narda e. alcorn[edit]

James Shupe[edit]

An editor by the name ElisaShupe has indicated the information on the article subject's gender and transition is incorrect and outdated. She has provided an SPS source to back this claim (link). How should we go about dealing with this? I'm assuming good faith, but it is perfectly possible the editor is not actually the article's subject. Resolving this is hard, as news sources might not have much incentive to actually cover someone re-transitioning after detransitioning (as the editor indicated in this comment). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they can identify via WP:OTRS so we can verify the source is them, then it would be acceptable to use per WP:BLPSPS. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Kunduz_hospital_airstrike[edit]

I just deleted a comment made by an IP address account that called for the killing of a well known politician. It technically also was a breach of WP:BLPCRIME although that part was probably in good faith. I know I should let that person know that I'm talking about them here, but for safety reasons I would rather not. I don't want to over react, I think it's a throw away comment that idiots make about politicians, but I also felt like I should alert admins and not let this go unnoticed. CT55555 (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've deleted the edits and blocked the IP. Beyond that I'd agree with your analysis and don't think it merits any further escalation. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valentina Lisitsa[edit]

The following sentence has been added to the lead of pianist Valentina Lisitsa’s bio: "In April, 2015, The Ukrainian Weekly described her social media postings featuring anti-Ukrainian remarks - alongside the use of Holocaust imagery portraying Ukranians as Nazis - as hate speech".[1] It is sourced to an article in The Ukraine Weekly which does not mention "anti-Ukrainian remarks" or "the use of Holocaust imagery portraying Ukranians as Nazis". The article does say "Hate speech is not free speech" in referring to Valentina’s social media posts. I removed the phrases "anti-Ukrainian remarks" and "the use of Holocaust imagery portraying Ukranians as Nazis"[2] but they have been re-added to the article.[3] It seems like a serious breach of BLP policy. Thoughts? I don't want to waste time by continually removing the phrases so have placed a "failed verification" tag against the sentence for the moment. Not an ideal solution though.

Btw, when the offending phrases were re-added, a description of Valentina as a "Russian pianist" was added without a source. While this may not be as flagrant a breach of BLP policies, it is careless. The sources used in the lead describe Valentina as a "Ukrainian-American pianist" and "born in Kiev, she is now a U.S. citizen who makes her home in New Bern, North Carolina".

Burrobert (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the assertion cited to The Ukraine Weekly from the lead and replaced it with language that describes the controversy more neutrally, citing it to the Guardian. I also reinstated that she is Ukrainian-American according to the Globe & Mail and Toronto Star. I would invite other editors to review the political views section and gauge whether that much depth is WP:DUE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is alleged on the talk page that this controversy ended her North American career which would potentially make the length of the section DUE. However no sources have been provided supporting this and indeed recent sources like [4] only mention the TSO cancellation and specifically mention that other appearances in Canada went ahead as planned. (It does mention that the executive directory of Toronto’s Royal Conservatory of Music probably wouldn't book her today, but this is after she went on to play there after the controversy.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason why she probably doesn't play in North America is because she lives in Europe now.[5] Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding to these concerns Morbidthoughts. Your edits have improved the lead and are backed up by references. I believe Nil Einne is correct in saying that Valentina has played in Toronto since 2015. This source says she played at the The Royal Conservatory of Music's Koerner Hall in April 2016 and, possibly pointedly, played an all-Russian programme.^[1] Burrobert (talk) 10:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morbidthoughts, musicians routinely play in venues around the world, and she was formerly located in the USA. Her lack of North America bookings is more likely the cause, not the effect, of the relocation to Rome and Russia. But we have no sourcing on that factor and it's not under consideration for article content. Unfortunately, with relatively little-known, relatively insignificant public figures, there is scant mainstream coverage to draw upon. Sources do tie the TSO decision to cancel to Ukrainian opposition, and the orchestra appears initially to have avoided taking a stand in its own voice. The tweets are available in copies to various websites for those who are interested. They appear to be authentic copies. The Ukraine Weekly publication appears to be RS as to fact and it provides summary information. I removed the "anti-Ukraine" modifier from "hate speech" in the lead because, as has been pointed out, the publication does not use the phrase that was formerly in the article, "anti-Ukraine hate speech". SPECIFICO talk 15:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. The Ukraine Weekly article you cited to[6] is an editorial and cannot be used to assert facts. This is basic according to WP:RSEDITORIAL Further, it is clear that "anti-ukraine" hate speech quote comes from another UW article written by conductor Adrian Bryttan that was cited in the Globe and Mail article.[7] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What uanattributed UW content do you oppose? SPECIFICO talk 15:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The one I had removed with the edit summary explicitly describing the rejection.[8] Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

E. Jean Carroll[edit]

There is currently an edit dispute on rather the following sentence is WP:DUE:

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

I support including the paragraph. It's reliably sourced with 4 RS (all "generally reliable" at WP:RSP). This includes the New York Times, The Guardian, Slate, and Insider (culture). Additionally, I included the transcript for Anderson Cooper's show for reference. The context for her statements has also been included. I see no WP:BLP or WP:NPOV concerns here, just reliably sourced info that is covered in RS, therefore, WP:DUE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't verify all the sources, but if this is indeed included there it certainly is well-sourced (WP:BUSINESSINSIDER having no consensus as an RS might raise some eyebrows, but seems to pass the bar here). They are also statements by the subject, so I can't remember any BLP violation by including such a brief mention of her opinions on such a crucial matter to her biography. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Business Insider sourced, it's just Insider, which is considered reliable for cultural topics at WP:RSP. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my bad! Thanks for the clarification Iamreallygoodatcheckers (I'm not). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am not sure "responses" are particularly relevant here, it's not as though people were reviewing her statements or choices. I might go with "...described as surprising, and Carroll herself noted her beliefs were 'contentious'." Or something like that. For the last bit, I would cite to this:[9] Just a thought. Dumuzid (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Yeah, NY Times, CNN, Guardian, those bastions of "right-wing chatter", are top-tier enough. You're just arguing WP:WEDONTNEEDIT now. You cannot compare the weight of the quote against Trump's library of quotes to determine its weight in Carroll's. WP:OTHERSTUFF. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I'm afraid you are missing the point. First, WP:ONUS tells us we don't need to include every morsel that has a handful of more or less contemporaneous references. Second, even well-sourced content that might be used in a proper narrative can be stated and juxtaposed and formatted in such a way to misinform our readers or lead them to UNDUE conclusions. SPECIFICO talk 22:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not missing anything. I gave the opinion that I don't believe the material is UNDUE and I explained why. I also am not reading any SYNTH implications in that text. Any further attempt at discussing this is just wabbit season bludgeoning. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a quote for those who are having trouble accessing the NYT article.[10]

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

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

NYT is just one of many sources about this, also it's considered "generally reliable" at WP:RSP. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Dumuzid: the quote does pass the WP:10YEARTEST for a couple different reasons. (1) Carroll sexual assault allegation against Trump is a highly significant part of her notability. (2) How she described the allegation is to say the least is a bit of unorthodox, a point that is significant and has been extensively covered in RS, see the one's above. (3) It's difficult to capture exactly Carrolls beliefs, this is why RS has been quoting many of here statements, and explaining her rationale. We already see this in the "fight" quote, and frankly the "rape is sexy" quote has received just as much coverage and is often paired with the fight quote. Leaving either out is not provident he proper context and understanding of Carrolls comments. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I prefer to shorten the compromise text:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about this:

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

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

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

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

• Here are 2 more RS that about her comments. One from the Atlantic and one from the Independent. The Independent links her belief that "people think rape is sexy" with her not using the term rape. I've cited the Independent in the proposal above as well. [11] [12] Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chris Bascombe[edit]

I was speaking with Chris Bascombe on twitter and he would like his article to be deleted. He is not happy with some of the content on it and would rather his article to be removed from wikipedia. I am not sure, but was there an email that that I need to pass on to him, a wikipedia page with details on how he can proceed to remove his article? Govvy (talk) 11:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Govvy. I answered this a bit at the Teahouse, but you may as well have an answer here too. With a few exceptions, such as speedy deletion and legal stuff, articles are deleted by the community under usual deletion procedures. There are several pages to help article subjects navigate these procedures and Wikipedia in general, including WP:BLPSELF and Wikipedia:Contact us/Article subjects but these are really just guides to how Wikipedia works. Sometimes you will see suggestions that the subject email WP:VRT. This can be useful when there is private or non-public information involved, but it will usually eventually circulate back to AfD with any private details filtered out. However when you have a subject who can find their AfD, and present their case well on wiki, this won't usually be necessary. Now if they become dissatisfied with the response by the community (or they don't know what they're doing), then this page or VRT might be useful for the subject to find someone to work with or explain things. My impression of this particular situation is that they're currently doing OK. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzuuzz: Sorry about that I may have posted in too many locations. Thanks for the info, looks like the AfD should be a deleted. I will text Chris when that happens. Govvy (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uğur Şahin[edit]

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

A number of users keeping editing this entry changing the factual and cited claim that the person makes a claim, to the not proven and not cited claim that the person has a certain belief. They keep claiming that the factual wording is "weasel words", but it is not, and there is no mention of using this precise wording in the weasel words article. Can someone please assist? Rebroad (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you're edit warring against multiple other editors. You should probably stop that before bringing attention to the situation at a noticeboard. Also, if someone says something about their own beliefs, no "claims" qualifier is necessary. If I were to say "I enjoy drinking bourbon," you wouldn't need to say "ScottishFinnishRadish claims they enjoy drinking bourbon." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, how would you word it? Rebroad (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They either clearly said it, in which case no qualifiers are needed or someone claims they said it, which would require attribution of who makes the claim. In sum, either the line is undue and should be removed or its what he said. There's no wiggle room or need for "claims".Slywriter (talk) 14:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take the discussion to talk page, I actually think there is a good argument the line should not be there at all based on current sourcing. In reading a translation of the interview, it appears to be a throwaway line in an interview being given undue weight.Slywriter (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually have a real horse in this race (I only ended up seeing this due to an ANI thread), but I think a line about a vaccine creator saying they shouldn't be mandatory, if it's sourced, isn't undue and is relevant. Canterbury Tail talk 14:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read through the Business Insider interview and I'm having serious doubts it supports the text. He appears to be saying the vaccination will be voluntary when it happens, which doesn't necessarily support saying he is against mandatory vaccination. However someone with better German skills should probably have a look at it. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 14:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I'd normally agree but in the context of this particular interview, it does not appear to be some critical statement they are making and no other source has been shown to cover the view, so not sure the proper weight is being given here. Either way, adding "claims" is not the answer. It belongs or it doesn't.Slywriter (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No agree adding claims is nonsense. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 14:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've replaced the reference with this one in which he definitely states his opposition. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 16:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a section in the talk page of this article, hopefully better explaining why the claim that keeps being made does not belong in the article. It's because the source provided is a PRIMARY source and therefore is original research, and not verifyable inforamtion. The entire sentence ought to be deleted, according to Jimmy Wales, but because I am an inclusionist, I preferred to keep it in but attribute it to who made the claim. It certainly should not be stated as fact though - it should be attributed to who said it as a bare minimum. Rebroad (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reference I added was not published by Uğur Şahin, it is a description of his words by a third party. So I doubt I see that argument going very far. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 18:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

which argument? I don't think you understood my argument given it is not dependent on whether it was said by a third party of not. I am simply saying that the article needs to cite who said it. Rebroad (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're misunderstanding the meaning of primary as used on Wikipedia. You interpretation of the meaning is wrong in regard to it's use here.

The current wording is "Şahin opposes compulsory vaccination" this can be considered true, as we have a reference stating that he has said that. Saying "Şahin says he opposes compulsory vaccination", is just linguistically redundant and seems to imply he is lying. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 21:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Ekwere Eleje[edit]

The middle name is Ekwueme and not Ekwere — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adejumod2001 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Adejumod2001, all the sources in the article refer to her as Priscilla Ekwere Eleje and the image of her signature on the money is Priscilla Ekwere Eleje. Are you thinking of someone else? StarryGrandma (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the name change, which included changing the titles of the sources. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa DeLauro[edit]

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

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

Conspiracy theorist label[edit]

Jon Baker (producer)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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