Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

John Ioannidis

In the wikipedia page on professor Ioannidis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ioannidis this claim features notably in the lead text:

"Ioannidis was a prominent opponent of lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic, and he has been accused of promoting conspiracy theories concerning COVID-19 policies and public health and safety measures.[5][6][7][8]"

The claim about conspiracy theories is misleading, uses poor sources (the opinion of one single writer that is even misrepresented), and, since it targets a notable living scientist, thus defamatory. The way it was constructed and added to the lead text is aggravating from a legal perspective and also indicative of a bias entirely orthogonal to Wikipedia's mission of objectivity.

1) The sentence applies misleading citation practises: Upon inspection only 1 of the 4 references actually implies a link to conspiracy theories (David Freedman). Honest editors would put the references to the particularly grave claim on conspiracy theories separately, after these words. This choice of citation method fakes a stronger evidence for the defamatory statement than actually exists (1, not 4).

2) The claim uses poor sources and the claim itself has low credibility: The actual claim turns out upon inspection to be this single (not four) personal witness account: "I saw it on the faces of those medical students. To them Ioannidis may always be the fringe scientist who pumped up a bad study that supported a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory in the middle of a massive health crisis."

So this is a single claim by a single writer (David Freedman) based on his personal reflection not in his own head, which would still not a be notable source, but how he interprets (!) the faces of a group of medical students (!). Aside from being impressed by Freedman's ability to deduce facial expressions at such precision and semantic detail, this is poor sourcing with libellous content, against WIkipedia policies. Noting also that this libbellous content has been repeatedly reintroduced by some actors.

3) Even the claim itself is misrepresented (actual misinformation). The wikipedia text introduced states that Prof. Ioannidis was "accused of promoting conspiracy theories". Beyond the low source quality noted above, the actual statement in the source is "To them Ioannidis may always be the fringe scientist who pumped up a bad study that supported a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory in the middle of a massive health crisis." So the accusation is that he made a study that supported conspiracy theories (a study that is now peer reviewed and published in a leading epidemiology journal, which is - interestingly - omitted, also suggesting lack of objective balance) - not that he promoted conspiracy theories himself, which is entirely different. This is misinformation, and by the way it targets a notable living scientist, thus also defamatory.

I think this case study of wikipedia defamation and multiple violations of good editing conduct is notable enough to be considered in a review on misinformation and biases in Wikipedia pages. It is an important topic both for science and for democracy.

PS - Note that Prof Ioannidis has published hundreds of papers with hundreds of coauthors the last few years - claiming him to be fringe as done elsewhere in the same article is directly disproven by his continued centrality in science publishing, and this claim is also purely opinion-based and fails source credibility, even if it had been true (it is, at the very best, highly debatable as evidenced by his scholar page:

https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=da&user=JiiMY_wAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.49.43.69 (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

There's a lengthy section on his COVID-19 positions later in the article, of which the line in the intro is a fair summary. That's how Wikipedia works. It's fine. XOR'easter (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Is this really ok?

The section on his COVID-19 positions presents one source for the term "conspiracy theory". Quoting the source:

"I saw it on the faces of those medical students. To them Ioannidis may always be the fringe scientist who pumped up a bad study that supported a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory in the middle of a massive health crisis."

This is quoted in the Wiki page as:

"Writing for Wired, David H. Freedman said that the Santa Clara study compromised Ioannidis's previously excellent reputation and meant that future generations of scientists may remember him as "the fringe scientist who pumped up a bad study that supported a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory in the middle of a massive health crisis."

The lead section says:

"Ioannidis was a prominent opponent of lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic, and he has been accused of promoting conspiracy theories concerning COVID-19 policies and public health and safety measures."

This is referenced with four sources. The first source does not use the word "conspiracy theory". The third source does also not use the word "conspiracy theory". The second source is the article already mentioned. The fourth source says that "[f]or many of his colleagues, Ioannidis’ views could support conspiracy theories in the middle of the crisis" but concludes that his views were in the realm of reasonable scientific disagreement and should not be conflated with conspiracy theories or misinformation.

My questions:

1. Does this fulfill NPOV and BLP rules for sourcing and neutrality ("the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each")?

2. Does this sourcing justifiy the claim of having "been accused of promoting conspiracy theories" in the lead section of a living person? 77.8.134.52 (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, seems like a fair – if anything quite mild – summary. Bon courage (talk) 05:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

1. How do you conclude that placing the claim of having "been accused of promoting conspiracy theories" in the lead section represents a viewpoint in proportion to its prominence, as per RSUW?

2. Why do two sources, one of which concludes that Ioannidis is not guilty of having promoted conspiracy theories, justify the claim of having "been accused of promoting conspiracy theories" in the lead section of a living person? Is this really "well sourced," as per BLP? 77.1.184.13 (talk) 10:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems fair to include this in the lede. This falls under WP:PUBLICFIGURE especially in terms of all the sourcing with regards to that claim. And Prof Ioannidis has objectively spent significant amounts of time on conservative media pushing his contrarian figures around COVID-19 statistics. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, plenty of scientists who are excellent in one field end up pushing fringe conspiracies in other fields. Linus Pauling is among the most central biochemists of our time, but his fringe views on Vitamin C curing cancer was pseudoscience in the field of public health. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

So basically: In 2020 a Wired journalist wrote that the medical students at Columbia University may always view Ioannidis as having "supported a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory" [6]. And in 2020 Nassim Nicholas Taleb "indirectly" connected Ioannidis' view to conspiracy theories [8]. And based on these two statements, Ioannidis' Wikipedia page now introduces the reader with the claim that "he was accused of promoting conspiracy theories." And this is done in the lead to represent "a viewpoint in proportion to its prominence", as per RSUW. And the fact that source [8] concludes that Ioannidis' views were in the realm of reasonable scientific disagreement and should not be conflated with conspiracy theories or misinformation is not mentioned, neither in the lead nor anywhere else, even though "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each," as per RSUW. If that's how Wikipedia works, I guess that's how Wikipedia works. 77.1.184.13 (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Yep. The significant amount of COVID-Misinfo he spread is probably also problematic too.

Maybe it would be worth suggesting to change it to "spreading misinfo" or debunked public health stats instead of conspiracy theory. But it is probs WP:DUE to suggest his latest most notable covid denialism stuff Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson (activist)

• 92.19.46.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

extremely concerning abuse of wikipedia rules, user 92.19.46.45 has committed blatant libel and argues they do not need to source their claims that mr robinson is an "international terrorist". as well as this, there are currently discussions in the talk page that the lead is also in violation of multiple rules based on ideological reasons. in lieu of this, an upgrade in protection status is not only warranted but urgently needed in my opinion. below are three of their statements:

   Given that its crimes in multiple countries are considered terrorism, a better start to the article would be.
   <Convicted international terrorist Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon (born 27 November 1982), better known as Tommy Robinson, is a British anti-Islam campaigner and one of the UK’s most dangerous far-right terrorists.>
   We cannot deny that it has committed some serious offences. And even if a reliable source for its terrorist atrocities doesn't currently exist, then one can be made to cite the article after it is edited to make such a declaration. Then we'd have a reliable source to cite, improving the validity of the assertion. It's not like anyone can prove it isn't a terrorist, so that's good enough to strengthen the article. 92.19.46.45 (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

blatant defamation that is in violation of wikipedia rules, warranting the user being permanently banned

Is there any need to give far right conspiracy theories legitimacy while describing the behaviour of vermin? It's like one of its subhuman supporters got to this page and edited those in just to protect a fellow member of its kind. 92.19.46.45 (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

the user is clearly incapable of impartiality

Present any video evidence you have in your possession or sources that have indisputable proof, things that nobody could possibly argue were doctored, or stop spreading conspiracy theories as fact. 92.19.46.45 (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

this last statement is in regards to the user in violation believing that a UK court room finding dozens of men guilty of beating, drugging, and raping 1000s of working class girls not to be sufficient evidence to argue robinson exposed a crime (Telford child sexual exploitation scandal, the Rochdale child sex abuse ring and the Huddersfield grooming gang). they wish to instead remove it until they are (to my potentially and hopefully incorrect understanding) personally provided a video of a child being gangraped. i believe the user may have ulterior, and frankly illegal, motives and should be reported to the police. i would like to encourage moderators to review the discussion personally, as i fear i may have misinterpreted this, but i think it is quite clear what is being asked. if i have misread, i apologise.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NotQualified (talk • contribs) 03:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

BLP applies to talk pages so the IP shouldn't have said that, and looking at their history Special:Contributions/92.19.46.45, I think someone who can deal with responses probably should have a stern word with them or frankly since they've already been told to cut it out, perhaps even a block might be already merited. But to suggest they need to reported to the police is seriously over the top, and violates WP:NLT to boot. Nil Einne (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Well I said something to the IP even gave a CTOP alert given the IP seems to have been around for 3 months. However as implied by my first post, it's unlikely I can deal with any followups. Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

UK court rooms are not evidence, they are a places where evidence is presented as part of a case against persons on trial.Let's just assume that you do have this "proof" on your person/computer and "just don't feel like showing it." Don't worry, I believe you. 89.240.226.91

the user in question is back with their idiosyncratic broken english, lack of an account, and sheer reality denialism NotQualified (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Brendan DuBois

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

Brendan DuBois was very recently arrested and charged with possession of child pornography. Because he is a bestselling author, this has received lots of media coverage (although there's not much to report). Since this is a case of someone who is not a public figure being charged but not yet convicted, I have removed the information from DuBois's article, but perhaps others have different opinions about inclusion. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

if they have an article about them they are a "public figure". you are allowed to say he has allegations and has been arrested and charged but not convicted as that is objectively true NotQualified (talk) 07:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

The ABC or Wikipedia have an article on someone definitely does not make them a public figure. I'm unconvinced DuBois is a public figure, I don't think all notable authors are public figures, the nature of their work means they tend to have to be less self-promotional than actors and the like or musicians and there is often less focus on them as individuals. While he has won some awards and has a notable book, the sources on him seem fairly limited. I don't think his appearances on two game shows is enough self-promotion to make him a public figure. Nil Einne (talk) Nil Einne (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Having looked at the sources, note however that even if DuBois is not a public figure, I think we still have to mention something despite WP:BLPCRIME. Putting aside the severity of the accused crime, since at least one publisher has stopped sales of his books, it's the sort of career impacting accusation that IMO we still have to mention even after serious consideration of excluding. Nil Einne (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Not everyone who is notable is a "public figure". I think some mention is probably warranted in this case regardless, although I think the focus should be on how it has impacted his career rather than the details of the allegations, at least until more information is confirmed. I made an edit in that direction. – notwally (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Piotr Glas

Piotr Glas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Possible BLP vio. Original post by two anons here 25 July 24. A third anon removed "fundamentalist", which has been their since the article's creation. A fourth anon edited / removed questionable content, plus more, giving the current state (diff). Bot and a registered made minor edits in that diff. The fourth anon, 09:37, made no edit summaries nor communicated on their talk page and was blocked 1 week by Drmies. I and Aintabli restored the original edits. Current state is without questionable content plus edits the fourth anon made.
Should this be on the article?
Sources. Not too many found that I thought RS. The first source (below) was added with the original post. I added the second. The third and fourth I found later but did not add.

• "Man charged with sexual offences". States of Jersey Police. Archived from the original on 20 June 2024. Retrieved 30 June 2024.</ref>
• "Former Jersey Catholic priest charged with 10 historic sexual offences against a child on island". ITV. 25 June 2024. Archived from the original on 25 June 2024. Retrieved 29 June 2024.
• "Polski ksiądz oskarżony o ataki seksualne na dzieci. Angielska diecezja potwierdza" [Polish priest in UK accused of sex crimes against minors]. Rzeczpospolita (in Polish). 24 June 2024. Archived from the original on 24 June 2024. Retrieved 11 July 2024.
• "Polish priest in UK accused of sex crimes against minors". Polskie Radio. 25 June 2024. Archived from the original on 11 July 2024. Retrieved 11 July 2024.
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thank you Adakiko (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Adakiko, well, it seems like it is up to us. I just pruned a bunch of stuff--a lot of this material was like fanclub stuff, with YouTube sourcing, poorly written and not to the point. We should, however, be aware of further disruption. Drmies (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

• Forgot to include pagelinks... Adakiko (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Sam Neill

For the article on Sam Neill I have been quoting from his 2023 memoir “Did I ever tell you this”. This is in accord with the Policy page on “Biographies of Living People” which says only that material “challenged or likely to be challenged” shall be supported by neutral sources; but it does not say that quoting from memoirs is forbidden!

But (talk) is saying that this is forbidden. However his memoir would enable me to add (e.g) that he attended Cashmere and Medbury (primary) schools before attending Christs’ College. It would be difficult to find any primary sources for that.Hugo999 (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC) (see my talkpage0

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

This concerns text in an article and should be discussed on the article talk page, not at a user talk page, and not here until after article talk. The comment you received was talking about what is WP:DUE to be mentioned in an article. For example, an autobiography might say that someone climbed a tree when they were five. Mentioning that in the article at Wikipedia would not be DUE, not unless something dramatic happened as a result of the climb. The thing that makes it DUE is when secondary sources describe the incident and its consequences. I don't have an opinion on the issue in this case, but what I have outlined is what needs to be considered. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It was discussed on my talk page (originally) and the article talk page! Hugo999 (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no relevant discussion on article talk apart from the comment you added an hour after my above post. Softlavender posted on your talk because their comment was advice related to your editing. You could get other opinions about that at WP:Teahouse but the issue of whether or not certain text should be added to the article should be discussed on article talk so others can easily see it now, and in the future if it arises again. Johnuniq (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Hugo999, there is no reason to find WP:PRIMARY sources for anything. I'm not sure where you got that idea. What is desirable is sources that are independent of the subject; that is, not written by the subject himself. Please read WP:RS if you have not yet done so. Softlavender (talk) 05:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

For basic, non-controversial biographical details, sourcing them from memoirs or self-published sources can be acceptable. See WP:BLPSELFPUB for guidelines on when that may be appropriate. Independent sourcing is almost always better though. Some of the fluff that was added, such as about the Beatles touring Australia and New Zealand, would not appear to be noteworthy even with independent sourcing [1]. – notwally (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Donald Trump biography contains libel and slander

The biography page of Donald John Trump contains slanderous comments that are unsourced. This should not be allowed according to your own rules. Disturbing. 2605:A601:A908:6E00:B88F:2AA7:F368:C4BC (talk) 11:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Please take a look at the big blue box at the top of this page: matters raised at this noticeboard generally need to have been discussed on the article talkpage first, and be posted here with diffs making clear what the issue is. Unfortunately it's not really possible to address your concern if you haven't provided specifics on what it relates to. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Since you're not giving any specifics, there's nothing to act on, if that matters. However, WP:LEADCITE may be of interest to you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Lenny Krayzelburg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I hope this message finds you well.

The domain LennyKswim.com, previously associated with a swimming school, is now an online casino. The school has rebranded and moved to SwimRightAcademy.com.

Please update any links from LennyKswim.com to SwimRightAcademy.com to direct visitors to the correct site.

For example: http://www.lennykswim.com/about-lenny-krayzelburg.php to https://www.swimrightacademy.com/about-swim-right-academy/ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenny_Krayzelburg#cite_ref-10 )

Thank you for your assistance.

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Андрей Злобин (talk • contribs) 18:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• What should happen first is a search for archived versions. Updates without textual comparisons might prove problematic, and that would take a reference from the archive to start with. I'll have a look. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 20:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, it looks like there was only one change to be made, no talk page history for your inquiry, and nobody has undone the edit. I'm not sure what purpose this post serves, so I'm closing it. JFHJr (㊟) 20:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Information on family of Thomas Matthew Crooks

Should information on his mother and father's political beliefs be included? I personally see it as a serious BLP violation as it is hearsay and irrelevant to his motivation, but can prejudice people towards them. WP:NPF seems to me like we should exclude their information as they are not notable and are not relevant to the incident. Just want to confirm I am correct in this being a BLP violation or if I have misinterpreted policy. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not. WP:NPF and WP: BLPPRIVACY apply EvergreenFir (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, correct - NPF/BLP violation. DeCausa (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not, per @EvergreenFir: and @DeCausa:. KlayCax (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing in BLP says this information should not be allowed. Please quote the part of the policy that says it should be excluded. TFD (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• No, for now, per WP:NPF. However I am open to the possibility that this could change if it becomes clear that the parents, and/or their political beliefs, contributed to their son's actions. But the bar there is fairly high. It would have to be discussed extensively in multiple reliable sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  Why is it required that their political orientation be relevant to their son's actions? The article is called Thomas Matthew Crooks, not Why did Thomas Matthew Crooks try to kill the President? Everything generally reported about his life is relevant to the article about him. TFD (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPF is interesting, but instruction creep of simply applying WP:DUE and WP:V of WP:RS. As long as our coverage of it is proportional to what our sources provide and relevant to the subject of the article (i.e. our sources make the connection, not our editors via WP:OR) then it would seem to me sensible to include it. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Description of "conspiracy theories" and "misinformation" section to "rumors/claims" on the "Attempted assassination of Donald Trump" article

@JPxG: has recently made an edit removing any mention of "conspiracy theories" or "misinformation" from its given section of the article and replaced it with the description that the claims were either "unverified" or "incorrect". WP: NPOV was cited and there were allegations by him that the previous wording was in violation of Wikipedia's policies on neutrality. He has claimed that the words should not be used and that they are "sensationalized POV buzzword[s]... I think is completely unnecessary.".

I interpreted it, along with multiple editors such as @CommunityNotesContributor:, as an edit that implied (along with the other claims made) that there were plausible reasons to suspect that Trump & a right-wing "deep state" was behind the assassination attempt. This is overwhelmingly contradicted in reliable sources and it is entirely in line with WP: NPOV (which doesn't imply neutrality or "not taking a side") to explicitly denounce the given misinformation and conspiracy theories as false in Wikivoice.

As CommunityNotesContributor notes:

I haven't ignored, I've countered. I've asked you to provide references of these so-called "rumours" and you haven't done so. We both know NPOV is about providing both sides of the argument and neutral language to the content, while that section is entirely based on misinformation and conspiracy theories. Probably you don't even realise, but using that language gives a grain of credibility to what is clearly described as false. We are not the adjudicators on whether certain stories are true or false, are role is only to document them based on how the reliable sources describe them, and clearly it's not based on something that is doubtful or unverified (rumours), but instead undoubtedly false (misinformation/conspiracies). I only hope someone changes the header back for accuracy sake at this point, as none of the sources appear to describe "rumours".

Furthermore, as I also wrote on the article's talk page:

And changing it from "conspiracy theories" and "misinformation" to "Many people posted incorrect or unverified claims about the incident on social media" implies that several of the claims have plausibility.

• "Incorrect claims" (which people are going to take as only some of the claims listed)
• "Unverified claims" (which people are going to take as plausible claims)

[e.g. In most versions of English, the removal changes the meaning of the section to essentially state that some of the claims listed in the section have plausible validity]

I'm not asking (and would oppose) the editor who made these changes from being punished. But this seems like a clear, outrageous, and egregious WP: BLP situation and a case where section #7 of WP:3RRNO applies, particularly considering article traffic. I asked for a discussion on the talk page in my original reversion of his radical change to the section, it was immediately reverted, and the changes were reinstated by him before a consensus was reached on the matter.

The full context can be viewed on the article's talk page. Thanks. There definitely should be a conspiracy theory section and it should be listed as unamb. false per policy. KlayCax (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Bizarre action by JPxG, who should be knowledgeable on WP:FRINGE policy by now. These are very clearly conspiracy theories and should be appropriately described as such. Many aren't even conspiracies about Trump himself or negatively disparaging toward him, so BLP isn't the right thing to cite here. This sort of misinformation news reporting and ridiculous claims from people, politicians or otherwise, are common in the aftermath of major events such as these and they should (and are in our articles) described as conspiracy theories. To do otherwise is to violate NPOV and FRINGE.

Edit: This also shouldn't be a left wing or right wing thing. Conspiracy theories have been made in both regards and should be considered conspiracies until there is evidence for any of the claims (which would be a reason to move them out of this article section and put them somewhere else). Silverseren^C 01:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Clearly there are conspiracy theories about this event (running in both directions), and clearly we cover conspiracy theories to the extent that they are reported as such in reliable sources. BD2412 T 01:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, under no circumstance should allegations of "Trump and the Republicans hired crisis actors" be described as "unverified". (After labeling it a misinformation is entirely deleted from the article.)

This is probably the most egregious WP: BLP violation that I've seen in the three years that I have joined Wikipedia.

Off topic for BLPN: but a mention of right/left-wing conspiracy theories is WP: DUE, imo, or at least the type of conspiracy theories given. (False flag v. "Deep state" allowing it to happen.)

It however could probably be trimmed. KlayCax (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You reverted every single edit, and refused all attempts to discuss this, on the basis that none of the edits was acceptable whatsoever in any part. I literally cannot comprehend the claim you are making, then -- you think that the BLP policy requires us to use the specific word "misinformation", and no other word is permitted, when saying that a claim is false? jp×g🗯️ 06:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You are substantially and egregiously misrepresenting virtually everything about this dispute, ranging from the factual content of my edits to the arguments I made, as well as your own claims in repeatedly edit-warring over it. jp×g🗯️ 01:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

What's being misrepresented? KlayCax (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

And, above, I cited WP: 3RRNO rather than saying that there was not an edit conflict. KlayCax (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

If you will recall, what I originally said (at some length) was that this entire section was unnecessary and WP:UNDUE -- we do not actually need to dutifully report every time a crank on twitter says something dumb. Cranks say dumb stuff all the time. It seems extremely predictable that, in the wake of a major political event, right-wing cranks would post right-wing crackpot nonsense, and left-wing cranks would post left-wing crackpot nonsense. There were three full paragraphs being devoted to a deep-dive on every stupid claim that was given even a passing mention, including the false-flag bilge, the NWO bilge, et cetera. This was a top-level subsection! It was being given the same weight in the article as comments from Joe Biden, Pope Francis, Xi Jinping, Macron, Trudeau, Modi, Starmer, every major political party, businessman and spiritual leader combined.

There was one editor who, whenever I brought this up on the talk page, would accuse me of "overthinking". Well, it's not overthinking, it's core content policy. But, regardless, anybody who tried to remove or trim the section was stonewalled, so I decided that rather than keep getting reverted I would just copyedit it. It was written badly, with flowery purple prose about "pushing" and "spreading" stuff that was a "conspiracy theory". But the claims being described this way were not matters of opinion, or really open to interpretation at all: they were very obviously false. There was no reason to do a cutesy dance around saying this with vague innuendo.

This involved moving it to be a second-level subsection of the "reactions" section, after the comments by world leaders and famous figures and media outlets, rather than its own exclusive top-level subsection, and in removing some of the more sensational, editorializing language. For example, if somebody says the Moon is made of cheese, a good way to describe that is to say they "falsely claimed the moon was made of cheese". An extremely bad way to say that is an unreadable wall of buzzwords about "the harmful dangerous toxic treacherous swirling spread of narratives that push, peddle, amplify, carry water for, smack of, are reminiscent of, invoke, incite, reference, and parallel misinformation-disinformation-malinformation linked to and tied to the debunked, discredited, debunked, conspiratorial moon-made-of-cheese trope". This is not only unnecessary and improper, but also unhelpful and unpersuasive.

The thing that you were edit-warring over to change, specifically, was not to remove this section with the false claims at all. Instead, you were repeatedly REMOVING the explicit and objective phrases "incorrect claims" and "unverified claims", and replacing them with the vague buzzwords "misinformation" and "conspiracy theory". I understand that you think those terms sound better, but they are vague and ill-defined -- specifically, "misinformation" is a highly politicized buzzword which even self-proclaimed misinformation think tanks agree is frequently used for POV-pushing.

Since you never bothered to actually try to discuss this, and instead went directly to the phase of edit-warring while falsely accusing me of doing stuff I did not do, you never got to ask me if I would be amenable to simply adding clarifying language later in the subsection. I would have been completely fine with this, and had intended to do so -- I was prevented from doing so because you kept reverting it over and over. jp×g🗯️ 02:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

IMO, those articles about the term "misinformation" are not particularly persuasive. I think most ordinary people interpret it pretty synonymously with "false information/claims". We should just be going with what most sources are using. While I agree that we should try to avoid covering these kinds of crazy claims made online, unfortunately the media is covering them relentlessly right now. – notwally (talk) 04:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you are missing my point: KlayCax's explicit claim is that they are not synonymous, and that calling things "incorrect or unverified claims" means I am actually saying they happened, because I did not use the exact word "misinformation" verbatim.

If there is a consensus that calling a claim "false" is more or less synonymous with calling it "misinformation", and that using one versus the other does not create "BLP" issues, that is completely fine with me -- that is the thing I have been trying to explain the whole time. jp×g🗯️ 06:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

My comment above was addressing your point that "misinformation" and "conspiracy theories" are "vague buzzwords". While "conspiracy theory" is a stronger term that needs more caution than the others, I view the terms like "incorrect claims" or "misinformation" as being basically synonymous. I do not believe any of this involves a BLP violation. – notwally (talk) 06:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

If it's widely supported in reliable sources, we should cover it. If it's not widely reported in reliable sources, we shouldn't cover it. If it's widely called a conspiracy theory in reliable sources, we should call it a conspiracy theory. If it's not widely called a conspiracy theory in reliable sources, we should not call it a conspiracy theory. There, I fixed Wikipedia. Happy editing! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree it should be determined by whether the terms in dispute are widely used by reliable sources. There seems to be a lot of discussion, but not enough of it focused on discussing the actual sources. If a lot of high quality sources are using the terms, then they could be included in the article, although not in excess just to make a point. None of this looks like a BLPN issue though, just a content dispute that needs to be worked out on the talk page. – notwally (talk) 04:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The specific rationale for the edit (e.g. the justification given for why WP:3RR didn't apply) was that describing something as an "incorrect claim" was a BLP violation, but that describing it as "misinformation" wasn't. If there is agreement that this is not the case, then there's really nothing more that has to be said at the BLP noticeboard, and I am happy to have the section closed and return to the talk page. jp×g🗯️ 04:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

No, that's not the TLDR. it was clearly about changing "misinformation and conspiracy theories" to "incorrect or unverified claims". The latter changes the meaning from maliciously false to "truth not verified". Likewise changing the section header to "rumurs", as if WP is some tabloid gossip rap that's documenting alternative theories. I asked you to provide reliable sources for this claim, but you refused to do so. Glad I didn't get further involved at the time as I suspected this would en up as "if you don't appreciate what I'm allowing you to have I'll take it all away", in the guide of a WP:TANTRUM. Anyway, does anyone have a list of relevant diffs? The history page is too long to look through, but I don't understand how KlayCax was the only one edit warring. I understand KC reason for doing so, though don't particularly agree, but what's anyone else's excuse? CNC (talk) 10:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You said "no, that's not it" and then repeated the exact thing I said. At any rate, is there an actual BLP issue, or are we just running out the clock? jp×g🗯️ 10:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you not understand the different between unverified and verified? Per source analysis, the only reference to rumors from one RS was the description of "false rumors" or "unfounded rumors". All other sources have verified that these "unverified rumors" are in fact misinformation and/or conspiracy theories. As someone already pointed out above, describing fringe conspiracy theories as "unverified claims"[2][3] and "rumors"[4][5][6] is clearly against guidelines CNC (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I never used that phrase. You are lying.

Please leave me alone. jp×g🗯️ 11:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Since you're now calling me a liar, I've amended my comment to include the diffs where you describe the content as "unverified claims" and "rumors". "unverified rumors" was shorthand. CNC (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You should never refactor a comment after it has been replied to. If you had diffs to add later, do it as a reply. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Notwally Have added list of sources below analysing terminology usuage per request. CNC (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This type of discussion will pop up now and again, here is an earlier example for the interested: Talk:Francis_Scott_Key_Bridge_collapse/Archive_2#PolitiFact. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: Okay, two things: first of all, I'd recommend CNC and JPxG take a break from this thread, and let others comment here. This is quickly becoming an unreadable mess of two users sniping at each other. Second, I'm not really sure why this is at BLPN and not at the article's talk page, where other interested editors can chime in. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Not the proper venue. If you believe the user is edit warring, consider WP:AN3. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 13:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

List of JPxG diffs List of diffs (14 to 15 July) from jpxg so we're clear about what we're discussing: 20:43: Change of header to "Rumors on social media", summary: "copyedit" [7] 20:46: Changed description: "Misinformation and conspiracy theories about the events have spread widely" to "posted on social media". [8] 22:24: Change header again to "Rumors on social media" and remove description of "misinformation" and "conspiracy theories" [9] 22:26: Drop section to sub-header [10] 22:29: Change "untrue" to "incorrect or unverified" [11] 23:54: Change header for a third time to "Rumors on social media", along with description from "Misinformation and conspiracy theories spread wildly" to "Many people posted incorrect or unverified claims about the incident" [12] 00:11: Wholesale removal of section [13] In this timeline, JpxG began edit warring at 22:24 by restoring original edits, and made the same edit a third time at 23:54. By 00:11, the entire section had been deleted as the edit war had failed to achieve the desired results. CNC (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC) I have no idea why you are posting a list of diffs here, but this has nothing to do with BLP violations, and you are tendentiously bludgeoning the process. You have misleadlingly given seven diffs, and then falsely accused me of "edit-warring". However, almost all of these diffs are me copyediting the section and making unrelated modifications to the text. Changing one word to another, and then changing a different word to another, is not a "revert", nor is it "warring". Removing a section (which I did beause it was being actively accused of severe and urgent BLP violations) is not a revert. The only diffs in this list that are reverts are the third and the sixth. Two reverts is more than I would usually do, but was a somewhat unusual situation. It was an incredibly active article (nearly 3,000 revisions in two days), which caused MediaWiki to act erratically; edits like this citation reformat unintentionally rolled back dozens of previous revisions. Parts of the source code (e.g. image alt text and ref archive URLs) were repeatedly being stripped out by bugs, and ECs were being resolved by force-saving revisions over each other (which would typically undo several unrelated previous edits). As a result, even normal edits to the article were often inadvertently rolled back, and had to be made multiple times (as well as loaded in the edit window multiple times to resolve ECs). jp×g🗯️ 11:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC) I never said you reverted anything in that list, but thanks for clarifying. Changing the same header title three times within three hours is repeatedly overriding other's contributions, there's no ifs or buts about that. CNC (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC) I am beginning to get the impression that you literally do not care whether the things you're saying are true, or even if they make sense -- you are just trying to waste large amounts of my time by forcing me to respond to them, as retaliation for editing a politics article in a way that you disliked. jp×g🗯️ 12:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry to hear you feel forced to respond, I'll AGF that's what you meant rather than accusing me of using force. I can't help you with your feelings, I can only remind you that you are under no obligation to respond and never were. I'd also much prefer not to waste my time with this either, and instead hear opinions other than yours or mine. Especially if you're only going to call me a liar and suggest I'm motivated by retaliation, as this clearly doesn't benefit the discussion. CNC (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Source analysis

Per requested above, here are the list of sources that were used prior to the edit war stable version:

• How conspiracy theories and hate dominated social feeds after assassination attempt on Trump. Described as conspiracy theories as well as disinformation. Not described as "rumors", but "false rumors" or "unfounded rumors" for clarity.
• Top Democratic strategist pushed reporters to consider ‘staged’ shooting archived. "baseless conspiracy is becoming widespread", no reference of rumors.
• Conspiracy theories about the Trump rally shooting flourish online. "Conspiracy theories, false claims and unsupported assertions", no reference of rumors.
• Irakli Kobakhidze: The global war party does not change methods - in the 21st century, liberal fascism, radicalism, polarization, hatred and bloody attacks on politicians have become commonplace in the US and Europe. No reference of anything relevant to discussion, doesn't appear to be a reliable source?

Here are additional sources referenced on the talk page:

• Trump rally shooting draws flood of condemnation, support for the former president, and wild conspiracy theories. "At least one Republican lawmaker is already spreading conspiracy theories about the incident." No reference of "rumors".
• Social Media Platforms Deluged by Unsubstantiated Claims About Trump Rally arhicved. Described as "Unsubstantiated claims" with concern from disinformation experts, no mention of "rumors".
• Misinformation spreads swiftly in hours after Trump rally shooting archived. Described as "conspiracy theories" and "misinformation", no mention of "rumors".
• Trump's assassination attempt ignites new divisions and conspiracy theories. Described as "conspiracy theories", no mention of "rumors".
• Trump assassination attempt a result of the ‘worst negligence in history’ or an ‘inside job’? Conspiracies take flight. Described as "conspiracy theories", no mention of "rumors".
• Cool heads needed as political fringe dwellers spread disinformation after Trump shooting. Described as "hyperbole, lies, conspiracy theories and uninformed nonsense", otherwise referenced as "disinformation", no mention of "rumors".

Some additional sources since yesterday over conspiracy theories and misinformation:

• 'BlueAnon' conspiracy theories flood social media after Trump rally shooting archived. "liberals began flooding social media platforms with conspiracy theories", also referenced as misinformation, concern from disinformation experts, no mention of "rumors".
• Tim Robbins hits out at conspiracy theories linking his film to Trump shooting. Described as "conspiracy theories", no reference to "rumors".

Needless to say, all these so-called "rumors" are described as either conspiracy theories, misinformation, or otherwise condemned/identified as disinformation (ie intentional misinformation, as opposed to potentially unintentional). I even searched for "Trump assassination rumors" and there was only the BBC article referenced above, that as identified refers to "false" or "unfounded rumors" - so as to avoid the implication that they could be true. CNC (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You are on the noticeboard for the biographies of living persons policy, where this discussion was moved, from the talk page of the article, on the explicit basis that it was not a normal content discussion, and it had to be discussed in the context of BLP policy.

Everything you've posted here is irrelevant to that, unless you can provide a specific reason why the Biographies of living persons policy REQUIRES the verbatim use of the exact phrase "misinformation" or "conspiracy theory", and that a claim cannot be described as "incorrect". jp×g🗯️ 11:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It was requested above, clearly because no-one can make an informed opinion on whether there is a breach of guidelines unless source analysis is undertaken per WP:EVALFRINGE. It's been clearly explained to you why describing wild conspiracy theories as "unverified rumors" is a breach of guidelines. If you don't understand that yet, I can't help you. CNC (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide a specific reason why the Biographies of living persons policy REQUIRES the verbatim use of the exact phrase "misinformation" or "conspiracy theory", and a claim cannot be described as "incorrect"? jp×g🗯️ 11:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I've made it clear to you the issue is with describing conspiracy theories (verified as such by RS) as "unverified rumors" (not verified by RS). Per below, I believe this a grapevine issue. You can call a claim incorrect sure, that's just polishing a turd as it were, when misinformation is based on malicious intent, something false isn't necessarily deceptive. Let's allow other people to analysis the sources and see if they people "rumors" is an adequate interpretation or not. CNC (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not the talk page for "Attempted assassination of Donald Trump"; it is the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard. jp×g🗯️ 12:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You can also look at WP:GRAPEVINE for this: "is an original interpretation or analysis of a source". Describing conspiracy theories as rumors is quite clearly original research unsupported by the RS used. CNC (talk) 11:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I did not describe them as "rumors" -- that was a section heading, above a full paragraph, which gave a very clear additional description of the claims, and extremely clearly described them as false.

In no way did I ever, by any thinkable definition, call them "rumors" with no additional qualification. You are lying. jp×g🗯️ 11:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

By describing the header of conspiracy content as "rumors on social media", and edit warring to implement this by including it three times within as many hours, this is the same violation and I think you know this very well. Imagine suggesting changing Moon landing conspiracy theories to Moon landing rumors, under the guise of "POV buzzwords". CNC (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This is false. jp×g🗯️ 12:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You understand that MOS:HEADINGS "generally follow the guidance for article titles" and that MOS:AT is a "recognizable name or description of the topic" (emphasis added). So by repeatedly changing the header, you are describing the content. But sure, just call me a liar if you prefer. CNC (talk) 12:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I have ever seen somebody try to do a Frankenstein veto on a Wikipedia diff before. jp×g🗯️ 12:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a content dispute over word choice, not a BLP violation. All this needs to go back over to the talk page, or else pursue other forms of dispute resolution. I agree with the other editor who suggests that some of the editors take a break from this and focus on the content rather than the other editors with whom they disagree. – notwally (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Cody Ko and Tana Mongeau

YouTuber controversy: Tana Mongeau has alleged that Cody Ko committed statutory rape by having sex with her when she was underage, only 17. The only decent news source that has covered this is this Rolling Stone article. I've reverted coverage of the accusations on Cody Ko's article multiple times because I'm unsure if it conforms to WP:BLPCRIME, so I'm asking for another opinion here (my talk page comment did not receive much attention). — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 04:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the article subject is definitely a public figure. Under WP:PUBLICFIGURE, "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." – notwally (talk) 04:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. Is there any way to stop un-reverts?- — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 04:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You can request page protection, but that should only be if the edits are disruptive and cannot be prevented through any other means. The best way may be to revert edits that are not constructive or do not add new reliable sources while letting the editors know that there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page. – notwally (talk) 04:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see where in the Rolling Stone article she alleges statutory rape. She alleges that she had sex with him when she was 17, and while the Rolling Stone article notes that she lived in California where the age of consent is 18, she does not indicate that the sexual encounter took place within that state. Had they happened to hook up at some meeting in a neighboring state like Nevada where the age of consent is 16, it may well be ill-advised, but not rape and not (as the last version you reverted) "underage". So if we do report on what she said, it has to be on what she said, and not on our assumptions of what it means. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

IMO the Rolling Stone article isn't usable as a source anyway per WP:ROLLINGSTONE. While this might technically be in their culture section, I think it's much more in line with "societally sensitive issues". Even if it's not, we could only use this as a source for Rolling Stone's view of the situation "any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with attribution", which seems irrelevant unless for some reason the article itself becomes a big deal perhaps as happened with the infamous article A Rape on Campus. (To be clear, I'm not suggesting the circumstances are similar just that for good reason the Rolling Stone is largely unusable here.) Since the Rolling Stone seems to be the only putative RS here, we actually have zero RS not one. Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Trump and Russia

The lead of the Donald Trump article says, “A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump." This insinuates that Trump may have conspired or cooperated with that interference, which is contrary to WP:NPOV.

A proposal has been made to add a phrase: "A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump, but did not establish that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with that interference.” No one denies that this is 100% accurate and supported by reliable sources, but some editors (a minority) say at the article talk page that they prefer to maintain the status quo, which is an improper insinuation in the lead, without even including Trump's denial of the thing that's being insinuated.

So this seems like a pretty clear WP:BLP violation, and input here is requested. As a matter of context, note that foreign countries have been interfering in U.S. presidential elections since 1796, and several countries besides Russia interfered in 2016. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

That's a misrepresentation. We have not been disagreeing about those words, but some other addition made without any consensus. The current version is the longstanding consensus version, but now AYW comes along with some weird talk about our version endangering Trump's life. This is weird shit. I'm going to bed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You indicated that you would not accept the language described above. You would not accept it, correct? Just say yes or no, please. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Obviously your answer is “no.” You’ve already said, “leave it be” and “why are you trying to change it for no good reason?” and “We can avoid a lot of controversy by just leaving it that way.” The present language is slanted, it suggests Trump may be a Russian agent or pawn, an antidemocratic traitor, and it deliberately omits evidence to the contrary in the very same Mueller Report. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The current, very longstanding, version doesn't imply anything about Trump or his actions. Nothing at all. It only tells the fact that the Russians interfered in the election to help him win. That's a fact that speaks of Russia's actions, not Trump's actions. That's also from the body, so it's an appropriate mention in the lead.

Why don't you point to the exact words in that sentence in the lead that say or imply anything about what Trump did? You won't find that in the lead, only in the body, and especially in the Mueller report article. It documents how Trump and his campaign welcomed the interference, hid it, lied about it, tried to blame Ukraine for it, and cooperated with it in myriad ways. There is a huge amount of such reliably-sourced content we simply don't mention in that spot in the lead. Be happy for that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the lead is particularly well-written in the article, but I don't think the sentence you mention is a BLP violation. It seems like a stretch to claim that it "insinuates that Trump may have conspired or cooperated with that interference". – notwally (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It very clearly implies that he may have done so. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

No more so than your suggested version indicating that that question was investigated with no proven conclusion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Right, they both do, but the addition tends to indicate that he didn’t commit that treasonous act. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it very clearly doesn't. Maybe you don't think there is enough context in the lead, but that is not the same. In any case, it is not a BLP violation, but a content dispute that should be worked out on the talk page. – notwally (talk) 06:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no "insinuation" and no BLP violation. AYW should stop trying to short-circuit the usual process of resolving the content dispute via discussion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I am uninvolved, but it looks to me like editors have tried and failed to reach consensus at the ATP. The assassination attempt has undoubtedly reduced interest to some extent. How much trying and failing is required before one is allowed to post here? If a "no consensus" RfC result is required, the information at the top of this page should state as much. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This is BLPN, which focuses more on BLP violations than ordinary content disputes. There are other avenues to resolve content disputes if discussions on a talk page are not adequate. – notwally (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLP requires neutrality and mentions “neutral” over a dozen times (e.g. “When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic”). Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

If anything, I would read the proposed alternative as being the one which insinuates that the Trump campaign cooperated with the Russian interference: specifically mentioning in the lead that the investigation was unable to prove the Trump campaign was involved in the Russian interference explicitly draws attention to that possibility! (c.f. Apophasis) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

As I said in my first comment above, foreign interference in U.S. presidential elections has been happening for centuries. Yet AFAIK no presidential candidate or president has had it in their BLP, much less in their lead, except Trump. So a bare statement in this lead that there was interference refers to something that has almost nothing to do with Trump himself, and therefore I would be glad to remove it as undue weight from the lead. But if it stays, then we should include BRIEFLY that he was exonerated to some extent, and in the American system everyone knows that he’s therefore presumed innocent. We already have a sentence which draws undue attention to the matter (including not one but two wiki links), and I disagree that the few more proposed words will cause readers to be any more suspicious of Trump than the existing text makes them….quite the opposite. Do we have many BLP’s at Wikipedia saying the subject was investigated, but omitting that no guilt could be established? Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

A federal investigation widely reported in the news media seems fairly noteworthy, and makes this situation not comparable to past elections. The lead also does not say that the article subject was investigated; it says that Russia interfered in the election to benefit the article subject. Disingenuous arguments are not going to help an already contentious area. In any case, though, multiple editors have commented that this is not a BLPN issue. The discussion should continue at the talk page or you should pursue other avenues of dispute resolution. – notwally (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

There would have been no "special counsel" investigation if they had been just investigating Russia. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

"foreign interference in U.S. presidential elections has been happening for centuries. Yet AFAIK no presidential candidate or president has had it in their BLP"

Regardless of the fact that there are likely reasons why Trump's case is different, and or exceptional, what specific elections are you referring to? DN (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I already mentioned the 1796 election. The 2016 election also seems very pertinent. I gave a link in my first post above. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a BLP violation. It's something subject to consensus that should be discussed on the article talk page not this noticeboard. @Anythingyouwant: you seem to be replying an awful lot here. Please take pains to avoid dominating the discussion. VQuakr (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, you write "exonerated"? Seriously?

AP FACT CHECK: Trump falsely claims Mueller exonerated him:

"THE FACTS: Trump has not been exonerated by Mueller at all. “No,” Mueller said when asked at the hearing whether he had cleared the president of criminal wrongdoing in the investigation that looked into the 2016 Trump campaign’s relations with Russians."

Anythingyouwant, get your facts straight. Trump was anything but innocent. Unfortunately, Mueller was bound by rules that prevented him from even making any finding of criminal actions. He was not allowed to indict Trump, but he collected the evidence and foolishly hoped Congress would act. He did NOT prove that Trump did not "conspire" or "coordinate" with the Russians. He was just unable to prove it beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt, and he did find evidence of lots of actions that would be considered conspiratorial and collusion (Trump Tower meeting, Stone and WikiLeaks, and the secrecy around the message from Russia to the campaign carried by Papadopoulos).

There was a lot of cooperation with the Russians in the form of lying about the interference, hiding it, denying it, myriad secret contacts between Trump campaign members and Russian intelligence agents, back-channel communication, and aiding and abetting the Russian interference. Lots of secrecy there. Even Giuliani could not deny that the campaign colluded with the Russians. He just claimed that Trump himself didn't do it (and no one but a fool would ever believe Giuliani or Trump): "In sharp reversal, Giuliani now claims: 'I never said there was no collusion between the campaign' and Russia" -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m not going to reply to this opus, as I do not want to dominate the discussion. I would, however, like to thank everyone who has joined or will join in this discussion at BLPN, because the issues are considerably clarified, even though I still maintain it’s both a BLP and NPOV violation. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

No opus here... , just a request that you answer the question I asked you far up above:

"Why don't you point to the exact words in that sentence in the lead that say or imply anything about what Trump did?"

Here's the sentence:

"A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump."

We're still clueless about what words in that sentence triggered you so much. Help us understand. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

What I’ve already said is perfectly clear. We describe in the lead that he was investigated (special counsels investigate presidents) without including the outcome (nor his denial BTW). If we were only describing an investigation of some other people then it wouldn’t belong in the lead at this particular BLP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

That's about as clear as mud. You seem to be objecting to what isn't there more than what is there. What is there is about as neutral as possible. Your attempted solution (by adding words that mean something quite different than what Mueller actually said) made it worse, not better. It wasn't an improvement. Mueller did not exonerate Trump or declare him innocent, but you, with your own OR wording, tried to do that. That's not right. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The underlined words in the very first post above are indisputably 100% correct, reliably sourced, not OR at all, and responsive to your own prior complaints. Good night. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Disappearance of Jay Slater

Disappearance of Jay Slater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article is about a British teenager that went missing in Tenerife a month ago, and whose body appears to have been found today (unconfirmed). Per WP:BDP, BLP likely still applies. I've just taken out reference to the missing person's alleged past "legal" issues which had been used to link with social media speculation/conspiracy theories about the disappearance, utilizing SYNTHy sources. Helpful if there were more eyes on this. DeCausa (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected from 7/9 to 7/23. IMO, looks like there is still too much inappropriate speculation/rumors/comparisons in it. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. – notwally (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned the whole thing is really NOTNEWS. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree, this is just ghoulish & with no encyclopedic value. Bon courage (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree. I'm also concerned about some of the BLP aspects of the content of this talk page post. Views? DeCausa (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Rick W. Wright

I'd like for an experienced BLP editor to have a look at this article, its history, and the two articles placed in the EL section. There seem to be serious allegations but, as far as I can tell, for now they are just allegations. The two articles seem to be reliable, so I let them stay, but I'd rather someone else judge if they need to be used for article content. You'll see in the history that I revdeleted unverified accusations pertaining to the same matter three times. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks like a straight BLPCRIME issue to me. They're not really a public figure, and as of now it is just lawsuits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

BLP violations on Trae tha Truth

IP editor added unsourced and potentially libelous content to article for Trae tha Truth, since has been reverted, see changes. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Revisions deleted. – bradv 14:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Shanaz Ibrahim Ahmed

Not sure whether to bring this one here or COIN, but on balance it's BLP concerns. Pshakhasraw (talk · contribs) has made edits to Shanaz Ibrahim Ahmed. Here's a diff of their most recent changes, which are a reversion of my revert of their original changes. I had reverted them because, when I checked the references, I found that in several places the refs did not support the statements they were supposed to reference. I set out some examples of this on the editor's Talk page; here's a diff. I had already posted to the editor's Talk page about a possible CoI, as the image of the subject they had uploaded is tagged own work. They had not responded to this, so I asked them to reply and not to edit the article again until they had. They then reverted my revert, so I've brought it here. As I've said on their Talk page, some of the refs they have added would improve the article, but only if they were actually used to support statements for which they provide evidence. There was definitely room for expansion in the earlier version, but I don't think it helps anyone for it to be in a state where evidence is muddled in this way.

I'll let Pshakhasraw know I have posted over here; it would be good to hear from them. Tacyarg (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Michel DeGraff

• Michel DeGraff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've discovered that the past several months of edits on the page of this contentious (at least at MIT) figure have been carried out entirely by the subject of the page. These are additions, not deletions of misinformation, and seem subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.227.34 (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I cleaned up the article a bit and removed the embedded external links along with some of the unsourced content, including this former gem: "Really, language is a powerful tool for decolonization and liberation, as it is for colonization and domination!" – notwally (talk) 03:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

El Hotzo

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

German satirist who said he wished Trump had been killed, which is legal in the U.S. but may or may not be illegal in Germany. A rare case of major media attention for a living person whose biography is an orphan. I've removed the only glaring BLPvio I saw, but it would be good to get some more pagewatchers at least. And maybe someone can find a way to deörphan. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 01:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Added to a "Notable people" section of his hometown. Watchlisted. I don't have an opinion on the current version, which is at least not obviously undue. For similar reasons, it would be nice to have more eyes on Lea DeLaria. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Is deörphan a term we use? I like it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: User:Tamzin/The diaeresis. Join us! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 23:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. But I think I'll stick to using ö when the word is spelled that way, like "ö". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Added to List of German-language comedians. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

BLP violations on Ali B

IP editor added unsourced and potentially libelous content to article for Ali B, since has been reverted, see changes, changes, changes and changes. --Trade (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Neither unsourced nor libelous. He was convicted of rape and sentenced to two years in prison. The final paragraph of the lead summarizes the criminal cases against him and has cited sources. However, that does not mean it is appropriate to add "convicted rapist" to the short description or the first sentence. – notwally (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Josh McLaurin

Now that McLaurin has weighed in on J.D. Vance's selection as Donald Trump's running mate, his page has been minorly vandalized at least once. If there is a way to flag it to be watched for malicious edits while still allowing regular factual updates, it might be good to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.105.19.174 (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no way to "flag" articles as such, but bringing it to a well-trafficked noticeboard like this is a good way to get eyes on it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

2/14/1994 Carlmont High School shooting

The list says this was a school shooting. The article it links to says it happened on a sidewalk. All of the articles I have found say it did not happen at the school and therefore should be removed. https://www.newspapers.com/image/461582737/?match=1&terms=Edward%20Sims https://www.newspapers.com/image/462128553/?match=1&terms=Edwin%20Sims — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:c71:8160:2c09:66b8:8f4:843 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Please link to the appropriate article. It appears this is List of school shootings in the United States (before 2000) Meters (talk) 06:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not an issue for this board. Please raise it on the article's talk page, or just remove it yourself. Meters (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Kajsa Ekis Ekman

• Kajsa Ekis Ekman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some year ago I first noticed how someone had been editing Ekman’s biography on Wikipedia, in multiple languages, seemingly to undermine her position, by minimizing her work (omitting that she works as an author) and describing her as some kind of troublemaker, focusing on a handful of controversies (which honestly should be part of any person’s life who participates in public debate?). The description in the English version makes it seem Ekman’s sole topic is gender issues, when in reality she is just as likely to debate local, national and international political issues but also history, economics and literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.216.117.145 (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

At a glance, Kajsa Ekis Ekman does not seem to (currently) omit she is an author. If the article is well-written per for example WP:BLP and WP:NPOV is another question, and I have no opinion on that atm. You can read WP:TUTORIAL and start editing, or you can make specific suggestions regarding sourcing, wording, WP:PROPORTION etc at Talk:Kajsa Ekis Ekman. The article is supposed to be a summary of independent WP:RS about her.

Here on en-WP we only deal with issues on en-WP, the same goes for sv-WP etc. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Gordon Brown and allegations of blocking investigations into child exploitation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've just removed a section of the Gordon Brown article on Nazir Afzal's allegation that he sent a circular email in 2008 to police forces telling them not to investigate child exploitation. See this diff for details. I thought of softening the language to make sure it was clear that these were allegations by Afzal, but as the source is an opinion piece[14] I was concerned that could be a violation of BLP policy. There is already a talk page discussion and any advice from BLP knowledgeable editors would be appreciated, see Talk:Gordon Brown#gordon brown home office blocked investigations into sexual exploitation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

What appears to be a highly partisan opinion piece is not going to be an adequate source for this kind of serious allegation against a living person, regardless of attribution. Without much better sourcing, that content is definitely a BLP violation. – notwally (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

the article itself says the BBC somehow were informed. is there any article posted by them on this matter? NotQualified (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Speaking on the Radio 4’s PM programme, Mr Afzal the former North West Prosecutor who reversed a Crown Prosecution Service decision and successfully prosecuted the notorious Rochdale rape gang, said: “You may not know this, but back in 2008 the Home office sent a circular to all police forces in the country saying ‘as far as these young girls who are being exploited in towns and cities, we believe they have made an informed choice about their sexual behaviour and therefore it is not for you police officers to get involved in.’”

TO CLARIFY, THE SOURCE OF THIS CLAIM IS UNVERIFIED AND CANT BE RELIED ON. IT IS BEING POSTED TO ENSURE PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT THE CLAIM, NOT TO ASSERT IT IS TRUE https://www.citizensdawn.com/story/LABOUR~S_COVER~UP~_Gordon_Brown~s_Government_~Urged~_Police_Not_To_Investigate_Muslim_Grooming_Gangs_699 NotQualified (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

some FOIA requests have been made:

"Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Crown Prosecution Service should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review."

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/evidence_to_support_nazir_afzals

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/child_grooming_circular_to_polic NotQualified (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5GM3fkM_uk

this is now objectively true, he had made this claim. NotQualified (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

That is something he said in a quote, but has since back tracked on per his tweets. It's not objectively false to say he said that, but it's deeply misleading to use it as a statement of fact that the circular in question was sent.

As well as many unreliable sources talking about it online, there are countless freedom of information requests from police forces and the civil service (also unreliable for Wikipedia purposes) showing that no such circular exists. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

wait so did he mention why he even said it? i know this is entering conspiracy but it seems to be a very bold and random claim to make on national radio and then walk back on, i cant prove anything but this sounds like silencing. regardless, why did he mention he said it NotQualified (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

If I had to guess is that he was told about the email, was justifiably upset, and mentioned it in an interview - before he received push back and realised that there's no proof such an email ever existed. But that's moving into WP:NOTFORUM territory, as it's not directly related to Wikipedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

yeah plausible NotQualified (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The particular FOI that you note is over due has been replied to (they could not find any such circular, and that reply has been reviewed and itself investigated) it is only overdue as the person asking for the information is not happy with the result. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

oh alright good to know NotQualified (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Back posting this here form the article talk page, similar allegations appear against Jacqui Smith at the bottom of the Home Secretary section. It has better wording, but the ref is a deadlink and I can't find anythjng to back up Afzal allegations (which he appears to not have any faith in himself[15][16]). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I removed the content from that article as well. – notwally (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

> that he sent a circular email

that is not the claim, it's that his home office did. NotQualified (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes he once said that it had been sent, but has later said he doesn't know that any such circular was sent and doesn't believe it would have been sent. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

whyd he even say it NotQualified (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

See my reply above[17]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• This all looks weird. If the allegation is that an email came from the Home Office (and – good grief – this is not a working-from-home 'home office'), why (even assuming the allegation has any weight) is this cropping up in Gordon Brown's article who never even headed the Home Office? Bon courage (talk) 08:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  I can only assume because he was the prime minister at the time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  So, weird. Bon courage (talk) 08:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  yes i put it under gordons and i clarified in the subheading that it was the home office, not brown. it was put under the premiership of his prime minister job section.

  > this is not a working-from-home 'home office'

  yes, but in fairness brown wasnt totally detached from it and if this letter is real id find it hard to believe that brown wouldnt have even known about it NotQualified (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  granted theres no proof he knew, so again i wrote home office NotQualified (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  We don't base article content on what you personally believe. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  i never said you should, ive said the opposite. did either you or bon courage read fully what ive said. it is plausible as this is happening in two talk pages that i said in the other one "dont add it in" but wanted to ask what happened NotQualified (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  hold on i literally said "granted theres no proof he knew, so again i wrote home office" so dont try to frame me for trying to lie in an article NotQualified (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  id find it hard to believe that← Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of weird speculation, particularly about living people. It is beginning to look like you are WP:NOTHERE. Bon courage (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  yeah ive already said over and over not to add it into wikipedia and just said if anyone had twitter to ask him. stop it. NotQualified (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  > "granted theres no proof he knew, so again i wrote home office" NotQualified (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

None of the speculation is relevant. Unless there is better sourcing, no amount of speculation is going to make this content appropriate to include. – notwally (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

never claimed it did NotQualified (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Then you should stop. See WP:FORUM. – notwally (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Iryna Farion

Mellk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) returns [18] negative designation "far-right" to the lead while providing only one source and no info on it in article body.

Other sources do not regard the person as such Gunman wounds nationalist former parliamentarian in Ukraine's Lviv | Reuters . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

It is already mentioned that she was with a far-right party and idolized Stepan Bandera. There is nothing controversial about the far-right label. Even Ukrainian sources do not dispute this label.[19] Mind you this is from the same editor who disputed that Bandera collaborated with the Nazis. Mellk (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's the only source used to support the designation, and it is not enough.
already mentioned that she was with a far-right party and idolized Stepan Bandera
Well that's not the text you added to the lead. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Contentious labels should only be used in Wikipedia's voice if they are widely used by reliable sources per MOS:LABEL. If many sources are using the label, then cite them in the article or discuss them on the talk page. Per WP:ONUS, the content should not be included unless consensus can be reached for its inclusion. – notwally (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

"... the leadership of the party, including Tiahnybok, Iryna Farion, and Iurii Mykhailyshyn, admire Donstov and share his anti-Semitic and fascistic views."[20] The Reuters source calls her nationalist anyway. There was no reason given for removing "nationalist". Mellk (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Mind you this is from the same editor who disputed that Bandera collaborated with the Nazis.
Somebody to shield me from such a violation of Wikipedia:Personal attacks? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack when that is precisely what you disputed at the top of the talk page on that article. This is another claim of personal attacks without merit.[21] Mellk (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

This page in a nutshell: Comment on content, not the contributors WP:PA . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

You pinged me along with all user links at the very start of this topic you just created at the BLP noticeboard, talk about not making discussions personalized. Now, can you explain the removal of "nationalist" when your own source says this (along with the already provided source)? Mellk (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• I'm unsure as to why calling a politician who was a member of a far-right party "far-right" is contentious? Anyway, New York Times Divisive Far-Right Politician in Ukraine Is Fatally Shot, or Kyiv Post Iryna Farion, a linguist and far-right former politician... and there are many more. However, the epithet "ultra-nationalist" and similar do seem to be used in place of "far-right" in many places. Black Kite (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • The objection is from the fact that none of that is in the article. If content justifying its use with multiple sources is included in the body, then it wouldn't be an issue. However, I don't think including "far-right" as a label in the lead sentence cited to a single source with nothing addressing it in the body complies with MOS:LABEL. – notwally (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

    There is now additional detail about the nationalist/far-right label in the body. Do you oppose the "far-right" label still? Alternatively it may be possible to use "ultranationalist". Mellk (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

    I'm concerned that the three cited sources describing the article subject as "far-right" appear to be basically the only sources that use that term, at least for English-language sources. I'm not sure where the claim that "there are many more" sources using the term "far-right" comes from, because I can only find a law student paper [22] and a German public broadcaster, Deutsche Welle [23]. The only other sources I could find are reprints of the NYT article. Similarly, only the Kyiv Post and Kyiv Independent appear to use the term "ultranationalist", and they are the same sources using the term "far-right". On the other hand, "nationalist" appears to be a widely used term in numerous high quality sources. While I think "far-right" with its sourcing is appropriate in the body, I don't think the same can be said for the lead when the overwhelming majority of sources do not use that term and instead use different descriptors for the article subject's political views. At this point, it seems like this is more an issue of WP:DUE than a BLP violation. – notwally (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

    Then what about keeping "nationalist" but referring to the party as far-right? Even those sources that do not call her explicitly a far-right politician, still refer to her as being a member of a far-right party. Mellk (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

    Why use the term "far-right" when even the Svoboda (political party) page does not use that term as the primary descriptor, instead mentioning it along with several others? According to Reuters, "Expert opinions on Svoboda in particular are divided." [24] The fact that it appears the term "far-right" is one of the preferred terms of the Russian government also gives me pause. "Nationalist" certainly seems appropriate. It may be more helpful to the reader to explain some of this in prose, similar to the Svoboda party article, rather than trying to force it into the lead sentence as the primary descriptor of the article subject. – notwally (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

    "Expert opinions on Svoboda" are divided on whether it is a fascist party or not, as the source says. Far-right is not disputed.[25] Regardless, ultranationalism falls under far-right politics. "One of the preferred terms of the Russian government" -- Svoboda now is a minor party with little influence these days so if you are concerned that this will falsely paint Ukraine as a neo-Nazi state, then you are sorely mistaken. The issue here is that "nationalist" is not precise. As mentioned in the Reuters article you linked, opinions vary from radical nationalist i.e. ultranationalist to neo-fascist. Mellk (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

    In addition, propaganda sites like RT call her a neo-Nazi, if you are wondering what the "preferred terms" are. Mellk (talk) 13:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Cass Review

In response to an editor citing an article in The Economist on Talk:Cass Review, editor VintageVernacular added text that constitutes a negative personal attack on the author of that Economist article that I feel breaches BLP. There's an insinuation there that I'm not going to repeat. Our Wikipedia article on this author doesn't mention this. I removed it. But VintageVernatular has put it back. Even without the BLP violation concerns, the comment adds nothing to the discussion, so I think should be removed entirely and the editor enlightened about our policies. This is a contentious topic article. Thanks. -- Colin°^Talk 09:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually it did add to the discussion, seeing as I was questioning the credibility of the writer (who has a Wikipedia article, and despite being published in an economics journal he is not a scientist but rather holds a degree in "public affairs") being cited to judge scientific rigor. I represented his claim one hundred percent accurately (as you may have seen if you followed his blog link he attached to the post I cited), which is not a negative personal attack. Colin on the other hand has been repeatedly reducing the expertise of a neuroscience postdoc on that talk page to that of a "monkey researcher" based on their publication of one or two papers to that effect, make of that what you will. VintageVernacular (talk) 10:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Singal appears to be referring to this article by Herzog where she's saying that Epstein isn't a pedophile in the strict sense. This is 'true', but the counter argument would be the common usage and meaning of pedophile is correct in general discourse. So he not saying that Epstein isn't what would generally be called a pedophile, but that he isn't in the medical diagnostic sense. Or rather he is pointing out that Herzog saying that isn't untrue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I question whether even that is a "mainstream scientific opinion" rather than a taxonomy proposed by a small milieu of sexologists mostly out of one institution, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (and even in that taxonomy, he may be quite wrong based on some testimonies about JE). Though that's not what was being contested. What I said was accurate to the point of fair comment. He's written quite a few articles, blog posts about this general topic, spoken on his podcast about it. Frankly, Colin assuming my comment was a likely BLP violation only highlights that Singal makes such highly controversial assertions about scientific consensus, that it warranted my questioning his capability to judge scientific rigor. VintageVernacular (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

wp:blp mostly applies to articles not talkspace

in general as long as your not doxxing someone and publishing there address or something, you can discuss sourcing on talkspace.

do not revert talkspace. see wp:tpo. there are times you can revert it but this was not it Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The opening sentence at WP:BLP: Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts. Schazjmd (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

ah well damn i should read a bit more.

ahh, i think wp:BLPTALK applies more here. in general, i think bonafide discussions about what is appropriate should not be censored on talk page. and the claim had at lease one link if im looking at diff that supported it.

i know the proof of burden of including the claim on article space is a bit higher but we shouldnt stop talking about whether someone is an appropriate source on talk page just because we think we will hurt someones reputation on the off chance a random reader stops by the talk page Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Contentious claims about living person even in relation to their use as a source, still need to back up by a source. If it isn't in our article, editors really should provide sources. But also challenging someone's use as a source should never be a free for all. For example, if we are using person A as a source on whether an exoplanet can sustain life, it's unlikely to be appropriate for an editor to say we shouldn't use person A as a source because they're a racist. I mean I don't personally likely using racists as source either, but it's of very limited value in determining if someone can be trusted on whether an exoplanet might sustain life. Nil Einne (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that someone's character has implications on whether they can be trusted as a source. If you say enough stupid things, people aren't going to listen to you on anything. And are you saying VintageVernacular didn't back up their claim? Singal's tweet was linked in the comment. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The Economist writes in an institutional voice, without attribution to its journalists as individuals, which makes the personal tweets of its contributors extra-specially irrelevant. I’m not sure the offending edit rises to be strictly libellous, but it’s a really low-quality smear, both in the sense of being wrong (because despite the word being hurled freely at political enemies, it does have an actual medical meaning which Singal was completely correct to point out), and in the sense that contentious topics talk pages need higher standards of discourse than “this source is unreliable because it’s associated with someone who wrote a tweet 5 years ago about someone else who wrote an article which contained something I disagreed with.” Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Is Singal a doctor capable of performing medical (non-)diagnoses without directly examining a subject? Further a 2020 lawsuit alleged Epstein abused girls at least as young as 11, and one accuser states he wanted "as young as I could find them". Singal's lack of medical expertise may already be reason enough to question his reliability as a source on medical matters. But I can see why that doesn't apply in at least some cases. So if I were to drive the point home, him making these kinds of brazen declarations on medicine well outside his purview, would be one thing to point to, as I did. VintageVernacular (talk) 08:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It is quite reasonable to state that someone is not a pedophile in the medical sense if there has been no medical diagnosis of pedophilia. You don't need to be a doctor to notice that no doctor has made that diagnosis. You also don't need to be a doctor to write an article in the Economist about an organisation trying to gatekeep potentially-unfavourable research findings. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a violation of BLP here, since VV's comment doesn't contain any accusations against Singal, merely a difference of opinion. For the same reason, though, it's not really a useful comment. It shouldn't have been made, shouldn't have been removed, shouldn't have been restored, and shouldn't have been brought here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 16:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Boogie2988 fake cancer accusation. Is this a BLP violation?

The ever-controversial Boogie2988 revealed he had cancer not too long ago. Recently there's been an accusation from streamer Destiny that this was fake, which has made the news on some websites. This accusation is mentioned at Boogie2988#Personal_life.

Athough it's caused quite the controversy in the past couple of weeks, I'm wondering if this is a BLP violation. It seems to me to be WP:UNDUE to be included in Boogie's article while it's only an accusation from another streamer (someone who is not a medical expert). It also seems to be putting a lot of faith in Destiny's interpretation of Boogie's diagnosis. Right now there's no proof at all that he's faked this diagnosis – it's just an accusation from a streamer.

Should this be removed? — Czello ^(music) 08:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes. WP:SPORTSKEEDA is the only cited source, so I think it has no due weight. VintageVernacular (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Even if a better quality source were included, am I correct in thinking it should still not be included based on a mere accusation from a streamer? — Czello ^(music) 08:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the whole bit about cancer should be removed. The only source for the subject having cancer is a tweet by the subject and they have proven themselves to be far from reliable. I think WP:BLP would have us remove the whole lot until reliable secondary sources say anything about it. TarnishedPath^talk 11:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Repeating what I said on the talk page:

It seems reasonable to me to say "he said he had been diagnosed with polycythemia vera" (rather than simply "he was diagnosed") as we're putting the emphasis on the fact that this is according to him. — Czello ^(music) 13:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps we should specify that it's a claim, rather than saying that "he said ..." TarnishedPath^talk 13:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

That's a WP:CLAIM issue, trying to cast doubt based on material from an inappropriate source. "Said" should be fine. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Well if we're clear that it's an inappropriate source, and it's not been covered by reliable secondary sources then it has probably has no place in the article because it's not at all significant. TarnishedPath^talk 13:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see what benefit that would add; it's less neutral wording. — Czello ^(music) 13:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Bai Ling

An IP has shown up at Bai Ling claiming to represent the subject and removed a significant chunk of information [26][27]. Given the context and need to get it right I feel that a centralized discussion is proper. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Ralph DeLuca

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

This article has not yet been indexed - apologies if this is not the correct place to check about this. I have added its relevant categories, as requested on the bottom.

Thank you for your time in advance.

Prince Gharios El Chemor of Ghassan Al-Numan VIII

The Prince Gharios El Chemor of Ghassan Al-Numan VIII isn't named correctly and is a complete PR/puff page with self-published sources, press releases, purchased awards, and myriad other issues. I looked up a bunch of policies to help clean it up but in the end I don't know what to do about it, given it's still just a complete mess, the entire title is fake, and is maintained by an SPA. Help? --164.64.118.102 (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)