Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive336

This page is an current main page .

There is currently an edit dispute on rather the following sentence is

Carroll has stated that she believes "most people think of rape as being sexy."^[1][2] Because of this belief, she fears using the term "rape" is only helpful to Trump.^[3] She reiterated her belief during an interview on Anderson Cooper 360°,^[4] with her comments being described as surprising and receiving mixed responses.^[5]

I support including the paragraph. It's reliably sourced with 4 RS (all "generally reliable" at

I can't verify all the sources, but if this is indeed included there it certainly is well-sourced (

Please ping me!

21:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not Business Insider sourced, it's just Insider, which is considered reliable for cultural topics at

WP:RSP. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk

) 22:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, my bad! Thanks for the clarification

Please ping me!

22:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any UNDUE issues on including this as explaining her mindset on why she initially didn't use the word rape in her accusations. Enough RS are reporting this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

"Enough RS?" not relative to the many top-tier RS that report the truly significant details. This snippet is cherrypicked and framed in a standalone paragraph -- after it's already been covered in the preceding paragraph -- to make her look bad. It is spotlighted in a way that promotes a Trump-apologist misogynist crypro-sexualized spin to disparage the victim. Do our articles similarly elevate all the thousands of real-time remarks RS have reported from Trump. SPECIFICO talk 14:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

It's well sourced, and why she didn't report it as rape is an important issue. It's also not crypto-sexualized, "people think of rape as being sexy" is quite openly sexualized, that's the whole point. Whether to put it in a standalone paragraph or not is a minor issue, presumably? Many of the paragraphs in the Sexual assault allegations section are fairly short, so there is a lot to be said for reorganizing them, but "it's a separate paragraph so should be deleted" isn't the most convincing argument. If you fear the statement being taken out of context or otherwise misunderstood the answer is to rewrite the section to explain the context, not to delete it. Finally, there is no shortage of weird remarks from Trump in our articles, Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape is a long, long article about just one incident, Social media use by Donald Trump is chock full of them... saying provocative things that make him look bad is arguably his defining characteristic. --GRuban (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I have real qualms that the sentence cited to Slate is a misrepresentation of the source: the "mixed responses" are not ascribed particularly to the "rape" commentary, but to her "frank approach." And I think it bears mentioning somehow that the source goes on to say "She's basically right." I, at least, as a reader, would come away with a very wrong view of that article based on the text here. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know. The approach and comment are interchangeable to me. That entire paragraph that you scrutinised is an analysis of the reaction to that specific quote. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

As I said, people are free to differ, but it strikes me as pretty different -- the "rape" commentary was an example of the mixed commentary ('conservatives focused on') and not the generator of the mixed commentary. So it goes. Dumuzid (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: I see your point, I think the author of the Slate article may have left it a bit vague. Do you think it would be better to say She reiterated her belief during an interview on Anderson Cooper 360°, with her comments being described as surprising and receiving criticism from conservatives. or simply ..., with her comments being described surprising. [excluding conservative criticism]? This seems to be a more straightforward interpretation of the source. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure "responses" are particularly relevant here, it's not as though people were reviewing her statements or choices. I might go with "...described as surprising, and Carroll herself noted her beliefs were 'contentious'." Or something like that. For the last bit, I would cite to this:[1] Just a thought. Dumuzid (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course "conservatives" here means nothing other than Trump backers. Language/gender word use are not on the l-r continuum. SPECIFICO talk 01:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

GRuban, those Trump remarks you cite have been the subjects of thousands of times as much RS coverage -- so much that, as you indicate, they are wiki-Notable in themselves. Not so for this one off-the-cuff remark on cable. I don't think that's a good comparison.I do agree, somebody might be able to include more than what's in the first mention in the paragraph above, while at least mitigating the problems with the version I removed. We'd have to see proposed text to evaluate it. SPECIFICO talk 22:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, NY Times, CNN, Guardian, those bastions of "right-wing chatter", are top-tier enough. You're just arguing

WP:OTHERSTUFF. Morbidthoughts (talk

) 20:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Please don't make snide remarks about a serious concern. The problem is what I believe is cherrypicking and weaving content into an UNDUE narrative that makes her look bad. And why is it a separate paragraph when we already detail her use of "attack" and not "rape" directly above? SPECIFICO talk 21:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

My "snide" point was that neutrality or "cherrypicking" concerns are addressed by the quality and bias of the sourcing. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are missing the point. First,

more or less contemporaneous references. Second, even well-sourced content that might be used in a proper narrative can be stated and juxtaposed and formatted in such a way to misinform our readers or lead them to UNDUE conclusions. SPECIFICO talk

22:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not missing anything. I gave the opinion that I don't believe the material is UNDUE and I explained why. I also am not reading any SYNTH implications in that text. Any further attempt at discussing this is just

bludgeoning. Morbidthoughts (talk

) 23:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO the NYT relates this quote with her reasoning to not call her alleged incident with Trump "rape", and this context is very clearly stated in the proposition above. If you really don' want it to be an independent paragraph, it seems like snugging it with the 2nd paragraph go the Donald Trump sexual assault allegation section would be a fair compromise. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a quote for those who are having trouble accessing the NYT article.[2]

Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer better sources than NYT. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

NYT is just one of many sources about this, also it's considered "generally reliable" at

WP:RSP. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk

) 03:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Carroll chose not to describe the alleged sexual assault as rape, instead describing it as a fight. "My word is fight. My word is not the victim word ... I fought."[1]^[2][3] Carroll has stated that she believes "most people think of rape as being sexy."^[4][5] Because of this belief, she fears using the term "rape" is only helpful to Trump.^[6] She reiterated her belief during an interview on Anderson Cooper 360°;^[7] her comments were described as surprising,^[8]and Carroll herself noted her beliefs were 'contentious'.^[6]

I think this a good compromise text of what has been discussed so far. It partially addresses SPECIFICO's weight concern of an independent paragraph by combining it with pre-existing text (in case your confused: Carroll chose not to describe the alleged sexual assault as rape, instead describing it as a fight. "My word is fight. My word is not the victim word ... I fought." is already in the article) Additionally, I took the advice of Dumuzid and altered the text to be a bit more consistent with RS. Overall, I think this would be a good solution to many concerns over the original text. I also happen to think it's an improvement over my original proposal. Cheers, Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

It's just repetitive and drags Anderson Cooper into it for no reason. SPECIFICO talk 08:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree that there's no need for "she repeated it" with Anderson Cooper name checked; as a cite that's fine to me. While I think this content is due, for me, it just barely clears that bar; as such I think brevity is appropriate. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Carroll refers to the incident as a "fight" and states that she does not use the word "rape" because it evokes the attacker's view of the victim rather than the victim's act of resistance.

-- That's the meaning of her words. The "compromise" above does not convey what she communicated and IMO it somewhat snidely suggests that there's something extraordinary or even presumptuous for a woman to choose her own words and to explain them. She is a writer. It is not surprising that she's highly sensitive to the meaning and nuance of language. SPECIFICO talk 14:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I think your point is well taken here, SPECIFICO, though I will say I think the compromise above is a lot closer than the former wording. Again, for me, the issue is conveying all of this in a concise manner, as I don't think it' a major point in the article--do you have any thoughts on how to do that? Are you suggesting substituting your wording above for the first sentence in the compromise? That would be workable for me, but I would put it in the past tense -- "Carroll has referred to the incident...." Happy to hear other opinions. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't think that was a compromise at all, just a re-wording of the disparaging text. I think it's a minor point in the entire bio and we could just use the text I wrote above as the sole text on this issue. The offending Cooper bit was just recently added before I reverted it, so I don't think it's better to start from first prinicples on this. SPECIFICO talk 17:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I think we need to nod to the idea that people took notice of it -- while I think the concept is utterly uncontroversial, it's notable because it gave people pause, at least for a moment, no? Dumuzid (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that's just NOTNEWS media buzz and not significant to her life. The fact it was reported means folks took notice. It would not have been reported if it were completely ordinary. Even WaPo and NYTimes print recaps of weekly tv shows and other trivia that are just recent media chatter. SPECIFICO talk 19:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, you're threatening to have me dip down below that "due" bar again, but I guess I am mostly easily persuaded. Iamreallygoodatcheckers, to be clear, you are under no obligation to answer me, but I wonder if you can make an argument that this will still be of encyclopedic interest in 10 years? This is the danger of wading into a brouhaha with no dog in the fight! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:10YEARTEST for a couple different reasons. (1) Carroll sexual assault allegation against Trump is a highly significant part of her notability. (2) How she described the allegation is to say the least is a bit of unorthodox, a point that is significant and has been extensively covered in RS, see the one's above. (3) It's difficult to capture exactly Carrolls beliefs, this is why RS has been quoting many of here statements, and explaining her rationale. We already see this in the "fight" quote, and frankly the "rape is sexy" quote has received just as much coverage and is often paired with the fight quote. Leaving either out is not provident he proper context and understanding of Carrolls comments. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk

) 02:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I really like SPECIFICO's proposed rephrasing ... assuming we have sources that make it exactly clear that was, in fact, what she meant, and that we are not putting words in her mouth. I'm not sure the sources are that clear. SPECIFICO, can you cite the parts of the sources that back that was what she meant? --GRuban (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@GRuban: that's the problem with SPECIFICO's wording, RS does not describe Carrolls beliefs in that way. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I prefer to shorten the compromise text:

Carroll described the alleged sexual assault as a fight rather than a rape. "My word is fight. My word is not the victim word ... I fought."^[1][2][3] She explained that "most people think of rape as being sexy" and feared using the term "rape" was only helpful to Trump.^[4][5][6]

I left out the reaction to the comments because they should also be cited to RS news articles rather than RS commentary to maintain NPOV. I also removed the self-described "contentious" label because it was extrapolating from her comment that rape is "the responsibility of the woman, too. It’s equal. Men can’t control themselves.” Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I can't agree to this because, without the necessary context, "rape as...sexy" could be horribly misconstrued. I am not sure she communicated her thought very well here, but as laid out, I think it's possible if not probable that people will come away with the wrong idea. Sincere thanks for the effort, though, I do like shorter. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Dumuzid. The version I bolded above is even shorter, and I think it avoids this possilbe misunderstanding. SPECIFICO talk 00:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I am concerned about the possible OR aspect as GRuban alluded to in trying to "explain" what she meant rather than her own words. She said what she said over a series of interviews, and I'm not going to second-guess and chalk them up to miscommunication or misunderstanding. That to me would be the much more serious BLP violation. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I think at this point any specific compromises on prose should be discussed on the article talk page so the talk page watchers there can take part. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that more context is needed, but this proposal is on the right track. I do think it's paramount to include the quote, you can see my reasoning above in response to Dumuzid. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

How about this:

Carroll chose not to describe the alleged sexual assault as rape, instead describing it as a fight. "My word is fight. My word is not the victim word ... I fought."^[7][2][8] She fears using the word "rape" is only helpful to Trump because she believes "most people think of rape as being sexy."^{[9][10][6][11]}

This one is short and to the point, and serves as supporting detail to the fight quote, which is already in the article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Chex, you are completely missing the point. All the press coverage of the Cooper bit that you cited above happened within days of the broadcast. So much for the 10 year test. It is Trump who boldly and pointedly sexualized the attack in his comments, some of them repeated in the July Guardian reference, about how she's not his type, he wouldn't rape somebody who's not attractive, etc. Pardon me for being direct here, but it's not clear you understand what she said and you appear to be doing exactly what she said she was determined to avoid, namely, to modulate your view of the incident of violent assault as if it were "about" anything other than assault. When you say "...rather than rape", which I omitted from my shorter version above, you are insinuating the straw man question -- "why doesn't she just use the normal word for it?" or somethng like that. She is making a profound statement about how people think about and speak about such assaults, and you are posing it in such a way as to emphasize that this is a deviation rather than a moral distinction that she believe she is making. SPECIFICO talk 03:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I described it in the same way the Guardian article does (Guardian:But she is unapologetic, as she is about her choice to avoid the word “rape” when it comes to Trump. She is convinced that rape is seen by many people – men and women – as “sexy”, and that by using it we are playing Trump’s game. “It’s a fantasy. ‘Rape’ is very sexual and I just hate it. If a woman is raped and wants to report it to police...) The Guardian article implies that her belief that people think rape is sexy, at least in part, is the reason she avoids using the word rape. I'm not emphasizing anything except what RS has emphasized, the proposal above does not indicate this as a "deviation" of any kind. The proposal doesn't say that it's odd or weird... it just says the facts of her beliefs, that's it. Also even you admitted that this comment can be seen living on past the recentism of the CNN interview, the Guardian article was published nearly a month later. You can expect the majority of the coverage to be at the start, that's just common. Also, I changed the "rather than" language in the proposal to what the longstanding text says in the article now, since that modification was a concern of yours. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Here are 2 more RS that about her comments. One from the Atlantic and one from the Independent. The Independent links her belief that "people think rape is sexy" with her not using the term rape. I've cited the Independent in the proposal above as well. [3] [4] Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  I think this conversation is actually really productive, but I agree with ScottishFinnishRadish above that it's probably best to take it back to the talk page at this point to invite opinions there. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The section on Abortion is entirely biased and poorly sourced. It is opinion, not fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamgbass (talk • contribs) 18:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I removed the uncited items but how much weight should be put on votesmart.org? Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I added information from sources, removed what appears to be

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Decider.com / Jimmy DiResta / Naomi_Wu 06:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:3CAE:6306:8B34:1600 (talk)

Actor in the news for recent conviction for disorderly conduct; substantial debate over appropriate level of discussion and what should or should not be included in the article. Additional eyes would be appreciated. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I would like to get a third opinion on the appropriateness of the "Island Records 1991–97 / V2 1997–2000" section of this page. It is cited mostly to page 134 of a book called "The Virgin Encyclopedia of Dance Music." I have the cited book open to page 134 in front of me, but do not see where it says any of the things it is cited for. A few notes:

• My position is that the section should be trimmed as uncited per blp and verification, since the citation does not actually say the things it is is cited for.
• @North8000: presumably opposes the trim, as they emailed me with accusations of censorship and improper COI. Maybe they will clarify their position below.
• @Dtnrsp: originally authored the section 8 years ago and disclosed a COI (see the second discussion here).
• Like Dtnrsp, I am affiliated with the article-subject. The main thing I've been doing is repairing the damage to Wikipedia Dtnrsp (my predecessor) made by removing his content (which is often promotional and not supported by the citation) and replacing it with neutral, cited content.

Thank you for being patient with me and spending the time to thoughtfully weigh in here. If you would like a PDF copy of the citation in question, please email me at: [email protected]. If there are legitimate reasons for Wikipedia to keep content not supported by the citation, please educate me on the relevant rule(s), rather than assuming bad faith. Kindest. Daizypeach (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Background is I've been doing Daisypeach's proposed edits at the article. I was reluctant to fully do the last proposed one. I decided to give some coaching, in essence that even with a declared COI, that one should still wear only their Wkipedia hat when working on Wikipedia, a way to deal with any hypothetical quandaries that are likely to occur. Since it was somewhat tough friendly coaching I decided to do it by email rather than publicly. If they think that I made those accusations, DaisyPeach misinterpreted it. If it is OK with DaisyPeach, I'd be happy to put a copy of the entire contents of my email here to reinforce or clarify on this. I also made a suggestion on writing a good section in that proposed area of change.

On to the main topic. I merely declined to make those changes (as proposed) myself. I do NOT oppose the changes. I was / am merely helping out there. I urge folks to just edit it without any need to get my opinion or concurrence. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

BTW my thought process was that if I were editing the article, for some of those items I would be trying to source them rather than remove them.North8000 (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Does page 134 talk about Baker at all in your edition? The 1998 edition discusses Baker, but the depth is not obvious from Google Books. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts: Yes, page 134 of the cited encyclopedia has a section called "Gee Street Records", with one long paragraph that mentions Mr. Baker several times. I can provide a PDF copy of the full-text by email. Most of the citations throughout the page are about Baker, but just don't say what they are cited for. Daizypeach (talk) 10:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Does it support anything from that Island/V2 time period? If not, I can look for other citations to replace or revise. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts: A few notes:

• The "Island Records 1991–97 / V2 1997–2000" section in question (despite the title) actually covers 1990-1997

• The "Gee Street Records, 1985–90" section just above it that North8000 wrote (again, despite the title) actually covers 1985-1997, encapsulating the same time period (and some of the same facts) as the section in question, but with proper citations.

• I do have some draft content I can share about GeeJam Studios that has some overlap in timeline, but is mostly subsequent to the 1985-1997 time period. I was intending it for a subsequent section.

• Page 134 of the given citation doesn't mention any dates between 1990-1997 relevant to Mr. Baker (it would be easier to email you the PDF), but it doesn't specify a date for some of the events it describes.

Naturally, any cited contributions are welcome if there's some source material North and I overlooked. Daizypeach (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I would like to get a third opinion on the appropriateness of the "Island Records 1991–97 / V2 1997–2000" section of this page. It is cited mostly to page 134 of a book called "The Virgin Encyclopedia of Dance Music." I have the cited book open to page 134 in front of me, but do not see where it says any of the things it is cited for. A few notes:

• My position is that the section should be trimmed as uncited per blp and verification, since the citation does not actually say the things it is is cited for.
• @North8000: presumably opposes the trim, as they emailed me with accusations of censorship and improper COI. Maybe they will clarify their position below.
• @Dtnrsp: originally authored the section 8 years ago and disclosed a COI (see the second discussion here).
• Like Dtnrsp, I am affiliated with the article-subject. The main thing I've been doing is repairing the damage to Wikipedia Dtnrsp (my predecessor) made by removing his content (which is often promotional and not supported by the citation) and replacing it with neutral, cited content.

Thank you for being patient with me and spending the time to thoughtfully weigh in here. If you would like a PDF copy of the citation in question, please email me at: [email protected]. If there are legitimate reasons for Wikipedia to keep content not supported by the citation, please educate me on the relevant rule(s), rather than assuming bad faith. Kindest. Daizypeach (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Background is I've been doing Daisypeach's proposed edits at the article. I was reluctant to fully do the last proposed one. I decided to give some coaching, in essence that even with a declared COI, that one should still wear only their Wkipedia hat when working on Wikipedia, a way to deal with any hypothetical quandaries that are likely to occur. Since it was somewhat tough friendly coaching I decided to do it by email rather than publicly. If they think that I made those accusations, DaisyPeach misinterpreted it. If it is OK with DaisyPeach, I'd be happy to put a copy of the entire contents of my email here to reinforce or clarify on this. I also made a suggestion on writing a good section in that proposed area of change.

On to the main topic. I merely declined to make those changes (as proposed) myself. I do NOT oppose the changes. I was / am merely helping out there. I urge folks to just edit it without any need to get my opinion or concurrence. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

BTW my thought process was that if I were editing the article, for some of those items I would be trying to source them rather than remove them.North8000 (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Does page 134 talk about Baker at all in your edition? The 1998 edition discusses Baker, but the depth is not obvious from Google Books. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts: Yes, page 134 of the cited encyclopedia has a section called "Gee Street Records", with one long paragraph that mentions Mr. Baker several times. I can provide a PDF copy of the full-text by email. Most of the citations throughout the page are about Baker, but just don't say what they are cited for. Daizypeach (talk) 10:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Does it support anything from that Island/V2 time period? If not, I can look for other citations to replace or revise. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts: A few notes:

• The "Island Records 1991–97 / V2 1997–2000" section in question (despite the title) actually covers 1990-1997

• The "Gee Street Records, 1985–90" section just above it that North8000 wrote (again, despite the title) actually covers 1985-1997, encapsulating the same time period (and some of the same facts) as the section in question, but with proper citations.

• I do have some draft content I can share about GeeJam Studios that has some overlap in timeline, but is mostly subsequent to the 1985-1997 time period. I was intending it for a subsequent section.

• Page 134 of the given citation doesn't mention any dates between 1990-1997 relevant to Mr. Baker (it would be easier to email you the PDF), but it doesn't specify a date for some of the events it describes.

Naturally, any cited contributions are welcome if there's some source material North and I overlooked. Daizypeach (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

David Yassky started a campaign for the New York State Senate in February 2022, and I've noticed some less than neutral edits to his page, particularly from Jack1983B. The language used is rather pointed and poorly sourced, and other users edits are being removed with no explanation in edit summaries or the talk page. I've tried making constructive edits to source and use more neutral language, but the original, unsourced, value-laden language has been added back. Chaonautical (talk) 04:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Mints&type=revision&diff=1077279226&oldid=1077144707

Please consider editing information about a living person made by users Snooganssnoogans and Edwardx as untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buklemeshev (talk • contribs) 14:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

[5] Editor has disclosed a conflict of interest. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The statement referred to is sourced to a primary document stored at a location with which I am unfamiliar. Is it a reliable reference? The lead ignores the individuals's achievements and interests but includes this US-centric statement. As far as I can tell the Mints has had little or no connection with the US. Burrobert (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The file is hosted by Bloomberg, so I would say it's reliable. I've added a second source, which embeds the document. As to whether it's due that he has been sanctioned by the US, obviously it is. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 20:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Least Competent User? [6] Mints is not mentioned in the second source. His name appears in a document that is linked in the story along with a few hundred other people. If we are interested in telling readers about Mints' life, then this would not be one of the two most important things to start with. It appears we can't even find a source that discusses this aspect of Mints' life. The lead does not even scratch the surface of Mints interesting life. Burrobert (talk) 02:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and rewritten the introductory sentence. I think this best reflects the article and the available sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

A fugitive and accused embezzler! Wow. Is there a source? Neither appears to have been mentioned in the body. Burrobert (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

It's discussed in the body , and the specific charges of embezzlement are mentioned in this

Moscow Times article [7]. Hemiauchenia (talk

) 03:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Where are these discussed in the body? Neither "fugitive", nor "embezzlement" appears in the body. The Moscow Times article does not seem to be mentioned anywhere in the bio. If it is not there, I would suggest adding it, and making the two points clearer in the body. Burrobert (talk) 03:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The embezzlement part has been added now [8]. As for fugitive, it isn't said in the lead idea, I'd argue it's technically accurate but unnecessary based on him being wanted in Russia but in any case all we say is he's wanted not that he's a fugitive Nil Einne (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure the course of action here, but I stumbled upon this article, and it reads more like a resume/press release of a hiring than a biography.

I can enumerate further, if needed. Mryanleslie (talk) 07:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT DeCausa (talk

) 07:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mryanleslie: I added a tag that labels this issue. If you would like to you could go make edits to the article to correct this issue. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

With all the PR fluff removed, its now just a verbose resume.Slywriter (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

See

Revdel'd by El C. Finally, he did something right. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@El C: this one as well -Gouleg🛋️ ^harass/_hound 15:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Wait, am I Cornwood or James Randal in this scenario? I'm losing track of my own nonsense! Let's just do both, you scoundrels! El_C 15:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Ryans the best 85.210.141.89 (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Who? ♫ Tacos today, tacos today ♫ El_C 17:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe the article Chidiebere Ibe should contain an entry regarding his plagiarism (that was already written and being constantly removed for some reason by the person who wrote this article...), which was pointed out in several posts, and can be easily identifiable by using a reverse image search. Please view the Talk page of the article for more information. 80.123.97.90 (talk)

The content concerning alleged plagiarism was removed per

reliable source. We don't cite random posts on Instagram in biographies. AndyTheGrump (talk

) 10:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

It only takes a pair of functioning eyeballs to realize that his illustrations are plagiarized. In the comment I've made (which you've removed) there were many examples, but I'll leave the most "famous" one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chidiebere_Ibe_fetus.jpg

https://www.gettyimages.at/detail/nachrichtenfoto/third-trimester-this-image-shows-the-fetus-at-the-nachrichtenfoto/648891556

Look at the illustrations side by side. This is just plain theft. 80.123.97.90 (talk)

Wikipedia bases biographical content on published reliable sources. This is not open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also bound by the law, and this is copyrighted material belonging to Getty images uploaded onto its servers. 80.123.97.90 (talk) 10:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Even if that were true, it still wouldn't permit adding unsourced claims to the biography. If you think there is a copyright issue with the image as uploaded to Wikipedia (under Wikipedia:Non-free content guidelines), I suggest you read Wikipedia:Copyright violations and Wikipedia:Image use policy, and then follow the process laid out in Wikipedia:Guide to image deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Gotcha. Which terms does a statement made by the artist fall under, if made on Twitter? There's a public statement made by the original artist, proving it. I am wondering whether it can be accepted or not based on the fact that it is "user-generated" and therefore "unreliable", although the folks at HuffPost and so on had clearly done no research on the matter, and they are considered as "reliable"...

I do want to follow the guidelines, but leaving the article as-is seem to justify the offenses made by Mr. Ibe, praising him as the creator of the illustrations, while he in fact, just stole them. 80.123.97.90 (talk) 80.123.97.90 (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Per

WP:BLPSPS self published sources cannot be used to make claims about BLPs if they relate to third parties. Therefore a Tweet from the artist of the Getty image could perhaps be used to support the statement they made the illustration on Getty's images although I'm not convinced we could even say that, since it could be seen as unduly self serving. But in any case, it's a moot point as a tweet from the artist of Getty's image cannot be used to say anything about Chidiebere Ibe so such a tweet has no relevance to the Chidiebere Ibe article. Nil Einne (talk

) 12:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

If we put aside BLP issues for a while, I had a look at edits [9] and they demonstrate why we always require RS even in cases where living persons aren't affected. One of the claims made there is utter nonsense, anyone with any experience knows that plenty of incredibly educated people have an incredibly poor understanding of copyright. Indeed, it's something we have problems with on Wikipedia all the time. While reliable sources aren't immune to making nonsense claims like that, they're thankfully a lot less likely to do so than editors. Nil Einne (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that segment was based on exchanges made in a private discussion board over at AMI.org boards. Mr. Ibe admitted to copying the illustrations but claimed ignorance on the matter. These claims are not "utter nonsense".

He had received backlash owing to his actions over at Twitter and Instagram (search ebereillustrate plagiarism/copyright), and unfortunately, a "We were wrong about that artist, he actually stole those images" title won't generate as many clicks as the original ones, so it seems like we're stuck either with a misinformed source lacking the truth (the current state of the article) or we should at least mention it.

I have no idea about the inner matters of AMI, but I will contact them and ask for their response. In the meanwhile, how about we bring up the mere controversy into the reader's attention? It really doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes to see that he indeed stole those images. 80.123.97.90 (talk) 80.123.97.90 (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

How do we "bring up the mere controversy into the reader's attention?" We don't. Not on Wikipedia. Not until it is covered by published reliable sources. And since the relevant Wikipedia policy (

WP:BLP) also applies to posts made on talk pages, I suggest you stop using words like 'stole', before you are obliged to. AndyTheGrump (talk

) 18:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that any claim to Wikipedia-notability for the subject of the biography seems marginal, regardless of any alleged plagiarism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Can I get a Wikipedia article written about me as well, assuming I apply a filter on the Mona Lisa making her look black? 80.123.97.90 (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

If sources cover you in sufficient detail to meet

WP:GNG then sure. There seems to be some question whether this applies to the subject of the article that started this thread but there are at least some minimal sources. A lot of people do a lot of things and aren't covered at all. Nil Einne (talk

) 17:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Several distinct issues are at play here. The image was uploaded here to English Wikipedia as a non-free image. If the image dies not meet the strict standards at

original research and is contrary to an essential core content policy. Individual Wikipedia editors are forbidden from posing as experts on plagiarism or copyright violations when it comes to such accusations in a biography of a living person. Only if this kerfuffle receives genuine coverage in independent, reliable sources should it be mentioned in the biography. The third issue is whether or not this person is notable. That is a matter to be determined by deletion policy and is based entirely on the depth of coverage in independent, reliable sources, and not on any accusations floating around on voracious social media platforms. Cullen328 (talk

) 05:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

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

User continually uses Russian media sources to malign individual who is living. This doesnt belong there and should be removed immediately. 38.140.253.170 (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

It looks like the info has been removed and a

WP:PROD has been added. I'm predicting the article will be deleted. EvergreenFir (talk)

16:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

[This guy] created his own article to state out malicious code he has created distributed over a node package.

It is definetly not the purpose Wikipedia biographies should be used for. For more Information see: https://snyk.io/blog/peacenotwar-malicious-npm-node-ipc-package-vulnerability/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.24.142.194 (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Non-technical summary of what the IP is talking about: https://www.itnews.com.au/news/protestware-npm-package-dependency-labelled-supply-chain-attack-577488 Endwise (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The

Brandon Miller (motorcyclist)

biography was created in 2012. And if Miller has been distributing malicious code, I think we can be fairly certain he hasn't been doing so via the biography. You can't inject an 'Inter Process Communication Module for node supporting Unix sockets' into articles. Or if you could, there is a much more systemic flaw in Wikimedia software, and anyone who'd figured out how to do it would surely not confine such actions to a single article.

As for the biography itself, it has been tagged as not meeting notability standards, which given the lack of sources seems appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Probably the article should simply be deleted. While there are some sources from the motorcycling stuff I'm not sure if they're enough although some of them seem dead and I can't be bothered recovering them. Regardless as long as we have an article we need to respect

WP:OR. If this does blow up perhaps we'll cover it but it doesn't seem to have happened yet since the only other thing which appears on Google News mentioning the person I saw besides IT News is Bleeping Computers and indeed there are still many things about the motorcycle stuff. As AndyTheGrump said, the idea the article created in 2012 has anything to do with the distributing the questionable package in 2022 is laughable. Nil Einne (talk

) 12:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Let's take a step back, and look at a few core policies and guidelines for a moment. I'd be in support of an AfD, since not only does the topic of the article not meet

WP:AUTOBIO as well. RIAEvangelist is Brandon Miller's username on Github, and this also happens to be the username of the Wikipedia editor who created the article, and is responsible for 90% of the article prose content. Anything else that's been brought up (e.g. malicious code) holds no weight under Wikipedia policy, so I'd suggest not having the discussion focus too much on that. --benlisquare_T•C•E

22:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I've started the AfD discussion over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Miller (motorcyclist). --benlisquare_T•C•E 23:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Eugene Parker § Views on climate change. More editors' opinions on content discussion for biography of a very recently-deceased physicist are welcome. Schazjmd (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Parker died two days ago, so this board is not a place to discuss this issue.Yreuq (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Two days ago mean

WP:BDP definitely applies. Nil Einne (talk

) 21:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

That's about as ridiculous as it gets.Yreuq (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Yreuq: it's a long standing part of BLP. Until and unless you successfully get BLP policy changed, you need to accept it. If you're not willing to, you need to refrain from affecting any BLPs where it applies or if you can't do that, then don't edit any biographies at all. Nil Einne (talk) 07:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

That's your misinterpretation of BLP. However, the letter of the rule says: "Such extensions only apply to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime. A scientist's view on a scientific topic does not qualify for the extension, sorry. The man is dead, BLP no longer applies.Yreuq (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I couldn't find any mention of this in any sources online. Considering the editor didn't provide any themselves, does this require a revdel? – ².O.^Boxing 18:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd say yes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Hello I would like to report False, Innacurate,Biased and Libellous information on the wikipedia page named LEONCIE. It is a biography of a Living Person (Myself) and the false information from Vandals and attackers has caused me great Emotional and Financial Distress. First of all My Music is Western Jazz Pop, and not (oriental music) I play many Instruments and not a (digital Piano)which looks like an ancient organ,like the Vandals have put a picture of an old organ,in the biography about a living person _Myself. Without permission from me. A Biography should be written by a Professionally Educated Biographer who has studied the Subject(ME) in person, and not Fictitionalise about me because of their incompetence and racial hatred against me. There is also a False date of birth, in the LEONCIE page and why do total strangers want to know WHO is born WHERE and When? I don´t care about WHO is born where or when. It does not put food on the table this sort of Nosy behaviour into other peoples Lives. I want to live my life in peace and PRIVACY. SO Publishing all these Defamatory Libellous Lies about me in Wikipedia and spreading it around the world is Madness. Other peoples biographies do not Interest me at all. Articles from Icelandic Media Racists canot be called "REFERENCES". They are not References but Biased articles full of libel and Defamation. Please delete them. Wikipedia HAS ALLOWED AND PUBLISHED FALSE,DEGRADING, LIBELLOUS, DEFAMATORY AND MALICIOUS HATE PROPAGANDA AGAINST ME to DEFAME AND INJURE MY REPUTATION, AND IT SHOULD BE MADE PUNISHABLE BY LAW,BECAUSE IT DISCREDITS ME IN MY PROFESSION AS A PROFESSIONAL MUSICIAN COMPOSER AND NO MEDIA OR WEBSITES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DESTROY PEOPLE with websites like Wikipedia Terrorists. Please correct these Libellous Lies or Delete the page named LEONCIE. That´s what I wish and somebody should be in Court and sued for these Libellous Defamatory Lies and HATE PROPAGANDA. No Websites Distributing HATE PROPAGANDA SHOULD BE ABOVE THE LAW. Yours Sincerely Leoncie.Musician, Composer,Artiste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonciemusic (talk • contribs) 17:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Leonciemusic has been advised about WP:No legal threats. —C.Fred (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Reading a translation of Glatkistan's about page, it looks like that's not a reliable source, and the material sourced there may need to be removed—which struck the alleged date of birth, alleged full name, and the quotation about the style and instrumentation. —C.Fred (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

In addition to the legal threat, this is socking. See Icy Spicy Leoncie and Leoncie. This has been going on since at least 2013.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Lucrezia Millarini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Persistent attempts to include unreferenced date of birth. I'd prefer not to find out which admins don't consider removing a

@FDW777: The IP adding the unsourced dob is currently blocked, so this should settle things down for the time being. —C.Fred (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

moved to ANI.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

2600:1004:B1E6:2C27:B97B:5EB6:5D3F:601C (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) See the following: (T·E·H·L·R) Luc Montagnier [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] (T·E·H·L·R) Chaz Bono (cannot link to the 10 diffs during an edit war on 18 March as they were all suppressed) (T·E·H·L·R) Rod Stewart (cannot link to the 2 diffs on 18 March as they were both suppressed) (T·E·H·L·R) Reggie White [15] Non-BLP disruption over same time span: (T·E·H·L·R) Window [16] (T·E·H·L·R) Interstate 270 (Missouri–Illinois) [17] ([[ talk: Talk:CNN Center|T]]·E·H·L·R) Talk:CNN Center (single edit suppressed with edit summary removed on 16 March) Why keep this /40 range? I propose at the very least a temp range-block to prevent this continued disruption. This IP range is creating a significant burden of work for editors while contributing very little to the overall encyclopedia. If one is to examine their contribution history, the non-reverted edits are mostly small neutral changes [18] [19] [20] [21] or later heavily revised changes [22] which do not improve the project. If this is better suited for ANI, let me know and I will happily move it over there. Thanks. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC) The Chaz Bono and Rod Stewart edits are from WP:Long-term abuse/CalebHughes (or some copycat; it doesn't really matter). Unfortunately; CH uses some other ranges. I doubt the other edits are CH. The same range is used by 16ConcordeSSC; I don't think they've been active in the last few days, but the partial block on 2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/41 is ever-growing. zzuuzz is familiar with both users, and wizzito might want to comment about 16ConcordeSSC. I don't know what the best step is now. A Verizon Wireless /40 or /41 (or even /44) range might cover hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of customers. A block allowing account creation certainly won't slow down CH, but it might cut down on some of the other crud. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC) I typed all that thinking I was looking at ANI; perhaps this should be moved there? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC) Yeah I'm happy to move it to ANI, it will certainly get more eyes there! Will do it right now — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

This article on a 2019 police shooting contains sections on the (still living) police officer (Zachary Rolfe) and the resulting media coverage. The shooting and its handling by the justice system and media have generated intense anger (including at least one riot) and so I would argue that even greater care needs to be taken when determining which material is directly relevant to the subject of the article. At issue are several points made by User:Dippiljemmy in his edits:

• that Ben Roberts-Smith, described by Dippiljemmy as an "alleged war criminal", was friends with the Rolfe family (even if true, surely irrelevant to the shooting and a naked attempt to smear Constable Rolfe)
• that Rolfe used excessive force in previous arrests (these allegations were never proven and did not lead to any legal or disciplinary action, and were excluded from mention at Rolfe's trial. I do not think they should be excluded from the article, but Dippiljemmy sought to give them undue prominence)
• that a certain newspaper journalist, Rosemary Neill, was considered dishonest by a rival media outlet (unfair to her and irrelevant to the subject-matter)
• that media proprietor Rupert Murdoch – who has no connection to the case – "is a disgrace" (a note Dippiljemmy inserted in a reference name tag, presumably reflecting his personal animus). VisitingSamG (talk) 05:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi. An editor claiming to be connected to the subject has removed the DOB from the article (see the edit history for more). Is this correct procedure? I don't see why it should be removed from WP, as all three external links in the article clearly show this info too. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

It should be widely covered on reliable secondary sources of we're going to include it. I believe listings in databases are primary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Ignoring the issue on what is/is not a primary/secondary souces, is this correct just to remove the info in this way? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

If it's not appropriately sourced as per

WP:BLP, yes. CUPIDICAE💕

20:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

It was sourced before its removal, and is listed on the World Rowing website too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I haven't checked the edits, but

WP:COIADVICE#2 could apply. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk

) 08:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I've removed such information pretty often. See

WP:BLPPRIVACY for some details. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk

) 21:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The sub-part "Relationship with Serhiy Kvit" in the part "Personal life" of Inna Sovsun page violates the biographies of living persons policies. Wikipedia instructs to "be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources". The cited part about the alleged romantic relationship contradicts the Wikipedia rules as it is poorly sourced, sexist and ageist. Despite alleged COI, I highlight that removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable.

The dispute is provided here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sofiia_Popovych. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofiia Popovych (talk • contribs) 10:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I've removed that section, as the source states Moreover, it was rumored that there were secret stairs and entrances between their offices. However, all these suspicions have remained rumors, and the “defendants” themselves do not bother to comment on this matter. We don't report on unsubstantiated rumors, especially in BLPs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Came across Liz Mills and was struck by how much unsourced material there is on it. What's the best way to do with it? Find sources and if not, delete the unsourced stuff? MaskedSinger (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The ideal approach is to find sources, but that's not always practical if a lot are needed and your time is limited. I tend to (1) remove unsourced birthdates, names of spouses, partners, parents, children, etc or anything potentially contentious and (2) tag anything else with {{cn}} tag. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! :@Ohnoitsjamie: MaskedSinger (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Celeste Kidd

Potentially libelous information sourced only by a single biased source (Koch brothers' Reason Magazine) is being added repeatedly to the Celeste Kidd wikipedia entry to suggest her substantiated sexual harassment claims were fabricated. The material is being added repeatedly in a campaign to discredit legitimate whistleblowers, and is factually inaccurate. The same material is being added to Jessica Cantlon and Richard N. Aslin's pages, all whistleblowers in a high profile sexual harassment case against the University of Rochester. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betheonetoforget (talk • contribs) 20:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Jessica Cantlon

Potentially libelous information sourced only by a single biased source (Koch brothers' Reason Magazine) is being added repeatedly to the

Are we really taking the words of a literal conspiracy theorist as fact? Can someone slap this puppet down for the whole "Koch brothers'" Ignorance? Explain to them how funding works and then tell them they can go back to 4chan if they're so worried about the ""dark"" money that is or isn't in an article. The Koch brothers do not personally source or edit. The only four people undoing all of the edits have Literally no other edits. Have never posted on wikipedia. And I am almost sure are Cantlon and Kidd themselves.73.60.59.91 (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Richard N. Aslin

Potentially libelous information sourced only by a single biased source (Koch brothers' Reason Magazine) is being added repeatedly to the

So, after a quick perusal of the issues and sources here (and in the two related cases above), I think the Reason article does bear mentioning, but by my lights, at nowhere near the length of the removed section. A sentence or two would suffice and be proportionate, I think. As ever, reasonable minds may differ on the best way forward! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

This incident seems to fall under

WP:NPF should be no less than that. Morbidthoughts (talk

) 22:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

If you think so! I am certainly not married to the idea, but a sort of per contra seemed appropriate to me, in a sentence or two saying that Reason found the accusations overblown, or some such. No issues with simply leaving it out if that's consensus. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

If you look at

WP:NPF since he was cleared of the most serious accusations and doesn't have his own article. Morbidthoughts (talk

) 22:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it's worth emphasizing that the Reason article didn't interview the plaintiffs, didn't use information from their lawsuit, didn't include the 10 other plaintiffs, or other students who spoke out about Jaeger in Nature and the Chronicle of Higher Education. The author is trying to sell a podcast on unfairly cancelled men. I think that all of that is reason enough to discount it. Nimchimpski (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

(not 10 other, 7 other plaintiffs -- they all had legal claims which were found to be valid by the judge, who is the only really independent person to have looked at the case) Nimchimpski (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

You mean in the case that settled out of court, was paid for by insurance and with literally no one admitting any wrong doing as part of the settlement. You do know that's how settlements work right? With no one usually admitting fault. 73.60.59.91 (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Reason is listed as reliable at

Wikipedia does not publish original research from you or any other editor. There doesn't seem to be any good reason to forbid the Reason article (or other articles discussing the report) from going in those BLPs. Endwise (talk

) 03:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:DUE. Morbidthoughts (talk

) 07:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Because of the edit warring that's been going on in the Cantlon and Kidd articles, I have requested temporary page protection for them. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Well this is a mess. For a first step I would remove the citations to some of the earlier pieces such as The New York Times and Wired, which report the allegations and prominently mention the professors name, but were published before the White Report. Those could be easily replaced with later reporting. Inside Higher Ed has report also exonerates the professor and the ...complainants "organized to force his departure outside of formal procedures, Science accounts by his accusers are "exaggerated and misleading in many respects.", but it's "the accusers" criticized in these articles and not a named individual, and Reason does quote: "We found that some of the complaints' allegations were true...". I'd cite all three articles but use something along the lines of Reason's report concluded...acted unprofessionally and inappropriately in his early years at the school, but he had never violated any university policies. That would avoid accusing an individual if wrongdoing, which you can't do without going to the primary document to find out who said what, and hopefully addresses the BLP concerns of all involved. fiveby(zero) 03:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I look forward to morbidthoughts moving on this since you've now given multiple sources. 73.60.59.91 (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing to move on. I agree with Fiveby's analysis and approach, and there already were sources in those articles that confirmed that the report mostly cleared Jaeger. It's not appropriate to accuse specific individuals of wrongdoing without multiple independent RS reporting on this per

WP:BLPPRIMARY. Morbidthoughts (talk

) 16:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Katz

I am still technically married to Justine Roberts, as the page states, but we have been seperated since 2019

There is no publicly available source to verify this but you may check it directly with her at [redacted]

I would appreciate it if where she is listed as my spouse, you could add (seperated 2019)

And under personal life, could ylou please add after:

Katz is married to Justine Roberts, the chief executive of the Mumsnet website.[30]

"They have been seperated since 2019"

Thank you.

Ian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.253.51 (talk) 23:12, 14 Mar 2022 (UTC)

reliable source to make that change. We do not contact the subject of an article for verification, nor do we rely on the word of an anonymous editor claiming to be the subject. —C.Fred (talk

) 23:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks...could you explain what would constitute a reliuable source given that the fact of my seperation has not been publically reported. Is there a way that I can give you to verify my indentity? 86.181.253.51 (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

You can read about reliable sources, including general examples, here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and there is a more specific list of examples here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Beccaynr (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

You can reach out to

WP:OTRS for your concerns, and they may be able to help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk

) 00:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

As the editor of a news outlet, perhaps you could simply have one of your reporters write up something for an upcoming broadcast. Then we'd have something to use. Of course, that in and of itself would pose all kinds of ethical dilemmas for you. (Maybe write up an editorial and slyly work it in somehow. "I think this, but my ex-wife Justine Roberts says..." or something like that.) Sometimes, we're just stuck with what we have, and more often than not that's what makes this all work. It differentiates us from the rest of the internet. Zaereth (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• An easy fix is to say, as long as it can be verified, that "Katz married Roberts in …" whatever year it was. That's still true even if "Katz is married to Roberts" becomes untrue and there are no sources for it. The marriage (presumably verifiably) happened at that point in the past, and we make no statement as to its current status. Of course, this is why infoboxes are troublesome. Prose can convey this. |spouse= does not. Uncle G (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding this addition of a "Controversey" section where it is alleged that the subject attempted to poison her husband Imran Khan, the PM of Pakistan; the Time of India source seems to be reasonable, but the other two sources DNA and Emirates247 are not attributed to a named report, but rather to "DNA Web Team" and "Correspondent" respectively. I'd appreciate additional opinions/more eyes on this. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Definitely not. None of the sources actually states this as fact. All of the usual journalistic get-outs are there in abundance, from the question headline to the "theory", "feared", "claims", "might have been", and suchlike. Also note that DNA is repeating "a report in an English daily". If this is to be in Wikipedia, I think that we should demand a source that is prepared to outright identify itself and make a definite statement of fact without get-outs like that. Uncle G (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Definitely seems

WP:BLPGOSSIP Morbidthoughts (talk

) 22:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:George_Strait#Count_of_number_hits? regarding his tally of number-one singles, which may be of interest to editors here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

This man is reported as dead in 'Find a Grave.' (https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/234635464/maximilian-adalbert-baer).

Please investigate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C2:300:2BC0:D011:88D7:ECF9:3299 (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

This is an interesting dilemma. I'm inclined to believe the find a grave source (even though it's not reliable at

WP:RSP), but I can find no other referencing about this. I'll keep looking — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk • contribs

)

I can't find any sources except that page. I've pinged the Findagrave page creator to find out what her source was. Schazjmd (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

You trust a source that calls Jethro an "intellectual"? That's like calling Ronald Reagan an intellectual. SPECIFICO talk 20:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Ha, I didn't even notice that! I wonder if she meant ineffectual? Also, I couldn't figure out what the "TBV" stood for, but I'm thinking it might mean "to be verified". Anyway, I'll see if I hear back from her. Schazjmd (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it's most trustworthy when there's a picture of the tombstone, but that doesn't appear to be the case. This would be a rather odd thing to lie about though. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• With no evidence of an obituary, I'm beginning believe the subject is still living. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  Well, the person who created that FindAGrave page was of no help: Hello ,at this time I can't remember where I found it . I usually Google everything . I think we have to presume still-living. Schazjmd (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Find a Grave is never reliable in itself per

WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL. Calling someone dead is a WP:BLP matter requiring a much higher threshold than "somebody on the internet said so on a wesbsite with zero editorial oversight". The Find A Grave author might have been confused by this article in Best Life magazine from December 6, 2021 (the date of Baer's purported "death"), which states quite the opposite: that Baer is the only living cast member of The Beverly Hillbillies. 63.155.100.241 (talk

) 23:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Yea that is probably a good explanation for this whole situation. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

And the BestLifeOnline article probably was triggered by Baer's birthday on Dec 4, a couple of days before. Also it was 50 years since Beverly Hillbillies series ended. StrayBolt (talk) 05:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with 63.155. He was reported alive in https://bestlifeonline.com/jethro-beverly-hillbillies-now-news/ on his supposed death date. I wonder if perhaps someone misunderstood "last living" as "just died". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Is "Find a Grave" really "Find a Grave" if they did not find a grave? Wouldn't that make them "Said they're dead?" ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The article on Emma Weyant could use some extra eyes. I am challenging the addition of a sentence because I think including it would go against the spirit of BLP, but I'd appreciate hearing from BLPN regulars if they think my sense of what is potentially harmful is miscalibrated. Egsan Bacon (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not even sure her place in the NCAAs is that DUE given her silver medal in the Olympics. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Es una actualización de la biografía del pintor Jaime Zapata solicitada por él. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miragebonhomie (talk • contribs)

Translation: It is an update of the biography of the painter Jaime Zapata, requested by him.

@

conflict of interest which you need to declare. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!!

21:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@WikiDan61 Thank you, tell me what I have to do to add this information in english and not problems with that? Miragebonhomie (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Im working with a book of Zapata that was published in Ecuador in 2007, I think that shouldnt be a problem. Miragebonhomie (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Miragebonhomie: The source I saw on your version of the article was

• Rodriguez, Ana; Zapata, Jaime (2008). Zapata. Quito: Dinediciones.
  OCLC 645691861
  .

This appears to be a catalog of Zapata's work, co-written by Zapata, or at least written with his cooperation. This would be considered a

reliable sources. And, you will still need to write the article in English. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!!

12:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello. People keep adding Lia Thomas’s deadname to the her talk page. She is a trans athlete that has been in the news. Diffs https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALia_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=1077899583

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALia_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=1077956001 There are multiple edits by involving the deadname and it may extend beyond these two. Am I reporting this to the right place? Thanks -TenorTwelve (talk) 04:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Just revert them I guess; that's what's been done lately. We may need to bump the article to extended confirmed protection, if this becomes a serious problem on the article itself. An admin would need to review that. I don't like protecting talk pages, just because it limits participation. Is there a way to put notices on a talk page that says please don't comment about a certain issue? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• @TenorTwelve: I noticed you removed comments.[23] It may be best to hat instead; straight up removing constructive edits might not be the best way of dealing with this, and can become problematic. When new deadname discussions pop up, just close them and say this is settled. That's going to be the best way of dealing with this; it's what's done for repetitive discussion at controversial articles like Donald Trump. Deleting text is not good unless it's clearly unconstructive or vandalism. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Iamreallygoodatcheckers Sorry about that. What does hat mean?… TenorTwelve (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@TenorTwelve: Hatting would look like this in a discussion:

Just to give an example of it being used in a real life discussion see Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 143#Follow-up to Russian bounties Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: Do I just cover the deadnaming comments or the entire discussion? -TenorTwelve (talk) 05:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@TenorTwelve: I would just cover deadname comments. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I’ll try to make it work. -TenorTwelve (talk) 05:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I have put in the hats. Did I do it right? Thanks -TenorTwelve (talk) 06:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@TenorTwelve: looks good to me! Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• refactored Talk page comments with redaction templates to remove the deadname. Beccaynr (talk
  ) 19:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to caution you that

MOS:GENDERID even though I don't believe editors should be misgendering people. MOS guidelines are for article space. You should not refactor people's talk page comments as you did here.[24] Morbidthoughts (talk

) 07:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

See also

WP:TPO. Russ Woodroofe (talk

) 11:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

As the person whose talk page comments were edited, I believe

MOS:GENDERID say we must never describe the person as having their "dead" gender in contexts where their now-dead gender ID was notable, in this case having Ms. Thomas on the male swim team pre-transition because she did, in fact, use a male identity at the time and chose the male swim team. SkylabField (talk

) 15:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, SkylabField, although the article states, She began transitioning using hormone replacement therapy in May 2019, and came out as a trans woman during her junior year to her coaches, friends, and the women's and men's swim teams at the University of Pennsylvania. She was required to swim for the men's team in the 2019–2020 academic year as a junior while undergoing hormone therapy and then swam on the women's team in 2021–2022 after taking a year off school to maintain her eligibility to compete while competitive swimming was canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. (citations omitted).

• Referring to her as male when she was out as a woman as of 2019 therefore appears to be contrary to
  MOS:GENDERID
  , even though the reference was clearly made in good faith.
• I also quoted
  MOS:DEADNAME
  in some places I refactored the deadname, e.g. If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name. (with emphasis added here).
• Per
  WP:TPO, I believed I was Removing prohibited material, i.e. personal details, and based on a Talk page discussion about what happened to an editor trying to add the deadname and incorrect pronouns to the article (blocked
  ), MOS/BLP violations appeared to be clearly prohibited.
• WP:BLP
  states, e.g. 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 policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.

From my view, BLP policy is a broader directive that is informed by the MOS - particularly with an editor getting blocked for adding similar material to this article, and the applicability of the MOS and BLP policy to Talk pages, immediate refactoring seemed appropriate. Beccaynr (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

BLPTALK is more specific: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate." (Bold for emphasis). The specific controls the general. MOS explicitly applies to article space and does not "inform" BLP. TPO also states: "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived." TPO also clearly states, "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning". You changed the words because you believe there is a distinction between the meanings. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Just to separate issues out: reacting deadnames introduced on Talk pages, where those deadnames cannot be introduced into article space per

MOS:GENDERID

, is something I have seen done fairly often per BLPTALK and TPO and is in compliance of WP policy and norms, as I understand them - the information removed is considered contentious and is not relevant to content decisions.

Redacting misgendering comments is something different - as I understand it, the best practice is to ask the editor who wrote the comment to self-redact (using strikethrough if there are replies, though in an ideally case they would be asked on their personal Talk page and redact seamlessly before anyone replies).

Editors who refuse to self-redact and who insist on continuing to misgender living people are in clear violation of community norms and are likely to face sanctions under the gender and sexuality ArbCom sanctions, but the only options for dealing with those comments on Talk pages are hatting or wholesale removal (per TPG, generally as off-topic) but not redaction. Newimpartial (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Duly noted - I had seen it as unsourced contentious material that should be immediately addressed per

WP:BLP also states, the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment, so it had seemed better to err on the side of redaction and then noting it on the article Talk page. Beccaynr (talk

) 17:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

There may come a time when the WP community regards misgendering as potentialy involving the same degree of harm as its current view of non-notable deadnames. However, I'm pretty sure that isn't the current view - misgendering is regarded as a (severe) civility problem but not primarily in terms of harm to living subjects. Of course there is an exception to this where the sources that a person has transitioned are themselves dubious - in that case, the usual (severe) BLP protections would apply. However, that is not the scenario presently under discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

While we do need to be careful, this is a rare case where the transition is what makes the person notable and I think the article handles the issue perfectly. The Talk page will likely require some policing since politicans(well one specifically) have inserted themselves into the issue and likely to bring partisan opinions, but good-faith editors may also misgender in their comments when talking about pre and post without intending offense to the subject or the community as a whole. With that said, those who repeatedly deadname (especially as they were not notable before) or otherwise act in bad faith should be shut down quickly (and calmly).Slywriter (talk)

Miroslava Duma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am a Virtual Assistant manager to my Boss, Miroslava Duma. Her nationality is Ukrainian and not Russian. This ought to reflect on the lead section of her page.

An editor named Ilsecondoordine tried to reach a consensus on that issue on the talk page of article: [this].

The other editor named Russ Woodroofe who has contantly edited the page is hell-bent on putting "Russian" on the lead. He invited an old editor named Curdle to weigh in.

Curdle did a research and agreed that pretty much all of the sources acknowledge that Duma's family comes from the Ukraine, but emigrated to Russia/Siberia. Hence her actual nationality is Ukrainian and not Russian. Duma has repeatedly said so in most of her intervies. This should be on the lead section and not "Russian".

Furthermore, I am saddened by the action Russ Woodroofe took. The argument on the talk page was already reaching a consensus on the Ukrainian nationality. Instead of doing the right thing, he went ahead and re-added "Russian" which was earlier set aside pending when a consensus is reached.

Russ Woodroofe also went ahead to file a sock-puppet report against Ilsecondoordine just because the argument on the talk page is going against his stand. See link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Estarosm%C4%81r%E1%B9%AD

This is quite awful. Is that how things work on English wikipedia? The editor got banned on mere conjectures.

I am not worried about the sock-puppet issue anyway. All I want is for the right nationality to be added. Duma's nationality is Ukrainian and not Russia. Pls BLP admins should look into this and come to our aid.

Peace to everyone

Linda O Linda Osin (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I've watched the article in question because of long-term evidence of

conflict of interest channels. It seems better for now if I step back and let uninvolved parties handle the request. Russ Woodroofe (talk

) 22:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Linda Osin: I don't see where User:Curdle agreed with you on the nationality thing. In fact AFAICT they are saying the opposite. As I read it, they seem to be saying her family comes from Ukraine but she is of Russian nationality. Unfortunately when you make such inaccurate statements, it doesn't give me and probably other editors much incentive to do a dig into the sources to see if your claims about them are accurate. As for the sockpuppetry thing, the article seems to have been infested with socks and suspicious editors who are likely involved in undisclosed paid editing. Someone who reviewed the SPI agrees that Russ Woodroofe is right to be concerned over the editor socking and in any case that there was UPE, so starting the SPI was the right thing to do. Such editing is in clear cut violation of our terms of use and is completely unacceptable. It would be helpful if you inform your boss that if they know anything at all about the long history of undisclosed paid editors and socks, they should ask whoever is doing it to cut it out. Please be aware that sort of stuff is spectacularly unhelpful when genuine improvements are needed. It makes it very hard to trust any unfamiliar editor involved in that article, and makes it easy to miss real problems. When editors comply with our paid editing policy like yourself, at least like yourself, at least we're generally willing to engage to a point. If you were one of those large number of socks, I'd probably just ignore you or effectively tell you to leave. Even when I can't personally be bothered researching and filing an SPI so won't voice my suspicions, I'm still free to limit my engagement in response. Nil Einne (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Well I looked into this anyway and from a quick search, I've been unable to find any sources that call her Ukrainian. As mentioned both on the talk page and above, sources do mention her Ukrainian family and background, but that's fairly different from saying her personal nationality is Ukrainian. On the flip side, I was able to find several RS which call her Russian in particular [25], [26], [27]/[28]/[29] (however those 3 relate to the Mueller report which may have influenced descriptions of her). I also found one possible RS which do likewise [30] (although the smear campaign described there called her Russian so it's possible that could have influenced the descriptions of her in the story). There are a whole bunch of non reliable or likely non reliable sources that do likewise e.g. [31] (The Cut itself is potentially reliable but the description is only in the headline), [32] (assuming saying she's been affectionally dubbed "the Russian mafia" is calling her Russian), [33], [34], [35] (I think, it's behind a paywall), [36], [37]. While the non RS are mostly useless when it comes to deciding what we call her, the fact that there are all of those yet I didn't find one calling her Ukrainian makes me strongly doubt the claim she's generally been recognised as having Ukrainian nationality. Whatever she's said in interviews, for some reason no one has seem to have taken it to mean she's Ukrainian at least until now. Nil Einne (talk) 07:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks you User:Nil Einne for your reply. Well I did a further objective research on this issue on Nationality and found the following: This source from Britannica has this to say

What decides nationality? By one rule of international customary law, a person who is born within a state's territory and subject to its jurisdiction acquires that state's nationality by the fact of such birth. By another rule, one has a nationality as an inheritance from one or both of one's parents.

Duma fulfils the above. She was never born in Russia. She was born in Siberia and her parents were originally from Ukraine.

Also English Wikipedia on

According to Ukrainian law, anyone who was a citizen of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic who was residing in Ukraine at the time of its declaration of independence and any stateless person living on the territory of Ukraine at the moment of its declaration of independence was granted nationality. Anyone born abroad to at least one parent with Ukrainian nationality, including permanent residents of Ukraine, is entitled to Ukrainian nationality. Children born within the territory of Ukraine to at least one Ukrainian parent, stateless persons with at least one Ukrainian grandparent, and children adopted by Ukrainian citizens are also eligible to become nationals.

Since it's an established fact from sources that Duma's parents were originally from Ukraine before migrating to Russia, it simply means that Duma's nationality is Ukrainian going by the "Nationality law on Ukraine as seen in the section above.

Please I ask again, let "Russian" be removed from the lead and let "Ukrainian" be added. Or, both can be removed entirely if no conclusion is arrived at. I learnt that when there's a contention on issue such as this and no conclusion is arrived at, the "bone of contention" can be set aside. Both "Russian" and "Ukrainian" can be removed entirely on the lead if there's no conclusion on this. Duma is ok with that. Thanks all Linda Osin (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:sockpuppet User:Ilsecondoordine 'In line with the above, I believe is necessary to set aside the "Russian" nationality on the lead section until a consensus is reached on this. Either we say she's a Ukrainian-born digital entrepreneur or Russian as the case may be. For now, let's set it aside until we have a consensus.' It's great that you've declared your connection to Miroslava Duma but if you are connected to any blocked sockpuppet, you need to declare this connection as well. And if you a sockpuppet you need to stop editing and ask to be unblocked first. You may be able to get unblocked in the condition you only post to Talk:Miroslava Duma and here but I can't guarantee it.

Nil Einne (talk

) 19:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The article state "James is not Jewish, but his mother & father are." If his parents are Jewish, so is he. Being a Jew is the ethnicity. Judaism is the religion. See your own entry "Jewish." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonkitto1958 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The first source says he is Jewish [38], and the second source mentions his mother and his Star of David tattoo [39]. Beccaynr (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:BLP what matters is sources not editor's opinions of what makes someone X. And when it comes to ethnicity, sources tend to focus on self identification combined with descent rather than purely on descent. Nil Einne (talk

) 11:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Jonkitto1958. In order to state an ethno-religious identity in Wikipedia's voice, we require an unambiguous self-identification from the person themself. Simply verifying that a person's parents were part of a religious or ethnic group is not sufficient, because people can voluntarily abandon or change their religious or ethnic identities. In this particular case, there are two references to sources where this person affirms their Jewish identity in their own words. That is what matters most, not any information about his parent's Jewish identity. Cullen328 (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

We also have a category "People of Jewish descent" which could cover cases like this. PatGallacher (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

With regards to

Context: I had assumed PLOS Climate was major but another editor doesn't think so, this is with specific regards to Emma Archer but I was planning to create a few articles about editors in chiefs so would be good to learn this before I do that. CT55555 (talk) 01:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

PLOS Climate appears to have been launched only in February 2022. I don't think it can be considered a major journal yet. For perfectly respectable academics of borderline Wikipedia notability, it's probably best to defer having an article until more substantial, independent coverage exists. Otherwise the result tends to be unsatisfactory permanent stubs that are indistinguishable from affiliated "about the author" blurbs (and become absolute garbage dumps if an associate professor happens to gets a day's news coverage over a controversial tweet or something unrelated to their career), or overly detailed, promotional, fan-centric expositions of primary sources that are virtually indistinguishable from a CV. (

WP:NOTCV). --Animalparty! (talk

) 04:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with

WP:BLPSELFPUB, it is acceptable to use the CV or faculty profile page for routine and non-self-serving career details like education (but not for any assertion of notability, of course). Russ Woodroofe (talk

) 10:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that PLOS Climate was only a month old, thanks for point that out. I was running on the perception that PLOS was respectable.

What I'm taking from this is that this example isn't sufficiently noteworthy and that I should do a case-by-case analysis of each journal and academic. CT55555 (talk) 11:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The following statement on the biography of Martin Kulldorff: "...attempting to implement [the Great Barrington Declaration] could cause many unnecessary deaths with the potential of recurrent waves of disease spread as immunity decreases over time."

The Wall Street Journal article[40] cited in support of the statement says the following:

If immunity wanes after several months, as it does with the flu, patients could be susceptible to the virus after being infected, they said. That, they said, would result in recurrent and potentially large waves of infection, a common occurrence before vaccines were invented.
— WSJ.com

The WSJ article ties recurrent waves to waning immunity, not the Great Barrington Declaration, which Kulldorff co-authored.

There is a lengthy discussion at the talk page regarding the statement. After 30 days of not being verified, I have today removed the statement from the biography. However, my edits are being repeatedly reverted by the same editor (diff, and diff). In order to avoid an edit war, I am posting here for outside opinion.

I contend that the WSJ article does not support the statement and therefore the statement does not belong on the biography of Martin Kulldorff. The statement does not add any value to Kulldorff's biography and as written, it is original research and inaccurate. It therefore does not comply with the core policy of

Any outside input and assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 04:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I am the editor in the diffs above. I'd also be glad to have the thoughts of other editors. Since the notice above is non-neutral, I might as well lay out my side, though I'd prefer to keep further discussion at the article talk page. In short, Kulldorff is primarily notable for co-authoring the 2020 Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated for a herd-immunity-based approach to dealing with COVID. The cited WSJ article (which I can send a copy of via email if needed) is all about the GBD and herd immunity. The quoted line isn't a sudden non sequitur, but a comment from experts on the hazards of relying on the kind of herd immunity Kulldorff's plan required. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 05:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Simply because the subject of the WSJ is "all about the GBD" does not change the fact that the WSJ article explicitly and directly ties recurrent waves to waning immunity, not to the GBD. Stating otherwise is either a misattribution or original research.

Verification policy

states that "...any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. [emphasis added]"

It further clarifies direct support as:

A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of Wikipedia:No original research.

The WSJ article does not explicitly nor directly support a relationship between the GBD and recurrent waves.

The WSJ article also quotes Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (another of the GBD's co-authors) as saying that the Lancet article, which is the WSJ's source for the 'recurrent waves' statement, "...mischaracterizes the focused protection approach advocated by the Great Barrington declaration..." The authors further clarified focused protection on the home page of the GBD[41] by stating "...some media outlets and scientists have falsely characterized it as a “herd immunity strategy”."

Lastly, the Lancet article does not mention either the Great Barrington Declaration or Martin Kulldorff.

Therefore either the statement as written should be removed entirely (as it adds no value to the readers' understanding of Kulldorff) or it should be re-written to state something along the lines of this: 'scientists warned a herd-immunity strategy like the GBD is dangerously false.' And to be accurately and neutrally presented, a statement like that should be accompanied by one that also states the authors of the GBD feel it is mischaracterized as a herd-immunity strategy. Even then, I do not see the value this line of content adds to Kulldorff's biography, as opposed to an article about the GBD itself.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 06:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

This paragraph: If immunity wanes after several months, as it does with the flu, patients could be susceptible to the virus after being infected, they said. That, they said, would result in recurrent and potentially large waves of infection, a common occurrence before vaccines were invented. That would continue to place a huge burden on the economy and health-care system, they said is scientific background about our understanding of infection and immunity, i.e. that there will be waves of COVID like there are waves of the flu if COVID immunity wanes quickly. This context plays into the reasoning for the health risks of the GBD, e.g. as they argue in the next paragraph Allowing the virus to run its course could lead to thousands of people with long-term health problems, scientists say, etc. But it is not saying that GBD will cause waves of COVID-19. Not that that's false necessarily, it just is talking about something else.

More pertinently, I don't know why a detailed "takedown" of a policy needs to be included on the biography of every supporter of that policy. That should go on the article about that policy, and the biography article should stick to the beliefs of (or about) the subject of the biography themselves. I could, for instance, find every BLP subject who has advocated for rent control, and copy a few paragraphs of criticism from Rent regulation#Economists' views and paste them onto their article. That, as I think we can all understand, would be a disruptive and inappropriate use of the encyclopedia. I don't see why that should change because the topic area is different. Endwise (talk) 06:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

About it is not saying that GBD will cause waves of COVID-19: you are correct, technically, because nobody expects a piece of paper to cause infectious diseases. But the article is saying that following the advice in the GBD could have this result (under the specified circumstances, i.e., "If immunity [conferred by natural infection] wanes after several months, as it does with the flu"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

This seems contentious enough to require several reliable sources discussing this beyond the WSJ, preferably without a paywall, even without considering the alleged OR (synthing). Does the WSJ even explicitly name Kulldorff? Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

He's named: "The authors of the document, which gets its name from where it was written and signed, include Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford University Medical School. The third, Sunetra Gupta, a professor of theoretical epidemiology at Oxford University, earlier this year garnered criticism for suggesting that some places might be able to reach herd immunity with just 25% of people infected, due to protection from previous exposure to seasonal coronaviruses." Llll5032 (talk) 08:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Should

WP:MEDRS come into play here? Morbidthoughts (talk

) 08:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe it does. The statement being made is epidemiological in nature (recurrent waves of disease). Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 10:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't. Michael quoted only part of the sentence here. The full sentence said this:

The World Health Organization, the National Institutes of Health and other public-health bodies said such a policy lacked a sound scientific basis,[22][23][24][25][26] and scientists dismissed the document as impossible in practice, unethical and as pseudoscience,[27] and warned that attempting to implement it could cause many unnecessary deaths with the potential of recurrent waves of disease spread as immunity decreases over time.[23]

Consequently, the thing to verify isn't whether "it's true that" (which is MEDRS territory), but whether "scientists warned that" (and this news article certainly proves that some scientists did, indeed, warn of exactly that). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I have included a useful search to wade for some sources.[42] Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Morbidthoughts. The WSJ article links to the John Snow Memorandum, first published in The Lancet, in response to the GBD. (The JSM's warning about recurrent waves is also described at the "Counter memorandum" section of the

Great Barrington Declaration Wikipedia article.) The whole story is described more recently in commentary by Science Based Medicine in "The Great Barrington Declaration and the John Snow Memorandum" section. Llll5032 (talk

) 08:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The Science Based Medicine article relies on the same Lancet article as a source for the 'recurrent waves' statement and therefore falls into the same problem as the WSJ article. They both use the same Lancet article, which again, does not mention the GBD or Kulldorff by name and therefore can not tie recurrent waves to the GBD.

Any statement that the GBD will cause recurrent waves is not supported by the WSJ article, the SBM article, the Lancet paper, or the John Snow Memorandum homepage and is therefore original research/synthesis.

I agree with

fringe/alt

topics. Readers interested in the GBD and the drama surrounding it can read the article dedicated to it.

The statement as it currently reads not only violates

verifiability policy

, it is also poorly written as a sentence run-on:

The World Health Organization, the National Institutes of Health and other public-health bodies said such a policy lacked a sound scientific basis, and scientists dismissed the document as impossible in practice, unethical and as pseudoscience, and warned that attempting to implement it could cause many unnecessary deaths with the potential of recurrent waves of disease spread as immunity decreases over time.

My original edit from today makes the statement much more concise, retains due weight, removes a kludgy run-on and removes the problem created by the 'recurrent waves' statement:

The World Health Organization, the National Institutes of Health and other public-health bodies said such a policy lacked a sound scientific basis.

And as I've mentioned in a similar discussion:

It is further problematic to use the John Snow Memorandum to refute the GBD because we now know that a key concern expressed in the John Snow Memorandum, namely that "there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection" is now false; natural immunity is proving to be at least as strong, if not stronger and longer-lasting than vaccine-acquired immunity:

Importantly, infection-derived protection was higher after the Delta variant became predominant, a time when vaccine-induced immunity for many persons declined because of immune evasion and immunologic waning.

— cdc.gov

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 09:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying this commentary in Science-Based Medicine is SYNTH? Llll5032 (talk) 09:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I am saying that no source has been provided that supports the statement "...attempting to implement [the Great Barrington Declaration] could cause many unnecessary deaths with the potential of recurrent waves of disease spread as immunity decreases over time."

The

onus

is not on me to prove otherwise.

No one has yet provided a quote from the WSJ article, the SBM article, the Lancet paper, or the John Snow memorandum home page that explicitly and directly supports that statement. Without direct support, the statement has no place in a biography of a living person, per

core policy

.

Policy supports the removal of disputed and unverified content until direct and explicit support for it can be presented and consensus reached on using it.

And again, the John Snow Memorandum is no longer as salient a 'response' to the GBD as it might have previously been. The following is from a recent article (which also cites the CDC report I referenced above):

Antibodies derived from natural infection with COVID-19 are more abundant and more potent – at least 10 times more potent – than immunity generated by vaccination alone, according to a study from Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) in Portland, US, published on January 25.

— Medscape.co.uk

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 10:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The onus isn't on anyone to prove that, because the Wikipedia article never said that was true. The Wikipedia article only said that other scientists claimed this, and the cited WSJ article is completely reliable for which people said what. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Since there are other reliable sources discussing the criticism against following the GBD,[43], the only question is that can this be rewritten to remove the alleged OR, the recurrent waves mention, and just simply focus on the counter, "the declaration’s approach would endanger Americans who have underlying conditions... and result in perhaps a half-million deaths" Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

At least two RS link the JSM's warning of recurrent epidemics to the GBD's strategy and also discuss Kulldorff's role in writing the GBD.[44][45] SBM is especially clear about this, additionally commenting that the warnings turned out to be true. Llll5032 (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

It is clear that the JSM notes that "Such a strategy would not end the COVID-19 pandemic but result in recurrent epidemics". However, I do not consider the SBM editorial as an appropriate RS to establish facts about a BLP. (

WP:RSEDITORIAL) Just find independent non-editorials or commentaries RS that mention that in context of Kulldorff to establish due weight. Morbidthoughts (talk

) 21:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Please provide a quote that directly and explicitly warns of recurrent epidemics to the GBD. The quotes so far warns of recurrent waves caused by waning immunity.

With the evidence provided thus far, making the connection from recurrent epidemics → waning immunity → Great Barrington Declaration is original research. Again, how the GBD causes waning immunity is not clear in any of the articles. Even more importantly, natural immunity is now known to be as strong, if not stronger than induced immunity. Therefore the John Snow Memorandum is much less effective response to the GBD.

It is quite telling that we are now over a month into this discussion (mostly on the Kulldorff's talk page but now here too) and all of the attempts to keep the statement have so far relied on indirect connections to keep it, rather than providing a simple quote from a reliable source that the GBD will/might cause recurrent waves.

That should be illustrative enough to remove the statement.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 23:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The quote has been in the ref for months. OP may believe it is inadequate, but so far, others at the talk page have not been persuaded by his reasoning. Llll5032 (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The

onus

is not on me to persuade others. The quote directly and explicitly ties recurrent waves to waning immunity, not the GBD. I am not the only editor who understands that. The provided quote clearly does not support the statement as written. Therefore the statement is disputed and unverified.

Furthermore, in a request for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons, part of the final decision (passed by a 10:0 vote) is:

Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached. [emphasis added]

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 01:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I haven't been paying much attention to this, because it's hard to judge a part of a sentence taken out of any context, as was posted at the top. First, I'll start off by declaring my own biases, because it's totally illogical statements like that which have me doubting these scientists, whoever they are. "If you catch the virus, you're not immune, but if we inject you with the virus, then that's somehow different." I mean, you can't have it both ways. That said, what are the legal or ethical implications you keep talking about? How is this possible harming the subject? I can't see any argument that makes this a BLP concern and something more than a simple content dispute. That said, the whole section is terrible, which I assume is the result of edit warring and piecemealing it together. The sentence in question is a run-on (and on) and it is bordering on incoherent. And what is with all the interstitial refs? Whenever I see that many references for a single sentence, my spidey sense starts to tingle and a big red-flag pops up saying "SYNTH!" I'm not saying it is synth, but there should be no need for so many refs to support a single sentence unless something funky is going on. (I mean one, maybe two. three concurring refs at best for disputed lines, but like 10 all interstitially dispersed!?! That's crazy.) But I don't see what the big deal is nor how it would possibly rise to the level of BLP vio. Zaereth (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

You asked several questions, so the response is long:

it's hard to judge a part of a sentence taken out of any context

I disagree, in this case. Including simply the quote above, from the WSJ article as it is, illustrates that it links recurrent waves to waning immunity, not the Declaration. It is unambiguous and explicit. You can read the quote while asking the question "what causes recurrent waves?" and the answer is provided by the quote, explicitly. The quote is nearly its own paragraph, minus one sentence. Neither the paragraph before the quote or the one after the quote link recurrent waves to the GBD. All three paragraphs are below to provide more context (for anyone who doesn't have access beyond the paywall):

It is unknown how long immunity to the new coronavirus lasts and what level of antibodies is protective, infectious disease experts said. A handful of reinfection cases have been documented around the world, the first one in Hong Kong. Scientists last week reported the first confirmed U.S. reinfection case in a 25-year-old male patient in Nevada.

If immunity wanes after several months, as it does with the flu, patients could be susceptible to the virus after being infected, they said. That, they said, would result in recurrent and potentially large waves of infection , a common occurrence before vaccines were invented. That would continue to place a huge burden on the economy and health-care system, they said.

Allowing the virus to run its course could lead to thousands of people with long-term health problems, scientists say. Researchers are still trying to piece together who is most at risk for a condition known as "long Covid," or lingering health issues that a significant proportion of Covid-19 patients experience weeks and months after they get sick. These patients struggle with issues ranging from problems with concentration, thinking and memory to extreme fatigue, and muscle and joint pain.

— Sarah Toy, Daniela Hernandez, WSJ.com

How is this possible harming the subject?

It potentially harms the subject because it is a false statement and policy regarding BLP is meant to protect subjects from false statements.

That said, the whole section is terrible, which I assume is the result of edit warring and piecemealing it together.

It was the result of tendentious editing piled on over time in order to portray the GBD as scary as possible.

I don't see what the big deal is nor how it would possibly rise to the level of BLP vio

I agree, it shouldn't be a big deal but there is a group of editors who seem to believe that the GBD and by extension Kulldorff should be portrayed as eugenicist/scary/quackery etc. Quite frequently these editors' personal opinions come through in their copy, as is the case here. The copy as written is not neutral and is not directly supported by the source provided. My attempts to clean up the biography and make it more inline with a biography have been met with edit warring and incivility. Bringing the issue here is a step towards improving the article by engaging others with a 'fresh' or 'outside' view. Sorry for the long reply, but you presented several questions and points to address.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 04:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The Boston Globe (non-opinion) also cites the warning about recurring pandemics and the relationship to the GBD.[46]. (Unlike the WSJ story and the SBM commentary, it does not mention Kulldorff by name.) Llll5032 (talk) 23:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The Boston Globe article simply restates what the others do using the same source as the others: the John Snow Memorandum. The one time the Globe article mentions "recurrent" is a quote from the Lancet paper. Because the Lancet paper neither mentions the GBD nor Kulldorff, it can't be construed as making any direct and explicit linkage between any content in the John Snow Memorandum and the GBD or Kulldorff himself. The closest one can get is to say "a herd-immunity strategy" instead of 'the GBD.' But then for balance and neutrality, the article must mention that the GBD authors said the GBD was mischaracterized as a herd-immunity strategy when it isn't. And that takes us too far afield of what a biography of Kulldorff should be. Plenty of GBD drama is documented in the wiki article dedicated to it.

The Boston Globe article does not support the statement either, and for the same reasons as the Wall Street Journal and Science Based Medicine articles: it does not directly and explicitly link the GBD to recurrent waves.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 23:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Per SBM[47] the Great Barrington Declaration is an example of eugenicist thinking "written at the behest of the libertarian free market think tank American Institute for Economic Research (AIER)". We don't need MEDRS to counter the Declaration because it is not science, but fringe polemic. But per
  talk
  ) 11:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  Calling it pseudoscience does not grant an editor carte blanche, especially from adhering to core policies. The core

  WP:PSCI

  is not a justification to retain the disputed and unverified 'recurring waves' statement.

  I would argue the same goes for statements involving

  core policy

  .

  Otherwise an editor could assert something like "Kulldorff wants to kill old people because a blog post on Science Based Medicine tells us the Declaration is eugenicist thinking." As you said; it's ridiculous.

  Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 12:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  The whole GBD thing was to let people die to keep the economic wheels turning for the rich, based on pseudoscience. Yeah it's fucked-up, but Wikipedia isn't going to shy away from calling it like it is, despite your tedious long-drawn campaign of POV-pushing.

  talk

  ) 12:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

If relevant quality RS calls this document eugenicist (or ridiculous, or whatever) then Wikipedia needs to reflect that. We need to call out pseudoscientific idea as such prominently per

talk

) 05:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the 'recurrent waves' statement and replaced it with something that is hopefully closer to a consensus statement, taking input from this discussion. Please take a look and tell me what you think.

One of my concerns is going too far afield into the GBD on Kulldorff's biography page, especially when the GBD has an article dedicated to it. Hopefully the current statement satisfies other's desires to have the GBD discussed more in context of Kulldorff, while not going too far into the single (albeit very controversial) aspect of his career.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 01:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Who thinks Michael's new edit is a "consensus statement" as he wrote in the summary, based on this discussion? I think that is doubtful, because it looks like at least 4 of 6 of us voiced some differences with his interpretations. Llll5032 (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

All sources provided so far say that waning immunity would be the cause for recurrent waves.

If you have to connect the dots from waning immunity, to recurrent waves, to the GBD, you are performing original research.

An editor's interpretation is original research.

As illustrated above in the long reply to Zaereth, the section of the WSJ article that mentions recurrent waves is an aside or background information. For the three paragraphs of that section, neither the GBD nor Kulldorff is either mentioned or referenced.

The WSJ article is explicit in saying that waning immunity (in susceptible people) is what could cause recurrent waves. As Endwise stated, that section of the WSJ article is 'scientific background,' which is not directly related to the GBD or more importantly, to Kulldorff. It therefore adds no value to a biographical article about Kulldorff.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 23:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Nope. The cited source actually says this.

Looking back at your edits over the last couple of months, I see a pattern of trying to exclude criticism of GBD's ideas from this article. You remove a sentence from the article that says only that "scientists warned", and you come here to have an irrelevant debate about whether those scientists are correct. You have repeatedly insisted that the

Shakespeare unless the cited source happens to name the author. Ifthe author instead assumes that educated people already know who wrote Hamlet, then we'll claim that it {{failed verification

}}.

That's not how Wikipedia works. That's POV pushing, not writing down what the reliable sources say, including the parts that you don't personally agree with. I would like you to consider voluntarily leaving this article to editors who do not seem to be as unwilling to include all the information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Are we debating me or the content here? Ad hominem attacks typically indicate a lack of substance.

The original post here at this noticeboard is to question whether or not any cited source directly supports the 'recurrent waves' statement. The onus is not on my to prove it does not. The onus is on those who wish to keep it to prove it does. Simply saying "the cited source actually says this" does not demonstrate that it says it. The quote from the WSJ (and all other sources presented so far) is very clear in what causes recurrent waves; waning immunity.

I brought the question to this noticeboard because there is a group of editors who are clearly squatting a group of article which they have deemed "theirs" and others should keep their hands off those articles (the chest-thumping is obvious from more than one editor). An outside opinion is critical in this situation and that is very clearly demonstrated here.

No one owns wiki content. Attempts to push an editor away from certain "pet" content lacks civility.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 22:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

A group of crows is a murder, a group of ferrets is a business, and a group of editors is a consensus. It doesn't seem like you've gotten much support here, so perhaps you should accept consensus is against your position? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Consensus is not about superior numbers. It's not a vote. It's not a majority.

Policy is policy, even if a group of editors — regardless of what they call themselves — wish otherwise.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 23:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I thought it might be useful for editors here at BLPN to see the paragraph in question on the day before Michael started this: