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.

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 implying 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 implying 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)

Since apparently we're bean counting now, let me add a +1 to Newimpartial's suggested change; I think it strikes a much better balance than the previous language while still maintaining the important (sourced) info. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

A +1 from me too. I'd be happy to see further refining of the language, but full removal of the crucial context is unwarranted. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:41, 21 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: [1].

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." [2]

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.[3] 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.[4][5][6] —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 [7]. 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)

I think this is part of a much wider issue about tagging descriptors and identifiers to people. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:15, 21 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)

The semi-protection could be extended or made permanent. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:17, 21 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: [8], [9], [10] 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)

I agree with the main bit but sadly I do not think the root cause is because of lazy writing, rather I think people use it to score political points against people they do not like. Just a few minutes ago I made a comment about this for identifiers and descriptors more broader than criminal convictions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Sinfest/Tatsuya Ishida

Through discussion on the talk page, there's disagreement on whether this article constitutes a BLP. As an article about a webcomic made by a sole author, is discussion on content within the comic necessarily discussion of the author? The scope of the article only includes the author in the context of the comic genesis and should be written to avoid direct discussion of author commentary outside of the comic context. I am not looking to litigate self-published content and other contentions here, purely the claim of this being falling under the umbrella of a BLP. Kontakr (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Content about a living person is under the auspices of WP:BLP, whether the article itself is a biography or not. Schazjmd (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The content is not about the person, it is about the comic they make. Kontakr (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The article is about the comic. Any content in the article about the creator of the comic is content about a living person. Just like an article might be about a movie, but any content about the actors or directors (etc.) is content about living people. Schazjmd (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I see the confusion. I do not disagree that content discussing a person directly is BLP. The concern is that references to the content of the comic (in this case, antisemitic content) falls under BLP as discussion of the author being antisemitic. Kontakr (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

You haven't brought any specific content to this board for discussion. You just asked "whether this article constitutes a BLP". You'd need to provide the specific text about antisemitic content and its sources for a discussion about that. Schazjmd (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Please refer to the prev revision. [11] Disregarding quality of sources, a separate and valid discussion, is the specific content of the overview a BLP? This is mostly in response to the revision note of "Self-published sources should not be used for these sorts of accusations per BLP"

I believe clarification on what in this article constitutes a BLP is necessary. Kontakr (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Any mention of Tatsuya Ishida or his views constitutes a BLP for Wikipedia purposes. Even commentary about the comic needs to be well sourced and carefully written - you would be best advised to assume it's BLP content itself as the comic is so closely associated with him. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

If you read WP:BLP, it tells you: This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. (emphasis added) Schazjmd (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the conflict here is that the content of the comic itself is a reflection of the author's views, such as how it went from regular feminist issues to radical feminism to now pushing far right wing conspiracies. The question being proposed by OP is whether a discussion of the views presented in the comic fall under BLP because they are the views of the author. I would say no. However, I would also say that you still need proper reliable sources discussing the comic and these views in order to include them and a lot of the sources that have been presented on the talk page are just random website blogs. Which are not reliable sources. Unfortunately, as the popularity of Sinfest waned over the past decade due to the bizarre topic shifts of the author, so too has waned reliable source coverage of the comic as a whole, meaning there's little to no sources actually covering the subject matter shifting. It's an unfortunate Catch-22 situation. Silverseren^C 23:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

it went from regular feminist issues to radical feminism to now pushing far right wing conspiracies oh that’s a shame; it was quite charming once. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Platforms

I removed reporting of Ishida's removal from crowdfunding platforms based on UNDUE and ABOUTSELF grounds.[12][13] This was disputed and partially reverted. If a bear shits in the woods and no one else gives a shit about it. Err... Why should this de-platforming be included beyond WP:ITSIMPORTANT if no one reports on it besides Ishida? Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Andrew Huberman

A front page article in New York (magazine) details six anonymous women accusing Huberman of dishonesty, infidelity and manipulation. One said he infected her with HPV. Some editors feel this is mere gossip, but the NYM is reliable. Huberman's advice spans the spectrum from medical to spiritual, so his personal conduct seems relevant to me. Huberman himself has discussed the article on various podcasts. Here is an opinion piece which makes the case for the import of the article:Mahdawi on HubermanDolyaIskrina (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

For context, previous discussion appears to be at Talk:Andrew Huberman#Huberman and suspected mistreatment of Women Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Rossi Morreale

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.

---

Rossi Morreale has been a barely-sourced BLP since forever. The current sources are an interview, his own website, and IMDb, none of which confers notability. Of the sources Cunard found on the talk page, I don't think any is WP:SIGCOV. The first one is a pre-fame fluff piece from his hometown newspaper, which is the equivalent of saying I'm notable because two newspapers did articles on me after I was on Wheel of Fortune. Of Cunard's other sources, one is an article about Temptation that only mentions Rossi in passing, one is a directory listing from Rotten Tomatoes (?!?), one is a blurb about Junkyard Mega Wars that only mentions Rossi in passing, and one is a fluff piece from People. I did a deep dive and could only find articles on Temptation, directory listings, and press releases on shows he hosted. The fact that I can't find anything other than IMDb or fan wikis to prove where he's even from is telling.

@Donaldd23: suggested a redirect/merge to Temptation, but I feel that's unwarranted since he has hosted other shows. However, it seems pretty clear that despite his hosting a couple semi-notable shows, he fails WP:ANYBIO due to the utter lack of sourcing. The article has been tagged for sources since 2018, and for notability since 2023. If not even Cunard could find anything of substance to salvage this article, then I don't think anyone else will either. What say you? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I say the ten pound cleaver. I would, but I'm a little busy. I'm certain the article will still be there when I get hungry enough time. Otherwise I'm watching in case anyone else brings this to the morgue. JFHJr (㊟) 04:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Let me retract the AFD morgue recommendation. But the cleaver is still on the table re crap sourcing. This subject approximates WP:NACTOR: significant roles in multiple notable [...] television shows[...] or other productions. Hosting all that makes even me back away after a second look. There's no reason to support unsourced content though. Surely there's an innocuous third party that's reported even fragments of his serial hosting jobs. Open to questions about significance once there's more to look at. JFHJr (㊟) 05:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Any good? This? People. The Boot. Not great but something. — Iadmc♫^talk  05:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

No. Meh (BLPSPS interview). Yes. No again. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 05:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

OK — Iadmc♫^talk  05:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, the People source is the only one I've found that's any good here. Anything else is no good. There's just nothing here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I suggest a prod for now... — Iadmc♫^talk  06:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Iadmc: Someone else may do that, as I am topic banned from XFD. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Prodded — Iadmc♫^talk  20:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Iadmc: It was de-prodded literally seconds later, with the creator adding the mostly unusable sources Cunard found. Do you feel it should go to AFD? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

AfDed. It really is poor pickings out there. — Iadmc♫^talk  04:21, 20 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.

Josh_Burns_(politician)

Josh_Burns_(politician)

Incorrect, defamatory and fake-cited claims being serially inserted and reverted claiming he is an Israeli “asset” ie spy; and that he is a member for “Israel” i.e. effectively a double agent/spy in Parliament.

Claims have references, which just demonstrate that he has been opposed to local protests on university campuses (which as reported by mainstream media have been infiltrated by extremist international religious organisations, hence opposition to them is not proof the opposer is an Israeli spy)

The IP who inserted this claim is currently blocked. If disruption on the article continues from different accounts, WP:RFPP is the place to request protection. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Modi Rosenfeld

Hi there,

My name is Leo, I work with Modi.

I was wondering if someone could help us add some additional information to his Wikipedia page.

For example, we'd like to include his recent special, "Know Your Audience". Link: https://deadline.com/2024/03/modi-rosenfeld-special-know-your-audience-release-date-1235844939/

We'd also like to include info from a few of the below articles: Meet Modi Rosenfeld – the Comedian Helping the Jewish Community Laugh Again

Modi Rosenfeld is Pausing for Laughter

‘Flipping the Script’: Israel comedian Modi speaks about finding humor after Oct. 7 attack

Can you connect me with someone who can assist with this?

Thank you so much,

Leo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.154.213.210 (talk) 06:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Leo, this noticeboard isn't the right place to request changes to articles (unless there's defamatory material that needs to be removed immediately). The best place to make edit requests is on the talk page of the article, in this case Talk:Modi Rosenfeld. As you have stated that you work with the subject of the article, see Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request for more information on how to go about doing this in the right way. Iffy★Chat -- 12:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Medical professional misconduct scandals in Nova Scotia

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medical professional misconduct scandals in Nova Scotia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Feel free to join the discussion at Talk:Medical professional misconduct scandals in Nova Scotia#Discussion re: removed section "Private Practice Scandals", concerning the inclusion or exclusion of serious claims about individuals in a more general article. It concerns this section (which may warrant revdel) and the "June 2024" section here. Fram (talk) 07:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that entire article's salvageable as it stands. It looks like a string of unrelated marginally notable incidents presented as a tacit invitation to "join the dots", conspiracy-theory style. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

You're right. Why is this article here? To answer OP: private (no public life) living persons don't need WP:BLPCRIME even if the article is ostensibly about a phenomenon and not a person, by its title. Any content in any article or talk or wiki forum about living persons is a BLP concern. But back to the point Daveosaurus and now I would like to raise: how is this article encyclopedic, and what unrelated source covers this as a discrete phenomenon? It's not normal here to see, basically, "MedMal in X second-level (including federative) nation members" as a title. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 01:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

To the question about how the article is encyclopedic: The existence of Category:Medical scandals and Category:Scandals in Canada and Category:21st-century scandals shows that scandals are, in general, encyclopedic. There are a few longer-titled scandals on there, such as Controversies surrounding the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Royal Newfoundland Constabulary sexual abuse scandal and Canadian Indian residential school gravesites that have a place within an encyclopedia. Within Canada, it is quite unusual for one health region/university combined to have so many scandals related to a toxic culture of bullying, discrimination, entitlement toward colleagues' bodies, entitlement toward accessing anyone's records like a friend's, etc., such that there are a couple dozen articles on these topics. And all are related because any physician trainee studying at Dalhousie University is by default an employee of Nova Scotia Health Authority, and all of the Nova Scotia Health Authority physicians involved in scandals were also working on research or training with Dalhousie University at the time. Some of these scandals involved big lawsuits in the 6-7 figures. That's significant, at least as relevant to Category:Scandals in Canada even if repeated big lawsuits in the 6-7 figures are not a big deal elsewhere. The kinds of scandals that have happened repeatedly within healthcare in Nova Scotia are usually supposed to be very rare, yet happen at an unusually high frequency in Nova Scotia and with significant taxpayer dollars wasted as a result. Scandals are valid within an encyclopedia, especially when the integrated summary of all of it demonstrates overall systemic problems. Ask anyone in Nova Scotia trying to access healthcare or trying to work in healthcare and they will tell you that there are very visible systemic problems, and a combination of over a couple dozen news articles about these things happening within the past decade is evidence of this.

Now, that is beside the point here. Is it right to tear down the entire article because of a dispute over whether or not one section makes sense? That doesn't seem fair, seems almost retaliatory to do that to a new editor who is debating the inclusion of one portion into the article. I don't care that much about the Dr. Steele scandal that I put in there, so please don't try to destroy all of the hard work I put into this by making a mountain out of a molehill and punishing me for trying to understand. If the consensus is that the Dr. Steele scandal stays out, then I accept that and ask that we leave it out without destroying the whole article as punishment for my even daring to question this, even though I currently do not understand why the Dr. Steele scandal is not worth including.

My questions about the Dr. Steele scandal are:

1. This guy died in January, how far back does BLP cover? What is considered "recently deceased" and at what point does that not count as recent any more? Does 6 months count as not recent any more, such that the information is worth putting back in there next month, or is it 1 year or longer?

2. If BLP does apply, does Dr. Steele count as an "involuntary public figure" given the discussion around his behaviours with a minor when you look him up, and therefore WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies?

3. Is it fair to say that he has only been "accused" of having committed a crime, given that the criminal charges were withdrawn, or if we remove just that section about the criminal charges, is it fair to include the rest of it where he lost his medical licence for his actions with a minor? Is losing one's medical licence after an investigation and hearing from one's licensing college not considered a "conviction" in that sense? Is Wikipedia reducing the outcomes of medical licensing boards to "accusations" and not "convictions" on the matters of losing the licence because of professional misconduct?

4. Do we consider the investigations and hearings from a medical licensing board to be a "judicial proceeding"? If so, then that outcome of losing his licence because of his actions with a minor seems to be in contradiction to the outcome of having no criminal charges for those actions, which relates to the WP:BLPCRIME point of "If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other,[f] include sufficient explanatory information." And again, if you read the actual documents and articles, he lost his licence because the alleged actions were confirmed to have happened. The victim just refused to testify and that's why it was not pursued criminally - because she was visibly shaken in the courtroom and backed out. Seemed to me when writing this piece that this was worth including as the withdrawn criminal charge is a "seemingly contradictory outcome that does not overrule the other" and it was worth including the "sufficient explanatory information" that the victim was afraid to testify. It was already confirmed that the man did take the nude photos of the teen, and that is why he lost his licence. This is the tip of the iceberg of similar things that have happened in the culture of doctor entitlement in Nova Scotia. Basically the whole article is about toxic medical culture, with several examples of an overarching systemic issue of entitlement to mistreat other human beings because one is a physician/dentist.

MrHaligonian (talk) 02:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Does any reliable source indicate The kinds of scandals that have happened repeatedly within healthcare in Nova Scotia are usually supposed to be very rare, yet happen at an unusually high frequency in Nova Scotia and with significant taxpayer dollars wasted as a result? After that, without any WP:NOR, do two or more others also say so? This quote seems to well state the basis for notability. But the underpinnings are not clear. JFHJr (㊟) 02:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I would say that the details of several of the news articles referenced within the Wikipedia article suggest that these scandals should be rare but happen at an unusually high frequency in Nova Scotia. For example, the comment from lawyers that NSHA is "negligent" in preventing repeated privacy breaches suggests this is happening too much, to the extent of it coming across negligent. The fact of NSHA spending $1 million - of taxpayer money - on lawyers to fight Dr. Horne who ultimately won her bullying case anyway and then they paid her more taxpayer money (NSHA is taxpayer funded) when she won her lawsuit; the fact that NSHA paid out a class action lawsuit about privacy breaches; the fact that multiple physicians complained about bullying and said "it was like a circus" among other things and then left the province... it's all connected to a general problematic toxic culture that is notable. Saying that all these issues are just disconnected issues and that I'm playing "conspiracy theorist" is like saying that a bunch of indigenous children's gravesites in all sorts of places all over Canada is not connected and it's a conspiracy to put it all in 1 article, and yet Canadian Indian residential school gravesites exists and I think the country would be up in arms if someone questioned the notability of that article, even though the gravesites are littered all over the place and seemingly disconnected - yet united, the existence of all these problems indicate a larger, overlying problematic culture. Not really a conspiracy theory. Just pointing to systemic issues in how human beings get treated. Systemic issues do exist in all sorts of problematic systems. MrHaligonian (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your wall of text. It would have been much easier just to reply "No, that statement requires original research and synthesis to make the article's titled notion work out." Because that's all I took away from the non-responsive reply wall. My question didn't involve any conspiracy related mentions. Just sourcing. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 00:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Even without the BLP angle and the crime but no conviction issue, the whole section would be WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK: an individual doctor doing something sufficient to get his license revoked is not evidence of any systematic problem at the province level and is, unless reliable sources make the connection explicitly, unconnected to the topic of the article. Whether the article as a whole may exist or not is up to others, but I see no reason to include individual cases (this one or any similar ones) if there is no clear connection, as noted by reliable sources, of the individual cases to a systemic issue. Fram (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@MrHaligonian: just making a quick comment since it's mostly tangential, probably why no one addressed but is important if you're going to continue to edit articles dealing with the recently decease. Per WP:BDP and the recent discussions clarifying, 6 months is generally accepted as the absolute minimum for "recently deceased". Absolute minimum here means if someone died in January then yes they're covered as it's still June so even if they died on 1 January it cannot have been 6 months. This doesn't mean the moment 6 months past we should suddenly ignore BLP. If there are some restrictions specific to BLP like BLPPRIMARY, it's worth considering how to deal with them long term but in any case, as others have noted BLP is only one of the issues anyway even if the one we deal with on this board. Nil Einne (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Robert Morris (pastor)

Hello all. I just started up this page about Morris who has recently been in the news for sexual misconduct revelations. The article deals with things that are traditionally difficult to navigate in BLPs, and some second eyes looking over everything to ensure policy and guideline are being followed is always appreciated. Thank you. R. G. Checkers ^talk 07:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it should be re-directed back to Gateway Church (Texas). Like you said, this is an "in the news" situation, and the allegations are adequately covered in the church article. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I think Morris passes GNG with his history with notable ministry, work with Trump, and now sexual abuse scandal. R. G. Checkers ^talk 15:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Isaidnoway. Work with Trump doesn't help him WP:INHERIT anything; his pastoral role and his misconduct go just as well in the organization's article, as much as it is WP:DUE the weight it takes textually. JFHJr (㊟) 02:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The content that is presented in the Gateway Church article right now might be UNDUE for the church's article because it is a separate entity from Morris. The allegations and subsequent resignation of Morris should be mentioned in that article, but more focus should be on how the church has responded to the allegations than the allegations themselves. R. G. Checkers ^talk 05:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Judith Sewell Wright biography of living person violation

Plugaru has been undoing my revision on Judith Sewell Wright, which I have documented with a link showing the truth of the content. The undoing of the revisions portrays Judith in a poor light which violates the biographies of living persons rule here. I have shown the link that makes my change accurate. There is no reason to keep reverting to the older, incomplete information. I will admit I didn't log in the first time I made the change, but I've been clear about the reasoning for why my change should be up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KreftMM (talk • contribs) 14:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Unless there are secondary sources covering this, neither the prior version or the current version belong in a BLP, and it should be removed, since the only sources used - illinoiscourts.gov and caselaw.findlaw.com - are unacceptable sources for a BLP. See WP:BLPPRIMARY - Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.14:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Isaidnoway (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I would be fine with the whole section being removed about the court cases. The reason for desiring the change was to NOT include the court information that made Judith appear in a bad light. Would that be acceptable? KreftMM (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Renée DiResta

Per this post by the article subject on Threads, I took at the Renée DiResta article and found this edit by an anon. The claims made in the edit are at best SYNTH, and appear to be aimed to harm the article subject. Although the edit has been reverted, it stood for almost a day (and probably was only revered in response to her social media posting.

Since this is a BLP I semi-protected the page, but I would prefer a second opinion on this, especially since my action was prompted by something I saw on social media. Thanks! Guettarda (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Certainly, there are at least vast problems with that edit, both in POV phrasing (such as the subject's supposed plan "to legally violate First Amendment rights") and in sourcing (I noted such sourcing as a Substack, which runs into WP:BLPSPS, and the New York Post, which runs into WP:NYPOST.) That is not to say that there's absolutely nothing that could reasonably be included on the topic covered, but it would require at minimum a hefty rework from the material as posted. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I wish all BLPs were semi'd by default. It would save so much time and effort dealing with nonsense. I bet socking incidents would also fall noticeably. If randos and SPAs are forced to go though edit proposals and COI disclosures on talk pages first, it would improve the project. JFHJr (㊟) 01:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I think her page should mention the furor that surrounds her. She herself has recently written about the conspiracy theories about her. So I think we do need to find a NPOV way to mention these things. Yes I agree that the edit was biased, but had proper attribution been used "she has been accused of x" " then it is fitting to put on her page. DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Patrick Treacy

• Patrick Treacy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Relevant: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joyland2017

Another sockpuppet of Joyland2017 has tried to remove a section about a criminal conviction against this subject, and later admitted to being employed by Mr. Treacy. They have been blocked, but the section they were trying to remove is cited to an article which has been removed by its publisher, evidently because Mr. Treacy threatened to sue. It was restored in good faith by MrOllie with a link to an archived snapshot of the article, and user Brammarb suggested that using an archived snapshot of the taken-down article is fine because no retraction was published. This seems dubious to me, particularly as I can find no other source for the claims made in the article. I don't think either of MrOllie or Brammarb have done anything wrong per se but I think this needs closer review, as Mr. Treacy is a living person. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't chalk the removal to anything beyond WP:LINKROT. This person falls under WP:NPF. Should a minor conviction for drunkenness and abusive behaviour that was only reported by a local Irish tabloid be in his biography when he is known for being Michael Jackson's doctor? Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I attached a lot of weight to the views of MrOllie, but I should have made my own views a little clearer. My hesitancy about it being removed was due to (a) it being done by an (selfconfessed) paid editor, (b) a very long history of sock and paid editing on that page (probably going back to the very beginning of its existence) and (c) that this “wrong” newspaper article was only raised (in spite of all the socking and paid editors) for the first time after all these years on grounds that remain completely unsubstantiated. But I’ll be guided by those much more experienced than I. Brammarb (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Maksine Myers

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

---

I'd be grateful if someone could have a look at Draft:Maksine Myers. I came across this via Anna Chapman, where an editor or several editors has several times added information about Chapman's children, unsourced or poorly sourced. Diff, diff, diff. I and other editors have reverted this information and it's not in the current version of the Chapman article. One of the editors, however, has created an unsourced draft about Chapman's 16-year-old daughter, and I'm wondering if it should be deleted, even as a draft. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I've deleted this. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 18:10, 20 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.

Liang Wang

There is dispute over Liang Wang (oboist) being labeled as an American in the lead sentence. Newimpartial's reinstatements cites WP:CONTEXTBIO even though there are no citations verifying that Wang is a U.S. national or permanent resident.[14][15] Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I have now added a citation for Liang Wang's nationality (Chinese-American). There are many, many academic biographies that list nationality with no citations whatsoever, and this one is now cited. I do not understand why Morbidthoughts is inclined to apply a standard to this long-term (since 2003) member of the US labor force that isn't applied to other biographies. CONTEXTBIO is not supposed to depend on the country of origin, or whether the person is admirable or not. In the current instance, literally everything notable the BLP subject as done has been as a US resident. Newimpartial (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The citation is to a disputed source, China Daily.[[16]] A long-term worker in the U.S. should not be presumed to have permanent residency. People can continue to renew their work visas and continue to live in the United States long-term. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

But Morbid, the principle of CONTEXTBIO is context for that which made the person notable; citizenship or permanent residency is offered in the guideline as a rule of thumb, not an Iron Law. In this instance, I don't think there is any doubt that the context making Liang Wang notable is his career teaching and performing within the United States (at the top level of classical music performance).

As far as China Daily is concerned, the dispute linked by Morbid above seems to be about politics rather than the biographies of musicians, and I take the key sentence of the close to be the following:

Editors agree that when using this source, context matters a great deal and the facts should be separated from the China Daily's view about those facts.

I don't believe that the Wang's nationality has ever been disputed by anyone other than Morbid, which should make the citation of this fact unproblematic. The term "American" has been consistently present in this BLP since 2019 (until Morbid removed it), and this is clearly the context of notability, IMO. The descriptor "Chinese", which Morbid retained when removing "American", was only added two months ago, presumably based on Wang's birthplace. If anything, we should be discussing whether that nationality, tangential to the context of his notability, ought to be included. Newimpartial (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I think this links with my comment about identifiers and descriptors. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

We still ought to have a WP:RS backing up this claim over WP:CHINADAILY. - Amigao (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree on the interpretation of CONTEXTBIO that allows wikipedia to call people that achieve their notability in the United States as Americans in the lead. From plain language alone, calling someone American implies that they are U.S. nationals/citizens.[17] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Simone Badal-McCreath

Dispute is about the inclusion of plagiarism allegations in this context referenced to Retraction Watch at Talk:Simone_Badal-McCreath. My take on that is that while the source may be reliable, it doesn't sufficiently demonstrate anything other than that there was a disagreement between the two authors and the publisher and does not warrant inclusion. Please comment here or on the talk page. Graywalls (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I"m going to agree that it is UNDUE along the same rationale I held the last time RW was brought up at BLPN.[18] Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It's definitely undue, but more than that it's saying and implying things that the source doesn't say nor imply. We're framing it as a case of plagiarism, which is a very serious charge in the field of writing. The source frames it in no such way. The only explanation offered was by the publisher, who chalked it up to a "production error", and no alternative theory was given by the source that would even suggest plagiarism. Not even an accusation of plagiarism is there. The publisher basically blamed the "typesetters" and not the editors, which (believe it or not) is actually a common problem in publishing, and a very plausible explanation. But we can't take that and suddenly turn it around and claim plagiarism by the editor, because that's OR and SYNTH. Thus, as it actually reads in the source, it seems like a very insignificant thing for the subject of our article, hence very undue. Zaereth (talk) 02:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The bigger question here is not that it's "undue" weight, but why is it "undue"? Reading the source: [19], it is very legitimate content and given an article on a certain subject for what they are notable for inclusion at WP for would be perfectly acceptable to include for an encyclopedic article. However, since the article about the subject overall (in my estimation) is skirting a fine line for notable inclusion to begin with here at WP, any controversial inclusion of content such as this will be undue because there just isn't anything else in this subject's article to counter the weight. As I wrote on the Talk Page: Coi, on account of this discussion, light has now been brought to an otherwise poorly written, and I dare say: un-visited, and even questionable article that was created in 2017 and not edited for several years due to lack of new contribution entry content. It would seem without this new discovery, there might not be any new entries. So my question here is: should no new content be added simply because there is nothing of real substance to the article to begin with? If I had stumbled across this article just by happenstance, I seriously would have considered placing it up for AfD on the merits raised on the Talk Page. Plagiarism aside, the content exists, it should be phrased correctly and accordingly as the source says and included. If you are excluding based on "undue weight" than you must question the article as a whole. It is not undue to simply state that Badal was a victim of a publisher's error. A simple quote of explanation by Badal from within the source should suffice. After all, her notability is as a "researcher and a medical sciences lecturer" who authors writings on her applied field. Maineartists (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The source looks more like a blog than a reliable source. Maybe it has reliably factual information, but that certainly impacts its relevance towards adding weight in a BLP to such a minor issue that appears to have more to do with the publisher than the article subject who was an editor on the book. I agree with Zaereth and Morbidthoughts regarding their explainations for why the content is undue. – notwally (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Nandipha Magudumana

This is one of the most searched individuals in South Africa in 2023 (and probably in 2024 also). She's most notable for her criminal activities as she's still in trial. Apparently inclusion of her criminal activities on the encyclopedia is a violation of WP:CRIMINAL but I believe that's what most (if not all) of the aforementioned page viewers are looking for here. I was hoping to get an input and include at least some of her criminal activities on that article. This is the revision of the deleted content of her criminal activities. Showmax and Multichoice aired a documentary based on their prison escape and most of their history. I believe readers are here for a summarized version of all that. —&nbspdxneo (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

If this person has not yet been convicted of a crime, we simply cannot use the phrase "criminal activities" or any similar wording. If well referenced, the article can say she was arrested and summarize the charges. If she's on trial, that can be included if properly referenced. But until she is convicted. if that happens, the article cannot state or imply or hint that she is a criminal or that her activities were criminal. The language must be rigorously neutral. This is a matter of policy. Cullen328 (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, frankly it seems like I failed to stay neutral the last time. I will try again and have you review the short section before I put it up if that's okay with you. — dxneo (talk) 05:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Dxneo, I will take a look at what you draft, but be aware that I live in California, almost half the way around the world from South Africa, so may respond slowly. Cullen328 (talk) 06:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Use of XXL for a birthday

Hello, I originally added XXL as a source for a BLP birthday at DJ Paul, due to it being designated as a reliable source per WP:RSMUSIC, but I self-reverted to bring the source here since I am unsure about whether or not this specific link should be cited as a source for the article subject's birthday. What do you all say? I think I've made it clear that I'm not sure whether or not this link should be used for a BLP despite the source appearing to meet the requirements of WP:RS, but I would like to ask for a second opinion here. JeffSpaceman (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

JeffSpaceman, XXL is indeed a reliable source per WP:RSMUSIC. You can try to verify this information by double checking with another green source. — dxneo (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:DOB including the birth date of a living person requires more than just a reliable source. The specific standard is wheather the source is "widely published by reliable sources". As I don't know much about music journalism, I can't say whether XXL meets this standard.Serprinss (talk) please ping on reply. 06:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate you pointing me to that section of the BLP policy, Serprinss. I will avoid restoring the information from the source for now, given that the only other sources I can find for supposed birthdates for the subject are from sources that are very clearly WP:NOTRS, and are especially inappropriate for a BLP (circular sources, websites like Famous Birthdays, etc). I think for now, there is no reason to include a birthdate here, considering that XXL is the only reliable source I can find that has published a birthdate for him. (If anyone wants to see what kind of sources come up when Googling the subject's birthday, see here). JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Ana Roš

My name is Urban Stojan Roš (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UrbanStojan) and I am responsible to handle the information about Ana Roš (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ana_Ro%C5%A1).

Our problem is, that a user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Launchballer is constantly publish false information about a living person Ana Roš Stojan. All information that we publish is supported by fact and edits by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Launchballer are false information and misleading. As such Ana Roš is suffering irreparable damage.

We have contacted user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Launchballer but he refused to cooperate and is republishing false information.

I kindly ask the community for help provide the facts to the Wikipedia users. This is the link to changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ana_Ro%C5%A1&oldid=prev&diff=1230545116

Best regards, Urban

The edits I am reverting are WP:BLP violations. See also User talk:UrbanStojan, where I have warned the user for making legal threats.--Launchballer 10:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Launchballer is publishing falls facts about Ana Roš and hurting her as she is sitting next to me as we speak. All the facts that i published are supported by proofs that I can provide if so needed. As I am not a skilled use, I kindly ask for help as Ana fells her identity to be taken hostage and her life work damaged. If there is a true mistake on the data I published I am more than willing to accept the change, but please restrain from publishing false and misleading information. Jus t for instance, Ana's full name is Ana Roš Stojan, she manages three project and not just Hiša Franko, Hiša Frnako has three Michelin stars and a green on, etc.) UrbanStojan (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Message typed by my wife, whos information you keep editing and replacing with false information:

"Hi, my name is Ana Roš Stojan and not Ana Roš.

I am a three Michelin star chef from Slovenia. I am also one of the two women in the world to hold three red stars and one green. I have been holding 3+1 stars since 2023, and I was confirmed 3+1 stars 10 days ago.

You continue changing my Wikipedia profile which is correct to the last information and misleading people with fake information.

This is fraud and I feel being stolen my personality and credits for my work.

Just wondering who are you to continue doing it?" UrbanStojan (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I am a Wikipedian enforcing WP:BLP policy. Please read it.--Launchballer 11:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Any passing admin should please block both of these editors for their ridiculous edit war (6 or 7 reverts each in the past few hours). I notice Talk:Ana Roš is unused; shame on both of you. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Reverting BLP violations does not count towards any revert limits. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 22:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Article Created by Sockpuppet

If an article was created by a sockpuppet and then deleted as a result of this, what is the process for trying to recreate it?

I have no problem that it was deleted - this happened mid March.

How long is the person in question tainted for? MaskedSinger (talk) 12:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you just ask an admin to allow edits. I had this with an article which had been used originally as a personal blog for a nobody but I knew of a composer with the same name and wanted to create an article on her instead. It was allowed — Iadmc♫^talk  12:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Better still, create it in draftspace and submit it for review. WP:AFC - Cabayi (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Cabayi @Iadmc I'm going to do some more research before proceeding, just to be safe. If I sense anything about it is iffy, I won't proceed. MaskedSinger (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

MaskedSinger, if you want the content of the deleted article restored, that can be done by any admin. The restored content would not be placed into mainspace, of course, but you could work with it if you wanted to. Schwede66 21:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! Appreciate it. MaskedSinger (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Categorization

Why is this talk page categorised in Category:Scandals in Canada? — Iadmc♫^talk  12:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Someone forgot to put : between "[[" and "Category". Fixed.--Launchballer 12:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

OK thanks — Iadmc♫^talk  12:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Campbell Brown (journalist)

I grew up watching Campbell Brown (journalist) so when I saw that her article had some tags on it, one of which was for UPE, I took it upon myself to clean it up. Ive now done this. Could someone please take a look at it and see if it's in a position for this tag to be removed. Thanks. If it's not ready, please let me know where it requires more work. Thank you. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done Cullen328 (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Penny Morales Shaw

Can't read the source from the UK but is it enough to call this person a Communist? Added by this blocked IP[20] Doug Weller talk 17:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller Can you read [21]? This is their aboutpage:[22]. Source seems to check out content-wize, but apart from the RS there is NPOV... though she may of course be the first communist (like) ever spotted in the Texas House of Representatives.

Found nothing at RSN, not a lot of WP-presence it seems:[23]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Founded by Konni Burton the most conservative member . Thanks.of the Texas Senate. Definitely not an RS as the About page makes obvious Doug Weller talk 17:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I can’t figure out how to find out if we use it elsewhere. “TheTexan.news” doesn’t seem to work. Doug Weller talk 17:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Is amazon.com a reliable source for personal information?

An editor added a date of birth and place of birth to Dana Barron with the edit summary, "Amazon is a reliable and reputable reference for date & city of birth of Dana".

The "Dana Barron" page on amazon.com has a small "IMDb" logo under Barron's biographical data, which I take to mean that the content above the logo came from IMDb. The "Dana Barron biography" on IMDb contains the same biographical data as that on the amazon.com page.

WP:IMDB is clear in stating that IMDb is not reliable. Should we say the same for amazon.com with regard to biographical data? Eddie Blick (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

It is clearly from IMDB, so not a reliable source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Both Amazon and IMDB are a no. See WP:RSNP. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 02:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, under WP:DOB, dates of birth should really be "widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public". – notwally (talk) 02:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @AndyTheGrump, @JFHJr, and @Notwally. I appreciate the feedback. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Ashley Gjøvik

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

A request at WP:RPPI from an IP asks that this article be semi-protected. Another IP opposes the first. There is a storm of editing going on there and I'm hoping someone will work out what is going on and whether admin action is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a massive WP:BLPPRIMARY mine field with too many things cited solely to court documents. One IP had the nerve to revert and wikilawyer an administrator, Fences and windows.[24] I have a suspicion these ip addresses are PR-ing and litigating through wikipedia and the article needs an extensive clean-up. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

For those that don't know there was some previous disputes that seemed to be going on on and off wiki that resulted in both the subject and someone they were in dispute with being blocked and banned respectively. See e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1100#Ban evasion, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13#Arbitration motion regarding HazelBasil and SquareInARoundHole and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 184#Cher Scarlett, Ashley Gjøvik, Ifeoma Ozoma, & Apple Worker Organizations. I have no idea if the other party is still socking if they are, perhaps longer term semi protection should be considered. While the subject remains blocked, I would suggest emailing about problems would be a better solution than posting about it on Twitter. Nil Einne (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a pattern of IP addresses that have never made edits to WP before making 1 or 2 edits and then disappearing. I suggest that the person doing this knows what they're doing and is doing this intentionally to evade a previous ban. See evidence from here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Single-edit_IPs_vandalizing_Ashley_Gjøvik_page and in particular, this section posted to another user's talk page from a throwaway IP accusing that editor of "casting aspersions" for making claims that this IP-hopper isn't (implausibly) a new person for every new IP they're using. I wasn't aware of the history of this page before the recent twitter threads, news articles etc., but based on what you have linked above, I think it's very plausible that this IP hopper is the same person as SquareInARoundHole. Note: I've only made a couple edits since my dynamic IP rotated last night, but I'm not intentionally changing my IP after every edit like this person or using proxies across many different ISPs. I am the same person that used Special:Contributions/76.6.213.65 for the past couple weeks. 76.6.210.82 (talk) 07:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I did an extensive clean-up that addressed the BLPPRIMARY and ABOUTSELF concerns.[25] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

That's impressive work, Morbidthoughts, because that article was a mess. – notwally (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Question: I am not overly familiar with BLP policies. Is the reason that court documents are not allowed is that they become Original Research because they are easy to MIS-interpret? (I saw lots of those additions, but didn't know about the applicability of court documents as sources for what seemed to be simple statements like "lawsuit dismissed with/out prejudice").

I understand WP:BLP : "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." - but I would think that would pertain to info like allegations of misconduct/criminal charges, not whether a lawsuit is active, dismissed, settled, or adjudicated. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I take a broad view of WP:BLPPRIMARY's prohibition. The need to complete a story is not a reason to start ignoring this policy. It is an argument that is against WP:WEIGHT if no secondary reliable sources report on the outcome. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I think WP:PRIMARY as well is important regardless of BLP concerns, including its interaction with WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTEWORTHY. A missing detail that is truly important may be useful to pull from a primary source in certain circumstances (much less likely in a BLP given WP:BLPPRIMARY), but determining how much to include in an article is difficult enough using secondary sources, not to mention primary sources. – notwally (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Published case law (which is not court documents in the sense of public records) is used frequently on Wikipedia - quick search of Reuters casetext yields 1,100 results. Many are on BLPs. WP:RSLAW is worth a read. RICO is pretty much the most serious accusation someone can lodge and the only source of it is an Apple blog. If it's worth including, I can't see how published case law that it was dismissed (especially with prejudice) isn't also warranted. The fact it was adjudicated doesn't seem like a minor detail. Changed my mind on this because of Johnuniq's note below. Say ocean again (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Published case opinions are court documents and have to be handled the same way on Wikipedia because they implicate many of the same concerns with their usage, whether that is privacy of living people or the issues interpreting them by anyone who can edit here. Also, dismissal with prejudice is not necessarily an adjudication on the merits, and there are significantly more serious accusations than a RICO lawsuit filed by an employee for retaliation and fraud. Claiming that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a very persuasive argument, especially on this noticeboard dealing with the strict guidelines for BLPs. – notwally (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Note this IP address has only ever made this one edit, to this talk page. See above about sockpuppeting on this article as this editor is almost certainly a known quantity; since they are no longer able to edit the article, they are now editing administrative threads trying to influence how it is being edited.

I've only made a couple edits since my IP rotated last night, but I'm not intentionally changing my IP after every edit like this person. I am the same person that used Special:Contributions/76.6.213.65 for the past couple weeks. 76.6.210.82 (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't control my IP address and have never contributed in a way that wasn't clear I'm one person. I requested page protections for the very reason that you and unknown number of others were edit warring and the article itself was posted on as a community note from a Twitter thread with tens of thousands of retweets.

I made an account to make it clear, even though I disagree with it on principle for the purpose of this BLPN conversation. Say ocean again (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I was saying that they are Wikipedia:Published vs Wikipedia:Public records, not that they aren't court documents.

My question is whether or not AppleInsider is a reliable source for inclusion on a BLP.

A second question would be for lawsuits and legal complaints that are never reported on again, at what point should we remove them from a BLP as Wikipedia:Recentism, if we cannot include case law? Say ocean again (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Using court documents and similar is very undesirable because their meaning can be misunderstood by onlookers, and because they can be contradicted in another document, and because an opponent of the subject can easily cherry-pick undue negativity from a laundry-list of assertions. Using a secondary source is supposed to shift the burden of deciding what reporting is appropriate from an anyone-can-edit contributor to the editorial team of the secondary source. Johnuniq (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• FYI, I have semi-protected the article for 6 months. Lectonar (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

FYI, there's a related conversation happening at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Published judicial documents with good information on this topic. Say ocean again (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Kathleen Kennedy

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.

---

There's currently a discussion about adding recent criticisms to the biography of Kathleen Kennedy. Any and all feedback is welcome. Thanks Nemov (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems pretty WP:UNDUE when nothing else about her role in the Star Wars franchise is even mentioned in the article body. I removed it for now and left a comment on the talk page with a more detailed explanation. – notwally (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Summary: Kathleen Kennedy (producer)'s article has, for years now, had many editors trying to add coverage regarding criticisms of leadership of the Star Wars franchise. It seems this stems from the modern culture wars in the US. One particular editor, User:Nemov, for years now has constantly reverted any and all negative references to Kennedy. Various editors have aired grievances in the Talk Page about the current state of the article reading like a press release, only focusing on accolades and non-noteworthy trivia, while having 0 criticisms about the subject allowed. I added recent paragraphs, in what I thought is a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view style, got reverted twice, User:Nemov posted on my Talk Page twice, and refused to discuss in good faith. This happened before with other editors and he has been subject to a Dispute Resolution before on this.

More details:

User:Nemov has constantly reverted any criticisms and referred to the need for anything to be newsworthy via reliable sources on the articles Talk Page. The above, taken at face value, might seem ok even though it violates Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". Instead of correcting or improving the additions, like finding RS+ to use, the article's history shows that of the last 100 edits, 24 were made by said user, usually reverting. The current sources accepted in the article before today, by the way, include: NY Post, Hollywood Daily, Yahoo!, MSN, Box Office Mojk, and Slashfilm.com. They are all, of course, used for positive statements on Kennedy. It seems like a double standard is being applied when a contentious or negative claim has been added by many other editors.

Still, I decided to give a try today, and wrote 3 paragraphs condensing all the very recent criticisms published by RS using sources like NYT, Variety, Forbes, Deadline, Hollywood Reporter, and Vanity Fair. I made sure to reconfirm they are all good RS for media and entertainment, as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. In brief seconds after I posted the additions, which I strived for a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, User:Nemov reverted it and posted twice to my Talk Page, warning me on the topic. I posted on the Talk Page regarding this sub-section and User:Nemov was very aggressive and did not argue in good faith. He refused to even try and reach for consensus. Two other editors then chimed in and agreed that the criticisms of Kennedy should be featured in the article but in less words than what I had typed up. I welcomed it and asked for any editor to improve it. A few hours go by, and User:Notwally, who has never edited this article, reverted my addition, claiming Wikipedia:Verifiability (the same argument used by User:Nemov, and that 3 paragraphs was excessive. I want to reiterate that on that same talk page I had welcomed any improvement to the text, but this seems like plain censorship. Of note, User:Nemov and User:Notwally both have edited other articles together, like Pine Tree Flag. Moreover, User:Nemov has been a consistent editor and participant of very contentious articles frequently referenced in these modern culture wars in the US like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Hunter Biden, Andy Ngo, and others. This all leads me to believe there might be collusion between both editors and that User:Nemov is not editing within the non-negotiable Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Of note, I asked User:Nemov twice in the Talk Page, in a polite way, if he could confirm he had no Wikipedia:Conflict of interest on Kathleen Kennedy. He refused twice to answer said question. It is obvious Kennedy's public criticisms, which has been referenced for years and by many RS' merits inclusion in an article that currently includes factoids such as the first job Kennedy got out high school. One more contentious part of the history of this article is that User:Nemov was wholly responsible for "protecting" the article from having a single reference to the popular television special South Park: Joining the Panderverse which features this issue, criticisms of Kennedy's handling of IP like Star Wars, as its central point. That article references Kennedy 18 times and her own article has 0 references to this. User:Nemov argued in the Talk Page that South Park lampooned everybody and that this was trivial. This led to User:Xam2580 initiating a Dispute Resolution against User:Nemov which, sadly, fizzled out due to lack of participation. Link here.

All of the above explains the current state of the article. I would ask for a non-involved experienced editor or two to take a look at the history and talk page of Kathleen Kennedy (producer), consider the above information and my recent addition, and edit it down to whatever seems due and NPOV for WP. User:Nemov has constantly reverted this article, for years, in what seems is a concerted effort to protect Kathleen Kennedy from any criticism, to the detriment of WP's NPOV and mission.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

A quick addition is that checking this Noticeboard's history I see a few minutes ago both User:Nemov and User:Notwally posted here regarding the above topic. A few sentences each. Oddly, a minute after I posted the above, User:Notwally deleted both their comments. It seems either they are communicating which other, some sort of collusion or possible Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry (I hope this is not true). I don't imagine how two wholly separate editors would delete each others Noticeboard comments unless it doesn't look good to them and they are indeed working together.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Aside from WP:AGF and WP:PA, I think it is important to note that many public figures are criticized throughout their life. That does not mean it is WP:DUE or relevant to include in an article about them. Also, you can ignore or misrepresent what other people have said, but it is not going to help your case. Four people on the article's talk page have all agreed that your addition is excessive. You need to use the article's talk page to reach a consensus on what to include, actually address what other editors have said there, and stop making baseless accusations against other editors. – notwally (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I just want to verify a few things here:

-did you revert my edit instead of fixing it or improving it?

-did you consider the Talk Page where other experienced editors agreed that criticisms of Kathleen Kennedy should be included? (even if there is no consensus on the form/lenght)

-did you then stated there was no consensus for your quick revert?

-did you warn me on my talk page, same as User:Nemov, even though I had asked you on the talk page to not post on my talk page?

-did you briefly post here, on this Noticeboard, then User:Nemov replied under you very quickly, and after I posted this you deleted your and User:Nemov's post? why delete another editor's?

-assuming Wikipedia:GF, can you confirm here you are not User:Nemov, to dispel any worries of Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry?

Thanks.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

This is not a forum to discuss user behavior. It appears IP has a consensus that IP doesn't like. IP is no longer discussing any WP:BLP issues at this time. JFHJr (㊟) 02:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Understood. This is not the space for user behavior discussion. I do want to point out that there is consensus on including the information on the article's Talk Page. Thanks.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 02:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Another addition: my addition was reverted once more. I am not posting on the edit warring noticeboard since this is open. I took into consideration the suggestions of two other, un-involved editors on the Talk Page that it was too long and condensed it to half the words. It got immediately reverted with no explanation. There is a clear level of gatekeeping happening on this article where instead of fixing or editing, the idea is to revert and ignore consensus.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for the length of this comment, but I didn't have time to write a short one. First, Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" is an essay not a policy, but WP:BLPRESTORE is a policy, and part of BLP policy to boot. It says if someone feels that this is a violation of BLP policy then no one should restore the information until consensus is achieved on the talk page to do so. BLP policy works with, but ultimately trumps all other policies because it is such an important policy. That means, if you want the info restored, you need to first hammer it all out on the talk page first.

Next, accusations of censorship will almost always get you eye rolls from everyone who reads it. It comes from a misunderstanding of the definition of the word. It's not censorship to leave out info that is irrelevant, or possibly undue weight. Weight and balance is fairly simple in that it's a basic math problem (although the math itself can be quite complicated), it's basically figuring out how much space --if any-- it deserves in the article as a matter of percentages. Does it deserve an entire section, a single paragraph, or a single sentence? Or would even one sentence be too much? That is the main question that needs to be answered.

Finally, as constructive criticism of your addition, it's rather verbose, including the title. I mean, for example, is it really necessary to name the article subject in the title of a section? The section uses a hell of a lot of WP:Weasel words, most of which are "critics". What critics? Do these people have names? If not, why should I care what they think? What does Elon Musk have to do with anything? He's not a movie critic. It seems like a lot of tacking-on for mere repetition, just to inflate the size. Then, it lacks any and all context for the average reader to understand. (Similar to many scientific articles on Wikipedia.) In other words, it's written for people who already know everything about it, not for the general reader who has none of the background info. For example, it keeps talking about a "woke agenda". What the hell does that even mean? (Seriously, I have never heard the jargon "woke agenda" before. What does it mean?) What does the subject actually have to do with Star Wars? Besides a short blurb in the lede, there is really no information on this in the body.

An encyclopedia is a summary of the sources. That's what makes them so useful, they cut away all the boring, mind-numbing details and boil everything down to the nitty gritty. The bare bones. From what I can see those three paragraphs could easily be whittled down to a single sentence or two, and that would be far less boring and easier to comprehend. Writing is hard work. Say more with less, that's my advice. But what you need to do is work it all out on the talk page first. Hammer, cut, and wordsmith until you get a consensus, and then it can be put into the article. And try to do so with a friendly attitude, because a defensive one will only cause people to dig their heels in deeper. Not as easy as complaining about other editors, I know, but that's what needs to be done to achieve your goal. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 02:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

How about we agree on at least one mention or one sentence that merely mentions the vast amounts of criticism Kennedy has received? Why don't we agree to start with that? Xam2580 (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree ^

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Lengthy replies can help to explain things. I am but an IP editor and will remain so. There are people who devote their lives to maneuvering the very intricate and regulated WP system of what is allowed when and how.

If I understood correctly, any BLP can have any editor delete a sentence, paragraph or section they disagree with and it remains so, given Wikipedia:BLPRESTORE, until consensus has been reached on the Talk Page? Or does this only apply to recent additions?

The above is a valid question since I could see easy abuse of said rules, say, assume an editor that mostly focuses on a few BLP articles, checks their watchlist and anything that gets added, even a sentence or a link, that they disagree with, they would immediately revert and this addition/modification would need consensus on the Talk Page, right? How about a possible editor that seeks new additions on any BLP just to delete them and, given the above, said additions are forced to go through a consensus stage on the Talk Page. Does this make sense or am I missing something?

These questions are genuine and coming from a place of understanding. I strongly believe in WP's mission and from time to time try to improve things. On this article I noticed that for years no single controversy has been "allowed" on the article. Very rarely has consensus been solicited on the Talk Page either and not in a formal capacity. It seems one user (potentially two users but there is a request for Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry going on) has been directly responsible for enforcing the above rules and unquestionable reverts any and all criticism of the article's subject. I would implore you or an administrator to look through the Talk Page and see all the times, including archived posts, that criticisms have been suggested by many users and nothing has been added. I went to great pains to only include many RS, as per WP, but nothing comes out of it.

Given the above, what is the best way to improve things? If I add anything right now, even if its the slightest sentence or two (because I tried), I will be reverted. Two other non-involved editors agreed on then Talk Page the criticisms need to be included. We have one of the older editors who tried, like me, to add a neutral POV criticism with sources here pleading the same case. All of this could easily make somebody see gatekeeping.

On the contents, you mentioned you've never heard of "woke agenda" and that's fine. I would suggest Woke#2019–present: as a pejorative. "Woke agenda" actually redirects there on WP.

I would request for you, for example, to help the article and provide that two sentence summary you proposed. As an un-involved editor, the warring editor(s) shouldn't have an issue with a proposal from you.

Thanks for your time.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 03:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

If it's a matter of BLP policy, then yes. BLP policy is far too important that it needs to override everything else. If this means erring on the side of caution, then so be it. We need to be careful and take our time to get it right.

The best way to improve things is like I said. Talk it out on the talk page. Copy-paste your addition there, and then work on it until it's just right. Aside from BLP policy, it's just better than warring about it on article space. For example, see this discussion on the Kelvin article.

My critique was more about good writing versus bad writing, and to be perfectly blunt, the writing was bad. That's the thing about being a writer, you have to thrive on criticism. Want it. Need it. Learn from it. Don't just give me a link to "woke" I'll never click. Writing should never need wikilinks to explain what it's talking about. It should simply explain what it's talking about, as precisely yet concisely as possible. The question I asked you are the same questions the average reader will be asking. Try to predict those questions and answer them beforehand, right there in the text.

I don't know anything about this subject, nor do I really care, and my time is very limited here in the summer. We got three months to get everything done, but luckily the sun never sets. Sorry, if you want this it's your burden to put in the effort necessary. I just monitor this board and give people helpful advice from time to time. Try to help explain why they're having the problems they encounter. Zaereth (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Your history is accurate. I am just too busy lol. But I appreciate the mention.

I will quickly add that all that I wanted was at least one (and only one minimum) mention of some criticism of this person. It could have been a sentence or, as I suggested, a neutral link in the "see also" page linking to the south park page for people to discover themselves. I had seen some of the extensive debates and thought this would be a neutral way to mention the criticism. But even that was too much for some users and I am just too busy these days to fight it. I personally think it is ridiculous and violative of NPOV to exclude all criticism from a public figure and I appreciate anyone pursuing this! Xam2580 (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for trying. For literal years a single editor has prevented proper and extensively covered RS from being included in this BLP. I even asked them twice if they had any conflicts of interest ands they refused to answer that.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Well this is why all I pushed for was a simple change. It seems 1 editor has had a massive impact of this page and cannot tolerate any criticism of Kathleen whatsoever, not even simple mentions that disagreement exists. Xam2580 (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Once again, you'll never get anywhere if you make this about other editors. Those arguments only hurt your case, not help it. Zaereth (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, and am absolutely willing to objectively and neutrally resolve this issue. In fact, this is my preferred outcome. That being said, on some level, this issue pretty much is about one or two editors (I have never received such pushback from mere attempts at mentioning rampant criticism of a public figure). But your point is well taken and who knows; maybe people have changed their minds. I'll dispassionately approach this issue and will refrain from making further comments about past issues. Xam2580 (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry User:Zaereth, you are responding to another editor. An older one who went through the same issues on the same article as I did in the past.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 04:37, 26 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.

Requesting third opinions at Bronze Age Pervert

@User:Секретное общество and I are going back on forth on this article and I'd appreciate if some other editors can step in to break one deadlock and resolve another longstanding issue. The longer-standing issue is Talk:Bronze_Age_Pervert#Inclusion_of_Jewishness, which has been a slow edit war going back and forth for months. I don't have strong feelings here, but IPs and SPAs do. The second is the inclusion of a couple of largely unsourced infoboxes on BAP's various media enterprises. See Talk:Bronze_Age_Pervert#Preferential_editing?. Any further reversions by me are effectively edit warring, so I'd appreciate some input. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

We normally don't Jew-tag people, especially not as part of nationality. MOS:NATIONALITY covers this. Is there anything in those book infoboxes that isn't covered in the sections on those books? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, in the sense that they have collected every piece of fancruft regarding the length, file type, and theme music for a podcast whose actual sourced prose section is only two lines long. The sources they added are just back to the podcast itself. Same idea for the book. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Global Witness

Kirkylad, who has declared a Conflict of Interest with the NGO Global Witness, recently added a new section containing research and comments made by Global Witness to the article Sultan Al Jaber. As a note, I myself have made a COI edit request on behalf of COP28 on this article, which is currently still open on the Talk page.

The third paragraph of this section beginning "An investigation by Global Witness..." appears to breach WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and I feel also resembles WP:ADVOCACY. The investigation mentioned is one which Global Witness themselves have carried out, and the content has been added by an editor linked to the organisation. Whilst the sources cited are from reliable third-party outlets, the claims are quoted from the Global Witness investigation, and as such require oversight from someone outside that group, especially to make sure the claims fully comply with WP:BLPPUBLIC.

The second paragraph of the section beginning "BBC News reported ..." referencing an alleged increase in ADNOC's oil production is already a contested point under discussion in the currently live COI request, and is an unnecessary duplication of content within the "Abu Dhabi National Oil Company" section of the page. It is also not strictly related to the topic of the newly created section, and as the claim is again based upon analysis by Global Witness, it is not appropriate for Kirkylad to add this information directly to the article given their COI.

Could someone who does not have a conflict of interest please take a look at this contribution to check tone, source quality, undue emphasis etc. Thank you! Dedemocha (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Dedemocha (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)