Template:BLP noticeboard

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Cuba C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cuba, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cuba related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CubaWikipedia:WikiProject CubaTemplate:WikiProject CubaCuba articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Cuba task list: Task list New article announcements: Requests: Ambrosio Cave, Calero Cave, Centella Cave, Cuba and the United Nations, Cuban Liberation Army, Cuevas de Punta del Este, Cura Cave, Patana Cave, Pluma Cave Stubs: Dollar store (Cuba) Verify: History of Cuba, Fulgencio Batista Update: Nochebuena NPOV: Armando Valladares, Delfín Fernández, History of Cuba Copyedit: Armando Peraza, Bay of Pigs Invasion, Fabio Grobart, Julio Antonio Mella Cleanup: Abelardo Colomé Ibarra, Antonio Maceo Grajales, Bay of Pigs Invasion, History of Cuba, List of Cubans, Máximo Gómez, War against the Bandits Style: Fidel Castro Expand: Cuba–Soviet Union relations, Baseball in Cuba, Religion in Cuba, Havana's International Book Fair, Cuba–Venezuela relations, Antonio Sánchez de Bustamante y Sirven Florida C‑class Mid‑importance Florida portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Miami C‑class Top‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Miami, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Miami metropolitan area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.MiamiWikipedia:WikiProject MiamiTemplate:WikiProject MiamiMiami articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. University of Florida C‑class (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Florida, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.University of FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject University of FloridaTemplate:WikiProject University of FloridaUniversity of Florida articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Conservatism C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Editors Collect and Mosfetfaser have replaced the word "labeled" with "called" in the sentence:

• Rubio has been labeled a climate change denier.

Collect claimed that ""labelled" implies fact in Wikipedia's voice" while Mosfetfaser only claimed "disputed" which is hardly (not to say not) a reason for reverting an edit.
I explained that the word "label" is no more authoritative than the word "call" and furthermore, the word "label" is backed up by numerous sources:

1. prompting Democrats to label him as a climate-science denier; National Journal
2. label him a climate-change denier, the Florida senator brushed off a backlash labeling him as a climate-change denier; Politico
3. OFA can use to support its labeling of Rubio as a "climate change denier."; PolitiFact
4. Rubio said on Sunday, placing himself firmly in the "climate change denier" camp (...) Rubio is uncomfortable with that label; The Wire
5. critics labeling him as a climate-change denier; LifeNews (a pro-life site also using the word; hardly a left-partisan source)

I'd like to ask any of these editors to please revert their edit based on these reliable sources or present their own sources for the use of the word "call". Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 17:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the sources you give do not support using a BLP for Climate Change Denier labelling of anyone at all. I suggest you note the ArbCom decision at this point. Collect (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uh? Collect: please be clearer on what you are saying and please link the proper policy/ArbCom ruling you claim prevents us from using the word "label" but not the word "call" when all the WP:RS use the former. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 17:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem ArbCom saw was that some editors were improperly abusing biographies of living persons by labelling them as "climate change deniers" etc. Cheers -- sorry you did not read that case, I think you would find the evidence and findings interesting. Collect (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We need to distinguish between Wikipedia labeling Rubio a "climate change denier", and Wikipedia noting that others have labeled Rubio a "climate change denier". The former is inappropriate; the latter is potentially appropriate, assuming suitable sources and attribution are provided. I find that much of the discussion here conflates these two scenarios in an unhelpful way. MastCell ^Talk 23:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collect let's try this one more time: please link the proper policy/ArbCom ruling you claim prevents us from using the word "label" but not the word "call" when all the WP:RS use the former.

MastCell as you can see in the article, the label "climate change denier" is clearly stated as assigned by others, not in WP's voice. Also please check the sources in place and do tell me if you believe either of them is not appropriate.
There is no reason to use the word claim when the sources use label. Unless either Collect or mosfetfaser present a policy/Arbcom ruling preventing this, I'll be restoring the proper word. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 01:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify for any other outside editors who are interested in this discussion: if I understand correctly, the proposed and disputed alternative to the word "labeled" is the word "called"—i.e. not, as Gaba says immediately above, the word "claimed". Is this understanding correct? Writegeist (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Writegeist yes, you are right. I believe I corrected the typo just before you made your comment. Regards and sorry for the confusion. Gaba ^(talk) 02:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• - a few opinionated sources labeling someone as something does not mean wiki has to report exactly that - wiki has more of a duty of care than biased opinionated sources - there are no republican sources or uninvolved peeps labeling him as whatever are there - no - it is only attacking opinionated biased sources - and that should either be explained or ignored - labeling is not a good position to report at all - try adding to the story that opinionated sources have attacked him or add his comments so as to correctly detail his position rather than just trying to demean him and degrade him using attacking opinionated comments without stating that is what they are - please consider also the words of the closer of the related war report - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=612641810 - Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• A You are both arguing a completely different issue. This thread is about your change of "labeled" with "called". I note not you and Collect have failed to give any reasoning backing this change.
• B You are incorrect. These aren't a "few opinionated sources", these are WP:RS and are in fact numerous. The coverage is significant enough that Rubio himself felt he had to go out on record and deny being a denier.

Seeing as neither editor gave a reason as to why we should go against the reliable sources presented which use the word "label", I'm going to re-instate the original edit. If you want to discuss the mention of Rubio being labeled a climate change denier, open a new section about that. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 17:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree with the use of the term "label" in this instance. I believe it connotes some sort of official designation which is not appropriate here.CFredkin (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter one bit whether we disagree since it's what the reliable sources say. We do not modify the information to accommodate our own perceived notion of what should be said. We are WP editors, not journalists. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We also don't get to cherry-pick subjective terms from non-neutral sources.CFredkin (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CFredkin only one source mentions 'Democrats' which makes your first edit incorrect at best, and you changed the word used by our sources with a summary of ce after I explained clearly why this is not acceptable. Now you've reverted again claiming talk discussion when you've provided nothing to explain your position on why we should not follow what the WP:RS say. Your last edit borders on WP:VANDALISM and I strongly advise you to stop. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CFredkin one more revert against sources. You've been warned in your TP. Please revert your last edit. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly explained my objection to the use of the term "label" above. Your insistence that we must use the term "label" because it appears in a source, while also arguing that we can't attribute "climate change denier" to Democrats when it also appears in a source is hypocritical. The consensus in this discussion does not support your position. Please stop edit-warring. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As nothing "official" attaches to the word "label" in this usage (categorization), CFedkin's disagreement [1] appears to be based on a belief that's based on a premise that's false. Can we have it authenticated please? Also I don't understand CFedkin's implied assertion that "labeled" is more subjective than "called".[2] It would help to have clarity on that also. Writegeist (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm not implying that "label" is more or less subjective than "called". I'm just saying that "label" is subjective. Therefore the insistence that we must include it in this WP:BLP because it appears in a source is not valid.CFredkin (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What? "Label" is subjective? What does that even mean? The sources are clear in using the term, even a pro-life source uses it which means partisan sources can't be claimed. You are not making any sense. Gaba ^(talk) 20:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CFredkin It does not appear in "one source" it appears in all of the sources I've presented above. They are all WP:RS and other than you not liking the term, there is absolutely no reason not to use the word that the reliable sources use. "Democrats" on the other hand does appear in only one source which makes your edit incorrect at best and purposely misleading at worst. You are free though to re-write that part to conform to sources about who used the label.

WP is not a democracy and votes with no reasons given to back them up don't trump over policies. The page history shows 3 edits of yours removing the word after I added it back this morning which makes you the one edit-warring (of course, you know this already). I'm asking you once again (after you've removed the warning from your talk page) to re-instate the word used by the sources. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 20:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page history also shows you restoring the term 4 times since June 12. Regardless, the National Journal attributes the "denier" claim to Democrats, Politico attributes it to "liberal critics", Politifact attributes it to OAS (a liberal/Democratic support group). I don't care which of those terms is used, but if you're going to insist that the term "label" appear with respect to the denier claim, then we're going to have to attribute the phrase to either Democrats and/or liberal critics. That's a reasonable expectation in my opinion.CFredkin (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above: You are free though to re-write that part to conform to sources about who used the label.. I never objected to this. If you do not care which term is used, why did you remove the sourced term 3 times? Go to the article, attribute it respecting the sources and put back the word backed by the WP:RS. Thank you. Gaba ^(talk) 20:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I mis-spoke in my previous post. I do prefer the term "called", but can live with "labelled" if it's attributed appropriately.CFredkin (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should bear in mind that the reason the sources use the term "label(led)" is because "climate change denier" has become a category in public discourse. That is to say, it is not necessarily the case that a partisan source is calling somebody else a derogatory name, though there will obviously be many people that have a negative association with "climate change deniers" due to their respective position on climate change. Considering that Rubio is politician, then obviously such public discourse in the media is something that Wikipedia should cover.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 22:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has added a lot of material, some source, some not to a bunch of bios of mostly politicians. Quite a bit of it was reverted by other editors as not being sourced or notable. I removed the following: Rubio has come under fire for misusing the Florida State Republican Party's credit card for his personal expenses, which he eventually repaid.Wides-Munoz, Laura; Farrington, Brendan (5/19/2012). "Marco Rubio's Past Includes Political Vulnerabilities". Huffington Post. Retrieved 14 July 2014. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help).

as not being really that noteworthy. Another editor readded it and I removed it again. I will defer to others, thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]