than a website (it may be). But according to WP, a G in E is "a political group that claims to be a..." so it's not a high bar. I don't think nationality is something we generally do self-identification on. Also, not sure it's a lot of users, as in several people. The article has had some socking issues. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 21:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
::My general view is that people there are conflating two different things. Nationality simply refers to what nation a person is from, that is, where they are ''native'' to. "Nation" is more related to a specific land and its people than any government, per the definition. "Nation - (n.) a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory." It comes from the Latin ''nat'', meaning "born", combined with the Latin suffix ''-tion'', which alters it to mean the place or state where someone comes from. It let's the reader pinpoint the land on a map, but it's not an indication of any particular governmental affiliation. (This may be one of those things where the subtleties of the English language are being lost in translation. Non-native speakers of a language typical interpret things very literally, so maybe explaining it clearer will help.) [[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 01:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
:::[[MOS:NATIONALITY]] says that "in controversial or unclear cases, nationality is sometimes omitted", so an editorial decision ''could'' be made to omit Ekpa's nationality given that he apparently rejects it. I have no opinion on whether it ''should'' be omitted. I'm pretty sure that his nationality ''shouldn't'' be listed as Biafran given that Biafra ceased to exist 15 years before he was born. [[User:Caeciliusinhorto-public|Caeciliusinhorto-public]] ([[User talk:Caeciliusinhorto-public|talk]]) 09:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
== Nathan Leventhal, Bio ==
The photograph accompanying the above "biography" , has an error, in the description of "Southhampton",-- The photo refers to a suburb of London, England, NOT Southampton, N.Y., which it should be. This is my only attempt at "editing" ANY WIKIPEDIA entry, so I hope this gets to the correct person to correct it. I have NO affiliation to this individual, his family, nor anything this person has done, or said in his life. I simply am making a notice of an incorrect photograph, inside of a persons' history. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/65.35.132.173|65.35.132.173]] ([[User talk:65.35.132.173#top|talk]]) 00:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Hi there, and thanks very much for bringing this to our attention. However, our article doesn't have a photo. I think what is happening is that you're seeing this on google or some other search engine. Search engines use algorithms to search for any relevant images to show the reader, but they don't always get it right and often end up showing a photo of someone completely different. Maybe there is no online photo and it just found something with a similar name. Whatever the case, we have no control over what google does, so you would have to contact them to report any problems. Thanks. [[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 01:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)'
|
New page wikitext, after the edit (new_wikitext) |
'{{short description|Wikipedia noticeboard for discussion of biographies of living people}}
<noinclude>{{Pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>{{/Header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| archiveheader = {{NOINDEX}} {{archivemainpage|WP:BLPN}}
| maxarchivesize = 290K
| counter = 353
| minthreadsleft = 1
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| algo = old(9d)
| archive = Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
}}
== [[Javier Milei]] ==
There is currently an NPOV discussion on the [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Javier_Milei|NPOV Noticeboard]].
:Whatever discussion there was is long finished, no new comments since 6 September. Commenting so that the archive bot does its thing. [[User:Madam Fatal|Madam Fatal]] ([[User talk:Madam Fatal|talk]]) 17:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
:The discussion may have been finished, but on looking at the article I can't help but think that it still very much needs attention, particularly since this person is the leading candidate in Argentina's upcoming elections. [[User:Ostalgia|Ostalgia]] ([[User talk:Ostalgia|talk]]) 21:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
== [[Priya Venkatesan]] ==
{{archive top|Deleted. No outstanding BLP concerns remain. [[WP:NAC]]. [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 21:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)}}
Please delete this page since it contains inaccurate, misleading, defamatory and biased information on the person the subject of the biography. The following links accurately represent my public image, as a prominent stakeholders in the precision medicine and oncology community. I am an elected member of prestigious medical societies: the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer. Additionally, I have many publications that received notable recognition from the scientific and medical community.
http://www.haysdocumentationspecialists.com
LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/in/priya-hays-60866025/
Advancing Healthcare Through Personalized Medicine Second Edition: https://www.springer.com/us/book/9783030800994
Twitter post of ASCO Connection mention of Second Edition posted by Springer: https://twitter.com/SpringerClinMed/status/1486036036018917377
Book review of Second Edition by Doody’s Medical Books Reviewer:
http://www.doody.com/dej/PublicTitle.asp?ISBN=9783030800994#Title
Research Features edition of Advancing Healthcare Through Personalized Medicine https://researchfeatures.com/documenting-dramatic-evolution-personalised-medicine/
ASCO Post Book Review of Second Edition:
https://ascopost.com/issues/may-25-2022/a-second-edition-adds-new-value-to-personalized-medicine/
Cancer Immunotherapies: Solid Tumors and Hematologic Malignancies: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-96376-7
Precision Oncology article (on page 98)
Open Access Government (pagesuite-professional.co.uk)
I am kindly requesting that you delete this biography page or delete the current content and replace with this accurate information. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Priya.hays|Priya.hays]] ([[User talk:Priya.hays#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Priya.hays|contribs]]) 16:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I have nominated this article for deletion due to [[WP:BLP1E]] concerns (see [[WP:Articles for deletion/Priya Venkatesan]]). [[User:S0091|S0091]] ([[User talk:S0091|talk]]) 22:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
::{{ping|Priya.hays}} Hello Priya, are you there? The deletion discussion (linked above) could use your input according to comments there. Cheers! [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 05:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
== Emily Austin and Emily Austin Perry ==
Last time I brought up [[Emily Austin (journalist)|Emily Austin]] redirecting to [[Emily Austin]] instead of [[Emily Austin Perry]] it went down like a lead balloon. I fought the good fight and when the motion got resoundingly beaten, I accepted that decision. No problem.
I'm only writing now because twice in the last couple of weeks, there were considerable spikes in page views to [[Emily Austin (journalist)|Emily Austin]]. 9,738 on September 2 and 12,065 on September 16. Does this in any way change things vis a vis who [[Emily Austin]] should redirect to? [[User:MaskedSinger|MaskedSinger]] ([[User talk:MaskedSinger|talk]]) 19:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
:IMO this is one of the consistent errors of RM -- titles are navigational aids, not statements of something's value, and because Wikipedia is a living document it is a feature rather than a bug if navigation methods change routinely as their targets ebb and flow. Having said that, 1. by prior experience with RM this is still extremely unlikely to get through, 2. this is technically the wrong forum, and 3. in practice the least bad solution for a lot of these is to propose a disambiguation page rather than a primary topic. [[User:Vaticidalprophet|<b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b>]][[User talk:Vaticidalprophet|<b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b>]] 19:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
::Thanks for responding. I looked at the noticeboard for page moves and its only for requested moves. I wasn't going to go through process again unless people thought there was merit in doing so. Where is the correct forum to write post this?
::My point then and now is that you have someone who is known as Emily Austin vs someone who sometimes is referred to as as such. For 100+ years, Emily Austin Perry was the most notable Emily Austin, but I would counter that in 2023, she isn't. If everyone else disagrees, fair play :)
::All I'd like clarification on, is at what point, this could change? I won't bring this up again till that happens. [[User:MaskedSinger|MaskedSinger]] ([[User talk:MaskedSinger|talk]]) 19:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
:::I agree Vaticidalprophet that there's a big difference between proposing a disambiguation page vs a redirect so when will depend on a lot on which one you're asking about. This case is somewhat complicated, Emily Austin Perry is clearly a way more significant figure in terms of long term significance frankly if you want to put it in numerical terms by at least one order of magnitude than Emily Austin the journalist is. This is tempered by the fact Emily Austin Perry has multiple names. But still this extreme difference in long term significance means that any proposal to make Emily Austin the primary topic is only likely to succeed if Emily Austin gains that long term significance which is likely to take many years at a minimum barring something extraordinary. You won't need something quite so extreme for a disambiguation page, but still some indication that this is is someone of wide interest e.g. coverage over a longer term and in sources which are more selective in what they cover would likely help. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 09:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
::::Thanks for your very thorough answer. I really appreciate it. So the spike in views doesn't change a thing and thus there is nothing to do here now. [[User:MaskedSinger|MaskedSinger]] ([[User talk:MaskedSinger|talk]]) 16:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::BTW, while not relating to living persons, I've often considered [[Java]] a good example of the complexities of what is the primary topic for an article. I think for the entire life of the articles [[Java (programming language)]] has gotten more views than [[Java]] which is (and has generally been) our article on the island. Currently it's [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Java_(programming_language)&action=info 143,468] vs [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Java&action=info 52,464] over 30 days and at least so of those 52k were likely people wanting to go to the programming language article or somewhere else (whereas probably very few people ending up on the programming language wanted to go elsewhere, except maybe a few for [[Java (software platform)]] or [[JavaScript]]). And I think the view counts have had a bigger differences in the past. I'd actually hardly be surprised if at least in the early days of our articles, more people also wanted to go to [[Coffee]] or something related to that rather than the article on the island. However whenever it's come up, the consensus has generally been strongly against the programming language being the primary topic, and fairly against even Java being a disambiguation page. (There have been some cases when the situation was changed but I think these were all fairly unilateral moves.) Editors just fundamentally disagree that an island of 152 million people, currently the world's most populous island, should be anything other than the primary topic. (Noting also the names of pretty much everything else came from the island one way or the other.) While the issues when you have two humans are obviously not going to be the same I think it does illustrate why for better or worse, editors may not just take view counts or what readers are looking for as the ultimate arbiter. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 13:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::I get what you're saying and it makes sense. I'm not sure if you read it, but the point I was making in the [[Talk:Emily_Austin_(journalist)| original discussion]] was that I can't imagine anyone is searching for a minor personality from 150+ years ago.
::::::On top of this is the fact that I don't understand the conflict - Emily Austin Perry is Emily Austin Perry. Emily Austin is Emily Austin. So if anyone is looking for Emily Austin Perry, this is what they'd search for. Surely a person who is current and relevent and who is called Emily Austin would trump one of the 30 names Emily Austin Perry is referred to.
::::::Additionally, if you look at pageviews for [[Emily Austin Perry]] you will see 2 recent spikes and these are due to the times that people were looking for [[Emily Austin (journalist)|Emily Austin]]. So it's clear who people are looking for. If it was the case you brought up where you're talking about a country fine, but here we have 2 people. Hopefully common sense will prevail. [[User:MaskedSinger|MaskedSinger]] ([[User talk:MaskedSinger|talk]]) 17:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
== When is it ok to hyperlink [[Far-right]] in BLP ==
I have a concern related to linking [[Far-right]] (also linked as [[far-right politics]] within a BLP. I'm posting here to get editor thoughts. A typical example can be seen here where we state that sources have called a US politician "far-right".[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauren_Boebert#Tenure] There is no dispute that media sources have called Lauren Boebert "far-right". My concern is our definition of "far-right" clearly associates the term with Nazism in the third and fourth sentence of the lead as well as with a lead picture that includes the Nazi flag. While we can clearly see that the sources use "far-right", in most cases we don't know what they mean by far right. MOS linking [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#General_points_on_linking_style] notes that we should be careful when using hyperlinks, "link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author.". Clearly we aren't linking within a quote when saying "sources call [person] [[far-right]]". However, we are implying that our definition corresponds with their intent. The problem is "far-right" (and other similar terms) can cover a range. A "far-right" US politician might be described as such because they are a strong supporter of gun rights ("guns for all!") and strongly oppose illegal immigration ("deport all illegals"). This would be especially true if they are part of a group of hardliners who frequently hold up bills to get what they want. That doesn't mean they are in any way shape or form related to Neo-Nazis. However, a hyperlink to [[far-right]] does imply the association. Something similar is true on the left where someone like Bernie Sanders or AOC may be called "far-left" but we wouldn't reasonably associate them with Maoist or Stalinist type communism. Is there a good way to handle this? Should the Neo-nazi etc associations in the [[Far-right]] article lead be toned down? Perhaps made more like the lead of [[Far-left]] which has fewer obviously negative associations. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 15:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:Whenever use is appropriate linking is appropriate, the exception is quotes which should in general not contain links that the original quote does not. Also a note that we don't use "far-left" in either the Sanders or AOC articles because we lack reliable sources which refer to them that way, not other concerns. Perhaps a better example would be subjects who actually are far-left? [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 15:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lauren_Boebert&diff=prev&oldid=1176714319 "This shouldn't be linked since we don't know that the people who call her far right agree with the Wiki definition which includes neo-nazism. This is similar to why we don't include hyperlinks in quotes"]. Lol, no. This "rule" does not exist. [[User:Zaathras|Zaathras]] ([[User talk:Zaathras|talk]]) 16:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::You are correct this "rule" doesn't exist. However, I'm arguing that the same thinking that resulted in the MOS section I quoted should apply in this situation. You are free to provide a logical reason why you think I'm wrong. Dismissive "lol" type replies should be kept to user talk pages. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 16:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
{{cot|Discussion about a possible canvassing violation that has devolved into back and forth arguing. {{u|Springee}}, in the future please ping someone from the discussion, or note that you've alerted someone in the discussion and explain the reason for the notification to avoid canvassing concerns. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 00:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)}}
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bill_Williams&diff=prev&oldid=1176723385 This] is also a pretty blatant [[WP:CANVASS]] violation, and may have to go to [[WP:AE]]. [[User:Zaathras|Zaathras]] ([[User talk:Zaathras|talk]]) 16:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::It might be canvasing if this was a RfC or similar question. I pinged the editor in question because they raised the exact point I am asking about here. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 16:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:::If thats what you wanted to do you should have pinged Bill Williams in your question with a link to them raising this exact point. Canvassing was not the answer, its just misleading to everyone who comments in good faith because you haven't been transparent with us. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 16:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::::It isn't canvassing and Zaathras's bad faith accusation speaks more to their own POV rather than to the issue at hand. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 16:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::Next time ping them in the question on the noticeboard and link to where they've raised this point. Then it won't look like canvassing, which this completely does. Are you in the process of notifying the other editors who had opinions about this in that discussion or was that your only notification? [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 16:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::This discussion is off topic. {{u|Bill Williams}} specifically mentioned this issue a while back so I notified them as the discussion may be of interest to them. Canvasing doesn't apply when we are having a generalized discussion vs trying to make an article level change. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 16:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I appreciate that there may be some sort of misunderstand here but canvassing applies to all discussions. If thats the only person you meant to notify then it absolutely was canvassing and you owe Zaathras a pretty massive apology for your baseless allegations of editing in bad faith. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 16:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Again this is off topic. Zaathras's opening dismissive comment doesn't reflect a good faith attempt to address my question. Instead it can reasonably be seen as an attempt to derail the discussion. I don't agree my notice to BW was a violation of canvasing and to come out with such a strong accusation first rather than just asking on my talk page strikes me as a second accusation of bad faith. None of this off topic discussion is addressing the question at hand. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 17:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::You solicited the opinion of a linked-minded participant of a past, similar discussion. That is canvassing. Period. [[User:Zaathras|Zaathras]] ([[User talk:Zaathras|talk]]) 20:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::Please review WP:AGF. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 21:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Zaathras's opening "dismissive" comment was precisely on point: we follow what reliable sources say. Whining about being disagreed with is unbecoming, as is responding with "Please review WP:AGF" when someone points out that you have run afoul of behavioral guidelines –– especially right after you yourself have claimed that your opponent's effort to engage with you {{tq|doesn't reflect a good faith attempt to address my question}}. This is all kinds of messy, Springee. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 21:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::Zaathras is welcome to say they disagree with my concern and provide a reason why. They did not. "Whining" about canvasing etc when this is an open discussion isn't helpful. Zaathras might have honestly been concerned about canvasing and could have said so in a good faith way. Your comment about "following what sources say" suggests that you have missed the question. At no point has anyone, myself included, suggested that we not include a DUE comment like "sources say [person] is far-right". I assume you don't mean that the cited sources include a hyperlink to the Wikipedia [[far-right]] article. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 22:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::This is how Wikipedia works. If sources reliably call someone "far-right" then we include the term and wikilink it so that readers can easily learn more about the topic. You may not like that this means Boebert is conceptually associated with other far-right things like Nazism but that's not up to you. See Rhododendrites' comment below. This isn't complicated. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 23:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::"Zaathras's opening dismissive comment doesn't reflect a good faith attempt to address my question." and "Please review WP:AGF." don't really go together... You can't stamp all over AGF and then demand that others adhere strictly to it... Thats a double standard and a hypocritical one at that. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 23:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::That is a fair point. In return I will note that Zaathras opened with a less than good faith set of comments. It certainly is harder to assume good faith in return under such circumstances. That said, I'm open to appologizing for failing to AGF if Zaathras is willing to do the same. It would be good to stick to the concern, even if ultimately others don't agree. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 00:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I don't see the bad faith, but then again you don't see the canvassing so I guess we both have blindspots. I've said as much as I think is relevant on the topic, I'm not here to badger you and I'l take a seat to let other editors with different views have their say. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 00:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Wait a minute, you admit you wronged editor A, but will not apologize to editor A without a deal that editor B (who pointed out your error) apologizes to you for something? [[User:Objective3000|O3000, Ret.]] ([[User talk:Objective3000|talk]]) 00:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Umm... no. Zaathras joined the topic with a condescending reply and falsely suggesting I claimed some rule existed when I did no such thing. They followed with a clear, public accusation of canvasing. That is reasonable grounds on which to presume they feel I was operating in bad faith. It is certainly understandable that a reasonable editor may view those as less than good faith behaviors. This isn't a RfC where the ratio of !votes matter. This is like the recent ONUS discussions [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Onus] where getting a range of views is helpful. Another editor who has seen the same issue may have other examples (thus illustrating a wider issue) or different insights. Example excluded, this isn't an article specific concern so we can discuss it in general terms. So, no, the ping doesn't violate CANVAS and Zaathras was welcome to raise the concern on my talk page rather than here where it simply sidetracks the discussion. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 00:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Umm... yes. Springee, are you even aware that you have now spent more bits and bytes discussing ''me'' than you have spent discussing what you came here to, um, discuss? I think this pretty much concludes that your initial BLP filing is on such weak ground that you're no longer even trying to defend it. [[User:Zaathras|Zaathras]] ([[User talk:Zaathras|talk]]) 00:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
{{cob}}
:The crux of the argument would seem to be that the line at [[MOS:LINKSTYLE]] which explicitly concerns quotes should be applied to text outside of quotes because {{tq|we are implying that our definition corresponds with their intent}}. I'd disagree with the premise, except insofar as absolutely everything we write is indeed based on what someone else has written. As for the more general principle, we also call her a gun rights activist, linking to the article [[right to keep and bear arms]]. We link to that article even though it includes gun rights in Mexico, despite the fact that she has never (AFAIK) advocated for gun rights in Mexico. This is a less loaded <small>(pun acknowledged but not endorsed)</small> example, but just to say that many articles cover broad subjects with many dimensions, and not all of them have to apply. Any use of left/right labels provides a reductive summary of what someone's actual positions are, but it's a standard way to talk about it, for better or worse. Sources are typically going to call someone a "far-right politician" when they have expressed support for some ''range'' of far-right ideologies, not absolutely every single one of them. If the sources say someone holds "a far-right stance on immigration" that's not sufficient to call someone far-right without that qualification, but when someone (like Boebert) holds many such positions it should be unsurprising that she receives the broader label. Once that's established, linking is basic wiki style. — <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 17:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::+1 to this. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 21:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::In general I'm not opposed to such a hyperlink. However, I think we have a BLP concern when we even imply that a person is supportive or associated with neo-nazis. I do agree that we don't specifically claim that whom ever is using the "far-right" label is implying nazism but I think even the implication is a BLP issue. Perhaps the solution a better intro to [[far-right]]? [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 22:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
:::Perhaps things are fine the way they are? [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 23:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::::Perhaps. But if others have seen similar things perhaps this is a broader issues. I guess trying to figure out how to ask it in a broader way would have been helpful. There often seems to be a conflict when trying to ask a generalized question that people get hung up in the details of the specific example. Conversely, if you don't provide an example then people ask for one. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 00:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
:My impression is that this issue perennially arises because there is a conflict in how two different groups of people use this word. Experts in the fields of political science and political philosophy seem to define far-right as something rather similar to fascism, and our article on [[far-right politics]] seems to follow the lead of these fields (as it should). However, US journalists covering American politics seem to use it to refer to hardliners in the Republican Party who have staunch right-wing viewpoints, without necessarily meaning they advocate for a militaristic ethnostate or something. So yes, we always come back to the argument "well the sources say it, so should we", but at the same time we do typically recognize that journalists often make errors regarding the physical and biological/medical sciences, so why would social sciences be any different?
:All in all I'd suggest that we'd have less of these disputes if we only used such labels when academic sources (in relevant fields) use them and/or when a very high quantity or quality of news sources use them. And then the wikilink is of course fine. We'd want usage from respected and nonpartisan political analysis organizations, or experts in political science or political philosophy (perhaps reported on in the media), not just a handful of Vox thinkpieces, casual usages in an everyday news article about logjams in Congress or whatever, advocacy orgs like [[Media Matters for America]], and the like.
:None of this is to meant to be a specific comment on Lauren Boebert or any other specific scenario. I'm not that familiar with what she's up to and try to avoid having to hear too much about these people. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 23:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::This is a serious problem with political comments reported on Wikipedia. The terms ‘right-wing’ and ‘left-wing’ , ‘far right’ and ‘far left’, do not have any agreed meaning in the real world, and it is unrealistic (and arrogant) for Wikipedia to assume that when anyone uses the term e.g. ‘far right’ they mean exactly what is said in our article on the subject. Therefore, there should not be a link. I have no view on Lauren Broebert as such – this is a general comment. [[User:Sweet6970|Sweet6970]] ([[User talk:Sweet6970|talk]]) 12:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
:::Having an "agreed meaning" is not relevant to the discussion. Note that there was [[Talk:Lauren_Boebert/Archive_2#RfC_about_adding_%22far-right%22_to_the_lead|an RfC in 2022]], where the OP made the same (ultimately unsuccessful) argument they are making now. The closer did touch on the question of linkage to the article, but noted it, quote {{tq|"...is not a problem of the article about Boebert"}}. [[User:Zaathras|Zaathras]] ([[User talk:Zaathras|talk]]) 13:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
::::If an expression has no agreed meaning, then we cannot know what anyone means when they use the expression. Therefore, we don’t know that they mean the same as what is in our article. Therefore we should not link our article. [[User:Sweet6970|Sweet6970]] ([[User talk:Sweet6970|talk]]) 14:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
::::The closer also suggested that perhaps this may be an issue with the linked article. Please keep in mind that I'm only using these articles as examples. The issue of implied meaning is broader than just this example. Sweet6970 seems to get to the heart of the issue, "If an expression has no agreed meaning, then we cannot know what anyone means when they use the expression." [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 14:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|If an expression has no agreed meaning, then we cannot know what anyone means when they use the expression.}} I'm sorry but I find this to be the most outrageous form of pedantry. It can be said about literally anything. You have provided no evidence at all to suggest that there is any doubt as to what "far-right" means –– you've just tried to shift the burden of proof onto others. As a thought experiment: please prove to me that mathematicians and laymen mean the same thing when they say "circle" or "the number three", using only reliable sources. It's too bad that the Nazis have given all those other [[Donald_Trump#Racial_views|"very fine people"]] on the far right a bad name, but them's the breaks. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 15:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::A definite, narrow term like ‘the number three’ is not the same as a broad term like ‘right-wing’ ,‘left-wing’, ‘far-right’ , ‘far-left’. Speaking as a Brit, I have noticed that the political spectrum in the USA is completely different from the spectrum in the UK, so that ‘right-wing’ and ‘left-wing’ mean different things according to which country you’re talking about. [[Godwin’s law|And please do not make irrelevant comments]]. [[User:Sweet6970|Sweet6970]] ([[User talk:Sweet6970|talk]]) 16:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Speaking as an American who lived in the UK for many years, I do not agree that that is the case. There are of course differences, but "completely different" is an absurdity. That's why you see e.g. [[Far-right_politics#/media/File:Charlottesville_'Unite_the_Right'_Rally_(35780274914)_crop.jpg|European symbols of the far-right like the swastika at American far-right rallies]] –– and indeed, sometimes [[Modern_display_of_the_Confederate_battle_flag#/media/File:02019_1209_(2)_Nationalist_attack_on_an_LGBT_equality_march_in_Rzeszów.jpg|American symbols like the Confederate Battle Flag at European far-right rallies]]. And of course none of this is "irrelevant". [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 16:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
::With respect, Crossroads, I don't see this as a problem. Sure, people are always arguing about politics. But the solution is not to restrict sourcing only to academic journals in a field where coverage by academic journals is sparse. In practice this would lead to a huge number of articles about politicians missing key information about their political stances (in Boebert's case actually not, since she's high-profile enough to be discussed in academic work, and for the record often explicitly as "far-right" [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/13540688231157579][https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13183222.2023.2168959][https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3001369&_scpsug=crawled,11658,en_63dfac8980407a7f831beb0e0f29809fadc405841b8aa2d4f1f371f6ed71aff6][https://www.proquest.com/openview/686893856b02f3f12d6861b508fdbef3/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1975][https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/asj.21004.fun]). Secondly, I'm not convinced that there is a real difference between academic and journalistic understandings of the term "far-right". Just because most people are loath to be associated with Nazis doesn't mean that we should make an exception to the rule that we follow the best sources available, nor –– as has been suggested above –– that we should carve out some unique exception to [[WP:LINK]]. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 14:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
:::In fact, journalists do not use political terms in the same way and lack the expertise. That's why analysis by journalists is not considered rs in Wikipedia.
:::Remember when Lord Jeffrey Archer was speaking on CNN about the death of Princess Diana? America's major cable news outlet managed to mangle two titles in a major news story. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 15:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::::Your first point is simply incorrect. Nothing in [[WP:RS]] suggests that analyses by journalists are generally unreliable. They just need to be attributed. This is all made very clear in [[WP:NEWSORG]]. Repeatedly insisting that journalists use the term "far-right" differently from poli-sci experts without providing evidence is tiresome. I'm an expert and I have not found this to be the case.
::::Not sure how to address your comment about Jeffrey Archer speaking to CNN because it doesn't seem to me to be on-topic. Are you really suggesting that being an expert on the pomposities of the British caste system has anything to do with matters of practical importance? It's perfectly possible to understand that the British right are often royalists (though I would argue that this is not necessarily more pronounced among the British ''far'' right, for whom white supremacy and anti-immigrant sentiment really forms the central ideological commitment –– just as it does in the U.S.) without caring at all for such anthropological curiosities. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 16:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::Are you sure TFD is incorrect? That would imply that no RSs ever use a loose/non academic definitions of this or any other commonly used terms? Suggesting that some or even many reporters do stick with a clear, academically rigorous definition (do we have a copy of that definition) may be true. But you are suggesting that all sources, even ones like VICE and Mother Jones (to pick on a few) would use an academic definition at all times. That seems to be a stretch. Since you say this is an area you know outside of Wikipedia, what source you would point to for the definition and what evidence do you have that the definition is never used loosely? Also parallel examples like TFD's are on point here. While I opened this discussion with a specific concern related to [[far-right]], this certainly isn't the only example of a loose definition being used by non-experts. Consider a light hearted example, imagine an article that says, "may sources called the court hearing a [[circus]]". Perhaps tigers were on trial :) [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 17:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::TFD does appear to be incorrect. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 17:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Consider two possibilities and there relative likelihoods. One, that all reporters for all sources we would ever cite are going to cite have a strict and academically correct definition for any term that otherwise may be vague or imprecisely used in common speech. Two, that at least some sources we might use do not use a strict and academically correct definition at all times. Option two certainly looks more likely to me. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 18:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::::You can present an infinite amount of straw people for consideration, but consensus will only be reached when you contend with what other editors have actually written. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 18:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm hoping that we can find some balance where we call can win. I do see what is being claimed. The claim was that the media is always using the term within an academic definition. How would we prove that? Certainly there are other examples where the media isn't as careful with definitions. Firearms rights people love to point out failures to distinguish between magazines and clip or semi-auto and auto firearms. Why would we assume that reporters writing for sources with a clear POV are going to be precise in their choice of words vs picking terms that may have an emotional hook with their readers? [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 18:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::You appear to be exaggerating the claim that was made for dramatic or rhetorical effect. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 18:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::Thanks Horse Eye, and agreed. As I argued above, the burden of proof should be on those making extraordinary claims. In this case, the extraordinary claim is that journalists who are ordinarily considered reliable sources for reporting facts are too ignorant of what the term "far-right" actually means to be considered reliable when using it. Asking me to prove that this term is ''never'' used loosely is of course not the appropriate bar, and the example of a term like "circus" being used metaphorically entirely misses the point. Sources which describe Boebert as "far-right" are not doing so metaphorically, and we have no reason to suppose that they are at odds with academic usage. Indeed, I cited five examples above where academics describe her as precisely that. Since I now find myself repeating myself (and growing rather frustrated), I'm going to take this page off my watchlist for a while and step back from the discussion. I've made my position as clear as I can. If anyone would like to discuss with me in a more informal setting on my talk page they are welcome to do so. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 18:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::You specifically claimed expertise in this area. Are you saying that to say we should trust your word more than someone else's or are you saying that because you can provide some sort of evidence/data to back your views? Consider that the NYT warns we need to be careful about sources that mix reporting of fact with opinion of the writer [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/public-editor/an-uneasy-mix-of-news-and-opinion.html]. We generally trust reporters to convey facts. We also generally say opinions need to be left to subject matter experts. So should we trust that when a source uses a loosely defined term that they are using it in a strict sense? Or should we listen to the NYT and be careful about the mixing of opinion/subjective claims and facts? [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 18:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Did you just attribute the opinion of the independent Public Editor to the NYT in a complaint about mixing opinion with reporting? Does that seem ironic to you? [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 18:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Did the NYT run the article? The author does appear to have a background in the field ([[Margaret Sullivan (journalist)| Margaret Sullivan]]). [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 18:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::The Public Editor is an employee of the NYT, their job is to provide independent criticism of the paper... They do not speak for the paper and they don't publish articles they publish editorials (opinions). [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 19:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::Before I go, to briefly answer Springee's question about definitional sources, I'd suggest [https://ctmorse.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/global-vrwe-threat-and-response-mapping_think-piece_-final-17022022.pdf this recent report by the UK's Royal United Services Institute]. See the definitions on p.9, and e.g. this pertinent quote: {{talkquote|While South African VRWE [violent right-wing extremism] discourse is largely based on locally relevant narratives, especially in the last few years it also borrows from international narratives. In particular, US-specific issues such as libertarianism, gun rights, hostility toward mainstream media, anti-authoritarianism, and ‘MAGA’ (Make America Great Again) slogans and narratives have gained increasing traction in the South African VRWE space online. The close connections between VRWE online movements in the US and South Africa was also demonstrated by the fact that the blocking of social media accounts and communities engaging with QAnon conspiracy theories following the January 6 storming of the US Capitol also affected South African accounts and online discourse significantly.}} Anyone who tells you that the far-right doesn't operate as an international (or at least trans-Atlantic) movement isn't clued in to the relevant academic literature. Again, hit me up on my talk page if you have any further direct questions for me, including requests for additional bibliography. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 18:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::It is true that these terms mean something in political science but they have become extremely dilute in general sources. Perhaps a [[WP:POLRS]] in the image of [[WP:MEDRS]]… [[User:Barnards.tar.gz|Barnards.tar.gz]] ([[User talk:Barnards.tar.gz|talk]]) 15:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
We should link it when the term is used, and we should use the term when multiple reliable sources do so. I think it's important that the lead of the [[Far-right politics]] article continue to make it clear that the term refers to multiple possible associations but does not imply that each association must be true for the term to apply. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 15:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
:This to me is overlinking. The purpose of linking is to "increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand." Readers of [[Lauren Boebert]]'s article are not going to say, "Her political views are really interesting, I want to read about Hitler and Mussolini." Furthermore, we don't even know if that is what the sources meant.
:If you think her article should have a link somewhere to the political grouping she probably belongs to, I suggest [[Radical right (United States)]].
:[[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 17:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
::Which just brings us full circle because [[Far-right politics#Radical right]] is ~90% of the US section at Far-right politics. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 17:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
:::Then link it to [[Far-right politics#United States]]. I might point out that the radical right in the U.S. developed independently of the extreme right in Europe, has been studied separately and differs in a number of key areas. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 18:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
::::That is linking it to far-right politics, the question is about whether to link it to far-right politics or not... Not what section of far-right politics to link it to. We can do that second question after we've answered the first. If we dug up [[Henry Ford]] do you think he would agree that the the radical right in the U.S. developed independently of the extreme right in Europe? Note that they've been studied separately, but they've also been studied together. Yes its true that they've been studied separately, but you appear to be implying that they haven't been studied together which is untrue. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back|talk]]) 17:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::You're assuming that "Far right" is about a coherent topic rather than a hodgepodge of things that have been called far right. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 01:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::When we link a word to an article the assumption is that the article is about what the word means in the text. If it doesn't, then we are misleading readers, which should not be one of our objectives. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 01:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
:I am not going to try to fight from my angle that we should be waiting for years (at leat 10) before we start using labels in wikivoice, as I think as long as there is a sufficiently strong demonstration via a source survey that academics and most media sources routinely use the term that we are then good to use it - id just prefer to see far more caution here. But I will stand on the issue that calling that out in the first sentence of a BLP is very much inappropriate per NPOV's tone requirement. Take any politican that is in the more moderate range (liberals and conservative) and you never see the person's political leanings in the first sentence, though usually is included in the first paragraph. Calling out politicians as far right in wikivoice (when appropriate) in the first sentence creates an attacking tone for telhe rest of the article. We (as a whole) are far too focused on calling out these people for their negatives and as such struggle to write appropriate tones for them. That's a much larger concern. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 18:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::For interest: an opinion piece in today’s ''Guardian'' arguing that there is no agreed meaning for ‘centrist’ in British politics. [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/26/cuts-war-brexit-all-fuel-the-battle-for-the-centre-ground-but-no-one-really-knows-where-that-is] It ends: ‘{{tq|The UK is at a potential turning point, with most voters concluding that nothing works. In such a striking context, the media should stop applying the term “centrist” as if it is self explanatory. Meanwhile, no leader should depend on “the centre ground” as a reliable guide. “Centrists” do not agree on where they are, how they got there and where they need to turn next. They do not concur because there is no clearly defined terrain in politics marked “the centre ground”.}}’
::If there is no agreement, even in single country, as to where the centre is, there can be no agreement about what ‘far right/left’ means.
::[[User:Sweet6970|Sweet6970]] ([[User talk:Sweet6970|talk]]) 14:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
== [[Richard Eastell]] ==
Apologies - I am new to this and trying to understand how to resolve this article on my father (Eastell). The user that created the article keeps reverting people's changes, making it very skewed towards one investigation (in which Eastell was found innocent), and is consistently doing so without explanation.
As it stands, this page is harmful to Eastell and goes against Wikipedia's guidelines on Biographies of living persons in several categories - in particular:
- Guilty unless proven innocent: There are four "controversies", not one confirmation of a crime or misdemeanour having been committed (in one case the exact opposite)
- Neutral point of view: The way the article has been written since its creation is clearly trying to make Eastell look like a guilty party
- Further reading, External links, and See also: Again, Only negative things have been linked here - the first link only serves to attempt to make the subject look bad purely by its presence (he only appears in the references of the article and is not a subject), and the second link was someone Eastell was the whistle-blower on, yet it is placed there to make it look like he was involved alongside them (which is simply not the case). <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:AFrozenCookieMonster|AFrozenCookieMonster]] ([[User talk:AFrozenCookieMonster#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/AFrozenCookieMonster|contribs]]) </small>
:You're deleting material that meets our content policies, not least because it comes with sources that meet our guidelines. Blanking this material isn't going to stand. Please learn more about editing at Wikipedia, and then discuss on the article talk page, proposing the edits you have in mind and giving the reasons, in connection with our policies. Using the talk page (instead of editing the article directly) is especially important given that you have a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] with respect to this article. [[User:Nomoskedasticity|Nomoskedasticity]] ([[User talk:Nomoskedasticity|talk]]) 16:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
::Deleting this material is not good enough. You are blanking content which meets Wikipedia's guidelines. Please use the article's talk page instead and explain why this material should be deleted. ''[[User:FlutterDash344|<span style="color:yellow">Flutter</span><span style="color:#87CEEB">Dash</span><span style="color:#CBC3E3">344</span>]]'' ([[User talk:FlutterDash344|<span style="color:#680C07">'''''talk'''''</span>]]) 22:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
* I actually wonder if those first two paragraphs are not [[WP:UNDUE]] for what appears to have been a fairly minor issue. I am always concerned when a BLP on a subject that is notable for one reason ends up being a laundry list of "Controversies". I'm tempted to remove them. The last sentence is a bit of a nothingburger, as well. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 12:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
::I disagree pretty strongly that this is a "minor issue". Most academic researchers are ''never'' involved in incidents like this. There's a reason it ended up being covered in repeated stories in The THE (and covered also in a separate publication): it is in fact an ''unusual'' thing. Consider the components: Eastell published a study where the drug maker did the research/analysis while Eastell himself didn't have full access to the data -- and other researchers took the view that the study overstated the benefits. Meanwhile he didn't disclose limits on access to the journal. And, the GMC uses the words "untrue" and "misleading" claims to describe what he did. Again -- all covered by a series of THE articles. Where I agree with you is re the final paragraph/sentence; this seems like more of a minor dispute. [[User:Nomoskedasticity|Nomoskedasticity]] ([[User talk:Nomoskedasticity|talk]]) 12:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
:::I see you are the original author of this article (written in 2009) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Eastell&oldid=319492232]. The original article seem like nothing more than an effort to publicize an academic controversy. A web search of "Richard Eastell" (both general search and news search) doesn't turn up anything about this controversy in the top pages I looked at. Looking at the current article I'm not sure about the NOTABILITY of the person and the article raises serious BLP concerns given it suggests academic fraud is the primary notable factor. I would say they are only marginally notable and given more than half the article seems to be to emphasize what Black Kite noted to be a fairly minor issue (I tend to agree) it's probably best just to AfD the whole thing. If not then the controversy section needs to be removed and the related content cut way down. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 00:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
*I didn't read the whole article in detail but zooming out it does seem like something that results in a person leaving their academic position is likely DUE (or more correctly should be included per BALASP). However, the See Also tags that were restored look problematic to me. Both effectively state that the people involved committed academic fraud. It doesn't appear that the disputed edits state that as fact thus, for the same reason we wouldn't include a "BLPCAT:academics who committed fraud", we shouldn't include see also links that do the same. Also, the argument that the content meets our content policies based on sourcing is weak. Yes, it needs to meet WP:V but that doesn't mean it should be included per BALASP. We have a new editor who read the article and felt that the content in question, in effect, failed BALASP and BLP concerns (my read of their arguments). The responses here feel a bit too much like biting the newbie who's base read has merit even if they don't know the correct ALLCAPS words to reference in their arguments. The correct answer here is probably a middle ground between outright removal and status quo. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 13:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
*:Other than the controversies, all the information is from the University of Sheffield or a paper authored by Eastell. Based on that, he fails notability.
*:The controveries themselves are also non-notable. The Times Supplement story for example reported a GMC decision where Eastell was found "negligent" but not "deliberately dishonest." The GMC makes hears cases about doctors every day and they don't become notable unless they attract wide media attention.
*:The article should be deleted. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 01:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
:I have nominated the article for deletion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Eastell]]. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 15:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
== [[Elizabeth Berkley]] ==
I hope this is the right place to ask this. She has two different birth years 1972 and 1974. Here's a few newspaper articles from the 90s. They're dated May 1996, August 1996 and April 1998. And respectively list her age as 23, 24 and 25 which all match up to a 1972 birth year [https://books.google.com/books?id=c7wiAAAAIBAJ&pg=PA35&dq=elizabeth+berkley&article_id=4775,5937602&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwicidKkpMGBAxXnl4kEHalqBbM4ChDoAXoECAUQAg#v=onepage&q=elizabeth%20berkley&f=false][https://books.google.com/books?id=578zAAAAIBAJ&pg=PA52&dq=elizabeth+berkley+24&article_id=3682,3769538&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjFs4TvpMGBAxUPlIkEHdueAYAQ6wF6BAgLEAE#v=onepage&q=elizabeth%20berkley%2024&f=false][https://books.google.com/books?id=lwkFAAAAIBAJ&pg=PA15&dq=elizabeth+berkley&article_id=2815,425839&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjF8KShpMGBAxXmrIkEHb7oDmMQ6AF6BAgFEAI#v=onepage&q=elizabeth%20berkley&f=false]. And these were published at time where journalists were less likely to copy information from internet websites.
Also here's a Los Angeles Times magazine from the end of 2012 which says she had just turned 40 [https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-xpm-2012-jul-31-la-et-mg-elizabeth-berkley-baby-son-story.html]. Her high school yearbook is also on Classmates and she's listed as a senior of Calabasas High School in 1990[https://www.classmates.com/siteui/yearbooks/209654?page=38&searchTerm=elizabeth%20berkley].
The only thing I can find that supports 1974 and would probably be considered reliable is this interview from Newsweek which is dated April 2008 and where Berkley says she's 33[https://www.newsweek.com/qa-elizabeth-berkley-85945]. I don't wanna outright say that she's lying about her age, but that's not uncommon for celebs to do so. For instance, Octavia Spencer admitted she had been lying about her age up to until a few years ago. And while some celebs do graduate a year or two earlier, it's usually mentioned in other articles. And I can't find anything that says Berkley was 15/16 when she graduated high school.
Asking for a consensus on what should be done on her Wikipedia page? Do we either
A) Remove the birth year that's currently listed(1974) and put in a note saying that there's conflicting info regarding her birth year.
B) Put in both birth years and cite the sources.
or
C) Leave the 1974 in the article as it comes from the subject herself. [[User:Kcj5062|Kcj5062]] ([[User talk:Kcj5062|talk]]) 16:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
* Celebrities have regularly been found lying about their age, that's not unusual. People are not reliable sources for their own personal information. If there are reliable sources supporting 1972 (which there appear to be in this case), leave it in. If there aren't, leave the birth date out completely. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 16:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
*:It's a normal thing to do. I'm no celebrity but I round my age all the time for those that ask out of morbid curiosity. [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 19:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
* I agree with [[User:Black Kite|Black Kite]]. In an informational conflict, the [[WP:BLPSPS]] is a contentious source. OP's understanding of journalism in context is correct: they didn't check other sources, but took the subject's word for it, as is still done in most interviews. Because the BLPSPS sourced material conflicts and is contentious, it cannot support a later birth year, but the same sources may continue to support other prose. Cheers! [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 19:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
*:And on the other hand, you can't [[WP:SYNTH]] a birth date. Better to leave it out if you need to guess matriculation age and then do math on top of the reference to determine a birth year. [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 19:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
*::@[[User:Black Kite|Black Kite]]@[[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]]
*::Is there a way I can do a RfC here? There's an editor over at Berkley's page that seems pretty adamant about leaving the 1974 birth year up. [[User:Kcj5062|Kcj5062]] ([[User talk:Kcj5062|talk]]) 04:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
*:::Sorry, this is not [[WP:RfC]] so we shouldn't, can't, and hopefully don't RfC here. But at RfC they RfC, allegedly. [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 04:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
*:::Maybe open a request on the article talk page? [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 04:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
* I have removed the 1974 date as it is only sourced to a flaky celebrity website and, as the OP says, better sources suggest 1972. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 17:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Black Kite|Black Kite]]
*:Watch out for the user Quaerens-veritatem. He's pretty determined to keep the 1974 date up. He actually accused me of disruptive editing. [[User:Kcj5062|Kcj5062]] ([[User talk:Kcj5062|talk]]) 20:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
== Ben Aulich ==
{{archive top|[[WP:Articles for deletion/Ben Aulich|Deleted]]. No outstanding BLP concerns remain. [[WP:NAC]]. [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 03:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)}}
Can some people please check new article [[Ben Aulich]]? It contains many negative claims about living people and criminal cases and conduct, and I can't access the sources to check if it is a fair and due article respecting all aspects of [[WP:BLP]] (like [[WP:SUSPECT]] and so on), or a hit piece / one sided view. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 07:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:Seems to be written by someone close to Aulich, with a lot of citations that are more about his opponents that don't even mention Aulich. Maybe an attempt at synthesis. Not sure if this is a BLP1E. [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 17:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
::After review, I've nominated this for AfD.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ben_Aulich] [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 22:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]], it's straight up [[WP:ADVOCACY]] and [[WP:RGW]]. The material you removed gives that away. Google Britney Higgins or Bruce Lehrmann if you want to get an idea for the motivation for that article given that's the bulk of the material that you removed, which had nothing to do with the subject. It's a hit piece on Shane Drumgold. The stuff about referring to a respondent in a civil dispute as being prosecuted speaks to the loaded language being used. [[User:TarnishedPath|''TarnishedPath'']]<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]]</sup> 11:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
== Tommy Villiers ==
[[Tommy Villiers]] sent me an email about four hours ago to ask that the family tree be removed from his article. I believe this was admissible per [[WP:BLPPRIVACY]], seeing as its only sourcing was to specialist peerage books, but I wanted to check in just to be sure.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">[[User:Launchballer|<u style="color:#00F">Laun</u>]][[User talk:Launchballer|<u style="color:#00F">chba</u>]][[Special:Contribs/Launchballer|<u style="color:#00F">ller</u>]]</span> 05:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
:Your edit seems BLP-good to me. ''If'' there's a BLP-good source for it, maybe he can be mentioned at [[Villiers family]]. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 07:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
:Removing the family tree seems fine from a privacy perspective. Removing ''any'' mention of the Villiers family I pause at because of the image management implications -- the meme of the indie musician with rich/well-connected parents is well-known, and something people it applies to generally want to downplay. I see Grabergs disagrees, though, so just noting that for wider discussion. (This is of course assuming a usable source covers it.)
:Given [[Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 195#Words (Piri & Tommy song) (nom)|the DYK situation]], "Tommy Villiers sent me an email" makes me pause a little. I'm still AGFing about the cause of the articles, but are you in contact with Piri & Tommy? [[User:Vaticidalprophet|<b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b>]][[User talk:Vaticidalprophet|<b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b>]] 11:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
::I'm not necessarily against it, but I'd like to see BLP-good sources about Tommy Villiers the singer make the connection, not some OR:ish connection of dots. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 11:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
:::Piri I contacted in February to ask if she would consider donating images for her article, and I've been to one of her concerts and [[Template:Did you know nominations/Concert abuse in 2023|tried to attend another]]. This is the first time I've had anything to do with Villiers (he contacted me using the contact form on my website). I've had no further contact, all the articles were written entirely at my option (my autism means I write exclusively about special interests).--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">[[User:Launchballer|<u style="color:#00F">Laun</u>]][[User talk:Launchballer|<u style="color:#00F">chba</u>]][[Special:Contribs/Launchballer|<u style="color:#00F">ller</u>]]</span> 12:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
::::I think removing the tree was a good idea either way. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 12:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::I was using the one page of [[Debrett's Peerage]] available on Google Books preview for the immediate family, a copy of [[Burke's Peerage]] at [[Fulham Library]] to take me up to [[Thomas Lister Villiers]], and then a source about Lister Villiers to take me up to [[John Russell, 1st Earl Russell]]. Both peerage books are reliable per [[WP:RSP]], but I wonder if they both come under [[WP:DUE]] as they exist in no further reliable sources (well, thepeerage.com, but that's a self-published blog).--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">[[User:Launchballer|<u style="color:#00F">Laun</u>]][[User talk:Launchballer|<u style="color:#00F">chba</u>]][[Special:Contribs/Launchballer|<u style="color:#00F">ller</u>]]</span> 12:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::I think having the tree in there was probably [[WP:UNDUE]]. I'd consider those sources reliable, and I don't think it's [[WP:SYNTH]] to assert that he's a member of the [[Villiers family]] on those grounds (others would probably allow less latitude), but the fact that it's taken that much work to assemble the genealogy suggests to me that it's mostly a genealogical curiousity—out in the Oort cloud of younger sons of younger sons, where membership in the family hasn't brought them noticeable levels of prestige. (I brought his [[George Villiers (1759–1827)|great-great-great-great-grandfather]] to GA some years back; it makes a good read, if I do say so myself.) [[User:Choess|Choess]] ([[User talk:Choess|talk]]) 19:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
: Being a member of the Villiers family seems to be trivia, given how many generations they are removed from important/wealthy members of the family. I agree with the removal and there's no reason to mention it unless RS specifically make the connection. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 20:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
== [[Karen McCarthy Woolf]] year of birth ==
Please see [[Talk:Karen_McCarthy_Woolf#Removing_year_of_birth_from_Karen's_biography]]: should we remove this poet's reliably-sourced year of birth because her friend says she is "uncomfortable" with it? I've replied fairly negatively, but thought I'd best check here as I'm not familiar with such requests. [[User:PamD|<span style="color: green">'''''Pam'''''</span>]][[User talk:PamD|<span style="color: brown">'''''D'''''</span>]] 20:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
:Generally, we often give special consideration to subjects who request their birthdate be removed, and will often remove a full birthdate from an article upon the subject's request, because with identity theft and whatnot, it is considered a privacy issue by many, and we respect that. In such cases, we would generally use just the year instead. In this case, all we have is the year, and there is not as much of a privacy concern for that, at least from our perspective, but there may be some unforeseen reason the subject feels it is, and I would at least try to treat that with some weight and respect.
:The thing about birthdates is, it's really just statistical data, not much different from height, weight, eye color, favorite cereal, etc. Albeit, nice info to have when we can get it, nine out of ten times it really adds no useful information that the reader absolutely needs in order to understand the subject. In other words, most of the time the article will read just the same without it, so that's another thing to weigh. In some cases it's necessary to distinguish between people with the same name, but the question I would ask myself is, is the date really necessary or can we do without it? To help, BLPPRIVACY says that a birthdate should be found in multiple sources, which as I read it means not one, not a couple, not even a few, but ''multiple'' sources, such that we can reasonably infer that the subject is ok with us publishing it too. (If they did, at some point we'd expect they they would've contacted those sources and asked for the date to be redacted, which any good RS will do upon request.)
:So, in deciding this, I would have to weigh all those factors against each other and see which way the scale tips. It may be best to leave it, omit it, or simply narrow it own to a decade, such as the 1960s. However, the other issue we have is that the request comes not from the subject, but from some anonymous person claiming to be a friend, so that adds a whole new level of iffiness to the whole equation. I suppose in this case I would want to hear it directly from the subject before making any decision. [[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 22:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
::Ageism is definitely something that happens. I can imagine that the subject of a BLP looking for employment, romance, or an audience might not want it known that they are in their late 50s, etc. I have no idea whether this might apply in this case, but it should be considered in general. So, yes, I think there can be significant privacy concerns even for year-only birthdates. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 05:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
:The year seems ok per [[WP:DOB]]. We ''can'' remove it per [[WP:BLPKIND]] policy, it's editorial discretion where to draw the line in this case. I'm ok with removing it as a courtesy, but redacting is to far IMO. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 08:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
== [[Coco Lee]] ==
{{archive top|Behavior goes to [[WP:ANI]]. Especially legal threats, below. The BLP issues should be addressed on the article talk page. [[WP:NAC]]. [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 02:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)}}
Hi there. I’m not familiar with the procedure but I guess this is probably the right place to address the issue.
Please see:
[[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Competence_is_required]], the article’s talk page, and the page’s history. Thanks!
(missing signature for [[User:Dustfreeworld|Dustfreeworld]] ([[User talk:Dustfreeworld|talk]]) 21:52, 27 September 2023)
:Hi Dustfreeworld. Wasn't sure which one of you I was talking to at first. I get a much better idea of the dispute from the history than from either of those other two pages, but I do declare, that is quite a lot of history to go through. My suggestion when coming to boards like this is to try as clearly and concisely as possible explain what the problem is from your perspective, so we can go into it knowing what we're looking for. Remember, we're new to this dispute, so explain it like you're talking to a newcomer.
:The first thing I will note to everyone involved is that potential BLP violations should be removed from the article and not be restored until there is consensus to do so, not the other way around. With BLPs, it's far better to err on the side of caution, even if other parties feel (maybe rightfully so) that the info should be there, we need to reach a consensus before restoring it.
:Next, the article needs a lot of work to make it read like an encyclopedia article. Currently, it's more like part bio and part gossip column. I get really, really nervous when I see nearly every sentence supported by 3 to 5 or more refs. In some cases, two or three concurring refs are good for info that is likely to be disputed. People often have a tendency to think the more refs the better, but too many like that actually throws up a big red-flag for synthesis. Most times a single ref can support multiple sentences, entire paragraphs or even entire sections. There is usually very little reason to to use multiple refs for a single sentence unless y'all are combining them to come to a novel conclusion Let alone multiple refs for each and every sentence. It makes the whole article look like synth, even if it's not.
:Then, we seem to have a lot of really exhaustive details, especially surrounding her death and medical history. The extensive lists of medical information is worrisome in itself, because all of that needs extremely good, [[WP:MEDRS]]-compliant sources, which I doubt we have there. Encyclopedias are quick reference sources, which people can use to get a quick handle on a subject without being bogged down by all the intricate details. They're not supposed to be full novellas about the subjects. We're here to provide a summary of all knowledge, not all knowledge. The trick is being able to summarize it all into a relatively small and easily absorbed package, and in that it needs a lot of work. I don't have time for that right now, but what I would suggest is going around and viewing good articles on other celebrities, such as [[Kim Kardashian]], and note the differences in tone, formatting, brevity, and coherence. I hope that helps, and good luck. [[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 02:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
:Dustfreeworld should not have tied ANI into this. I posted there a couple of days ago because they had not engaged in the discussion starting on September 13 about sources for the cite check that they had initiated [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coco_Lee&diff=prev&oldid=1175232125][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coco_Lee&action=history]. In the mean time, they reverted the article and posted a template on my talk page. I understand the importance of concensus but they seemed to be ignoring good faith discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coco_Lee&diff=prev&oldid=1177225627]. The article's [[Talk:Coco Lee#September 2023 verification|talk section]] is where the content and sources are being explained. [[User:Vacosea|Vacosea]] ([[User talk:Vacosea|talk]]) 04:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
::User:Vacosea, please stop your continual and deliberate false accusations, which I perceived as <s>libels</s><ins>personal attacks</ins>. And please note that, as you have already been told (and you seem to be ignoring), potential BLP violations should be removed from the article immediately per [[WP:BLP]]. For those who want to know the truth, please see the reply I posted at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Competence is required|ANI]]. Thanks. --[[User:Dustfreeworld|<span style="color: navy">'''Dustfreeworld'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Dustfreeworld|talk]]) 19:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Dustfreeworld|Dustfreeworld]] I'm going to reiterate what I said on [[WP:ANI]] here: do not use words like {{tq|libel}} towards other editors on Wikipedia, as that can be considered a violation of [[WP:NLT|No Legal Threats]]. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 17:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
::::Absolutely no legal threats here. I’m not billionaire and definitely won’t spend money to take legal action on this kind of things ;) I’m just describing my feelings. Perhaps I should say “personal attacks” instead? --[[User:Dustfreeworld|<span style="color: navy">'''Dustfreeworld'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Dustfreeworld|talk]]) 17:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
== Roza Otunbayeva ==
Recent additions at [[Roza Otunbayeva]] might need a few more eyes on them, as they appear to be deliberate additions of negative content. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: darkgreen">''Thebiguglyalien''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color: sienna">talk</span>]])</small> 22:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
:The recent history indicates the following [[WP:BLP]] concerns: 1) [[WP:UNDUE]] discussions – whole subsections – of third parties (a meta BLP concern: even a Hollywood actor gets mentioned); and 2) [[WP:BLPCRIME]] accusations of wrongdoing that are not adjudicated as such. The negative prose is supported by an inordinate amount of background about third parties. That said, a politician being accused of rights violations as a member of government may be biographically significant if it's reflected in significant coverage by reliable sources. In my opinion, that threshold is met. It's a question of paring down all the prose, keeping reliable refs, to say the subject "was accused by international bodies and individuals of having committed several human and political rights violations and failures during her tenure." There's just very little room for it in her biography here. [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 00:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
== Allan R. Bomhard ==
{{courtesy link|Allan R. Bomhard}} [[User:Caeciliusinhorto|Caeciliusinhorto]] ([[User talk:Caeciliusinhorto|talk]]) 18:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Nature of dispute: I have had a biographical entry on Wikipedia going back at least to 2004. Once that entry got finalized, it remained essentially unchanged for the better part of two decades. That is to say, for the better part of two decades, no one questioned my scholarly credentials or the content of my biographical entry. Then, for no apparent reason, my biographical entry recently got changed. The earlier version was a short, FACTUAL description. The current version, however, is no longer factual. Instead, it is a rather biased, unflattering OPINION. I have requested that the earlier version (with some minor updates) be RESTORED. For details, please see the lengthy “talk” section associated with the entry, which appears to have reached an impasse. Consequently, I am resorting to the dispute resolution process to resolve this issue. I feel that this is important, not only for restoring the factual content of my own biographical entry, but also for Wikipedia itself. If this can happen here, it can happen elsewhere and to others, thus affecting the integrity of Wikipedia as a whole and raising the question as to whether Wikipedia can still be seen as a reliable, unbiased resource. Thank you. Allan R. Bomhard. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Arbomhard|Arbomhard]] ([[User talk:Arbomhard#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Arbomhard|contribs]]) 17:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
See [[WP:DRN]], where this discussion was moved from. [[User:NotAGenious|NotAGenious]] ([[User talk:NotAGenious|talk]]) 18:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
:The version of [[Allan R. Bomhard]] that Arbomhard prefers is an unsourced BLP. It was taken to AfD for that reason. The current version uses sources that meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability to describe Bomhard's scholarly contributions; the existence of these sources is what saved the article from deletion. The current version also omits the biographical details from the version that Arbomhard prefers, not because anyone wishes to suppress those details, but because we have no sources for them. If Arbomhard wishes any of those details to be restored, all we need is for reliable publications sourcing them to be supplied.
:If Arbomhard also wishes to suppress the scholarly published criticism of his work, that is a different issue. We also have many other published scholarly works by others about Bomhard's work that are listed in the article but not really used for its content (the reviews of his books). It is possible that our article's description of his work could benefit from expansion based on these other works, but Arbomhard might not like the result, as the ones I checked were somewhat negative.
:It is important here to keep in mind that, especially for topics that might be considered [[WP:FRINGE]], neutrality does not mean the suppression of all opinions; it means accurately reporting the consensus of mainstream opinion. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 18:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
::A dispute about this [[WP:BLP|BLP]] is also pending at [[WP:ANI]]: [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#COI_editor_Arbomhard]]. I advised bringing the issue about this BLP here, and advised waiting rather than filing at [[WP:ANI]]. One editor took my advice, and another ignored it; that is the way it is. I will point out that in Wikipedia a short description is only considered FACTUAL when it is attributed to [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 20:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
:::[[User:Arbomhard]] - You want the old version of your biography restored, but it was removed because it is unsourced. Can you provide sources that will support a version of your biography that is essentially the same as the previous version, but is sourced? If so, that can be considered. If not, not. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 05:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
::::I think we can be more positive: with [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], all of the material Arbomhard wants restored is non-problematic and can be included. The problematic part is that Arbomhard is requesting reversion of the entire article to that version, leaving ''only'' the biographical material and removing the criticism of his scholarship. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 06:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::Come on, David. A biographical entry should be just that. Criticism of my work on Nostratic properly belongs in the Wikipedia entry on Nostrattic (together with positive comments by qualified linguists). And yes, there is plenty of criticism to go around. I have always welcomed feedback, both positive and negative, and I have always tried to address concerns in subsequent versions of my work on Nostratic. [[User:Arbomhard|Arbomhard]] ([[User talk:Arbomhard|talk]]) 16:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
:{{ping|Arbomhard}} Robert McClenon & David Eppstein are right in saying that you need to provide reliable sources for any information that you want to add to the article, and I have nothing more to add on that point. I do think it is worth explaining, however, that you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works when you write that {{tq|Once that entry got finalized, it remained essentially unchanged for the better part of two decades}}. Wikipedia articles are never finalised: they are always open to change and improvement. The fact that nobody edited the article in nearly 20 years does not mean that it was fixed in that state forever; most articles which have not been substantively edited since 2004 are {{em|bad}} by the standards of 2023 Wikipedia and are in dire need of change! [[User:Caeciliusinhorto-public|Caeciliusinhorto-public]] ([[User talk:Caeciliusinhorto-public|talk]]) 09:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
:Please refer to the "talk" section under my biographical entry, where I clearly demonstrate the bias involved in the current version of my biographical entry, and I have demonstrated that the sources cited in the current version unequivocally do NOT (!) "meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability" -- one in particular is quoted out of context and attributed to someone who is neither a linguist nor a Nostraticist, though it is claimed that he is. It is both hypocritical and an embarassment, to put it bluntly, to hold this up as an example of "reliably sourced" information and then criticize me for not providing "reliably sourced" information to back up the claims made in the earlier version of my biographical entry. Moreover, I have offered to supply "reliably sourced" corroboration of the statements made in the earlier version (the one I prefer) of my biographical entry, but no one has yet stated what is actually required. I have also pointed out that my life is an open book and that any required sources are already freely available on the Internet. Check the information about me on E. J. Brill's web site, for example. I do not wish to suppress any published criticism of my work -- most of it is already freely available on the Internet anyway. However, I do object to the fact that supportive reviews of my work were not also included! This gives a very distorted picture, to say the least (for details, see the most recent additions to the "talk" section under my biographical entry). I agree that nothing is "fixed forever", and I have myself suggested several minor changes to bring the earlier entry up to date. I stated a fact when I claimed that "Once that entry got finalized, it remained essentially unchanged for the better part of two decades". This can hardly be disputed. When I said "got finalized", I was referring to the fact that there were very early versions of my biographical entry that were modified to the version that remained essentially unchanged for the better part of two decades, [[User:Arbomhard|Arbomhard]] ([[User talk:Arbomhard|talk]]) 15:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
::That a problem (an unsourced article) persisted for a long time (two decades) does not mean we can then never fix the problem. You can read about our sourcing requirements at [[WP:RS]]. You can list any sourcing that meets that standard at [[Talk:Allan R. Bomhard]] - either to support biographical details or to reference views of your work. If you do so, you should do so without focusing on other editors or attacking them - such attacks are a violation of our policies ([[WP:NPA]]). You're being extended leeway here because you're new and we know that changes to a biography can be upsetting to a subject, but there is a limit. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 15:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
:::Thank you. That is helpful. [[User:Arbomhard|Arbomhard]] ([[User talk:Arbomhard|talk]]) 16:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
:::As instructed, I have added links to reliable source material on the Internet on the talk page accompanying my biographical entry. As an aside, you are correct, I am new to this. It is not my intention to be rude, only to rectify what I see as an injustice (bias), and, yes, it is very frustrating when I try to correct that injustice and am met with resistence (what I have called "roadblocks"), some valid, some not so valid. Please let me know what else I can do. And, as I becoeme increasingly familiar with Wikipedia's protocols and requirements, including behavioral requirements, I will try to respect those requirements, though I may need a little help and patience here. I apologize if I have offended anyone. [[User:Arbomhard|Arbomhard]] ([[User talk:Arbomhard|talk]]) 17:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
== Oleksandr Yaroslavskyi ==
{{la|Oleksandr Yaroslavskyi}}
Can someone take a look at this and tell me if it looks entirely like a commissioned PR job to them as well? We've had plenty of those from that part of the world and looking at the article's history it looks like it has, for years, remained an unreferenced mess of weasel words and puffery to make an oligarch look like the second coming of Jesus Christ, with regular additions/removals/changes made by SPAs. I don't have time to try to fix the article (I could just butcher it, but it would be less than ideal), but if anyone could confirm my suspicions and, at the very least, put some appropriate tags and remove the more egregious bits, that would be a huge upgrade over what we have now. [[User:Ostalgia|Ostalgia]] ([[User talk:Ostalgia|talk]]) 07:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
:Fixing it would require a cleaver. There's almost nothing that can be remedied without blanking. Instead of treating this as a [[WP:BLP]] problem, have you considered [[WP:AFD]]? If you'll AfD, I'd advise not butchering. But if you won't, then by all means, your gripe requires you to use the cleaver. I've watched the article and will support if necessary. Cheers. [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 23:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
:* {{lafd|Oleksandr Yaroslavskyi}} after all. Cheers. [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 00:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
== [[Tarique Rahman]] ==
The two Wikipedia articles [[Tarique Rahman]] and [[A. Q. M. Badruddoza Chowdhury]] are wrongly pointing out that [[Tarique Rahman]] was the President of Bangladesh. No such references and citations exist either online or in hard copy either as this is a factually wrong information. [[Tarique Rahman]] was never the President of Bangladesh. [[Special:Contributions/103.131.80.155|103.131.80.155]] ([[User talk:103.131.80.155|talk]]) 12:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
:This was a recent unexplained change made by an IP user; I have reverted it. [[User:Caeciliusinhorto-public|Caeciliusinhorto-public]] ([[User talk:Caeciliusinhorto-public|talk]]) 13:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
== [[Banjska attack]] misinformation: Serb casualties ==
In the [[Banjska attack]] article infobox it says "6-10 killed" on the Serbian side but this is not true. It is based on outdated info and rumors and speculations.
[https://indeksonline.net/ekskluzive-trupat-e-dy-serbeve-te-vrare-ne-veturen-e-policise-se-kosoves/?mibextid=Zxz2cZ Citation number 1] says: "Four Serbs killed" [https://www.rferl.org/a/kosovo-police-officer-killed-serb-north-kurti/32606755.html This report from Radio Free Europe] says that reports of a fourth attacker dead were incorrect.
[https://shqiptarja.com/lajm/pergjaket-veriu-i-kosoves-burime-te-policise-se-kosoves-8-serbe-te-vrare-6-te-arrestuar Citation number 2] says 8 killed from "police sources" but it was as the event was happening (September 24)
[https://telegrafi.com/avokati-serb-stojkoviq-numri-serbeve-te-vrare-ne-sulmin-terrorist-ne-veri-shkon-deri-ne-10-ka-edhe-te-plagosur/ Citation number 3] is from a Serbian lawyer's tweet in which he predicts there might be 7 to 10 killed (September 25)
The most up to date information from reliable sources all state that three Serbs were killed (and one Kosovo police officer):
From [https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20230928-serbia-observes-national-day-of-mourning-after-clashes-in-kosovo France 24] 28 September: "Three Serb gunmen were killed in an hours-long firefight with Kosovo police"
From [https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/serbia-investigate-killing-policeman-northern-kosovo-vucic-2023-09-28/ Reuters] 28 September: "Three attackers and a Kosovo Albanian police officer were killed in the skirmishes."
From the [https://apnews.com/article/kosovo-serbia-clashes-raid-police-f671bd21560f60bdca72d2daf7ce50ef Associated Press] 29 September: "Kosovo police on Friday raided several locations in a Serb-dominated area of the country’s north, where weekend violence left one Kosovo police officer and three Serb insurgents dead"
From [https://www.dw.com/en/deadly-kosovo-clashes-spark-fear-of-escalation/a-66965912 Deutsche Welle] 29 September: "In the ensuring firefight with Kosovar security forces, three attackers were killed"
And there many more sources which can be found saying that just by googling.
Please someone help fix this incorrect information. I would do it myself but article is blocked from editing. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2605:8D80:6C2:86A:DDD:52BA:10FE:4EFF|2605:8D80:6C2:86A:DDD:52BA:10FE:4EFF]] ([[User talk:2605:8D80:6C2:86A:DDD:52BA:10FE:4EFF#top|talk]]) 18:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:[[Talk:Banjska attack]] is the proper place to present this evidence and make your case. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 19:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
== [[Duane Davis (gangster)]] ==
Recently in the news for obvious reasons. I am concered regarding inclusion of allegations by Davis that [[Sean Combs]]/Diddy ordered the hit on Tupac prominently in the lead of the article, which are not included at all in the [[Murder of Tupac Shakur]] article. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 22:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
:I don’t understand why it is not included in that article, it is not libellous, nor a biography of a living person so doesn’t need to be substantiated, and there are plenty of sources, including reliable media coverage [[User:Alexanderkowal|Alexanderkowal]] ([[User talk:Alexanderkowal|talk]]) 09:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
::[[WP:BLP]] does not just apply to articles that are directly about a living or recently deceased person. It also applies wherever living people are mentioned, even if the article is not about them. [[User:Lard Almighty|Lard Almighty]] ([[User talk:Lard Almighty|talk]]) 09:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
:::[[Sean Combs]] and [[Duane Davis (gangster]] are living persons. The policy on [[WP:V|verifiability]] is non-negotiable, so that anything in Wikipedia needs to be substantiated. If there are plenty of reliable sources, find one that is suitable for coverage of living persons. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 17:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
== Proper application of WP policies to [[Kevin Sorbo]] article? ==
A talk page discussion with one other editor, @[[User:Ramos1990|Ramos1990]], is approaching an impasse with respect to what content meets threshold-eligibility criteria for inclusion in an article on the public figure, actor [[Kevin Sorbo]].
I have not edited the article itself, and I do not believe they have edited it since the beginning of our discussion. Everything has been civil and the whole discussion can be found at [[Talk:Kevin_Sorbo#No_politics?]].
This editor's history more than demonstrates (to my satisfaction, at least) that they are here to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. I hope that my own history demonstrates the same.
My concern, as you will find detailed in the talk page, is that this editor is relying upon what I think is a misinterpretation of [[WP:NOTNEWS]] and [[WP:NOTGOSSIP]] in order to selectively exclude unflattering information about the subject—including even positions the subject has publicly professed and which have also been reported by independent media.
I link to their short edit history in our discussion.
Information added by third parties and supported by good sources that this editor has removed include two allegations of sexual misconduct, public efforts to undermine medical consensus on vaccines during a pandemic, and a public effort to present the breach of the U.S. Capitol as a false-flag operation.
The idea that such public positions are categorically excluded from Wikipedia on the grounds that Sorbo is notable only as an actor (who is not running for office—''their example'') seems to me a strong misreading of the relevant Wikipedia guidelines.
We would both be grateful for any input from a third party more knowledgeable about the relevant policies governing biographies of living persons.
Many thanks for your consideration –
Cheers, [[User:PatrickJWelsh|Patrick J. Welsh]] ([[User talk:PatrickJWelsh|talk]]) 02:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
:Just wanted to add some context. The content under discussion is not being "selective" but that some editors (usually IPs) are adding content that is seemingly for defamatory purposes only such as that Sorbo was somehow against vaccination when in reality he himself was vaccinated. Other strong accusations require strong sourcing (which other editors reverted through the years by the way), not weak sourcing. Wikipedia entries should be encyclopedic - not everything online about a person belongs on wikipedia - this is respected in general for many biographies of other public figures. Much of the issue revolves around sources that react to tweets or barely mention Sorbo, not comprehensive sources.[[User:Ramos1990| Ramos1990]] ([[User talk:Ramos1990|talk]]) 05:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
::I'm not going to look into this myself but to state the obvious, some anti-vaxers have received at least some vaccinations themselves. Anti-vaxers include people with a wide variety of unscientific believes about vaccinations from complete opposition to a variety of unscientific claims about certain vaccinations or vaccination components. So if Kevin Sorbo has received some vaccinations this probably should be mentioned if sourced but it doesn't mean he isn't anti-vaccination. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 11:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
:Just to share on this board the one comment this post has elicited on the article talk page:
:::Thanks for the post on the noticeboard.
:::I agree with Ramos1990, Emir of Wikipedia, Ponyo, and Blablubbs on the sexual misconduct removal for very poor sourcing and potential WP:SYN on one of them. Much stronger sources are needed and I could not find any online. No issues were ever raised legally or seriously by either women. No recent updates at all on this either. [[WP:BLPREMOVE]] applies here.
:::In terms of the politics stuff, it does not seem like much of the content is relevant to the article. Much of the sources revolve around commenting on Sorbo's tweets - which can be taken out of context and slanted by any source. I agree with Ramos1990 in that not everything that is published on a person belongs on Wikipedia. His views on vaccines are not relevant anymore. The pandemic is gone and since he did get vaccinated to do filming in another country, it makes no sense to use Wikipedia to spread such content per [[WP:BLPGOSSIP]].
:::In terms of political views, everyone has one and everyone has an opinion on every topic. But that does not mean it belongs on Wikipedia. It can be challenged and removed either way since it is true that political affiliations do change and is a private matter. Even if reliable sources exist, that does not mean it belongs in the biography of a person. From what I looked at, Sorbo is barely mentioned in passing on the source for CPAC and for the other stuff like his opinion on the vaccine stuff, it is all based on his tweets and end up being opinion pieces than true journalism. These are not news. I am sure you can find actors commenting on almost any topic from natural disasters to political candidates especially through twitter, but much of this is not relevant to the biography and requires higher quality journalism than opinion pieces.
:::We should really strive for better sourcing and better relevance when controversial matters are being considered on a biography page. We do not want Wikipedia to contribute to defamation or misinforming about an individual if we can avoid it. It should contain neutral content too.[[User:Desmay|desmay]] ([[User talk:Desmay|talk]]) 19:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
::::<p>The pandemic isn't over or gone but either way whether it's over is largely irrelevant to anything. If Kevin Sorbo was spreading nonsense about vaccines and this was well covered in reliable secondary sources then this is likely something we should mention no matter what's going on with COVID-19. Also as I said before, the fact Sorbo eventually got vaccinated is largely irrelevant. In fact, if Sorbo was trying to kill people with his tweets, and then got vaccinated himself for work; this if anything may be an even greater reason why sources may call him out for it. Ultimately the key thing that matters is coverage in reliable secondary sources. </p><p>Sorbo is only really noted as an actor rather than for any medical expertise, so there's less reason to add other random crap he said, no matter how harmful per [[WP:UNDUE]]. But if it's well covered in reliable secondary sources, especially secondary sources from after those tweets indicating long term significance, then yes this is something we're likely to cover since it's no longer [[WP:UNDUE]] as reflected in the sources. No matter whether people want to believe nonsense about the pandemic being over or eventually getting vaccinated somehow excuses any harm Sorbo did to others by his tweets. </p><p>One thing I would agree one is we do need quality sources. Looking at this [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Sorbo&diff=prev&oldid=1160509466], the sourcing for the vaccine thing was Huffington Post which isn't a great source for this kind of thing, and appears to be from the time of the event so a double whammy. </p><p>But I noticed something else there. We included some nonsense Sorbo talked about Hollywood disliking christians sourced only to Fox News, a source known to be problematic for politics which this clearly is. I looked some more and found further nonsense sourced to Daily Express. WTH? I can understand why the OP has concerns when people are removing stuff sourced to La Times while leaving stuff sourced to Fox News and Daily Express! A cleanup of all nonsense in the article may help reduce the OP's concerns. I removed the two obvious standouts but I expect there is more. </p><p>[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 12:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)</p>
:::::Hi @[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]],
:::::Thanks for chiming in! However, if material sourced to Fox News and the Huffington Post is not up to standard, then about 80% of the article needs to be deleted. (See [[Kevin_Sorbo#References]].) He's just not famous enough to be covered by mainstream news outlets. But in some circles, at least, his social media presence is considered notable. Would something like this [https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-hercules-kevin-sorbo-became-a-bizarre-lib-bashing-trump-troll] from the Daily Beast be enough of a source to establish that?
:::::My proposal was to include the (to many people) unflattering information repeatedly removed by other editors on the grounds that this is at least as notable and sourced as the other material, rather than to remove everything not sourced to major media outlets. As far as the NYTimes, the AP, or NPR are concerned, Sorbo is basically a non-entity. But I'm assuming this does not matter to folks who non-accidentally find themselves at his Wikipedia bio.
:::::For background, the reason I went to the article was to see why Sorbo was hired as a spokesperson for an advertisement aired multiple times on the right-leaning Rumble's livestream of the second GOP primary debate. The article did not answer that, but a news search on his name turned up and abundance of material that did. Pretty much all of the coverage, though, is in tabloids or highly partisan sources. See, e.g., the results here [https://news.google.com/search?q=kevin%20sorbo] or at the search engine of your choice.
:::::I would welcome further comments from you or anyone else on how best to approach this.
:::::Cheers, [[User:PatrickJWelsh|Patrick J. Welsh]] ([[User talk:PatrickJWelsh|talk]]) 17:01, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
:[[User:PatrickJWelsh|Patrick J. Welsh]] ([[User talk:PatrickJWelsh|talk]]) 23:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::I agree with Nil Einne - ''"Sorbo is only really noted as an actor rather than for any medical expertise, so there's less reason to add other random crap he said, no matter how harmful per WP:UNDUE."'' The sources being used should be much higher quality and should explicitly detail, not just mention some any effects of his random tweets. No reliable source has claimed that his tweets are doing damage to the public. That would be an interesting piece indeed. I have not not seen one that does such a thing. Most are op-ed or poorly written non-journalism articles. He generally does not make a splash in the headlines. And [[WP:UNDUE]] does apply here. We need higher quality sources than just random little articles showing tweet wars. In general tweet and tweet-related articles are a very poor sources for wikipeida. It is not even journalism and look very amateurish and sloppy. Since Patrick Welsh kind of confirmed that - ''"Pretty much all of the coverage, though, is in tabloids or highly partisan sources. See, e.g., the results here [31] or at the search engine of your choice."'' then, per [[WP:NOTDIARY]] we should weigh the relevance of material being presented as it says ''"Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overly detailed articles that look like a diary."''[[User:Ramos1990| Ramos1990]] ([[User talk:Ramos1990|talk]]) 17:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Hi @[[User:Ramos1990|Ramos1990]],
:::::::Thanks for continuing to follow this! Would you mind elaborating your views on what, in this case, counts as an adequately good source? Because, as I state above, the standard that @[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] suggests would require deleting almost all of the article, which I think would be a disservice to readers.
:::::::I am fine either way, but the standard should be consistent between positive and negative coverage with respect to [[wp:undo|do or undo]] coverage. After all, that he consistently tweets the way that he does is not (I don't think!) in dispute. (Just see [https://twitter.com/ksorbs] and jump around in the history as you please.)
:::::::Tweeting vaccine misinformation to 1.8 million followers very possibly has lead to easily avoidable deaths. I do not think, however, that the article should speculate on this. Readers can make their own connections.
:::::::Finally, it is important to distinguish using Twitter as a source (which it almost never should be) and reporting on statements (or a pattern thereof) made by a public figure on the Twitter/X platform.
:::::::Cheers, [[User:PatrickJWelsh|Patrick J. Welsh]] ([[User talk:PatrickJWelsh|talk]]) 18:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
== Andrea Montanino ==
*{{la|Andrea Montanino}}
The page is poorly reference and clearly self promotional <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/62.4.151.195|62.4.151.195]] ([[User talk:62.4.151.195#top|talk]]) 15:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Simon Hooper ==
During the Tottenham v Liverpool football match 30/9/2023 someone edited this man's page to put abusive language about him in Polish. What initially shocked me was that they originally referred to him as a Jewish referee although that word was quickly removed by somebody.
I haven't edited this page because I believe Wikipedia should see the abuse and find out who the offender was and take very strong action against them. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Trevorius|Trevorius]] ([[User talk:Trevorius#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Trevorius|contribs]]) 17:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:The vandalism has been cleaned up but this article still isn’t acceptable, as about 80 percent of it is devoted to two controversial incidents he’s been involved with during the current season, which is [[WP:UNDUE]] for someone who’s been a top class referee for five years. There ought to be other material in reliable sources that could be used to make it more balanced. [[User:Neiltonks|Neiltonks]] ([[User talk:Neiltonks|talk]]) 12:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
== [[WP:SUSPECT]] and [[QAnon]]-adjacent POV at [[James Gordon Meek]] ==
The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Gordon_Meek&oldid=1177989399 current state] of this article speaks for itself. The person covered in it is a former senior journalist from ABC News who was recently prosecuted and convicted for child pornography charges (see [https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/james-gordon-meek-abc-news-producer-sentenced-prison-1234835726/ here]). The article is now littered with irrelevant factoids, QAnon-adjacent [[Dog whistle (politics)|dog-whistles]] and unreliable sources, including two explicitly pro-Pizzagate sources (a [https://rumble.com/v34akeh-pizzagate-propagandists-become-pizzagate.html Infowars video] and [https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/ex-abc-journalist-guilty-child-sex-abuse-material-years-pizzagate a Evie Magazine piece]).
'''Some issues I've noticed:'''
* The article HEAVILY implies that Meek commited multiple sex crimes other than the ones he was convicted for (precisely, he pleaded guilty one count of sharing and another of possessing child pornography; he was never convicted for anything other than that). This is a [[WP:SUSPECT]] violation.
* The article suggests that the FBI was aware of Meek's criminal activities since 2016 and did nothing, even though none of the sources support this claim. This is probably a [[WP:Hoax]].
* The current version of the body is so detailed that it reads more like an amateur detective novel than a well-summarized encyclopedic article. You can delete 80% of the "Investigation, Arrest, Conviction" section and nothing valuable would be lost.
* The article is filled with [[Wikipedia:Citation overkill|WP:CitationOverkills]], blatantly unreliable sources (Twitter posts, statements from the prosecution, court documents, explicitly pro-Pizzagate publications, etc.) and original research.
A talk page discussion [[Talk:James Gordon Meek#Overly detailed?|here]] was opened to address some of those issues, but the discussion went nowhere.
'''Some QAnon diffs:'''
* user @[[User:Virginia Courtsesan|Virginia Courtsesan]] adds [[WP:INFOWARS]]'s Rumble account [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Gordon_Meek&diff=prev&oldid=1172127348], as well as a pro-Pizzagate Evie Magazine piece [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Gordon_Meek&diff=prev&oldid=1169747219], as sources to the article to subtly make the point that Meek was an anti-Pizzagate journalist from "mainstream media" ABC News. In reality, [https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-abc-pizzagate-idUSL1N39W381 this claim was debunked by Reuters.]
* a news article is used out of context to make the statement that Meek was "either being aligned with - or turning a blind eye to - a shadowy world of ill-doings among the D.C. political elites".[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Gordon_Meek&diff=prev&oldid=1168313233]
* this edit SYNTHs up the statement that Meek's alleged crimes were being covered up by unnamed people, using Twitter as one of the sources. The same edit also implies that Meek had meetings with "important people" set up by someone called George Nader.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Gordon_Meek&diff=prev&oldid=1173089245] Just like the previous diff, none of this is relevant to the actual facts of the matter and only works to promote the Pizzagate "sex-trafficking elite" talking point.
All of those diffs echo talking points directly associated with the [[QAnon]] conspiracy theory. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Gordon_Meek&oldid=1177976837 tried to remove] the conspiracy stuff from the article, but [[User:Virginia Courtsesan|Virginia Courtsesan]] (who wrote 63% of this article and is responsible for all of the diffs shown above) reverted me. [[User: SparklyNights|SparklyNights]] 01:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
::To clarify, after Sparkly threatened to ban me (not an admin, of course) it seems he's intent on misrepresenting matters. I'm very much anti-QAnon and anti-conspiracy, the Rumble/Infowars link was only provided in the sentence dealing with the fact misinformation had been spread about Meek's case, necessitating major outlets like Reuters to fact-check it. Wikipedia was thus used to help prevent the misinformation. Absolutely nothing was being presented as true and sourced to Infowars or anything remotely Pizzagate-y or conspiracy, I'd be the first to raise complaint if I noticed something like that. I removed the link when asked (though I still maintain that where you had Tucker Carlson, Glenn Beck, Infowars and others spreading "Meek is innocent, this is a frame-up, biggest news of the year!" hyperbole...before Meek plead guilty, it's notable to link to their stories and reference the furor...while obviously making it clear their sensationalism is not relied on as fact, it's presented as a source for the viral misinformation about the case. Sparkly is pretending to present a Reuters fact-check to prove the Wiki article is incorrect, but the statement in Wiki is literally "Meek did this mild X thing, this was misrepresented in a series of viral misinformation - this was debunked by Reuters". I'm the one who put the Reuters fact-check in to ''prevent'' misinformation being spread.
::I have no idea what Evie Magazine is, but I feel like classifying it as "pro-Pizzagate" is probably a false smear - a quick glance at https://www.allsides.com/news-source/evie-magazine-media-bias shows it is ranked the same as the [[Wall Street Journal]] as "leans right", not even "right", muchless conspircy/far-right (but again, I've never heard of it before this). Again, I'd already removed the link as per a Talk Page discussion, before Sparkly came here to make his accusations (though again, I feel the link was used appropriately and raise an eyebrow at seeing Sparkly's definition of the magazine, since a search on Google for Pizzagate+Evie+Magazine turns up no results suggesting his accusation is true on a glance).
::I'm accused of [[WP:HOAX]] by this author for a statement which, if he were to look at the links on the page, is reported by the Department of Justice without any other source ever contradicting it (but since it's a primary source it can't be used as the footnote-citation per Wiki standards)....to claim this is a "hoax" is bordering on bad-faith ad hominem attack.
::The article is only 25% the length at which we need to consider whether it is too long and detailed, it literally consists of only two parts. "Meek's Career" and "Later investigation, charges, conviction". While Sparkly insists that Meek hasn't personally given a jailhouse interview confirming some details, it's notable that he hasn't denied them even in the legal process.
::Can every article use work to clean up language to be more perfectly neutral, sure - but this is hardly what Sparkles claims it to be. Coming into the article for the first time threatening that he is going to '''ban''' users who disagree with him, suggests an unwillingness to speak rationally. A glance at the talk-page shows I'm engaging with another user there and working to help ensure everything is neutrally-phrased and tidying up language to ensure it's clear that we only mention the misinformation because the misinformation was itself notable to the case, multiple articles were written '''about''' Rolling Stone's efforts to deceive, etc.
::Claiming "statements from the prosecution" cannot be used, even when the Prosecution obviously secured a conviction/guilty plea and the statements are those being quoted in the Washington Post...seems again like a bad-faith misrepresentation of matters.
::Claiming "A talk page issue was raised but discussion went nowhere" is a misrepresentation of the fact he literally first touched the article, and talk page, '''four hours''' before coming here to claim it's all "going nowhere". Meek was sentenced yesterday, I understand new people are seeing the article and have strong opinions - I welcome them all and all positive contributions on the article's talk page. But threats to ban me, then reporting me to BLP when I tell him to restrain the threats and focus on positive conversation, is thinly-veiled at best.
::Tellingly, the user has made literally zero suggestions of how things could be re-phrased or re-worked to ensure there's no accidental misunderstandings by readers, or to ensure nothing negative about a living person is used inappropriately. He has simply deleted 80% of the article and come here to say we can delete 80% of the article and not lose anything he considers of value. But a neutral walk through Meek's beginnings, his motivations described by himself, his work - are all intended to offer balance and show how, the words of the judge (not quoted since only in primary documents), even heroes fall. [[User:Virginia Courtsesan|Virginia Courtsesan]] ([[User talk:Virginia Courtsesan|talk]]) 01:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
:::What i left you was a [[WP:WARNING]], that does not imply that I was going to ban you. Users who are not admins can give others warnings, including warnings that mention that the warned user might get blocked.
:::About Evie Magazine's article, this is what it said: "'''interesting how the people who vehemently criticize any initiatives that raise awareness of child sex trafficking seem to possess questionable moral traits.''' (...) '''Considering Meek worked with the government, and with the news of the new bill to conceivably broaden the definition of 'sexual orientation,' it's possible Pizzagate isn't far-fetched at all.'''" There is no ambiguity here, this is a pro-Pizzagate piece.
:::Plus, the statement that was sourced by you with the infowars source does not state that there was any misinformation related to Meek's works related to Pizzagate. What it implies, without any ambiguity, is that it was ironic how this anti-Pizzagate journalist turned out to be a target of a sex crime investigation. The pro-conspiracy tone is obvious here. [[User: SparklyNights|SparklyNights]] 01:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
::::The statement is "In 2017 Meek wrote an article about Russian disinformation wherein he referred to "the debunked Pizzagate conspiracy theory", which drew viral attention with exaggerated suggestions Meek had said much more", I do not think that can possibly be read as pro-conspiracy or presenting that it's ironic how an anti-pizzagate journalist was convicted of whatever...it addresses the fact there '''was''' notable viral misinformation which exaggerated a single sentence Meek had once written. If you can think of a better way to phrase the same information, I'm certainly open to seeing it written more bluntly or whatever. That's material for the talk page, or be bold and add your improvement to make sure nobody else draws the same (erroneous) conclusion you've drawn from reading the sentence. Again, Evie Magazine and Infowars were only linked as having gone viral for their exaggerated claims, followed immediately by the link to the Reuters fact-check showing it was a gross exaggeration of what he'd actually said. (and they were removed per talk page discussion anyways, before you made this complaint - again you only found the article four hours ago, maybe give it a little time to engage with the various editors on the talk page and offer your suggestions other than just calling for tremendous amounts of deletion. I'd love to see a list of say, five sentences you think are problematic, and how you think they would be better phrased or whatever...on the talk page. [[User:Virginia Courtsesan|Virginia Courtsesan]] ([[User talk:Virginia Courtsesan|talk]]) 01:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::The actual full quote of what you wrote, as shown [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Gordon_Meek&diff=prev&oldid=1172127348 here], is: {{Tq|"In 2017 Meek wrote an article about [[Russian disinformation]] wherein he referred to 'the debunked [[Pizzagate]] conspiracy theory', which drew viral attention after his guilty plea to judge [[Claude Hilton]]."}} The quote you provided was the version you edited AFTER I complained about your edits. Again, the obvious insinuation here is that this "mainstream media" journalist who hated Pizzagate turned out to be a bad person himself. That's what any normal person reads when they see this article. I believe you should just admit that what you did was wrong and move on, there is no hope in defending any of this. [[User: SparklyNights|SparklyNights]] 02:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
:::I literally edited it when you said you read it as pro-conspiracy, to make it more clear it wasn't meant that way - it was meant to be debunking the claim which doubtless leads readers to the Wiki article to see if it's true that Meek "claimed he had debunked Pizzagate", etc. You said you read something into my wording that I certainly hadn't intended to be read into it, I promptly changed the wording to be more clear so nobody else would make the same assumption you'd made. That's...handled appropriately. Then AFTER that, you came here to claim nothing was being done and claiming it was a pro-Pizzagate article and accusing me of writing a hoax, etc. I'm trying to be reasonable - and I certainly admit that if my earlier writing of the sentence led you to interpret it as pro-conspiracy, rather than anti-conspiracy, then I was wrong in my wording. Good thing I changed it as soon as it was pointed out you read it as meaning the opposite of what was intended? I mean you could write an entire paragraph about the stupid fake screenshot people are sharing that spreads misinformation, and media's efforts to fact-check it...but I think it might be WP:UNDUE in that case. It merits a sentence that explains what Meek DID say, that conspiracies emerged afterward saying Meek claimed far more than that, and that Reuters is clear it's a gross exaggeration/misinformation. If you can put all of that into a more succinct sentence, I'd be happy to see it, honestly. [[User:Virginia Courtsesan|Virginia Courtsesan]] ([[User talk:Virginia Courtsesan|talk]]) 02:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Also, it seems that you had made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=1169299018 another pro-Pizzagate edit] to the [[Pizzagate]] page. The edit stated "{{Tq|In 2023, attention was drawn to the fact disgraced [[ABC News]] senior producer [[James Gordon Meek]] had written an article about [[Russian disinformation]] wherein he referred to "the debunked [[Pizzagate]] conspiracy theory", which drew viral attention after his guilty plea for child sex offences.}}" Can you point out why you wrote that?[[User: SparklyNights|SparklyNights]] 03:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
::::Exact same reason, if I am mis-using the word "viral" to mean "misinformation" as you claim I am, and I have corrected it to be in-line with suggested improved language - why are you still here? I maintain it is viral and/or misinformation and/or disinformation - Reuters agrees with that. Obviously there are thousands of people who are sharing the nonsense "James Meek claimed he debunked Pizzagate, but he was convicted!" but the effort is to use the Wikipedia article to show all that Meek said is "X" in an article on Date Y, but that people then took it viral...and include the Reuters fact-check as a footnote to it. I really do not understand the problem, and I especially do not understand it where it was corrected and re-worded the first time someone said they had read/misread it as endorsing the viral information. Can we shake hands and stop bickering? I'll be the first to apologize, I'm sorry. [[User:Virginia Courtsesan|Virginia Courtsesan]] ([[User talk:Virginia Courtsesan|talk]]) 04:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
:{{ec}} I'd note that starting off with a long post tends to make it difficult to receive much attention on most noticeboards, but if you then follow this up with an even longer back and forth between the existing editors, you've made it even less likely you'll received any useful help. However briefly, I'd have to disagree that it's a [[WP:SUSPECT]] violation to report that someone was accused of multiple other crimes but in the end their plea deal was for a lesser crime. It's a very common part of the plea deal process that the prosecutor may agree to only prosecute a limited number of crimes. The key issue is whether these other accusations were covered sufficiently in reliable secondary sources. Especially if they were covered in reliable secondary sources at the time of conviction or after the conviction; or if they were discussed in court as part of the plea deal as reported in reliable secondary sources. Also if the suspect was initially charged with more crimes but these were dropped as part of the plea deal then this normally should be reported if well covered in reliable secondary sources. Meek also seems likely to be a public figure (award winning journalist) [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 04:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
::Also I'd say feel free to remove anything sourced exclusively to court documents or other unacceptable primary sources. If an editor reverts such removals, you can ask for them to be blocked or topic banned for a BLP violation. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 04:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
:::{{ec}} As probably my final comment on this matter, I will say that if all you have is a fact check, it's likely unnecessary to present something which allegedly went "viral" on conspiracy theorist websites or other unreliable sources especially on a biography article just to debunk it. The only chance it could make sense is if it's widely reported in reliable secondary sources in relation to the subject that such claims went viral. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 04:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
::I don't think there's anything sourced exclusively to court documents or other unacceptable primary sources, the only "primary sources" used are in the "Career" portion not the "Crime" portion, as there's an attempt to avoid the article being overly weighted toward the crime...so Meek's position and actions on the House Committee are lifted from House.gov, his early career is from his own online bio on his own website, etc...nothing that the subject of the article would mind. The only facts on the WP article about the crimes should all be sourced to, typically multiple, reliable secondary sources. [[User:Virginia Courtsesan|Virginia Courtsesan]] ([[User talk:Virginia Courtsesan|talk]]) 04:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Well that's not correct. I just removed some excerpts from court documents images that someone thought was acceptable in a BLP. Whoever did this should be topic banned if they ever try it again. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 04:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
:::BTW, while not as serious a BLP violation, it's very unlikely there is any reason to include any thing about his position or actions if the only source is some House Committee document. If no one else cares about whatever this was, then nor do we. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 04:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
:The article is a mess, and clearly not acceptable per WP:BLP policy. Sourcing is suspect, even from a quick look (e.g. citing ghbase.com, a Ghanaian tabloid website, for a story with no connection to Ghana [https://www.ghbase.com/pizzagate-meet-james-gordon-meek-wife-jessica-lenard-divorce-and-relationship/], or the highly-questionable use of a YouTube channel [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCe57Y1XDPg] for what appears to be allegations about a ''Rolling Stone'' editor), padded with non-consequential trivia (e.g. Meek writing a letter to a newspaper: removed here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Gordon_Meek&diff=prev&oldid=1178026250]) and making thoroughly misappropriate use of sources (see e.g. here, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Gordon_Meek&diff=next&oldid=1178026250] where I've removed what is blatant synthesis, turning a comment about Meeks career in intelligence into supposed commentary on the crimes). [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 05:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
{{admin note}} This subject [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Extra_Eyes_Please_on_James_Gordon_Meek is now being discussed at ANI]. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 04:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
:Courtesy ping @[[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]], @[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]], @[[User:SparklyNights|SparklyNights]], @[[User:Virginia Courtsesan|Virginia Courtsesan]]. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 04:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
== Irakli Garibashvili ==
This isn't to report a BLP violation ''per se'', but there's a dispute at [[Talk:Irakli_Garibashvili#Should_the_lead_image_be_changed?]], and reversion levels in the associated article that aren't past 3RR yet, but with four users, including myself involved, it would be good for a 100% uninvolved party to come in and douse some water on the situation. Cheers, <span style="font-weight:bold; color:SlateBlue;">[[User:Edward-Woodrow|<span style="color:SlateBlue;">Edward-Woodrow</span>]] • [[User talk:Edward-Woodrow|<span style="color:SlateBlue;">talk</span>]]</span> 12:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
== Dario del Bufalo ==
*{{la|Dario del Bufalo}}
The article is poorly sourced, with several claims not backed up by realiable and independent sources and it seems self-promotional. Its relevance should also be considered. Thank you. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/79.42.221.81|79.42.221.81]] ([[User talk:79.42.221.81#top|talk]]) 07:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Simon Ekpa ==
*{{page links|Simon Ekpa}}
Apparently this person has claims a nationality of a "government in exile" ([https://punchng.com/ipob-ex-nigerian-athlete-simon-ekpa-to-return-medal-gives-reasons/?utm_source=headtopics&utm_medium=news&utm_campaign=2021-09-12], [https://newswirengr.com/2021/09/12/ex-nigerian-athlete-vows-to-return-awards-medals-in-solidarity-with-ipobs-agitation/]) and a lot of users are commenting on the article's talk page asking for it to be changed. I am uncertain how to proceed. Do we allow self-identification of nationality or do we adhere to government documents! [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 18:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
:TBH I'm not sure his G in E is more than a website (it may be). But according to WP, a G in E is "a political group that claims to be a..." so it's not a high bar. I don't think nationality is something we generally do self-identification on. Also, not sure it's a lot of users, as in several people. The article has had some socking issues. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 21:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
::My general view is that people there are conflating two different things. Nationality simply refers to what nation a person is from, that is, where they are ''native'' to. "Nation" is more related to a specific land and its people than any government, per the definition. "Nation - (n.) a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory." It comes from the Latin ''nat'', meaning "born", combined with the Latin suffix ''-tion'', which alters it to mean the place or state where someone comes from. It let's the reader pinpoint the land on a map, but it's not an indication of any particular governmental affiliation. (This may be one of those things where the subtleties of the English language are being lost in translation. Non-native speakers of a language typical interpret things very literally, so maybe explaining it clearer will help.) [[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 01:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
:::[[MOS:NATIONALITY]] says that "in controversial or unclear cases, nationality is sometimes omitted", so an editorial decision ''could'' be made to omit Ekpa's nationality given that he apparently rejects it. I have no opinion on whether it ''should'' be omitted. I'm pretty sure that his nationality ''shouldn't'' be listed as Biafran given that Biafra ceased to exist 15 years before he was born. [[User:Caeciliusinhorto-public|Caeciliusinhorto-public]] ([[User talk:Caeciliusinhorto-public|talk]]) 09:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
== Nathan Leventhal, Bio ==
The photograph accompanying the above "biography" , has an error, in the description of "Southhampton",-- The photo refers to a suburb of London, England, NOT Southampton, N.Y., which it should be. This is my only attempt at "editing" ANY WIKIPEDIA entry, so I hope this gets to the correct person to correct it. I have NO affiliation to this individual, his family, nor anything this person has done, or said in his life. I simply am making a notice of an incorrect photograph, inside of a persons' history. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/65.35.132.173|65.35.132.173]] ([[User talk:65.35.132.173#top|talk]]) 00:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Hi there, and thanks very much for bringing this to our attention. However, our article doesn't have a photo. I think what is happening is that you're seeing this on google or some other search engine. Search engines use algorithms to search for any relevant images to show the reader, but they don't always get it right and often end up showing a photo of someone completely different. Maybe there is no online photo and it just found something with a similar name. Whatever the case, we have no control over what google does, so you would have to contact them to report any problems. Thanks. [[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 01:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
== Luis Moreno Ocampo ==
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Moreno_Ocampo&diff=prev&oldid=1178469255 This was reverted] as alleged [[WP:LIBEL]]. However, Dixon himself is described by [[Jurist (website)|Jurist]] as an expert in international criminal law with particular expertise in cases involving alleged genocide and crimes against humanity, having acted in cases before the [[ICTY]], [[ICTR]] and the [[International Criminal Court|ICC]]. His several third-party sources cited [https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2023/08/opinion-claims-of-genocide-push-nagorno-karabakh-further-from-peace/ here] and [https://tgchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Expert-Legal-Opinion-Rodney-Dixon-KC.pdf here] do support his statements.
Later, third-party sources have not corroborated [[Luis Moreno Ocampo|Ocampo]]'s bold claim of genocide during [[flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians]], most notably [https://www.ungeneva.o,rg/en/news-media/bi-weekly-briefing/2023/09/press-briefing-united-nations-information-service-7?fbclid=IwAR0RKijFSq1mPvnG4i3xWr0As2P3YUkHhulyA5zAunfUysvLS6lmoZg3Wvw UNHCR], [https://azerbaijan.un.org/en/248051-un-team-completes-mission-karabakh UN fact-finding mission on the ground] or Russian peacekeepers in the region. On top of that, such an accusation without trial looks problematic due to [[presumption of innocence]]. Yet, there are strange regular attempts to promote Ocampo's opinion, while UN assessment gets marginalized: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flight_of_Nagorno-Karabakh_Armenians&diff=prev&oldid=1178073162], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flight_of_Nagorno-Karabakh_Armenians&diff=prev&oldid=1178312106]. As such, I think [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Moreno_Ocampo&diff=prev&oldid=1178464403 this] is not libel and could be reinstated in the article. ~~~~'
|
Unified diff of changes made by edit (edit_diff) |
'@@ -464,2 +464,8 @@
:Hi there, and thanks very much for bringing this to our attention. However, our article doesn't have a photo. I think what is happening is that you're seeing this on google or some other search engine. Search engines use algorithms to search for any relevant images to show the reader, but they don't always get it right and often end up showing a photo of someone completely different. Maybe there is no online photo and it just found something with a similar name. Whatever the case, we have no control over what google does, so you would have to contact them to report any problems. Thanks. [[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 01:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
+
+== Luis Moreno Ocampo ==
+
+[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Moreno_Ocampo&diff=prev&oldid=1178469255 This was reverted] as alleged [[WP:LIBEL]]. However, Dixon himself is described by [[Jurist (website)|Jurist]] as an expert in international criminal law with particular expertise in cases involving alleged genocide and crimes against humanity, having acted in cases before the [[ICTY]], [[ICTR]] and the [[International Criminal Court|ICC]]. His several third-party sources cited [https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2023/08/opinion-claims-of-genocide-push-nagorno-karabakh-further-from-peace/ here] and [https://tgchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Expert-Legal-Opinion-Rodney-Dixon-KC.pdf here] do support his statements.
+
+Later, third-party sources have not corroborated [[Luis Moreno Ocampo|Ocampo]]'s bold claim of genocide during [[flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians]], most notably [https://www.ungeneva.o,rg/en/news-media/bi-weekly-briefing/2023/09/press-briefing-united-nations-information-service-7?fbclid=IwAR0RKijFSq1mPvnG4i3xWr0As2P3YUkHhulyA5zAunfUysvLS6lmoZg3Wvw UNHCR], [https://azerbaijan.un.org/en/248051-un-team-completes-mission-karabakh UN fact-finding mission on the ground] or Russian peacekeepers in the region. On top of that, such an accusation without trial looks problematic due to [[presumption of innocence]]. Yet, there are strange regular attempts to promote Ocampo's opinion, while UN assessment gets marginalized: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flight_of_Nagorno-Karabakh_Armenians&diff=prev&oldid=1178073162], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flight_of_Nagorno-Karabakh_Armenians&diff=prev&oldid=1178312106]. As such, I think [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Moreno_Ocampo&diff=prev&oldid=1178464403 this] is not libel and could be reinstated in the article. ~~~~
'
|
New page size (new_size) |
135671
|
Old page size (old_size) |
133809
|
Size change in edit (edit_delta) |
1862
|
Lines added in edit (added_lines) |
[
0 => '',
1 => '== Luis Moreno Ocampo ==',
2 => '',
3 => '[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Moreno_Ocampo&diff=prev&oldid=1178469255 This was reverted] as alleged [[WP:LIBEL]]. However, Dixon himself is described by [[Jurist (website)|Jurist]] as an expert in international criminal law with particular expertise in cases involving alleged genocide and crimes against humanity, having acted in cases before the [[ICTY]], [[ICTR]] and the [[International Criminal Court|ICC]]. His several third-party sources cited [https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2023/08/opinion-claims-of-genocide-push-nagorno-karabakh-further-from-peace/ here] and [https://tgchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Expert-Legal-Opinion-Rodney-Dixon-KC.pdf here] do support his statements.',
4 => '',
5 => 'Later, third-party sources have not corroborated [[Luis Moreno Ocampo|Ocampo]]'s bold claim of genocide during [[flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians]], most notably [https://www.ungeneva.o,rg/en/news-media/bi-weekly-briefing/2023/09/press-briefing-united-nations-information-service-7?fbclid=IwAR0RKijFSq1mPvnG4i3xWr0As2P3YUkHhulyA5zAunfUysvLS6lmoZg3Wvw UNHCR], [https://azerbaijan.un.org/en/248051-un-team-completes-mission-karabakh UN fact-finding mission on the ground] or Russian peacekeepers in the region. On top of that, such an accusation without trial looks problematic due to [[presumption of innocence]]. Yet, there are strange regular attempts to promote Ocampo's opinion, while UN assessment gets marginalized: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flight_of_Nagorno-Karabakh_Armenians&diff=prev&oldid=1178073162], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flight_of_Nagorno-Karabakh_Armenians&diff=prev&oldid=1178312106]. As such, I think [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Moreno_Ocampo&diff=prev&oldid=1178464403 this] is not libel and could be reinstated in the article. ~~~~'
]
|
All external links added in the edit (added_links) |
[
0 => 'https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2023/08/opinion-claims-of-genocide-push-nagorno-karabakh-further-from-peace/',
1 => 'https://tgchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Expert-Legal-Opinion-Rodney-Dixon-KC.pdf',
2 => 'https://www.ungeneva.o,rg/en/news-media/bi-weekly-briefing/2023/09/press-briefing-united-nations-information-service-7?fbclid=IwAR0RKijFSq1mPvnG4i3xWr0As2P3YUkHhulyA5zAunfUysvLS6lmoZg3Wvw',
3 => 'https://azerbaijan.un.org/en/248051-un-team-completes-mission-karabakh'
]
|
All external links in the new text (all_links) |
[
0 => 'https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/13540688231157579',
1 => 'https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13183222.2023.2168959',
2 => 'https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3001369&_scpsug=crawled,11658,en_63dfac8980407a7f831beb0e0f29809fadc405841b8aa2d4f1f371f6ed71aff6',
3 => 'https://www.proquest.com/openview/686893856b02f3f12d6861b508fdbef3/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1975',
4 => 'https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/asj.21004.fun',
5 => 'https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/public-editor/an-uneasy-mix-of-news-and-opinion.html',
6 => 'https://ctmorse.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/global-vrwe-threat-and-response-mapping_think-piece_-final-17022022.pdf',
7 => 'https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/26/cuts-war-brexit-all-fuel-the-battle-for-the-centre-ground-but-no-one-really-knows-where-that-is',
8 => 'https://books.google.com/books?id=c7wiAAAAIBAJ&pg=PA35&dq=elizabeth+berkley&article_id=4775,5937602&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwicidKkpMGBAxXnl4kEHalqBbM4ChDoAXoECAUQAg#v=onepage&q=elizabeth%20berkley&f=false',
9 => 'https://books.google.com/books?id=578zAAAAIBAJ&pg=PA52&dq=elizabeth+berkley+24&article_id=3682,3769538&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjFs4TvpMGBAxUPlIkEHdueAYAQ6wF6BAgLEAE#v=onepage&q=elizabeth%20berkley%2024&f=false',
10 => 'https://books.google.com/books?id=lwkFAAAAIBAJ&pg=PA15&dq=elizabeth+berkley&article_id=2815,425839&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjF8KShpMGBAxXmrIkEHb7oDmMQ6AF6BAgFEAI#v=onepage&q=elizabeth%20berkley&f=false',
11 => 'https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-xpm-2012-jul-31-la-et-mg-elizabeth-berkley-baby-son-story.html',
12 => 'https://www.classmates.com/siteui/yearbooks/209654?page=38&searchTerm=elizabeth%20berkley',
13 => 'https://www.newsweek.com/qa-elizabeth-berkley-85945',
14 => 'https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?pages=Oleksandr_Yaroslavskyi&project=en.wikipedia.org',
15 => 'https://indeksonline.net/ekskluzive-trupat-e-dy-serbeve-te-vrare-ne-veturen-e-policise-se-kosoves/?mibextid=Zxz2cZ',
16 => 'https://www.rferl.org/a/kosovo-police-officer-killed-serb-north-kurti/32606755.html',
17 => 'https://shqiptarja.com/lajm/pergjaket-veriu-i-kosoves-burime-te-policise-se-kosoves-8-serbe-te-vrare-6-te-arrestuar',
18 => 'https://telegrafi.com/avokati-serb-stojkoviq-numri-serbeve-te-vrare-ne-sulmin-terrorist-ne-veri-shkon-deri-ne-10-ka-edhe-te-plagosur/',
19 => 'https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20230928-serbia-observes-national-day-of-mourning-after-clashes-in-kosovo',
20 => 'https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/serbia-investigate-killing-policeman-northern-kosovo-vucic-2023-09-28/',
21 => 'https://apnews.com/article/kosovo-serbia-clashes-raid-police-f671bd21560f60bdca72d2daf7ce50ef',
22 => 'https://www.dw.com/en/deadly-kosovo-clashes-spark-fear-of-escalation/a-66965912',
23 => 'https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-hercules-kevin-sorbo-became-a-bizarre-lib-bashing-trump-troll',
24 => 'https://news.google.com/search?q=kevin%20sorbo',
25 => 'https://twitter.com/ksorbs',
26 => 'https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?pages=Andrea_Montanino&project=en.wikipedia.org',
27 => 'https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/james-gordon-meek-abc-news-producer-sentenced-prison-1234835726/',
28 => 'https://rumble.com/v34akeh-pizzagate-propagandists-become-pizzagate.html',
29 => 'https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/ex-abc-journalist-guilty-child-sex-abuse-material-years-pizzagate',
30 => 'https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-abc-pizzagate-idUSL1N39W381',
31 => 'https://www.ghbase.com/pizzagate-meet-james-gordon-meek-wife-jessica-lenard-divorce-and-relationship/',
32 => 'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCe57Y1XDPg',
33 => 'https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?pages=Dario_del_Bufalo&project=en.wikipedia.org',
34 => 'https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?pages=Simon_Ekpa&project=en.wikipedia.org',
35 => 'https://punchng.com/ipob-ex-nigerian-athlete-simon-ekpa-to-return-medal-gives-reasons/?utm_source=headtopics&utm_medium=news&utm_campaign=2021-09-12',
36 => 'https://newswirengr.com/2021/09/12/ex-nigerian-athlete-vows-to-return-awards-medals-in-solidarity-with-ipobs-agitation/',
37 => 'https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2023/08/opinion-claims-of-genocide-push-nagorno-karabakh-further-from-peace/',
38 => 'https://tgchambers.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Expert-Legal-Opinion-Rodney-Dixon-KC.pdf',
39 => 'https://www.ungeneva.o,rg/en/news-media/bi-weekly-briefing/2023/09/press-briefing-united-nations-information-service-7?fbclid=IwAR0RKijFSq1mPvnG4i3xWr0As2P3YUkHhulyA5zAunfUysvLS6lmoZg3Wvw',
40 => 'https://azerbaijan.un.org/en/248051-un-team-completes-mission-karabakh',
41 => 'http://www.haysdocumentationspecialists.com/',
42 => 'https://www.linkedin.com/in/priya-hays-60866025/',
43 => 'https://www.springer.com/us/book/9783030800994',
44 => 'https://twitter.com/SpringerClinMed/status/1486036036018917377',
45 => 'http://www.doody.com/dej/PublicTitle.asp?ISBN=9783030800994#Title',
46 => 'https://researchfeatures.com/documenting-dramatic-evolution-personalised-medicine/',
47 => 'https://ascopost.com/issues/may-25-2022/a-second-edition-adds-new-value-to-personalized-medicine/',
48 => 'https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-96376-7',
49 => 'https://www.allsides.com/news-source/evie-magazine-media-bias'
]
|
Links in the page, before the edit (old_links) |
[
0 => 'http://www.haysdocumentationspecialists.com/',
1 => 'https://www.linkedin.com/in/priya-hays-60866025/',
2 => 'https://www.springer.com/us/book/9783030800994',
3 => 'https://twitter.com/SpringerClinMed/status/1486036036018917377',
4 => 'http://www.doody.com/dej/PublicTitle.asp?ISBN=9783030800994#Title',
5 => 'https://researchfeatures.com/documenting-dramatic-evolution-personalised-medicine/',
6 => 'https://ascopost.com/issues/may-25-2022/a-second-edition-adds-new-value-to-personalized-medicine/',
7 => 'https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-96376-7',
8 => 'https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/13540688231157579',
9 => 'https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13183222.2023.2168959',
10 => 'https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3001369&_scpsug=crawled,11658,en_63dfac8980407a7f831beb0e0f29809fadc405841b8aa2d4f1f371f6ed71aff6',
11 => 'https://www.proquest.com/openview/686893856b02f3f12d6861b508fdbef3/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1975',
12 => 'https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/asj.21004.fun',
13 => 'https://books.google.com/books?id=c7wiAAAAIBAJ&pg=PA35&dq=elizabeth+berkley&article_id=4775,5937602&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwicidKkpMGBAxXnl4kEHalqBbM4ChDoAXoECAUQAg#v=onepage&q=elizabeth%20berkley&f=false',
14 => 'https://books.google.com/books?id=578zAAAAIBAJ&pg=PA52&dq=elizabeth+berkley+24&article_id=3682,3769538&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjFs4TvpMGBAxUPlIkEHdueAYAQ6wF6BAgLEAE#v=onepage&q=elizabeth%20berkley%2024&f=false',
15 => 'https://books.google.com/books?id=lwkFAAAAIBAJ&pg=PA15&dq=elizabeth+berkley&article_id=2815,425839&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjF8KShpMGBAxXmrIkEHb7oDmMQ6AF6BAgFEAI#v=onepage&q=elizabeth%20berkley&f=false',
16 => 'https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-xpm-2012-jul-31-la-et-mg-elizabeth-berkley-baby-son-story.html',
17 => 'https://www.classmates.com/siteui/yearbooks/209654?page=38&searchTerm=elizabeth%20berkley',
18 => 'https://www.newsweek.com/qa-elizabeth-berkley-85945',
19 => 'https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/public-editor/an-uneasy-mix-of-news-and-opinion.html',
20 => 'https://ctmorse.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/global-vrwe-threat-and-response-mapping_think-piece_-final-17022022.pdf',
21 => 'https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/26/cuts-war-brexit-all-fuel-the-battle-for-the-centre-ground-but-no-one-really-knows-where-that-is',
22 => 'https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?pages=Oleksandr_Yaroslavskyi&project=en.wikipedia.org',
23 => 'https://indeksonline.net/ekskluzive-trupat-e-dy-serbeve-te-vrare-ne-veturen-e-policise-se-kosoves/?mibextid=Zxz2cZ',
24 => 'https://www.rferl.org/a/kosovo-police-officer-killed-serb-north-kurti/32606755.html',
25 => 'https://shqiptarja.com/lajm/pergjaket-veriu-i-kosoves-burime-te-policise-se-kosoves-8-serbe-te-vrare-6-te-arrestuar',
26 => 'https://telegrafi.com/avokati-serb-stojkoviq-numri-serbeve-te-vrare-ne-sulmin-terrorist-ne-veri-shkon-deri-ne-10-ka-edhe-te-plagosur/',
27 => 'https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20230928-serbia-observes-national-day-of-mourning-after-clashes-in-kosovo',
28 => 'https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/serbia-investigate-killing-policeman-northern-kosovo-vucic-2023-09-28/',
29 => 'https://apnews.com/article/kosovo-serbia-clashes-raid-police-f671bd21560f60bdca72d2daf7ce50ef',
30 => 'https://www.dw.com/en/deadly-kosovo-clashes-spark-fear-of-escalation/a-66965912',
31 => 'https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/james-gordon-meek-abc-news-producer-sentenced-prison-1234835726/',
32 => 'https://rumble.com/v34akeh-pizzagate-propagandists-become-pizzagate.html',
33 => 'https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/ex-abc-journalist-guilty-child-sex-abuse-material-years-pizzagate',
34 => 'https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-abc-pizzagate-idUSL1N39W381',
35 => 'https://www.allsides.com/news-source/evie-magazine-media-bias',
36 => 'https://www.ghbase.com/pizzagate-meet-james-gordon-meek-wife-jessica-lenard-divorce-and-relationship/',
37 => 'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCe57Y1XDPg',
38 => 'https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-hercules-kevin-sorbo-became-a-bizarre-lib-bashing-trump-troll',
39 => 'https://news.google.com/search?q=kevin%20sorbo',
40 => 'https://twitter.com/ksorbs',
41 => 'https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?pages=Andrea_Montanino&project=en.wikipedia.org',
42 => 'https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?pages=Dario_del_Bufalo&project=en.wikipedia.org',
43 => 'https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?pages=Simon_Ekpa&project=en.wikipedia.org',
44 => 'https://punchng.com/ipob-ex-nigerian-athlete-simon-ekpa-to-return-medal-gives-reasons/?utm_source=headtopics&utm_medium=news&utm_campaign=2021-09-12',
45 => 'https://newswirengr.com/2021/09/12/ex-nigerian-athlete-vows-to-return-awards-medals-in-solidarity-with-ipobs-agitation/'
]
|
Whether or not the change was made through a Tor exit node (tor_exit_node) |
false
|
Unix timestamp of change (timestamp) |
'1696420856'
|
