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.

Patricia Marroquin Norby

Patricia Marroquin Norby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is an attempt to state that Norby is a pretender or self-identified indigenous person. The information is based upon a [[1]New York Post] article and Tribal Alliance Against Frauds non-profit press release. It is a continuing trend to out people they claim are not Native Americans because they are not citizens of reservations.[2][3] See the talk page: Talk:Patricia Marroquin Norby, most specifically #Indigenous woman and #Reverted edits, where I have made the same points in this next article.

I just went through a long bout on the Lillie Rosa Minoka Hill (talk) article where the two editors claimed that she was not of Mohawk heritage, even though there were sources. And, that she wasn't the second Native American woman physician, although there were lots of sources, no one who claimed to have that accomplishment in 150 years, and recent identification of the accomplishment.

I believe this ties back to whether there is a complete Draft:Native American definition, so I drafted one. The big stumbling block is whether only people who are citizens of reservations can call themselves Native Americans.

Other articles have been updated with the "self-identified" tag - without sources - and making it sound like the person it trying to scam someone. Maybe that's so. If it is, then it would be great to get everyone on the same page. I fear, though, that people are being victimized.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I removed the piped label above.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• MOS:CITIZEN states "Native American and Indigenous Canadian status is based on citizenship, not ethnicity. Indigenous persons' citizenship can be listed parenthetically, or as a clause after their names". She has no proof of citizenship and when that happens, their claims are stated as self-identifying, it's not defaming or anything negative, just stating the facts since she isn't enrolled or claimed by a tribal nation. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Determining Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 03:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson In the reading comprehension department, I actually never claimed that Hill was not of Mohawk descent nor did I insert such a claim into the article. I clarified that she was not a St. Regis Mohawk citizen and that she self-identified as a Mohawk descendant without proof. Because that is what available sources indicate. She may very well have Mohawk ancestry. There's simply no verification. You keep asserting without evidence that the term "self-identified" is meant to defame or to insinuate that a person doesn't have Native heritage. That's false. It certainly does not imply that someone is a scammer; that is an imagined insinuation. That is not what self-identified means. By reading the Indigenous WikiProject guidance on these matters and through the numerous conversations you have participated in, you should know that at this point. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I am here to help the noticeboard anyway that I can and to explain anything that is unclear to them.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Great. You can explain to them that you were mistaken and that I never claimed that Minoka Hill doesn't have Mohawk ancestry. I claimed it was uncertain. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 06:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Neither WP:NYPOST nor Tribal Alliance against Frauds are considered RS. How do reliable sources actually describe Norby's heritage or ancestry. Do they qualify it as self-identification or do they actually state that is what her heritage is. This is not the first rodeo for the noticeboard in editors arguing to prove or disqualify whether people are described as from some particular tribe while being challenged as not being a member of the tribe. Keep in mind WP:RGW. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

According to Norby herself, many prominent Native women (America Meredith, Suzan Harjo, Nancy Mithlo, Tahnee Ahtoneharjo-Growingthunder, Jacqueline Keeler) have been speaking out about her claims, so I can only imagine more reliable sources will be published soon. Wikipedia can accurately write about these kinds of claims if you see Buffy Sainte-Marie#Claim of Indigenous identity as an example. Wikipedia isn't censored and no one is attempting to use NYP or the TAAF website to edit her article.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 08:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Oncamera: when such sources are published we definitely should add them but until they do it is too soon to try and change the article just because sources may eventually be published. An absence of sources is no better than using NYPOST or TAAF. I had a look and AFAICT, none of the sources say anything about identifying or self-identifying. Therefore such a wording is in clear violation of BLP, and editors need to cut that shit out lest they are blocked. The sources say "Patricia Marroquin Norby (Purépecha)", "Patricia Marroquin Norby, of the Purépecha people" and "suppressed her Purepeche (sic) and Apache ancestry". I have not looked at any of the guidelines but Wikipedia guidelines cannot override BLP (or any policy). If there is some guideline which tries to override BLP, editors need to fix it right now. If editors do not do so and it's a Wikiproject guideline I'll probably just take it to WP:MFD since I'm not interested in dealing with a Wikiproject which thinks it acceptable to violate BLP. I can completely understand why this is a sensitive issue and we definitely do need to look at ways we can handle it better. But this cannot be by sacrificing BLP and allow unsourced claims to be added. Instead, solutions might include relying only on top-notch sources before we add claims of indigenous identity, perhaps even excluding sources normally considered excellent if they persistently to a bad job on reporting on such issues. But ultimately Morbidthoughts, is right that WP:RGW has to come into play. There is a limit to what we can do, and it's likely in the near future we will continue to report on claims which might be inaccurate as if they are correct simply because it's what all RS say. People who are concerned about such issues need to take it up outside Wikipedia e.g. by trying to convince RS to do a better job, convince them to publish articles questioning unsupported claims etc. That is how you correct such problems not by trying to change Wikipedia to allow poorly sourced or unsourced claims to be made. Nil Einne (talk) 11:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Nil Einne Regarding I have not looked at any of the guidelines but Wikipedia guidelines cannot override BLP (or any policy). I have not seen a policy or guideline about Native or Indigenous people that goes against BLP. There's an essay WP:NDNID, but I don't think that's totally accurate and when it discusses people, it goes into self-identification. That has been the source used to convince me that we can use self-identification.

I am understanding from this post that the key point is what reliable sources say and I am inferring that we don't necessarily need guidelines created (Discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America#Written guidelines and I could have probably handled it better), like the definition of Native American/Indigenous person, or the MOS:CITIZEN updated, I think the verbiage needs to be reviewed for Canada. Even though this seems to be an ongoing battle, there seems to be resistance in creating guidelines. But perhaps that's not needed if we rely on the content coming from reliable sources. Is that right? (made an edit about written guidelines in parenthesis and signed again).–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Please quote which language within BLP backs up your claim. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

You start with the very beginning that "Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies" and read the part about "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." One of the core content policies, WP:OR prohibits "any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources". Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts If someone self-identifies as being of Native American descent and you mention that they self-identify as being of Native American descent in the article based on reliable sources, that isn't Original Research. It is sourced material. Saying that someone self-identifies as being of Native American descent is not an "allegation", it is a statement of fact. Self-identification doesn't imply anything other than that they self-identify as being of Native American descent. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

No, if reliable sources do not explicitly mention self-identification, then it is original research to presume self-identification and present it as such. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The self-identification is person X saying they have Y descent. The are enacting self-identification by identifying as Y or Y descent. Yuchitown (talk) 03:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts No, it isn't original research. If someone says "I'm Apache", then they self-identify as Apache, by definition. Self-identification is one of the components of an Indigenous identity. If someone identifies as Indigenous without any proof of citizenship or tribal affiliation or descent, that's self-identification. We can note that self-identification. We cannot claim that it is verified if it has not been. We cannot include the claim that they are Apache or that they are an Apache descendant, because we have no source for it. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 03:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Inserting a premise that is not mentioned in the source is original research. WP:WABBITSEASON Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts The premise is mentioned in the source: their identity as Native or as a Native descendant. If they claim Native ancestry, that is their identity. The exact word "identify" doesn't need to be used. Wikipedia:PEDANTRY: "there is no need to verify statements that are obvious." Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

If the RSes like the New York Times[4] are stating that she is of Purépecha heritage, then that's how it should be presented in the wikipedia article without any additional qualifiers. WP:DEADHORSE Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts The New York Times is not actually a reliable source for determining Indigenous identity: "Unfortunately, sources that Wikipedians usually regard as reliable, such as mainstream newspapers "of record", may also fail to fact check on Native identity, especially if it is not an in-depth profile on the individual themselves. Even The New York Times has interviewed people for articles on Native topics and falsely reported, multiple times, that non-Native people are Native — simply taking the subject at their word with no fact-checking." Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

You can argue that until the cow comes home. That Wikiproject does not set policy nor guidelines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts What evidence do you have that a publication riddled with inaccuracies like the New York Times is a reliable source on determining Indigenous identity? The NYT's routine promotion of Indigenous-related falsehoods says the opposite. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 05:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I trust The New York Times on its reliability over anything you have to say, especially when it's clear from these edit summaries[5][6] what you are intending to express with edits to BLP articles on self-identification.[7][8] These are obvious edits to WP:RGW. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts Civility, please. Assume good faith, please. Please stick to the substance of my questions rather than insulting me or making accusations against me. The general reliability of NYT does not make it reliable on Native issues specifically, as demonstrated by NYT's repeated publishing of falsehoods without any attempt at verification. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

If you're going to say a source like the NYT should not be used for reporting on native issues, that absolutely requires a consensus at WP:RSN or similar. That's not something a wiki project with a half-dozen active members can decide for the entire project. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

People are vastly overthinking this. Citizenship is based on legality. If there are no reliable sources we dont state as a fact they are a citizen of X polity. Re ethnicity/cultural heritage, if there are reliable sources that state they are of X, we state with fact they are of X. If there are no reliable sources that state it as fact, we use what they do say, or finally absent any reliable sources, we use what the subject themselves says attributed to them in a neutral fashion. "Subject claims descent of X" "Subject states they are descended from X". We do not use words like "Subject self-identifies as X" unless a reliable source explicitly does because that is a wording that says "subject says they are X and nothing else backs it up" which relies on facts not known. It is not difficult to phrase how someone describes their heritage without falling into judgemental value language, its done elsewhere all the time. If necessary quote the source directly and make it clear its a quote. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, great, that certainly makes life a lot easier.

And, I am assuming that I can use the information from this post to make edits to remove the self-identification language from the essay WP:NDNID, except where reliable sources explicitly say that they self-identify?–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC) There's a link from MOS:CITIZEN to the essay.–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Only in death, I've always saw this as a potential path forward. But what is considered a reliable source on Indigenous identity. Most of these so called reliable sources are just accepting primary evidence (the subjects own described identity) without giving it another thought (i.e. self-identification). Self-identification is a real term used by many organizations such as the UN. What do we call it when one identifies as being something but only their voice, whether through interviews, non-Native media or self-published sources is the only source for such a claim? They could use what is posted on Wikipedia as some legitimacy to point to in order to profit off Indigenous communities. I don't think Wikipedia should be legitimizing unverified claims from sources that have no way or desire to investigate such claims. The stealing of Indigenous identity to profit is not a new concept and is not one I can say I would be proud to be a part of enabling here or anywhere. In my view point it would not be honouring to myself or my heritage. That is just one aspect that makes defining identity complex. The ramifications are potentially huge and far more damaging to Indigenous cultures than for other cultures. I am open to discussion and further thought on this. I don't have the answers. I know what I believe and it doesn't always line up with Wikipedia but I will always follow consensus when it is gained through policy or discussion absent policy. Even if I don't like it. --ARoseWolf 12:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Not our job to worry about it as wikipedia editors beyond 'is the source reliable'. If thats a genuine concern, then there should be a discussion about that source on that topic. But thats not what is happening across the articles here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with Only in death here; it's not our job to police sources or put scare quotes on BLP's statements in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we just report what they say. If reliable sources cast doubt on the heritage claims of Norby, then we make the article reflect it. Otherwise this is all bog-standard BLP violations for axe-grinding purposes, and misapplication of WP:CITIZEN. And WP:NATIVE-IDENTITY is obviously an essay that has not undergone wider scrutiny and really shouldn't be used to justify anything here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

We police sources all the time. I'm sure we all have seen arguments on talk pages discussing the quality of sources and determining WP:DUE based on the credibility of sourcing. Who is axe-grinding? --ARoseWolf 15:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

We determine if sources are reliable or if they're due weight, but that's not what's being discussed here; it's whether if, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we can decide to use Wikipedia's voice to intimate a source is lying in an interview, because of ideological considerations. Oncamera and Bohemian Baltimore certainly seem to have sharp implements out, if they're trying to put into wiki voice statements that are not in text. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

So back to this article. "Subject claims descent of X" was actually proposed by Only in death as neutral. "Subject identifies as being of X decent" is what is was reverted by Morbidthoughts. To write "claims" is more neutral than "identifies"?

So Artnews and uwalumni.com (first two sources) are now reliable sources for Indigenous identity? The third source, a newspaper article from 2006, doesn't really say Patricia is a member and citizen of the Purépecha people, only that it is her heritage and she is descended from, which the article states now. It isn't a matter of lying, please don't conflate what I am saying. What I am saying is a tribal source connected with the Purépecha and Apache people should be the ones determining whether she is one of them definitively. Not an art website or an university alumni website. I have no issue with using "claims" as proposed above or even stating she is "descended from", with the usual proper attribution, as is currently in the article. I also don't see how "identifies" is less neutral than "claims".

The article also states her citizenship is American because she was born in Chicago to two American citizens. This seems appropriate to law which defines citizenship. --ARoseWolf 18:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

They're reliable sources for what the person says per WP:ABOUTSELF. No one, especially Norby in those sources, is claiming they are enrolled in a tribe or a citizen thereof. The issue is trying to add "self-identifies" in a way that is clearly designed to waggle suggestively that what the source says about themselves (I'd argue "claims" can also run into that issue too, depending on the context.) You would see the potential issue with saying "Eliot Page self-identifies as a trans man", right? It's up to Oncamera and Bohemian to defend their interpretation that someone without official membership in a tribe has no right to claim heritage or identify ancestry, and must be treated as suspect by default. If that's a mainstream interpretation of reliable sources, it should be easy to demonstrate. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@David Fuchs That's not the case. As said numerous times by numerous editors, self-identified does not mean or imply Pretendian. One example would be adopted people who self-identify as being of Native American heritage but where there is simply no verification of this. I have never claimed that people without recognition of citizenship or community belonging have no right to self-identify as descendants. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

So then you understand MOS:CLAIM and realize that your choice of words shouldn't be used, right? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned below MOS:CLAIM offers many alternatives. "Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate." Regarding the Eliot Page example, being transgender is completely different than being a member of an Indigenous nation, the latter being a collective, political identity. "Self-identify" and "self-identification" are used freely in discussions of Indigenous identity (examples) without the negative connections implied by "Eliot Page self-identifies as a trans man." In contemporary society, if a personal failed to self-identify as being Indigenous — not matter what their background was — they would just assimilate into mainstream society, possibly as a mestizo. Yuchitown (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@David Fuchs I see no reference to the terms "identify" or "self-identify" in MOS:CLAIM. And if you want to argue that "self-identification" is some sort of euphemism for Pretendian, it isn't. The US census uses the term self-identification. The UN uses the term "self-identification". Self-identification is one of the three defining elements of Indigenous identity in Australia. This is not terminology that Wikipedia editors fabricated. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

But it is false to say "self identified" (or unsourced) when sources don't say "self identified", and it denigrates the living person because people argue that self-identification n this context us inherently unreliable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

First off, there are no "citizens of reservations." Agree that "subject claims descent from x" is neutral. In Mexico, US, and across the Americas, Indigenous identity is a group identity: "It doesn't matter who you claim, it matters who claims you." When someone self-identifies/makes a claim/states (whatever term people like; I repeatedly ask for suggestions across this platform) that is all that you have evidence of until the claim is substantiated. If no groups being claimed reciprocate by claiming the person, then you need a way to express that they have made a statement about their identity. Exact quotes are best. Saying that they self-identify / claim / whatever word you like the best is not the same as saying that they are not Indigenous or lack whatever claimed ancestry. User:ARoseWolf has pointed out that it makes a difference whether something is placed in wikivoice, so exact quotes from the individual seems like the best, most accurate, verifiable course of action. Yuchitown (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

If "self-identify" was the same as "said", you wouldn't be militantly trying to make sure everyone's page says self-identify. Your pattern of editing makes your goals incredibly clear, and you'd think almost everyone outside your little sphere disagreeing with you here would prompt some self introspection, but apparently not. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 10:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Very uncivil response and does not help the discussion at all.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 10:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The "discussion" here is you and Bohemian refusing to accept the opposing viewpoint. There's no discussion to be had here, other than to make it clear if you're edit-warring about this you have no actual guidelines or policies on your side. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The same argument could be said that people who don't understand tribal sovereignty or tribal citizenship are treating the experts in this area as if they're conspiracy theorists or "edit-warriors" (where?). MOS:CITIZEN clearly states that being Native American/First Nations is about citizenship/enrollment and not about just race like it is for other ethnicities. This is a federal fact as well.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 17:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

But its not fact that transcends time, right? 'You're only a NA/FN if the Feds recognize you', sounds rather insulting or worse, in different circumstances. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

It's actually not insulting to honor tribal sovereignty and being clear when writing. There are other ways to write about people who lack citizenship/enrollment, such as self-identifying, reconnecting, descent, etc., depending on how they're claimed by their communities. No one's heritage is being erased by writing about it in a concise manner. Wikipedia can be clear and NPOV when writing so MOS:CITIZEN is being honored. I don't know why other editors keep claiming this is insulting to someone; it's insulting to treat tribal sovereignty like it doesn't matter when Wikipedia editors say so. But I see it in other discussions on this site, like not including Indigenous history on state/city pages, attempting to delete pages under the claim that entire Nations are irrelevant because they have a small population, treating Native languages like they are dead etc. I'm not surprised at how hostile the experts are being treated by others in this discussion.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 17:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Are you trying to divert to some other topic? Also, do you not know that no one here knows who you are, talking about your expertise, here, is a waste.

At any rate, are you arguing that it is fact that transcends time? Because that would mean there were never any native peoples before the federal government. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Patricia Marroquin Norby is not a historical person born before the United States was established, so why are you changing the topic to "transcending time"? She was born in 1970.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 17:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Because, this type of editing has gone across biographies in different times. So, are you saying its a fact that trancends time or not?Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Not the topic here and not even the case since she's not a historical figure.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 18:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

So you refuse to say its a fact that transcends time, or is it that you don't want to say it, because you know its false? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm refusing to go off-topic, so stop attempting to bait me. This is the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard, not about historical figures.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 18:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

You had no problem going off-topic when you went on and on about your "self-identified" expertise. You're the one who is suggesting its good for all time with your citation to the MOS. It's relevant to living peoples because, if there is a time limit, it means it is false that it is a universal fact, and we have to address individual circumstances among the living too. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Alanscottwalker. I would add that enforcing the colonizer's system—and for that matter an outdated version of the colonizer's system—seems rather POV. And how would it even apply to Norby being Purépecha, an indigenous group from territory currently colonized by Mexico and not by the United States federal government? While I agree that indigeneity isn't just about race, it seems similarly reductive to make it 'just about' enrollment, blood quanta, etc. I struggle to see how indigenous sovereignty is honored by reifying a nineteenth-century colonizer system and undermining coverage of indigenous existence by casting doubt on the indigeneity of persons. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

People keep accusing us of WP:RGW by writing concisely, but ignoring tribal sovereignty and MOS:CITIZEN because you don't want to "enforce the colonizer's system" is literally that.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 17:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I should point out the additions to the MOS was done by only two people and I've removed it. If you want to argue this as a case of the Manual of Style, you need to actually propose it and get buy-in. One Wikiproject does not get to decide styling based on an essay. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk about militant behavior and having a personal axe to grind. --ARoseWolf 18:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I've restore it, you'll have to prove that tribal nations are irrelevant and not sovereign nations compared to other nations of the world on the talkpage of MOS:CITIZEN.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 18:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Of course indigenous nations are sovereign. I don't think that's what's being contested. Saying someone is, say, Apache isn't necessarily saying someone is a citizen of, say, specifically the Yavapai-Apache Nation of the Camp Verde Indian Reservation. There are several federally recognized Apache tribal nations that have connections to the broader language-culture group of the Apache. This happens with other culture groups and nations as well. By way of comparison, there are citizens of Armenia, and there are Armenians in Lebanon, and Armenians in France. The latter don't have the citizenship rights of citizen Armenians in Armenia, but to say they aren't Armenian is claiming a lot more than non-citizenship.

I'd add that for Norby, there is also the matter of her being Purépecha, an indigenous group that is not from a territory occupied by the United States. If one applies this narrow read of 'being indigenous' that limits it to citizenship with nations recognized by the U. S. federal government, that would make it impossible for anyone alive to be Purépecha. What is to be gained from Wikipedia incorrectly implying that Purépecha no longer exist? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Saying that they self-identify / claim / whatever word you like the best is not the same as saying that they are not Indigenous or lack whatever claimed ancestry: Is it not? MOS:CLAIM reminds that To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying disregard for evidence (italics in original) and instructs to consider rewriting the prose to remove the need for such verbs in the first place. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, ”Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate.” X person stated they are of Y descent. Neutral as per MOS:CLAIM. Yuchitown (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

All of these are a problem if they are not what the source has said. As I mentioned above, I have no problem with us being strict with sources, including rejecting some sources normally considered reliable. I think it's accepted that even quality RS should be used with care in certain situations, especially science and even more medicine, so it may be reasonable for us to do the same for indigenous identity. To be clear, the implication of this is the statement may be unsourced so that we can remove it, not that we can qualify it in some way that doesn't come from the source.

However I do think there's a limit on how far we could go with this e.g. I find it unlikely we would have excluded mention of Buffy Sainte-Marie's claimed identity. The same with Sacheen Littlefeather for that matter. Again RGW etc.

But I would strongly oppose the addition of any wording which does come directly from the source or at least so clearly implied that the cannot be no doubt. And I consider it disingenuous to say that such additions are not intended to express doubt of the claims when the reason editors want to add such claims is because they feel the original statements are too strong and so misleading and we therefore need to water them down. I mean this is one example of a statement on the talk page

Because we don't actually know that she is a Purépecha descendant or an Apache descendant. All we know is that she self-identifies as having Purépecha and Apache descent.

Or to put it a different way, why are editors insisting on adding such wording if not to qualify the claims our article make? Which would be fine if the sources support such a thing, but not when they don't.

To be clear, if the source does use a wording like "self-identifies" or is of X heritage then it's fine for us to use these wordings. And for clarity I mean the individual wordings. We can re-word them in ways where there no disagreement they mean the same thing. But if a source says heritage we cannot say self-identity or vice versa. (Some sources could do both.)

Nil Einne (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

For further clarity on the re-wording point, if a source says "she told us she is of X" or "according to A, she is X" then it would IMO be fine to say "self-identifies" or something similar like "she says she is of X". But if a source simply says "A is X" or A is of X heritage" then we cannot go around adding self-identifies or "said" or anything like that, since it's no reasonable to interpret these as the same statements. And I forgot to mention now, but WP:BLPSPS seems to IMO be clearly unsuitable as sources since such statement would IMO run afoul of the unduly self-serving restriction. Nil Einne (talk) 00:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nil Einne Claiming that editors are disingenuous in intention is tantamount to calling them liars. Please assume good faith. It is false that describing someone as "self-identified" is simply a tactic to discredit them. EG, there are people who are adopted and are direct descendants but who simply don't have documentation of their self-identified heritage. Describing someone as self-identified is a factual description of their legal status, not a value judgement or an accusation. The only time an accusation of Pretendianism is acceptable on an article is when RS's mention a Pretendian allegation. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 06:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

almost always, but not universally. "Abraham Lincoln said 'No one has needed favours more than I'." is one thing; "Abraham Lincoln said he was the duly elected president of the United States" or "Abraham Lincoln stated he was a natural born American citizen" is another. The latter examples read unnaturally; a reader of Wikipedia would expect them to be expressed in plain text if they weren't subjective or contested. Was Lincoln perhaps not the duly elected president? Did Stephen Douglas really win?

This insistence that "X self-identifies" or "according to X" is completely and always neutral also elides the broader context of the particular example in this thread in which the situation isn't that only Patricia Marroquin states she's Purépacha; other people and periodicals say she is too. At what point does this mean we write a sentence that says, "Patricia Marroquin, ARTnews, and the Wisconsin Alumni Association state that Marroquin is Purépacha" (to use the sources currently in the article)? Or "Patricia Marroquin said she is Purépacha in the presence of NPR journalist Jennifer Vanasco, who didn't correct or qualify her statement and followed it up by saying Marroquin 'is indigenous'." (to use this NPR source)? To editors who don't see how the phrasing of "self-identifies" or "X says they are Y", whatever the intent, reads as casting doubt on the claims, I would ask for some trust in the feedback of editors and readers.

Think of it this way. "X said Y" is the kind of couching we apply to events like reported miracles or subjective assessments. Joseph Smith said he received golden plates from the angel Moroni at the Hill Cumorah; and According to Mariette, she first saw the Blessed Virgin on the evening of Sunday 16 January 1933; and Sunday Times said: "comparisons (of Harry Potter) to (Roald) Dahl are, this time, justified"—and, apparently, also, "According to X person, she is Y heritage"? One of these things is not like the other. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Tribal citizenship is not like those examples.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 01:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually I think it is, but it's also besides the point since we're mostly not discussing tribal citizenship. I mean if sources said person A is a member or citizen of the Kiowa Tribe or Cherokee Nation then yeah we would either need to report this as or not report it. We could not say in our articles that they self-identify as a member or citizen of the Kiowa Tribe or Cherokee Nation, or that they "say" they are a member or citizen; since that's not what the sources support. However that's not what we're discussing here.

As acknowledged by several participants we largely aren't discussing cases where someone has stated that they are a member of some specific tribe or nation or otherwise claimed to have some specific tribal citizenship but instead cases when sources simply say someone is Cherokee, or Kiowa or they have heritage/ancestry from those or whatever else. So tribal citizenship doesn't come in to it. I expect this is not an accident, making such specific claims are easier to fact check, so it's far less likely RS will inaccurately report on such things.

Still, and this gets back to my earlier point, if RS have shown repeated poor fact checking in verifying such specific and easier to verify claims and keep getting it wrong, it's likely fine to exclude such RS as evidence.

In fact, for such specific claims, IMO it's even acceptable to allow limited OR or non RS to exclude the claims when they are in doubt. To be clear, I still don't mean adding any qualifying statements, those still aren't acceptable. However if we have good reason to think the source is wrong and a limited number of RS, IMO it's fine to remove the claim even in the absence of a RS which challenges the claim. Although we'd still get into limits, if we have a large number of good RS making the claim, I'd be very reluctant to even remove the claim. We'd need to wait for sources to correct themselves or for RS challenging the earlier one to emerge. If they don't, so be it.

Again I understand why this might not be satisfactory to many, but it's what our policy requires for good reason. The solution is to fix the sources, not try and unilaterally change wikipedia.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by "solution is to fix the sources?"  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 04:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I said this way above but I understand it's easy to miss or forget but anyone concerned "need to take it up outside Wikipedia e.g. by trying to convince RS to do a better job, convince them to publish articles questioning unsupported claims etc". While it's not mentioned in RGW, since we follow and don't lead, it's ultimately the only way editors can correct great wrongs which truly exist. Note that this is not exclusively protective of living persons. In fact, I'd say it's more common at BLPN that a living person comes to complain about how all the sources are wrong on them, and there's often little we can do to help them depending on the quality and number of the sources, the existing of sources which might contradict these etc. Nil Einne (talk) 04:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's a "correct" solution. Seems like if someone asked a tribe if someone is enrolled and their enrollment office says no, that would not work as a source on Wikipedia.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 05:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

That's actually how things work on Wikipedia. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

"need to take it up outside Wikipedia e.g. by trying to convince RS to do a better job, convince them to publish articles questioning unsupported claims etc": It sounds like their advice to me is to either do original research or go down the path of COI by telling journalists to change their articles so I can use it in a Wikipedia article. Are other editors doing that?  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 08:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I remember reading in The Signpost about something like this. There were several popular myths about Grand Central Terminal that circulated even in generally reliable sources. Wikipedia editors collaborated with a secondary source periodical to research and publish a debunking of one of the biggest myths, about the value of the central clock, so as to put correct information out there in reliable sources: Bill Burns was the first one to act against this myth, emailing research to the news site Untapped Cities. He emailed me as well, and working with User:Epicgenius, we found enough reliable sources to dispel the myth.

But probably what is meant isn't so much 'go email some newspapers' but something more organic like waiting for reliable sources to match your preferred premise. Or if that's too slow for an editor, perhaps for editors dissatisfied with the state of reliable sources can choose to go and become reliable source writers, like journalists or academics. Some members of WikiProject Women in Religion did that, participating in getting a book published, Claiming Notability for Women Activists in Religion (Atla, 2020), that could be cited in biographical articles about key women in the history of religion.

Or become an advocate 'in the real world,' directly engaging media organizations and persuading them about how to report on something rather than hairsplitting and reformulating the information they report to formulate new premises they didn't themselves espouse. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 09:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

not like those examples: That seems to point up exactly why it's weird to write about such as if it is like those examples. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

First, not worried about Norby's article (practically no one has heard of this person); only worried about precedent. But concerned that saying "X says they are of Y heritage" is knocked down based on personal opinions and not on policy. It completely works with MOS:CLAIM and is as neutral as humanly possible. To the discussion that multiple sources repeated an individual's statement, the statement can be provides to "X, publications, and institutions say they are of Y heritage" and then list as many sources as you care to. Almost actor, country musician, and rapper in the U.S. has self-identified as being of Native descent (and a couple of them actually are), and Wikipedia already doesn't list this as a fact in their biography. For example, Tina Turner said she had Navajo heritage and that is published. I'd add that to her bio right now with published citations. Yuchitown (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

But its not ""X says they are of Y heritage" is knocked down based on personal opinions", rather it is, " X says they are of Y heritage" is "knocked down" when the sources don't say that, they say "X is of Y heritage". Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not an opinion, it's a statement. Yuchitown (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

No. There are two problems here: It is either false or unsourced to say that someone 'said stated claimed or identified, when the sources don't say that or they just say "is" ' -- and it is an attempt to denigrate when the assumption is it that a living person is unreliable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It is not false to say this is a statement; it's manifestly obvious. But initially I proposed using direct quotations from sources and citing them. Yuchitown (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It is false to say the person stated when the source does not say the person stated. If it's a quote of the person, fine, if the source says the person stated, fine, but we can't assume the person stated, unless the source directly says the "person stated". Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Martin Kulldorff tone dispute (2nd attempt)

Posting again here, last time didn't get any feedback on the post that I saw. The page for Martin Kulldorff is a contentious topic related to COVID-19 and a biography of a living person. I believe there are some tone issue on the page, specifically that it is not written "responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone" and therefore violates Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Writing style." The talk page is devolving into discussion on the accuracy of the statements, rather then neutrality and encyclopedic tone. The current text does not sound scholarly or disinterested in my opinion. I don't agree with Kulldorff, I have added to the article citations that back criticism of his statements and tried to be collaborative, but trying to discuss improving the tone of the text is resulting in accusations of "POV pushing," pointing out that I don't think the tone is appropriate for a BLP results in accusations of "Wikipedia:Crying "BLP!"", and my suggested alternatives "Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing."

Current text is:

"In December 2021 Kulldorff published an error-laden essay for the Brownstone Institute in which he falsely claimed that influenza was more hazardous to children than COVID-19, and on that basis illogically argued against children receiving COVID-19 vaccination."

I believe this text is unencyclopedic, and that "error-laden", "falsely" and "illogically" in one sentence are too much and bad style. I do not disagree with the overall content of the text, but think it can improved, and am open to suggestions. I've proposed a few on the talk page, but feel that the status quo is being stonewalled, and alternatives are not being proposed. I'd like to see some back and forth to improve the current text, as any text can be improved, but really feel that people can't get past there point of view on this to discuss the text outside their opinion of the content.

Based on the criticisms from other editors, the text I propose to replace the current is:

"Kulldorff published an essay titled "Vaccines save lives" for the Brownstone Institute, a right-wing think tank, that has been criticized for factual inaccuracies. Jonathan Howard published a critical response to this in Science-Based Medicine, detailing errors and factual inaccuracies, such as pointing out that while influenza was responsible for one child death in the 2020/21 season while public health mitigation of COVID-19 was in place – COVID-19 had, in contrast, killed more than 1,000."

More eyes on this appreciated, and constructive feedback would be welcomed for how to improve the tone/wording of the sentence or page as a whole. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

If the sentence is cited to a blog on Science Based Medicine, it should be attributed as such. Howard is an expert in his field but this blog article is still WP:RSOPINION and assertions about Kulldorff should be presented as criticism from Howard. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. The article is cited as Howard J (23 December 2021). "I Disagree With an Article Called 'Vaccines Save Lives'". Science-Based Medicine. in the article. I agree that it should be attributed to him clearly though, which I have stated on the talk page, however that has not really gotten anywhere and several users are insistent on the current text. Does the proposed replacement text address your concern, and do you have any suggestions to change it further? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:SBM is a generally realiable source, so attribution is not necessary (and indeed would bring POV problems by making it look like just a 'view' that these COVID-minimizing views are erroneous). Bon courage (talk) 06:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSOPINION requires attribution even when published by otherwise RS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not an 'opinion' that erroneous comparisons of COVID and flu mortality rates indicates that COVID vaccination is disadvantageous (unless one thinks everything in medical science is 'opinion'). WP:YESPOV is policy, and non-negotiable. Assert facts as facts. Bon courage (talk) 07:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

It is a clear commentary article with the headline "'I Disagree With an Article Called “Vaccines Save Lives'". Learn the difference between expressions of expert opinions versus facts as YESPOV demands to "Avoid stating opinions as facts". Pointing out Kuldorff or his article is wrong, erroneous, or error-laden is an expression of opinion even when correctly supported by facts. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not an 'opinion supported by facts' that influenza was not more dangerous than COVID in a given year. It's a fact in itself. Presenting it as just a difference of 'opinions' is both-siding reality in a WP:GEVAL way. Bon courage (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

You can prevent your N/POV concerns by assigning more weight (space) on the correctly asserted supporting facts that Howard brings up to contest Kulldorff. His opinions should still be attributed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

We're concerned with "the omissions, the factual errors, and the logic flaws" detailed in that article. Those are not matters of opinion. Pretending otherwise gives credence to the antivax talking points. Bon courage (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

FACTS! Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what that is. But Wikipedia is indeed concerned with the facts here, not with Howard's (sardonically expressed) opinion on how he 'disagrees' about vaccines saving lives. Bon courage (talk) 08:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Facts need citations. If a point is likely to be contested, or if criticism is particularly harsh, Wikipedia:Fringe theories says it should be attributed. Kulldorf publishing an article is a fact, and the article is about Kulldorf. The criticism of that article is based on the source from Howard, not Wikipedian editors looking at the various case counts within the article by Kulldorf (that would be original research). It is Howard that did the work of disproving Kulldorfs publication, and the critique in Howard's publication, while accurate, can be perceived as harsh. Attribution of the content avoids this entirely.

Even if it is a minority opinion, it is obvious that the current text is not universally accepted and the tone is disputed. I have preposed several alternative wordings that could avoid the perception of anything but a neutral and disinterested opinion on the part of Wikipedia. Is there an alternative text you can prepose that would address these good faith concerns? Or do you think the Status quo is the best possible wording? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

If sources are disputed by other reliable sources, that is of interest. But the 'dispute' of editors doesn't count, especially if it's PROFRINGE or flies in the face of our requirement for NPOV. Some editors seemingly want to give weight to antivax arguments. We've already had one blocked for doing that. Bon courage (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to give weight to antivax arguments, and I've repeatedly tried to make that clear. I've given weight to arguments against Kulldorff, and provided citations to support the arguments in Howards rebuttal. My CURRENT preposed text based on the points I've seen made on the talk page is above. I don't see how it is "profringe" or flies in the face of "NPOV". It is my best attempt to be objective and attribute the criticism of the publication.

Bringing this antivax point up seems to be an attempt to "discredit or eliminate an editor with an opposing viewpoint." Are you accusing me of misconduct? Or implying I could end up blocked for preposing alternative wordings based on my good faith suggestion to attribute what I believe is particularly harsh wording? Because implying anyone who wants to change minor wording is pushing antivax agenda is harsh, and bringing up a ban feels like an attempt to disparage discussion. Stating an editors point doesn't "count", and refusal to consider alternative wordings that simply attribute statements, really seems like Wikipedia:Ownership of content behavior. Am I one of the editors who's dispute doesn't count?

Assuming I'm not an antivax conspiracy theorist, is there an alternative text you can prepose that would address the good faith concerns? Or do you think the Status quo is the best possible wording? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Inconvenient as it might be, I would point the editors here to the discussion at article Talk, in which one editor has gone to some lengths to refute the critique published in SBM. Meanwhile the editor who opened this section is proposing article language inplying that the anti-vaccination argument by Kuldorff should have the same weight as the scientific consensus. I hope editors weighing in here will take a look at the Talk discussion and not be unduly influenced by the more limited scope of the discussion these editors have launched here. Newimpartial (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree the conversation needs to go to the talk page there.

I don't agree with your framing of my proposal as implying I think the anti-vaccination argument should have the same weight of scientific consensus. In the quoted text you inserted, I stated:

"This topic is clearly disputed between researchers, and factually the rephrasing I did is accurate, more neutral, and less judgmental. The sentence in question is uncited and uses the words "error-laden," "falsely claimed", and "illogically argued." I added the citation to the sentence in question to clearly show where it was from."

I'm sorry if you didn't understand the full context of what I mean. Kuldorff is a researcher, and this is a dispute between him and the broader scientific community. I get that people don't like him, or agree with him, and personally think he is very wrong on this, but he is someone who has published relevant literature that would suggest he has a more informed opinion then someone like Alex Jones. The proposal I've made is to reword a single sentence, a sentence that has come up repeatedly as possibly not sounding the best to all editors, and that does not have a citation at the end of it. I have asked for proposed revisions from anyone that could compromise on it, but no one has proposed any alternative text, and are adamant that even a tag stating the tone is disputed be removed without any counter proposal change. I'm not trying to discuss the content of sources, or who is right/wrong (I strongly believe that Kuldorff is wrong in this publication), just the wording of a sentence. I personally am very much in favor of vaccinations and have professionally done research involving COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccine distribution. I have made edits to the Kuldorff page supporting arguments against his claims, including elaborating on the claims in the Howard article and giving an additional peer-reviewed citation here. As someone who is against misinformation, I believe that appearing anything but objective on these issues will only feed conspiratorial thinking, which is why I care that this is worded as professionally as possible.

I feel like this part of your comment is not civil, and does assume good faith. I'm sorry if I've said anything that has provoked a defensive, irritated or fed-up response, I'm frustrated that what I think should be a simple issue is resulting in such strong opposition. I have opened this discussion here because I don't believe the editors are approaching the wording of this sentence from a neutral, disinterested, view and wanted more eyes on it. This is following the guidelines on Wikipedia:Consensus. Following the suggestions on the page for Wikipedia Civility, please "strike through" that part of your comment. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, GeogSage, I am unaware what part of my comment above you might consider uncivil - but that is off-topic here, so perhaps you could explain at my Talk page or yours.

I thought I was reasonably precise when I said you proposed article language inplying that the anti-vaccination argument by Kuldorff should have the same weight as the scientific consensus and linked to the language I meant. I certainly did not say, or imply, anything about your views on vaccines or Covid. I simply stated my reaction to the proposed text: namely, it offers FALSEBALANCE between the views it contrasts. I would also point out that the additional source you proposed to add in the link above, while it seems to offer a fairly mainstream view on Covid in children, does not as far as I can tell mention or cite Kuldorff, and its inclusion would seem to be WP:OR.

To be clear: I welcome more eyes on the article and would also welcome new language proposals for that paragraph that result in improved clarity (and, for that matter, encyclopaedicity) in the article text. However, your proposal does not achieve this, for the reasons I have outlined, and much of Tikitorch's comments on article Talk have amounted to WP:OR refutations of Kuldorff's critics or arguments premised on his authority as a scientist - neither of which is a policy-compliant argument relevant to article text. Newimpartial (talk) 09:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Why is reading the first two sections of the cited source and noticing the straw man argument considered original research? I am not proposing to change the BLPN article with any of the evidence from my “research”; the goal is to point out to other editors that the current text takes Howard’s most salacious claim, a straw man argument, and amplifies it by inaccurately summarizing Kulldorff’s supposed factual error. It even has Wikipedia’s assertion of factual error, not just Howard’s.

It is probably not settled science that Kulldorff made factual errors in this essay if we can’t accurately summarize the purported error from Howard’s article. Howard’s article is a ok source because it is an expert opinion and he has the integrity to accurately quote Kulldorff in his article. Wikipedia should show such integrity. Tikitorch2 (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question, other editors do not agree with your interpretation that Howard is making a straw man argument. It is your argument elaborating that position, in which you bring in othet seemingly unrelated "facts" to suport your position, that engaged (fairly extensively) in WP:OR, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I only cited facts taken directly from the cited source (Howard), plus a general knowledge that people get the flu shot every year. I critiqued Howard’s critique to show you its flaws, but did not propose to include any of that reasoning in Kulldorff’s page, which would make it WP:OR.

I do not think asserting WP:OR is compelling when editors are claiming scientific consensus and false balance to maintain the current hit piece in Kuldorff’s article. Based on what scientific study are we certain Kulldorff’s essay had a factual error? (Thank you for linking to my comments which go through how Howard did not use a scientific methodology in his critique.) Tikitorch2 (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question, I am not interested in carrying this discussion any further into WP:OR. The errors in Kulldorff's essay were evident to me on first reading, I was happy to read some of the same errors noted in RS, and I am unintrigued by your original readings of the two sources that flatly contradict the plain meanings of both. Newimpartial (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The other difference is that your opinion is reflected on Kulldorff’s Wikipedia page as if it were a known fact with universal scientific consensus. Howard’s article is not a scientific study and it fails to use the concept of a control group when comparing the risk of Covid and influenza to groups with different vaccination status. This failure was necessary in order to effectively straw man Kulldorff. Tikitorch2 (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Neither Howard nor Kulldorff uses the concept of a control group, and the concept doesn't seem particularly relevant to the argument Kulldorff made against childhood vaccination against Covid. In spite of what you say, I believe there is a universal scientific consensus on that topic, and wikipedia is obligated to present that consenus without BOTHSIDESism in deference to Kulldorff's status as a scientist. Newimpartial (talk) 11:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

It is Howard’s opinion that Kulldorff did not control for vaccination status when he wrote that Covid risk to children was less than the annual influenza. Howard’s critique compares covid and influenza deaths without accounting for influenza vaccination rates—an unscientific methodology because it fails to control the control group.

There is no scientific consensus backing the claim that Kulldorff made factual errors, unless you assume this straw man, unscientific comparison to a non-control group as Kulldorff’s statement of fact. This assumption is baked into the Wikipedia text as fact and is thus original research.

There is no scientific study I am aware of that finds Covid mortality risk is greater than influenza for children in a typical year, which is what you would need to cite to argue for suppressing half of both sides regarding claims of factual error. Tikitorch2 (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

To my knowledge, neither author discusses influenza vaccination rates, and Tikitorch's argument that either should have done so is an original intervention in scientific debate, which is not what we do on Wikipedia.

What we have is a source (Kulldorff) arguing against what turns out to be the scientific consensus about childhood vaccination against Covid, and another source (Howard), in line with the consensus view, offering critique of Kulldorff's intervention. Placing the two on a BOTHSIDES level would be an WP:NPOV violation.

As far as whether Covid mortality risk is greater than influenza for children in a typical year, that isn't the question either source is addressing and it is WP:OR, if not a red herring, to introduce it. The question addressed by the two sources is the risk posed by each virus in 2021. Newimpartial (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia: “In December 2021 Kulldorff published an error-laden essay for the Brownstone Institute in which he falsely claimed that influenza was more hazardous to children than COVID-19,” that is what we have. Tikitorch2 (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Kulldorff: “Their [children’s] Covid mortality risk is miniscule and less than the already low risk from the annual influenza,” is what was addressed. Tikitorch2 (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Howard: If we assume Kulldorff was not referring to the average year influenza risk, which his readers would understand, and compare two groups with dissimilar vaccination rates, then Kulldorff was wrong. Tikitorch2 (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to put them on "both sides," I am preposing that we attribute the criticism of the publication attributed to the author who the page is about to the scientist who made the criticism, rather then making that point ourselves in an unsourced sentence. The existence of the publication itself is just a statement of fact, the content of that publication has been criticized by Howard. Is there an alternative text you can prepose that would address these good faith concerns? Or do you think the Status quo is the best possible wording? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question: no, I don't think we have the best possible wording. I would prefer something like:

In December 2021 Kulldorff published an essay for the Brownstone Institute in which he argued against children receiving COVID-19 vaccination, falsely claiming that influenza was more hazardous to children than Covid. In a critical response, Jonathan Howard noted errors and factual inaccuracies in Kulldorff's essay, pointing out that while influenza was responsible for only one child death in the 2020/21 season - while public health mitigation of COVID-19 was in place – COVID-19 killed more than 1,000.

In other words, my view is that "influenza was more hazardous to children than Covid" is an objectively false claim to be stated as such in wikivoice, while "illogically" and "error-laden" represent unnecessary editorializing. The errors can be described by summarizing what Howard said, and readers can discern illogical thinking for themselves. Newimpartial (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree this is much better! THANK YOU!!!!

If we cite both sentences, and add a second citation for "falsely," this would address my concerns. I might suggest something like:

"In December 2021 Kulldorff published an essay titled "Vaccines save lives" for the Brownstone Institute in which he argued against children receiving COVID-19 vaccination.<Citation1 Howard> In this essay, he made the false claim that influenza was more hazardous to children than Covid.<Citation1 Howard><Citation2>... In a critical response, Jonathan Howard noted errors and factual inaccuracies in Kulldorff's essay, pointing out that while influenza was responsible for only one child death in the 2020/21 season - while public health mitigation of COVID-19 was in place – COVID-19 killed more than 1,000.<Citation1 Howard>"

For citations, I recommend the following in addition to Howard's publication:

• Clinical outcomes of COVID-19 and influenza in hospitalized children <5 years in the US
• Comparing life-threatening flu and COVID-19 illness in kids
• Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children: A systematic review

I added the title of the essay, and split the "falsely stated" into a second sentence which can have additional citations for verification. Basically, the first sentence states the essay exists, and what it argued, with a citation to verify. Then, the elaboration on the false claim in the second sentence, with several citations for verification. Then third sentence with the attribution to Howard with a citation to verify his view. I think this maintains both the appearance of neutrality and disinterest on our part, while giving the full picture on the scientific consensus that Kulldorff is considered to be wrong here.

One note: These concerns are now minor. I would accept your version of the text over what we currently have, and drop the tone dispute, if you can agree to include the citations I offer. Thank you for giving a counter suggestion instead of just blocking change. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The sentence "In this essay, he made the false claim that influenza was more hazardous to children than Covid.<Citation1 Howard><Citation2>" is not supported by any of these sources unless one assumes Kulldorff was comparing the unvaccinated mortality risk of Covid to the vaccinated mortality risk of Influenza, when it is at least as likely he was comparing equally unvaccinated groups. It is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims.

Citation 1:

Compared patients 0-<5 years hospitalized with Covid-19 in 04/21-03/22 to influenza in 04/19-03/20. Amoungst these impatient death was 0.5% with Covid, 0.3% with influenza.

The findings of this study should be interpreted in the context of its limitations. Other pediatric outcomes, such as MIS-C and long-term COVID-19 and influenza complications, were not examined. Information on maternal COVID-19 and influenza vaccination or general immunization history for the children in this study population were not captured in the data source. Therefore, we did not evaluate the impact of maternal and child influenza immunization on disease severity...

During the 2019-2020 influenza season in the US, amoung children aged 6 months to <5 years (estimated vaccination coverate: 75.5%) the CDC apporximated 82 deaths were avoided with influenza vaccination (compared to 124 deaths (ref 35)).

Citation 2:

Researchers compared 179 children with influenza infection to 381 with COVID-19 at 16 United States hospitals. Patients with critical COVID-19 stayed longer in the PICU than kids with critical influenza and mortality was low (2-3%) but similar in both groups.

The odds of death or requiring life support in children with influenza vs COVID-19 were similar (adjusted odds ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, .78-2.15; P = .32).

Some of the differences in severity may also be explained by the fact that all children with COVID-19 had not received SARS-CoV-2 vaccination because enrollment preceded vaccine authorization. In contrast, some children with influenza were either fully (69 of 179, 39.0%) or partially (17 of 179, 9.5%) vaccinated, which likely attenuated influenza severity [5]. Therefore, the similarities in the severity and outcomes of children with influenza or COVID-19 should be interpreted with caution until future studies include a cohort of COVID-19–vaccinated children. Tikitorch2 (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

You conveniently ignore the systematic review, which discusses MIS-C, a complication that children can get after a COVID-19 infection. This is something Citation 1 states it does not examine. The Howard article DID mention it. In Citation 3 "

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children: A systematic review"

"A notable finding was that 11 of 662 individuals (1·7%) did not survive. The death rate in this review is comparable to that observed in adults with severe COVID-19 between the ages of 55–64 years (1% to 3%) [29]. While low, it is much higher than the 0.09% mortality rate observed in children with COVID-19 [24]. While writing this manuscript a new study was published involving 570 US patients with MIS-C [28]. The percentage of deaths for the cohort was comparable to the one observed in this review (n = 10, 1·8%)."

COVID-19 is uniquely hazardous to children in that roughly 30 out of 100,000 COVID-19 patients under 21 will experience a MIS-C.

• Incidence of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children Among US Persons Infected With SARS-CoV-2

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not trying to ignore it--I deliberately included the sentence "Other pediatric outcomes, such as MIS-C and long-term COVID-19 and influenza complications, were not examined" from citation 1.

So (11/662)*(30/100,000) = 5 MIS-C deaths/1,000,000 covid cases...add that to 0.009 and the result is...still ~0.009.

Are you saying these MIS-C sources support the claim that "In this essay, he made the false claim that influenza was more hazardous to children than Covid"? Or is it meant to reinforce a later sentence about Kulldorff omitting MIS-C in his essay? Tikitorch2 (talk) 04:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Howard made that claim. These sources just provide some additional validation for the statement. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

They are interesting studies but for each of the three reasons cited above, their conclusions are not strong enough to support an assertion that Kulldorff made a "false claim that influenza was more hazardous to children than Covid," without significant original research on our part by assuming a non-apparent, unlikely interpretation of what exactly Kulldorff meant by influenza risk. This assertion should not be made unless attributed to Howard by an in-text source description.

Since attributing it to Howard's opinion piece would be redundant, I suggest dropping the sentence "In this essay, he made the false claim that influenza was more hazardous to children than Covid." entirely. Tikitorch2 (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe the thread between Geog and Tikitorch illustrates why I think we need to be careful in choosing additional sources for the passage besides Kulldorff and Howard. The first two sources proposed above deal with the risk to children once hospitalixed with Covid or influenza, and the third study addresses the intersection bwtween Covid and MIS-C. To my knowledge, neither Kulldorff nor Howard is addressing health risks specifically among those hospitalized with these two viruses and neither addresses MOS-C explicitly. If these assessments are accurate, then I don't think any of the three sources are suitable to be added to the text in question, because of WP:SYNTH issues. Newimpartial (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that neither Kulldorff nor Howard were that specific as to what exactly they were addressing with their comments, so we have to rely on outside opinion's like Howard's for the other side. If the underlying data had more information, maybe the magnitudes of the results would be so strong this discussion would have never arose. Personally I am happy to now know more about these studies. Tikitorch2 (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

In Howard's publication he states:

"Others needed lung transplants or amputations. 5,973 children have had MIS-C thus far, though this may be a substantial undercount. In one study, 80% of children with MIS-C went to the ICU and 20% needed mechanical ventilation. 52 children have died of MIS-C."

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

For comparison, Howard's article also said 1000 children had died from Covid 19 so, like the MIS-C studies provided above, MIS-C Covid deaths are apparently a minor portion of overall child Covid mortality (perhaps about 5% based on these two numbers from Howard). Given this, MIS-C is likely irrelevant to the un-sourced original research at issue here, which was described as: in other words, my view is that "influenza was more hazardous to children than Covid" is an objectively false claim to be stated as such in wikivoice".

You seem reasonable, but we have been discussing this for several days and so far you are the only editor who both holds this view and has tried to find studies to properly source it. However, even for subsets studied like hospitalized children under 5 years old, none of the four studies so far show that Kulldorff made a factual error when he wrote "[children’s] Covid mortality risk is miniscule and less than the already low risk from the annual influenza.” (Without relying on an explicit WP/OR interpretation that he meant the 2021 influenza specifically, or that he was comparing the risk to a child lacking the Covid vaccine with the risk of influenza to children with vaccinated immunity?)

Is there some point where you would conclude the public health data out there is not strong enough to show Kulldorff in error on this point? Or even it is possible he could be proven correct after more endemic seasons? Tikitorch2 (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Endemic seasons are irrelevant, since both our mainstream source and our dissenting source were addressing specifically whether or not it was a good idea, from an epidemiological perspective, for children to be vaccinated against Covid in 2021. Newimpartial (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The text at issue is more focused, using Wikipedia's voice to assert that "In December 2021 Kulldorff published an error-laden essay for the Brownstone Institute in which he falsely claimed that influenza was more hazardous to children than COVID-19," which is not a neutral point of view because it is only supported by an opinion piece. Eventually Covid vaccination rates for children may get close enough to Influenza that, even though the risks are similar, scientific studies may be able to conclude on average which one carries more risk.

By the way, based on the current child Covid vaccination coverage of <15%, it seems strained which source you are presenting as mainstream. Tikitorch2 (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of current child Covid vaccination coverage, since we are talking about a public health response to the population immmunity characteristics and virus strains of 2021.

And I prefer my version presented above to the current article text so I don't feel the need to "debate" the merits of the latter. Newimpartial (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Your proposed text is the exact same unproven allegation of factual error: “In December 2021 Kulldorff published an essay…falsely claiming that influenza was more hazardous to children than Covid”. Instead of a scientific study you base this assertion of fact on ‘my view is that "influenza was more hazardous to children than Covid" is an objectively false claim to be stated as such in wikivoice.’ Tikitorch2 (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

That's because the view that influenza was less hazardous to children in 2021 than Covid is objectively true, is part of consensus reality and is documented in a huge mass of high-quality sources. The data on which this assessment is based are referred to by Howard, the source we cite in the Kulldorff BLP: the same source that notes Kulldorff's errors.

Tikitorch, this appears to be a WP:1AM situation. You have had more than one opportunity to present your perspective - that Kulldorff's argument against vaccinating children for Covid was not based on obviously false claims - to editors sensitive to BLP concerns, and no other editor appears to ageee with you about it. It is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK, I think. Newimpartial (talk) 10:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

If I had previously recognized your comments as intentionally changing the subject and stonewalling rather than a good faith discussion, the I would not have kept trying to articulate the straw man argument which you continue to circle back to—-that Kulldorff was referring to the 2021 influenza risk—-the plain reading is he was referring to the historic influenza risk, which his lay audience would understand.

I am not the only editor who has recognized that Howard’s piece—-the only cited source—-is an opinion piece and as such is inappropriate to use as a one-sided, objective statement of truth. Tikitorch2 (talk) 01:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF - my argument isn't a straw man, it represents a plain reading of the debate. And I haven't seen any other editor raise this opinion claim in relation to a revised text like the one I have proposed - Tikitorch raiding this "concern" looks like a moving goalpost to me.

The whole situation continues reflect a WP:1AM project on the part of Tikitorch, as far as I can tell. Newimpartial (talk) 04:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I see that there is ongoing dispute and discussion. It looks like Newimpartial's proposed revision is generally acceptable. @Newimpartial, do you feel comfortable updating the text with your version? I will drop the tone dispute and you can remove the tag if so. I'd prefer not to antagonize anyone by being the one to make the change if possible. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Newimperial's proposed revision is not generally acceptable. As Morbidthoughts pointed out, the assertion of a false claim and factual error is based on an WP:RSOPINION source and these assertions about Kulldorff should be presented as criticism from Howard. I have pointed out that, even in 2024, there seem to be no scientific studies which show Kulldorff in error without WP:OR, i.e. choosing to add unlikely specifics to Kulldorff's general claim which transform it from a probably (/possibly) true statement to provably false.

Newimperial's text contains a straw man argument cited to Howard, that "influenza was responsible for only one child death in the 2020/21 season - while public health mitigation of COVID-19 was in place – COVID-19 killed more than 1,000." But problematically, Newimperial's text asserts false-claims/factual-errors and follows with this straw man fact, while not providing balance by accurately summarizing or quoting the supposed error--this is in-and-of-itself circumstantial evidence of a straw man argument. Ironically, Howard himself has enough integrity to quote Kulldorff and only directly accuses Kulldorff of "...like Dr. Kulldorff, trying to trick their readers with word games."

We would need to remove the WP:OR assertion "..., falsely claiming that influenza was more hazardous to children than Covid." Or alternatively provide an in-text attribution to Howard's opinion piece. Tikitorch2 (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I would pose the three folliwing questions in response:

1. On what basis is it asserted that Howard's piece was published by SBM as "opinion"? I don't see evidence of that (and using the first person does not imply "opinion" in this genre).

2. On what basis is it asserted that Howard's statement is a "straw man" of Kuldorff's argument? I have seen nothing more than one editor's original - and improbable - attempts at exegesis trying to show Kuldorff "must" have meant something else "because he is a scientist"!?

3. In two sub-questions: GeogSage, do you still want me to edit the article text as previously proposed? And does anyone (besides Tikitorch) object? Newimpartial (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

1. See Morbidthoughts comments above. Also, SBM calls itself a blog that deals with controversial topics on its about page.

2. Howard acknowledges "Yes, a young child with the flu might fare slightly worse than a child with COVID-19" because it is apparent that Kulldorff's statement was comparing case-fatality ratios, while in Howard's opinion the population-fatality ratio is more relevant to the debate. Even still, he is unable to provide evidence Covid mortality was worse than the annual influenza risk to the unvaccinated. Indeed his own statistic shows that the 2009 flu pandemic (the only comparable year when vaccination was similarly unavailable or in short supply) was more deadly to children than the Covid-19 pandemic.

3. I pose three questions back to you: How do you know Kulldorff was comparing Covid risk to the 2021 flu risk vice a historical norm? How do you know Kulldorff was comparing mortality/population ratios instead of mortality/case ratios? How do you know Kulldorff was comparing mortality risk of children unvaccinated against Covid to children vaccinated against the flu? This last one is inherently unscientific--why do you think Kulldorff did not account for confounding factors (i.e. vaccination status) when comparing the mortality risk of two different diseases? (Because he is not a scientist?) I am not the one doing "original exegesis" here--your proposed text details asserts a false claim that Howard goes out of his way to not explicitly state. Tikitorch2 (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

To answer the first question: my sense is that, while not listed under Perennial Sources onwiki, Science Based Medicine is generally regarded as having reliable and effective editorial oversight and as a reliable source, when issues have been raised at RSN. It is certainly considered a more reliable publisher on Covid-related matters than is the Brownstone Institute. Morbidthoughts' opinion that Howard's piece was opinion has not had any evidential support presented, at least not here.

To answer the second and third questions (which are really aspects of the same issue) the plain language reading is that Kuldorff in his piece is arguing against vaccinating children for Covid. In this argument, only the actual immunological characteristics of those children (for Covid and for flu) are relevant, as in, the relevant question is which disease poses a greater threat for that population to that time given its actual characteristics for vaccination and prior infection, and its actual risks of exposure. So either Kulldorff is making a non sequitur argument about a population with different characteristics than the relevant one, or he is making a claim about the population and time that is relevant - in which case Howard's criticism is both apt and valid. Newimpartial (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

So “I disagree with…,” “how sad,” “I was dismayed,” “I would speculate”, and the numerous psychoanalyses on Dr. Kulldorff’s character and motivations don’t seem like signs of an opinion article, as Morbidthoughts indicated? Even if its reliability is to be based on that of SBM vs the critiqued article’s publisher, how does that translate to assertions of false claims/factual errors in Wikivoice without attribution?

Regarding your plain reading, what you consider relevant regarding the flu and the subsequent either-ors are themselves non sequiturs; how does the mortality risk of the flu during the covid pandemic have anything to do with whether children should have been vaccinated for Covid? The definition of a standard foot has no impact on whether on my right foot (child Covid) is longer than my right hand (child Covid vaccine), other than it being a better unit to visualize the problem with than a mile (elderly) or a light year (annual deaths).

Howard even discovers this later on in his article, ironically pointing out “My children can easily grasp this very simple concept.” His writing style is like a middle school book review, describe the plot diagram to prove you did the reading, while simultaneously posing moodily as a critique to regurgitate the prompt. Tikitorch2 (talk) 04:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

This seems like more WP:IDONTHEARTHAT - the view that Howard is writing 'opinion" because of their prose style isn't really relevant to this discussion.

As far as how does the mortality risk of the flu during the covid pandemic have anything to do with whether children should have been vaccinated for Covid?: I don't know - it was Kulldorff who argued that children should not be vaccinated against Covid because flu was a higher risk, not me. The non sequitur, if there is one, is his not mine - or Tikitorch's non sequitur of comparing childhood vaccine to a hand and annual deaths to a light year (Buzz Lightyear, perhaps).

GeogSage, would you like for me to edit the text as I proposed earlier? It doesn't seem likely that others will weigh in. Newimpartial (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes what you preposed earlier as written would be adequate to address my concerns on tone and wording. Thank you for doing so. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The analogy is more accurate if a light year was Covid deaths/population, if that is what you mean.

You are incorrect, Kulldorff does argue that, read the quote at the top of Howard’s article. Kulldorff used the flu as a reference point for one of the risks of everyday life. You can speculate as to why he chose to compare to the flu instead of car accidents, but it could have been he wanted to highlight an example of vaccine success in his article “Vaccine Save Lives.””

Geogsage’s original proposed revision at the top of this discussion is an acceptable way of attributing the disparaging assertions of factual error/false claims to Howard; it is still pretty harsh in its weighting but at least it attributes its claims so readers can do a quick logic check.

Again we have not achieved consensus here. Read Morbidthoughts comments above, it is not just me/earlier geogsage who have noted this specific, problematic claim. , why did you bring the conversation over here, only to ignore the single different editor who has weighed in since? Tikitorch2 (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Just to note, I also don't agree with the "strawman argument" interpretation, and if I did that assertion would require a citation anyway, so three editors. In the same way that calling Howard's argument a strawman would require a citation, attribution of the critique Kulldorff's arguments requires one. Is there any room to compromise on the existing text? Or is the status quo really the only thing you consider acceptable? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I have never proposed asserting it was a straw man on Kulldorff’s page and had repeatedly concurred or supported your proposed revision for its improvements. However, now that I have had a day to recognize this whole thing as a straw man argument, I no longer concur. What about:

”Kulldorff published an essay titled "Vaccines save lives" for the Brownstone Institute, a right-wing think tank, that has been criticized for factual inaccuracies related to risks to children. Jonathan Howard published a critical response to this in Science-Based Medicine, detailing errors and factual inaccuracies.”

This basically drops the straw man issue, since we likely won’t agree on balancing Howard’s 1 to 1000 deaths statistic by also including the quote of Kulldorff’s that it purportedly factually corrects. Tikitorch2 (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

As noted before we moved over here, I think your proposed text is an improvement in tone and attribution. As for feedback, I'd recommend:

"Kulldorff published an essay titled "Vaccines save lives" for the Brownstone Institute, a right-wing think tank, that has been criticized for factual inaccuracies. In a critical response published in Science-Based Medicine, Jonathan Howard refuted the claim that child Covid mortality risk is less than the risk from the annual influenza, pointing out that influenza was responsible for only one child death in the 2020/21 season, while public health mitigations of COVID-19 were in place–-COVID-19 had, in contrast, killed more than 1,000."

This allows the reader to see Howard uses a straw man argument so they can follow the citation and see the full critique. Tikitorch2 (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Stepping into discussing if Howard is making a "straw man argument" or not is not something we can do without sources saying as much, so I would not pursue that line of reasoning. However, as we can't say Howard is making a straw man argument without original research on our part. This is the same reason I want to attribute the criticism of Kulldorff to Howard, it is not our place to do original research or fact check the primary source Kulldorff wrote. Kulldorff wrote something, Howard pointed out it had factual inaccuracies in a response. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

If I were writing an article I would want to state what Kulldorff actually said to balance the stated evidence of factual inaccuracies. This would be good practice even if Howard didn’t straw man Kulldorff—-Howard even does so at the top of his critique.

Regardless, I think your proposed text is a significant improvement even without this feedback, but it does worry me if we remove the obvious Wikipedia bias readers might not be driven to follow the link and investigate Howard’s article themselves. Tikitorch2 (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Keffals

In 2022, Keffals was at the center of the DropKiwiFarms campaign, with the basis being that she was targeted by the site Kiwi Farms. It was a well-circulated & generally accepted story. Recently, a prominent YouTuber challenged the legitimacy of her claims and shortly after, The Young Turks retracted their reporting on their 2022 reporting and denounced Keffals as a "fraud". Other editors requested on the talk page that TYT's retraction be added, which I did, but Hist9600 (talk · contribs) has since pruned the article of this dissenting discourse, citing BLP & adding to the talk page discussion. ( 1), (2) If content violates BLP, then - I agree - it has no place here, but I don't that as applicable, as TYT hasn't been questioned as a reliable source. It's contentious, but it's not unfounded or illegitimate. BOTTO _(T•C) 10:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

TYT is a "news commentary show on YouTube", and their accusations are based on info from another YouTube video. This is not an appropriate source for contentious claims in a WP:BLP. The policies for a BLP state very clearly that we should be "very firm about the use of high quality sources", especially for contentious claims. The content that was added included an allegation of fraud that is not corroborated by high quality independent reliable sources (see: WP:BLPREMOVE). Hist9600 (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

It is a commentary show, but they still have retracted their previous reporting and have opined that Keffals is a fraudster. The dissenting commentary isn't treated as fact, which Keffals' account has unfortunately worded as; their retraction merely states that they denounce her. Their coverage of the conjecture is nonetheless meriting of inclusion. Truthfully, the page has been unfortunately partial on the other end, treating Keffals' attribution to the campaign against her as the works of Kiwi Farms when she herself has stated, (as included in the source you scrubbed away), that Doxbin was responsible, but she didn't feel comfortable going after that site. BOTTO _(T•C) 17:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Commentary channels are not reliable sources for statements about living people. Their claims may be appropriate to include with INTEXT attribution iff they are reported in reliable secondary sources. If no such reporting has happened here, the TYT source cannot be included at all, nor can the selfpub video essay. There's no way around that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 17:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Tamzin: As you're an editor I've dealt with extensively throughout my years dating back to 2007, I'll trust your judgment. We should reevaluate the Keffals article, however, for taking her word as fact -- as is the case of any article, everything should be in perspective of "she claimed", even down to her arrest with characteristics that not only London Police, but her own fiance, refuted. BOTTO _(T•C) 17:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

(FYI pings don't work if you correct them afterward. See Help:Fixing failed pings. I recommend the edit summary approach.) Personally in a case like this I recommend waiting and seeing. When there's non-RS drama about whether previous RS coverage was wrong, usually after a while RS either pick the narrative up (journalists love "Were our rivals wrong?" articles) or don't (which in itself tells us something). Sometimes, if the non-RS evidence that the RS was wrong is really compelling, we might be best to just not mention the thing at all, because WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH don't apply to editorial decisions to omit. (I wrote an essay on this, although I actually need to add more about that approach.) Given how much of Keffals' notability stems from that incident, though, I doubt that's a viable option here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 18:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I took another look at the article and it's honestly alright. Aside from her misattribution of the perpetrators, (one of whom did post on KF but was banned), and alleged misattribution of funds, the article is pretty good. I mean, it already addresses the claim about the police deadnaming Sorrenti. Hopefully, more reliable sources will be available down the road. BOTTO _(T•C) 20:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

We just need to follow high quality independent reliable sources, and base the article around what is verifiable. We don't need to resort to the constant use of words like claim, which would go against the Manual of Style (MOS:CLAIM). When the subject of an article has been the target of online harassment or has been involved in online controversies, it's important that we edit with care. WP:BLP already has good guidelines. Hist9600 (talk) 02:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Barron Trump

Barron Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The article is a BLP nightmare. It's currently on the main page and full of extraneous details that are not related to Barron Trump. It's already gone through 3O because the primary author reverted others when they removed detailed conspiracy theories about Barron.

Now they're re-adding details like-

In November 2016, comedian Rosie O'Donnell suggested Trump was autistic after her daughter was diagnosed with the condition.[50] Melania threatened to sue a YouTube user who uploaded a video compiling Barron's public appearances to allege he has autism.[51] Fan fiction of Trump exists on websites such as Wattpad, and social media accounts devoted to his appearance have emerged.[49]

This could really benefit from someone experienced in BLP. There's no chance "fan fiction" goes beyond WP:BLPGOSSIP.

Soni (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I have (before seeing this thread) removed most of those three sentences. (The lawsuit threat seems worth mentioning, but the exact contents of what the threat was over—obviously!—should not be mentioned. That said if someone wants to cut that bit too, I wouldn't revert.) Overnight I gave ElijahPepe some strongly-worded but collegial advice off-wiki about the state of this article (namely, that it should not exist, and that he should not revert BLP violations back into it), and I am disappointed that he has persisted in violating WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:EDITWAR on it against multiple users. Some articles should not exist. This is one of them. But if it must exist, it should be a pretty boring article about an amateur soccer player whose dad was the president.

I note that Sasha Obama is a redirect. (Malia Obama is too for that matter, but actually probably could be an article now .) Not an OTHERSTUFF argument; how we handle the articles of mostly-private relatives of public figures is an important part of BLP. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 17:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the article a bit more and added a {{notability}} tag. It is still, fundamentally, a grab-bag of inconsequential statements about someone with near-zero public profile. (As far as I can tell, when I was 18 I'd done more voluntary press than Barron Trump has.) The only statements in the article of encyclopedic relevance are, unsurprisingly, those about Mr. Trump's father, which belong in other articles. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 17:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Abductive seems to think it is "insane" to question the notability of a teenager who is exclusively notable for being the son of someone else. I welcome him here to discuss his concerns, hopefully in more civil terms. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 17:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I am genuinely pondering sending this back to WP:AFD for a third time once it drops off the main page. I'm really struggling to find anything that doesn't involve his father. Mdann52 (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, speculation about whether or not a living person is autistic really doesn't belong in a BLP. If it turns out he is autistic and he makes a public statement about it, then cool, it could be included at that point. But speculating about a living person's neurology is not appropriate unless there's a really good reason for it.

The fan fiction thing doesn't belong there either. Nearly *every* public figure (or child of a public figure) has fanfic about them. Barron isn't an exception. And unless he's winning *awards* for his appearance (like if he ends up being "People's Sexiest Man Alive" or something), we don't need to comment on social media users' opinions about his appearance.

And like others have said, he likely shouldn't have an article at all at this point in his life. Gottagotospace (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Dear Heaven. Nuke the article from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh good lord! I agree. This article should be speedily deleted, and the earth salted so it never pops up again. This is one of the reasons I decided to stay with Wikipedia so long ago. It's this sort of mob-mentality where people think it's ok to go after someone's child to get at them. This is why the left scares the bejesus out of me, because you never see these tactics coming from the right. Personally, I have no love for Donald Trump. (I think he's a complete moron, and every time he speaks he removes all doubt. The only reason he's so popular with the right-wing nutjobs is because he's even more popular with the left-wing nutjobs; they are in love with their hatred of him. It's a case of "the enemy of my enemy...") But going after someone's family --and especially children-- is stepping way too far across the line. Definitely nuke it. Zaereth (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Alice Walton

Alice Walton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I invite editors to weigh in on a conversation about an incident that never resulted in charges and was expunged at Talk:Alice Walton. This specific event has been discussed on multiple occasions in the past on the article Talk page and at this noticeboard.

Past consensus has been not to include the event. This includes several times on the Alice Walton talk page in 2017, 2019, 2020, 2021 as well as here in 2017 and 2018.

The 2011 incident never resulted in charges and was, in fact, expunged from the record. I still believe this issue falls under WP:BLP guidelines.

I will not directly edit the Alice Walton page because I have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest; I work with the Walton family office, as I disclosed on my user page and declared on the Alice Walton talk page.

I welcome any input from editors who are experienced in this area. Kt2011 (Talk · COI:Walton family) 22:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you should suggest to Alice Walton that she hire a chauffeur instead of a brand manager. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Christina Hoff Sommers

Christina Hoff Sommers is a conservative philosopher and critic of feminism. She describes herself as an equity feminist, and is listed in the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy as one of equity feminism's main representatives. Some of her critics have alleged that she is anti-feminist, which she has denied.

Until recently we had her denial included in the biography, but now we have a dispute about including it. We have both secondary and primary sources which state that she denies being anti-feminist.

• The argument to include is based on the WP:BLPPUBLIC, which states for public figures we should include their denials of allegations.
• The argument to exclude is more complex, but basically that her denial is self-serving, and therefore should not be included, pointing to WP:MANDY.

The text in question is a sentence to be appended to the paragraph where it is alleged that she is anti-feminist: [9].

Any thoughts? - Bilby (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Had we not already included her self-descriptor as an "equity feminist", then I would say that we might need the denial. However, given that we have the self-description, denying being "anti-feminist" just seems redundant. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm open to that. But the argument seems to be that saying she is an equity feminist is not the same as denying that she is anti-feminist, as only an explicit denial has been accepted. - Bilby (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify the situation, we currently state that Sommers has "called herself" an equity feminist, and then write extensively about how she is regarded as an anit-femininist. The clarification is simply to note that she has explicity stated that she is not anti-feminist, and therefore has denied the allegation. While I personally feel that being an equity feminist is not conducive to also being an anti-feminist, others have disagreed, hence the need for the one line clarification that she has denied the allegation, as per "if the subject has denied allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too." It simplifies things to include her statement, no matter whether we agree with the subject or not. - Bilby (talk)

Bilby is misrepresenting the strength of secondary sourcing for Sommers' contention that she is "not an anti-feminist". I'll have more to say later, but for now please see Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers#Sommers' denial. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The main secondary source reads:

Although Who Stole Feminism? is a full frontal assault on the feminist establishment, and on such feminist icons as Gloria Steinem, Susan Faludi, and Naomi Wolf, Sommers repeatedly stresses that she herself is no anti-feminist. Rather, "I am a feminist who does not like what feminism has become." [10]

It isn't exactly ambiguous. - Bilby (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

As I stated on the talk page, Cathy Young, the author of that book review, seems to be exaggerating. In the preface to Who Stole Feminism? that Young is quoting, Sommers doesn't say anything about being called anti-feminist. Young was a colleague of Sommers at the Women's Freedom Network, where they both held leadership positions.[11] So this is not really an independent source.

Young's review was also published in 1994, several years before the cited sources describing Sommers as anti-feminist: Anderson (2014), Jaggar (2006), Projansky (2001), and Vint (2010). It would be very convenient for Sommers to be able to say I'm not an anti-feminist as a defense against any and all future allegations of anti-feminism. I don't think that's what WP:PUBLICFIGURE is meant to achieve. When Donald Trump says he is the "least racist person in the room", should we include that denial any time he goes on to do or say allegedly racist things?

The other issue concerns self-published sources by the subject of the article, in this case a tweet replying to to Jessica Valenti (who is not cited or mentioned in the article). Valenti's tweet no longer exists, so we don't know what the specific "allegation" was, if any. In this case Sommers' contention that she is "not anti-feminist ... Just far more moderate" definitely seems self-serving in that her entire post-academic career (including book sales for Who Stole Feminism?) is based on her claiming to be a feminist while attacking feminism.[12][13][14] —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The tweet specifically says "I'm not anti-feminist". You can argue around that, but just as with Cathy Young, the statement is unambiguous. And if Young's statement predates the specific examples added to the article, that just shows that she has been denying that allegation for a long time - not that she did not deny it. We can get more, though, if that will help you, but fundamentally you seem to be trying to say that she is not denying that she is anti-feminist, when it is clear that she is. If nothing else, she says that she is an equity feminist. Isn't that stating that she is feminist, not anti-feminist?

It is not self-seving to make that statement. Self-serving is "I am the greatest philosophy", or "my theories are all sound". This is simply a statement of her position. If this was self-serving, then any simple denial of an allegation from any person would have to be regarded similarly. Just saying "I am not <insert allegation here>" is a simple statement of how one percieves one's stance. - Bilby (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course the tweet is self-serving, just like Trump tweeting "I don't have a racist bone in my body" is self-serving. Public figures often have a vested interest in denying accusations, whether or not the accusation is true. Especially when their reputation directly affects their career prospects. If we had an actual independent, reliable source for Sommers' denial, that would be fine, but so far no one has provided any.

The article already states that Sommers' positions and writing have been characterized ... as "equity feminism" and She has described herself as an equity feminist, equality feminist, and liberal feminist. Extrapolating anything about anti-feminism from this would be original research.

As I stated on the talk page, the word "antifeminist" shows up only a handful of times in the book Young is quoting from, and none are about Sommers herself. So there's no "denial" there that I can see. The policy about public figures specifically mentions allegations and incidents. Just saying "I am not an anti-feminist" as a way of deflecting any and all future criticism is not the same as responding to an actual allegation. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps Trump is self-serving, but we still include his denial that he is racist when we make allegations.

The core problem is that you are seeing two parts of BLP - if someone denies an allegation, we include thei denial, and if claim in a primary source is self serving we don't use it - and choosing which one to follow based on your feeling as to what is self serving and what is not. Any time someone denies an allegation they are trying to help themselves, but we still should include that denial.

It is frustrating that you belive that we don't have a secondary source, when we clearly do - you just want to discount teh unambiguoius statement it contains because you, personally, do not know specifically how it was derived. But even then, that is not what BLP asks for. BLP only asks that we include an denial against an allegation on BLPs. Not that we only include that denial if there is a secondary source. WP:MANDY is explicity counter to BLP, and we do not follow essays over policy. - Bilby (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The full text of Sommers' book is available online. Young seems to be simply incorrect in claiming that Sommers states at any point that she is no anti-feminist. Young also has a clear conflict of interest as a close colleague of Sommers. We still don't know what "allegation", if any, prompted this statement to be made in 1994, several years before the sources critical of Sommers cited in the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what prompted it, Young is stating that Sommers has denied being antifeminist, and we know that Sommmers has herself directly denied being antifeminist. I do not see that the existance of a denial is a problem. What I see is that you regard such a denial as self serving and tehrefore wish to exclude it, while I see such a denial as necessary to include per BLP. Anyway, that's how I see the issue. - Bilby (talk) 01:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

That's essentially correct, and in addition, the article by Young is not reliable in this context for the reasons I've already stated. That leaves only the self-serving and self-published tweet, unless somebody comes up with additional sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with you about Young, and I certainly disagree with you that Sommers is being overly self-serving. But we'll see, if anyone cares to try to wade through this. - Bilby (talk) 08:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Whether Sommers is an anti-feminist or not is a complicated question without a clear answer. That she has denied it does not seem to be complicated, nor in question. I think including it in the article _very briefly_ is worthwhile. The Young review is certainly sympathetic, but it appears to have been subject to editorial control in a reliable source, Commentary (magazine). Comment that the YouTube video discussed appears to be published in root by Independent Women's Forum, also likely reliable enough for a denial if provenance can be established. I have some concerns about the appearance of some WP:OWNERSHIP around the article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The IWF video where Sommers comments about being excommunicated from a religion I didn't know existed is in reference to some academic conference drama. There doesn't seem to be any explicit denial of anti-feminism. If someone feels like watching the whole 52 minutes, that could help clear things up. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

While we can quote RSes that describe her side as antifemist (of which I presume there's a fair deal of to be the DUE position), from a BLP side, we should have a section that briefly describes her side, eg that she claims to be an equity feminist for whatever reasons that RSes site about her. If she has selfstated she's not antifemist, this should likely be included but only need a briefest of mentions. Eg "Sommers has said she is not antifemist (ref), but instead considers herself an equity feminist. (ref) etc. etc.", presumably after iterating why RSes consider her antifemist. MANDY is a very dangerous essay that overrides key provisions of BLP and NPOV in a case like this. Masem (t) 12:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the self-serving aspect of Sommers' denial was discussed specifically in regards to WP:BLPSELFPUB, not just WP:MANDY. Bilby is once again misrepresenting things.

The only source presented so far in which Sommers explicitly says she is not antifeminist is the 2014 tweet. If others want to include this as BLPSELFPUB, I'll go along with it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd normally let this ride, but to be clear I mentioned WP:MANDY for two reasons: one was that it was the justification you gave when first removing the denial here, and the other is that you specifically referenced and linked to it in the comment I was responding to [15]. Otherwise, I have been refering to "self-serving" per WP:BLPPRIMARY. No, I was not misrepresenting things by mentioning it. - Bilby (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I linked to that essay by way of arguing that it is inherently self-serving for a self-styled feminist to deny being anti-feminist. Not as a justification for including or excluding anything. It's important to determine whether a claim is self-serving when applying policy regarding sources that are unduly self-serving. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand how anyone can arrive to a conclusion that very basic denial is "unduly self-serving". Per the 2014 RFC (and to my knowledge, the RFC has been superseded) even a self-published denial should always be mentioned and/or linked. It is up to debate how much weight a denial should be given, but the amount can never be zero.

The conclusion that a denial – in some form – should always be included is obvious. Politrukki (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Elsa Salazar Cade William H. Cade

I wish my page was put back. I think I am notable. I think I was merged with my husband because I am Hispanic American. I did half of the cricket research work with my husband. I was selected by Governor Cuomo in 1995 for my teaching. Although I lived in Canada, all my work was done in Buffalo, New York. I drove 40 minutes and over the border in the snow to Buffalo for many years and influenced science education in New York. Just because I am a Hispanic woman I shouldn't be erased. My page was up for many many years for teachers and kids to use during Hispanic Month in schools. But then I was erased. My page is still up in the Turkey wiki. I also got several e ails from people asking me to pay them to help me with my page. So I feel scammed by wikipedia. If i didn't pay they would remove me. I didn't pay so I was merged. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.173.100.208 (talk • contribs)

Comment that the Articles for Deletion discussion that resulted in the merge is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elsa Salazar Cade. To OP: the people emailing asking for payment are attempting to scam you, and certainly do not speak for Wikipedia. WP:SCAM talks about some related problems. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

You didn't pay scammers, good for you, it wouldn't have stopped the deletion. Per WP:N, what are the 3-5 best sources you know that are at the same time WP:RS, independent of you and about you in some detail? This excludes your websites, blogs, wikis, online bookstores etc etc etc. An article about you in Nature would be excellent. Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing may be of interest to you. For the interested, Elsa Salazar Cade on tr-WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Overly Praising article of Mikaela Loach

Mikaela Loach

I believe the wikipedia article on Mikaela Loach breaches the biography of living person policies throughout by failing to adhere to a dispassionate tone - for example, the article includes statements such as "But despite the risk of her actions, Loach finds motivation in the ability to speak up for those less privileged than herself. What she is sacrificing is nothing compared to what Indigenous people, globally, have been fighting for, losing their homes, their family, their lives."

The article also provides the subject's reasonaly contentious opinions as objective fact: "Aware of the intersection between the refugee crisis, the climate crisis, racism and the legacies of colonialism, Loach advocates for environmental justice, racial justice, sustainable fashion, and human rights issues such as white supremacy and maltreatment of migrants. She also seeks to make the climate movement more inclusive."

Finally, entire paragraphs of the article exist without references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c6:cf81:4f01:e8dd:a6d9:f611:e90d (talk • contribs) 20:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I've done some cleanup, more is probably needed. Mdann52 (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Nice job, @Mdann52. I checked and all of the flowery puffery was added by a student editor for a class, so it isn't likely to be readded. Schazjmd (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Tina Lee - translation of name in first sentence

Should Tina Lee be translated into Chinese in the first sentence? Lee lives in Canada, and her birthplace is unknown. Her parents are from Taiwan.

I have been unable to locate any policy stating that the birthplace of your parents merits a translation of your name in the lead.

Your input at Talk:Tina Lee#Chinese name would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not necessarily a translated name. Asian children born outside of Asia are often given names in their language that are separate from their Western names. They should be treated as like a middle or complete name in terms of how contentious this topic is. The core question is whether the info satisfies WP:BLPPRIVACY. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually, it's just a plain old translated name, from a Chinese newspaper writing about her. In other words, it wasn't Tina Lee saying, "this is my Chinese name". There's lots of "stuff" in my culture, but almost none of it is considered policy on Wikipedia. I think unless Tina Lee states, "this is my Chinese name", it's presumptuous of Wikipedia to assume anything about here cultural followings. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

It is also presumptuous to assume that it is a translation. Do you read Chinese script? I think it was weird that the article included the western notation if the script was translated out by sound. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there a policy suggesting we should add a translation for every person whose parents were born someplace else? Otherwise, there are policies against it, such as MOS:FULLNAME, MOS:NICKCRUFT, MOS:FIRST, MOS:LEADLANG, and MOS:FORLANG. --Magnolia677 (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

There's no translation there. Most Western names have no translation into Asian languages, and Chinese is not a phonetic language so you can't just spell them out like you could in Spanish or German. In other words, there is no Chinese symbol to represent the name "Tina", nor is there an equivalent for the Latin meaning of "Tina" (follower of Christ). Thus, it's common for many Asians to have one name in English and another in their country of heritage. For example, there's no way to write "Bruce" in Chinese, so in Chinese media Bruce Lee is known by his Chinese name, Lee Jun-fan. In this case, the Chinese newspaper uses the name Lee Peiting, which is what the characters in the article represent. "Peiting" is a common feminine name in Chinese, meaning something along the lines of "very pretty", but is not in any way a translation of her Western name. It might be helpful to have her Chinese name given in parentheses just so people who read the source won't be confused, but it would be far better to simply spell it out phonetically as "Lee Peiting" rather than using Chinese symbols, which are of no help to a majority of readers. Zaereth (talk) 23:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Why? Really...why? We don't even know where Tina Lee was born. All we know is her parent's are from Taiwan. Should we translate Barack Obama into his father's Luo language? How about Telly Savalas into Greek (he was born on Long Island)? MOS:NICKCRUFT states that "excessive foreign language details can make the lead sentence difficult to understand", which leads me to ask again...is there a policy that states that the birthplace of your parents merits a translation of your name in the lead? Magnolia677 (talk) 10:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

There isn't. The only relevant question here is whether that alternative name is either (1) widely used in reliable sources, or (2) publicly used by her. If so it should be added; if not it shouldn't. On option (2) I note that she seems to be using it in a 2021 facebook post Message from CEO, Tina Lee. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The tone of the Arup Patnaik article is completely adulatory

Here are a few excerpts from the Wikipedia article on Arup Patnaik:

- "He is revered as one of the most dynamic and respected IPS officers of the Maharashtra cadre"

- "Known for his integrity and fearlessness..."

- "[he] has a natural flair for helping the distressed and the needy..."

This is all just from the page's introduction. Obviously, this tone is completely unacceptable by Wikipedia's standards. What exactly I should do here? Do I get some people to write a whole new article on this person from scratch? I'm still pretty new to this place, any advice would be appreciated. CalyxSage (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@CalyxSage, there are several choices. You could tag the article (template:Tone) for a rewrite. You can remove the flowery bits yourself. You can go through each reference and strip the language down to only what the sources support. (For example, the reference to the "...revered as..." sentence in the lead cites a source that says nothing of the kind.) It's up to you what you're comfortable with. Schazjmd (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I have done a bit of clean-up in the lead; there's plenty more to do! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I removed some unsourced content from the body. I also removed an entire section that appeared to be almost entirely directly plagiarized [16]. May need further review. – notwally (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

In-depth detail, including the names of non-public-figures, sourced to aboutself vlogs at Cory Williams

This article’s Personal life section contains lots and lots of detail, including the name of his private ex-wife, that’s just sourced to the subject’s own YouTube videos. I already removed a paragraph about a girl he dated for like a year, which included her full name (and was also in the infobox). Zanahary (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Yikes... I've pared back some of the other bits as well, and added some non-youtube sources in there as well. There's an actually quite good article in a WP:DEPS that I can't link to, but I'll keep looking. Mdann52 (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Lee Jinjoon

More eyes at Lee Jinjoon would be helpful, especially by those who can read Korean and are are familiar with the reputation of Korean news sources. This article came to my attention when a new editor was attempting to source allegations to a couple of tweets ([17]). There has since been the citing of a news website, but some of the reasons other new editors are giving for restoring it ([18], [19]) are giving me concerns that the article could use more attention from a BLP perspective. Egsan Bacon (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Is this person a WP:PUBLICFIGURE in Korea for the purposes of WP:BLPCRIME? He doesn't seem so. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Mark Bourrie

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.

---

Despite the consensus reached here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive356#Mark_Bourrie%2C_again) and on the talk page, the anti-Bourrie trolls are at it again. Tanzer2226 (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey, Tanzer2226, rather than make nonsense accusations and baseless personal attacks, maybe you should do something useful and actually put a link to those discussion on the talk page? I would suggest you strike your comment above. – notwally (talk) 22:07, 9 June 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.

Carlos Alcaraz

Hi, I’ve been looking at the page for Carlos Alcaraz and somebody has made an entry describing Carlos as Jewish, twice, in one instance describing him as Spanish-Jewish. They entered this at ‘6:24 PM’ today, June 9th 2024. (they listed the time and date, that’s how I know!) I’m not Jewish and I don’t have any problem with Jewish people, but I don’t think it’s an accurate fact about Carlos. It’s, in my opinion, merely speculation. Thus, I feel uncomfortable reading it and I feel it ought to be removed. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GAL6 7to10 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

It's already been removed. Edits prior to that made him "Arab-Spanish" and "Moorish-Spanish". Just standard unsourced mischief. Schazjmd (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

"[Big?] eggs" was interesting. Seriously, this page could use some low level protection. JFHJr (㊟) 22:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Myrlin Hermes

Myrlin Hermes is a completely unsourced BLP with zero claims to notability. I was unable to find any reliable sources confirming anything. Even the claim of being on Jeopardy! I could only verify through fan sites. Do what you want with this one. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I did. WP:Articles for deletion/Myrlin Hermes. JFHJr (㊟) 22:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: Up the same alley (same creator) I found adjacent denizens Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirk Lynn‎ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jemiah Jefferson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) which might as well be totally unsourced. JFHJr (㊟) 22:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Chris Gebhard

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

The opposite of the usual type of report: instead of adding unflattering material, Jdlebanon1079 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is removing it. The material in question is fully sourced and seems relevant to the subject, but I'm not prepared to edit war to keep it there. A second opinion would be good. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:74C9:F21C:7D37:E976 (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. I have concerns about the sourcing (lots of references to legislation or records of debate) and a degree of original research with the inclusion of some items. Proponents of inclusion should discuss this matter on the article's talk page, including showing where the legislation in question has gotten significant coverage in independent reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I started a talk page discussion because I agree with C.Fred that its inclusion (with the present sources) is questionable. Schazjmd (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I stand corrected! Thanks to both of you 😀 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:74C9:F21C:7D37:E976 (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

It's good to ask for more eyes. On first glance, it did appear like someone trying to remove content critical of the subject, so I do understand the editors who've reverted the removals over the past year. Schazjmd (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Priscilla Presley

Priscilla Presley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Random editors (or same person with different IPs) disrupting this page for months to restore WP:BLPGOSSIP. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure much can be done about this other than interested editors adding the article to their watchlist so that future additions are assessed and, if necessary, reverted. The material isn't added often enough (4 times in 3 months) for a request for page protection to be successful, and the IPs are from different ranges so blocking them won't help. I've added the article to my watchlist. Neiltonks (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

So have I. I requested temporary semi-protection but am not hopeful — Iadmc♫^talk  10:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

"Convicted felon" in first sentence of Hunter Biden

Regulars here will be familiar with past and present discussion about our use of terms like "convicted felon" in the first sentences of biographies. We have a similar dispute happening at Hunter Biden, being discussed at Talk:Hunter Biden#Convicted felon in opening sentence. More attention would be appreciated. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Such a weird phrase and one which we should never be using even beyond the specific context here... Its entirely redundant, there is no such thing as an unconvicted felon... A felon is a person who has been convicted of a felony crime. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Something I hadn't considered before. Maybe a point to add to WP:Crime labels? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd support that. Phrases such as "convicted felon" should be avoided in the lead, especially the first sentance, but rather the conviction should be mentioned and sourced with reliable sources; but only if it is notable — Iadmc♫^talk  17:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

It already does basically provide that guidance Instead of “is a felon”: “was convicted of felony X” I think "Convicted felon" vs just felon is more an americanism than anything else, I'm not sure why we say it but I've never encountered a non-American who does... So not a BLP issue but a regional English language issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

British people say "criminal", usually... Felony isn't a thing for us — Iadmc♫^talk  17:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I would say that most of the time felon just mean serious criminal (we seperate crimes into felonies and misdemeanors)... But we don't actually have a word as far as I am aware such as "misdemeans" for those who commit misdemeanors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Well yes, felon is an Americanism in the literal sense that a felony is a specific concept in U.S. law. Other countries that derive their legal traditions from the U.K. mostly use "indictment" instead; Canada uses "summary offence" for the rough equivalent of a misdemeanor, I don't know if that's common throughout the Commonwealth or not. And for people who commit misdemeanors, I suggest "misdemeanies". (not a serious suggestion) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

You are summarily indicted to go... — Iadmc♫^talk  20:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Well said. I have never seen a case where "is a convicted felon" is better than describing why the subject was convicted. Politrukki (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Have we got the word "felon" in the first line of Trump's biography? No. So it doesn't belong here either. Black Kite (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

There is already a discussion about this on the article's talk page. Can we please avoid having two parallel discussions? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

This is meant to call attention to that discussion, and I agree that it'd be preferable if editors went there to leave comments. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Along those lines, pinging @Horse Eye's Back, Black Kite, Peter Gulutzan, and Ianmacm: you've all commented here but not at the talk page discussion. Some of you have made comments on the more general situation, so no pressure to get involved if you don't want to. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

One of the prior discussions on WT:BLP was "Convicted felon" in the lead. There was a village pump proposal around the same time. For Dinesh d'Souza there was some discussion and it was left out. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

No.... let me think about it. No. We should never open a biography that way and even when the crime is mentioned we should say what the crime was rather than just using the vague and arguably contentious label "felon". Springee (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. The only time we should even be mentioning it in the opening sentence is where the subject's notability actually originates from their criminal activity. Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

it's within WP:LEAD notability for a mention, but as with previous arguments over this sort of thing, not in the opening sentence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, and the fact that there is a strong consensus against saying "convicted felon" in the first sentence on the article talk page too, I left a hidden message to try to head off having to ECP the article (it's been added approx 6 times this morning, I believe all by people who were not officially notified about this being a CT). I'm uninvolved, but I have usually run away from anything having to do with contentious topics. If I've overstepped what a single admin is allowed to do, or if there's an i I forgot to dot, someone please let me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

You apparently forgot to log your action in WP:CTLOG. Politrukki (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think adding a hidden note is the type of AE action that needs to be logged. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Adding a hidden note is definitely not arbitration enforcement. You don't need to log it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Me neither, but "being added in my capacity as an uninvolved admin dealing with disruption in a contentious topic" is the phrase that makes this CT action. Politrukki (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The CT log logs enforcement actions, which a hidden editing advisory is not. Any editor could make that comment, it doesn't become arbitration enforcement just because the editor who did so happens to be an admin. If we were required to log everything that might possibly be seen as adminning in CTOPS, the log would be so long as to be useless. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Who can remove/edit the hidden note before discussion, a) anyone, b) any uninvolved admin, c) only Floquenbeam? Politrukki (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know. The only reason I did it was to avoid, if possible, applying ECP to the article. I suppose if anyone removes it, I wouldn't sanction them because this process already seems like quicksand, I'll just ECP the article (and log it, of course). And I'll note for myself in the future that trying to avoid ECP is more of a hassle than just applying it. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Nah. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to Politrukki for pointing out that page (if i do end up ECPing it, now I know where to log it), and FFF and IV for the notes about not logging it. I was mostly concerned (as Politrukki just noted while I was typing) about marketing myself as an uninvolved admin enforcing CT, but doing something that wasn't really enforcing CT. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and since you asked, you also forgot to sanction Muboshgu for violating the BRD page restriction:

1. 17:14, 11 June 2024 first revert removing "convicted felon"
2. 18:12, 11 June 2024 second time removing "convicted felon"

So, the page is under BRD restriction, which is separate from 1RR (see the article's edit notice). Muboshgu did not wait for 24 hours before reinstating their reverted (nearly identical) edit. They were aware, were informed on their user talk page of the breach hours ago, and asked to self-revert. Instead of admitting their error they are trying to obfuscate, even though the restriction should be crystal clear for people who have familiarised themselves with the rule. Politrukki (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think this is what a BRD restriction means, the restriction seems to be intended for people adding something and getting reverted. There is no 1RR so I think those edits are ok. Floquenbeam (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The BRD restriction applies equally to additions and removals. Regarding the HB article, there is already at least one example of a user being sanctioned for breaching the BRD restriction by removing content. On another article with BRD restriction (no 1RR), a user was brought to AE and sanctioned for twice removing the same or similar new addition to the article. Back then you said that the reported user violated the restriction, adding "I imagine myself in Jeppiz's shoes, I would think it was pretty unfair that I have to follow "bureaucratic procedure" and Mandruss doesn't. That's not a crazy attitude, and isn't completely unimportant." So...?

Let us return to the HB article. I removed three categories. One or two users (it is a bit unclear whether editor two reverted me or editor one's partial self-revert) reverted me in three edits: [20], [21], [22] I have not discussed my edits on the article talk page, hence I'm not allowed re-remove the categories. I would say it would be crazy to think that I must not have to follow the same "bureaucratic procedure" someone else does. Politrukki (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Then, please excuse my ignorance, what is the difference between a BRD restriction and 1RR? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I would like to know also. Does it have a formal definition as WP:BRD is an essay. Doug Weller talk 19:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Should have looked at the link, you need to post to the talk page before reverting again. Doug Weller talk 19:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Inserting "convicted felon" into the very first sentence of a biography has turned into a kind of Wikipedia meme, but I cannot think of any article where the first sentence should include that label (even people only notable for criminal acts should have something with more specificity). I support BLP tbanning anyone who makes one of these edits as it nearly always betrays POV or ignorance of WP:NPOV and/or WP:BLP and turns into a massive time sink. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

See Donald Trump last sentence of lead!. 2A00:23C6:7532:C700:684E:5B2E:E674:F54C (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Conveniently, the last sentence is not the first sentence. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

It also, as of when I checked it a few minutes ago, says he was convicted of crime X in year Y. It doesn't say he is a felon. Springee (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Fun fact: it looks like the phrase "convicted felon" appears in 1,065 articles. As for how many are the first sentence, it's unclear (TIL Quarry can't search article text). Yikes, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

That would be an interesting project to work on, 2 of the first 4 hits were to BLPs and first-sentence usages. I removed it from Jen Shah and Brandon Browner, if someone decides to revert I'll bring it up in a new section on this board, if needed. Zaathras (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to return to normally editing until I deal with other stuff but since this has come up again, editors might want to look at the many previous discussions and examples of this. Notably Klete Keller while it has lost the convicted felon wording, still has "American former competitive swimmer and a convicted participant in the January 6 United States Capitol attack". Also while not a BLP, some of the objections don't seem specific to BLP so I'll mention John du Pont currently says "John Eleuthère du Pont (November 22, 1938 – December 9, 2010) was an American convicted murderer. An heir to the du Pont family fortune, he was a published ornithologist, philatelist, conchologist, and sports enthusiast. Du Pont died in prison while serving a sentence of thirty years for the murder of Dave Schultz." Nil Einne (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

As Firefangledfeathers stated in the OP, the attention to this belongs at Hunter Biden. There we can discuss the death toll of this weapon. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

As I've always said, using the terms "convicted felon", "convicted sex offender", etc. in the first sentence of the lede for people not known exclusively as criminals is almost always WP:UNDUE and frankly lazy writing. Curbon7 (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Very well said. JFHJr (㊟) 03:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Dolkun Isa

Dear Wikipedia notice board,

I am writing to you in relation to the recent addition of the following section Sexual harassment allegations to the bio of [Dolkun Isa]. This is an ongoing defamation case, and lawyers are involved. Therefore, it would be best to delete this section for now.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best,

(above unsigned by user:ChloeLulu user talk:ChloeLulu)

The section is sourced and well written in a neural point of view. It is fine to stay— Iadmc♫^talk  08:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The section right now is sourced mainly to an article [23] in Notus, a new source of uncertain reliability (although initial signs look good). I did some searching, and also found a partisan source in Turkish [24] and a reliable source in Turkish [25]. It is not clear to me whether or not this is enough for a contentious statement in a BLP. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

NOTUS is good, its what Allbritton's new org ended up operating as. They're new but have an excellent repuation as a result of their blue chip leadership, staff, and fellows. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

If anything its actually skewed towards the article subject... Ironically the NOTUS article is about the very thing ChloeLulu is doing now... The supression of claims against such men. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The organization itself has been pretty candid that it happened and acknowledged the apology, at [26]. LizardJr8 (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The article section could use more sourcing, but the fact that the article subject admitted "serious errors of judgment" and apologized means that there is something that happened. It may help to revise the section to include more details about the broader context, rather the heavy focus of the details in the one particular incident. – notwally (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Donald W. Parry

Donald W. Parry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This BLP seems to be suffering from WP:NOTCV and bloat. Full professor, likely notable, but should it be pared down? Sourcing seems pretty shoddy, but I'm not sure what direction to go in. jps (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah looks like he meets WP:GNG/WP:NPROF, but little sources outside of the LDS publications (which, given the area of study, doesn't seem unusual). I've pruned the article back a bit anyway. Mdann52 (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Merrick Garland

This IP user has made a serious of inflammatory, conspiracy theorist-laden and potentially libelous vandalizing edits on the Merrick Garland article. Here are the difference of revisions in question: [27] [28] [29] [30]Red Shogun412 (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it best for the article to be page-protected in the interim to avoid future instances of such incessant vandalism from occurring. Red Shogun412 (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:RPP might be your best venue. Most of us aren't admins here. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 02:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done Semi-protected for 2 days. Let me know if the nonsense persists. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Elon Musk

More eyes are needed here, as editors are repeatedly including/supporting a claim that the subject had incited his own hospitalisation by beating as a child by calling another boy who lost his father to suicide "stupid". It's clear from the sources ([31] and [32]) cited that this is the contested account from Musk's own father that neither source (noting that the Business Insider is just quoting the book) accepts Musk's father's account as fact. The relevant pages of the cited book are fully available on Google Books and they describe the incident in question and outlines how both Elon Musk and his brother describe the father's claim as "unhinged and that the perpetrator ended up being sent to juvenile prison for it. They say their father is a volatile fabulist, regularly spinning tales that are larded with fantasies, sometimes calculated and at other times delusional." Arguments for including this claim from the subject's allegedly abusive father as fact in Wikipedia's voice include: "As we do not know what relevance it has, but RS seems to think it has, it is logical to assume they know stuff we do not." [33]

Full talk page discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk#%22In_one_incident,_after_having_called_a_boy_whose_father_had_committed_suicide_%22stupid%22,_Elon_was_thrown_down_concrete_steps.%22 BoldGnome (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Now that the content side of the matter is resolved, I'd be interested in exploring the conduct of those who restored this contentious material who either don't understand WP:BLP, or think it doesn't apply to Elon Musk. BoldGnome (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I get your drift. But BLPN is for content; behavior stuff is at WP:ANI mostly. The majority of BLPN volunteers are not admins capable of sanction anyway. JFHJr (㊟) 01:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we know that the content side is resolved yet. I removed the contentious statement for now, but neither of the two restoring editors has responded, and it's been less than an hour. I also don't think there's necessarily ANI-worthy behavior here. It seems like a good faith misunderstanding of the source material. Worst case scenario is a trout. AlexEng^(TALK) 01:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Kogonada

I would like some editors' attention on Kogonada (history) and Talk:Kogonada#Kogonada's given name. Nardog (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Catherine Tait

In the article about Catherine Tait, current President and CEO of CBC/Radio-Canada (Canada’s public broadcaster), I recently added tags to flag that two of the sources used in the introduction of the article were unreliable (one is an opinion piece from a tabloid newspaper, the other is a conservative social commentary website). In both cases, I provided in the history of the page a Canadian government source directly contradicting the claims made in the introduction and originating from those sources (see: http://ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/CHPC/meeting-106/evidence).

It also seems uncommon for such specific information about the compensation policy of an organization to appear in the introduction of an article about a living person. In Tait’s case, there is also further down on her page a section called “Executive Bonuses Scandal and Summons to House of Commons,” which already covers the same topic. Adding poorly sourced information about “bonuses” in the introduction with a point of view that is not neutral seems like an attempt to damage her reputation more than anything else. As you can see on the talk page of the article, misleading and false information about Tait (for instance, about the city where she resides) regularly gets added to her Wikipedia page.

As displayed on my user page and next to my latest edits, I work for the organization that Tait leads. For this reason, I would like to call on uninvolved editors to review the article and determine the most appropriate course of action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien.faille (talk • contribs) 14:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Even ignoring issues over the specific sources cited, the claim that "Tait has come under great criticism..." is unsupported editorialising, and none of this belongs in the lede, since it isn't discussed elsewhere in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Having looked at the sources, and taking into account my concerns above, I've removed the content for now. This does not preclude adding policy-compliant material on the matter later, after discussions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

This was all done in an edit by an IP on June 1; I completed reverting the edit, which had little to recommend it. --JBL (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)