Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive315

This page is an current main page .

This text[1] was removed on the

This is not a neutral description of the issue at hand. The issue here is that on the Rubin page several other BLP subjects are subject to contentious

wp:LABELs in wiki voice. On the respective BLP articles there is a mix of attributed and wiki-voice use of the labels in question. An IP editor removed the labels. I think the IP editor was correct as they are very contentious labels and, in the Rubin article, they are made in wiki-voice with no supporting citations. I'm more than willing to agree that there are sources that use these labels to describe the various individuals. However, since all are BLP subjects, avoiding contentious voices in wiki-voice seems like the correct procedure in this case. Snoog failed to link the talk page discussion [[2]] where I've proposed a possible alternative text. "Rubin has had guests described as alt-right, far-right, nationalist and white supremacist. Controversial guests include [list of names]" The alternative text uses all the controversial labels and lists the names but doesn't directly connect any of them. In my view this avoids the BLP issues and respects wp:LABEL. Springee (talk

) 17:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah a quick look over and I think Springee is right. It is listed in the subjects article if the reader is interested. For the main article controversial is fine otherwise it comes off as guilt by association. PackMecEng (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The way it was added put those labels to those people (not Rubin) in Wikivoice, when it needs to be out with attribution of some type as labels, making it a BLP violation for those four people. You could say, "Critics have accused Rubin of providing a prominent platform to the controversial speakers with alt-right, far-right, and nationalist viewpoints, including Paul Joseph Watson, Lauren Southern, Stefan Molyneux, and Tommy Robinson." Now, that's a tiny bit vague of who's who but it takes the labels out of wikivoice and put on the general viewpoints of all the guests of Rubin, still identifies why that's controversial, and lets readers see who they are and follow links if they are not by name. --Masem (t) 17:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that is a good way to handle it. It's cleaner than what I had originally proposed and again avoids wiki-voice issues. Springee (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah certainly an improvement.

Snooganssnoogans you good with that? PackMecEng (talk

) 17:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't accept the premise, and have offered my own version based on what is said in wikivoice in the parent articles on the BLPs. While the sentence offered by Masem - Critics have accused Rubin of providing a prominent platform to the controversial speakers with alt-right, far-right, and nationalist viewpoints, including Paul Joseph Watson, Lauren Southern, Stefan Molyneux, and Tommy Robinson - is definitely true, I am unconvinced by the "critics have accused" tagline, which implies that others have disagreed and also that only critics have asserted this, neither of which is supported by the evidence AFAIK. So I would prefer either something closer to my own version, or at least text that conforms to

WP:BLPSTYLE. Newimpartial (talk

) 18:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, there's no doubt that all four BLPs mentioned are indeed alt-right, far-right or nationalist (or a combination of more than one), so if Rubin has indeed interviewed those people, all you need is as reliable source saying that he has provided a platform for extremists (or equivalent wording). "Critics say..." is not ideal - either he has, or he hasn't. But we can't say it in Wikipedia's voice without an RS that actually says that Rubin is providing a platform for such people. Black Kite (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The quality "provide a platform for controversial speakers" is an opinion, because the sourced articles do not give the impression that this is Rubin's factual goal with the show, so the "many critics" needs to be there as one point of attribution (though here, we can name the sources, "The Daily Beast and GQ claim Rubin has provided a platform..." In that phrasing, this also implies alt-right/etc. labels are born out from Daily Beast/GQ's assessment too. So that would be better. Alternatively, if there are more, and these just two, you could say "Critics, including The Daily Beast and GQ, claim Rbuin has provided a platform...". --Masem (t) 19:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

If we are committed to attribution, I would go straight for the Rebecca Lewis study in Data & Society, rather than any of the journalistic pieces, based on the quality of the source. And I would attribute directly to Lewis, not to "critics". Newimpartial (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The Lewis study is already mentioned in the article. We shouldn't use it to support the sentence/material in question. Springee (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Masem, except that if it's the Daily Beast and GQ then I would not include it anyway. We should draw a distinction between those sources that comment on the political hurly-burly, and those which are the hurly-burly. The Daily Beast is undeniably the latter, GQ probably somewhere between the two (there have been some very thoughtful pieces there but also some blatant rabble-rousing). Guy (help! - typo?) 20:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the Lewis report, that is probably the preferable source to use (doesn't appear to be SPS, not quite peer-reviewed), but that should still named. Or a way to work all three sources, something like "Critics have accused Rubin of providing a prominent platform to political extremists.(DB, GQ sources). Rebecca Lewis of Data & Society in a 2018 report stated that Rubin's guests are part of a network on YouTube with more extremist views that amplifies far-right politics. These guests include Stefan Molyneux, "a talk show host who promotes scientific racism,' Lauren Southern 'a Canadian citizen journalist who has since been barred from entering England because of her vehement anti-Islam and anti-immigration activism", and ..." (the quotes pulled from the report directly). You have plenty of material in that to be quoted to avoid the issue of bare labels, and probably plenty of names to pick from. (And man, that's a scary picture on those network graphs. That's an article in itself ....) --Masem (t) 21:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Masem, and why is "citizen journalist" so much like "independent researcher", in that the first word invokes a repudiation of everything normally understood by the second. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The Lewis piece is AFAIK the only scholarly study cited in the article, and definitely its highest-quality source. Why should we not cite the "providing a prominent platform" thing to her, since many of the journalistic pieces cited point back to her study anyway? Newimpartial (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The Lewis study was published by her own institute. It was not published in a scholarly journal. It is effectively a white paper by her institute. Also, her article says shows like Rubin's provide a gateway to more radical right material rather than act as a platform (other sources made that claim). Some scholars also disagree with her work.[[3]] Springee (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean, "her own institute"? She doesn't appear on its board or editorial team.

Also, are you proposing that Quilette piece as a reliable source on the topic? Newimpartial (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The institute that employs her vs an independent journal that published her work after review. I'm not proposing using Quilette in an article. What I'm saying is the Quilette author has credentials equal to Lewis and she points out issues with Lewis's work. You claimed that Lewis's work was at a scholarly level but that simply isn't the case. Lewis has some level of credentials in the field but the same is true of many scholars at CATO or The Hoover Institute. Since the work wasn't released via a scholarly review process this isn't the same as an article appearing in a real journal. Springee (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

No, the Lewis piece was not peer-reviewed, but it is certainly "scholarly" in a sense in which the Quilette piece is not - the latter is anecdotal student journalism, while the former is a systematic study following an established methodology. Newimpartial (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Yet someone with scholarly credentials points out flaws with the study (and rightly so). Quillette doesn't claim to be a scholarly journal but that doesn't mean the contributors lack the scholarly standing to criticize Lewis's work. Springee (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

An in-progess Masters degree is not a "scholarly credential", and I don't see any scholarly criticism in the Quilette piece. It is anecdotal political journalism and, if anything, uses a sloppy mischaracterization of Lewis's work to cast aspersions on it. Which is about what one can expect from Quilette - a straw man argument that will appeal to their readers' assumptions. Newimpartial (talk) 23:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

You might review Lewis's limited credentials. Springee (talk) 00:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks like she's a highly-cited researcher whose work appears in and is covered by mainstream sources (i.e. not Quillette), and she's a Ph.D. candidate at Stanford, where she teaches classes with a specialization in online disinformation and extremism. Those are pretty decent credentials. MastCell ^Talk 00:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• We describe people the way that reliable sources describe them; it's really simple. Reliable sources describe Molyneux and Southern as "far-right" and/or "white nationalist", so if we change that to simply call them "political personalities", then that's a bad edit, and a fundamental violation of
  WP:NPOV. It's an example of an editor inserting himself between the sources and the reader, and misleading the reader. It is absolutely not a BLP violation to describe someone as "far-right", or as a "white nationalist", if reliable sources describe them as such. MastCell ^Talk
  00:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• I am in complete agreement with this. We don't whitewash (terrible word, but whatever) people's political and social positions if there are RS for those positions. Black Kite (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• MastCell, this, exactly. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Agree with MastCell and Black Kite. If reliable sources call the individuals white supremacists, etc. we call them that. If the consensus of sourcing is that he's provided a platform for alt-right/white supremacist individuals, we say that as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with MastCell, Black Kite, TonyBallioni, and others. This is simple: we describe people (and groups, political parties, movements, etc.) as the high-quality reliable sources describe them. Full stop. Neutrality^talk 01:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

No one is suggesting we avoid the labels. My concern is using the labels in wiki voice with sourcing that is inadequate to support such labels in wiki voice. Again Masem provided a good alternative that address the wiki voice concern while still keeping the labels. BLP etc isn't something we dismiss because sources like Vox, HuffPo etc choose to use labels. Springee (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that we should

WP:BLP and associated 3 core content policies. If the labels were science-based, that's a different story, but when we're citing news sources and published opinions, we use in-text attribution. All of the above instances are political in nature; i.e., the left accusing the right - which is reason enough to avoid stating anything in WikiVoice. Avoiding labels is not whitewashing, it's avoiding tendentious editing and/or subjecting ourselves to potential BLP liability - I'm saying the latter with a high level of RL experience. It doesn't matter who we are writing about because the same applies across the board; i.e., neutral, dispassionate tone, no subjective labeling, no ideological basis in Wikivoice. ^Atsme _Talk 📧

17:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

This isn't "the left accusing the right". Reliable non-partisan sources routinely describing Molyneux (for example) as a white nationalist/white supremacist (e.g. [4], [5], [6]), and it's not helpful to misleadingly recast the issue in partisan terms.

WP:BLP, it tells us to follow the sources, not to suppress or bowderlize their content based on editorial discomfort. MastCell ^Talk

19:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, it makes sense to distinguish mainstream commentators making goods faith contributions to political debate, from extremist grifters - whether they be animal liberation loons or neo-Nazis. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

No one, I think is saying to remove the labels, but labels are labels and are subjective and absolutely cannot be left in bare wikivoice, just as terms of praise or the like. I've been through this logic many many times before but you cannot avoid some type of in-line attribution with labels, whether that's a named source or some comment like "widely considered", but how to determine when to do that needs to be done by a literature survey to see how frequently the label is used. (That's beyond this discussion but I've talked to this point before, as well as how to apply those sources into the article). You can do this once on the respective talk page of that BLP's article and then the arguments on that label should become moot in the future. But key here is that just becuse "the media uses the label all over and we follow the sources" doesn't mean that we throw out impartiality and neutrality in wording of how we write that, and labels can never be objective by definition, we're just required to fine the right way to incorporate that language when its needed per WEIGHT/UNDUE.

That said, this article being about Rubin, bringing those labels onto those BLPs into here is difficult, because technically now, unless you have a mass of sources that talk about Rubin's show and the same four people as guests and using those labels, it gets into synthesis to combine those sources. If the sources talking about Rubin's show use those labels (not at a point that I can easily check) then absolutely we need to be stating the name of the sources and probably quoting here to take the labels out of Wikivoice. If they don't use those labels and WPian editors are pulling that from our other BLP, that's wrong. If those sources failed to id why those people were "problematic" save for a generic label, we can't fill in those blanks, not our job. Guy says it makes sense to distinguish mainstream commentators making goods faith contributions to political debate, from extremist grifters - whether they be animal liberation loons or neo-Nazis which, no, we can't. If the source failed to do this, we can't go and fill in those blanks. We can wikilink and let readers figure that out but we can't make that direct connection for them. --Masem (t) 20:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Once again I will point out that, if "we" are committed to attribution, the Rebecca Lewis piece is probably the best bet since it is not only the highest-quality source, it also discusses most or all of the "controversial" figures using appropriate labels - if there are any discrepancies between who Lewis labels in the study and who is discussed in the WP text, those should be easy enough to resolve.

This is not to say that I agree that attribution is required, which I don't. For Southern, as an example,

Great replacement conspiracy theorist is not a "controversial label": it is how she is notable, and was essentially her job title for a period of time. Newimpartial (talk

) 20:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I have a very very hard time accepting the idea that (any) "conspiracy theorist" is a career or job title - one actively earning money or the like (at its base that would be like an activist or a writer, etc.) Now, she appears to be self-stating that she accepts that, which is different, but we still need to be careful with using that term about her on Rubin's article. Again, you have material in the Lewis report to identity enough on this page about Rubin why she as a guest (along with Molyneaux, etc.) are why Rubin's show is problematic without having to resort to other nonattributed labels. --Masem (t) 21:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Could all of these guests accurately and constructively be called "right-leaning"? We are paraphrasing, are we not? If "right-leaning" or any other such umbrella term can be accurately and constructively deployed, why are we agonizing over more specific labels when those more specific labels serve political, pigeonholing purposes? This is not even the article belonging to Paul Joseph Watson, Lauren Southern, Stefan Molyneux or Tommy Robinson. We are discussing the Dave Rubin article. It is bad enough that articles like the Molyneux article consist of nothing but label after mind-numbing label. Is it necessary to force people into political pigeonholes at other people's articles? These labels are meaningless, or close to meaningless, in my opinion. I think their main purpose is to dismiss people and the ideas and arguments that they represent. It is also a lot harder to explain their ideas and arguments than it is to simply pin a label on them. I favor using a simple, general term such as "right-leaning" (or something similar) to refer to all these guests when mentioning them at the Dave Rubin article. Bus stop (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

So you consider "right-leaning" to be synonymous with "white-supremacist"? Because I know a lot of right-leaning people who would be very offended that you'd equate the two. It's deeply misleading—and unfair to people who are truly "right-leaning"—to use "right-leaning" as a euphemistic code word for extremists and white supremacists. And since reliable sources routinely note the extremist nature of Molyneux's/Southern's views, it seems just plain false to pretend they simply "lean" to one side of the political mainstream. I don't think falsehoods are an improvement over clear, if unpleasant, truths. MastCell ^Talk 23:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

MastCell—isn't there an umbrella term for these enumerated guests on Dave Rubin's show? Couldn't we just call them all racists? A quick perusal of the articles of Paul Joseph Watson, Lauren Southern, Stefan Molyneux and Tommy Robinson finds some references to race in each article. If there is a better term than "racist" we should consider it as well. All we are trying to do is refer to a collection of guests on The Rubin Report. I don't think that should entail in-depth, separate labeling of each guest. The question is—what do they all have in common? Bus stop (talk) 01:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Masem, some labels definitely can be left in wiki-voice. Jenny McCarthy is an anti-vaccinationist. Stefan Molyneux is a white nationalist. When there's no significant mainstream dissent, we don't need to weasel. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Based on prior discussions, I would agree that if we were at McCarthy's or Molyneux's articles - where a body of sources sit - these labels are ones that ones that can passed w/o attribution due to self-assertion. But this is where I put caution above, when we talk about them on another topic, we can't carry that language (including the ability to say in wikivoice) unless we have sources at the current topic also using that language. If all these sources talk that Molyneux is a controversial guest on Rubin's show for his extreme positions but do not at any point identify his white nationalist stance, we can't introduce that ourself, even though we could reach out to probably multiple articles on Molyneux to show where he self-states that; it is both an OR problem - guessing to what "extreme" stance the author was getting at, and a BLP problem because in less agressive cases WPians could introduce something that may be a NPOV. As a hypothetical, say there is a important piece of abortion-related legislation aimed to provide easier access to clinics, and we have a media piece talking about how the bill was set up by a legislator; while we would normally identify that party of the legislator, a WPian adding that the person was also a Catholic (reported in numerous sources but not the one about the bill), as to throw doubt to the purposes of the bill , would be inappropriate despite being true. If sources did call that out, we would be fine otherwise.

As a specific example, the Lewis report does not actually appear to use "white nationalist" at all, but she does get deep into Molyneux (in the context of a guest on Rubin's show) as "openly promotes scientific racism, advocates for the men’s rights movement, critiques initiatives devoted to gender equity, and promotes white supremacist conspiracy theories" (pg 37) so any of those describers can be attached to Molyneux to be clear of why he is a problem for being on Rubin's show. Of course, the other thing to consider is that as you are selecting blue linked names you could let those blue links speak for themselves rather than necessarily fishing in the report for descriptors. Lewis gives enough descriptors/labels to this central group (not all of Rubin's guest and not the Intellectual Dark Web ones) that we can tell they are the alt-/far-right extremist views that have influence and thus we don't necessarily need the specific labels on any individual. --Masem (t) 14:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

To make matters worse we have an explicit denial. Molyneaux says "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority."[7] Bus stop (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

In that same article the Guardian uses "Canadian alt-right internet activist" for Molyneux in its own voice. It certainly wouldn't say "right-leaning" lmao. Newimpartial (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Newimpartial, we are keenly cognizant that many sources characterize Molyneaux in many bad ways, hence my suggestion concerning the use of the umbrella term "racist" to cover the group of people under discussion. Aren't Paul Joseph Watson, Lauren Southern, Stefan Molyneux and Tommy Robinson all racists, according to at least some reliable sources? Bus stop (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I actually dispute the implication that the Guardian, or others mentioned, are trying to day that Molyneux et al. are "bad". I regard "alt-right" and similar as essentially descriptive labels in this contexts rather than being used by the sourced to praise or condemn.

And my reservation about "racist" is essentially that it is insufficiently precise; e.g., I'm sure some reliable source somewhere has referred to Joe Biden as "racist", but this shouldn't be the same category. Newimpartial (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I chose the word "bad" out of many equally applicable terms because I believe the broad swathe of the American population roundly condemns "white supremacists". The overuse of labels in the absence of further explanation makes an article uninformative. Wouldn't we expect to find extensive quoting from Molyneux in his article showing the reader why he is considered a "white supremacist"? The man is verbal. He isn't a visual artist or a musician. His quotes could be included so that the reader could examine his words and see him in nuanced detail—or are all "white supremacists" the same? Bus stop (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, if that's how the figures are described by reliable sources. If such a description is used by a large number of sources, and if the description is not seriously contested by other reliable sources, then they can be used without attribution per

WP:WIKIVOICE. It's not that hard to categorize people as far-right and alt-right based on their publicly stated social/political positions, and there's nothing exceptional about either of these descriptions. - MrX 🖋

20:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think people should be should be characterized as racist without attribution even at their own article much less at another article. "Racist" is the de rigueur criticism of everyone in the day in which we live. Trump is of course racist. It would virtually be negligent not to call Trump racist. Bret Weinstein was forced to leave his teaching position under the accusation of racism. There is no reason not to use attribution. The reader should be immediately apprised of the origin of the accusation. Bus stop (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Why shouldn't a racist be described as a racist? Because it could make some people uncomfortable? We're an uncensored encyclopedia. We should call things what they are. If there is serious dispute, we should use attribution and include non-marginal opposing viewpoints as policy requires. The overuse or misuse of the word racist as a convenient insult is not Wikipedia's issue nor does it apply to this discussion. - MrX 🖋 21:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The racist label may not be the best example to start from given that it is one of the "objective" labels that can be defined -- but it still has subjectivity to it. That is the nature of labels is that there is no formula or rules or anything like an objective, quantitative test for that purpose, and thus some people may use the label to describe a person as racist when others would not. Again, "racist" is a case where there's not as much subjectivity as other terms like alt-right, etc. so its a poor example but we still need to be careful about its use. It is not something that can be factually applied to person in wikivoice because there is no standard consistent definition of "is a racist" that every writer and reader can agree on that we can reliable use. Only long after the person has died and that is the long-term view of academics can we readily adopt that. Of course, with a living person and the current subject of discussion, and a survey of the reliable sources should a significant to overwhelming use of that label, we are bound by DUE to include that, but we still have to keep it out of Wikivoice, and again, how to do that based on that survey (whether named attribution is needed or not or just a general broad stance "is generally considered a racist."

But this situation is again unique that we're talking about a BLP Y in the context of topic X, and as I've explained above, it becomes a OR and NPOV to bring in labels that refer to Y but not in the context of X when writing our article of X. Eg: probably more than enough sources since Trump took office to say that he is widely considered racist, but it would be very much inappropriate to tag the article on "The Apprentice" declaring Trump racist there without specific sources making said connections.

Also, statements like Why shouldn't a racist be described as a racist? reflect this thinking on WP that needs to be toned down that leads to a lot of the conflict in the AP2 and other topic areas, in this drive that those BLPs that are on the "bad" side - the alt-/far-right area like Molyneux, Trump, and so on - that we need to document every wrong they have done. I've said this before, but BLP articles - of anyone - are not supposed to be laundry lists of all the bad things they are done. They need to be written as summaries of their life. If they have led controversial activities, that's fine, but we should be summarizing that, not documenting every time a news story comes out. Attitude that we need to make sure labels are applied reflect that same stance. It is importance that when there is a clear stance of the media (not cherry-picking one or two sources but when >25% of sources regularly reporting on a BLP) label a BLP then we should not be ignoring that, but we should definitely avoiding trying to wiggle every solitary opinion if its not widely shared. We need to be thinking much more center-of-the-road/conservatively (not in the political sense) here as we write article on controversial BLP and topics related to them, even though there is the drive to use WP to try to be the force to good to show how bad this people are... we just can't. We have to be neutral and impartial in our approach though we certainly are free to include the media's majority stance appropriately. --Masem (t) 00:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

This illustrates what is wrong with discussions on Wikipedia. It's not only a hijack of the original topic, but it's built on faulty assumptions and broken logic. - MrX 🖋 11:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

We have to strike a balance between

Contentious labels. On the one hand, we don't want to imply that there is any possible doubt that these people are far right, on the other hand we don't want to use the term to denigrate them. That must be done on a case by case basis. In general avoid the term when it is redundant, use it when it is not. For example, don't say "x is a member of the far right American Nazi Party." But do say, "The American Nazi Party is a far right organization." TFD (talk

) 23:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

"Racist" is meaningless in the hands of those most likely to use the term. Therefore we should always use in-line attribution. Not only are there no objective standards of "racist" but a social justice warrior is unconstrained by definitions of such terms.

living people. The reader should be apprised which source is leveling the charge of racism. Bus stop (talk

) 03:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Why did this discussion change from two specific political descriptions to racism? - MrX 🖋 11:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be a response to this Trojan horse repeated here, which I deftly avoided but which seems to have ensnared other, more experienced editors. Newimpartial (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes! Trojan horse describes it exactly. I don't know why I didn't recognize it—it's not like I haven't seen this before. - MrX 🖋 20:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

One particular situation would be where the label is

Silly, but understandable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Refocus

I love it as much as the next guy when editors hijack a thread with thousand-word jeremiads about how critical race theory is The Real Threat Facing America. But this thread started with an actual, specific question. To get back to it: it is a fact that David Rubin uses his show to give a platform to far-right extremists and white nationalists, like Southern, Molyneux, etc. We are in the business of conveying facts to our readers. We are not in the business of finding creative euphemisms to suppress or minimize those facts. These guests' appearances on Rubin's show are relevant not because they're "controversial", but because they are extremists—that context is clear in reliable sources, and therefore should be clear in our article as well. MastCell ^Talk 19:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, this discussion has died down so I have a question, where from here? This is contentious material related to a BLP with what looks to me to be no consensus. Normally this would mean remove the material. However, in this case the question isn't inclusion so that wouldn't be the correct action. I think we have consensus for inclusion in some form. The question is inclusion of what? My read is one side is saying we can follow the parent article and include labels in Wikivoice and/or labels that are supported by the parent article even if they are not supported by the sources in the Rubin article. The other side is saying that the Rubin article's sources are not sufficient to apply the labels in Wikivoice so we should use some type of attribution in the Rubin article. How do we handle this in a BLP, no-consensus state? Springee (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Springee—the question is "labels" versus "label". One umbrella term of reference should cover the group of people referenced in the Rubin article. In other words—what do they have in common? The answer is possibly seen in the original post initiating this discussion: "This text[1] was removed on the Dave Rubin page, making it unclear why it was controversial for Rubin to host extremists such as Paul Joseph Watson, Lauren Southern, Stefan Molyneux and Tommy Robinson." What is the umbrella term of reference? The term of reference is "extremists". I am saying this not because I think "extremists" is the most apt term. I am simply saying this because it is one blanket term (umbrella term) to cover all the people referenced in that sentence which is found in the Rubin article. Only one term should cover all such people if they are to be referenced from the Rubin article. Bus stop (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I see your point but I don't think I like "extremists" as the universal descriptor. Again, I think Masem's proposal is best because it is the best compromise between those who want specific labels in wiki-voice, those who feel the labels used must come from sources within the Rubin article (thus attributable) and those who want to avoid the labels in articles not about those being labeled. "Extremist" is probably a true descriptor but I don't think it captures what makes them controversial. An extreme-cyclist or ultra-marathon runner is an extremist but not in a way that is controversial. At the same time I can see the issue with "controversial". Someone like Dennis Prager is controversial for what many feel are misleading or deceptive arguments regarding relatively mainstream topics. Masem's proposal adds more detail to the specific controversies in question without putting things in wiki-voice. Springee (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not seeing how

WP:LABEL. --Aquillion (talk

) 13:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how your comment is a reply to what I was saying. I think that could/should be a separate topic but the issue here is really how do we move forward with a no-consensus state. We do not have a consensus for the current wording but I think we do have consensus for including something. The question is what. Springee (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"Alt-right" is perhaps the epitome of LABEL because it is vastly subjective term, no one agrees where it starts or differentiates itself from the "right" or the "far right". Labels do not necessarily need to be "negative" though most are, but core is their lack of an objective measure (not one that "the media says so, so we go with that"). A "nationalist" itself may or may not be a label depends on context, but a "white nationalist" becomes more of a problem as there are very subjective bounds on that definition, with a grey zone that separates it from the more mainstream "conservative" GOP platform if you go by some media reports. The fact that Molyneux self-identifies as a white nationalist is an exception not a rule as many that seem to be called white nationalists try to deny association with the term, which should clearly make it a label for our purposes. Being a label doesn't invalid using but it requires numerous careful steps to keep it out of wikivoice and apply the appropriate type of attribution to the level it is used in the media. --Masem (t) 13:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The Economist writes "Editor's note: This article has been changed. A previous version mistakenly described Mr Shapiro as an 'alt-right sage' and 'a pop idol of the alt right'. In fact, he has been strongly critical of the alt-right movement. We apologise."[8] What does it say about the term "alt-right" if an astute publication like the "The Economist" can make this error? Bus stop (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Lenny Gomulka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Everything in this article has been fully verified. We are asking that the administrative caption at the very top of the article be deleted as all needed citations have been included and verified. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgomulka (talk • contribs) 14:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I've added extra citations and removed the template, since the citations should be sufficient now. Gbear605 (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Bruce Loveless (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Bfloveless (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 89 § Bruce Loveless

Bruce Loveless is a retired US Navy rear admiral. Recently, I've cut his article down from 8 kilobytes to about 6.5 kilobytes. I've removed an unsourced list of military awards, plus various other unsourced content.

About a year ago, User:Bfloveless removed one sentence of sourced text. I've now restored it.

But I've been having second thoughts about having restored the text.

• A)
  WP:DNOLT
  says: "When editors blank articles ... they may have good cause. Stop and look carefully before assuming they're disruptive".
• B)
  WP:BLP § Public figures
  : Editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured."
• C) I also wonder whether or not Bruce Loveless meets our notability criteria (
  WP:NSOLDIER
  ) at all. If not, then we can just delete the whole article and ignore all of the above.

Your thoughts and suggestions would be welcome. Or, of course, feel free to edit the article directly.

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

No, we don't report allegations unless there is a conviction in a court of law, and that conviction has been covered by reliable, secondary sources. The exception to that is

WP:WELLKNOWN, in which case it will be so widely reported that it's just in every newspaper and magazine that you see, in which case there is no longer any point in protecting their right to be innocent until proven guilty, but this means that the allegations or incident need to be well known (well covered), not just the person by default. Zaereth (talk

) 22:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Loveless is part of a very very big scandal (see Fat Leonard scandal). There's a ton of reporting on Loveless's involvement. These aren't "allegations", they are criminal charges. I disagree with Zaereth that this interferes with the presumption of innocence. Loveless has been charged and is presumed to be innocent unless and until a court finds him guilty. There is no reason to exclude this content. Mo Billings (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

  Dear

  WP:SUSPECT policy or you simply disagree with the policy. Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk

  ) 08:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  I have read that part of the BLP policy and I wholeheartedly agree that we should consider if it is appropriate to include information about criminal charges in BLPs. In this particular case, I think it is appropriate to include the charges. Mo Billings (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  @Unforgettableid: I just noticed that you removed the information about charges from Loveless's article. I don't know if you've taken the time to Google search the case, but the charges are most definitely "well-known". Also check the table in Fat Leonard scandal which lists all of those charged, including Loveless. This isn't an unkown person getting a traffic citation. Please reconsider your edit. Mo Billings (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

My initial concern was a DOB without even a source, certainly no indication even one source would meet

The links to her relatives? If they are notable enough to have articles (which may be questionable, I don't know), I don't see why we wouldn't link them here. I could see removing Ratner (her mother remarried him after Pritzker was very much an adult, and he's questionably notable anyway). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a page presumably created by the person himself, mainly aimed at self-promotion. The citations are poor, in many cases, blogs and the author's own website. Going by Wikipedia's standards, this page must be removed immediately: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that:

is unsourced or poorly sourced; is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see No original research); relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see #Using the subject as a self-published source); or relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet verifiability standards." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vettipayyan123 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe that the issue here is not BLP standards, since the information isn't contentious, but rather simple notability. Of all the sources on the page, none of them are both reliable and contain significant information about Chauhan. Perhaps he is notable, but the current sources do not show it.

• https://www.bbc.co.uk/events/ezc5d4/acts/a6p9mb only lists RKZ (Chauhan's stage name) as a performer at the event
• https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qspy3 says that RKZ performs ‘Superstars’ from his ‘Words of Adrenaline’ Mixtape. and
  has a link to a clone of the Wikipedia information on Chauhan
• https://www.stereofox.com/album-reviews/album-review-handbook-x-rkz-x-supreme-sol-triad-ep/ is not reliable and only barely about Chauhan.
• https://www.thecalmzone.net/donate/ doesn't contain information about Chauhan as of today.
• http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1989674/ doesn't contain information about Chauhan as of today.

And all the other sources are

self-published and about him

or are tweets, so they can't prove notability.

In addition, one editor who has been active since 2011, AlexisBelieve, has contributed more than half of the article and almost all of their edits (158/189) have been to this page. This seems plausibly

WP:AUTOBIO

.

Gbear605 (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The article on Young Dolph lists 2 different birthdates. Unfortunately I do not know the correct birthdate only noticed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.117.16 (talk) 03:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Both references used to source the birthdate say August 11, so I’ve changed the article to consistently reflect that. Neiltonks (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The page is riddled with libel and personal attacks, and the sources cited repeatedly do the same, cleanup is very overdue, but Wikipedia is blocking any but your "trusted" admins from editing it, some of whom appear to be the responsible individulas for using this page as a partisan defamation campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4C04:6290:3524:2B7:A472:1A3C (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest taking your concerns to the article talk page, and proposing concrete changes backed by reliable sources. That usually works best. And it will definitely help if you drop the term "libel," but of course are free to suggest that things are in violation of

WP:BLP. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk

) 02:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

If you can give specific statements or sources which are problematic, for example, "In the sentence that says XXXX, that is incorrect because YYYY" and also include in your assessment links to

reliable sources that support the changes you want to make, that would be most helpful. Vague statements like the above are not helpful for improving articles. --Jayron32

19:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand this problem. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to use the chosen pronouns and name of transgender individuals. However, Wikipedia will mention their deadname when it is the name that they are widely known under. For instance, Wendy Carlos’ page mentions her deadname, since that was the name that she released much of her music under. However, I believe that in this case, mentioning Margot’s deadname is not appropriate, whether or not it is the name on her legal ID, since she is not widely known under any name and English language sources refer to her as some version of her preferred name (Małgorzata or Margot). Gbear605 (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

This needs some eyes. Seems to be subject to much promotional traffic. I asked for one recent

I am reporting false information in the biography of Michelle Lujan Grisham. She is not the first Hispanic Democrat to be elected as governor of a US State. See these articles Ezequiel Cabeza De Baca elected the Governor of New Mexico on November 7, 1916. Jerry Apodaca and Toney Anaya were also Democrats elected as governor. The information in the article, as worded (as well as the first Democratic Hispanic elected state governor in U.S. history.), is false and is easily corrected by inserting the word female before Democratic Hispanic. I am very new to Wikipedia and as yet not comfortable with making edits on my own.

Thanks for your report. Please note the first part of the sentence reads "On November 6, 2018, she became the first Democratic woman elected governor of New Mexico" so that is accurate. With this edit an IP added "woman" to the second part of the sentence so it now reads " as well as the first Democratic Hispanic woman elected state governor in U.S. history." Thus, it looks like everything has been taken care of. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 16:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@

Tiffany Alston, so I think that's all we can do from here. Wikiwand and Google search results are not part of Wikimedia. Wikiwand appears to mirror Wikipedia, so hopefully it'll change according to whatever their update schedule is. Cyphoidbomb (talk

) 18:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Helpmefixthis:For clarity's sake, I moved this article to Tiffany T. Alston. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Would editors mind having a look at this edit at Evo Morales please?[9] Is the implication of pedophilia a breach of BLP policy? One of the sources (panampost) is considered unreliable but the other sources are not in English and are unfamiliar to me. Burrobert (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I looked at this and I would, perhaps should under living person wikipedia guidelines, delete it for the time being. It is very newsy and totally unproven as yet. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes I haven’t seen any English language mentions of this apart from the Panampost story. On the other hand, it is written in such bad and melodramatic English that readers who see it will probably burst out laughing. So leaving it in may serve some purpose. Burrobert (talk) 08:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Burrobert and Govindaharihari: things have moved on since then with new developments which have been covered in the BBC [10] and others [11] [12]. IMO it's starting to receive the level of coverage, as perhaps one would expect given that it involves a former head of state that some mention in the article is likely justified although it probably shouldn't be in to much detail. I definitely don't think we should mention paedophilia in any way. But we probably could mention a criminal complaint was filed alleging statutory rape based on evidence allegedly showing a relationship with a 19 year old that begun 5 years ago when she was 14. Nil Einne (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Nil Einne. Yes, it appears photographs exist of him "in a number of places" with a girl who "was 14 when she began accompanying him on trips". As far as I can tell the girl, who apparently is now 19, has said nothing and neither has Morales. It seems the Bolivian justice ministry has lodged the "complaint". There is no explanation of how the Bolivian justice ministry knows what went on behind closed doors. Definately needs to be in the article - mention the photo's and the Bolivian justice ministry lodging the complaint. By the way there is an election scheduled for 18 October and the MAS party is well ahead. Maybe putting "Pedophilia" in the heading is the way to go. Burrobert (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Some inspection is needed for the recent edits[13] of the newly created account[14] to this BLP article [15] - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

There's clear issues with some of the sources used - online pdfs, access denied - and, at least in the version which I saw, some of the sources not verifying the content for which they're referenced. -

talk

06:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• The subject's comments on the Holocaust have garnered some coverage, such as:
  • "15 years ago, Stanisław Michalkiewicz repeated on the air that Jews benefit from the memory of the Holocaust and that 'holocaust business managers' want to extort billions of zlotys from Poland".
  • Also in Google books: [16], in Robert S. Wistrich: A Lethal Obsession: Anti-Semitism from Antiquity to the Global Jihad.
  • Then in Anti-Judaism, Antisemitism, and Delegitimizing Israel, which discusses Michalkiewicz's "provocatively entitled" pamphlet Herrenvolk po zydowsku. The title obviously connects the Jews to the Nazi concept of the "master race".

--K.e.coffman (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Could we have some editors take a look at this BLP where an editor is repeatedly add in a lot of UNDUE innuendo and other disparaging content here. SPECIFICO talk 14:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm torn here. Some of the information (connections between Black and Jeffrey Epstein) seems to me to be

due - it's covered extensively in reliable sources including Bloomberg and the New York Times - but the initial information was perhaps overly disparaging. Emir of Wikipedia, you removed all the information in [17]. Do you believe that all of it is undue and should not be included? Deltagammaz, you attempted to re-add the information in [18], do you think that all of it should be there? Gbear605 (talk

) 19:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

It should be there in some form, but I think the way it was done was undue. Thought it would be easier to Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The same user has added additional UNDUE innuendo apparently attempting to suggest that Black is implicated in some of Epstein's activities. SPECIFICO talk 17:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, the content is due and not a smear. The New York Times, a RS, certainly sees a connection between Black and Epstein, as does the attorney general of the Virgin Islands. In addition, some of the previous content is due as well, so I'm re-adding it. Gbear605 (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Given that much of Black's coverage in reliable sources is related to his connections to Epstein, the information is certainly due. I've re-added it, but I've removed much of the innuendo and disparaging content, only simply noting the connections. I see no reason to say that it is undue to describe a connection between Epstein and Black, given that it has been reported by Bloomberg, Business Insider, Forbes, and the New York Times. Gbear605 (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a man with a 50 year history in finance and other areas, which is the basis of his notability. It is simply false to claim that "much of his coverage" is over a civil subpoena for documents relating to the recent investigation of a third party. This needs to stay out of the article unless consensus supports including some any of it in some form. SPECIFICO talk 18:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that much of the coverage isn't about this single subpoena, but there are dozens of RS articles discussing controversy around the connection between Black and Epstein. If that isn't significant, I don't know what is. Some significant ones, talking only about the connection, include [19], [20], [21], and [22]. Of course, there is coverage of Black going back throughout his lifetime, but this is a significant amount, making it

WP:DUE

.

I've removed the content from Black's page for now, but I believe that the version I removed in [23] should be re-added, potentially with some changes. Gbear605 (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I would lean towards exclusion at this point. This seems like a guilt by association and given the relatively short length of the BLP I don't think inclusion is warranted. Some Epstein connection may be DUE but the length in question and as a complete subsection rather than a criticism included in parent topic looks UNDUE. Springee (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Sara L. Ellis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A user 'Snickers2686' kept deleting my edits while I was in the middle of edits.

She claimed that I needed to add sources, which I was working on. Then she filed a report.

I reviewed her record and it seems she has a history of being sanctioned and writing biased reports on judicial figures. I am writing nothing bad about the judge herself. I am commenting on a case she oversaw which was highly publicized in numerous media outlets.

I believe it is important to include this case in her biography.

She kept deleting my edits while I was still in the middle of the edits and then wrote me a letter. I feel that individuals such as 'Snickers2686' are operating with an agenda and harm the egalitarian principle of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engaged audience1 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@

section on use of primary sources) both militate against inclusion of the material you sought to add in that form. As a side note, you should notify anyone you reference in a dispute you bring to this board as the big blue box at the top of the page instructs. I suggest that you read the links I've left here before continuing to edit any article. For that article in particular, I notice that FlightTime has already rejected your edit request on the talk page. I want to emphasize that if three experienced editors are saying "no" to your edits that does not mean, "We don't want you in our club." It means, "Please take some time to read these policies that apply and then try again." I hope that helps clarify the situation. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)

19:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Abbasquadir has on three occasions[24][25][26] added potentially defamatory content about Indian actor Sooraj Pancholi at Jiah Khan. [self-redacted] After I reverted the first time, I opened a discussion about it, which the other editor didn't respond to immediately. They then resubmitted the content without consensus, I reverted it again, and they restored it again.

Short story: Jiah Khan killed herself and her suicide note attributes her poor relationship with Pancholi as a cause of her despair. Some terms like "rape" and "torture" are used. Quoting from the suicide note: " "After all the pain, the rape, the abuse, the torture I have seen previously I didn't deserve this." That's highly ambiguous phrasing that could be an accusation that Pancholi committed these acts, or it could also be interpreted in other ways, including that Khan experienced these things prior to her relationship with Pancholi. I don't know how anyone can say definitively that she was accusing Pancholi of rape and physical torture. Also, "torture" is vague. People often use the word as hyperbole, or to describe emotional turmoil.

The other source that Abbasquadir used, this, presents a quote, "I loved you and in return, I received abuses, rape, and physical torture" which doesn't even seem to be in the suicide note. And the only discussion about newstracklive.com that I can find on RSN was here, but it's not a source I'm familiar with in Indian articles, and I edit lots of those.

Anyhow, based on that, I think it's egregiously bad to let this poorly-phrased content survive. I'm also concerned about Abbasquadir's defensive behaviour. Refusing to listen to experienced Wikipedians is not a great choice. At Talk:Sooraj Pancholi he pasted the entire suicide note text. I redacted it as a copyright violation, they restored it. And when Hut 8.5 left a warning on Abbasquadir's talk page, they removed it commenting "please discuss on article talkpage". So, they don't seem too receptive to feedback or warnings. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Self-redacted the potential defamatory content per the BLPN rules. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Please see the talk page, I did "ASK" the Cyphoidbomb (talk · contribs) for a clarification, which the user FAILED to provide. Wonder why is all the exaggeration?

What is this IF NOT

WP:BULLYING?? Abbasquadir

@Abbasquadir:, "What is this if not bullying?" This is a new user failing to understand they have been treated with great forbearance despite attempting to post material that violates US law and this project's policies. "Anyone can edit" does not mean "Anyone can edit at any time in any way they see fit." I advise you stop what you're doing and listen to the explanations you've received. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is the content :In her suicide note Jiah mentioned that Sooraj used to physically abuse and torture her everytime.^[1][2]"

Curious to understand the issue here. Abbasquadir (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

You asked for clarification 7 minutes after you added the content a third time. And what did you need clarification on? I wrote a clear rationale the first time I removed the content. What part of "potentially defamatory" and "highly ambiguous phrasing" was confusing to you? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Question for information only: Is it possible to apply discretionary sanctions to

@

here. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)

19:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: What would you recommend here? This seems like a no-brainer to me that this content should be omitted because it is poorly written and interpretive and is potentially defamatory. Is this even considered a standard content dispute? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb:, a DS alert for Pakistan-india has already been left on Abbasquadir's talk page by Newslinger. I've left a note under your noticeboard alert to clarify that the same sanctions also cover BLP and the articles on the recently-dead. If they do anything else after that point that violates BLP (which I think any mention of the text of the notes certainly does) an uninvolved admin can take whatever measures they think necessary. I think they are intending to follow the rules but as a new user they are not yet aware of all the rules in this area. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

#1)Please note that I posted it on article Talkpage AND NOT MAIN article page, as I was not sure if posting it would be right per wiki norms.

@Eggishorn: Sir, your explanation makes sense to me,. exactly what I was talking about, give me a rational, explanation! which Cyphoidbomb (talk · contribs) FAILED to provide. AND I DO UNDERSTAND what you said,and don't see a problem following it. I understand that rules and regulations of wikipedia because if which the content holds value. Good day.Abbasquadir (talk) 04:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Abbasquadir: Please stop misrepresenting the facts. There are TWO explanations Talk:Jiah Khan about the unsuitability of the potentially defamatory content you added to the article. TWO of them. Both explain that the content is poor written and potentially defamatory. The first goes into specific detail about how your poor interpretation of the vague wording in Khan's suicide note results in Wikipedia now asserting that Khan accused Pancholi of specific crimes. These were posted before you asked for clarification. I didn't clarify further, because it's obvious you never read either post, and rather than omit the content, as I urged on the talk page should be done, you restored it and now you're playing dumb and shifting the fault to me. Give me a break. This is all on you. Tangentially related: A copyright violation is a copyright violation. It doesn't matter if you post it in the article or on the talk page. If you republish someone's property without a legitimate argument of Fair Use or explicit permission to do so, it's a potential copyright violation. Both of these actions of yours are absolutely ridiculous, as are your responses to them. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

There's a potentially defamatory headline that Yung "terrorized" an interviewer stemming from a blog. To be clear, Yung did not plead guilty to terrorism. I consulted his plea agreement and that word is nowhere to be found.^[1] I request permission to change that verb to "cyberstalked." Leave the poor kid, alone. He made a mistake, did his time, it's time to move on.

On a separate note, I wonder if cyberstalking should be merged with legal career to conserve space and memory...

LexisNexisWest (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I tried to update Yung's bio to give more context into the legal issues raised, but even sourced changes were repeatedly censored by another editor.^[2] In my humble opinion, the "why" of the case is just as important as the other questions of who, what when, and where and ought to be a fair subject of an encyclopedia entry. Many cases are reported in encyclopedias before they are ultimately successfully resolved in the litigants favor. And the matters raised here are not insubstantial or unworthy of mention. I am respectfully requesting that the primary-sourced changes be added back to the article.

LexisNexisWest (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@

original research

(including judgments about which cases are interesting or notable). If Yung's appeal ends up creating some legal precedent, and getting written up by independent sources, then we can include that information, presented neutrally. Regarding your comment about merging the "Legal career" and "Cyberstalking" sections, let me point out that:

1. Saving memory is not really a consideration at Wikipedia. Since every past version of the page is saved, every edit (whether increasing or decreasing the current size of the page) adds to the total Wikipedia database size. The Wikimedia engineers are quite adept at handling this, so we need not worry about it.
2. There no longer is a "Legal career" section to merge; it has been removed since the "Legal career" section consisted solely to present Yung's defense, which I will reiterate was a violation of neutrality.

-- WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The

cry for help. All of the editors of that discussion are well-versed in musicological issues or are musicologists themselves and understand the literature and context of the issue. Either engage us, or move on to something else. - kosboot (talk

) 18:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLPREMOVE? I recommend you do so now, if you have not done so already. Jayjg ^(talk)

18:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

By the way, it was for your benefit that I came to this board. As an alternative, I could have simply blocked you (per

WP:BLPREMOVE), and then removed the material. Jayjg ^(talk)

18:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Might as well chime in – thanks for the ping Jayjg. In April, I made a fairly bold edit here, which removed broad swaths of content that violated

talk

19:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The Don Colbert page says "he is a specialist in faith healing". This is false and offensive to a practicing MD.

I attempted to update this page with the official bio of Dr. Don Colbert on behalf of the Colbert Family but @Krelnik reverted my changes twice. I have attempted to work with @Krelnik since Friday to have the necessary libelous claims removed, but he has not done so. This content is inaccurate, hurting Dr. Colbert's medical practice, and offensive to the Colbert Family and needs to be removed immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSP0421 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@

Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy. Ensuring Wikipedia's neutrality is really important, and as Krelnik has said, you'll need to request that a non-associated editor verifies and makes the edit (which is what {{request edit}} does). Just as a heads up, you'll also need to provide sources for any claims you make. ItsPugle

(please use {{reply|ItsPugle}}) 12:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@ItsPugle: We did discuss this on my personal talk page where I explained to JSP0421 some of the policies involved, including requesting an edit on an article's talk page. I did make one of their requested changes (removing the word "Pentecostal" which doesn't seem supported by the sources). But I don't understand the distinction about faith healing that is being made. Colbert's website is literally full of references to faith and its relationship to health and healing. See here, here, here and here. I gather there's some subtle distinction here but I'm not getting it. I would suggest that JSP0421, in their requested edit, suggest some replacement verbiage that still retains the fact that Colbert incorporates religion into his practice but removes the supposedly offensive language. --Krelnik (talk) 12:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Do RS call him a faith healer?Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

its article, not notable enough to have its own WP page anyways). ItsPugle

(please use {{reply|ItsPugle}}) 13:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• 109.175.199.72
• 89.100.208.17, and
• 2A01:4C8:1440:E7:E1EE:D0B1:393D:7E60

110.137.186.235 (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• I've already requested page protection for this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Aphex_Twin

  I don't think it has ramifications for

  WP:ENGVAR. Popcornfud (talk

  ) 14:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the source used for Twin's nationality, it only calls him "British" not "English." Perhaps he is English and not Irish, but the source used doesn't prove that. Gbear605 (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Just above Mr. William's Filmography is the following sentence;

".....on series Hart of Dixie has face often reminds me of a gorilla. (Not choosing to be unkind),"

This article has been hacked.

Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:280:1070:1927:3B73:2FBE:C9B3 (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Removed. -

talk

01:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I am J Gopikrishnan, a Journalist working 'The Pioneer' newspaper's Delhi Bureau, India. I am also a donor to Wikipedia There is a Wikipedia page about me : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Gopikrishnan .

On August 21, 2020 - multiple attempts of vandalism were done on my Wikipage and deleted many contents. Earlier on August 13 to August 15 many abusive contents were posted and after my alert you have rectified it on August 15. Now on August 21 lot of attempts from an anonymous handle deleted lot of contents. WikiPage History shows the multiple attacks by the handle.

Please maintain the statusquo as on March 12, 2020 Edited by your Editors. You may lock Editing in WikiPage for sometime by maintaining the March 12, 2020 statusquo.

Please do the needful.

warm regards

J Gopikrishnan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopikrishnan70 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gopikrishnan70: Hey! Just having a look at your page, it looks like the edits made on the 21st are copyedit changes - they're procedural, non-editorial changes like removing vandalism, clarifying phrases or formatting citations. The version from 12 March would need a complete rewrite anyways, so I don't see much benefit in reverting to that version. There doesn't seem to be any significant issues with the edits since though - is there anything specific in the article which you think should be reviewed?

Also, I'm not sure if you've already seen, but you may want to read

ping

on reply) 08:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Why was the article taken down?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:900A:190B:D600:9818:F9AF:99C5:DF77 (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

It was the result of this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicks on the Right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

We need some BLP eyes on Aziz Ansari, where editors are repeatedly promoting UNDUE derogatory article text related to a brief internet/media controversy sparked by a woman who had a bad experience on a date with him in early 2018 and got her story published on a now-defunct website for adolescent and young adult women. SPECIFICO talk 15:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Added to my watchlist. - MrX 🖋 15:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

No, editors are repeatedly removing well-sourced longstanding text based only on opinion.  Ansari has never denied coercing her for sex. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I have other concerns about content on User/Article talk pages about the accuser of the subject, of sexual assault and/or misconduct (sources have used both words). One editor, SPECIFICO, has made comments about the (unnamed) accuser on public talk pages that I found concerning:

• You are repeating yourself. Yes, the upshot is that she mischaracterizes the incident as assault. That is what the sources say. Diff.
• The noteworthy incident was not the date -- which is like hundreds of thousands of such regrettable and regretted misunderstandings every week around the world. What garnered the brief attention in the blogosphere and a few press articles was the tenuous use of #MeToo narratives to describe the woman's having failed to extricate herself from an unwelcome situation before she got to tears. None of the commentary concludes that this woman impacted or damaged Ansari's "public profile". Nothing much happened. The noteworthy event was the woman's having held up her personal reactions to public scrutiny on the expectation that people would find them somehow similar to incidents of sexual misconduct. The public reaction was only that "bad conduct" is not "misconduct" and both she and Ansari were viewed as having bungled a rather innocuous interaction that left them both temporarily upset at having handled it poorly. Diff.

I found two opinion commentators defending Aziz: an op-ed by the resigned NYT columnist Bari Weiss, here, and a transcript of an interview here. Both opinion commentators seem to suggest Ansari is not guilty of any wrongdoing. Per

I believe these are BLP vios for the accuser and that the comments should be struck. In my opinion, we as a community should not be casting doubt on public forums on the accounting of events of a sexual assault accuser (or the accused, for that matter) based on opinion pieces with no first-hand knowledge of the events, no involvement in any formal investigation, and who have not spoken to any of the persons involved. I'd appreciate some input here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO is also badly misrepresenting what's going on here. He suggests the allegations are sourced to a "now-defunct website." They were originally published in a defunct website, and subsequently covered by NPR Vice NBC USA Today The New York Times and The Washington Post and many others. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I share the same concerns about SPECIFICO's public comments:

• I have been editing [Aziz Ansari] since January 2018, when the woman first promoted this dubious, trivial internet controversy.Diff. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• SPECIFICO is clearly coming here to forum shop with their own opinions on the situation influencing their judgement. The characterisation of a woman who had a bad experience on a date is hardly the full picture. See the quotes Wikieditor19920 provides of SPECIFICO engaging in damaging and disregarding words towards a woman who has accused a man of non-consensual sexual activity. In any case, an event by itself is neither intrinsically significant nor intrinsically insignificant; it is the reliable source coverage of the event that makes it so. In this case the literature on this incident is very detailed relative to coverage of other aspects of Ansari's career. — Bilorv (talk) 07:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Bilorv I believe that SPECIFICO's comments about the accuser deserve more immediate attention and should be struck. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Would an administrator please help to enforce