Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard
Shortcut

This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period.

  • This page is not for simple vandalism or material which can easily be removed without argument. If you can, simply remove the offending material.
  • Familiarize yourself with the biographies of living persons policy before reporting issues here.
  • Important: Do not copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard. Link to a diff showing the dispute, but do not paste the information here.

Sections older than 7 days archived by ClueBot III.

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:




Teal Swan and Barbara Snow[edit]

Hello, I concern regarding one source used on pages for Teal Swan and Barbara Snow (therapist) Here is the source:

The source has been mostly used on Barbara Snow's page and this is the only source for creating an entire section. My concern is that while there is no consensus regarding Gizmodo on controversial topics, it is still used for sensational and controversial information placed on Wikipedia. There are other concerns too, which I listed below (copied from my prior correspondence with another editor but we haven't reached consensus):

  • The source is a podcast with the information presented as a show with the focus on "sensationalism".

https://gizmodo.com/weve-launched-an-investigative-podcast-about-a-controve-1826416613

  • It is not understood how the information leaked about the relationship of Teal Swan and Barbara Snow (if there was any sort of information, which I honestly doubt) based on the fact that the relation between a psychologist and a client is confidential:
  • https://www.apa.org/topics/ethics/confidentiality

Couldn't it be the case of a leaked information about the client without her consent? Even if it is a small chance that it is, doesn't violate Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of Living Persons?

  • Finally, please, check this table of sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

Here is on Gizmodo: There is consensus that Gizmodo is generally reliable for technology, popular culture, and entertainment. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for controversial statements.

Since this source of Gizmodo topic is a radio show with a lot of controversial topics, don't you think it is unethical to use that source without adding more reliable ones? To me it looks like Gizmodo publishes this type of shows to attract more public with "sensationalism". I can't see how it is a proper source for Wikipedia if there is no consensus.


I also believe that it might be a violation on WP: BLP Teal Swan. Other concern, is that while the topic is controversial, only one no-consensus source used for information, which is mostly sensational. There is a need for a second objective opinion of other editors to review the source. --Onetimememorial (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The information has been removed and should not be reinstated without consensus to do so. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Support Inclusion It is not at all controversial that Barbara Snow was Teal Swan's therapist. Could you elaborate on which statement you feel is controversial specifically? Gizmodo interviewed Teal Swan directly, and from Swan's own mouth she confirms unabashedly that her therapist was Barbara Snow. Gizmodo covering controversial topics does not make it unreliable. The New York Times also covers controversial topics. Teal Swan is a pop culture phenomenon. I disagree that the coverage by Gizmodo is sensationalist. Controversial and sensationalist are not the same thing. Snow and her relationship with Swan are an important part of both their stories, and should be mentioned. Epachamo (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both Swan and Snow are controversial figures. Further, what was removed was well beyond confirming a patient-therapy relationship.[1] Interviewing Swan does not verify things on Snow's end. This issue needs coverage by multiple reliable sources under WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:REDFLAG, and Gizmodo is not one of them for controversial topics per WP:RSP. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion made that Gizmodo is getting information from leaked sources is ridiculous, since Gizmodo says where they get their information. It is from publicly available records, from interviews with Swan herself and from a statement by Barbara Snow in their podcast. You can read the primary sources that Gizmodo used right here. Gizmodo did a fair job summarizing the points. Gizmodo being discounted because they cover controversial topics is also a bit ridiculous. The New York Times also covers controversial topics. Referring to Gizmodo as "sensationalist" is ad hominem. Do you have a source that says that Gizmodo is sensationalist? This independent site found that while Gizmodo leans left, its factual reporting is "high". It is I am befuddled that putting this paragraph is considered controversial. Onetimememorial has yet to list what "information" is specifically found controversial and in need of multiple sources. On WP:RSP, it clearly does NOT say that Gizmodo can't be used for controversial statements, it just says that there is no consensus on whether or not it should be. Once Morbidthoughts, or Onetimememorial can articulate what they find controversial, then I recommend going to WP:RSP and asking the community if Gizmodo is a valid source for whatever specific thing is considered controversial. Epachamo (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything about leaked sources. Reread WP:PUBLICFIGURE again, " If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."! Not only do I not believe that Gizmodo is an RS for these matters (allegations of sexual abuse and the ensuing investigation that looked into Snow's history) because of WP:RSP, you haven't supplied any other RS to even establish this incident should be given any WP:WEIGHT. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Morbidthoughts: YOU didn't say anything about leaked sources, but the original poster did, and was who I was responding to. It is pretty clear from reading both your and Onetimememorial's comments that neither of you bothered to even look at the source in question, so I'm unclear how you are making the judgement on how much weight should be given or whether it is reliable. Re-read WP:RSP and you will see that it never says that Gizmodo is NOT a reliable source, just that consensus hasn't been established. And for heaven sake, I beg once again, please, oh please, state what specific item you find controversial. Is it just the allegations of sexual abuse and ensuing investigation that looked into Snow's history? Then why are we blanking the entire section? Epachamo (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Naw, I looked at the source. The WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS is on you to make sure everything complies with our policies, including obtaining consensus. Two editors have already given you their opinion that the disputed material doesn't. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the number of editors, but the strength of the argument that matters on Wikipedia (see [[WP:NHC]). Could I please ask you to tell me which statements you find controversial? Do you find this statement controversial: "Swan said of Snow, "I still consider her to be one of the best psychologists that I have been to. ... When I started telling her the stories about what was going on with me and childhood, she literally just started crying. It was actually the first time I had a therapist cry." Any objections to adding it back in? Epachamo (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I object as to why any of those statements should be given weight. We can keep going around in circles, but you haven't obtained consensus. You want to get more opinions about this, start a WP:RFC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If a number of editors agree with an argument, and you're alone on the other side of the argument, perhaps you should consider that it is you who are incorrect? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't intend to pile on here, but yes. Given the fact that we're dealing with people who tend to be controversial in and of themselves, I think we need to be extra cautious when it comes to BLP policy, and what we have here for the claims advanced doesn't meet that bar for me. Happy Friday, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teal Swan article itself[edit]

How much weight should the Gizmodo podcast be given in Teal Swan's article since everything about her seems to be of a fringe nature? Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Teal's therapeutic journey is a significant part of every documentary produced about her, including ABC Idaho see about 1:01:00, Open Shadow, The Gateway, and The Deep End. It is a significant part of several of her own books including The Completion Process (starting page 11) and Shadows Before Dawn (starting on page 1). Without a doubt her therapeutic journey is an uncontroversially important part of her life and who she is by her own account, and has some weight. Right now, there is one sentence in the Teal Swan article, that is not controversial, that uses Gizmodo as a source. The Gateway podcast published by Gizmodo is widely discussed and cited. It is not some blog. Per WP:RSUW, "A source may be considered more reliable if another source which is generally considered reliable cites or recommends it." Here are some other sources that discuss the Gateway podcast: The Guardian, The Los Angeles Times, Oprah Daily, Parade Magazine, Vulture, Refinery 29, Decider. This independent site found that while Gizmodo leans left, its factual reporting is "high". Epachamo (talk) 09:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a RS writes about or recommends a podcast does not make the podcast any more reliable than a tv show or movie that a RS recommends for viewing. Right now Gizmodo is cited for 6 sentences in that article. Five of them for fringe elements. Also, Refinery29 is an inappropriate source to put weight on. The point is exactly how much text should Wikipedia devote on this woman beyond what better sources like the BBC or Guardian do? I'll notify the fringe noticeboard to weigh in. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, per WP:RSUW, "A source may be considered more reliable if another source which is generally considered reliable cites or recommends it." Given that we have reliable sources that recommend the Gizmodo article, what further evidence do you need that would establish that it is reliable? I will concede Refinery29 as an inappropriate source to establish weight. What sentences do you specifically find fringe? Let me know and I will find a further source to document it. Epachamo (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you should review the part in RSUW explaining that it is an essay and neither policy nor guideline. Every sentence about Swan's background relying on her, a noted "clairvoyant" who claims she has ESP, and her family is fringe. I can't believe this is not obvious. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Morbidthoughts:It is fringe to say that ESP or clairvoyance are actual things. It is not fringe at all to say that Swan believes she is clairvoyant, or has ESP. Virtually every source confirms this. This is the mainstream viewpoint of Swan. She brings it up in virtually every interview. It is in all of her books. It is by no means fringe. Do you know of anyone that disputes that is what she believes? What leads you to believe these are fringe claims? I can see re-wording things to make that more clear. Epachamo (talk) 04:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know a bunch of people who think she's a fraud and a pathological liar rather than crazy. A Salon article says she make a living off of scamming vulnerable individuals.[2] So yeah, they dispute what she actually believes. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Morbidthoughts: Ok, I can agree with that. I would be onboard with phrasing it in such a way that it is what she says, not what she believes, and add the viewpoint of those who feel she is scamming people. Epachamo (talk) 03:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Morbidthoughts, given the fact that Gizmodo was used 6 times in one section and mostly for controversial statements, I'd cut it in half. It's been heavily used for some controversial statements in Swan's "Early life" section. I've also checked some other sources used for contentious information - you might be interested to double check my search:
  • Gizmodo. The podcast used as almost a sole source for the first two contentious paragraphs.
  • Idaho News 6 (currently reference 7) - the page is not found but in the archives it shows unknown source "Scrippsmedia".
  • Reference 8: https://www.hayhouse.com/authorbio/teal-swan

The source is just mention and it doesn't look reliable to me as a short mention or promotional content. Is also seems to be used incorrectly in the section.

  • Number 9 is a link to YouTube video in interview format. It longs for 2 hours. It might fail both as a reliable source as "an interview" and as "YouTube".
  • Reference 10 seems to be more appropriate but it still refers to the contentious quote "According to her, she was born with extrasensory abilities such as clairvoyance, "clairsentience", and "clairaudience".[8] [10}.

‘’’In general, I’d re-evaluate the weight of the sources as they are clearly related to very contentious statements and controversial claims. Whether the information should removed or double verified with more reliable sources, I leave it for your discretion.’’’

‘’’The other sources Epachamo referred to:’’’

  • The Guardian — the article is about the Gizmodo podcast itself; there is nothing confirming controversial statements on Wikipedia page of Teal Swan
  • Los Angeles Times — about podcast only, no information on Teal Swan’s early life
  • The same with Oprah Daily, Parade, Vulture — only short mentions of the podcast/documentary
  • Refinery29 = is mostly about other topics related to Teal Swan and the source. Here is the closest I found, which hardly qualifies:

«Complicating her story even further: Swan claims she survived and escaped a cult herself as a young woman. In their investigative podcast, Brown and Glazer try to find the “gateway” into Swan’s world, to figure out this if this cultish figure is actually a threat, or a blessing, to her “Teal Tribe.”

  • Decider is the only article that analyses and comments on Gizmodo podcast and Deep End documentary but it doesn’t look like an editorial opinion to me confirming all the controversial statements.

--Onetimememorial (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Decider is not RS, being operated by the WP:NYPOST. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing it, then it is one source less for use, I guess and it is currently in use. Overall, the "Early life" still seems problematic to me as it is full of Swan's own statements about herself or some sources that cover rather contentious information about her early childhood. I believe it all needs additional verification. All other sections look more or less fine.Onetimememorial (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Onetimememorial: Scripps Media is far from an "unknown source". Largoplazo (talk) 10:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:FRINGE, "the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in". Thus:

Caption Aspects of Teal Swan
Controversial and Fringe Not Controversial or Fringe
Swan was abused, raped and psychologically tortured from the age of six onwards by a family friend. Swan has stated in numerous interviews that she was abused, raped and psychologically tortured from the age of six onwards by a family friend.
Swan was the victim of ritualistic abuse by a satanic cult for over a decade. Swan says she was the victim of ritualistic abuse by a satanic cult for over a decade.
Swan was born with extrasensory abilities such as clairvoyance, "clairsentience", and "clairaudience" According to her, she was born with extrasensory abilities such as clairvoyance, "clairsentience", and "clairaudience"

By phrasing it as it is in the right column, it is something that both Swan and her detractors would absolutely agree on. It is not controversial. Epachamo (talk) 05:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of that old TV show Lost, because I have completely lost track of what this discussion is all about. The original question was about a podcast. I'll admit, I had no idea what a podcast even was, so I didn't bother trying to give an answer. But watching this, go on and on, I finally decided to take a listen.
The answer is quite simply, no. It is no more a reliable source than would be Dateline, To Catch a Predator, Forensic Files, Dr. Phil, Ken Burns, or any other form of literary journalism. It's based on non-fictional accounts but delivered in a narrative, fictional style. The narrator is giving their own accounts, interpretations, and conclusions, literally filling in the blanks with this narrative story to draw the listener along. But we have no way of knowing how much is clipped together or edited out to make this narrative fit the desired purpose, which is to turn the subjects into characters and tug at the listener's emotions. A famous example of this is Walt Disney's documentary, White Wilderness, in which he convinced the world that lemmings in Alaska commit mass suicide. He simply wrote up this narrative and cut and edited thousands of hours of films of lemmings to fit his story. Now I'm not saying that this podcast or things like Dateline are that blatantly fabricated, but to tell a non-fiction story as if it were fiction, well, that requires taking some liberties and filling in some blanks with something to tie it all together for the listener to relate to emotionally. They're not real news, and one can easily tell the difference between them just by listening. They are entertainment. These types of documentaries and other forms of literary journalism should never be used as reliable sources.
As to whatever all this other "fringe" discussion is about, I'm lost. I'd need diffs or something to know just what it is should be added or deleted or altered. Zaereth (talk) 06:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I ended up removing:[3]. Mostly the promotional claims of her fringe or extraordinary abilities and background from an unreliable narrator that was mostly sourced to this podcast and weaker sources like Salon.com and OZY. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More contested diffs.[4] Focus on her claims by citing to documentaries or her book. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaereth: Even Breitbart can be used as a source when presenting significant opinions, viewpoints, and commentary (see WP:RSP). Epachamo (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so in looking at these diffs, my first question as an uninvolved reader is: "What is the point?" I mean, most of these changes in the first diff are things that would be of great interest to a psychoanalyst, but are just trivial, boring details in an encyclopedia article. I'll use the example of a Stephen King novel. King is a great writer, but all too often he goes on these incredibly detailed tangents into the character's backgrounds, in an attempt to give some phycological history of the subject. For the reader, it's like, wtf? What happened to the story? Then your eyes glaze over as you scan ahead 27 pages until the action starts up again.
To break it down even further, the first change is about how she didn't fit in as a child and acted differently, and that it all had some profound yet unexplained effect on her as a child. Now these are all talking about the subject's feelings in the third-person omniscient, and this goes on in the next diff, starting with "Swan began to feel physically different from other children...". This is all great stuff for psychoanalysts to use, but this is not stuff that one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. The use of third-person omniscient there is also concerning, because that brings many possibilities to mind, including the possibility of some COI going on. (That's often but not always an indication of someone trying to write in the objective while thinking in the first person.)
Then we have the next change in that diff, which is promoting the completely debunked theory of suppressed memories. Turns out that memory is a fluid and dynamic thing, and the unconscious mind is often very suggestable. Most research has revealed that suppressed memories are the result of poor interviewing techniques (ie: Did someone touch you? Was it your uncle? Did he touch you in a bad place?). This is not even fringe, but debunked theory.
The next change reads like an advertisement. Need I go on? And I haven't even gotten to sources yet, which, by the way, look pretty sketchy from the get go. Zaereth (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaereth: What is the point? Take all those things out and there is a significant perspective on who she is that is missing. You might even come away from reading the article thinking Teal Swan is a mainstream health professional. The viewpoint that Swan is NOT a mainstream mental health professional is a significant viewpoint as attested by the numerous documentaries, podcasts and articles about her, and recommended by numerous other sources. It is unconscionable that we have reliable sources like the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times publishing about this perspective, but it is not even allowed on Wikipedia. That perspective should be represented in this article. Epachamo (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What if we had a "controversy" section in the Teal Swan article. We could move the items from her biography that are not benign to that section, and source it as opinion. In that way, we would present a significant viewpoint of Swan, without giving credibility to her purported abilities. Epachamo (talk) 04:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Pelosi[edit]

Paul Pelosi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is a unique situation involving WP:PUBLICFIGURE. A person who is now a public figure, Paul Pelosi, was charged with a crime way back in 1957, when he was not a public figure. The event was reported at the time in just one local newspaper, the San Francisco Examiner. My attempt to add this information to the Palosi article has been reverted because WP:PUBLICFIGURE asks for "multiple reliable third-party sources". In the past week, after Pelosi was charged with another driving offense, the 1957 charge was unearthed, and was widely reported in conservative media, most of which are blacklisted at WP:RSP. Mainstream media did not report it, perhaps because Paul is married to Nancy Pelosi. The incident happened--way back in 1957--when it was just another car accident involving a teenager. Do we follow common sense and exempt this one from the strict requirements of WP:PUBLICFIGURE? Your input at Talk:Paul Pelosi#David Pelosi would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason given why should ignore PUBLICFIGURE. Common sense is often a euphemism for want, but rarely a reason for need. If it's not widely covered then there would appear to be little public interest, so I would say no. If nothing else, due weight would apply, in which case, for a public figure, there should still be substantial coverage. Zaereth (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"If it's not widely covered then there would appear to be little public interest...". Wow. 22:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
It is covered by NY Post.[5] Instead of looking for only mainstream friendly-outlets, I think we should instead focus on checking if the information is false. If there is no source disputing the information then it needs to be included. 99.165.88.9 (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works. If there's no coverage in mainstream sources then it's not WP:DUE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish there was mainstream coverage at the time.
[6]
also a article from the San Francisco Examiner Basedosaurus (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sensational headlines from that front page of the San Mateo Times don't give me the utmost confidence that it should be any more citable than the NY Post. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This edit[7] is troubling in that it attributes blame to Pelosi when the sources and courts haven't. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, the sourcing needs to be quite a bit better, otherwise it is giving undue weight to a half-century old happening. Laura_Bush#Early_life_and_career covers the former first lady's vehicle incident that also resulted in a death, but that was touched on by several prominent reliable sources at the time of her husband's candidacy. Zaathras (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaathras Laura Bush is more of a can be considered Public Figure than Paul Pelosi.Most people would know who the First Lady or potential First lady is compared to who the husband of the Speaker of the house is,so of course there would be more coverage. Basedosaurus (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A person is either a public figure or not. There's aren't Degrees of Public Figure-ness. My point was that this situation here needs better sourcing. Zaathras (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnolia677@Morbidthoughts I agree the wording of this edit needs to be changed. It should instead say something along the lines of "Pelosi was charged with Misdemeanor Manslaughter after the death of his brother during a car crash in which he was in control of the vehicle". Basedosaurus (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still have reservations on whether Paul Pelosi should be evaluated as WP:PUBLICFIGURE, mainly for who he is married to, instead of WP:NPF given that the NY Times reported that he has "typically avoided the spotlight".[8] At this point, I don't believe the legal aspect of the crash should be mentioned under WP:BLPCRIME. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you believe it should only be mentioned that his brother died in a crash that he was also in?correct? Basedosaurus (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is probably the most that should be put into the article given the available RS that has been presented. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, Paul Pelosi was charged with a misdemeanor offense in 1957, which is not a half a century ago but actually 65 years ago? It was a family tragedy but was he convicted? I see no evidence of that. What I see is the unreliable Daily Mail and the unreliable New York Post doing their very best to bring negative attention to a terrible accident that happened 65 years ago, because they hate Paul Pelosi's current wife Nancy Pelosi. Cullen328 (talk) 01:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds about right. I guess I should have looked at the article first, but I was commenting solely on the nature of the original question. How is it we're calling this person a public figure? That term has a very specific legal definition, which is people of celebrity status or similar. I would expect an article on one to be much longer and contain more than a dozen or so sources. Notability is not inherited nor passed on through marriage, and the more I look at this, the more it seems like the typical mob-mentality where going after someone's family to get at them seems like the thing to do. To me, that's reprehensible, but I guess at least it's not the children this time, as it often is the case with politics. Since PUBLICFIGURE doesn't seem to even come into play here, I would say leave it out unless we can show that BLPCRIME is satisfied. I would also say the same about the 2022 DUI charge. If there is no conviction, then we shouldn't have it in the article. Zaereth (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaereth The idea you have stated of no conviction no article would mean a substantial amount of Wikipedia would be deleted.It would need to be applied evenly to all BLP's. Basedosaurus (talk) 02:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Basedosaurus, please feel free to remove mentions of all 65 year old misdemeanor accusations that did not result in convictions from any biography of a living person that you can find. Please read WP: BLP in its entirety and take it seriously. 05:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The articles used are not from the daily mail or NYP.They are from the time of the incident. Basedosaurus (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it should, and does. Please read BLP. The exception to BLPCRIME is PUBLICFIGURE, and this person doesn't seem to pass that by a long shot. Zaereth (talk) 02:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the narrow question of whether he was convicted, the answer seems to be "no". At least, according to the deprecated source The Sun [9], he was cited at the scene but exonerated by the coroner's jury. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 05:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have rewritten the text of this edit, and provided three reliable sources. Please see Talk:Paul Pelosi#David Pelosi. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How did you find and review the content from the Pacific Drug Review and the Nancy Pelosi book? Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the sources with an OCLC number and ISBN number, respectively, to make the sources reasonably available. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can not WP:FORUMSHOP and rely simply on the discussion at the article talk page to insert your edits.[10] Multiple editors in this thread have questioned inclusion based on WP:DUE, WP:PUBLICFIGURE,WP:NPF, and WP:BLPCRIME. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree based mostly on BLPCRIME. This is obviously a low-profile individual, who has purposely avoided the spotlight despite being married to a high-profile person. There is no indication whatsoever that PUBLICFIGURE even comes into play here. A public figure includes most politicians, plus people like celebrities such as Charlie Sheen, Tom Cruise, or Kim Kardashian. Public figures by law do not have the same expectations of privacy as low-profile people, and Wikipedia follows this standard. You can usually tell if a person is a public figure by the sheer number of sources out there on them, and their articles on Wikipedia tend to be quite long. There are cases where low-profile people have become public figures for nothing more than the crimes they committed, but these are people like Charles Manson or Mary Kay Letourneau, but if you look at the sheer number of sources out there covering them, then we would be remiss in not covering them as well. That is nowhere near the case here. Not by a long shot.
The one question which again nobody seem to be bothered to answer is: why does it need to be in the article. Wanting something is not the same as needing it, and my suspicion is that people want it for political reasons. Keep in mind that I personally cannot stand Nancy Pelosi, and would love nothing more than to see her voted out of office, but I would never go after her family as a way to make her seem guilty by association, which is what I suspect is going on here. (That's one of the main reasons I stuck around Wikipedia and BLPN all these years, because I was shocked at how people went after Sarah Palin's children during he 2008 election. That kind of tactic is just horrible.) That or something similar is usually the case when people can't say why the article needs such info (or rather, why they want such info in the article), because there must be a reason but saying it out loud will sound terrible. Instead the argument for inclusion is always one of "because we can" rather than why we should. Zaereth (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. In addition to the recent NY Post and Daily Mail reporting, the crash was covered in multiple contemporary reports, and mentioned in subsequent books, including Nancy Pelosi's herself (although obliquely). The Pacific Drug Review was a West Coast pharmacy trade journal that probably covered the event due to the father being a noteworthy druggist. The biography by Susan Page substantiates the "conservative media" articles, including that a coroner's jury cleared Paul of blame. See below:
There is no doubt the event is verifiable and covered in reliable sources. Whether it belongs in an encyclopedia is up for debate. If included, it should be presented conservatively, succinctly, and without sensationalism or undue emphasis on minor aspects of the event. Mention of the loss of a brother would help clarify the early life (the article does not even yet mention his brother Ron Pelosi in prose). It should not be juxtaposed with the subsequent DUI in 2022 or ottherwise construed to imply that Pelosi is a particularly reckless person. 63.155.44.196 (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sure how the Pacific Drug Review even came up in the search for sources (JSTOR? Google? PUBMED?) and whether it (an obituary?) should be given any more weight than the local news articles that might fall under NOTNEWS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A snippet of it comes up if you search Google Books, same as the Susan Page book, which displays several pages on Google Books (the search term "David John Pelosi" allows more text to be seen, although it might vary regionally or in different browsers). It would be a different matter if Pacific Drug Review was the only source reporting it (and I can't verify if it mentions Paul by name or not), but it adds weight along with the others. 63.155.44.196 (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It does matter whether PDR verifies Paul's role in a PUBLICFIGURE or DUE analysis. Editors should not be citing to things that don't directly verify what is being asserted per WP:BURDEN and WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New in depth NYT piece just dropped. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/22/fashion/news/nancy-pelosis-napa-wealthy-friends-and-a-husbands-damaged-porsche.html I'm out of free NYT views for the month, but the Twitter blurb on it says The recent arrest of Paul Pelosi, Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, in Napa Valley has shone a light on their lavish California life. It has also refocused attention on his troubled driving record, including a crash when he was 16 that left his brother dead. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see The New York Times reporting on this. It's a bit odd that a drunk driving charge was ok to add to the article, but a manslaughter charge was questioned. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are people in this thread that are disputing whether the drunk driving charges are okay to include since they don't believe Pelosi is a public figure under WP:BLPCRIME. A RfC to decide the public figure issue is appropriate. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have started the RfC. [11] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Hampshire[edit]

I would like more eyes here, please – an approximate WP:DOB was properly sourced in the article (though the source date was incorrect, and was subsequently adjusted, though I forget to fix the date in the Infobox). ItsKesha first tried to change it to an exact DOB, despite that information not being in the source. Then they simply removed the information entirely, without an attempt to discuss. But the current source is perfectly acceptable for a {{Birth based on age as of date}} cite, and it should be restored. Thank you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was never changed to an exact DOB by myself. Please kindly correct yourself. If the source being used for a date of birth is deemed to be wrong, why is the information even there? The article in question from the Toronto Star was being used to claim she was 30 in 2012, despite the article being from 2009 saying she was 30 in 2009 (dob would be circa 1979); I noticed the error and corrected the date of the article, and then her date of birth accordingly. This edit can be seen here. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I owe ItsKesha an apology – I thought you changed templates, but you only changed the date in the {{Birth based on age as of date}} – would you be willing to self-revert this edit? Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, why would I revert the edit? Either the source is correct and the dob is 1979 (based on being 30 in 2009, the date the article was written, not 2012), or the source is incorrect (which is tantamount to WP:OR by yourself), and the information should be removed as a violation of WP:BLP. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ItsKesha: OK, let me rephrase – could you please restore this information in the infobox as of this edit? – With the source date corrected, this information as of that edit is now correct(ed). It's better if you do it, as then it's non-confrontational. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@IJBall@ItsKesha is the dob well known? Because if not we don’t post it. Doug Weller talk 17:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a reliable source that quotes an age, it is acceptable to include an approximate YOB – that is pretty standard practice. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@IJBall The year at the most, is that what you mean? Doug Weller talk 17:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you take a look at Emily Hampshire, that is how it is handled now – it's just a year (range). It's done this was at a number of BLP articles when a WP:RS quotes an age – most do not give an exact DOB. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. I see too much of the other. Doug Weller talk 17:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elon Musk's comments on employees[edit]

TLDR: User:HAL333 made 4 5 edits that were WP:BLP/WP:V violations (and just as importantly, but less urgently, WP:NPOV violations). User:HAL333 also clearly lied when challenged to make themselves look better, which is a display of bad faith. References are all provided below.

User:HAL333's first edit that violates WP:V due to unsourced/false content was[1][12] (bolded part mine):

In June 2022, Musk suspended remote work at SpaceX and Tesla threatened to fire factory workers not working 40 hours per week.

The misinformation part is:

threatened to fire factory workers not working 40 hours per week.

This is not supported by the source. Here is the true information/quote of Elon Musk's company email from Ars Technica[2]:

"Anyone who wishes to do remote work must be in the office for a minimum (and I mean *minimum*) of 40 hours per week or depart Tesla. This is less than we ask of factory workers,"

Contrary to HAL333's misinformation, factory workers were not working less than 40 hours per week, and Musk's email was not about threatening to fire factory workers for working less than 40 hours. Instead, office workers were working remotely and Musk's threat was that office workers would be fired for not being in office at least 40 hours per week. This misinformation ("threatened to fire factory workers not working 40 hours per week") is especially odious, because HAL333 unfairly cast the factory workers who were working overtime as working under-time.

I replaced it[3] as it was misinformation and per WP:BLP/WP:V, "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." HAL333 then left a message on my Talk Page accusing me of edit warring[4] and also added back the content that is a WP:BLP/WP:V violation a second time.[5][13] I replaced the content[6] with accurate material and explained the reasoning in my edit summary, because removing a WP:BLP/WP:V violation has priority over HAL333's argument for concision.

HAL333 then edited in this third version omitting the word "factory":[7][14]

In June 2022, Musk suspended remote work at SpaceX and Tesla threatened to fire workers not working 40 hours per week.

and left a Talk:Elon Musk comment lying[8][15] about the content of the two edits[1][5] I said was misinformation / WP:BLP/WP:V violations[3][6]:

I fail to see how my proposed text In June 2022, Musk suspended remote work at SpaceX and Tesla threatened to fire workers not working 40 hours per week. is "misinformation" as you claim

What I said was misinformation was "threatened to fire factory workers not working 40 hours per week", which they had edited in twice at this point,[1][5] but omitted the critical word "factory" in their Talk Page comment to try to make my responses look unreasonable. Irrefutable evidence of lying[8] is evidence of bad faith.

I pointed out to them on the Talk Page that they were lying, which they didn't refute. I also explained that this was still WP:NPOV, because it characterizes Tesla employees (in general) as working less than 40 hours, or that Musk's threat was about employees working less than 40 hours, when the sources do not support this.

They weren't convinced, even though this is clearly false information not supported by the sources, and then made a fourth edit[9][16] to add the word "and" to make the sentence more grammatical, again maintaining the false, unsourced content. I removed the misinformation[10] as per WP:BLP/WP:V. HAL333's editorialism "threatened to fire workers not working 40 hours per week" is not supported by the sources, as Musk was forcing employees into office, not forcing them to work. They then reported me for 3RR.

They also have a history of behavior that looked like WP:GAME (threatening 3RR and reverting themselves when I reverted their vandalism based on the Talk Page majority consensus to keep the content (WP:PLAYPOLICY, WP:GASLIGHT), discussed here), but looks more so now, given that there is clear evidence of bad faith via lying.

Edit: Now HAL333 made a fifth edit[11][17] that violates WP:BLP & WP:V: "In June 2022, Musk suspended remote work at SpaceX and Tesla and threatened to fire workers not working 40 hours per week." TechnophilicHippie (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC); edited TechnophilicHippie (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC); edited to include direct diffs in addition to inline citations of diffs TechnophilicHippie (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a retaliation thread of HAL333's report of TechnophilicHippie's edit warring. I suggest both editors to resolve the content dispute at the prior noticeboard first in order to avoid duplication and drama. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I already mentioned way before you at report of TechnophilicHippie's edit warring that I warned HAL333 for WP:BLP violation and that HAL333 reported me first to jump the gun. I also noted in the comments there a while back before you that I was creating this WP:BLPN report, so you are just injecting yourself into ANI without new information. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 05:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I forgot the word "and" in two earlier edits. If TechnophilicHippie were truly concerned about that, they simply would have added "and". Instead, they used it to add other content that had been reverted by two editors and for which there is no consensus. They used BLP claims to push their edit warring. And I'm gaming the system? That's funny. ~ HAL333 11:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is yet another example of HAL333's gaslighting and acting in bad faith. It is impossible to have productive discussions about content with someone who won't engage with the arguments and just tries to misrepresent the other person. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Musk was forcing employees into office, not forcing them to work What do you think they would do at an office for 40 hours? Read the references. ~ HAL333 11:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At least as I understand the situation around Musk' comments, he did not trust people teleworking were "working", and thus wanted the office workers at the office for that 40 hr so that they could be supervised. Of course he'd be expecting them to work, but the whole issue is around the management of those employees, not their productivity (or at least, he wanted he and his managers to be able to eyewitness their productivity). --Masem (t) 12:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I got too. Would you say that "In June 2022, Musk suspended remote work at SpaceX and Tesla and threatened to fire workers not working 40 hours per week." is supported by the sources? Does it need tweaking? Does it violate BLP? ~ HAL333 12:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would need to be "...fire employees who did not work at least 40 hours in Tesla's offices" to capture it. Masem (t) 17:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But Musk also told SpaceX employees to work 40 hours in the office as well. I also think "in the office" is somewhat redundant if it says remote work is suspended. The preceding sentence in the article also mentions physical office work. ~ HAL333 17:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does it violate BLP? I assume the "whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable" clause is in WP:BLP, because whether the material is positive versus negative is subjective and dependent on a person's values, so there is no way to objectively determine whether it is positive/negative. To put it simply, if it fails WP:V, then it's a BLP violation. Also note WP:PLAYPOLICY: "Example: Saying that content meets the policy on verifiability because it is cited to a source, when in fact the source is not reliable, or the content twists the source's point of view." TechnophilicHippie (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess it's a good thing that it doesn't fail WP:V. ~ HAL333 01:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now HAL333 made a fifth edit[11] that violates WP:BLP & WP:V: "In June 2022, Musk suspended remote work at SpaceX and Tesla and threatened to fire workers not working 40 hours per week." TechnophilicHippie (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I really haven't been following this discussion, but what edit are you referring to? I clicked the link provided an it just took me to a reference at the bottom of the page. Anyhow, I don't know how that violates policy without seeing it in context, but what caught my eye is that the sentence has more than one meaning, depending on how you look at it. Is he going to fire workers instead of working? Or is he going to fire workers who were not working? It is awkward to read because of this and need to be fixed grammatically at the very least. I'd need an actual diff to better tell if this is a policy vio or not. Zaereth (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reference at the bottom of the page links to the diff. The problem is that HAL333's edit that fails WP:V, which he has done 5 times now, is not supported by the sources. Tesla employees have been working all this time, just remotely instead of in office; there is no evidence that they were working less than 40 hours per week and needed chastising. Suggesting that Tesla employees are lazy is an especially abhorrent distortion of the truth, since Tesla is known to overwork their employees in general. As admin MASEM said earlier on 17:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC), It would need to be "...fire employees who did not work at least 40 hours in Tesla's offices" to capture it. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah. Like I said, the grammar in the sentence is awful. Now I never would have found that link down there, because I never look for refs until I first see them in the diffs, so I know how they're being used. I need to see it in context. Thanks for the link. Much easier to find.
So, to start with, this isn't really a BLP violation anymore than as it relates V and NPOV. Some people find it confusing, I think, because we get so much of this here, but every little thing that is disputed in an article is not automatically a BLP vio. Every other policy still applies just as it would for any other article. BLP policy is there to cover things specific to living people; in particular their safety and privacy among other things. This particular sentence is not something I would say rises to the level of BLP vio.
That said, the grammar is bad, and I agree it needs rephrasing. At best it's a stumbling block for the reader. At worst, it comes off as nonsensical, because it can be read in three --if not four-- different ways. It all depends on how you look at it, kinda like a Necker cube. When I first read the sentence, it tripped me up, dead in my tracks. I read "..fired workers not working..." as if it was saying he would fire workers, but would not fire working itself, which made no sense to me. I was sitting there for a second blinking my eyes. For a moment my mind shorted out, and everything was completely erased. There are actually two more (possibly three) ways a person could read that sentence. Now, that's not intended to put down the author, because it happens to all of us from time to time. Writing for ourselves is easy, because we know what we meant before we ever put it to words, but writing for others is hard, that is, if you want them to understand what you meant. It's like "Never feed a baby chili." Great, but what is a "baby chili". How about "Never feed chili to a baby". Never underestimate the power of prepositions.
So I agree, the sentence does need changing, if nothing else than to make it coherent and less of a stumbling block for the reader. And it may possibly need clarification if it's not giving the whole story, but if it means what I think it means, then it is not in violation of V, but by your own argument, it may be a bit of an NPOV problem if we're not getting important details. Zaereth (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, to start with, this isn't really a BLP violation anymore than as it relates V and NPOV. According to WP:BLP, BLPs must adhere strictly to WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR.
BLP policy is there to cover things specific to living people; in particular their safety and privacy among other things. According to WP:BLP, "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." Doesn't this mean that it covers more than an individual's safety and privacy, and adding content about Elon Must that fails WP:V and WP:NPOV—but is to his advantage against his employees—is also a BLP violation? TechnophilicHippie (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting reply. As a friendly piece of advice, you might have better luck if you don't argue with people who are agreeing with you, or at least agreeing with your conclusion if not your premise. You may just find a better argument. (All roads lead to Rome.) Sometimes it's necessary to "cry BLP" when a really important issue is at hand, like when a court document is used as the sole source of a criminal allegation, or someone's personal information is posted somewhere. There are even cases where an NPOV vio can rise to the level of being a hazard to either our subjects or our readers. That's more what this board is for. But more often than not the main issue is with another policy entirely, and is just your garden variety content dispute. Here, this case of NPOV, and NPOVN may have been a better board to take it to, but now that we're here... Trying to make this a BLP issue is distracting you and everyone else from the real policy that you should be focusing on, which is counterproductive to your goals. V is already satisfied, and was confirmed by every source listed. He most certainly did threaten to fire workers who were not working 40 hour weeks (there, see how I wrote that?). Even if he did not use those exact words, the meaning was explicit. As long as they are at-will employees with no binding contract, every employer in America has that right, so it's not like it is something illegal or even bad. (A bit outlandish maybe, but look who we're talking about.) That is well sourced, so RS is satisfied. Now onto NPOV. Is it balanced? Even as a short summary, are we getting the whole story, or is there a little cherry-picking going on? (Maybe unconsciously? Just a little?) I agree with Masem's statement, that to cover the gist of it we need to include the where. And fix the sentence while you're at it. It looks odd to have two nouns side by side; separated by a "not" with no spatial orientation. Zaereth (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
V is already satisfied, and was confirmed by every source listed. He most certainly did threaten to fire workers who were not working 40 hour weeks (there, see how I wrote that?). Even if he did not use those exact words, the meaning was explicit. As long as they are at-will employees with no binding contract, every employer in America has that right, so it's not like it is something illegal or even bad. No. Although every employer has that right, that is a separate fact which has nothing to do with the sources reporting the story that in June 2022, Musk sent company emails threatening to fire employees who, moving forward, spend less than 40 hours per week in Tesla or SpaceX offices.[2][12][13][14]
Sometimes it's necessary to "cry BLP" when a really important issue is at hand, like when a court document is used as the sole source of a criminal allegation, or someone's personal information is posted somewhere. There are even cases where an NPOV vio can rise to the level of being a hazard to either our subjects or our readers. That's more what this board is for. I understand the urgency in removing libel and personal information over other V violations in a BLP, that libel and the leaking of personal information are BLP violations, and that these kinds of problems are around 95% of BLP violations. However, WP:BLP says, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. 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. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." Isn't the BLP Noticeboard the right place to report BLP violations that are not libel or leaking personal information?
As a friendly piece of advice, you might have better luck if you don't argue with people who are agreeing with you, or at least agreeing with your conclusion if not your premise. I don't think we are in agreement about either the premises or conclusion. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The admin's noticeboard for edit warring concluded that you were edit warring over that content. Your BLP claims are purely to game the system and justify your edit warring. ~ HAL333 21:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That admin did not take into account that removing BLP violations is exempt from 3RR. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are projecting your own WP:GAME on to me. I explained to you that this was a BLP violation five times [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] and then you reported me for 3RR, which is WP:PLAYPOLICY: "Telling another user that by reverting your vandalism edits, they are violating the 3-revert rule. (Vandalism is a listed exception to the 3-revert rule.)". Per WP:NOT3RR, this is an exemption: "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." TechnophilicHippie (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that all of us (me, TechnophilicHippie and HAL333) should close this thread and start forming a consensus at the article talk page. As proven in J. K. Rowling talk page, it is possible for us to work together and make the article more neutral, without going to noticeboards every once in a while. Accusing each other for foul play would lead us nowhere. Making a thread at NPOV noticeboard would not magically solve the NPOV conjecture. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. At this point, y'all are discussing hypothetical semantics because TechnophilicHippie is complaining about phrasing which isn't even present in the current article. ~ HAL333 15:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this is really a ANI issue about your WP:GAME behavior instead? Where is the right place to report WP:BLP's "Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." ? TechnophilicHippie (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then do that instead of being uncivil and casting aspersions in an inappropriate venue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOT3RR a 3RR exemption is "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." My concern is that if I report to ANI, they will say this needs to be handled at BLPN, because it is a BLP-specific rule. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You already brought that concern here, it has been rejected by the community. In fact you yourself have been warned for edit warring as a result of this dispute[23], your edits were not found to meet any of the edit warring exemptions. If you wish to pursue your allegations of WP:GAME ANI is the venue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it has been rejected by the community. This is incorrect; one user is not the community. I am in alignment with admin User:Masem who said that HAL333's edit was inaccurate and did not capture what was said by the sources. Non-admin User:Zaereth said they weren't following the discussion, they had problems understanding the sentence, and that if they understood the sentence, then it was a problem with confusing wording. (This is not the problem. I did not report to BLPN because of confusing wording.) User:Zaereth also said that only problems like libel and exposing personal information should be reported to BLPN. (This is incorrect. WP:BLP and WP:NOT3RR separately, technically and in spirit of the policies, say that this is a BLP violation; together, they say I should report this to BLPN.) User:Zaereth also said that the edit does not fail V, because it is legal for employers to fire employees for not working 40 hours per week. (I agree that it is legal, but it is a completely separate fact unrelated to the topic at hand, and did not start in June 2022, which would suggest that Tesla/SpaceX employees were working less than full-time before June 2022, which is the exact problem I am reporting.) Could you please read my original BLPN report?
In fact you yourself have been warned for edit warring as a result of this dispute[24] I already linked to HAL333's 3RR report in my original BLPN report, and stated above on 22:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC) that "That admin did not take into account that removing BLP violations is exempt from 3RR."[25] If the admin took into account BLP violations, they would say it is not a BLP violation. They also didn't review this BLPN report, because they did not leave any comment on this BLPN report. If this is a BLP violation, then the 3RR report is unwarranted. Also, I did not actually get an admin warning, despite the board saying that I did, perhaps because the admin saw HAL333's messages my Talk Page which show enough of the history of HAL333's behavior against me and suggests inconsistencies with the narrative of HAL333's 3RR report. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These allegations are becoming more and more bizarre and less and less based in reality. If this is the path you are on I can not help you, I wish you the best of luck. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnophilicHippie: if you have evidence that an editor is persistently or egregiously violate BLP then yes you should report this to ANI not here. ANI will not direct you to here if you actually have such evidence because editor conduct issues especially those requiring sanction really belong there not here. But it's a moot point until you find the evidence. So far you've not shown any evidence of such a thing, so the end result of an ANI thread is more likely to be a WP:BOOMERANG. ANI is not the place for you to report minor disagreements about wording, nor a place for you to report minor mistakes an editor may have made, even those concerning a living person. Nil Einne (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But it's a moot point until you find the evidence. So far you've not shown any evidence of such a thing. Can you review and respond to my original BLPN report instead of relying on one editor's comments, User:Zaereth? Admin User:Masem seemed to be aligned with me. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnophilicHippie: what on earth are you talking about? I've been seeing this silly thread for several days, long before Zaereth even said anything, frankly I barely read what they said. It's clear to me as I think to every editor here that you have not shown evidence of any editor "persistently or egregiously violate" BLP. And I need to take care when reading what others have said. Masem may feel your wording is better but I'm confident they do not feel any editor here has "persistently or egregiously violate" from the evidence presented, or I'm sure they would have blocked, or at least given a clear warning about this behaviour. Nil Einne (talk) 12:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does adding in the BLP violation 5 times count as "persistently" violating BLP? How many times would it count as persistent? TechnophilicHippie (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, TechnophilicHippie I'm very confused about what you're doing here. Do you still feel there is a BLP problem with the article? If you do, then why on earth aren't you trying to resolve that alleged problem by discussing the best wording preferably on the article talk page or at least here? How can a problem be severe enough that your talking about sanction yet you're making no effort to actually fix it via discussion? I'd note your last edit on the issue on the article talk page seems to have been before you opened this thread, and all your recent edits here seem to be complaining about editor behaviour rather than trying to come up with a wording that you feel does not violate BLP. If you don't feel there's a problem anymore than the simple answer is no one is really interested in a further post-mortem about who did what wrong, especially not on BLPN. Nil Einne (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you still feel there is a BLP problem with the article? I do not anymore, because HAL333 fixed it to admin User:Masem's wording after I updated in my BLPN report that they added in this BLP violation a fifth time... and after they reported me for 3RR for removing this BLP violation. You're right. This is more appropriate for ANI. I don't have time for ANI or too much Wikipedia right now because of real-life problems, so I will stop commenting here unless more aspersions are cast on me in the comments here, or you are replying to my original BLPN report, etc.
all your recent edits here seem to be complaining about editor behaviour rather than trying to come up with a wording that you feel does not violate BLP. I wasn't trying to come up with accurate wording, but trying to report the repeated BLP violations. I reverted/replaced the BLP violation with accurate wording 3 times, and HAL333 had reported me for 3RR. I thought BLPN was for reporting BLP violations, but I will leave this because I don't have time myself to keep arguing about this extensively. TechnophilicHippie (talk)
That's good to know, because I thought this was about fixing a problem, but instead it's about making into something bigger than it really was. Silly me. No wonder you can't see that I was agreeing with your solution, or that my advice was meant to help you reach your end goal. I was apparently confused about what the goal really was. This is not a BLP vio. It's a simple content dispute, which could have been easily resolved if people really listen to each other without getting all defensive, edit warring, and blowing it all out of proportion. I don't see anyone here casting aspersions. These may be perceived, but are not real. I mean, I could easily take someone writing my own words back to me as highly offensive, because it comes off as condescending, as if you're saying I'm too stupid to remember what I said. Or worse, that you're only reading pieces of what I wrote and ignoring the point of the whole. But I don't, because it really doesn't say anything about me. Now you can take it to ANI if you like, but I would recommend against that, because I do not foresee the outcome in your favor. That is also friendly advice, and you can take it or leave it, or argue with it if you want. The content dispute has been resolved, and that's all that really matters. Zaereth (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anyone here casting aspersions. I don't think you have been reading this discussion. Here are some of the aspersions that I am responding to: [26] [27]. If aspersions were not cast against me to derail the original BLPN report, then I would not keep trying to refute them.
These may be perceived, but are not real. Did you expect that I would not be compelled to reply with the diffs if you are saying no one is casting aspersions against me in the comments? TechnophilicHippie (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let me repeat, BLPN is simply not a good place to deal with editor conduct issues. If you actually have evidence of an editor violating BLP in a manner severe enough warrant sanction take it to ANI. So far, you've presented no such evidence so the end result of such a thread is likely to be a quick close if you're lucky or a boomerang if you're not. Note that BLPN is even less of a place to moan about editor conduct which is not severe enough to warrant sanction. As it stands, your responses remain contradictory. On the one hand, you're claiming there is a BLP violation with HAL333's edits, a violation severe enough to warrant sanction. But on the other hand, you're making no efforts to fix this violation beyond edit warring and some minor comments early on. Edit warring is easy. Properly discussing your concerns and coming up with a wording that deals with everyone's concerns, that isn't so easy but is the sort of work anyone should be doing if they see a severe BLP violation that no one else is seeing. The fact you aren't willing to put in the effort drastically increases the chances any ANI thread will boomerang. Because whatever you may claim, your actions suggest you do not see a severe BLP violation. Why else aren't you putting in the hard yards to resolve this severe BLP violation which is surely more important? Why is your sole focus instead trying to get an editor blocked and failing that, moaning about them and everyone else who disagrees with you? Your actions suggest that you're just annoyed that things haven't gone your way and so you're lashing out. Nil Einne (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the funning thing is, I actually felt and feel the earlier wordings were misleading to various levels albeit not the sort of issues worthy of bring to BLPN. As I said, I saw this thread early on, I think possibly before we came up with the current wording [28] (which looks good enough to me). I never said anything for a variety of reasons but one of them was because the focus of this thread always seems wrong and way too full of hyperbole. It always seemed to be an editor conduct complaint and an overreaction at that, rather then a genuine attempt to come up with a satisfactory wording. Point being, there's a good chance the wording problem could have been resolved or at least improved enough that most editors are satisfied earlier; and also more more people would have said (explicitly or implicitly) to HAL333, yeah I don't think you should have done that, if this hadn't been so poorly handled from the get-go. Nil Einne (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c "→‎Managerial style and treatment of employees: concision".
  2. ^ a b Brodkin, Jon (June 1, 2022). "Musk to Tesla and SpaceX workers: Be in the office 40 hours a week or quit". Ars Technica.
  3. ^ a b "→‎Managerial style and treatment of employees: Fix misinformation caused by good faith, extreme attempt at concision".
  4. ^ "→‎Edit Warring: new section".
  5. ^ a b c "→‎Managerial style and treatment of employees: Please stop edit warring. Discuss this on the talk page".
  6. ^ a b "→‎Managerial style and treatment of employees: Fix unsourced content. WP:VERIFY has higher priority than the value of concision. Per WP:BLP, "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."".
  7. ^ "→‎Managerial style and treatment of employees: Per status quo and concision. You made a BOLD edit, were reverted, and now it is time to discuss. In fact, you already have this discussed whether it was due and failed to gain a consensus. If you continue reverting the this without gaining a consensus, I will bring you to ANI".
  8. ^ a b "→‎Greater weight given to hypothetical Martian colonists than real, living humans on Earth: Please stop edit warring. Discuss it further".
  9. ^ "→‎Managerial style and treatment of employees: ce".
  10. ^ "→‎Managerial style and treatment of employees: Replaced content that is a serious WP:NPOV violation and also WP:VERIFY violation in any neutral reading of the source. Per WP:BLP, "Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."".
  11. ^ a b "→‎Managerial style and treatment of employees: partial revert to align with consensus and ANI result. If you still, object, let's try to open a larger discussion".
  12. ^ Bursztynsky, Jessica (1 Jun 2022). "Elon Musk tells Tesla workers to return to the office full time or resign". CNBC.
  13. ^ Jin, Hyunjoo; Datta, Tiyashi (1 Jun 2022). "Elon Musk tells Tesla staff: return to office or leave". Reuters.
  14. ^ Mac, Ryan (1 Jun 2022). "Elon Musk to Workers: Spend 40 Hours in the Office, or Else". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 1 Jun 2022.

Otylia Jędrzejczak[edit]

I've added info to Otylia Jędrzejczak about the fact that she committed a manslaughter. The info was provided with sources, literally every sentence had at least one source/ref. Sources were reliable - these are all known Polish news sites, most of them have even their own article here on en.wikipedia. Same sources were used YEARS ago in polish version of the article and nobody questioned it. Johannnes89 abused his revert privilege by reverting the changes. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Otylia_J%C4%99drzejczak&type=revision&diff=1095417550&oldid=1095329201

Vstitle (talk) 07:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

see Special:Diff/1095420820#Manslaughter, you're violating WP:BLP across different language versions since you've been blocked in plWP [29], claiming it was murder [30] Johannnes89 (talk) 08:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be too much WP:UNDUE detail about the accident and trial, even if she was convicted of it. Avoid WP:BLPGOSSIP. Every detail that you wish to include should have two citations to reliable sources per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. The main one I see is either paywalled or just blocked in my country. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kenes Rakishev[edit]

Greetings!

The existing entry in Wikipedia on Kenes Rakishev contains highly biased information that is being used in today's geopolitical climate to besmirch Mr. Rakishev to readers of this entry, particularly to Western readers.

One major example is this: Relationship with Ramzan Kadyrov[edit] Rakishev has frequently appeared in photographs with Chechen despot Ramzan Kadyrov.[4]

So? And why is Ramzan Kadryov being called a "despot?" - this is slanted reporting and it is designed to besmirch both of these men. I could see this being written in a neutral tone like "Mr. Rakishev is acquainted with many Central Asian leaders, including Ramzan Kadryov, the Head of the Chechen Republic."

But the way it is written is negative casting.

Further, the piece has a story, "Seizing the assets of BTA Bank", which seems to be the sole intent of the writer - to show Rakishev as some sort of evil businessman, CIS style / corrupt and so on. The piece is presently set up to cast aspersions on its subject material rather than to give a fair and neutral account of his life and work.

I am working on a project to correct this, and I have better sourcing, more balanced information and we would like to correct the existing piece. I am working with Mr. Rakishev's PR support because Mr. Rakishev is concerned about his name being smeared by the present piece. It is my intention to replace the existing material with a far more neutral stub that would better represent Mr. Rakishev in an objective manner - the good, the bad and the indifferent, and which would also not be set up as a deliberate effort to either glorify or persecute Mr. Rakishev.

What can I do to help update the page with the information I have? And yes, while I am working on this project as part of the efforts my Mr. Rakishev to not have himself falsely cast, we do strive for neutrality and a well-sourced and informative piece about him. My model is that of the piece about Elon Musk that is also on Wikipedia, and while Elon is certainly very popular among many people, the entry on him doesn't shy away from controversies and scandals Elon has been involved in.

What should I do to proceed?

Thank you! Aaron S Hanisch Seraphim1967

Hello, and thanks for bringing this here, and for declaring your conflict of interest. It's a good sign when people try in good faith to do this according to policy. The first piece of advice --to anyone coming here-- or boards like this, is you'll be far more likely to get a reply if you provide a link to the article, at the very least.
First, I agree about the subsection on pictures. That didn't give any indication of why this should be important to the reader, and just came off as trivia. Not to mention that the source is an op/ed column and not really a news article. Therefore I remove it. I also changed the heading for the BTA subsection, if for no other reason than a heading shouldn't begin with a verb. Also, the word "seizing" can have some negative connotations and doesn't seem the appropriate word give the content of that section. Perhaps the government seized the bank, but there is no indication that the subject did.
For the rest of that section, I'll start by saying it was very difficult to get through without zoning-out every couple of sentences. I felt like it was going to put me to sleep. It's way too long and filled with far too many details we just don't need for an encyclopedia. All we need is the gist of it. The nitty gritty. I also have some concerns about WP:WEIGHT issues, because that section is nearly half the article, so all in all I think it needs to be trimmed down considerably.
Personally, I don't have time to go through it all and do a really good job of weighing everything and putting the article in balance. My suggestion is to bring your concerns and sources to the article's talk page, and request your changes there. If you have multiple changes in mind, I'd try tackling them individually, because too much all at once tends to break a discussion into a million little tangents, and then nothing goes anywhere. Feel free to link this discussion for my critique.
Also, I'd keep in mind, weight and balance often have a bigger impact than content. People often come here with the idea of "setting the record straight" by adding more sources and info, when what that really ends up doing is making the article all about that one thing. Just keep that in mind when you make your requests. Thanks, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy_Hale-Cusanelli[edit]

Is Wikipedia for publishing dossiers on protesters arrested for trespassing? This article appears to be a motivated violation of WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notanipokay (talk • contribs) 22:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As NOTPUBLICFIGURE mentions, people who are not well known can still be notable enough for their own article on Wikipedia. If you object to this person having an article under WP:CRIMINAL, you can start a discusssion for deletion through the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion process. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notanipokay, arrested for trespassing understates things considerably. He was convicted of five crimes, including a felony. His unusual behavior has clearly attracted more than enough attention from reliable sources to make him a notable person. Cullen328 (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E and WP:PERP may apply: there doesn't appear to be any significant coverage before his role in 2021 United States Capitol attack. His accomplishments before the 2021 attack are unremarkable, even if subsequent news outlets mention them. This 2010 crime blotter is local routine coverage, not what get's someone into a global encyclopedia. There are over 700 people charged in the attack. Do we need a devoted article for every person who goes to trial? Lord I sure hope not. --Animalparty! (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I raised this to AfD, as irrespective of OP in this thread, I concur with Animalparty that the claim to notability is thin at best. Curbon7 (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doreen Granpeesheh[edit]

The Doreen Granpeesheh has Edits which I believe violate WP:MEDRS by repeating and highlighting known misinformation about vaccines. My understanding is also that per WP:FRINGE these medical theories, especially when they are mere opinions of someone medically or scientifically unqualified to comment on such a subject, should just be removed because it does not provide any encyclopedic value. Further the quote is provided without any context or background, i.e. we don't know the overall context or history of Granpeesheh's involvement with the film or the context of vaccine/autism medical speculation in 2016. She appears to have a different opinion of vaccines in 2022. An uninformed reader might reasonably either believe the opinion is true today because they trust Granpeesheh or come to the conclusion that the article's subject is uneducated, highly misinformed or worse. Leading the reader to either conclusion is either promoting the theory or misleading in my view.

The spirit of WP:BLP is "Wikipedia must get the article right" These specific edits do not "get the article right" and because the change appears to violate several policies it was removed. However the removal's title included links to the Talk page where substantive rationale for the removal edit was provided. Is this not a reasonable approach to a WP:BRD discussion cycle and is it not reasonable for the editor's involved to then proceed with a thorough and civil discussion of the edits on the subject's Talk page? Is this not how WP:BRD cycle is supposed to proceed? There is no immediate urgency to publish this information. It would be wise to have a discussion and only add the material if it does not violate policies and it adds encyclopedia value. I also believe WP:ECREE applies.

The Doreen Granpeesheh is currently barely more than a stub article and really deserves better editor attention than it's current state. Second Edits which added interesting and positive information about her career are immediately blocked by consensus objection. No real effort is made to collaborate and expand and improve the article. The edits in question deserve a wider community review by Wikipedia Editors, because bio's of living persons do deserve extra care and I respectfully request a wider community review of this article.

Because the current article is only four sentences: a Los Angeles Times article is currently a better reference to understand the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarsTrombone (talk • contribs) 10:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you MarsTrombone (talk) 07:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can see othing wrong with that content - there is no "repeating and highlighting known misinformation about vaccines" as the article quite clearly says that the autism-MMR claim is debunked, and the other sources are reliable and talk about her involvement in the program. The material in Wikipedia's voice is neutral and sourced. Also, this is not WP:UNDUE as she is not some random person - she founded a centre for autism research. Black Kite (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having answered this, I've now looked at the OPs actual editing on this BLP and its related article and can see that they're merely trying to remove critical material and add testimonials - which is concerning in the context of alternative "treatment" which alleges that it can treat autism. I see that they have been indefinitely pblocked from the BLP, which is the correct response. Black Kite (talk) 09:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Christensen[edit]

Citations 7 and 8 fall under defamatory and libelous information and accusations and should be removed. Ashley Christensen helped raise 1 million dollars to support restaurant workers in the pandemic: https://www.southernliving.com/news/local-news/ashley-christensen-nc-restaurant-workers-relief-fund

Her group has employed outside HR since 2016 to handle make sure employees safety and well-being is a top priority across her restaurants: https://indyweek.com/food-and-drink/features/ashley-christensen-bbs-chicken-profile/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by GV2022 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pertinent diff.[31] I don't see anything that's contentious about the information supported by citation 7 unless you are disputing something in the cited article itself. As for citation 8, there are two other sources that report on the allegation and Christensen taking accountability [32][33] which would meet WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Do you have any connection to Christensen or her businesses? Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm comfortable that reference 8 is a reasonable source, and that it supports the text in the article. Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem as I see it is not WP:RS but, (as is far too common on Wikipedia), isolated dumb incidents getting disproportionate coverage. Why does this BLP of Christensen, barely more than a stub, contain the belabored passage "In 2020,a former employee revealed that they had been sexually assaulted on numerous occasions in one of Christensen's establishments. The victim's full name was publicly revealed by one of Christensen's establishment's Instagram accounts, including a reference to said victim's private exit interview." Is the victim of harassment closely tied to Christensen, or was this just daily news which someone with an itchy edit finger carelessly added? Per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PROPORTION, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and WP:ONUS, stuff like this should be omitted, at least until the article has expanded in length and detail, so that the public doesn't falsely conclude that a major aspect of Christensen's career and biography is a sexual harassment claim and Instagram drama. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The length of the article is irrelevant, if it's something widely and well covered by RS, it belongs in the article. Perhaps this is what they are more notable for. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have a different understanding of BLP and NPOV than I: If Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was a stub, would it make sense to devote 1/4 of the stub to her time as a bartender and leave it as such? Per WP:PROPORTION, "For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Per WP:BLPBALANCE, "biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times". --Animalparty! (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If that was what she was notable for, then I'd say that's balance. Christensen is notable for being a JB award winner, had minor coverage prior to the controversy. So I'd say that it's both wP:DUE and balanced. Fairness does not mean flattering. We summarize what independent reliable sources say - if they are covering this stuff, and overwhelmingly so, it's reasonable for us to include it. PRAXIDICAE🌈 01:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If. I have expanded the article somewhat, as she has had significant coverage before the controversy. I'm still not sure allegations filed by an employee at one of Christensen's restaurants (and not about Christensen herself, it should be noted), rise to the level of inclusion in an encyclopedia, even if Christensen herself responded. Wikipedia shouldn't be slavishly incorporating news spikes into encyclopedias just because a fact gets printed, which is the entire crux of WP:ONUS. Controversies with no lasting effects or well documented significance are just news of the day. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to disagree about balance here. Christensen and her restaurants have had a lot more coverage nationally and locally rather than the disputed incident. I only see three articles on the sexual assault accusations in the same local sources where she's drawn much more coverage for her business and accolades. In fact, the #8 citation that focuses on her restaurant leaking the accusers's identity is only supported by one source which is less than what PUBLICFIGURE demands. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it is reliably sourced in an article in which the subject and her businesses were central to the story. Maybe it does deserve mention, but judging by the sources. not much. Given the size of the article, I'd say one sentence at best, if even that. But first, there is a serious problem, because, as written, it does not say who allegedly assaulted who? Because ours is an article about the subject, that automatically implies that the subject did the assault, and we all know that is not the case ... well, all except the reader. That is a huge BLP vio. We need to make damn sure we do not in any way even hint the subject was complicit.
But now that leads to another problem, precipitated by the first. A reader expects an article about a subject to, ironically enough, tell us something about that subject. Now, the source is not so much about the assault, but the fact that the victim was upset she never received an apology. Of course, that's to be expected, because in this sue-happy world, that's exactly what lawyers will tell you not to do. But, I digress. The point here is that we have missed the entire point of the source in order to focus on the part that has nothing to do with the subject directly.
And then there's the next sentence. If nothing else, I think for the mere sake of NPOV it needs to be one or the other, at best, and most certainly not the second. But now, what is this supposed to be telling us about the subject? Are we just giving the reader instruction on how to go look up the victim's information? Is this some attempt to make the subject look bad, and if so, what is the connection? In my head, I'm thinking, 'say what you mean already". Like I said, it's like I have a couple pieces of a puzzle, but not enough to form a picture. I know it has to be short, but it also needs to capture the entire gist of the source -as it relates to the subject. It needs to tell us something about her, so the reader can feel like they've learned something. Zaereth (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote the last part that attempts to address why the incident is mentioned in the paragraph beyond implying she's a hypocrite.[34] Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of making it bigger, I added another small clarification that it was another employee who allegedly committed the assault, so there is no room for misinterpretation, here. Zaereth (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my bad. Two employees. Thanks for catching that Morbidthoughts. Zaereth (talk) 04:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monson Mavunkal[edit]

He looks to notable by notoriety but this article seems to violate NPOV. Welcome someone reviewing tone to make sure article accurately captures events without unnecessary senationalism. Slywriter (talk) 03:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is he a public figure? I don't see any convictions in the biography and some of the allegations go beyond cons like rape (even if he wasn't accused). Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A deeper dive shows all his cases are pending. There does seem to be a significant amount of coverage of both types of allegations. I initially was debating CSD as attack page or stubbing but their own self-promotion and the amount of sustained coverage seems to counter WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE and so dropped it here for more eyes. I certainly wouldn't object if others think the BLP concerns outweigh the coverage. Slywriter (talk) 05:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Negative Conspiracy theories about living person on Indian murder page[edit]

Controversial content being editwarred to be added

Special:Diff/1096311648/1096314102

On 1 July 2022, it was reported that Attari may have been planning to infiltrate the BJP through its loyalists, after photos of Attari attending BJP functions surfaced.[1]

References

  1. ^ Ojha, Arvind; Hizbullah, Md (1 July 2022). "Udaipur assailants may have plotted to infiltrate Rajasthan BJP Exclusive". India Today. Retrieved 3 July 2022.

Both pages are under WP:ARBIPA and WP:BLP discretionary sanctions. Asking help here as the discussion on Talk:Murder_of_Kanhaiya_Lal#Speculations_of_Rahul_Kanwal is on impasse, with some users pointing to verifiability as a sufficient condition to add this negative content about the living person.

This is clearly speculated and reliable sources have noted that no evidence has been forwarded to support the theory of infiltration. These speculations fail WP:BLP and may change at a later time after court screening. We should not add it. Hindustan Times (HT) is different site Notes "During interrogation, accused Riyaz Atri has not uttered a word about his trying to enter BJP or target the saffron party leaders." So I would take this speculation from "unknown sources" with a large teaspoon of salt.Venkat TL (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yet the article you linked says:
"While Ghous Mohammed was trained by DeI functionaries in Karachi, the second killer Riyaz Attari was trying to infiltrate into the minority cell of Rajasthan's Bharatiya Janata Party unit. The investigation revealed that Attari, is a follower of Dawat-e-Islami leader Illyas Attar Qadri, was trying to get close to BJP leaders and workers of the Muslim Rashtriya Manch. He had attempted to get close to BJP Minority Morcha member"[35]
There is no BLP violation since the text is clear about treating it as a claim or discovery from investigation. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with @CapnJackSp. Especially if that person's appearance in such BJP events is included as a potential suggestion that he had links with BJP. Webberbrad007 (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They did not admit but both @CapnJackSp and Webberbrad007 are parties to this content dispute, see WP:CNN and WP:NOTAVOTE. Venkat TL (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)That's not how BLP works. You wanted relevant opinion and anybody can comment here. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Venkat TL Where have I participated about this before? Does participating in the editing of that article make me a party to any content dispute of that article? Webberbrad007 (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus does not mean satisfy every last objection of a squeaky wheel. This appears to be a content dispute about sourcing, not a grave BLP problem. RfC is well equipped to handle it if local consensus can not be reached but consensus is neither unanimous nor satisfying to all editors. Slywriter (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see no BLP violation. It's funny how Venkat was quick to add text that linked the assailant to BJP (based on pictures of the assailant with BJP members), but it's a BLP violation when multiple reliable sources link the assailants to trying to infiltrate BJP. Hmm, really makes you think. A clear attempt to make a content dispute into a "BLP issue" by throwing a hissy fit. NebulaOblongata (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Heard[edit]

Hello. There is a thread at WP:ANI detailing extensive misconduct on articles related to Amber Heard. So far, few or no truly uninvolved editors have responded to the report. I know that it's a long weekend for many Americans, but if you have the time and are interested in upholding BLP, please consider looking it over. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Sington (article on "The Fear of 13")[edit]

It appears to me that the section of the article on David Sington's documentary The Fear of 13 called "Controversy" is probably defamatory and in any event lacks any WP:RS. I posted an invitation for discussion/comment on this on Talk:The_Fear_of_13 in April, almost three months ago, and have had no responses. Should that part of the article just be deleted? PDGPA (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is yes. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Morbidthoughts Thanks much for your prompt response and decisive action. PDGPA (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Wilson (Australian politician)[edit]

My name is Tim Wilson and I was a politician in Australia. An advocate in favor of my political opponent was continuously adding a lot of negative content to the page about me, before being blocked again. Wikipedia's rules against "outing" prohibit me from explaining the details, but the background isn't important.

The page (once again) has a lot of negative content cited to press releases, political advocacy groups, op-eds/columns, and other low-quality sources. I posted about it here before without much response, then at RSN, which devolved into conflict between myself and this now-blocked user. I apologize for making multiple posts. However, the article should be more stable now and I'd like to renew my request for impartial editor(s) to review for BLP-type issues. TimWilsonMP (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TimWilsonMP The Tim Wilson article is overwhelming sourced to WP:GREL sources such as ABC News, The Age, Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian and The Guardian. I've done a bit of tidying up and removed some of the more dubious sources such as The New Daily (who may have an understandably antagonistic view of the subject of the article) and Michael West Media. There are still several dubious/primary sources such as Star Observer, Armenian National Committee of Australia, a press release from George Brandis, parliamentary website etc but these do not seem to support controversial statements. Crikey and Junkee are yet to be looked at thoroughly in terms of their reliability but given they both have experienced editorial staff, I don't see a problem with their very limited use in this article. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hidayat Orujov[edit]

Article: Sumgait pogrom

Edit: [36]

The edit summary links to this discussion, Talk:Hidayat_Orujov#BLP_issue. I'll address some of the points;

Schiff only calls him “a leader”; not an official position, just saying he was an influential figure. The O’Connor source doesn’t appear to mention Schiff, so it’s not citing him, O’Connor source isn’t attributed to Schiff so it’s a separate source. My question being, was the removed information a BLP violation or not? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is addition to what I explained here Talk:Hidayat_Orujov#BLP_issue. In his speech Schiff clearly refers to Orujov as the leader of the Communist Party of Azerbaijan, and I don't see any option to interpret what he stated in the different way. The O’Connor describes Orujov as The Communist Party of Azerbaijan representative". Both of the assertions are inaccurate, because Orujov never held any position in the Communist party of Azerbaijan (I did not find any RS claiming that). Moreover, according to Orujov, he never made such statement, he wasn't holding any political positions at the time, and he wasn't even in the Sumgait. Considering that neither of the sources provide any evidence or reference to prove that Orujov made such a comment, the alleged WP:REDFLAG statement of the Orujev is nothing more than gossip. Abrvagl (talk) 09:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Citing the remarks of politicians as a RS (the congressional links are WP:BLPPRIMARY) is inapproriate and the a1plus source does not discuss Orujov specifically. The only question is whether Biteback Publishing is RS. Even if it is, REDFLAG and WP:PUBLICFIGURE require multiple RS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your response. I actually bought this book. The O’Connor just briefly quotes what was allegedly said by Orujov. He also does not discuss Orujov specifically, and neither provides any reference to prove his claims. I personally would expect him to refer to some kind of primary source from the time when Orujov made an alleged statement. If Orujov made such a statement, why do we hear about it like 30 years later? O’Connor also claims that Orujov was representative of the Communist Party of Azerbaijan, which is not true because Orujov never held any position in the Communist Party of Azerbaijan. Biteback Publishing's book might be RS in general, but apparently not for this case. Abrvagl (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Jayland Walker[edit]

Repeated BLP violations by insertion of uncited content claiming the officers involved in the incident are guilty of "police brutality". None of the cited sources mention or allege "police brutality". Links to Police Brutality and unsubstantiated claims the officers are guilty of "police brutality" should be removed and the article semi-protected. I have reverted the editor placing this content in the article 3 times, so I cannot edit the article again until this issue is resolved. 24.21.161.89 (talk) 06:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glad someone made the article. I'll take a look EvergreenFir (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page has been semi-protected for one week. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Ripley[edit]

An IP has removed a cited block of content from this article, stating "There is an active lawsuit and Wikipedia will be on the hook for libelous material. "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." The content wrote about certain accusations that were in the news, in the voice of the multiple cited refs rather than in WP's own voice and seemed careful to avoid implying any of it was true. Ordinarily, I would simply start a talk-page discussion about it, but the IP has also removed that discussion from August 2021 on the same basis. Therefore, I'm coming here for others' input on whether the talk-page discussion, and beyond that the article content, should be kept.

Pinging Jbbdude who wrote the original article content after commenting in the talkpage and Sunshineisles2 who recently overhauled it. DMacks (talk) 06:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was actually one cited ref, but it included quotes/info from several others. DMacks (talk) 08:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are there better sources about this than the WP:DAILYBEAST to satisfy WP:PUBLICFIGURE? Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are The Independent [37] and the Metro [38] in the UK. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:RSP, the Independent is considered a reliable source while the Metro isn't. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be exactly one original source, an "exclusive" by WP:DAILYBEAST, and other tabloids/news outlets duly parroting what Daily Beast reported for a few days, and then radio silence. The gossip column Page Six printed an "exclusive" of their own, with Ripley again denying the allegations. After almost a year there appears to be no subsequent coverage of the allegations or further developments in reliable sources, and very little reason to include this blip in a BLP. --Animalparty! (talk) 08:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like TMZ broke the unified story first (reporting on multiple others' previous social-media posts, and Ripley responded). To be clear, the content isn't "Ripley did this", but instead "there's a lot of social media about Ripley doing this, and Ripley has responded to it". So I think it's at a minimum reasonable for the talk-page discussion to stand and now with link to this BLPN thread, even if a non-credulous discussion concludes (as Animalparty says) that it wound up being just a blip. I also don't see any substantially more recent coverage in the news about it. I did turn up a Rolling Stone story using the Ripley situation as the starting-point for a more wide-ranging discussion of various related topics, the month after the TMZ story. Not sure that's enough to cross the threshold of "highlighted as an example/secondary-source providing context". DMacks (talk) 09:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I'm not particularly invested in this situation, generally, aside from wanting Wikipedia to be as complete and accurate as possible (which I hope motivates all... OK, most editors). I edited the page one time a year ago, which I did after I encountered a conversation among theater people which casually referenced some allegation. I found nothing about it on Wikipedia despite multiple notable sources reporting on the controversy.
It seems pretty obvious (to me) that a) the deletion from the talk page was straight-up vandalism (I wouldn't have named the section "vile acts", but I didn't start the talk page section) and b) there should be some mention of this incident in the article given the multiple notable sources reporting on the controversy. The fact that the story hasn't advanced much seems more a function of the limited world of theater reporting than a statement on the notability of the claims. Again, this situation was reported on by multiple reliable outlets over time, with one particularly extensive exposé. To me, it seemed like a case of the second example in WP:PUBLICFIGURE.
As a separate issue... This feels like a WP:COI situation. I say this purely as speculation (again... feels), with no knowledge other than 1) the edits, 2) them coming from an IP user (an IP which has only edited these two articles) (an IP in a block assigned to Charter in Queens, NY; Ms. Ripley lives and works in NYC, and a quick Google search suggests Ms. Ripley may live or have lived in Long Island City or Ridgewood, and at some time maintained a fanmail PO Box in LIC), and 3) the discussion of ongoing, and threat of potential further, defamation litigation (something that I haven't seen reported publicly; another quick Google search brings up a GoFundMe supposedly from Alice Ripley herself, but no news coverage of a lawsuit or that GoFundMe; curiously, the user posting as Ms. Ripley suggests in that GoFundMe that these allegations have ended her notable and extensive career, yet the editor of the article implied through removal of the info that the allegations were not notable). (Obviously... that's a whole lot of original research and none of it would belong in an article, but the info seems relevant in this context) These are pretty standard indicators in such cases, with lawyers or PR folks or subjects themselves editing, no? Regardless, though, that's speculation (though I wouldn't call it wild or unfounded). More significantly, the edits clearly did not come from an NPOV perspective.
As far as the law goes, IANAL but a) NYT v Sullivan lays out a pretty high bar for public figures, and b) I wrote my edit to report on the reporting without taking a stance on truth or falsity of the allegations. The editor cited the need to remove contentious material that was poorly sourced; the existence of the allegations and the controversy was not at all poorly sourced, and was not at all libelous. It's true that those things were reported. If there is a lawsuit, and some decision is made about something, that, too, would likely be notable, would be reported on by notable outlets, and would then warrant inclusion in the article. If there's news coverage of such a lawsuit now, it should probably be in the article now. All of this is to say, Wikipedia's policies are the way they are because the laws are the way they are, as well as to protect living persons from unfounded allegations without substantiation or without any credible sourcing. Here, there's credible sourcing. No malice, no recklessness or reckless disregard, a clear belief that there is a public interest in knowing this information and that the information presented was accurate, reliance upon reputable sources for the information.
I am unaware of any requirement for ongoing coverage of a controversy or the presence of new updates/information to justify the inclusion of such a controversy in an article. I don't see anything about it in the BLP guideline pages. I would genuinely appreciate information on such a standard, if it exists, to improve my editing in the future.
If the issue is sourcing, there are many reliable sources commenting on the allegations, at least on their existence if not the truth of them. Again, Ms. Ripley herself seems to (can't verify who's running a GoFundMe) claim that it's a notable enough situation that it's impacted her career. Also again, keep in mind that the article's subject is known for theater, not film or TV or whatever megastardom results in constant breathless national coverage of scandals. This subject was reported on in national, regional, and industry publications, but it hasn't resulted in an ongoing series of investigative pieces on the front page of the New York Times or a Ronan Farrow New Yorker deep dive. I'm not sure how any of that means it's not notable information.
I'm curious to see how this discussion shakes out. At a bare minimum, I will restore the talk page content, which is an entirely separate issue from the removal of the article content.
To paraphrase a quote variously and likely apocryphally attributed to Pascal and Twain, apologies for the long comment. I did not have time to write a shorter one. Or one with fewer parentheticals. Jbbdude (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Linick[edit]

Hi, there are some serious issues in the article about Steve Linick, in the Trump-Ukraine scandal, subsection with slanted/biased content. Note: I have a personal connection to Steve Linick.

Here’s how it is now: 

In the midst of the Trump–Ukraine scandal, Linick transferred a packet of documents from Rudy Giuliani by way of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to Judiciary Committee member Jamie Raskin.[1][2][3]

This subsection falsely implies that 1) this was a leak on behalf of Mike Pompeo and 2) Linick knew he was passing documents from Rudy Giuliani to Congress. This is untrue and unsupported by a close reading of the sources. First, Linick received clearance from the FBI before he forwarded them to Congress. And the State Department leadership didn’t agree with Linick’s decision. Second, Giuliani did not publicly disclose he was the source of the documents until after they were sent to Congress. There’s nothing in the coverage that says Linick knew this. I’ve rephrased and added a small amount of context to make all this clear.

Here’s an accurate suggested replacement: 

In the spring of 2019, the White House gave Mike Pompeo a group of documents related to the impeachment investigation of Trump. The documents, which at a later date Rudy Giuliani said originated with him, were passed to Linick, who sent them to the FBI. After he obtained FBI clearance, Linick forwarded them in October 2019 to Congress during the impeachment investigation of President Trump over the Trump–Ukraine scandal.[4] Linick’s action put him at odds with State Department leadership, which had decided not to cooperate with Congressional impeachment investigations.[5]

References

  1. ^ VOA News (October 2, 2019). "Democrats Puzzled by State IG's 'Urgent' Meeting". Voice of America. Retrieved October 3, 2019.
  2. ^ "Giuliani says State Dept vowed to investigate after he gave Ukraine docs to Pompeo". NBC News. October 3, 2019. Retrieved May 19, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  3. ^ Herb, Jeremy; Fox, Lauren; Raju, Manu; Hansler, Jennifer (October 2, 2019). "State Department inspector general gives Congress documents that Giuliani provided". CNN. Retrieved 2020-05-19.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  4. ^ Herb, Jeremy; Fox, Lauren; Raju, Manu; Hansler, Jennifer (2 October 2019). "State Department inspector general gives Congress documents that Giuliani provided". CNN. Retrieved 14 December 2021.
  5. ^ Cohen, Zachary; Raju, Manu; Hansler, Jennifer (16 May 2020). "State Department inspector general becomes the latest watchdog fired by Trump". CNN. Retrieved 14 December 2021.
Hi, I have reviewed your edits and incorporated all of them, with minor changes, into the article. My full reply and ping is at Talk:Steve Linick. Thank you for your excellent suggestions, and we hope you consider continuing to contribute edits to Wikipedia in the future. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question about primary sources vs very loosely on-topic secondary sources for BLPs[edit]

The Technoblade page states that he had adhd, and previously the only sources stating that were two tweets from the subject before his death and an article that mentions his adhd in passing. An edit purged most of the primary sources, leaving a super indirect secondary source about twitter drama, which seems to be more about angry mobs either attacking or defending Technoblade over a deleted tweet he made years prior to the drama instead of Technoblade himself outside of maybe like 2 sentences.

Pinknews is considered a reliable source and was the only reliable secondary source found talking about Technoblade's adhd, which is fair, and the article is remarkably unbiased, but I feel like an article about angry mobs talking about the subject instead of the actual subject is super awkward. I tried replacing it with other sources that unfortunately also only mentioned his adhd in passing but were actually about Technoblade instead of angry twitter people, which were removed for being unreliable.

I'm now considering if reinstating the twitter sources would be reliable since they come from the subject himself, according to WP:V, Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves. However, I'm also wondering if because of the lack of any meaningful secondary coverage, it would be better to simply remove the mention of his adhd, or if it should be kept since it was one of the few personal details Technoblade revealed before his death. I know this may come across as forum shopping, but I would like to know how to deal with this type of situation for future reference on other pages. I asked this on the Teahouse, I was told to go here. Unnamed anon (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If those are the best sources we got, then I would generally say remove it. I dislike using twitter as a source for anything, because they are too open to interpretation. For example, I never celebrate my birthday on the actual day, but often on the nearest weekend, so if you try to use a tweet of my birthday cake as evidence it was my real birthday, you would be wrong. Stuff like that happens all the time around here. Likewise, lot's of people say they have ADHD, but how many have been diagnosed as such? At best, even if we leave it in the article, we should write it as "Technoblade said he had ADHD..." or something along those lines. But seriously, find better sources than twitter.
That said, I don't know how BLP would really apply to a secret identity. Somehow, I'm not sure that it does in this case. I mean, apparently no one knows who this person really is, and thus any information we give pertains solely to this fictional persona they play online. We're not really giving any information that links this persona to a real person, so I don't think BLP policy really applies. But of course, policy in general still applies and I still say avoid twitter as a sources whenever possible. Zaereth (talk) 01:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image for Jessica Cisneros[edit]

On Talk:Jessica Cisneros#Reopening images question we're discussing adding one or both of these images to the article, that otherwise doesn't have an image of the subject. (We looked quite a bit, asked the subject's reps, and had another image recently deleted; getting free-as-in-speech images isn't easy.)

  • Jessica Cisneros, 2014

    Jessica Cisneros, 2014

  • Jessica Cisneros and Henry Cuellar, 2014 internship

    Jessica Cisneros and Henry Cuellar, 2014 internship

The subject is a Texas attorney and twice unsuccessful political candidate; interestingly enough, her opponent in both attempts was Henry Cuellar, whom she is portrayed with in the second image, as an intern for. I pinged the 10 most recent editors of the article. Out of those, User:HaileJones and I are in favor of adding one or both. User:Beccaynr is against adding either, and suggested we take this to either this noticeboard or WP:NPOVN; she says adding either image would be a BLP violation, because it depicts her as a college student. No others of those pinged expressed an opinion when pinged, and it's been a week. So it's in theory two to one, but Beccaynr thinks we should bring it here or to WP:NPOVN. In an earlier discussion, held while Cisneros was actively in her last contest, User:KidAd was against adding the first image, while independently User:BottleOfChocolateMilk added the second image to the article, so might be considered one for one against, though neither participated in the current discussion. What do you think, oh caring and knowledgeable BLPN readers? Can we get a more definitive opinion? --GRuban (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked GRuban to consider posting a more neutral message to this noticeboard; I also do not feel this summary is a complete reflection of the discussion at the article Talk page. However, one point that has not yet been specifically raised about these images is WP:BLPBALANCE, i.e. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the disparaging light BLP argument in giving a younger photo of the person. This really should be a RfC instead if one hadn't been done. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From my view, one of the issues is that the use of the younger image helps promote a mischaracterization of her as much younger than she currently is, which can be disparaging, and the other creates an undue emphasis on defining her by her past and brief internship. These issues are discussed generally in the Writing about women essay. It seems unfair to the subject to use images that emphasize minor aspects of her biography and have the potential to misrepresent her in a disparaging manner. Her age has been an issue in the campaigns, so an extreme portrayal of her as much more youthful than she is seems to create a potentially disparaging and/or misleading light. Beccaynr (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see many biographies where the infobox photo is either outdated or does not represent the subject when they were notable because of photo availability. It does not distort or disparage the subject if we accurately caption the subject with the year. The clueless reader most likely does not know what she looks like older and any potential for disparagement on how old she should look is based on the bias of viewer. Start a RfC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of whether a small-font caption is enough to mitigate the impact of the image has been discussed on the Talk page, and per WP:ONUS, I do not plan to start an RfC, because The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. That there may be other BLPs with similar problems does not seem like a reason to create a similar problem in this BLP, where there are specific concerns related to this BLP subject. A concern about bias (e.g. "a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage") does seem important, and more so because it is a BLP, so I appreciate you identifying that issue. Beccaynr (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so. I have read this and the talk page discussion. I'm at a loss as to what the objection to the image is. You made a good point on the talk page, because most arguments for inclusion are based on subjective reasons, but as far as I can tell the reasons for exclusion are just as subjective. My opinion is that a picture adds tremendously to the value of an article, simply because the human brain is wired visually. Nearly 50% of the brain is devoted to processing visual information, and the largest of those areas is solely dedicated to processing facial expressions. There has been a lot of research done and books written about the power an image has for enhancing comprehension and recall of written text. A name without a face is just that, but put a face to that name and people will be way more apt to cognize and recall the writing. It's always better to have photos of subjects whenever possible, and it's best if they are portrait-style pics with the subject looking directly at the camera whenever possible. A high quality is image is preferable to a low quality, of course, but even a low quality is better than nothing at all.
But the one thing I would not be too concerned with, in an encyclopedia, is whether the image is up to date or not. I mean, even if we get an up-to-date image, are we going to continuously update it every year? Or every decade? What if we never get another image? We're not a newspaper, so we shouldn't be too concerned with the here and now. Encyclopedias are written from a perfect (or "timeless") perspective, as is what we write today will still be relevant 100 years from now, and a date in the caption satisfies that timeless nature.
That's not to say you don't have a good, logical reason for your objection. It's just that I haven't seen anywhere what that reason is. Maybe there's something I'm missing? To me, this pic looks of decent quality for article size, it's a portrait-style image with her looking directly at the camera, and gives me a good visual of who the subject is. Unless there's a good reason not to use it, I would say it's a thousand times better than no image. If a better image comes along, then great, but this can be a good placeholder until then. If not, then 100 years from now it will be just fine too. Zaereth (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gods, I wish I could write like that! --GRuban (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The point is to avoid using an image that misleadingly emphasizes a female attorney and political candidate as a much-younger version of themselves, because this is a common form of bias and disparagement against women and it does not improve the encyclopedia. I think we can use common sense about this in the context of this article and these images, and there is no need to worry about setting a precedent for all images throughout the encyclopedia. Beccaynr (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But that's what I don't get. How is it disparaging against women? If it somehow is, then why is not disparaging against other genders? I see no logical connection between the two. And what happens if we do get a current image? Is there a time limit on how long we can use an image? None of that makes any sense. We simply use what we can get. Zaereth (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Writing about women essay linked above is designed to help to identify the subtle and more obvious ways in which titles, language, images, and linking practices can discriminate against women. One part of the essay warns, Do not refer to adult women as girls, which from my view, indicates there can be a concern with how women are depicted. The essay also warns against defining women by their relationships, which raises a concern about using an image to emphasize her past internship with her political opponent in her BLP. In the Talk page discussion, I noted a recent example from the news of how characterizing women as much younger than they are can be used as a form of disparagement. I think this concern applies to all genders, but it is also a specific concern as applied to women and something that should be considered here. If we are able to obtain a contemporary image, then I think we should use it, and it would reflect how the sources and content focus on her contemporary notability. I do not think we can use whatever we can indiscriminately get if it is WP:UNDUE and/or if there are WP:BLPIMAGE problems. Beccaynr (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and Zaereth, please note that GRuban only linked to part of the relevant Talk page discussion in this post. Please scroll up to the start of the discussion if you have only read the linked section. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up current photos of Cisneros and I don't see much of a difference between 29 yr old and 20 yr old Cisneros, much less disparaging or a BLP violation. Gruban, I encourage you to start a RfC to choose an appropriate photo among candidates as have been done in many articles. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notification was made about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. - Beccaynr (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use neither. Per the date on the photo and DOB in bio, subject was 19 when this was taken. [ETA: Hm the metadata may be a year off; maybe she is 20 after all. Doesn’t really change my opinion.] Broadly I don’t really think I’d agree with using teenaged student photos as a BLP’s sole image unless the subject was wikinotable at that age (e.g. young actors), and in particular, I agree with the above outlined concerns about doing it when the subject is a woman and when their age is at issue in the content that makes them notable. We should be scrupulous not to put a thumb on the scale. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These are some examples of how her age has been discussed:
  • Buzzfeed, 2019: "The Cuellar campaign originally agreed to an interview for this story, but a spokesperson for the campaign said they wouldn’t answer any questions framed as responding to arguments the Cisneros campaign makes about Cuellar. “We’re not allowing a 26-year-old young lady who’s never done anything question the character of a dedicated public servant,” Colin Strother, a spokesperson for the [Cuellar] campaign, said in a phone call with BuzzFeed News, apparently referring to Cisneros."
  • NBC News, 2020: "Pablo Lemos Jr., 72, spotted Cuellar while driving through the neighborhood and pulled his red pickup over to assure him of his support. [...] Of Cisneros, he says she's a good candidate but "real young.""
  • NYT, 2022: The Young Progressive Lawyer at the Center of a Marquee Texas Runoff
  • HuffPo, 2022: "The young progressive nearly beat Henry Cuellar in the Democratic primary in 2020 in Texas’ 28th district."
Beccaynr (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chika Oriuwa[edit]

Please check the References in this story. Someone has edited the 3rd reference in a racist way (James' Royson's article title) that bears no relationship to Royson's article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.126.180.73 (talk) 14:01, 6 Jul 2022 (UTC)

  • Done, and hopefully an admin can revdel. Thank you for your report. Beccaynr (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) On the one hand, this was simple IP vandalism. On the other hand, because of how and when it happened, it lived on in the page after it got protected. Thanks to the IP for bringing this to our attention. It has been fixed, and the intervening versions in history have been revision-deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is updated so no need to delete[edit]

This article is fully verified and updated with perfect links and subjects so this article need to remove the template — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vocal Olian (talk • contribs) 02:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Eley[edit]

A tricky one this. As a former British chess champion he certainly passes WP:GNG, though he is arguably better known for something far more unsavory. Apparently he recently died; while I have no reason to doubt this, the only source so far is an entry on findagrave, written by a Lutheran pastor who was apparently friends with him in Amsterdam. Regarding the allegations of child sexual abuse, it is referred to as an "open secret" in UK chess circles, but reliable sources are very scarce, and one of the few mainstream media reports (Sunday Telegraph from 1996) is no longer accesssible online. Note also this piece by British writer Fiona Pitt-Kethley. Anyway I got around the lack of RS for his death by linking to the Yorkshire Chess Association article which similarly notes that findagrave is user generated and therefore unreliable, though this entry certainly doesn't look like a hoax. So what do we do with this? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://web.archive.org/web/20220707194635/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard