Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive299

This page is an current main page .

Milo Yiannopoulos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

With this and this edit respectively,

Thoughts? This might turn into an RfC. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopoulos called Islam a 'barbaric, alien' religion. Is that criticism, or ridicule? I'd say it's closer to ridicule. It's not like Yiannopoulos has the credentials to be considered a serious student of any religion, let alone a serious critic. - Nunh-huh 00:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all." We have the WP:Verifiability and WP:BLP policies to follow. Not to mention...guidelines like WP:Lead as well. What is the point of including "transgender" in the lead if there isn't even a section on that lower in the article? Flyer22 Frozen (talk

) 00:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Characterizations of an individual's words and actions are best not expressed in Wikipedia's voice. To avoid misinterpretation, they should not only be cited but have in-text attribution. The way to deal with provacateurs is not to rise to the bait, but to describe their words and actions in objective terms and quote others in matters of opinion.

Kablammo (talk

) 01:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Kablammo (talk

) 01:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't suggest we violate policy in any way, and you have no idea what my personal opinion of Yiannopoulos is. I said nothing about including transgender in the lead (in fact, it should not be). So I think you probably should direct your remarks to someone else. Wikipedia is characterizing Yiannopoulos comments re: Islam in both versions. In one version, it is saying that characterizing a religion as barbaric and alien is a criticism, and in another it is saying that characterizing a religion as barbaric and alien is ridicule. The latter is more correct. Other formulations are of course possible. He "expresses his disapproval of Islam by calling it barbaric and alien". "He says that Islam is barbaric and alien." "Alien" is a criticism only if one is a bigot or xenophobe, and "barbaric" is a value judgement not a "criticism". - Nunh-huh 03:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Nunh-huh, I never stated that you violated BLP. I never stated that you mentioned anything about "transgender" in the lead. My question in the title of this thread is "Should use of 'ridicules' and other unsourced material remain in the lead?" I clearly addressed "transgender" as one of the unsourced items. I have no idea what your personal opinion of Yiannopoulos is? Besides your latest comment, I got an idea just from you stating, "It's not like Yiannopoulos has the credentials to be considered a serious student of any religion, let alone a serious critic." And I was not criticizing you for that viewpoint. Since you stated that and "Milo Yiannopoulos called Islam a 'barbaric, alien' religion. Is that criticism, or ridicule? I'd say it's closer to ridicule.", I was stating that it matters not what an editor personally thinks is ridicule. What matters, like I and others in this thread have stated, is what reliable sources state. Use of "ridicules" is obviously POV. But if enough reliable sources use that term with regard to Yiannopoulos's opinion, it can be due for us to use that term. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

If you think it's debatable that Yiannopoulos is a religious critic, present your sources stating he is. - Nunh-huh 02:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Sighs. You very well know I wasn't arguing that. You haven't helped at all. And your commentary in this thread was/is completely unhelpful. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Ridicule, mockery, insults, and the like are all forms of criticism, and we can always neutrally describe someone making these types of statements towards a group as criticism without having to evoke in-prose attribution. But to the point of the OP, sources must be there to support that. If the article has nothing about Milo making statements about transgender individuals, then it should not be mentioned in the body and definitely not in the lede. This is BLP 101, and the editor seems willingly ignoring the numerous warnings about this. --Masem (t) 04:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Any material which isn't either sourced in the lead or the article needs to be removed. I don't think there is any need for an RfC about that. So for the transgender stuff it has to stay out until and unless a source is provided. I see there is one source which mentions transgender issues in the article [2], but it's an interview so is difficult to use it for anything like that without

WP:Syn. Until and unless a source is presented, I don't think we can discuss whether it's fair to use the term 'ridicules' in relation to transgender people. IMO it's not possible to discuss this in the abstract. If most sources talking about someone says they're known for ridiculing transgender people, I don't think it's a BLP violation for us to also mention that.

Adding something to the lead which isn't discussed in the article is sloppy writing, although unfortunately common and I've potentially did it on occasion. IMO it isn't inherently a BLP violation depending on whether the material belongs in the lead, and has an inline citation in the lead. There is a greater risk of it being a BLP violation since readers may not be able to read in the article more details of the context of what is stated in the lead but still I wouldn't say it's always a BLP violation.

Nil Einne (talk

) 06:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Note that the discretionary sanctions

awareness requirement for arbcom discretionary sanctions is set by arbcom. While I guess it is theoretically possible for us to forcefully change it by amending arbitration policy, practically that's never going to happen. While there are a few ways editors can be aware, the main way is by giving them alerts. You have to give the specific designated alert. Simply mentioning it isn't sufficient.

My suggestion is don't be afraid to give alerts. Yes you do have to do some basic checking to ensure that the editor isn't already aware but you get an edit filter warning to help you. I know some editors feel that editors giving such alerts when they are in a dispute with another editor comes across as retaliatory or using the alert as a warning which it is explicitly not supposed to be, IMO it's better than opening a case to get someone else to give an alert.

Editors can of course be sanctioned outside the DS regime, but since the DS regime is so much simpler, many prefer to just let it be dealt with that way.

Nil Einne (talk

) 06:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I stand by ridicules as a NPOV summation of RS; Milo's article titles include "Would you rather have feminism, or cancer?" and "birth control makes women unattractive and crazy." That is ridicule, not merely criticism.

As to transgender people, Milo has made his view clear, calling trans women sexually confused men and potential sexual predators. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/milo-yiannopoulos-transgender-people-truth_n_58a84dcae4b07602ad551487

I am not sure why we think criticizes is more neutral than ridicules, but I am willing to discuss this matter further on talk and on this thread before reverting.

talk

) 13:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Kablammo, Masem, Nil Einne and I stated, you shouldn't be looking to revert to that at all without first having reliable sources that address the viewpoint that Yiannopoulos ridicules, without transgender material first being covered lower in the article, and without obtaining consensus for your changes. And there is no RfC on this. Flyer22 Frozen (talk

) 01:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Article headlines are supposed to be attention grabbers, and often have little to do with content of those articles. Whether good, bad, or ugly they're meant to draw people in. I wouldn't try to classify anything as ridicule without first seeing what the articles contain. "Ridicule" is defined as: "the subjection of someone or something to contemptuous and dismissive language or behavior". "Criticism" as: "the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes". The former is based on "contemptuous and dismissive", which requires a conclusion on the part of the writer. What is contemptuous to one person may be normal speech to another. (If you heard me and my brother talking, you'd think we hated each other, but we just poke fun, it's just part of our personality types. Not mention some people I've met in my travels really get off on ridicule, such as your average sissy, which are predominantly made up of straight, non-crossdressing men that simply like the humiliation, and you wouldn't want to take that away from them). So we're implying an intent to be hurtful, which, of course requires a conclusion on Wikipedia's part. If a source called it ridicule, we could conceivably say, "so-and-so source calls it ridicule" because then it's someone else's judgment call. The latter is a neutral term that relies on factual information; eg: expressed disapproval based on expressed perceptions of faults. I say stick with the more factual term and leave the colorful descriptors for the op/ed columns and other persuasive writing. Zaereth (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: GergisBaki seems to have gotten the idea for "ridicules" from the Mike Enoch article, which he recently edited. "Ridicules" was added there by the BugsyBeaver account. I haven't yet looked into the BugsyBeaver account to see if there is a connection between it and the GergisBaki account. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry in advance for bringing what should be a trivial issue to resolve, but uninvolved opinions are needed because Talk was headed nowhere productive fast. Paragraph of interest (without wikilinks, bold of report title added):

Curry echoes and supports the perspective of Scott Pruitt, EPA administrator at the time, in her 2017 report "Climate Models for the Layman," notes journalist Julie Kelly of the National Review. This report critiques the role of climate models in policy-making. In an email exchange with Kelly, Dr. Curry endorses Pruitt's perspectives on the uncertainty in climate change.^[1]

• Note1: Linking to a PDF of Curry's actual report has been previously discussed at the talk page[3] and removed, without real consensus, but with Admin insistance.
• Note2: Although sources for the paragraph have been reduced to only one, there are numerous other secondary sources supporting the paragraph, as listed and discussed on the Talk page at length.
• Note3: If anything is overlinked in the article, it is the sea of blue in the Article's lead, not in this paragraph, IMO.
• Note4:
  Layman redirects to Laity
  .

The question here is: What Wikilinks are appropriate? Until recently, Scott Pruitt, Climate Models, Layman and National Review were linked, and that seems OK to me. I feel the ordering of relevant links, from most to least relevant, are: Climate Models, Layman, Scott Pruitt, and National Review. As the article now stands, only the two LEAST relevant links remain.

Background: The paragraph's wikilinks have been stable since my edit late January.[4] A few days ago,

Very little discussion has yet occured on the talk page, and the back-and-forth hardly constitutes an edit war. I suggest waiting before posting to a noticeboard (and that this is probably the wrong noticeboard). Let's not take these folks' time before we need to. Please see my response on the discussion page. Jlevi (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Matt Carthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a dispute at Talk:Matt Carthy#MEP regarding whether Matt Carthy is still an MEP at the present time. One editor says his election to Dáil Éireann disqualifies him as an MEP due to the European Parliament Elections (Amendment) Act 2004. The European Parliament's website disagrees, currently having him listed as a member, and he's not listed as an outgoing member yet. Any advice please? FDW777 (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Jan Jämsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article doesn't have any references in it and I've tried looking for them, but couldn't find any beyond trivial mentions and listings. I find the subject to be non-notable as per

Your assessment of this article seems spot on. I see only trivial mentions and a lot of self-published or user-generated sources. Obviously not notable. I was tempted to slap a {{BLPPROD}} tag on it and be done with it but it looks like there may be a

WP:WALL situation going on with the band Finntroll and its albums and its members. I don't see any substantial coverage in reliable sources for any of its members or the main band article. Some more investigation is needed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)

15:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Having looked into it further,

notability is not inherited, it is impossible to separate the notability of the band's member from the notable band and its notable albums. Part of the problem is that much of the reference material is, not surprisingly, in Finnish and its relevance and reliability is difficult for an English speaker to evaluate. The current {{BLP unsourced}} tag is appropriate and improvement should be preferred at this time to deletion. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)

17:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

All right, perfect. Thank you for taking a look into this. I came across this page in the

talk

) 23:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Megan Gogerty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello,

I am considering nominating this article for deletion. The reason I have not done so is because I am between decisions. The amount of plays and mentions can qualify for notability under

Can anyone help me form a decision? I am not 100% sure on this article. I'll start the nomination if it seems AfD is the proper route. AmericanAir88^(talk) 03:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Which plays were notable? I am not seeing mentions outside some very minor niche sites. Being written by SPAs is suspicious. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: I agree. I'm probably nominating. AmericanAir88^(talk) 03:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megan Gogerty. AmericanAir88^(talk) 03:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

This page and henceforth it's editors show a clear bios on the front of the controversy surrounding Berejiklian's link to the bushfires and endagerment of many native Australian species'. Although i believe it's wrong to sway it completely the other way as that's just as bad i do believe wikipedia should be presenting facts and removing any mention of said controversy and Berejiklian's proven ties to the Australian bushfires, being cuts to emergency services and national parks^[1][2], lack of action on water being stolen from the murray-darling basin amongst heavy drought^[3] etc. emitting this from the page is censoring contentious issues and is presenting bias as fact as has been shown in this pages history time and time again by people with links to the liberal party editing tis page to show a false reality to present a bias representation to sway voters by censoring facts.

There are indeed many reliable sources discussing the role of Berejiklian with the Australian bushfire crisis, I think it is worthy to be discussed for biological and NPOV purposes. I do not see anyone removing constructive edits about it, it seems like no one has written a neutral statement here instead. You are certainly welcome to write a well sourced and neutral one. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The Riots information given in this article is totally fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:6403:D7E2:A09C:4768:60C3:EE48 (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Then you are free to edit the article Kapil Mishra, of course citing independent, reliable, published sources. Or if you don't want to do that, then describe exactly what the problem is. -- Hoary (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The information about riots on kapila misrha biography is totaly fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:A014:1E7B:DCDD:6D48:159D:368F (talk) 11:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Please see Kapil Mishra biography (immediately above). -- Hoary (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Seamus Ryan (photographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's "no consensus" on this fellow's noteworthiness. I've already spent enough of my time on this article, and invite others to consider this latest series of edits and to act on it. (Or, if that sounds lazy of me: Having sent the article off to AfD, I might be accused of a prejudice against it.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

That's one awful-looking BLP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

You, Sir, are a master of understatement. -- Hoary (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I have cut back the cruft a bit further. Can one

WP:AFD? Jonathan A Jones (talk

) 08:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

If it ever seemed the right thing to do, it would probably imply that something was very wrong about the AFD, so DELREV would seem the place to go. However, in this case, it would certainly be wrong, as even the AfD nominator (me) conceded that the man had a degree of notability, and that this was reliably sourced. But the autobiographer [just join the dots] seems intent on degrading the article further. -- Hoary (talk) 09:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

He has photographed Pythons, [12], I will look for some useful sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

He has certainly photographed Michael Palin, but not, I think, any other Pythons: see [13]. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Did you check my link? It takes a while to load. Anyway, there's some trouble at the article: [14] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, this needs an admin, now. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Now at

WP:AIV. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk

) 13:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I did look at your page, but didn't scroll down far enough; sorry. It's useful to do a "view source" on that webpage to get a list of names. Good call on AIV, but I suspect we will soon be requesting semi-protection. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Time will tell. I also nominated the image for deletion:[15] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

An editor,

In his revert, the editor was following up (thus, supporting) the argument made here that "'Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves' as long as they don't involve third parties" , and claims the website in question is run by the subject of the article and that the subject is talking about herself ("she operates her website so the information is coming from her"). The claim is essentially that, based on the website qualifying under that exception, the source is reliable. The editor, however, presents no supporting evidence that Riley Reid operates the website nor that the information is coming from her. It's only his claim.

The fact is that the same website, at this page, shows Riley Reid as one of dozens of other models that the site covers. Clearly, this is neither Riley Reid's site nor is she talking about herself thru this website.

The editor's claimed here "That's a way too strict interpretation of BLP. This information should not be contentious". I believe the BLP policy is clear about this.

I have undone the edits once again and invited the editor that if he still feels the source is valid per

• Evidence that the site genuinely belongs to Riley Reid is easily found with a quick look at the porn trade press, (like this AVN promo press article for example). The subject is openly promoting herself and a relaunch of the website. If reasonable doubt about authenticity is put the rest, the site is an acceptable primary source within the limits of
  WP:SELFPUB. The contested material is basic background stuff, that can be sourced elsewhere.[16] It may be porn kayfabe, but there are no extraordinary claims here. • Gene93k (talk
  ) 01:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• The key phrase of BLP you are trying to apply is "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." This information on where she lived should not be considered contentious and it's obvious (
  WP:BLUE) to me that REIDmylips.com is her site considering she's in every scene and the bottom of the site shows that the site won a PERFORMER Website of the Year. The point is moot now because I can't tell where the information is on the website since the redesign. Morbidthoughts (talk
  ) 02:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

It's too bad that javascript does not seem to be archivable on archive.org Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• I do think there is a concern with using reidmylips.com for biographical information. It is also a sales site. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

If you look at the edit that prompted my opening this discusion, this edit here, the problem is the article claims "Growing up, she often moved around Florida and has lived in Tampa, Carol City, Miami, and Fort Lauderdale", but the words Tampa, Carol City, Miami, or Fort Lauderdale are never mentioned in that cite. If an editor wants to put that info in, he will need a cite that actually states that. The other half of my removal above is the claim that "She is of Dominican, Cherokee, Chickasaw, Dutch, German, Irish, Puerto Rican, and Welsh descent." But again, the words Dominican, Cherokee, Chickasaw, Dutch, German, Irish, Puerto Rican, and Welsh aren't found at all in that source. So the 2 statements make BLP claims which aren't sourced. That said, whether or not the site is her site becomes a moot point for purposes of the discussion here, and moves to the fact that the info about this BLP isn't

verifiable. The end result, of course, is still the same, namely, that the 2 statements under scrutiny doesn't belong in the article. Mercy11 (talk

) 11:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not against using one's own source regarding their own background as long as it's a reliable source (reidmylips is her website though; I don't have time to watch one of her YouTube videos where she answers personal questions about herself but I assume at one point it may have been addressed there). I removed the categories regarding ethnicity because nothing in the article mentioned anything about it, giving the appearance of original research. IAFD simply says she's multiethnic, for example. ⌚️ (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I did not understand why the ethnicity categories were reinstated without proper citation pending a non-existing discussion and re-removed them. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Trillfendi: If there's a video on that page where she gives info pertinent to where she lived and her ethnicity, info which can substantiated the 2 statements under scrutiny, then the editor that wants to keep the 2 statements under scrutiny needs to identify the video in the cites, together with the "time=MM:SS" location of the statements, much as we give full cites of books/magazines and the pages where their info in found. Mercy11 (talk) 11:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Jeanette Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone has created a malicious and libelous Wikipedia page in my name. I have emailed about it but no one has got back to me. The page was created by a member of the Good Thinking Society and contains views about me of Good Thinking Society members.( previously called the Skeptics Society) Several Wikipedia rules have been broken: Conflict of interest through a previous relationship with me Poorly sourced references Clearly not neutral — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace11111 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

You mean the Wikipedia article is about you? The article was created by User:TheYarnBender at 07:12, 24 December 2019‎? It may take a while for you to get an email reply, as the service is staffed by volunteers? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Note there is also a separate article for the Good Thinking Society. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I took a look, and while I would say under normal circumstances you would not usually pass our notability guidelines. But in your case this has stirred up some controversy, and people are talking. As such, the likelihood that this article will be deleted is small.

But there are a lot of things that need fixing there. First, I'll go through the sources: 1.) Echo -- Good source, well written news article. 2.) Noted -- No good, op/ed column, 3.) Eventfinda -- No good, ad, 4.) Timaru Herald -- No good, plug for upcoming event, 5.) -- Good source, neutral news, 6.) Otaga Daily Times -- Good source, 7.) Checkpoint -- Good source, 8.) Taranaki Daily News -- No good, plug for upcoming event, 9.) Eventfinds -- No good, ad.

Many of these sources are not quite represented faithfully in the article, and there appears to be a level of

WP:Synthesis

thrown to give a narrative not supported by the sources. A dead giveaway is when you see nine different sources (many of questionable nature) being interstitially dispersed all throughout the article, and even dispersed throughout nearly every single sentence. But when you read the good sources you can tell the difference, and how they remain neutral, neither endorsing nor debasing your beliefs but rather calling attention to the controversy it has caused. That's what our article should reflect as well.

Unfortunately, I don't have time to clean it up myself right now, due to other pressing issues in my real life, but those are the tools you need. You may be able to have a shot of getting it deleted by nominating it at WP:Articles for deletion, since there are only a handful of good sources, but then again maybe not. You never know how those things will go. While you should not edit the article yourself, due to your COI, you most certainly should take your concerns to the article's talk page and ask the people who watch it to make these corrections (eliminate the bad sources and any info associated with them, and fix the synthesis issues), or perhaps someone here will come along, read this and think, "what the hell, I got nothing better to do". (Just remember, you're not famous until you're unhappy with your Wikipedia article.) Zaereth (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree with you on 2. It looks to me to be a long-form investigative journalism written in a narrative journalism style. Such sources need to be used with care in BLPs but unlike with opinion columns, I wouldn't say they're automatically excluded. Definitely if you tried to exclude all New Yorker pieces like that which aren't not covered in other RS, I'd expect significant pushback. Nil Einne (talk) 09:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

There have been unsubstantiated allegations of domestic abuse made by the ex-girlfriend of this band's vocalist. The content that I removed and was put straight back has a lot of terms such as "allegations" "appearing" and "alleged" without any criminal convictions. Is this a BLP issue? Obscure Lobotomy (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is a BLP violation. The relevant section is

WP:WELLKNOWN, which only applies to big celebrities, where it is just being talked about in every newspaper and magazine that you see so there would be no point in trying to protect their right to be innocent until proven guilty, and judging by the sourcing these guys are no Metallica. I have removed the section and left an edit summary explaining why. Zaereth (talk

) 18:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I wasn't entirely sure myself, but it seemed a bit off. Obscure Lobotomy (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks in advance for reading this report and taking appropriate action. I understand how hard your job must be and that you are volunteers.

I am the wife of the subject of this bio. Recently an anonymous editor using IP address 90.219.111.127/EarlWhitehall made numerous factually incorrect changes, painting my husband as a racist. Per WP:BLP, I respectfully request that the (now semiprotected) page be reverted to the state prior to the onset of this recent vandalism (the last edit by Johnnyyiu). I would like the time to defend this neutral version before the potentially libelous material is re-inserted. I have clear arguments as to why the information is inappropriate, inaccurate, and taken out of context. The bio itself must remain in the neutral state while this is decided per Wikipedia policy.

I characterize it as vandalism because the user above [outing redacted] has a personal vendetta against my husband and has come to Wikipedia to nurture his grudge and exact revenge. My husband kicked him out of our Facebook group 2 years ago and he has been hounding Chris ever since. He has set up Facebook and Patreon groups, using our brand, to mock him and divert our potential members (I am currently in discussions with Facebook legal to address this problem; his trolling is driven and extensive).

Thanks for your attention to this matter. DrL (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare has already been working on cleaning that up. Can you be more specific about what you think is the problem? The changes seem to be sourced. I do not think it would be appropriate to revert Gorilla's work without some better reasons. Don't try to out people's identities or you will probably be blocked. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

In fairness, DrL created this section before I was able to start cleaning up the article in any meaningful way. @DrL: Could you say whether you feel the article is acceptable in its current iteration? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Without violating

WP:Outing, does anyone know what's going on with the above article and especially talk page? It's not just one editor, there seem to be a bunch of SPAs. Has the article been brought up somewhere else or is there some off wiki dispute that is being brought here? Nil Einne (talk

) 11:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Nil, yes we know exactly who the user 90.xxx is IRL and it's terribly unfair that this user was allowed to come in and his bio now so defamatory. I'm truying to get this reverted to the last neutral version before he catches wind. He's writing an important paper on QM and I don't want him to be distracted from that so I am trying to take care of it - not working out so far. And yes that user is working in tandem with another that we know personally IRL. My husband is a troll magnet and he has several dedicated detractors, sadly. DrL (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

GW, I appreciate your honest efforts but, honestly, the page may even be even worse now and should be reverted to the last edit by user Johnnyyiu who put it back to the point just before the string of edits by IP user 90.xxx.xxx.xxx (who has a personal vendetta with my husband) started editing. I really do not have the time or interest in having this become a legal matter but I need to remind you to follow your own rules. Per WP:BPL - contentious and contested content must be removed from a BLP and only then is the material to be debated on the talk page. I respectfully request that you do that at your earliest convenience. Nice cat, btw! DrL (talk) 10:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. I'm not particularly interested in who one editor is. I'm wondering why there have suddenly be 3 or more different accounts who barely edit anything else. Your account, I understand since you've declared your connection, but not the other ones. And to be clear, when I say accounts, I do not mean IPs. Nil Einne (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

In case there is anyone still watching this discussion who isn't aware, there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Christopher Langan about whether to impose any special measures. Nil Einne (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Is anyone able and willing to whip this rather extreme article into acceptable shape? I made a few edits but need support here. Many of the sources are primary and/or completely unacceptable, there is editorial overload and commentary in the reference notes, the writing is fluffy and in places resembles a CV in paragraph format--there is a lot. Thank you in advance. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Wow. I just deleted a bunch of "references", but it could take hours just to check the not-obviously-ridiculous ones. --

talk

) 15:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The life and work of this great Australian writer is libelously cathegorised as cultural appropriation and literary forgeries. These cathegorisations are based on the labelling and accusations coming from a few white Australians, based on their politically correct views, which were rejected by Australians, writers and literary critics as well as publishers. The same labelling and accusations never were accepted ouside Australia nor by Australan Aborigines. The best proof of that rejection are numerous literary awards and honors given to him, worldwide and in Australia.

These labeling and accusations were dutifully mentioned earlier and there was no need for any additional text about the same in this biography.

Therefore, in order to comply to WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE we have to remove two last cathegories (appropriation, forgery) and the text supported by references [14]-[17].

Here we have a serious problem with two editors, Joel B. Lewis and David Eppstein. These two were regularly removing valuable improvements of the biography content, name calling anonymous editors (socks), adding a defamatory content to the biography, taking turns in order to force anonymous users into 3RR violations. --212.95.5.173 (talk) 19:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

B.Wongar's page has come up before. The sources that question the legitimacy of his writings are high quality RSes , and thus it is inapproprate to remove these as their are DUE coverage for the person. --Masem (t) 19:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Scholarly rejected RSs have no quality at all. Those RSs have a zero acceptance internationally. --212.95.5.173 (talk) 19:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian and the Age are globally accepted RSes on WP, and you'd need equivalent RSes to show that they are not RSes for this situation. Just arguing "but he's won awards, these sources don't consider those!" is not sufficient. --Masem (t) 19:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

WP acceptance has no merits here. You have to learn that the literary critcism is not a politically correct thinking. Nobel prize winners (Handke, Boll) who wrote forewords to Wongar books are bigger guns as to the literature than the Guardian or Age authors. Australia Senior writer fellowship award is the highest literary award given to any Australian writer, given to Wongar certainly not for forgeries or appropriations. Australian Aborigines are the only owners of their culture, not some Guardian or Age authors. The Aborigines hailed Wongar as one of them. Clear enough? In addition, here is a long list essays and papers about Wongar’s literature not mentioning appropriations nor forgeries--212.95.5.173 (talk) 19:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

There is not really any point in trying to reason with this person, they are not interested in Wikipedia except as a vehicle to promote their obsessions. I suggest someone close this section. --

The claims for misrepresentation and misappropriation are well sourced. It would be best if the BIO were permanently semi-protected. That would stop the tendentious IP edits that have been a long-standing feature of it. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC).

Yes indeed: a definite improvement. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC).

A series of edits by a new account removed the subject's last name, then edit-warred to remove sourced content. I don't know if this was vandalism or attempts to control content by a COI account. Would appreciate more eyes on this. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear to me from the article that this individual meets notability under

WP:PROF. Bueller 007 (talk

) 16:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be no pass of

WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk

) 01:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC).

I would like to dispute the addition of a picture added by CharlesShirley on 03:40, 19 November 2019. (See View History). He replaced the official picture from my campaign website electjudgerichardson.com to the wikipedia page "Bert Richardson (judge)" with a picture that is clearly edited/photoshopped to be unflattering. This was done during very contentious election campaigns between myself and my opponent. I have taken the picture down several times only to have CharlesShirley replace it shortly after. I have since replaced the edited photo submitted by CharlesShirley by the official photo from the campaign website. CharlesShirley is clearly not one of my fans (as made apparent in his comments regarding one of my prior judgements on 03:44, 19 November 2019‎ and 17:14, 8 October 2019‎) which is completely fine. Nevertheless, the posting of and the site's use of unflattering photos for candidates running for election/reelection amidst their campaigns renders any such page to be non-neutral. It's also a mean thing to do. It is my understanding that Wikipedia's policy and mission is to remain an unbiased source of information and knowledge. I believe that these kinds of things violates Wikipedia's ideals and purpose.

Respectfully, Bert Richardson — Preceding unsigned comment added by BertRichardson (talk • contribs) 01:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• That photo will not be restored if I can help it, but the one you uploaded has a copyright problem. For now I agree with this edit by Schazjmd. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The editor who originally added the badly photoshopped image has reverted its removal and is demanding consensus to remove it. Schazjmd (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

It certainly seems the editor who has added the picture should not be touching this page and probably no pages in American politics.Slywriter (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The Controversy section of my bio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad_Ford#Controversy) does not meet the Wikipedia standards. It sources a Reddit thread where a user made an unsubstantiated allegation about me (I edited my own big boards on ESPN). The user did this without any knowledge that I had edited the boards (the boards were later confirmed to be edited by ESPN ... but they found no evidence that I edited them). This is slanderous toward me and I want the entire section removed. Rumors posted on a Reddit board, even if picked up by Deadspin (who only reported what was said on the board, didn't do any independent research) is NOT a reliable source. Please remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.150.162.202 (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the section, as the only reliable coverage is the Deadspin articles there and a Chicago Tribune article, not enough RS to support (even when EPSN backed up the innocence). --Masem (t) 20:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!

• Harborside Health Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone has been coming to this article with a similarly-named registered account [17][18], then several revolving IP addresses and repeatedly claiming a living person was co-founder, without valid citations [19][20][21][22][23]. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Please participate in the Talk page conversation at Talk:Judy Genshaft#”Al-Arian Controversy” Proposal Thank you. Rocky.abcd (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Rocky.abcd: You're probably going to have a rough time getting broad input when your opening statement there is some 1,500 words. GMG^talk 16:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I flipped around the proposed language so it is on top. There are only about 180 words above the proposed language. The background research is now below the proposal for those who want to read it. Rocky.abcd (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect claims are being added to Bianca Andreescu, despite reliable sources to the contrary. These reliable sources explicitly state that Grand Slam tournaments are not owned by the ATP or WTA, and are included in the Grand Slam article. Some editors want to credit her Grand Slam title to the WTA anyway. The WTA website does credit her GS title as theirs, though I think this qualifies as a questionable source, while the others are more neutral. Intervention requested. -- James26 (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

They are not incorrect claims as this user has been reverting multiple editors who have tried to explain it to him. This is a simple content dispute where one person is in the minority and keeps bring it to different wikipedia locations to plead his case... such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, where it was closed instantly. Everyplace but where we all tell him to take it... Tennis Project Talk Page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

They are incorrect claims, as

WP:NOR. -- James26 (talk

) 23:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Why don't we remove the specifics, which are at the center of this friction, and just say something akin to "Career titles, 9 (includes WTA, ITF, Grand Slam, and WTA 125)." -- James26 (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Problematic edits by BLP subject

This BLP appears to have been created and maintained by the subject. (Diff admitting this here.) Few of the sources listed are good enough for BLP purposes, and many of them do not support the wording claimed. Not surprisingly, a good deal of the subject's preferred text seems to be puffery.

Where RS are used, the actual stories are either straight media releases by the BLP subject, or relying heavily on same. When the subject issues a press release, has it printed verbatim in a dubiously reliable source, and then uses that to support the text in our BLP, I have difficulty swallowing the accuracy or authenticity of the material.

I don't think there's a problem with notability. The subject seems to have had a role in some niche organisations which are covered in WP, but there are few independent sources to back up the claims made.

There has been some discussion on the talk page, but the subject seems to have ignored all advice on sourcing.

I've removed all inadequately sourced, or BLP non-compliant material, but subject restores it. Rather than get into a slow-motion edit war I'd be grateful for some additional eyes on this piece. --Pete (talk) 09:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• As per some off-wiki evidence, a freelancer (possibly user
  meatpuppetry. GSS ^💬
  11:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit0695 (talk) 04:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

biographies of living people

? I was drawn to the page because an unreliable political blog was being used to support the wording, and on investigating further, found that it violated wikipolicy in many ways. A desire to see the article conform to an important policy does not amount to a personal attack on you! I am sure that you are a superb repository of accurate information about yourself, but we need good and reliable sources for everything we write about living people. This is an encyclopaedia, after all.

We generally need excellent sourcing for such articles. Tabloids, blogs, primary documents, or the subject themself are not considered especially useful. Reinserting crappy sources will not endear you to Wikipedia, and making a fuss over it at ArbCom likewise. I was not particularly delighted to discover for myself that I had twice been named as a party to a purported ArbCom case without so much as a ping!

And now I find that when accurate information supported by impeccable sources is provided by a helpful editor - @Auric: - you take it upon yourself to remove it!

May I suggest with the greatest of respect, that you refrain from turning our article into an autobiography. If you have any concern with the material, ask for help. Making a

request

on the article talk page, for example. Wikipedia is loaded down with helpful, knowledgeable, experienced editors who take great pleasure in being useful and productive. I have a handy list of such folk somewhere, but I have been asked not to bring it out in public again, so I will respect the ArbCom decision on that point.

(ETA) Seriously, though. This is something we have to get right. Jimbo made the point back in 2006 that dealing with BLP subjects is always fraught. We are here to work with you, so far as our policies go, and if everybody comes out happy, that's a win. --Pete (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The edit you linked to was not made by myself, but by Edit0695. I'm not sure why I was even pinged.--Auric talk 22:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I tagged you because you did the work and put in some good sources, and then the subject wiped out your effort and turned a decent article into a stub. Where do we go to from here? Gang up on him in an edit war? Refuse to let him edit his own BLP until he complies with policy? I'd rather have this chap onside, but if he's just using us as a place to hang his picture - and I've got reservations about the sourcing of that image - then what's our future? --Pete (talk)

We seem to have a case of

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on the part of Edit0695. Instead of explaining specifically what he objects to, he has engaged in edit warring, and posting complaints, such as this one on this page, as well as on his talk page and the article talk page. I have attempted to explain to him that his preferred version of the article won't be kept until he explains why valid sources and content must be removed. So far, he has declined to do so. ~Anachronist (talk

) 04:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Jones is a man who has in the past self-identified/lived as a transgender woman. He does not want gender identity mentioned in his BLP: for instance, he said today in an edit summary[24]

I am Kevin Bujo Jones, I have edited my Bio to only reflect Kevin Jones or Kevin Bujo Jones. My personal life is personal. You mentioning Koko Jones on this Bio inhibits my ability to work as a musician in my field of Jazz. I no longer present as Koko and don't want any mention of it on this Bio. Not only has it put my safety in jeopardy it decreases my ability to work.

Mr. Jones is a low-profile individual, and the only solid RS on the subject is this magazine article. He's been trying to remove the content outing him since at least 2015, with no success. I removed some of the gender-identity content a few months ago, and cut more just now; please advise on how this issue should be handled. Cheers, gnu57 22:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

We can omit any mention of trans identity per se but I don't see how we could selectively scrub Who's That Lady? from the article (particularly the discography) or the fact it was released under a different name. That would be confusing to readers. This fits most closely with the example given in situation 1) of the "Recommendations" section of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity, which it is worth noting is just a draft at this point. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, I completely agree that we shouldn't omit the album. Do you have any view on whether to include both names in the lead? I think that this is a more difficult situation than most gender-identity privacy cases: typically they involve transgender people who are out as trans but wish to keep details about their pasts such as former names private; whereas in this case Mr. Jones isn't public about being detrans. Cheers, gnu57 00:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused by this post and the "request" from the supposed BLP since I have always been lead to believe by the WP community that no one person owns an article: not even the subject. Second, can anyone simply say they are the subject of an article and request changes? Third, an article is not a resume, correct? If an article reflects content found online by reliable sources, how could citing it here at WP be detrimental to the BLP's career? Since when does WP answer to subjects? alive or dead? I mean, I'm sure there are many transgender BLPs that would love to have their articles scrubbed of any mention of who they once identified as - or didn't. But that's not how an encyclopedia works. Maineartists (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Editing your own page is highly discouraged however suggesting and discussing edits is not and is an important part of resolving disputes about BLP's with kindness. On the other hand when it comes to BLP's of questionable notability requested deletion of the entire article can very well be factored in WP:BIODEL. So far Kevin has not requested deletion, but the changes they are requesting (total removal of the name Koko) can only be achieved by undermining the basis of notability of the article. It would be nice if a more productive discussion could be had with Kevin as an equal editor, in the sense that it would make coming to a consensus on this article easier, but it's also unfair to every editor to have the time and know-how to dispute resolve that way. 128.40.76.3 (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

If he was notable when he identified as "Koko Jones", then "Koko Jones" has to remain in the article and as an alternate name in the lede. There's no way around it. If he was only ever notable as "Kevin Jones", then I think "Koko Jones" can be removed from the lede. And in that case we probably don't need to go into the details of his past gender, esp. considering his marginal/questionable notability to begin with. Regardless, Who's that Lady should remain in the Discography section as "As Koko Jones". A better question might be whether he is notable enough for a biography at all. Session work plus a few non-notable albums as band leader doesn't make you notable. Looking at the edit history, it is also clear that there is a long history of this person editing the page himself (ditto for at least one associate). Bueller 007 (talk) 04:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The notability of this artist must be weighed against the risk of WP:HARM issues. I think people are overrating the notability of this artist's trans name. If the artist was only notable as Koko for a single album then the inclusion of their dead name is appropriate in the section and the current wording that notes their " moniker" in a neutral way without explicitly bringing up their gender identity is respectful to their privacy. The inclusion of their name in the lead looks risky to me. Looking at the edit history someone claiming to be the artist blanked the header with a note about risk of harm, and was mindlessly reverted. This reads almost exactly like the start of the "Do not overlook legal threats" example. I think the removal of their former name from the lead is appropriate until there is consensus and the person in question's statement of potential harm has been better assessed. 128.40.76.3 (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The handling of this page in terms of discussion is just sad, over the course of the 5 years almost all of the contentious content has been removed; but it took 5 years of the apparent autobiographer battling it out with nobody engaging in talk when reverting their edits. Legal threats are ignored all the way up to ANI noticeboard? At this point the state of this page is generally good, but the final mention of "Koko" under the Who's That Lady? album may still be contentious with the editors claiming to represent Kevin. I think —DIYeditor is right about not being able to selectively scrub the album. If the album is notable then the name under which it was released is notable. So the question is, is the album notable enough to be worth the privacy conflict and by extension is the bio as a whole notable enough. Ideally we would be able to talk about this final point contention reach a compromise with subject. If not I think this article should be reccomended for deletion. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear that there is any ongoing dispute over the content of the article. I don't see a problem with it now unless the whole thing does not meet NMUSIC (I tagged it for being possibly so). There's no further compromise to be had as far as I can tell. Kevin chose to publish an album under the name Koko, it received media attention, this is part of the article. The legal threats have no foundation now if they ever did. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Firstly if you actually read the years long demands in the edit summaries presumably Kevin and co are asking for complete removal of the name "Koko" ("I no longer present as Koko and don't want any mention of it on this Bio."). In their edit they blanked the lede and the album. This has not been addressed because it cannot be addressed without further input from them as editors. This is indeed not a MOS:IDENTITY issue, as the current page is more than compliant with that set of policies, rather a potential WP:NPF/WP:BLPCOMPLAIN issue. Secondly it is absolutely not our role as editors to evaluate legal threats in any capacity. It is our responsibility to avoid legal escalation that could hurt chances of constructive editing. It's also an editor's responsibility to think before editing and not ignore legal threats.128.40.76.5 (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Andi Peters - I don't think this talk page conforms to BLP - it contains speculation about a TV personality's sexuality, with slights about being camp. To my knowledge, Peters has never stated his sexuality publicly. The comments have gone unchallenged since 2008, which seems a bit lax. Cnbrb (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Removed the section 128.40.76.5 (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - probably for the best. Cnbrb (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I claim this (and this and this) is a clear violation of BLP. Specifically, describing the subject of the article as [[Narcissistic_personality_disorder|Impostor]] is completely inappropriate. I have therefore removed the edits. Note, though, this is the article's talk page. While still covered by

It is a question that comes in sources: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elizabeth-holmes-narcissist-151500107.html but to unequivocally state she has a psychological disorder or that she is an "imposter" is not good, it would have be more nuanced with who said it and under what context. -- GreenC 16:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Page

Tulsi Gabbard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Is this

"[Tulsi Gabbard] was raised in part on the teachings of the guru Mr. Butler, who founded The Science of Identity Foundation, and whose work she said still guides her."

Per the Manual of Style, "Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated."

I think that unless it specifically says what part of the teachings Gabbard was raised on and how his work still guides her, that it doesn't say anything meaningful. It reads more like an opinion piece than an encyclopedia.

TFD (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Two points: As written, it seems wrong, but the version in the current version of Gabbard's article, which is not the same, is worded differently to avoid the problem.

Second, alot rests on sources as this all at first blush appear to be unduly self-serving and not appropriate per

WP:BLPSPS-- but this all appears to be information drawn from a NYtimes piece - perhaps in her words but still as reported by NYTimes, and thus, at least in the version in the article presently, is fine. --Masem (t

) 15:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I see that in the article version you refer to [25], only the word "guru" (which could be seen violating

WP:LABEL) is removed from the quote given by user TFD. This small difference does not solve the problems of weasel wording in the sentence. Xenagoras (talk

) 00:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• The material quoted by the OP is from this New York Times article. The article says

  In a race with a lot of history-making candidates, Ms. Gabbard lays claim to many potential firsts — she would be the first female president, the first American Samoan, the first from Hawaii, the first surfer, the first vegan.
  
  She would also be the first Hindu. She was raised in part on the teachings of the guru Mr. Butler, who founded The Science of Identity Foundation, and whose work she said still guides her.
  
  “Muslims have imams, Christians have pastors, Hindus have gurus, so he’s essentially like a Vaishnava Hindu pastor,” Ms. Gabbard said. “And he’s shared some really beautiful meditation practices with me that have provided me with strength and shelter and peace.”
  — [26]

The text in the Gabbard BLP is

Gabbard was raised in part according to the teachings of the Science of Identity Foundation (SIF) religious community and its spiritual leader, Chris Butler.

The material in the article is backed by two other sources: [27][28]. I would also note that our style guide does not extend to the New York Times. - MrX 🖋 16:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The issue is not whether it is sourced, but whether it is weasel-wording. There may be an issue of Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing too. TFD (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

If the statement by Bowles is a paraphrase of the quote from Gabbard that follows, it introduced ambiguity and vagueness where there was none in Gabbard's original. If it is not a paraphrase of what Gabbard said to her in the interview, it's Bowles's opinion presented without evidence or attribution. Humanengr (talk) 03:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Gabbard'w statement doesn't say very much either except that Butler explained some meditation practices to her. It's not possible to take a passing reference to someone and infer much. TFD (talk) 05:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

When the source attributes material to the subject, as the NYTimes ref does ("she said still guides her"), it's going to be difficult justify mention or provide encyclopedic context for the material. Yes, it's vague and ambiguous, and intentionally so. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

A way to state the material from the NYTimes w/o appearing weasel would be, simply, "Gabbard adheres to the Hindu religion and follows the teachings of Chris Butler, the founder of the Science of Identity Foundation." (Note that, carefully, she has not asserted she is a member of the SIF, only that she sees Butler as her guru) Mentioning the SIF relative to Butler is fine only as both the Times gives that as that helps gives an idea of what "teachings" Gabbard gets. --Masem (t) 18:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• I think we should just quote Gabbard here, as her own words are straightforward and avoid any suggestions of possibly significant but unclarified adherence. -Darouet (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • This can be an issue of "unduly self-serving" though this is not quite an SPSBLP issue (no doubt those are her words as quoted by the NYTimes). We want to identify she states she is Hindu and that she follows his teachings, at bare minimum. Everything else in her quotes is excess, though we certainly can include her admiration for Bulter after doing that. --Masem (t) 18:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: There are two issues. First, what do you find self serving in Gabbard's comment about Butler?

Second, are you confident that the statement that Gabbard is still guided by SIF guru Butler is accurate, given the evidence available, and skepticism from a number of editors here? -Darouet (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The New York Times is a reputable newspaper that is considered a highly reliable source on Wikipedia. If you have some sources that say that they botched this story, let's see them. - MrX 🖋 19:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

If you'll look at the broader sources, you'll see that Gabbard is notoriously tight-lipped about her religious beliefs and upbringing. That's why the NYTimes settled with attributing the brief statement. In this context, it's a statement by a politician trying to manage her image. That's self-serving. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

So, you think that by saying that she is still guided by Butler's teachings, she is helping her political image? Do tell. - MrX 🖋 19:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hipal: I think what you've written is possibly accurate, though it's unclear what the fuller description Gabbard could conceivably give would be.

What about my second question? -Darouet (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Stepping back to our purpose, for any bio, we'd like to identify a notable person's religion if it is clearly made note of in reliable sources. When it is not covered by reliable sources, using primary ones to include that may be unduly self-servicing particularly to the level of detail asked for here. Eg; if Gabbard said this in social medium, the only piece I'd even consider mentioning is the Hindu part and nothing of Butler/SIF. And note this would not be "first Hindu candidate", just "Hindu" (the former being self-serving). But that's not the issue as the NYTimes chose to cover that facet in this piece on Gabbard; they could have opted to omit those comments completely. There is no second-guessing that that is what she says she is, or that's how she views Butler. We also do not expect the NYTimes (being as highly reliable as it is) to be "managing" any politician's image, which is an understandable concern if this was, say, Fox News or similar.

In terms of if she's basically lying or exaggerating to the Times, then the way to manage that is, taking what I said above with modificaton: "In an interview with the New York Times, Gabbard says she adheres to the Hindu religion and follows the teachings of Chris Butler, the founder of the Science of Identity Foundation." Now that leaves the potential for the exaggeration or the like but leaving any excessive "unduly".

Remember that per BLP, unless we actually have sources that explicitly state doubt with self-made statements, we should not be trying to second guess what BLP say about themselves. We're not here to try to assess how valid a self-made statement is, only how appropriate it is to include, and to that end, that's the self-serving side. --Masem (t) 19:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I hope this proposed wording by Masem addresses everyone's concerns. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm of the mind that attribution is not needed, but if it helps move us past this minor content dispute, I have no objection to using the wording suggested by Masem ("In an interview with the New York Times, Gabbard says she adheres to the Hindu religion and follows the teachings of Chris Butler, the founder of the Science of Identity Foundation."). - MrX 🖋 14:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I personally don't think its needed either. Again, unless someone can pull RSes that expressly doubt Gabbard's statements or what the NYTimes has actually said, I think what I stated above is a copyvio-free (not close paraphrase), accurate, non-self-serving encyclopedic summary of her religious stance that we can source and there's little doubt left open from the NYTimes article to need the attribution. If this were Fox News... eh, maybe. But not the NYtimes. --Masem (t) 17:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Masem’s proposed text ("In an interview with the New York Times, Gabbard says she adheres to the Hindu religion and follows the teachings of Chris Butler, the founder of the Science of Identity Foundation.”) is another misleading paraphrase. It substitutes the weasel word ‘follows’ for the weasel word ‘guides’, while leaving the weasel word ’teachings’ for what could be a canonical example of “creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated.” What are these mysterious 'teachings' alluded to but not specified? All that the Times quotes her as saying is that she learned some meditation practices from him.

I think I can safely guess that neither Bowles nor any editors here have even a reasonable level of comfort and familiarity with – let alone expertise in – Hinduism, the guru system, meditation practices, etc. I’m not sure why we are even entertaining the use of subjective judgement characterizations from non-experts as "fact statements" about a living person in an encyclopedia entry.Humanengr (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@

We are not allowed to question that unless you can point to RSes that question that Butler doesn't offer "teachings" or similar. We as editors cannot stoop to this level of doubt if no sources give this. --Masem (t) 02:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

MASEM, neither Gabbard nor the NYT analysis say that she follows the teachings of Chris Butler. Gabbard merely said that Butler shared some meditation practices with her. Compare with the Jeremiah Wright controversy. Unlike Gabbard, Obama was a member of the clergyman's congregation and we have more than a single paragraph where he discusses him. But despite the claims of Fox News personalities, it would be a leap of faith to conclude that Obama adhered to Wright's teachings. Obama did not think America was evil or that black brains were constructed differently from white brains or that the Jews had undue influence. TFD (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I just dug just the tiniest bit into looking at more sources, and this gets messy fast because other sources want to dig a lot more eg NYMag from last June. I look at what is presently written, squitting my eyes between the NYTimes the sources like this NYMag, this more recent NYTimes piece, This piece in The Nation, and a few others , and then look to what is currently there Perm link at the 3rd para under Early Life and the only issue I can see is with the close paraphrase of the first sentence "Gabbard was raised in part according to the teachings of the Science of Identity Foundation (SIF) religious community and its spiritual leader, Chris Butler." but I cannot see any easy way to dissamble that without bringing in OR....

The only way I can see a way to strip out the close paraphrase while staying exactly to what the NYTimes is saying is something like "While growing up, Gabbard was given/taught mediation practices by Chris Butler, the founder and spiritual leader of the SIF religious community." (which then the rest of the para still flows from that) --Masem (t) 18:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

And as a wholly separate note, based on just these sources I list above, I'm surprised that neither on her BLP page or or political page is there a more detailed discussion about how she believes her connection to SIF is being used against her. This is not self-serving - you have articles going into depth trying to map her relationship to SIF and Butler. We don't need that level of detail, but there feels like there should be more here at an impartial level. Something like "In her president campaign, her critics have tries to identify her relation with SIF and Butler and what influence Butler may had had on her positions. Gabbard claims that these accusations arose from bigoty against her Hindu faith." (the same NYTimes above as source for one). --Masem (t) 18:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Masem and The Four Deuces: I apologize for silence - busy with work. I agree with your most recent statements on this issue. Will look forward to contributing shortly. Thanks for attention here. -Darouet (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

We can't even say that she was given mediation practices when growing up because we don't even know if she met Butler. The connection we have is that her father and mother worked for Butler at one time, Gabbard attended a boarding school owned by Butler for two years (although we don't know when) and her husband also worked for him at one time. What teachings if any they adopted is unknown. Nor do we know very much about Butler. He was born in Texas and came to Hawaii in the 1970s where he organized a splinter group of about 20 Hare Krishna who lived in a tent, before pursuing business interests in the far east. Whether or not he maintained his organization is unknown. i assume he still identified as a Hindu when he attended a Hindu conference and Gabbard briefly mentioned him as her "gurudev", whatever that means. It could be a pronouncement of deep loyalty or just a term of respect. It's difficult to put together a narrative based on snippets of information and comments made in passing. TFD (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

This again is second-guessing what NYTimes has said and Gabbard has said. We as editors cannot go here. We have this "And he’s shared some really beautiful meditation practices with me" along with the other sources that all this was her early part of her life ("growing up", but can't say "childhood" or the like) suggests that in her words and taken by the Times that she met him. We summarize sources, we don't deep-dive analyze them. --Masem (t) 22:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

This. If someone wants to show us a source that says "The New York Times article about Gabbard was wrong in saying that she was raised in part on the teachings of the guru Mr. Butler", then that would merit examination. Everything else is

unqualified analysis by anonymous Wikipedia editors. - MrX

🖋 22:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Of course we cannot second guess, that was my point. We do not know what connection there is between Gabbard and Butler so we cannot pretend we do and we cannot imply a connection beyond what we know. All we know for certain is that Gabbard says that a non-notable person shared some meditation practices with her. I cannot imagine any editor here seriously advocating inclusion of that type of information in any other BLP article. TFD (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Just between the few articles I linked above, there is some type of notability between the SIF and Chris Butler (per GNG). I don't know if you can separate them, but it is not like this is some random organization no one knows anything about. The NYMag and New Yorker pieces have tried to go indepth to learn about the SIF and Butler as to better understand Gabbard's background. I would agree with you that if Gabbard say her faith was based on the teachings of a random Mr. Smith she met an at airport of which no one has identified since, then yes there might be reason not to include but at that point, there would likely be no coverage of it at all. But it is clearly obvious that the reliable media has been drawn to the possible connection between Gabbard and Butler/SIF (I get a rough count of 20 separate articles from known RSes on Google News) especially since she has acknowledged a connection herself. What I wrote above does not say she "met" Butler but that only she received teachings from him. That could be handed to her from him, that could be having been played taped messages from him, a whole host of things, but all that she knows that she credits it was his words that she was receiving. --Masem (t) 02:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Butler is non-notable per policy in that there is insignificant coverage of him in reliable sources to write an article. I agree that numerous writers have attempted to connect Gabbard with Butler, but the only thing they have found is a couple of sentences she made in passing. I don't think I have ever seen a case where 20 articles in mainstream sources do this. But I don't think Wikipedia articles should repeat ambiguous claims. Maybe Gabbard is Butler's Manchurian candidate, maybe she merely followed the meditation instructions in one of his pamphlets. Probably the truth lies somewhere in between. But where? If a source tells us that, and it is significant, then I would agree to put it in the article. But for all we know, she never met him. TFD (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I do agree there is zero need to go into any more detail on Butler as covered in Science of Identity Foundation due to how little accurate information there is. But there is more than sufficient RS sourcing that beg whether there is a connection that to not cover it would be failing DUE. It is hard not to find a detailed article on Gabbard that does not touch on this angle. Again, we don't have to go into any detail, the high level detail that the NY Times uses is sufficient. --Masem (t) 03:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Despite the great ambiguity present, I think at an absolute minimum we need to link the NY Mag article so that a reader who’s very interested in this topic will find it. That’s the point of an encyclopedia. -Darouet (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely that's fair. As said, I do not expect any further detail on Butler or SIF than I've suggested to be included in Gabbard's article, but the ref to NYMag is fine even if it digs farther than our BLP policy would go (NYMag is still an RS). --Masem (t) 08:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Darouet, the point of this encyclopedia is not to create a link farm to dubious publications. That's a stunning misstatement of what we do when we evaluate sources and write policy-based summaries of them in our articles. SPECIFICO talk 15:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

NY Magazine is dubious? --Masem (t) 15:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: ...in certain quarters, I suppose! -Darouet (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be

You do understanding you are putting into doubt the New York Times, pretty much the gold standard of reliability, verifability, and accuracy on Wikipedia? We are not going to cast any doubt on what the NYTimes says unless you have an equivalent RS that specifically calls into doubt what the NYTimes is saying. Period. The NYtimes article is old enough that if there was soemthing inaccurate they would have put on an errata about it. If the New York Times say, in a non-opinion piece, that "X is Y" but doesn't seem to give any source for that, we're still going to assume "X is Y" is a fact.

Now, in terms of using Gabbard's direct quote from the Times article, this is where the issue of self-serving comes into play. It doesn't make any sense from above to go into excessive detail on Gabbard's article of who Butler is or the SIF is as they are rather unknown entities. To that end, it doesn't make sense to use Gabbard's "gushy" statement related to Butler for the same reason, in addition to being self-serving. All that makes sense to state out of the NY Times article is that at one point in her earlier life she had teachings from Butler that she was guided by, and considered him his guru. Don't need more, can't use less. --Masem (t) 02:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I do not want to seem pedantic but when we are discussing facts, it would be helpful if we spoke factually. The New York Times did not say whatever you want to include. It is taken from an article by Nellie Bowles, who writes about technology and social media for the New York Times. She is being sued for implying that Lawrence Lessig approved of taking money from convicted sex offender Harvey Epstein when in fact Lessig said it was wrong to take money from him.[38] It is clear that in Gabbard's case, she is providing opinion rather than fact. Like most opinions, it cannot be verified or refuted, because opinions are an analysis of facts, not facts themselves.

The implicit opinion expressed is that Gabbard is not progressive and still holds reactionary views which for some reason she hides. If we want to add that observation to the article, that is fine, but it should not be presented as a fact.

TFD (talk) 02:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

What Lessig is suing over is that Bowles took statements out of context to create that implication that Lessig implicitly approved the school to take Ipsteins money, which he never said as one direct thought and which was in counter to a statement he made that said the school should never have taken Ispteins money. There's lots of ways to dissect the statement but at no point was Bowles falsifying anything, but unfortunately was simply engaging in opinionated reporting to try to draw the reader to a specific conclusion without stating anything wrong. Just associating facts out of context or without the complete picture. Now, was Bowles doing that on Gabbard's article? I have no idea, and if it was a "bad" article for Gabbard, she's had plenty of time to express it. But focusing specifically on the issue of the Hindu faith and what she sees as her relation to Butler, there's very little in Bowles' article that can be taken in question, working on the assumption that this article passed through the Times editorial review desk before it hit publication. We have not only what Bowles wrote but Gabbard's quote, which shows that Gabbard considered Butler as being a religious teacher of some sort - whether that was directly, by tapes, by some other means, we can't tell, but that's basically all that is possible to read off the NYTimes without any doubt, and that's literally all that we need to go into on the matter. Add that this all aligns with past articles from other RSes, this is not some previously unknown revelation. We don't need to be trying to dissect these sources any further because that is going waaaaaay beyond what we are to do as editors, particularly when it comes to BLP and RSes. We summarize RSes. NY Times is an RS, perhaps THE ur-example. Ergo, we should not be doubting this at this point.

I don't see how any of this part, simply stating that she state that she followed teachings of Butler, implies anything about not being progressive or holding reactionary views and hiding them. --Masem (t) 15:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The problem is created entirely by the ambiguity and

Bhagavad-Gita by her mother. [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62]

To summarize: The NYT implies that Gabbard is "controversial socially conservative" although she has turned into a socially progressive during her deployment to Iraq. The NYT implies only one of several among Butler's previous teachings without mentioning that he stopped teaching that (his opposition to same-sex marriage), while it omits the other more important parts of Butler's teachings which Gabbard is still guided by. Therefore

we need to be clear

towards the readers, by which parts of Butler's work (teachings) Gabbard's personal lifestyle is still being guided (bhakti yoga, vegetarianism, no smoking, no alcohol and no drugs for her personally) and by which parts her political policies ares not guided (opposition to same-sex marriage, smoking, alcohol and drugs). We should write,

"Tulsi Gabbard was raised on the teachings of the

Bhagavad-Gita by her parents [63], and in part on the teachings of the Bhakti yoga guru Mr. Butler [64] [65], who founded the Science of Identity Foundation [66]. Gabbard reversed her opposition to same-sex marriage during her deployment to the Iraq war [67] and has been advocating for LGBT rights since 2012. [68] [69]" Xenagoras (talk

) 02:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Masem, I do not see any self-serving statement in the proposed quote, Gabbard said that Butler is to her what a pastor is to Christians and that Butler told her helpful meditation techniques, because this is not praising Gabbard or anything she did. The original quote of Gabbard praised Butler's skill at teaching meditation and I deliberately removed all puffery wording from it, although I think

defamation lawsuit against Hillary Clinton. You also wrote, I'm surprised that neither on her BLP page or or political page is there a more detailed discussion about how she believes her connection to SIF is being used against her. There are a lot of media articles (with and without quotes from Gabbard) which are criticizing the media coverage of Gabbard. Please have a look at the repeated deletions of large chunks of content from her campaign page [70] which is one reason why the section about media coverage in her campaign article is so tiny. You proposed to add to the article, In her president campaign, her critics have tries to identify her relation with SIF and Butler and what influence Butler may had had on her positions. Gabbard claims that these accusations arose from bigoty against her Hindu faith. In the past I added material about this topic to her campaign article [71] [72], but it got repeatedly deleted [73] [74] [75]. There had been an RfC on whether and if yes, how to include material about the SIF into Gabbard's BLP. This RfC was closed with the outcome to include SIF material and have a workshop to create the wording for it [76]. The second reason why there is no material describing critique on linking Gabbard to the SIF is that this workshop led to no consensus on the wording [77]. Text proposal number "six" [78] was the only text proposal that described critique on linking Gabbard to the SIF. Xenagoras (talk

) 04:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The net statement outcome is that the suggested statement you have at 02:20 1 March 2020 seems fine, but I will continue to stress: the arguments involved in trying to question and doubt the NYTimes' article on the statement about Gabbard's religion and connection to Butler seem extremely overkill here, particularly given how reliable the NYTimes is considered on WP, how straightforward the part on the religion statements are , the use of a direct quote from Gabbard herself, and the recentness of it. Remember that we are to be summarizing sources, not analyzing, not trying to smooth out someone's reputation for them or help them deal with a hostile press. We do make sure that unnecessary claims aren't included, and I agree to this end that in terms of Gabbard's article, all that needs to be said of Butler and SIF is just its tied to Bhakti yoga/Hindu, and nothing else (whereas other sources try to question if its a cult, and Gabbard's been indoctorined, etc.) But the Times didn't go there, the closest being trying to establish Butler's political leanings to suggest that may have influence on Gabbard, but just like the cult aspect, we're not required, nor are we, repeating that. You take all that fluff out, and get to the point that helps to answer "what is Gabbard's religious beliefs?" from the Times article and there's a pretty direct straight forward answer from the most reliable source there is. Your issue on the term "guru" becomes more an issue of lack of precision and not so much inaccuracy due to Western understandings of those cultures. --Masem (t) 14:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you. About overkill with arguments: I made the extra effort so that other people understand me and what the specific problem is. I also attempted to follow a discussion guideline (whose name I forgot) which requires to present all arguments at once. I'll aim to be as concise as possible. In Western culture, the term guru is vague because of the lack of understanding of Asian religions, and it has a negative connotation. Yoga is understood as a physical exercise. Considering how little of Wikipedia's readers follow links, perhaps we could make understanding for readers easier by adding the descriptor "spiritual/religious" to "teachings." Xenagoras (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

This is where we have to be careful both way to imply more than what was said. "Teachings" in NYTimes' context can be taken a few different ways (spirtual, a more mundane instructional manner, etc.), so we shouldn't presume a meaning here. We can link to SIF, which itself can be linked to aspect of what Butler has been shown to be doing, and from that, let the reader figure out what those teachers may have been, but that's the best we can do without engaging in original research. --Masem (t) 02:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

[striking through incorrect version of proposed text]

@Masem and Xenagoras: Am I correct to understand that the below is the current proposed text with a revised 1st sentence from here and a revised 2nd sentence from here:

Humanengr (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Humanengr, Masem said [79] that my text proposal from 02:20, 1 March 2020 seems fine:

"Tulsi Gabbard was raised on the teachings of the

Bhagavad-Gita by her parents [80], and in part on the teachings of the Bhakti yoga guru Mr. Butler [81] [82], who founded the Science of Identity Foundation [83]. Gabbard reversed her opposition to same-sex marriage during her deployment to the Iraq war [84] and has been advocating for LGBT rights since 2012. [85] [86]

"

Masem said that he prefers to source via the New York Times because they did not try to question if [SIF] is a

cult, and [if] Gabbard has been indoctrinated, etc. like other sources did. He also proposed [87] to include a discussion about how Gabbard believes her connection to SIF is being used against her. Humanengr, let me integrate some of the recently worded text pieces from your example [88] and Masem's text proposal [89]

into my example. Please let me know if you would support my updated proposal:

Tulsi Gabbard was raised on the teachings of the

Bhagavad-Gita by her parents^[1] and in part on the teachings of the Bhakti yoga guru Chris Butler^[2][3], who founded the religious community Science of Identity Foundation (SIF).^[4] Gabbard embraced the Hindu faith as a teenager.^[5][6][7] She said that Butler is to her what a pastor is to Christians and that Butler told her helpful meditation techniques. During her 2020 presidential campaign, her critics tried to identify her relation with the SIF and Butler and what influence Butler may had had on her positions. Gabbard says that these accusations arose from bigoty against her Hindu faith.^[4] Gabbard reversed her opposition to same-sex marriage during her deployment to the Iraq war^[8] and has been advocating for LGBT rights since 2012.^[9][10]