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

Original content rules The vast majority of the notes in this bio refer to comments previously made by the subject of the article. This is a thinly-disguised evasion of the rules against original content: the subject writes about the subject, then quotes his/her/themself as if this were not original content. Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research. This article fails that test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BGD808 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 26 Sep 2021 (UTC)

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

The VRT team have been asked to bring this article for community discussion to see if the article complies with BLP and other community policies. The concerns / claims raised in the request include the following:

• The Controversies section is overreliant on sources that are biased and anti-plaintiff attorneys.
• The article is written to present the subject in the worst possible light, with all positive content that could make the article more balanced being removed.
• Some of the material in the Controversies section is only presenting one side by using references that speak to when a case is filed against Coon and not the resolution.

If there's a more appropriate venue for this discussion, please feel free to move the thread accordingly. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. The article should be renamed Brent Coon and Associates, because it is nowhere near a biography about the person. It starts off reading like an ad, and then is just a list of lawsuits they've been involved in. Now, these lawsuits are pretty notable themselves, but the tone in the article is definitely one of condemnation.

I'll give an example. I read through the article and many of the sources, so I'll pick one section at random. The section titled "Asbestos racketeering and claim fraud". First, the title itself makes it seem like a fraud was actually committed, and is a potential BLP vio. Now the section is not about a lawsuit filed against his firm, but against a doctor he and many other lawyers used in asbestos-related cases.

The first sentence begins, "Coon admits to having Dr. Jay T. Segarra, a controversial radiologist from Ocean Springs, Mississippi, screen potential clients for asbestos-related injury...." And then after admitting this is all speculation by Forbes, goes on to say, "Coon went so far as to publicly defend Segarra...." and, "Similar fraud has been described in detail in the papers of Lester Brickman, a law professor at Cardozo and an expert on fraud and misconduct in asbestos litigation."

In case it's not readily apparent, that's more persuasive writing than expository. Beginning with "Coon admits..." is establishing guilt before a crime has ever been described. "Went so far as..." is another instance where we're insinuating a negative connotation. "Similar fraud" is establishing that a fraud has indeed occured --all before a trial has even been announced!

The source gives an entirely different tone. ""We assume there are other people involved in the enterprise," said Marcy Croft, the Jackson, Miss., lawyer for NSI.... Potential defendants include some of the most prominent names in the plaintiffs' bar, such as Baron & Budd; Motley Rice; Reaud, Morgan & Quinn and Brent Coon.... The process generated a suspiciously high percentage of diagnoses of asbestosis and related injuries, said Lester Brickman, a professor at Cardozo University School of Law who has written extensively about asbestos litigation.... Coon, a Beaumont, Texas lawyer who represents asbestos claimants, said he's hired Segarra and believes the doctor is honest. "I'll vouch for him," Coon said. "I've had him look at a lot of cases and the majority of them come back negative.""

So, it's easy to see how different the tone of the story is from their article to ours. Theirs isn't really even about Coon whereas ours makes him a centerpiece in this lawsuit; a lawsuit that has only been filed and not yet even accepted. And that's just one paragraph. I suspect there are even more problems, but due to things going on in my personal life I don't have time to go through and fix it all. I can say that there is indeed a lot that needs fixing. Zaereth (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that the article was created by a political undisclosed paid editing operation (Frost joyce SPI). Presumably as an attack piece by a political enemy. MarioGom (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps this is a case where it would be best to WP:Blow it up and start over, being as that it is likely far more work to fix it than to begin again from scratch. I don't see much independent notability from most of these sources; he was just involved in these suits as either a defendant or a lawyer (or not at all) , and mentions of him or his firm are simply marginal, as described above. Many of the suits are very notable in their own right, and subsequently have their own articles. I don't see much independent notability of his firm, and almost nothing in the way of biographical information on the person. The article somehow reads as a very negative resume for his firm, as oxymoronic as that sounds. BIUSO. Zaereth (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The Frost joyce sockfarm has a long history of editing against asbestos injury claims, and they created this article. The creator is not blocked because it was stale (inactive for a long time) by the time I reported it. The article was later edited with an attack POV by another UPE sockfarm, Classyklowngrasper who is also known for engaging in negative PR. Some COI editors (now blocked) tried to counter this, unsuccessfully. There are no significant contributions other than the UPE attackers and the COI editors. I think I have never done an AfD nomination purely based on WP:TNT, but I think this would be a good candidate. Nobody cared to fix the article over the years, and keeping it in its current form means that experienced UPE working for corporations in highly controversial areas get their way, in our face, promoting their clients and attacking their enemies. MarioGom (talk) 11:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a look. In order to get to the point where it was approaching a normal biography, I would be removing at least 90% of the content. And what was left would not be much to build on. I say TNT it and let someone who thinks there is a decent chance of an article start with no existing issues. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the UPE editors used Southeast Texas Record (setexasrecord.com) by Locality Labs. This is a company operating +1,000 shady local news websites that publish paid stories for companies, election campaigns, etc. This is obviously an unreliable source. The sockfarm in question uses Locality Labs websites as sources extensively. MarioGom (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated it for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brent Coon (2nd nomination). MarioGom (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And deleted two days ago. JavaHurricane 12:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Career section contains two paragraphs without any citations regarding the subject's most recent book, some of which seems to be a summary of said book, phrased not as a description of the book's contents or its arguments, but as fact. The Personal Life section contains no citations and lists the subject's children and their occupations, including a child who is listed as a recent high school graduate and another as a current college student. From the edit history, it appears that this article was edited several times by a Smarglin.

Sarath Weerasekara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): This article is mainly based on unsourced content. Pls, help to improve this article or remove unsourced sourced content.

Wasantha Karannagoda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article contains a large amount of unsourced content. Pls, help to remove this unsourced content.

Roshan Goonetileke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article contains a large amount of unsourced content. Pls, help to remove this unsourced content.

• Róbert Wessman
• User:Haeito1010

I have reason to believe that this page was created in bad faith by an editor who has not disclosed a Conflict of Interest. In the interest of transparency, I am acting on behalf of Róbert Wessman, the article subject, which is why I have not nominated the page directly.

The article was created and substantially edited by Haeito1010 in August. The first thing that raised suspicion of COI is that this User has only created two articles, possibly making them a single purpose account. They have a rather basic User page too, avoiding revealing too much personal information, but also making significant use of templates.

They used their sandbox in an extremely unusual way, uploading a word at a time:

1. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Haeito1010/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=1031397246
2. 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Haeito1010/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=1031397270
3. 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Haeito1010/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=1031397298

or a batch of characters at a time:

1. 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Haeito1010/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=1031677459
2. 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Haeito1010/sandbox&diff=next&oldid=1031677459

Their total edit count is 765, 742 of which are to the sandbox. I think it is not unreasonable to assume that this may have been an attempt to inflate the edit count and look artificially more proficient as an editor. It is also plausible to assume the editor was copying and pasting from a draft, given that in example 5 they uploaded a sequence of characters (%C3%ADa/oG49AQAAIAAJ?), which is not naturalistic.

On August 22nd Haeito1010 made an edit changing the content of their sandbox from a draft on the composer Juan María Guelbenzu Fernández to a draft on Wessman. This time they did not upload in small chunks, but as a long form page with an Infobox. This again suggests that the editor had a draft ready to upload: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AHaeito1010%2Fsandbox&type=revision&diff=1040091856&oldid=1031837718

After this, the draft was moved (again in chunks!) to mainspace, the sandbox was blanked, and Haeito1010 has not used their sandbox since. Indeed, they have not edited at all since 22 August, when they made 12 edits to the article on Róbert Wessman. This suggests to me that all of their activity was designed solely to create this page.

The only other pages they have worked on are Sociedad de Cuartetos and Alvogen, both of which have a connection to the pages this user has created. However, as Fernández died in 1886, it seems more likely that they would be paid to work on Wessman.

The article should be deleted as it imparts little information about Wessman himself that would be classed as encyclopaedic. References 1, 2, 6, and 8 are from primary sources, 7 is clearly biased, and references 12 and 14 are dead. There are also some nebulous statements which need sourcing and don’t have any: “The actual ownership of the company was somewhat unclear for around a decade's time”. This would be poor for an article which falls under WP:BLP in any case, but given the strange behaviour of the account creator, I would suggest that the page be deleted and created from scratch again, if Wessman is considered notable enough.

Noemimanical (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the contentious paragraph (I didn't read the above appeal!) it was far too much detail of accusations that were never upheld. I also agree he's probably not notable.JeffUK (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the content in that section as it appears to be reliably sourced and covered in major news outlets. Whether the article subject is notable, he appears to be a public figure, and these accusations would seem to be a fairly significant aspect of his life with coverage over a period of time. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I think there has been a misunderstanding based on another, separate thread about Wessman. Creating dedicated controversy sections - especially on a preprepared draft - can be a sign of bias, but wallyfromdilbert had already reviewed and merged this section to better comply with site guidelines, so it is not really the concern I wanted to raise. My worry is that the page creator acted duplicitously to get this article created in the first place. Their contributions are just too weird for me to believe that they are acting in good faith, and the article therefore can’t be said to meet NPOV. Ideally, someone without a motive should create the page, going through the proper Articles for Creation process. Noemimanical (talk) 09:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page about Harry Hill contains a mess of potentially libellous, weasel-worded material, Some of it is sourced, but not always at the appropriate place. Needs an independent editor's eye.Vizjim (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP violations from start to finish. Nuke it, and start again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but for various reasons I can't get involved in editing this article. Anyone out there willing to wield the shovel?Vizjim (talk) 07:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that nobody else seems to be interested, and that there is simply too much unsourced and improperly-sourced content to do anything else in any reasonable timescale, I have blanked the article entirely, and replaced it with a note explaining why. The article is a total disgrace, and the entire history should probably be removed from public access. Meanwhile, anyone who doesn't like the way I've dealt with this is free to gripe about it at WP:ANI, where they can explain what policy-compliant alternatives are available. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it per G10 as it's completely unsalvageable short of gutting it completely and deleting pretty much every revision for five years. I've also just removed a BLP issue about Hill at another article, too. Black Kite (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This subject is not notable, by any means. It is a vanity, possibly commissioned, article. This article has been deleted once and nominated for deletion twice. Now certain individuals are undoing edits in both the article and the discussion page. It should be, once again, deleted and, in the meantime, protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricaMillbard (talk • contribs) 20:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have started a third AfD for Víctor M. Marroquín. Edwardx (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attention needed at Jameela Jamil, where a lengthy conspiratorial personal life section aims to imply, using extreme synthesis and poor sources such as Instagram users, that Jamil is a serial liar and maybe even has Münchhausen syndrome, when no reliable source makes these claims in their own words. BLP violations have been made on the talk page, even by a user who is actually in favor of (mostly) redacting the section. A BLP-compliant personal life rewrite by me in this diff has been reverted. — Bilorv (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add some emphasis here--it's an interesting situation for me, as I think there are reasonable arguments on both "sides" of the issue. I certainly have a take, but I am more than willing to be convinced that I'm wrong. In general, I think fresh eyes would be helpful. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bilorv, as I described in detail on the article talk page, your version of the 'personal life' section is inaccurate, misleading and incomplete in terms of what the sources actually report/show that subject has actually said/experienced. Your version also takes a POV of taking the subject's word about specific supposed experiences as fact, when these specific supposed experiences have been reported as being disputed and the use of 'she states' or 'she has stated' to precede descripition of things she has said about herself already seems to have consensus as NPOV. As your version has not gained consensus, it should be reverted or the section reduced to a stub until we do have consensus on how to write this section and what to include. We must not allow personal feelings towards the subject to cloud what we write or be seen to; this objectivity is what I and other editors were aiming for in the much more detailed and extensively-sourced version prior to 14 November that had been live for many months with no objections, before you deleted most of it and replaced it with your truncated version. However, if the previous version does not have consensus either, then we all need to work together to write a new version that does.

The allegations that the subject has fabricated aspects of her personal life are notable and widely reported, including by reliable sources such as The Independent,^[1] The New Zealand Herald,^[2] and Los Angeles Times.^[3] Multiple references to these allegations appear prominently when conducting a Google search for the subject. We are not engaging in a 'conspiracy'; we are trying to find a NPOV way of discussing the widespread reporting of the these allegations, as well as where necessary directly discussing the some of the subject's own direct statements about herself as reported in various media, or what is explicitly shown in the various media such as the Hardtalk video, Fashion Targets Breast Cancer segment and Orange Rockcorps videos.

Please also state what you mean by 'BLP violations have been made on the talk page'. Uakari (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The contradictions in the BLP "Joseph Kallarangatt". The article in the second paragraph claims about sexual assault and corruption allegation based on footnotes 7,8 and 9. The corruption allegation is based on the article "The right turn by a section of Kerala’s Catholic church is sheer opportunism". A single statement is made by Indulekha Joseph that "There are many allegations the church faces currently, including corruption and sexual offences”. How does this single quote be included in the BLP of Joseph Kallarangatt against him? There is no mention that there is corruption allegation against Joseph Kallarangatt, Please refer the footnote no. 7 https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/right-turn-section-kerala-s-catholic-church-sheer-opportunism-155406

About sexual assault the contradiction is as follows: the term sexual assault is used in paragraph 2 of the article gives the impression that Joseph Kallarangatt has done the assault. Again the matter is referred under the title "2018–2021: Controversies in the Church". Here it is claimed that Joseph Kallarangatt has approached by the nun based on footnote 13 https://caravanmagazine.in/gender-sexuality/bishop-franco-mulakkal-kerala-nun-rape-case-protests But the very footnote 14 which is from The Hindu, a leading newspaper in India, takes a different report. It claims that bishop said that the nun had made verbal reference about the complaint, not any written complaint. It never says that the bishop delayed anything or covered up anything. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/nun-complained-to-me-pala-bishop/article24422306.ece

The title "2018–2021: Controversies in the Church" itself is inappropriate in the write-up about Joseph Kallarangatt since he has nothing to do with the controversies itself that it should be in his BLP. The first paragraph under this title talks about Franco Mulakkal, a bishop of the Latin rite, India. The BLP of a person should contain events that require direct involvement of the person. There is purposeful attempt to defame the person. Sheer vandalism is detected. Whenever a positive information is added just by adding a name about his alma mater, it is deleted instantly. What about the right of good name of a person in Wikipedia when the concerned person may not be a privileged editor. Ezhuth (talk) 10:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference, it may be helpful to join an existing discussion rather than opening a new one every day or so. You're much more likely to get a reply that way, and it helps keep from cluttering up the page. I changed the titles so that when you click on your watchlist link it doesn't go immediately to the first section (a lot of people will miss it entirely if there's already another section with the same name).

I think many of your concerns are valid, albeit falling short of the real problems with this article. I'm not going to say the article is terrible or badly written. The problem is it's mostly written like a newspaper article (or, rather, a collection of newspaper articles), with maybe a bit of puffing of the descriptors (ie: like calling his welfare plan a "scheme" in every sentence, to name but one). The thing is, WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We don't need all these little tidbits and every boring, blow-by-blow detail in the way a newspaper would write it. All we really need is the gist of it. The bare bones. The nitty gritty. The article is incredibly bloated with massive amounts of details we just don't need in order to explain what happened.

And, yes, I do see many other problems. For example, the first source you linked above is an opinion/editorial column, and while the other two are actual news reports, I suspect there may be many more questionable sources in there. I think it should be made clear that he is not the center of some of these controversies, although he's not that far removed, but we should keep in mind that the article is about the person, not the church. Unfortunately, I don't have time to do anything but offer my advice and constructive criticism. From what I can see the article needs some attention and a good overhaul to make it less newspapery and more encyclopedic. Zaereth (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While researching conflict of interest concerns involving Lightburst I discovered that they had created a biography of lawyer John Travena. COI concerns aside, it appears that the article may have been created only to attack Trevena's ex-wife in relation to a domestic violence incident. Right from the start, the "personal life" section contained claims that the ex-wife was a user of "methamphetamine and heroin and other illicit drugs". Trevena was arrested for domestic battery in March 2019. The articles was created in May 2019 and Light burst continued to edit the personal life section to add even more detail to accusations against the ex-wife (for example, these additions in December 2019). I have removed the section entirely since it did not provide any information outside of that dispute. Trevena's wife is not a high-profile individual and the allegations are just allegations, so I believe this is a violation of WP:BLP. I would appreciate it if other editors could review my actions. Thank you. Please sign my guestbook (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC) indefinitely blocked[reply]

Editor is being pointy. This article survived the scrutiny of multiple editors and I want to point out that this editor's account so far is an SPA - their first edits were to accuse me on a COI report, then post on my talk page, then go to an article I started to erase large portions, and then come here to kick up more drama. Quite disruptive and obvious. Lightburst (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And now posting threats to my talk page. diff after going to several other articles I started. Disruptive editing. I am going back to real work. Lightburst (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:::Lightburst, saying that the next thread about you will be at ANI is not a threat. It is simply what happens when a user continues to ignore discussions of their actions. Please sign my guestbook (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Having "survived the scrutiny of multiple editors" does not mean that the article does not violate our BLP rules. I brought the matter here so that other editors experienced in BLP issues could take a look and discuss it. Isn't that the proper thing to do? Please sign my guestbook (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC) indefinitely blocked[reply]

Stop pinging me. I am not interested. You have now pinged me four times across the project and you are refactoring articles I started and threatening me, all in your first edits. Frantically demanding that I respond to you or else. Read WP:NOTTHERE. Lightburst (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely say there are some serious BLP concerns there. Per WP:BLPCRIME, we don't report arrests or allegations unless conviction has been secured in a court of law. The case was dismissed according to the sources, thus no conviction, making the first paragraph a BLP vio. Then, per WP:BLPNAME we usually don't name the wives, husbands, children, friends, family members, etc., of notable people unless they themselves are notable enough to have their own article. In most cases it works just as well to use generic descriptors ("wife", "child", etc.), because a faceless name is meaningless filler to most readers, but to the subjects and their non-notable family it is a very big deal and we should respect a private person's right to retain their privacy. But even without the names, it reads like tabloid trash; like we're just airing his dirty laundry and tossing his wife under the bus to make him look bad by association. Maybe that wasn't the intent, but that's how it comes off to the reader. I would say nearly all of the personal life section should go. Beyond that, what we're left with is a similar situation to the Brent Coon issue raised at the top of this page, where we have a pseudo-biography that is more about his law practice than it is about the person. Zaereth (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:::::I think you may have misunderstood what was going on. It appears to me that the intention was not to make Trevena "look bad by association" but to smear his wife and balance out the domestic violence charge. Please sign my guestbook (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC) indefinitely blocked[reply]

It doesn't matter what the intent was. The result is what matters, and the result is it reads like tabloid trash. Zaereth (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've given the personal life section a once over. I removed the super obvious BLPVIO Trevena's wife, Meredith Lynn Recio and the boyfriend of the former Trevena employee broke into the Trevena law firm. They stole a check which they forged and cashed for $8,500 dollars. Trevena told police that they also stole a .44 caliber handgun. That stated as fact someone had committed a crime based on an allegation. I tried to clear out the names as well. The whole section should probably be removed per WP:DUE and WP:BLP, as there are no convictions, no resolutions to lawsuits and, as Zaereth has said, it's tabloid trash. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I've gone through and removed that entire section. A lawsuit from the neighbors was dropped and resolved. Requesting a protective order doesn't need coverage in an encyclopedia. Getting arrested and having charges dropped also doesn't need coverage in a BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to add that the AFD for this article shows yet more problems with the Article Rescue Squaderon - the state of the article at nomination [1] shows the BLP problems identified above, but 3 of the major members of ARS jumped to say "keep" even pointing out the domestic violence coverage as a reason to keep, which is not what we cover per BLPCRIME. So the argument "this survived an AFD" has no weight here - we judge BLP issues at the state the article is currently in, as that is a top-level priority for us. --Masem (t) 21:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eight people participated in that AFD. The nominator was the only trying to delete it, the other seven people voted Keep, only three of them regular ARS, one of which created the article. Dream Focus 22:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue squadron? Is that a real thing? Or is that just a good name for people who hang out at AFD? I tend not to get too involved in deletion discussions. Those often turn out to be these huge drama boards where its all emotion and no real logic seems to apply. I do notice that there are a lot of people who hang out there with the rescue mentality, like we're saving a drowning puppy or something. In many cases, an article deserves to simply die --sometimes for no other reason than out of respect for basic human rights to privacy-- and I think this is one of the better examples of why. I wouldn't wish a Wikipedia article on my worst enemy. It would be less cruel to simply beat them to a pulp, but a Wikipedia article? That's too cruel a punishment for even the worst offender. I think people often forget that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily a good thing, words can cut deeper than any sword, and what we write here needs to be of such serious interest that there is an overriding need for the public to know. The people we write about are real human beings, and what we write has very significant, real-world consequences.

I can say this, even though I prefer to be a writer and therefore, by some Wikipedians' terms, an inculsionist, if I did watch deletion discussions I would have to take a very pragmatic view of the cases, and would likely vote delete more often than not. I think we have a lot of radically-unnecessary exceptions to notability guidelines for certain groups, and I think we need much higher standards and a more even playing field. There is no point in having an article that has no chance of ever being anything more than a stub. In this case, what we're left with in this article, minus the PL section, is basically an ad for his law firm, and I see no reason to offer free advertising. Zaereth (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attorney advertisement is what this article always was. Same creator created the article about the lawyer's biggest case, Jennifer Mee. Levivich 23:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all clear BLPCRIME applies as this is a nationally known "prominent" lawyer who is not magically immune from sources that cover controversies they have been involved in. I've started talk page discussions with additional sources. -- GreenC 23:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BLPCRIME clearly applies here. Even if we accept the subject of the article is a public figure, the problem is that section is not just about the subject of the article. It includes allegations about multiple other people one of who is named and would be readily identified even if not named. These people clearly fall under BLPCRIME. They aren't public figures, they aren't even notable. Yet since those details appear to relate to part of the dispute over the case for the subject, it's questionable to simply exclude those details completely either. Since ultimately this apparently resulted in no conviction, the solution may very well be to simply exclude it. Especially if the sourcing is so limited. Nil Einne (talk) 07:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To no one's surprise, OP has been CU blocked. Levivich 23:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the questionable coverage of Trevena's own legal disputes, there's also the question over the coverage of high profile cases. Two of these cases may be notable or related to notable people (we currently have articles on them or the cases so until these are deleted I have to accept that) so I'll let them pass although one of them currently uses NY Post which should be replaced per WP:NYPOST. Two of them are apparently not (if you disagree created the articles). For an allegedly high profile case, one of them currently only has a single source which is a local news section of some media [2], the other only has 2. The first had a Justice Department PR but I removed it since it seems inappropriate to use especially for a non notable case or person. While these two people were convicted, I'm unconvinced we should be discussing their cases let alone naming them in these circumstances. Nil Einne (talk) 07:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This BLP is completely unsourced except for one reference that I added. The sections about marriage and career contain unsourced defamatory claims about the person as demonstrated in the diffs given here, here and here. --Netha (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rosenbaum is not a living person and does not fall under BLP. It should be allowed to add the well-sourced information about his previous convictions, which were also brought up in the trial about this case. Rosenbaum was a [redacted], which is relevant to that article because 1. it was relevant in the court and 2. he died while chasing a minor. Source: ^[4]

2001:871:237:2B:74AA:AA9B:7865:E84E (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Per the opening section of WP:BLP, the policy applies to recently deceased as well as living. Springee (talk) 14:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thank you. So do i understand this right and nobody is allowed to mention a conviction of any living or recently deceased person? Am i allowed to go through wikipedia articles and remove any mentions of any murder convictions of any person? 2001:871:237:2B:74AA:AA9B:7865:E84E (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, thats not what it means, but we simply dont include convictions of non-notable, non-public figures without good cause. In the situation around the unrest, there is nothing significant about Rosenbaum's background outside of being one of the protestors that night; the shooter didn't know of these and they didn't affect behavior that evening. That they were brought up in the trial doesn't mean they are significant at all. --Masem (t) 14:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is significant enough for it to be mentioned in the court and significant enough for it to be printed in multiple reliable sources. And since he was the aggressor who charged at a minor, i think it is relevant information. I see that you might disagree with legal courts here, but how is this properly dealt with in wikipedia? I am new, for me personally it seems like the court and reliable sources count more than the personal opinion of editors. 2001:871:237:2B:74AA:AA9B:7865:E84E (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To add on that: It surely affected the behavior of Rosenbaum himself. Which was the trigger of the whole incident. 2001:871:237:2B:74AA:AA9B:7865:E84E (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a first draft of what should/shouldn't be included consider what the court allowed in. I don't think anything about prior crimes was let by the court. However, I think he was described as homeless and bipolar in testimony. If covered by reliable sources (see WP:RS) then such content may be acceptable. Still, we have to be careful and if in doubt we should leave it out. Springee (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about writing an article about Rosenbaum? I think there are enough well sourced materials out there to write en extensive page about him. If i create a page about him, i can write that he is [redacted], right? Would i also be allowed to write that he is [redacted]? Or is this some personal medical information and not allowed?2001:871:237:2B:74AA:AA9B:7865:E84E (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO1E would say absolutely not. His priors weren't covered by RSes until this case, and that most are based on court records would be against BLP. (The same is true for Rittenhouse - its why these articles are based on the notable event and not the people of the event) --Masem (t) 17:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable for multiple events. Multiple [redacted] and the Kenosha shooting. Edit: So i just have to find an article in a local newspaper mentioning one of those cases where he [redacted]?2001:871:237:2B:74AA:AA9B:7865:E84E (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Were the [redacted] cases the subject of detailed coverage? If not, they are not considered significant events for BIO1E. And no, one article in a local paper is not going to cut it as evidence. --Masem (t) 18:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they were. Or do you think before the Kenosha shooting? If its about the time before, then i do not know, but i can look into it and i am sure i could find something. It's hard to believe that not even some local media would report about multiple [redacted] 2001:871:237:2B:74AA:AA9B:7865:E84E (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of this stuff about "It surely affected the behavior of Rosenbaum himself. Which was the trigger of the whole incident." is WP:OR. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The court ruled that it is self-defense, which means that Rosenbaum was the aggressor. Which is also undisputed and agreed upon throughout reliable sources. He charged and tried to attack a minor who he previously threatened to murder. Again sourced and admitted by multiple reliable sources. Those things are already in the article. The court decided that his criminal background is relevant to the case. What counts more? The decision of the court that it is relevant, or your personal opinion that it is not? 17:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

While his background was brought up in court and wasn't struck, we have no idea if that influenced the jury's decision. It is OR to assume that is the case. We can point to any RS that have analyzed the trial and assert it was relevant, but we can't make that jump. --Masem (t) 17:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this logic. So does this mean we have to remove everything that got mentioned in the court from the article, because we don't know which of it influenced the jury decision? 2001:871:237:2B:74AA:AA9B:7865:E84E (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We should be looking at RSes after the jury verdict to decide what is the way to discuss how the trial proceeded, as per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:RECENTISM as to judge what elements should be included. --Masem (t) 18:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are we just allowed to use information that we proved influenced a jury? That is a totally artificial standard that you are making up. If it is relevant in RS, so it is relevant for the article. 213.142.96.6 (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• They aren't recently dead if they were shot over a year ago. If the court thought it relevant to mention their criminal records, and the media gives ample coverage of it, it should be listed. Dream Focus 17:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • BDP can extend out to 2 years, depending, and in Rosenbaum being a central focus of the trial, I'm pretty sure BDP would continue to be justified. Further WP:BLPCRIME tells us to be very careful in regards to any criminal activities of non-notable people. We absolutely should be very cautious about this. If multiple RSes agree that Rosenbaum's criminal background was that relevant to the trial's outcome, then yes we can include it, but right now, it was brought up but I don't see any ties of that to why the jury ruled as it did. --Masem (t) 17:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • edit conflict, about to change what I wrote. WP:BDP reads: Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. Its bolded like that on the policy page. Dream Focus 17:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • And the very next two sentences say "The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend based on editorial consensus for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would only apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime. " Which Rosenbuam qualifies, 100%. --Masem (t) 17:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        What implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime do you think might happen? Dream Focus 17:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        • If Rosenbaum's past crimes were not the subject of coverage while he was alive (and more than just police records or the like), these new findings that he has severe criminal history can be traumatic to family and friends if they weren't aware of that already. It draws more attention to Rosenbaum , and by happenstance to family + friends, that appears unwarranted unless RSes clearly cannot discuss the trial results without pointing them out. BLP's is to avoid doing any harm, and just because someone has a criminal history doesn't mean it is warranted for inclusion in WP. --Masem (t) 17:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

          • Well, of course it draws attention to Rosenbaum. He caused a shooting after all. Am i not allowed to mention any crimes of anyone because it would make the family of the criminal feel bad? It went through the media back and forth, mentioned everywhere, because it is considered relevant to this case by almost all mainstream media sources that reported about it. For me it looks like some Wikipedia Editors have just a personal opinion that vastly differs from the court and the reliable sources. 2001:871:237:2B:74AA:AA9B:7865:E84E (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

          Anyone who looked up their name could find it easily. Also they probably knew it anyway. If not someone should tell them what the guy did to ask their own children if anything happened to them. Anyone who cared about them would look up information in the news about them and know this already. Dream Focus 18:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

          Doesn't matter if the information is easily found. Wikipedia has purposely higher standards for what we report than the media. We are not required to document everything particularly when (as noted below) it wasn't information allowed at the trial to start. If readers want to know more, they can do the additional research. --Masem (t) 16:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

          Are you serious? Are you really using "we don't have to include all information" as your argumentation now? And then you claim that wikipedia has higher standards than the media. Which is factually wrong, because wikipedia is just a mirror of media consensus (RS) 213.142.96.6 (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • No problem, the shooting was more than a year ago. So it should be ok. All of those requirements are met, 2001:871:237:2B:74AA:AA9B:7865:E84E (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone, please recall that WP:BLP (and WP:BDP) applies to talk pages and noticeboards as well as the articlespace. While it is reasonable to have a discussion about whether this content ought to be included, describing details of alleged crimes without any reliable sources is not. And please note that reliable is a key word here—WP:RSP and WP:RSN are good starting points if you are new to evaluating source reliability. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable sources search at the top of every AFD, if you look at the guy's name you can find what Wikipedia says are reliable sources that mention his criminal record. The first result is: https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/09/11/rittenhouse-victims-records/ Search for the section titled: What’s True — and False — About the Victims’ Criminal Histories and that reliable source covers it. https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/tucker-kyle-rittenhouse-facts-are-different-than-what-we-were-told is the second search results. Many more out there. I think it gets enough coverage to mention it. If the jury said it was self defense because they attacked him, mentioning any violent criminal convictions they had should be mentioned. If the jury was told this information, it should be mentioned in the article about this. Dream Focus 19:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that in discussions about BLP topics, you need to specifically include your sources when describing highly contentious material. The fact that reliable sources may exist is not sufficient, the onus is on people making the claims to include their sources alongside them. I am staying out of the content side of this discussion because I have been helping in an administrative capacity with the BLP issues, and so do not intend to give my opinions on whether the sourcing is sufficient to include these claims. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is Rosenbaum's criminal history a BLP issue, hes been dead for over a year now. DarrellWinkler (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BDP. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 04:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is this material contentious or questionable? There are many reliable sources for it. DarrellWinkler (talk) 04:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crimes against children pretty much always fit the bill of "contentious", and I was asking people to please begin including their reliable sources because until that point they had not been. Again, I am not opining on whether the statements are sufficiently sourced or relevant to be included in the article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 04:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that any crime against any child can not be mentioned in wikipedia? 2001:871:237:AD39:BC3:D71C:15B:641B (talk) 13:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Whatever was reliably sourced (e.g. in WaPO [3]) and important for the case should be included. When I read about this, I was really surprised why did these people act in the crazy way they did? The background information, as provided in WaPo article (this is excellent journalism BTW!) helps to understand these people and obviously should be included to provide the important info for a reader, exactly as the cited article does. Yes, that includes such info as "Joseph Rosenbaum — depressed, homeless and alone — didn’t belong to either side. He had spent most of his adult life in prison for sexual conduct with children when he was 18 and struggled with bipolar disorder. That day, Aug. 25, Rosenbaum was discharged from a Milwaukee hospital following his second suicide attempt in as many months and dumped on the streets of Kenosha." Is that important for a reader of the story? Yes, it is. Censoring such info in effect misinforms the reader.My very best wishes (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An important point here is that people under discussion were not bystanders or merely victims of the crime. They were active participants of the event. If they behave differently, nothing would happen. Without considering this, one can not understand the decision by the jury. My very best wishes (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know what factors the jury used and it's inappropriate to suggest that the criminal histories were part of it. The facts of the case are unrelated to those past crimes and it would be SYNTH to try to connect them. And it's further pointless to suggest that if the victims behaved differently "nothing would happen" because we cannot know that. And it can likewise be said about the shooter. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We do know the jury didnt consider Rosenbaums sexual crimes against young children [4]. DarrellWinkler (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From that (but I'd like to see it from a better RS), it would be fair to say "evidence related to the past criminal convictions of Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz was not allowed to be presented during the trial." This would identify him as a past convicted criminal, but we would not need to go into the details of what those were. --Masem (t) 16:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we do not know what factors the jury used, and it does not matter. It also does not matter for us what materials were or were not presented to the jury. It only matters what RS say about the story, and our description should reflect what the RS say per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

::::"we would not need to go into the details of what those were"? Why not if that is exactly what the best available journalistic RS do? And why they do it? Because that is what a reader would like to know. That WaPo article was written by a real professional. We should follow such example. My very best wishes (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enough of Rosenbaum's criminal history in reliable sources that's its fair game for the article. I dont see why this is so controversial. DarrellWinkler (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is so controversial because wikipedia is inherently biased and there are people who are paid by a SuperPAC right here in this very discussion. It's funny to watch them try to bend rules and definitions just so that they don't have to mention relevant crimes of their favorite criminal. A co-founder of wikipedia himself admits it. 2001:871:237:AD39:BC3:D71C:15B:641B (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rosenbaum's sex offender status is not a rumour, it is a fact backed by reliable sources including CNN. [5] But it was not permitted as evidence, nor were historical videos of Rittenhouse. [6] However, I don't see by what precedent we're not allowed to mention things that weren't evidence in a trial. We have a whole article on a victim of a murder, George Floyd, which covers material unrelated to him being murdered, including historical crimes which had no connection to him being murdered in broad daylight 14 years later. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following content has been added at Alex Saab:

• Before the extradition final ruling took place, Saab's defence team sent letters of support, allegedly from a Catholic bishop near Boston; such dioceses did not exist in Massachusetts. The letters were authored by Rev. Ramos Teixeira, part of a small Massachusetts-based denomination named 'Catholic Church on the Americas', which is not connected to the actual Roman Catholic Church.^[1][2]

It is sourced to two twitter posts. I have removed the content twice ([7] and [8]) but it has been restored. There is a discussion on Alex Saab's talk page about the content at [9]. Disregarding the issue of lack of consensus, there is the issue of using Twitter as a source for claims about third parties. The text makes statements about Saab's defence team and Rev. Ramos Teixeira. Our policy says, among other things, that Twitter "may be used as sources of information about themselves, ... so long as: it does not involve claims about third parties". Burrobert (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ping NoonIcarus Burrobert (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained in the article's talk page, the sourced tweet is from journalist Anatoly Kurmanaev, who has been The New York Times correspondent for Venezuela for a long time and has a verified account in the platform. These changes were also improved later by another editor, without there being any objection. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the content for now as it does not seem reliably sourced or due. Tweets do not have the same editorial oversight and factchecking as published articles from reliable sources, and they also do not provide the same weight when considering what content is WP:DUE. Further, even the tweet says "appears to be", while the text added to the Wikipedia article stated it as a definite fact. I'm not sure what value this adds, but if it is important, then there should probably be better sourcing from something other than Twitter. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS are clear that self-published sources like tweets, even from an expert, can't be used for claims about other living persons. We need to wait until these claims go through the editorial processes of well-regarded reliable sources like the NYT. Woodroar (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst patrolling recent changes, I saw that User:Surabhilak has requested in an edit summary (Special:Diff/1056331089) we suppress details of her marital history (which were referenced to a RS). Normally for a performer trying to massage their information for publicity reasons I would revert, but am concerned that marriage and divorce can be a sensitive topic. Would welcome opinions from those more experienced in the area. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 21:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For convenience: Surabhi Lakshmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 21:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has been claimed that describing Igor Danchenko as "indicted Steele dossier source" in Brookings Institution is a BLP policy violation.

Specifically: In rolling back edits of Brookings Institution in which I described Igor Danchenko as "indicted Steele dossier source" — @SPECIFICO (reversion) and @Valjean (reversion) have described this text as a BLP violation.

1) Insofar as I understand BLP policy, the disputed "indicted Steele dossier source" text is not a BLP violation.

2) *If* the disputed text *was* a BLP policy violation then the place to object to "indicted Steele dossier source" would be in the Igor Danchenko article where description of Danchenko's indictment appears.

3) I've attempted to elicit from @Valjean and @SPECIFICO their reasoning for their claims of a BLP policy violation but I have been unsuccessful.

Am I correct that "... indicted Steele dossier source Igor Danchenko ..." appearing in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution is not a BLP policy violation?

More discussion of this issue can be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brookings_Institution#Former_Brooking_analyst_Igor_Danchenko_was_indicted_for_lying_to_the_FBI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deicas (talk • contribs) 22:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that it is a BLP violation, rather an undue situation. You should be providing sources specifically linking their indictment with the Brookings Institute, otherwise it's undue, and likely synth, to include it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a BLP violation at his bio article, which gives a broad view of his life and work. It is a violation at the Brookings article where this brief characterization of him excludes any more important fact or any fact relevant to his Brookings work. It misrepresents him, a living person. SPECIFICO talk 22:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a BLP violation or that it misrepresents Danchenko, but I think adding it would be undue weight in the Brookings article at the moment. The only place Danchenko's name is in the article at the moment is in a long list of "notable scholars". It would be odd to add an actual conviction to that list, let alone a mere indictment. In addition, the reverted edit almost suggests that he was hired for the reason that he was an indicted source. Whereas, in fact, if my understanding is correct, by the time Danchenko was indicted, he'd already moved on from Brookings. I suspect that we will be hearing more about Brookings related to the Danchenko indictment in the future because from what I understand it's a bit of a nexus of DNC politicos and Russia analysts and the intelligence community, but for now it's too soon. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would consider it a BLP violation, and also UNDUE. The paragraph is a list of people tied to an organization, so shoehorning in negative/controversial details only about Danchenko is the violation. It would be including "adulterer and racist Dr. Seuss" or "killer William S. Burroughs" in simple lists of author names—if those people were alive, that is. (I could think of some contemporary examples but including them here would be, well, BLP violations.) Now, if reliable sources widely connected the Brookings Institution, Igor Danchenko, and him being indicted as a/the Steele dossier source, there might be a case to mention that. But at that point, he wouldn't be just another name in a list. Woodroar (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do exactly this. E.g., [10] Brookings was subpoenaed for personnel files related to Danchenko, possibly among other documents. In addition, unlike Dr. Seuss being an adulterer (which is not what he's best known for), Danchenko is in fact best known for being the subsource of the Steele dossier (who was indicted for lying to the FBI about his sources). So it's not really a sensible comparison. Nevertheless, I don't support inclusion. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean multiple sources that do more than mention the organization a couple of times. The organization, being a source for the dossier, the indictment, all of it should really be the subject of multiple sources before we single out one person in an article about the organization. Woodroar (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per @Woodroar's "if reliable sources widely connected the Brookings Institution, Igor Danchenko, and him being indicted as a/the Steele dossier source, there might be a case to mention that [in the Brookings article]".  Do I understand correctly that were sufficient citations to reliable sources provided that associated Danchenko and Danchenko's indictment to Brooking that this would address UNDUE and BLP claims over the disputed "indicted Steele dossier source" text?

It would seem that the way to address this "a case to mention that [in the Brookings article]" would be to create a new edit that more extensively cites the Danchenko-Danchenko's indictment-Brookings nexus and, if someone reverts the edit we can revisit the issue.  Do I have that right?

——Deicas (talk) 07:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A good approach at this point would be to discuss the sources and allow a consensus to develop. Assuming that they satisfy concerns about BLP/UNDUE/etc., then everyone can agree on the best wording. Even better, extend an olive branch and let someone else add it to the article. Consider this the discuss phase of BRD. Moving back to the bold and revert stages over and over will only lead to more frustration. Woodroar (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deicas, your first paragraph (addressed to Woodroar) makes a legitimate point, but we aren't there yet. What the future brings is unknown. If Brookings Institution is later shown to be involved in wrongdoing in connection with Danchenko and his indictment, then it might be justifiable and necessary to mention his indictment in that article, but we have not yet seen anything in RS to justify such an action. It would require a separate section dealing with the issue there, and that would be far from just the list we're talking about now.

As to your second paragraph, without solid RS justification, trying a new BOLD edit is ill-advised for the following reasons: (1) because you already know that this content is very contentious; (2) there is currently a consensus against including it; (3) the discussion is far from settled at the article talk page or here, so continue discussing. At this point, you need a solid consensus before making any edit to that content. See it as a minefield, and we don't make bold edits in minefields. We discuss and make mistakes on the talk page, not edits in the article.

An alternative to continued discussion is to drop the issue now and bow to consensus. We have already wasted a lot of time on this issue. -- Valjean (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm academically interested in whether this was a BLP violation or if it was proscribed by other policies/guidelines. Regardless, SPECIFICO and Valjean were right to remove the descriptor. Firefangledfeathers 14:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning has been expressed in these comments:

1. "It is notable for Danchenko's article but not for this one. Here it's a WP:COATRACK violation as it isn't about Brookings and is irrelevant in this context. That's what makes it a BLP vio."[11]
2. "Let me leave this to ponder. Maybe instead of calling it a BLP violation HERE at this article, let's just admit it's an example of gratuitous poisoning the well, and thus an editorial violation of NPOV."[12]

I see the inclusion of irrelevant descriptions of Danchenko at the Brookings Institution article as a violation of principles found at BLP, COATRACK, NPOV, UNDUE and poisoning the well. It's a gratuitous and unnecessary editorial attack where it's irrelevant. This is not a situation where a known quack is described as a pusher of pseudoscientific nonsense in their bio article and that description is repeated in an article about the pseudoscience they push. Such mention is justified because it is relevant in both places. This is very different as Danchenko's legal problems are irrelevant at the Brookings article. They are relevant at Igor Danchenko, Steele dossier, Russia investigation origins counter-narrative#Durham inquiry and John Durham#Indictment of Steele dossier source, but not Brookings Institution. Just because something is a fact does not justify using it where it's not relevant. -- Valjean (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean: Are your assertions about "WP:COATRACK", "NPOV, UNDUE and poisoning the well" germane to the discussion, here at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, on the topic of whether a disputed edit is or is not BLP violation?

Shouldn't you take your "WP:COATRACK", "NPOV, UNDUE and poisoning the well" to the article talk page? Deicas (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my assertions are germane to this discussion as they speak directly to the point of this thread. For all the reasons I have mentioned, the "disputed edit" is wrong on many levels. It's a perfect storm of wrong. It's hard to violate so many PAG in one edit, but that's what I see happening. Mind you, I am not accusing you of ill will in doing so. Shit happens, and when the majority of other editors don't agree, it's best to stop flogging a dead horse.

What you wrote above ("I've attempted to elicit from @Valjean and @SPECIFICO their reasoning for their claims of a BLP policy violation but I have been unsuccessful.") is not true. I have indeed previously expressed similar concerns at the Brookings talk page, but apparently to no avail, otherwise we wouldn't have this discussion here. Since you didn't seem to understand my point there, I have followed Einstein's(?) advice (I'm not insane) and explained more thoroughly here than I did there. -- Valjean (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean: You claim that your "assertions are germane to this discussion as they speak directly to the point of this thread"? FALSE. "[T]he point of this thread", here at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard is to evaluate claims of violation of Wikipedia BLP policy.

Your digressions into "WP:COATRACK", "NPOV, UNDUE and poisoning the well" are off-topic in this evaluation of claims of violation of Wikipedia BLP policy. You should take those matters to the Brookings talk page and/or raise those issues at the appropriate notice board.

Please strike out your "best to stop flogging a dead horse", above. That claim is uncivil. Deicas (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did mention BLP above, and throwing the others in hurts nothing. It just makes the case that it is all of those things that make it a BLP violation. A BLP violation nearly always is caused by violations of other PAG. Without those violations, it (generic "it") may not be a BLP violation.

Above I do mention BLP, but you have conveniently left it out (and that smacks of wikilawyering), so here's the full sentence:

"I see the inclusion of irrelevant descriptions of Danchenko at the Brookings Institution article as a violation of principles found at BLP, COATRACK, NPOV, UNDUE and poisoning the well."

The very first thing in that list is BLP, and I'm not going to separate it from the others. Irrelevant mentions of negative facts about Danchenko are smears and BLP violations, even when the facts are true. If it is a context-relevant mention, then it's not a BLP violation. Because it isn't relevant to Brookings, that's what makes it a BLP violation, so my comments are still very on-topic here. -- Valjean (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valjean: With regard to the text in dispute, "indicted Steele dossier source",  you make a number of assertions.  With a view toward clarity, I will address them individually.

1) You assert the the disputed text is  "a WP:COATRACK violation ".  Per WP:COATRACK, " A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that gets away from its nominal subject, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects."  

I don't see how the addition of the 4 words "indicted Steele dossier source" turns Brooking Institution into a "[a] coatrack article".  Please explain your reasoning.  I suspect that your are claiming WP:COATRACK when you should be claiming UNDUE.  

2) You assert that the disputed 4 words are "an example of gratuitous poisoning the well, and thus an editorial violation of NPOV."  "{P]oisoning the well" is not part of Wikipedia policy and does not bear on the disputed 4 words.

3) You assert that the disputed 4 words constitute a NPOV violation.  NPOV policy provides that " All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

Please explain how the disputed 4 four words, which are undisputed FACTS, are unfair or disproportional relative to the entire Brookings institution Article.  Given the extensive coverage of Danchenko's indictment and his connection to the Brookings Institution, surely you're not claiming that the disputed 4 words are not included among "significant views", are you?

4) You assert that the disputed 4 words are UNDUE and "Danchenko's legal problems are irrelevant at the Brookings article". The definition of UNDUE includes " Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."

Given this definition of UNDUE and given the extensive coverage that Danchenko's indictment and his association with Brookings you need to, Valjean, justify you claim of UNDUE and your claim that "Danchenko's legal problems are irrelevant at the Brookings article".  When you make that justification, would you please be sure to quote the provision of WP:UNDUE that you are invoking.

——Deicas (talk) 08:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That's a whole lot of wikilawyering to digest. I fear you're trying desperately to find some very narrow and exceptional sliver of legalistic justification to excuse using irrelevant, negative, and unkind descriptors where they don't belong. That's a classic BLP violation, as well as violating the spirit of COATRACK. There are situations where we are required to include such negative content, but this is not one of them.

While I'd love to use several hours (NOT!!) to explain in detail how I understand those PAG in this situation (Nil Einne really gets it), I will save that time and just cut to the chase. The point of BLP is based in a simple piece of wisdom from Fitzgerald, and I don't give a flying fuck if this is or is not found in the BLP policy. It should be:

"To be kind is more important than to be right." -- F. Scott Fitzgerald

It matters not that you might be able to finagle some legalistic and weird exception (being "right") to justify being unkind to Danchenko. Ask yourself these questions before describing any living person:

1. Is it proper, in this context, to still be factually unkind by piling on irrelevant descriptors? (The spirit of COATRACK.)
2. Is this description unkind? If so, then do RS justify making the edit? NPOV does require that we often write things that are unkind because we are required to describe unpleasant realities in the spirit that those RS do it, but BLP limits if and how we do it. (BLP and WP:Public figure)

That first question is the problem with your addition of those four words. They are irrelevant in the context of the list at Brookings, and that makes them a BLP violation, undue, and coatracking a topic where it doesn't belong (and don't wikilawyer that COATRACK is normally thought of as being about articles). Just be kind, even to Danchenko.

Keep in mind that we don't know why he lied to the FBI. Partisan sources are making much more of this than may be justified. It's just another attempt for them to score more points. The fact is that he had an immunity agreement with the FBI, and yet he lied. That's bad. Some of his lies are consequential because they wasted the FBI's time. Even if he was justified (in other situations) to lie to protect his sources, one does not lie to the FBI and get away with it. Even though he lied, we still aren't sure if it has any effect on whether the lies affect the truth or falsity of some allegations (and many allegations have nothing to do with Danchenko or his sources). AFAIK, even under oath, he didn't deny that the allegations were true. His lies were about sourcing, etc. (But I digress, so enough about that. Kindness is still paramount.)

As I wrote above: "I see the inclusion of irrelevant descriptions of Danchenko at the Brookings Institution article as a violation of principles found at BLP, COATRACK, NPOV, UNDUE and poisoning the well." -- Valjean (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean:  Above you are making false claims of "consensus".  You assert " there is currently a consensus against including it".  Your claim of "consensus" is immediately  belied by your own " the discussion is far from settled at the article talk page or here".  And yet you continue to make false claims of "consensus" — " An alternative to continued discussion is to drop the issue now and bow to consensus."

Please see my comment at your talk page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Valjean#Your_false_claims_of_%22consensus%22

Please strike out or substantiate your accusations, above, that I am engaged  [[WP:Wikilawyering|wikilawyering]]. I am simply attempting to cite and follow Wikipedia policy.  You should do the same.

You assert " There are situations where we are required to include such negative content, but this is not one of them."  Please explain and justify, citing applicable Wikipedia policy(s), for your claim that "this not one of them".

Please don't cite  F. Scott Fitzgerald, that's disruptive.  A quote from Fitzgerald is not Wikipedia policy.  Please base you claims on Wikipedia policy.

Your "[k]eep in mind that we don't know why he lied to the FBI"  and "Kindness is still paramount" are disruptive digressions.  Please strike them out.  That Danshenko was indicted is undisputed.

—Deicas (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean:  If you are going to claim "COATRACK and/or NPOV and/or UNDUE" would you please make those claims clearly?  If you persist with those claims then I will will quote your claims in a filing(s) the applicable content notice board. Don't obfuscate your claims with irrelevant comments like "being kind".

I suggest, @Valjean, in the interest of clarity, that you attempt to write sentences that follow the general form of "As <quotes of provision(s) of a Wikipedia policy(s)>, the disputed 4 words, "indicted Steele dossier source", are unsuitable for inclusion in [[Brookings Institution]] because <reasons>".

—Deicas (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest rather than continuing with whatever you're trying to accomplish here, you look at the thread you started requesting your topic ban be lifted and start providing some assurances that you're done with your disruptive editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ ScottishFinnishRadish: If you are going to accuse me of "disruptive editing", it would be helpful for you to QUOTE one or more of my statements that you believe to be "disruptive editing" and, then, we could discuss the specific merits of your claim.

—Deicas (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to you at User talk:Valjean#Your false claims of "consensus". "Who died and made you king of anything?" (Sara Bareilles) -- Valjean (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deicas: you seem confused about BLP. If someone violates undue, NPOV or even COATRACK in relation to a living person, then this is almost definitely a BLP violation. BLP means we have to make sure we comply with our other policies and guidelines in relation to how we cover living persons, so we do not cause harm by mentioning stuff we shouldn't or mentioning something in a manner which may mislead or confuse readers about the living person. Nil Einne (talk) 05:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne — I'm confused about the sequence and forum in which a claimed BLP policy violation is adjudicated and what constitutes a BLP policy violation. Do I understand correctly that ANY disputed edit that references a living person is adjudicated at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard? And if I dispute @Valjean's "COATRACK, NPOV, UNDUE and poisoning the well" that I should dispute those claims HERE and not at the article's talk page?

Would you please point to the BLP policy that addresses this specific aspect of BLP policy? I'd hoped that there was a bright line policy interpretation to the effect that 'if a fact in a living person's biography is NOT a BLP policy violation then repeating that fact elsewhere in Wikipedia is also NOT a BLP policy violation BUT may meet any of the other myriad of Wikipedia policy reasons to exclude content (eg. WP:UNDUE). It would seem that my hope for a BLP bright line is for naught.

I suspect that, as further revelations about the intersection of persons associated with Brookings and the [13] emerge, that we will be revisiting these issues.

——Deicas (talk) 05:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'll clarify I should have said our content policies and guidelines.

Anyway as for your question have you read BLP? The very first sentence says: Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[a] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: NPOV is one of the 3 core policies listed there. UNDUE weight is a subsection of NPOV. COATTRACK is an essay but it primarily relates to compliance with NPOV and specifically mentions "When a biography of a living person is a coatrack, it is a problem that requires immediate action. Items may be true and sourced, but if a biography of a living person is essentially a coatrack, it needs to be fixed." Yes this part isn't as clear cut about the relevance of material about living persons in articles that aren't biographies but ultimately it's an essay relating as I said mostly to compliance with NPOV. And as BLP itself clearly says it applies to any material about living persons anywhere, including on this page BTW.

In some cases it can be helpful to discuss problems about articles in other places, even if they relate to material on living persons e.g. WP:RSN, WP:FTN or yes even WP:NPOVN but there should be no question about the relevance of BLPN and BLP when the concerns relate to what we say about some living person. There is no bright line, it's never okay to violate our content policies and harm a living person just because you're doing it on some other page or in some way which isn't directly addressed in BLP.

If material about a living person can be covered in one page where it's relevant and in context but cannot be in another page because it's irrelevant and out of context then yes this is a BLP violation. You're violating BLP which clearly says we must get articles right in the parts which concern living persons and ensure we comply with NPOV in relation to material on living persons.

This doesn't mean all such violations should be brought up here or even that it's necessary to bring up BLP. Often discussion on the article talk page is sufficient and if it's not sometimes other noticeboards or dispute mechanisms may be appropriate and it's not necessary to bring up BLP. (For example, in some cases it might be fine to simply start a RfC.) However any editor editing something about a living person should always have BLP at the back of their mind and while it's fine to suggest it might be better to resolve some dispute elsewhere, I don't think it should ever be said that concerns about our coverage of a living person are off-topic on BLPN.

A final point which since the concern here is NPOV which is directly address by BLP is largely irrelevant. But since I said it. If any editor wants to dispute whether violation of other policies besides BLP itself, NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR are BLP violations since it doesn't really mention this (discounting the limited mentions e.g. of our external link guideline). Well I'll first point out it says "We must get the article right". And I'd say getting the article right must include complying with out other policies (and generally our guidelines). It also says "When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies." so again recognition compliance with our content policies for material about living persons is a must.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: Yes. I've read BLP. To my knowledge no aspect of the 4 words under dispute DIRECTLY violate BLP policy; any claimed BLP policy violation would of necessity have to be INDIRECT, as a consequence of another content policy violation (e.g. UNDUE) of the edit under dispute.

——Deicas (talk) 08:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deicas: so you're saying that although BLP says all content about living persons must adhere strictly with NPOV ("must adhere strictly to ..... Wikipedia's three core content policies: NPOV ....."), if content about living person does not adhere strictly with NPOV it is not directly violate BLP even though it's clearly not adhering strictly with a policy BLP explicitly says it must adhere strictly to? In any case, it's largely a moot point. Call it an indirect violation if you want. Ultimately provided you recognise it is a BLP violation I DGAF what you want to call it. The problem is when you claim it isn't a BLP violation because it only violates NPOV, or worse criticise someone for bringing up their belief it is a NPOV violation about a living person on BLPN. (For further clarity, I'm not saying you must agree it is a violation of NPOV. My point is simply that you need to recognise if it is one, since it concerns a living person it is a BLP violation. Whether you want to call it a direct BLP violation, an indirect BLP violation, a NPOV BLP violation, a slight BLP violation or some other form of BLP violation doesn't matter. Although I believe it violates UNDUE, I have no interest in getting involved in this discussion. The only reason I did is due to concerns over seeing you suggest we should not be discussion NPOV violations about living person on BLPN since it's not a BLP violation to violate NPOV in material concerning a living person.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. I did not "claim it isn't a BLP violation because it only violates NPOV"...I claimed that *if* it violated NPOV and if it refered to a living person, only then would it be a BLP violation.

—Deicas (talk) 02:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, I have not seen this much double talk and wikilawyering in a long time. And, yes, wikilawyering is the most accurate and precise term available, and no, it's not supposed to be flattering.

The thing is, Wikipedia policy is not written like nor can be argued like a lawyer would argue law, which is what you're doing. You can't nitpick it apart like that and expect to get anywhere. I always tell people in this situation: it's best to think of policy as being one giant equation, where information must satisfy every part of that equation to be included. In nitpicking, you tend to miss the forest for all the trees.

A big problem you seem to be having is that you incorporate a lot of logical fallacies into your arguments --not the least of which is the confusing way you present them (double speak). These include but are not limited to circular reasoning, cum-hoc fallacy, affirming the disjunct, cherry picking, argument from ignorance, argument from silence, appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, etc., etc... Haven't you noticed your arguments fail to convince others? This is all part of why.

As for the text you want added, I have to question why? It's terrible grammar and very awkward to read, not to mention irrelevant to the article in question. It comes off as puffery, and is just badly written. Without even looking into BLP or NPOV issues, I can say that it sticks out like a sore thumb and seems very out of place in the proposed section. Zaereth (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To flip it around, it would be like adding "and net neutrality supporter" to Mike Wheeler in the same line. Yes, I can produce tons of sources about Wheeler's support of net neutrality when he was at the FCC, but it has nothing to do with the BI, would be out of line given no mention of other aspects of the other people listed, and would seem like being a peacock issue. The ideas argued for inclusion work both ways related to overly positive material about a person. --Masem (t) 02:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, but at least even that is well-written. I read "indicted steel dossier source..." and thought, "what the hell is a steel dossier and how would you possibly indict one?" It came off as patent nonsense, that is, until and only if you decide to click the wikilink. Something like that needs enough context to tell what it's talking about from context alone, or else it's just meaningless jibber. And this is not the place to do that. Not to mention the grammatical construction is awkward and completely disrupts the flow, causing a snag for the reader. Zaereth (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashleigh Barty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Whoever oversees this article repeatedly removes 'Indigenous' from the first line of text, claiming that her heritage is covered (later in the article) in: "She is ranked No. 1 in the world in singles by the Women's Tennis Association (WTA) and is the second Australian WTA singles No. 1 after fellow Indigenous Australian player Evonne Goolagong Cawley." This line of text is easily misinterpreted in regard to her heritage, where the 'fellow' tennis player could be easily interpreted as simply relating to their careers, or even more easily skipped over entirely in reading. It is Wikipedia's role to provide clear biographical information, and it's incredibly important that Indigenous Australians with a platform are recognised for their heritage. There is absolutely no harm that could come with making Barty's heritage clearer, she is a proud Indigenous woman, and we should not be trying to bury that piece of information in a confusingly worded paragraph. I do not understand why the editor keeps erasing edits which clarify Barty's Indigenous heritage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.229.112 (talk) 01:14, 22 Nov 2021 (UTC)

The introductory sentence covers the nationality of the subject, not the heritage or ethnicity. In that regard, the Manual of Style is clear that the first sentence should refer to her as Australian. —C.Fred (talk) 01:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Though I wouldn't put it in the lede sentence, that she represents a group for Indigenous Australian players (due to her being Indigenous) would be reason to have, perhaps in the 2nd lede para, to state she is an Indigenous Australian. That still falls within the MOS aspects. --Masem (t) 02:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: In addition to the sentence the IP already mentioned, which is in the first paragraph, the fourth paragraph notes that she's a National Indigenous Tennis Ambassador. —C.Fred (talk) 03:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, police have a "person of interest" and there is no suspect. The name or any details about this person have not been released. The talk page has a section naming whom they believe to be the suspect. I believe even naming this person is a violation of BLP given how serious the incident is and that nothing has been confirmed by authorities. It's all internet speculation which might be wrong.

• Talk:2021_Waukesha_Christmas_Parade_attack#Perpetrator

Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The person of interest's name has been widely reported by reliable sources, which are cited in the article. The article does not claim that he is a suspect. Bueller 007 (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article does say he was taken into custody which suggests that he is accused under WP:BLPCRIME. What happens when he gets named as the suspect? Should his name be removed then? Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Real Punk Rockers periodically adds unreferenced and incorrect information to this page. He has now included the middle name Gary which is incorrect also clearly misleading and could be used in an identity theft. Since all attempts to reason fail, please could an editor with authority rectify this misrepresentation of a living person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshcolour (talk • contribs) 12:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Real Punk Rockers periodically adds unreferenced and incorrect information to this page. He has now included the middle name Gary which is incorrect also clearly misleading and could be used in an identity theft. Since all attempts to reason fail, please could an editor with authority rectify this misrepresentation of a living person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshcolour (talk • contribs) 12:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the full name (and the date of birth) per WP:BLPPRIVACY. I saw that The Real Punk Rockers (talk · contribs) had been partially blocked from the article for one week, so it may be appropriate to turn that into a permanent partial block. Woodroar (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing that but unfortunately Real Punk Rockers has again reinstated the middle name Gary without any reference point. If this could be dealt with again please because all requests for Real Punk Rocker to provide source material are ignored — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshcolour (talk • contribs) 16:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted. The block should probably be reinstated, per Woodroar. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They're past 3RR now, I'm still reverting, as I assume WP:BLPPRIVACY reverts fall under the BLP exemption to 3RR. If I'm incorrect, someone please let me know. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They have progressed to severe blp violations on their talk and user pages. Needs an immediate block and revdel. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

help with Author's Mikey Walsh biography section- it states that the Author 'suffers from Poor mental health & social anxiety disorder.', but is false information, & the cited links they are using for that statement are for reviews and interviews in regards to authors books, but not on this statement, which makes it false. the Articles belong on the page, as they are, all based on Authors books, and can be added to any other statement in the biography, but the "mental health" statement, has no cited, or truthful base. There are accounts that change this page in bad faith, from casting false cited opinion to even changing the persons name. is there any way more protection can be done? thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.183.168 (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the first 2 sources don't seem to support the claim. The third source I'm not sure but since the quote doesn't seem to and the first two sources didn't I removed the claim. See the article talk page for more. Nil Einne (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious material ✅

about living persons ✅

unsourced ✅

must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page ✅

especially if potentially libellous ✅

Here is the diff that restores the libel https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kenosha_unrest_shooting&diff=prev&oldid=1057268053

67.174.115.222 (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think "murder" should be included in the article, I also don't think it's the kind of contentious information that demands immediate removal from a talk page. People are free to disagree about the moral valence of what happened. If there was some serious doubt about the underlying facts, that would change my analysis, but there is not. Jury verdicts don't determine reality, and people can reasonably disagree with them. So, just my opinion, but I would say article? No. Talk page? Probably not worthy of removing just for that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have trouble thinking of another article where someone was acquitted on all charges and we'd be fine calling them a murderer, even on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a distinct difference where the facts are contested. So--someone who claimed he didn't do the act we certainly could not call a murderer. But as here, we're talking about an interpretation of agreed-upon facts. For what it's worth, I think it's totally hat-worthy as forum territory, I just don't think it demands immediate removal. People may certainly disagree. Dumuzid (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Murder is a term of law. Someone acquitted is, by definition, not a murderer. To call that person a murderer is a pretty severe BLP violation. Someone can disagree with the jury all they want, but they are specifically not a murderer. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a step too far for me, as we use "murder" quite colloquially all the time. I would agree that saying "a jury found the accused guilty of murder" would be a violation, but to say that anytime "murder" is used implies a legal conclusion does not seem apt to me. Moreover, the jury finding simply means that the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. I suspect we will have to agree to disagree on this. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The colloquial use is one thing, but in this circumstance we have We need to stop classifying murder based on a failed justice system, nor what weak lawsuit-avoiding terminology the press uses. This case exemplifies this again. That's literally saying that they are using the legal term, and the article subject is still a murderer, despite the result of a trial. I think there's some wiggle room if the use followed what you're describing, but that is specifically not what we're dealing with here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The word "classifying" gives me slight pause, but overall, I am just not that bothered. Imagine a hypothetical murder case--resulting in acquittal--where a juror is interviewed afterward, and says "Oh, I am pretty sure Dumuzid murdered that guy. I just had some lingering doubts." That strikes me as a perfectly viable stance for a juror, or, indeed, anyone else to take. Dumuzid (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, like you said, agree to disagree. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Totally Forum-y. Should be hatted/removed just as it would be at any other article. Arkon (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(This was auto-archived, not sure why.)

This article appears to be largely edited by one user who has edited only this page. It appears to be a self-promotion, especially the "personal" section that contains a lengthy "defense" against criminal charges.

Some examples:

"By all measures, the I/UCRC center led by Lee was a tremendous success in terms of its technical progress, educational value, and societal impact. with numerous projects garnered practice excellence awards."

"The NSF Office of Inspector General disagreed with the counting of membership. They considered only cash flow into Georgia Tech as membership fee."

"On September 18, 2019 the National Science Foundation General Council issued a final Notice of Administrative Action regarding the NSF Office of the Inspector General Report of Investigation, Unfortunately, U.S. Attorney's office refused to drop charges."

"During sentencing, hospital and academic leaders described Lee as a truly gifted and selfless individual with extraordinary talents, exceptional heart, and full of love for others, who works tirelessly for the community and for the world; an individual who is committed to serving the minorities and the disadvantaged."

"The case is unusual in multiple aspects: The non-compliance of NSF Office of Inspector General investigators; the refusal of U.S. Attorney to dismiss the charges; the repeated denial of Georgia Tech administrators to requests from top U.S. health officials to restore Lee's access to her computers while COVID-19 rages across the country."

The rest of the article also reads like a self-promotion and/or CV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.197.88.101 (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Talk:J. K. Rowling#RFC on how to include her trans-related views (and backlash) in the lead

I am "advertising" this RfC more broadly to relevant pages because someone selectively notified three socio-political wikiprojects that are likely to vote-stack the RfC with a single viewpoint, and the article already has a long history of factional PoV editwarring.

Central matters in this discussion and the threads leading up to it are labeling of Rowling, labeling of commenters on Rowling, why Rowling is notable, what is due or undue in the lead section, and whether quasi-numeric claims like "many", "a few", etc. in this context are legitimate or an OR/WEASEL issue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]