Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard

This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period.

  • This page is not for simple vandalism or material which can easily be removed without argument. If you can, simply remove the offending material.
  • Familiarize yourself with the biographies of living persons policy before reporting issues here.
  • Important: Do not copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard. Link to a diff showing the dispute, but do not paste the information here.

Sections older than 7 days archived by ClueBot III.


Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:



One million BLPs

I think we passed 1,000,000 mainspace articles in Category:Living people at some point in the last five months. There were 987,651 in February 2021, and there are 1,006,668 now. There must be some other bot or something that tracks this, do we know when we passed the million mark? Levivich 04:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure each one has exquisite BLP sourcing... JoelleJay ( talk) 00:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
And it's not 950,000 white men... Levivich 01:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Or 850,000 one-sentence bios based on sports-reference.com. FOARP ( talk) 20:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
FWIW based on infoboxes, I think the actual #s are something like ~250,000 athlete BLPs (with an athlete infobox, in category:living people), of which maybe ~50,000 are one sentence stubs (<2,500 bytes). I don't know how many BLPs don't have an infobox at all, tho. Levivich 03:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
About 200,000 don't have an infobox. [1] (Thanks to Izno for showing me.) Levivich 04:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
User:Levivich - I think that your question is really what causes the category to be associated with an article. If you look at the talk page of the article, it should list the WikiProjects that the article is associated with. One of those is {{ WikiProject Biography}} if the article is a biography. There is a parameter in this template that specifies that the person is living, and this causes the article to be included in the category. Is that an answer? Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Assassination of Jovenel Moïse

Assassination of Jovenel Moïse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A bullet list of twenty arrested suspects continues to appear on Assassination_of_Jovenel_Moïse#Identities_of_suspects. Rather than perpetuating an edit war, I am soliciting feedback from other editors about whether this bullet list is appropriate at this time, as no convictions have been made, and this is still a rapidly evolving current event. Do the names add sufficient value to the article to justify including them?Hadron137 (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

That looks almost exactly like the stuff that WP:BLPCRIME suggests to avoid. The names don't give us any useful information. One assumes that the suspects have names, and it's not like any of those names are linked to Wikipedia pages. Naming them is pointless and problematic. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 18:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Multiple sources have discussed their names and why their identities and nationalities are important, being entrepreneurs and ex-soldiers ensnared in the assassination. If naming them is pointless then one can say naming any suspect at all is pointless. In fact naming any suspect in any article is pointless by that standard if names here are pointless. The Haiti police already believe they are guilty to some extent. If you think including names of suspects is wrong, then remove names of suspects from every article. WP:BLPCRIME allows exception. LéKashmiriSocialiste ( talk) 13:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
The names do not tells us their nationalities, do not tell us their jobs. Those things can be discussed without invoking the names. And yes, to a large degree naming suspects who are not otherwise notable is pointless.... and we have WP:BLPCRIME to reflect that. Police believing someone is guilty is not a conviction or even a charge; it places them in the category of "suspect", which is very much in the realm of what WP:BLPCRIME is meant to cover. If the list of suspects included W. C. Fields, Manuel Noriega, and Dolores Umbridge, that would indeed be conveying information of interest, but a list of names that the reader is not going to recognize just tells us that these people have names, which is generally assumed. If the fact that there is a sourceable name for a suspect is enough to overcome the BLPCRIME guideline, then why would it exist? -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 14:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
They do if you try to notice how their names are different than common American names and are clear French or Spanish, and names are used to identify who the suspects are in any investigation. Plus are we supposed to leave people unidentified? You say they are not notable but what's your criteria of that? Because these people have been discussed by dozens to hundreds of sources. Yes people can become notable just for one act per Wikipedia policies and that's why we include names of suspects. WP:BLPCRIME has exceptions for reasons and it involves coverage by other sources. LéKashmiriSocialiste ( talk) 14:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Except becoming a suspect is not an act one takes, it is something that is done to one. And if we don't have a source discussing the nationalities of the suspects, but are supposed to be making some point based on what kind of people the reader thinks they sound like, that's weak-ass encylopedaling. We are not a news organization, where bringing forth the name can be part of bringing forth people with more information. Our goals are different, and we can wait out the seas of suspicions. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 14:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
By the logic you used we don't need to wait it out. Because as you said their names don't tell us anything about them. We should never include their names even if they are convicted. These people were witnessed and even recorded by multiple people. There's already enough evidence to convict them. Their identities have already been discussed many-many times. We aren't a news organisation but real encyclopaedias aren't run by personal emotions over anything. LéKashmiriSocialiste ( talk) 15:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I think the issue that NatGertler brings up is valid: none of these twenty names are notable in any way, and outside of the two dead ones, mostly interchangeable in describing the event, and so less a BLPCRIME issue and just "information overload", there is no need to name them at this point, which also defers wisely to BLPCRIME until they are actually arrested under charges, as a minimum standpoint. -- Masem ( t) 13:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I can argue with that logic there's no need to ever name any criminal even if convicted. Because it can't tell us their motive, jobs, or anything. LéKashmiriSocialiste ( talk) 14:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Here it is the fact there are twenty people involved, none of them notable. What's notable about them is the number, and their nationality, which can be included more simply. Now, maybe when all is said and done, and the remaining 18 are convicted, then a list of names would be most appropriate as well as meeting BLPCRIME to flesh it out as to complete the article without any BLP issues. But we have the questionable factor of if these yet meet inclusion for BLPCRIME yet, atop that its just noise for the most part, so the intro section to that paragraph captures the best way to currently sum them up until convictions are made. -- Masem ( t) 15:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
They are notable for the murder itself. Yes one act makes people notable enough and why we have articles for criminals too. Even ones that may not have been convicted. LéKashmiriSocialiste ( talk) 15:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
BLPCRIME specifically says that convicted suspects in a crime are not immediately notable and we dont create articles on them unless they have more notability beyond having just committed the crime. -- Masem ( t) 15:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
There is no mention of anything you are saying in WP:BLPCRIME and yes we do create articles for people notable for just one crime. Mohammed Atta would never have an article if it wasn't for 9/11. LéKashmiriSocialiste ( talk) 15:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
For Atta, there has been an intensive study of why he committed 9/11 and the events leading up to it, the subject of multiple indepth sources. We have zero information on these people at this point and because they acted as a group, it is likely only one or two of them are the masterminds that may have planned it out. It is far far too early to be discussing individual notability here, and that's why BLPCRIME say even to wait to name them until a conviction comes around. -- Masem ( t) 15:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Those studies would have never been conducted if it wasn't for 9/11 and people don't really care for his psyche or background. Just that he did it. So yes Atta is only notable for 9/11 no matter how you want to put it. BLPCRIME doesn't prohibit naming suspects and there's already clinching evidence. Studies on criminals are always done because they committed that crime, they are not independent of it. LéKashmiriSocialiste ( talk) 15:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The BLPCRIME and BLP1E guidelines do not apply to Mohammed Atta as he is not an LP. Wikipedia has both ethical and legal reasons for being more circumspect regarding living persons. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 15:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Those guidelines apply even after death depending on cases. The period depends up to the editors. LéKashmiriSocialiste ( talk) 15:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
And anyway when we can have names of Guantanamo Bay detainees like Shaker Aamer who were suspected of terrorism but never once charged, I don't see a problem here. LéKashmiriSocialiste ( talk) 16:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Aamer has more about him than just being suspect of terrorism - it is the fact he had been incarcerated in G.Bay and fought that over the year drew additional notability to him, so BLPCRIME doesn't apply. Again, the key about BLPCRIME is that if all we know is that a non-notable person (beyond the crime) is only known for the crime itself and nothing else, we generally avoid naming them until a conviction is made, and whether they then are notable beyond that for a standalone article is based on whether there's more indepth coverage that extends beyond just the crime (eg like in Atta's case), which is also covered by WP:BLP1E. At the current time, these 20 people are not notable for any other activities beyond their suspected involvement in the assassination, so there is clearly no reason to name them under BLP policy, and even if they are all convicted, we have to wait to see if there is any further coverage of them beyond the scope of their involvement in the assassination to judge if they should have separate articles - as I said, as a group, I expect one or two would be the masterminds and may be given such but the rest were likely hired mercs and not notable otherwise. -- Masem ( t) 16:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
He's incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay solely due to being suspected of terrorism. And again he was never convicted yet we have an article of him. This could lead to victimisation of him being a possible terrorist despite him never being convicted. The killers of the Haiti president are also notable in the news for more than just the murder, they are notable for being ex-Colombian military turned mercs. It's not something I'm making up, it's been discussed a lot of times. So that argument doesn't do you any good. LéKashmiriSocialiste ( talk) 16:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Also the Unabomber is another person notable due to one crime. Talk about studies or whatever but those are not what led to Atta's article or Unabomber's article. It was their involvement. Then there are people like Robert John Bardo. LéKashmiriSocialiste ( talk) 16:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
No, you're missing the point. For Aamer, the fact he was in G.Bay without charges, fought that, drew attention to his questionable incarceration, all gave him significant coverage beyond any criminal act itself, and thus made him notable well beyond the basic caution of BLPCRIME; we have a wealth of sources over time to know this now. Kaczynski's criminal acts were subject to a wide berth of psychology analysis to try to understand his criminal intent, so there's far more than just "he did a crime, that's it". In the case of Bardo, his crime influenced subsequent law and the popular culture; if these events didn't happen, we'd likely not have an article on him in the first place per BLPCRIME but there's far more than just the crime here. But key here is that we have the passage of time for sources that have told us in all these cases that these people are individually notable beyond the bounds of BLPCRIME.
Here, in this assassination, we have people that okay, they may have been former militia, but they have no notable facets of those careers before that point, nothing in-depth at all about any individual in that block of 20, at this time. If they didn't carry this out, they would have remained non-notable ex-militia members. And again, to stress, they are still only suspects, no convictions have been made. While they were all involved, it may be only one or two will be convicted of the actual assassination, the others maybe charged with some related conspiracy charges, I don't know, no one knows. BLP tells us to take caution before naming people until we know this for certain. The assassination is notable, and clearly once the suspects rounded up, the investigation completed, and legal resolution completed, we'll likely have a few named people, but we should not be doing it now when there are too many questions up in the air, per BLP requirements. -- Masem ( t) 16:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Every criminal fights charges and it gets reported. My example of Aamer wasn't about him being notable due to his crime. Yes he's actually notable being imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay rather than his terrorism, even though his imprisonment stems from it. Regardless it's just one or two things he's notable for. And two isn't a dramatic improvement either. However the reason for bringing him up was, the accusations against him were never dropped. And someone like the US military accusing you of terrorism is something that shall remain forever with you. The article will lead to victimisation because more people will know.
The suspects are soldiers, not militia. And them being ex-soldiers who were recruited as potential bodyguards, as well as their past activities have been discussed as well at least in some cases. And their names are a key aspect to differentiating them and knowing about their past. Or in the cases of the Americans them and their background has been discussed as well, has been a subject of discussion in many sources. Just because you say nothing else is notable about them doesn't make it so. LéKashmiriSocialiste ( talk) 17:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Notability beyond BLPCRIME requires significant coverage about these people as individuals (not as part of the group), which is the case for Aamer, Kaczynski, etc. All we know is tidbits of these people but nothing close to significant coverage to qualify for notability as to be beyond the BLPCRIME issues. That may come in time, but it is not there now which is the key point. -- Masem ( t) 17:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
And? That's why we didn't build whole articles for them yet and only included them in the article itself, because there isn't enough material. Because not a lot of details are available. But the ones that already are, are significant. If it wasn't for Guantanamo or their crime, no one would have even bothered to find out any life details of Aamer, Unabomber and Atta. No one would care for them it wasn't due to one significant thing that happened to them. LéKashmiriSocialiste ( talk) 18:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
No they are not significant compared to what the other cases are. They are unknown people that were in the military. This is not significant information by any means. And they have yet to be convicted, they are only suspected, so we are not to include these names under BLPCRIME until conviction happens. -- Masem ( t) 19:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
All criminals are relatively unknown before they do a crime. People who run their own businesses and are decorated veterans don't fall within that group.
WP:BLPCRIME does not prohibit naming people nor it is a rule about that. Please don't add something to a guideline what it doesn't even say. LéKashmiriSocialiste ( talk) 21:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
No, not all criminals are "relatively unknown" before they do a crime. In the past couple days, I've edited Michael Avenatti, (a lawyer who was famous for his representation of Stormy Daniels before he did the crimes he was just convicted of or is supposed to do have done ones he still faces charges of), and Thomas Radecki (well known as an anti-TV violence, anti-D&D crusader decades before he set up the program wherein he traded opioid prescriptions for sex, thus landing him in prison.) O.J. Simpson's record-holding football career, advertisements,and film career had made him one of the best known folks in the country well before the actions he was convicted of, or even the earlier actions that he was tried and cleared on. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 22:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

One of the major themes I have seen in this issue is that editors keep inserting their own statements into a guideline even though it doesn't say anything such. Most notably is WP:BLPCRIME, which is simply about presuming innocence, not about whether you can name suspects. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I was myself getting confused on this but it's because I keep forgetting things. The rule that concerns naming criminals is WP:BLPNAME. LéKashmiriSocialiste ( talk) 21:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Actually, WP:BLPCRIME, also known as WP:SUSPECT, very much applies to the naming of suspects, as "[...] editors must seriously consider not including material [...] that suggests the person has committed [...] a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." Stating that someone is a suspect is indeed suggesting they committed the crime. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 21:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
NatGertler Assuming someone's innocence does not apply to their name. If naming someone simply makes someone think that thwy are guilty then it is their fault and not anyone else's. Naming suspects is a usual police procedure and not intended to cast doubts. LéKashmiriSocialiste ( talk) 05:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
If we really assume these men are innocent (as we must, regardless of what the police think, what their lives are like, or even what the evidence is) then there is nothing interesting to say about them. We wouldn't include a list of twenty of Moïse's neighbors, or the last twenty people that he met with on the day of his assassination. Doing so would be useless and boring. When truly assuming innocence, we must treat the arrested suspects similarly. Hadron137 ( talk) 03:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Presumption of innocence doesn't mean absence of suspicion. Besides just because we included a person's background doesn't mean you are treating them as guilty. It's just simply a desire to know more about a person and sometimes also used to know what might have lead them to do a crime. LéKashmiriSocialiste ( talk) 05:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I really should stop monitoring BLPN I'm wiki break but I didn't so just couldn't resist the urge to point out that " The period depends up to the editors." is partially incorrect. The maximum time suggested by WP:BDP is 2 years. Perhaps an argument could me made to extend it one or two years beyond 2 years in some extreme case although I've never seen that. But nearly 20 years total? No way. Also User:LéKashmiriSocialiste sorry but part of your argument is flawed since it seems to lack any support from our current article. I'm not American but I do have a lot of exposure to American culture. Many of the names I saw sound like they could easily be from many of the large number of Latino/Hispanic Americans. I have no idea how on earth I'm supposed to know the names are not common American names unless I embrace bigotry and assume you must be a WASP to be a "real American". If their names not being common American names is a significant issue as supported by level of discussion in reliable secondary sources then we should add this to the article first along with these sources, so that readers know and don't have to be experts on American names since as I said for someone even on the slight outside, these sound like they are common American names. Perhaps then we can consider whether it's also necessary to add these names to help the reader further understand, especially if there is discussion/analysis of what makes these names uncommon. The fact some random Wikipedian thinks this is the case is irrelevant to us if that's all we have, so it's not an argument for adding them. Nil Einne ( talk) 05:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm even more confused now. I had heard that many of them were Colombians. I assumed from the above discussion it a number of them were also Americans. I now see only two seem to have been? Why do we need to add so many names to establish these two don't have common American names. And I definitely don't understand the relevance of Colombians not having common American names. Maybe there's something I'm missing but that's why our article needs to be improved first with sources explaining all this. I assume American means someone from the US since as much as I sometimes find the weird that American means this, if someone wants to use a different definition I think this should be made clear first. Nil Einne ( talk) 06:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
If it helps clear up the weirdness, Nil, it's easy to call people from Canada "Canadians" or people from Mexico "Mexicans", but what do you call people from the United States of America? "United Statesians" just sounds weird, and United States of Americans sounds like property, so we just shorten it to Americans. But yes, that refers to people from the USA, whereas North Americans and South Americans refers to people from the continents, respectively. I hope that helps. Zaereth ( talk) 05:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
WP:BDP says in which case the policy can extend based on editorial consensus for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death. Although I admit that I hadn't correctly read the two year part. I'm sorry for that. But my reason for bringing up Atta was that we do create articles for people notable only for one thing. In Atta's case it is 9/11. Even living criminals notable for a crime as I pointed out have articles like Robert John Bardo. There are many others, I could give a long list. Without their crime no one would care about them. And anyway I'm not some random Wikipedian, nor any user here is. Please don't try to reduce people to irrelevance here. LéKashmiriSocialiste ( talk) 06:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the identities of the suspect due to there being a clear consensus. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

  • The list should be reinstated. The efforts to delete the list have referred to inapplicable rules. WP commonly mentions names of arrested people as having been arrested, in major terrorist attacks and in assassinations. The important thing is to reflect the RS statements that they have been arrested. And - if they have not been charged - to not indicate that they have been charged. And that indeed is what the language in the indicated policies refers to. But these people were being listed for being arrested in connection with this investigation, which is by itself perfectly fine. The made-up notion that they need to have an independent article on each named person is .. made up. That is not wp policy at all. How can we have intelligent discussions here if people base their views on made-up rules, rather than existing wp policy? I think what we have now, the stripping out of the article of mention of all the arrested, including the Colombians, the Haitian doctor, and the two Haitian-Americans, is absurd - their names have been in dozens of articles .. what do people seriously think they are doing that is sensible here? Have they lost sight of the goal here - which is not one that is present when you have dozens (hundreds?) of articles on these people? And don't editors here realize that information is added when names like this appear - information on people arrested in relation to such events are typically built up on pages such as that one, over time. Deleting the names of the American, the American-Haitians, and the Colombians is not in keeping with wp rules, with wp practice, or with common sense. How are you going to tease out the info that person x (as has been reported) was the second-most senior member in the Colombian group, and appeared to be a primary contact .. which just came out today? Or tie their names perhaps into the visits of the Haitian security head to Colombia of late .. no doubt info will come out as to who he met with in Colombia, and what forces they commanded, if they did command forces. BTW - does anyone think that the 9/11 attackers names cannot be mentioned, because they were never tried? --2603:7000:2143:8500:643C:473C:C984:2D47 (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
As you will see mentioned in the above discussion, WP:BLP issues do not apply to the actual 9/11 attackers, as they are not living persons any more. If there are individual arrestees of note, that may overcome the concerns listed above for them, but a mere name dump tells us nothing of value. The idea that the fact that the names have been published overcomes WP:BLPCRIME concerns doesn't work; if it was only meant for names that had not been published, we wouldn't need BLPCRIME, as that's simple failure of verifiability. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 00:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Agree that the names should be reinstated. It seems like there has been a lot more reporting since this thread started. Per WP:BLP, the names of suspects have now been "widely disseminated", which means we can probably start relaying them. NickCT ( talk) 23:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
As I'm still on Wikibreak, I have not and will not be evaluating the sources so have no comment on whether the names need to be excluded. I also have not and will not be evaluating the discussion. However if there was an earlier consensus against including the names, these 2 comments cannot be reasonably be taken as an indication consensus has changed. Nor do I see anything approaching that on the article talk page. So if consensus has changed, there's no clear sign of it yet. I'd note that 2603's comment has a number of obvious flaws. Maybe someone said there needs to be articles on each person before we name them, but definitely many people opposed to inclusion never said that. NatGertler has already explained the flaw with the 9/11 point, which as they also pointed out, was discussed before 2603 commented. Finally there is zero reason why we should treat this as a binary. It may very well be the case there is merit to discuss certain specific individuals and their alleged actions or roles and background and to do so effectively it will be necessary to name them. (To be clear, it's sometimes possible to discuss background or other such details without naming the person.) That doesn't mean it is necessary to name them all. It's perfectly reasonable we may name certain individuals but not others. Again, I'm not saying this is what we should do in this case, simply that it's something we can do. So the argument that we need to name them all because otherwise we cannot discuss the roles of certain individuals is clearly flawed and not supported by any policy or guideline. Nil Einne ( talk) 06:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I looked into this a bit more and it seems to me one of the big issues is that editors seem to be conflating different things. This discussion started of about a list of all suspects names with no context. There were several editors opposed to such a list. It seems now some editors want to name certain suspects and discuss their roles in more details. As I said above, there may be merit for this, there may be merit to name them so we can do this. Discussion can resolve this. It's a related but separate issue from just including a list of names. If editors only want to discuss and name certain suspects, they should be clear if this what's their advocating rather than the earlier issue of a list of all suspect's names. I'm not actually sure if anyone above said under no condition whatsoever can we name any of the living suspects until a conviction is secured, but I'm not going to check. I suspect the dispute is more likely to be over under what conditions we should name them and how many and who. Nil Einne ( talk) 08:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Not appropriate per WEIGHT. I think coverage focus is on the number, nationality, and backgrounds. It would be slightly preferred to cite to source that goes into details like a list of names, but the Wikipedia article should not list names. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Zina Bash

She was falsely accused of flashing a white power sign during Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing and now a number of new accounts have simultaneously taken an interest in this page. Marquardtika (talk) 01:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Yup. It is quite clear from the multiple reliable sources being cited that there is no evidence Bash was making any sort of 'white power sign', and frankly there seems little justification in including any content at all on what seems to be a rather silly conspiracy theory. Wikipedia can do better than this. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Nope. We are not at liberty to interpret accusations as being either true or false. Accusations can be made and denied. Proof, here, does not exist. Attic Salt ( talk) 03:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
You seem not to understand WP:BLP policy. There is nothing in the policy which requires accusations based on obnoxious conspiracy theories about a person of Jewish-Mexican heritage making 'white power' signs to be included in an article at all. This is supposed to me an encyclopaedia, and while it may not always live up to that standard, it certainly doesn't have to sink to the level of 4Chan-inspired clickbait drivel. " Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives". AndyTheGrump ( talk) 03:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I am certain that, contrary to what Marquardtika keeps asserting, for example above [2] and here [3], and here [4] and here [5], is that the accusation is not shown to be "false" or "debunked". It can be denied, yes, but not falsified or debunked. Attic Salt ( talk) 04:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
What part of "There is nothing in the policy which requires accusations based on obnoxious conspiracy theories about a person of Jewish-Mexican heritage making 'white power' signs to be included in an article at all" do you have difficulty understanding? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 04:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Let me suggest that this discussion should not be personalised. Perhaps the only thing that is noteworthy enough to justify a Wikiarticle on Zina Bash is this accusation. If there is to be an article on her, then the accusation needs to be discussed. Though not in unrealistic terms, like whether or not it is debunked. You can see, here, that I am open to the entire article being removed. Attic Salt ( talk) 04:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
If the only reason a biography exists is to promote obnoxious and sensationalist tabloid conspiracy theories, then yes, the article should be deleted. But meanwhile, including said obnoxious and sensationalist tabloid conspiracy theories in a biography of a living person is a violation of policy. Wikipedia is under no more obligation to discuss such matters in a biography than it is to discuss assertions that subjects of such biographies are shape-shifting lizards from Zeta Reticuli. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 04:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I acknowledge that you consider the accusation, reported in the news, to be obnoxious. Attic Salt ( talk) 04:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Yup. All sorts of obnoxious things get written about. Wikipedia is under no obligation to repeat them, and has specific policies in place that make this clear. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 04:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

This ANI concerning a possible BLP violation at Zina Bash may be of interest, although I think it should have been brought here first. There is a dispute over whether Attic Salt (talk · contribs) and TrueQuantum (talk · contribs) violated BLP based on their edits regarding a controversy involving allegations of sexual abuse and a white power gesture, and similar concerns about their conduct regarding Eugene Gu. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 21:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Please tell me how I have anything to do with BLP violations regarding Eugene Gu. If you look at my edit history, I routinely go through RFCs of many types, including BLPs. I saw Marquardtika place an accusation of sexual assault against Eugene Gu on Zina Bash's BLP as a way to discredit Gu and his accusation that Bash made a white power hand gesture as covered by a Vox News article. Upon further investigation, I found that Marquardtika repeatedly and contentiously edited Gu's BLP despite the fact that a unanimous RFC stated that it was inappropriate. When I brought this up to Marquardtika's attention, Marquardtika replied, "Maybe Eugene should have looked up the BLP policies before he used his public platform to falsely accuse a Mexican Jew of flashing a white power symbol. As for the accusations of sexual assault, it's right there in the reliable source: "Eugene Gu, a prominent anti-Trump doctor who recently made news when he was accused of sexual assault..." Marquardtika (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)." This can be found on Marquardtika's talk page. In spite of all this evidence, I now stand accused of BLP violations against Gu? Please help me understand how this makes sense. TrueQuantum ( talk) 23:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
It was discussed here, see the thread above, started by User: Marquardtika on the 19th. Sadly, some people seem to think that unless discussions here go the way they like, they can be ignored. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The ...in which Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault part is pure WP:SYNTH (and rather WP:POINTY). The stuff about the white power gesture is such a mess, and, at least, a WP:BLPGOSSIP vio. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


I should probably make it clear here that as far as my assessment goes, after looking into the history of the Zina Bash article in more detail, it seem that the problems go back much further, possibly right back to its first creation. A proper assessment of the concerns raised by the article needs to involve more than the latest episode, and with more than what the latest participants have been doing. For example, as I noted on the ANI thread, one of those brought up at ANI regarding the insertion of questionable content into the Bash biography, TrueQuantum, had earlier made an edit removing material which appeared to be an obvious WP:BLP violation - an absolutely correct thing to do. From what I can tell, the entire history of the article seems to have revolved around endless faction-fighting over content regarding hand-signal (non)events, with little concern for anything but who 'wins' the latest attempt to spin the article their way. None of this reflects well on the participants, or on Wikipedia in general. If this is the sort of behaviour that can be expected with biographies of living people, maybe it is time to ask whether Wikipedia should be tightening up notability standards so such biographies can be better monitored by uninvolved contributors. Either that, or stop claiming to be an 'encyclopedia', and rebrand yourselves as the worlds largest massively-multiplayer online political combat game... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Eric Joyce

Hello,

I am quite new to editing and have, for early experience, concentrated my efforts on minor grammatical changes and upon 3 biographies of living persons. I have edited 'Eric Joyce' to take out errors without references and one serious risk of libel. An unsigned in user, using different IPs (I presume using VPS, etc) keeps reverting my edits and is abusive. The page shows evidence from some time ago that occasionally unsigned users have made harmful entries and revisions, then been corrected by signed in users.

Andrew Lee (entrepreneur)

Andrew Lee (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article is about someone who claims to be the crown prince of Korea, following a nomination by Yi Seok, a pretender to the defunct Korean throne. No cited sources describe how exactly the subject is related to the House of Yi (more than just describing him as a "relative"), and the article did not claim any genealogical descent, only that the current pretender had designated him the crown prince.

An unsourced claim was added in Special:Diff/1033827729 that questioned the relationship between the subject and the former ruling house. After I removed this, George6VI, who had originally added the claim, disagreed that it was unsourced, and restored it. He wrote that "there is no source to prove that he genealogical is one" as justification for adding the claim questioning a genealogical link.

Lack of contradicting sources is not enough of a reason to support adding claims to a BLP. A claim has to be supported by sources that specifically support it. So I am removing the claim again per WP:BLPREMOVE.

--Joshua Issac (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

What if the statement is rewritten to something like "his genealogy is uncertain in public sources", in a more neutral way? The most simple thing is, we don't know which Joseon king is exactly Andrew Lee's ancestor yet. There is no known public source to support that he is related to the royalty, and if only using the existing sources, some the references are already biased (I mean, they call him "King Yi Seok" while Korea is a republic for decades.) If not adding something like that, it would be like a propagation. Previously discussed in the article's talk page, there is already a consensus that his "crown prince" shouldn't be addressed in the beginning, as we did agree that this claim happened, but it doesn't mean it's neutral and accurate. - George6VI ( talk) 16:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
A reliable source would have to say that his genealogy is uncertain, for it to be mentioned. If sources are not specifically talking about his genealogy, then it is not even relevant. The House of Yi has been out of power for more than a century, and titles like "King" and "Crown Prince" are just labels used by media, so whether Andrew Lee is related to this family is of no actual relevance.
This is a single, short paragraph near the end of an article that otherwise does not mention anything about claimed royal titles. It is not propagation to report what multiple reliable sources ( Korea IT Times, Los Angeles Times, South China Morning Post, The Daily Telegraph) are saying, when they are all saying the same thing. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view says that articles should "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Neutrality does not mean that unpublished views can be represented, especially in a BLP. -- Joshua Issac ( talk) 21:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Makarand Paranjape

Makarand Paranjape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Want someone to look at this. There seems to be persistent low-level vandalism on this page from IPs, newly registered users, users with <5 contributions.

My edits, which were intended to clean up the article, and to conform the article to BLP and NPOV, are being reverted. The issues are:

  • In the introduction, the edits/reverts persistently add the fact that "he has been involved in a dispute with the institute". This fact has been covered in later paragraphs, and is getting undue and unacceptable emphasis in the introductory paragraph.
  • In the section on 'Politics', the content from the references are being misrepresented, or being given undue importance. For instance,
    • The article on the Nehru Gandhi family didn't mention anything about ousting Narendra Modi.
    • The article on Priyanka Gandhi doesn't 'pre-empt' her victory.
    • The 'right wing criticism' seems to constitute of a single article from another academic, and does not seem to be important enough to get a mention.
  • The section on 'Works' was expanded by me to include a summary of his work, but the persistent editors remove it, and replace it with a summary of one novel (Body Offering), to paint the person in a negative light.

Here's a diff, which illustrates the persistent changes. The changes are minor, but are inaccurate and persistent.

Please let me know if the edits conform to BLP and especially NPOV. Should I stop reverting the changes? Ranban282 (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted the edits by 122.161.66.47 ( talk  · contribs). Each claim has to be directly supported by the cited source without having to use original research to come to the conclusion, which was not satisfied here. There was nothing in the source about ousting Prime Minister Narendra Modi, nor about pre-empting election victories. The dispute with the institute and the Body Offering novel were being given undue weight. It is fine to include details of the 'right wing criticism' if it is sufficiently noteworthy. -- Joshua Issac ( talk) 17:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I have directed the user to this thread so that they can defend their revisions here. -- Joshua Issac ( talk) 17:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Grant Guilford

Grant Guilford is the head of Victoria University of Wellington. In the last couple of months the article has been significantly changed by a small group of editors who show no apparent interest in unrelated articles. The changes focus appear to focus entirely on content related to the performance of Victoria University of Wellington during his tenure. I have a minor COI here, so I won't comment on the quality of the changes. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Logan McCree

Hi, please could someone cast an eye over Logan McCree. ϢereSpielChequers 20:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

For anyone else editing while at work: the article's subject is an adult-film actor. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 20:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I removed some material that seemed undue and/or poorly sourced - it was rather quickly put back. I agree this could use more eyes. Spicy ( talk) 16:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Jimsorzo/Hank Kunneman

The church's website was recently spammed elsewhere leading me to find this stale userspace draft. Searches suggest the subject may pass NBIO, but the current sourcing is suboptimal. I thought I'd leave a note here in case anyone is interested to work on it and move it to draft or mainspace. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 20:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Mizanur Rahman (Islamic activist)

Mizanur Rahman (Islamic activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

More eyes on this would be welcome. FDW777 (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Peter Hotez / contentious claim

Multiple violations of the biographies of living persons policy. This page should receive some kind of lock or slowdown to prevent further abuse.

Dr. Peter Hotez is a virologist, an expert on coronaviruses and tropical medicine. Someone has appended a long, contentious claim made by a writer against Hotez, including quotes from supposed lawyer's letter addressed to Dr. Hotez. Diff is here.

WP: IMPARTIAL -Section makes contentious claims about Hotez and rewords a legal response as a demanded action. Not remotely impartial, uses italics to accuse Hotez of deliberately engaging in contentious actions (which cannot be found other than on the journalist's personal blog). Basically, it reads like it was written by the journalist's lawyer or the journalist herself. -Quoted website has no direct links to claimed defamation on social media, but linked articles have comments critical of Hotez and other health professionals, and there are numerous blog posts on this personal site critical of Hotez and other health professionals (e.g. readers asking the writer to intervene in local disputes over coronavirus vaccines, mask policy, etc., "unscientific polls" of 2000 readers suggesting that "Dr. Anthony Fauci should be removed from positions of authority", comments by readers such as "Unleash the attorneys of defamation!").

WP:QS - Obvious conflict of interest.

WP:SPS,WP:ABOUTSELF - Website that is source of claim is self-published site about journalist who has made the legal claim. Material is self-serving, an exceptional claim (Godwin's Law applies in reverted text), involves claims about third party.

Dr. Hotez is almost as well known as Dr. Fauci and of great public interest currently. Can someone set the Hotez page up for WP:PCPP? Visitgoths (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  • This content should certainly be kept out of this BLP. It is about a trivial legal dispute and is sourced entirely to one of the disputants. However, it has apparently been added only once and was promptly reverted, so the article does not need protection at this time. I will watchlist the page. Thanks for calling it to my attention. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Rick Dennison

Sources conflict regarding whether this person was recently fired. Per WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:NOTNEWS, we should wait to see what happens. I have added a hidden note to the page to hopefully deter editors from re-adding statements indicating that he was fired, but I won't be able to keep eyes on the article for a bit so I'd appreciate anyone else who wants to help patrol the article. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks like the article has been semi-protected for a week. Hopefully by that time the issue will have been resolved. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Chris Pratt ‎

An editor has repeatedly tried to insert serious NPOV vios into Chris Pratt. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 06:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Problematic editing continues. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I took a look at the article just now to see if it needs protection. The article is under indefinite PC protection, but that has not helped since the problem editor is EC confirmed. That editor has repeatedly inserted a long edit with serious BLP implications, and has been given a 24-hour topic ban. So it appears the situation is on people's radar. There is discussion at the talk page but it does not appear very constructive. Right now there is a sourced, balanced paragraph about the controversy, which does seem to have received widespread enough news coverage to be included in the article. So things seem to be stable for now. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Category:Lists of religious converts - possibly widespread BLPvios

I'm still on wiki break but a dispute at WP:ANI has alerted me to the fact that we possibly have a problem in many of the lists at Category:Lists of religious converts. It seems possibly many of these are inadequately sourced. The source may mention a conversion 'to X'. However it fails to mention 'from A' or equivalent. Instead editors are inferring this from where they lived and/or their name and apparent ethnic identity or maybe slightly better but IMO still insufficient what religion their parents were etc and often without any of these being given in the sources used for the list articles.

Or better sometimes a source may exist for the person's prior religion but it isn't given in the list article (a very common problem with lists unfortunately). I don't know if we quite require self identification for 'from' like we do with 'to', I feel we should but others may disagree. But it seems to me we require at least the source to clearly say the person was A before conversion, rather than any editor inference i.e. OR.

I earlier came across this in disputes over converts from Hinduism which seems to be partly being cleared up but an WP:other stuff exists argument lead me to Muhammad Ali and Yusuf Islam at List of converts to Islam from Christianity. Muhammad Ali looks like it is fine, in any case no longer a BLP issue but Yusuf Islam the source does not seem to mention Christianity or a specific denomination anywhere. The fact that such a high profile example is insufficiently sourced makes me wonder how bad other ones are. To be clear I only checked the 'list of' article since the source needs to be there.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems like the type of thing that because so many conditions to be included need to be met shown through sources (what was their original religion and what did they convert to) that a category for that fails BLPCAT issues (which itself cautions about cats related to religious beliefs). List articles would be appropriate as long as each entry is sourced directly with the mention of the conversion. -- Masem ( t) 12:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
The other problem is that we have religious nationalists edit warring to remove entries from converts from their preferred religion, and vice-versa. So you get edits like [6] "per BLP" which removed three entries, all of whom are dead, two of them for centuries. I found sources for the latter two relatively easily (indeed the article for one is literally full of them) and have re-added them. I'm having more trouble on the first but it certainly isn't a BLP issue. There's a similar war going on at List of converts to Islam from Hinduism - I haven't looked deeply at this one but of the list that is being continually removed, I looked at one entry - Dipika Kakar, a living person, and the source provided was an actual interview with the subject about her conversion - so no problem at all. Some may be an issue, but this mass reverting is a problem and we may need to look at some partial blocks for certain editors whilst someone neutral goes through them. Black Kite (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
BLP violations are still going on in List of converts to Hinduism from Islam. Thankfully another admin has protected it for the time being but I am sure that POV users will come again. Bringtar ( talk) 16:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
User:Black Kite, did you have time to check on the other entries please? Bringtar ( talk) 16:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Kevin Paffrath

I believe the inclusion of the paragraph in the lead about Paffrath's past legal troubles is WP:UNDUE, as these are mentioned in only a few of the sources. I've attempted to begin a discussion about it at Talk:Kevin Paffrath#MrsSnoozyTurtle edits, but have not been able to engage the editors involved in adding it. The page has been the target of edit warring recently, so trying to bring in some outside eyes. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I commented there. IMO it does not belong in the lead. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Aaron Coleman - Page violates Wikipedia style guidelines on balance, accusations of crimes for public figures and tone

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

Orange1861 is last person to reply to talk page on January 1st 2021. He writes:

"While the subject of this page, Aaron Coleman, is quite a controversial figure who has done questionable actions, this page has been written in a way that is clearly hostile to him. I do think the sources are legitimate, but mostly negative information taken out of the sources without the other parts. I believe that the rules of Wikipedia biographies are being violated in multiple parts:

Balance:

"BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources without giving undue weight to recent events. Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking. BLPs should not have trivia sections."

The page mostly talks about recent scandals of Coleman, while neglecting anything positive about him. It does not discuss the nature of his campaign beyond one sentence and even talks more about a sex exhortation bill than it. This clearly violates the balance part of the guidelines.

Accusation of Crime

"In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced." Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported."

Not only does the article take a negative tone regarding Coleman, but frequently neglects Coleman's denials, his reasoning for them and the lack of convictions in many cases. For example, "On December 8, 2020, Kathleen Lynch, a Wyandotte County, Kansas judge, issued an anti-stalking order against Coleman after Brandie Armstrong, the campaign manager for Frownfelter, accused Coleman of sending her harassing messages, showing up at her home uninvited twice, and attempted to get her evicted." there is no statement from Coleman, no information that states that it was temporary and clearly slanted against Coleman.

Tone

"BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources without giving undue weight to recent events. Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking. BLPs should not have trivia sections."

The article is clearly written in a passionate tone against Coleman, while using loaded language and giving undue weight to recent events. For example, "supporting abortion up to the moment of birth" is clearly loaded and could easily be made in a neutral tone of "supporting abortion".

Overall, the article is improperly written in an inappropriate way toward Coleman. Almost none of the sources cited have a negative tone as dark as this article and this place seems to be more of a dark list of allegations than a biography about a person." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8090:1340:239a:dad1:3b7a:d010:fcc8 (talkcontribs) 01:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I hope that we will be able to reach a consensus here. OsagePizza72 ( talk) 18:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Common Name: Jose Gonzalez

A few years ago an WP:SPA created Jose "Joe" Luis Gonzalez about a muralist and restorationist from Southern California who received an art commission from TELACU in the early 1980s. A muralist and restorationist named Jose "Joe" L. Gonzalez who received an art commission from TELACU in the early 1980s was involved in a well-known federal fraud scheme that received significant media attention and for which he copped a plea deal to keep him out of prison. I added the below, sourced to two different issues of the Los Angeles Times, an issue of the Washington Post, and two books from academic publishers.

Gonzalez was sentenced to five years probation in 1983 after admitting to a felony charge of enrolling in a federal jobs program for the needy and subsequently being paid thousands of dollars for work he didn't do. The program was administered by The East Los Angeles Community Union (TELACU), a social service non-profit. Gonzalez was also paid at least $458,000 by TELACU for contracts awarded to his art companies at the same time he was serving as vice chair of its board of directors, which was cited as a possible conflict of interest by the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General.[1][2][3][4][5]

Shortly after doing that, the SPA rematerialized and removed the content, declaring it was "erroneous and disproved".[7] While Jose Gonzalez is a common name, I personally know that Jose Gonzalez and Jose Gonzalez are the same person. However, for those unfamiliar with this case, as described by the sources: (a) Jose 1 and Jose 2 both have the middle initial "L.", (b) Jose 1 and Jose 2 were both awarded art contracts by TELACU in the early 1980s, (c) Jose 1 and Jose 2 are both restorationists and muralists, (d) Jose 1 and Jose 2 both go by the name "Joe".
Question: For purposes of WP:BLP, are the preceding points a sufficient nexus for WP to present Jose 1 and Jose 2 as the same person? Or, is the matter ambiguous enough that the content should be removed out of a preponderance of caution? Chetsford (talk) 07:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Probably worth xposting to WP:COIN, as Ehonza5 likely has a COI. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 10:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
That's possible but I suspect it's also possible they're just a fan of Gonzalez or possibly an owner of some of his work. I'm really more interested in getting a sense of whether or not this is an accurate read or if I'm letting personal knowledge bias me in this case. Chetsford ( talk) 15:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
They have a photo of him from 2015 as their own work. It's from city hall so may be something a fan would have, but definitely not just a run of the mill one. Nil Einne ( talk) 07:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Since no one else has responded yet, I'll offer this. The way I see it, if a source mentions some criminal conviction of someone with the same name as some notable subject but makes no connection to the subject of the article (i.e. whatever makes them notable), other than the name and maybe an age, using that source is a problem. Besides mistaken identity, there's big question mark over WP:DUE weight.

However in this case, it sounds like the sources for the criminal conviction make an explicit connection to the area of notability i.e. as an artist and indeed the same award. In that case, while we cannot rule out there being two people, if it's feared that is the case then IMO we need to delete the article. Putting the criminal convictions aside, how do we know which of the stuff is by artist 1 and which is by artist 2? If no sources have mentioned there are 2 artists with the same name working in the same area, then I guess neither person is really notable since no source thought to mention this fact, and we could very well be conflating two different artists each who've made different artistic contributions.

That said is anyone actually saying there are two different people? I know User:Vexations did suggest this earlier but they don't seem to have gotten involved since the sourcing was improved. From what I see User:Ehonza5 has just said that the information is "erroneous and libelous", "disproved", "totally untrue" etc.

From my experience SPAs, and especially those with a COI, more commonly claim that criminal convictions were overturned (although they cannot present any real evidence of this, not even unacceptable ones like primary sources/court documents or the sources they present don't support their claims) or that the criminal convictions weren't overturned but still they're very wrong etc, perhaps with links to blogs or something where the subject or their representative explains why the criminal conviction was totally unfair etc. The comments by Ehonza5, especially the "disproved" one reminds me of this sort of complaint rather than someone saying it's another subject.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

dean radin

Dean Radin's page (here [[8]]) is fraught with libel and slander. This page could/ might even be injurious to his career and should have been edited months/ years ago.

Screen Shot of Quackwatch.png

In the first paragraph of Radin's bio, it says "Radin then became Senior Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS), in Petaluma, California, USA, which is on Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch list of questionable organizations." So... what if it is? Radin's name is not on Barrett's page and Radin should not be held accountable because he's affiliated with a "questionable organization (according to Barrett). Radin's bio page continues with the slander, "The review of Radin's first book, The Conscious Universe, that appeared in Nature charged that Radin ignored the known hoaxes in the field, made statistical errors and ignored plausible non-paranormal explanations for parapsychological data." Here's "the review", from 25 years ago https://www.nature.com/articles/39784 -- this is one person's analysis of Radin's work; the article is posted on a .org website (not a peer-reviewed or a .edu page). I don't understand what happened with Radin's bio; quite literally, it goes from bad to worse.

The section on Parapsychology, the essence of Radin's career, reads more like a biography written by an angry ex-spouse, then it does to talk about Radin's research studies (like Wikipedia is supposed to do). Some controversy could be cited to refute his research, but as it is now, 90% of it is controversy without even mentioning what Radin and his colleagues have studied.

Again, the section on Books opens with "While Radin's books have been reviewed favorably by groups that give general reviews such as Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews,[23][24] independent reviews by scientists and skeptics, as cited below, have often been negative."--- I can show you 20 reviews by scientific researchers that mention the benefits/ insights achieved through Radin's work, but Wiki folks copy and paste two negative reviews and lead readers to believe that all or most reviews are negative. The Books section closes with second-hand analysis from one, Debakcsy. Again, this reads like slander/ libel. I thought Wikipedia was known for its objectivity.

This article must be changed ASAP; if nobody has relevant information to add/ delete, then I will do so. Thanks for your time; I hope that we will be able to reach a consensus here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenmitchell213 (talkcontribs) 04:06, 2021 July 26 (UTC)

@Stevenmitchell213: I'm struggling to understand your complaint. You linked to a Nature book review which is on nature.com. What .org website are you referring to? Also it's a book review published in Nature one of the most prestigious peer reviewed scientific journals in the world. Yes the book review itself is not peer reviewed, but that's because book reviews are not normally peer reviewed in most journal AFAIK. Yes it's one person's views, but one person's views who Nature chose to publish. I think you're really going to struggle to convince people that a book review published in Nature is insignificant. Maybe the rest of your complaint deals with more serious issues, but when part of it is so bad it's hard to see the wheat from the chaff, sorry. Nil Einne ( talk) 07:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Quackwatch.org. The first sentence he quotes looks like prohibited synthesis. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 12:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Radin's article is surprisingly lenient compared to that of other pseudoscientists, IMO. Black Kite (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I have removed the Quackwatch material due simply to WP:BLPSPS, as it is the list of the individual behind Quackwatch. (See the Quackwatch entry at WP:RSNP.) However, this is something that has been repeatedly reinserted, so eyes should be kept on it. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 13:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
NatGertler - should the section at the bottom of Radin's page be removed also? Radin wrote that the subject's response "successfully" described the actual randomly selected location of the distant agent: the Radio telescope at Kitt Peak. Debakcsy noted that there are several radio telescopes at Kitt Peak, such as the Very Long Baseline Array, but that telescope does not match the description given. DeBakcsy contends that, while the ARO 12m Radio Telescope has some similar characteristics, it also differs in several aspects from the subject's description. DeBakcsy further commented that, considering this is the best example out of 653 possible other tests made at Princeton, it is quite poor. Noting the spread of meta-analyses of the same studies (where the individual studies are weighted differently), have wildly varying odds returned (from trillions to one, to indistinguishable from chance), DeBakcsy argues that this undermines the reliance on meta-analysis in the work since they lack standardization.[28] -- according to the engaging in gossip portion of the Wikipedia criteria that you cited above? I'm sorry that I didn't respond appropriately, as I am fairly new at navigating Wikipedia. Stevenmitchell213 (talkcontribs) 17:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The item I cited did not regard "engaging in gossip" but rather the use of sources where the author is also the publisher, and thus there are no levels of approval involved. That does not appear to be the case for DeBakcsy's writing, as he was not the publisher of the Skeptical Inquirer. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 17:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I "repeatedly reinserted" it only because it was deleted with bad reasoning. There are two good reasons to remove it: you named one. Another, much more relevant one is that is does not even mention Radin and therefore has nothing to do with the article. But the IPs who deleted it justified the deletion not with any of the relevant reasonings but with the standard "IT IS BIAS!!1!" type edit summaries you usually revert without checking. You could have read all that on the Talk page. I did not notice that another IP put the Quackwatch source back in, otherwise I would have reverted that. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I did indeed read all that on the talk page. I found your reaction imprecise. You relied on your claim that "Quackwatch is not questionable", when in Wikipedia terms, it is very much questionable, being a self-published source. But regardless of what had been written on the talk page, the material had been reinserted. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 17:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Brian Josephson strongly criticized that Nature review, and we leave that out, it's WP:BLPSPS. But by the same criterion I think that another review of the book, the one by Robert Todd Carroll, shouldn't rate a paragraph in the Wikipedia article. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 15:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The main reason why we would not use Josephson is because it is criticism of criticism. Should we include criticism of criticism of criticism too? Where does it end? The standard limit is one level of criticism, excluding Josephson. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 16:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Passion Richardson

Courtesy links: Passion Richardson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Passion Richardson also grew up and ran in Fairbanks, Alaska, setting records there. See Anchorage Daily News: https://www.adn.com/sports/article/ex-lathrop-track-star-wins-olympic-appeal/2010/07/17/

"Richardson dominated Alaska sprinting for a couple of years in the late 1980s. In 1988, as a 12-year-old, she won the 200-meter national championship at the ARCO Jesse Owens Games in Los Angeles. In 1990, as a 4-foot-11, 96-pound freshman at Lathrop, she set Region III records in the 100 (12.3 seconds) and 200 (25.4). A week later at the state meet, she blew away the competition in the 100 (12.5) and 200 (25.5) and anchored a state-record performance by Lathrop's 800 relay team.

"Her family left Fairbanks shortly after Richardson's freshman year when her father, who had been stationed at Fort Wainwright, was transferred to another post." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.67.74.93 (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Is there a WP:BLP-related issue? If you are advocating for including a summary of that source in the article, you might either boldly add it yourself or bring it up at the article's talk page. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 15:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Is there a BLP violation?

It looks like it to me, but I wanted to get the opinions of more experienced editors. Is this section a BLP violation? The subject hasn't been charged with a crime as far as I can tell (not even arrested), and the sources used look more like opinionated articles filled with rumours and speculation, and no actual evidence to substantiate the author's potentially slanderous claims. I've gone ahead and removed the section pending any advice given here. Thanks. – 2.O.Boxing 14:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, those are all sketchy opinion or gossip articles. Absolutely not sufficient for negative or controversial claims about a living person. Woodroar ( talk) 14:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
There might eventually be something that goes there with better sourcing, that a figure has a criminal past can be included without a conviction but I’m not really seeing justification for "A family that had always been good to him, and who had essentially made his life what it was, rich and carefree.” etc... Thats just gratuitously awful. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
@Woodroar and Horse Eye's Back: thanks for the input. Is the content enough over the line to request a revdel? – 2. O. Boxing 16:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it's "grossly insulting" so probably not. I mean, it's negative, but at least sourced to something, even though that something is low-tier sources. Then again, I'm not an admin so it's not my call. Woodroar ( talk) 16:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Max Prince

Can someone please restore the article Max Price back to the version from 10 December 2020. There might be some valid edits in-between, but referring to the subject as "poes" (an Afrikaans slang word for vagina) and other things don't justify looking for good edits of that editor in-between. Thanks. 165.0.1.201 (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I just removed the vandalism and added this to my watchlist. See anything else in the article that needs to be addressed? ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 12:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response and action. Looks fine. Didn't know how to fix these subsequent edits myself. 165.0.1.201 ( talk) 12:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

suho

please correct the information box of his wikipedia profie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinny24 (talkcontribs) 20:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Not done @Jinny24: Please provide a reliable source which contradicts information given in the infobox at Suho. – LaundryPizza03 ( d ) 20:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Problem

I have been expanding the article Rayssa Leal with references on the aftermath of her silver medal (reactions like the possibility of a "trade mark"), but an anonymous user have been reverting my editions and he even went to my User talk (in Portuguese) to dispute it, accuses me of writing "legal threats" in the question of trademark (what is untrue) and even "warned me" that it could ban me from the Wikipedia. I needed to bring it here because I didn't made anything illegal and didn't wrote anything that haven't been backed up by sources. Erick Soares3 (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Explaining to the admins: This user is using Wikipedia to post irrelevant data in the best Twitter or Facebook style (like "Rayssa Leal took a picture with person X") and a mix of irrelevant text and legal threats ("her sponsors registered the mark "fadinha" etc etc.) I removed the text because I understand that it does not fit at all with what a biography should contain. I have already explained to him that articles such as sportsmen should contain data on the athletes' sporting careers and no, trivia or gossip sections. 177.142.131.180 ( talk) 21:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Explaining again: I only inserted referenced information turned notable by notable media outlets (like the person with who she took a picture is notable enough to have an Wiki article and no: I didn't made any "legal threats": the question of her trademark was raised, was discussed in notable sources ( 1, 2) and so, was notable enough for Wikipedia as the direct aftermath of the event. And if in sportspeople biography should only exist their sports career, whats the use of "Personal life" section? Erick Soares3 ( talk) 21:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
"Personal Life" is also not to write about an important person taking pictures with people X or Y, or talking about legal aspects of your brand. 177.142.131.180 ( talk) 21:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Mark Schneider, CEO Nestle

Someone has trolled Mark Schneider, CEO of Nestle on his WIKI profile adding a photoshopped picture of him in a Nazi Uniform and adding insulting and foul language. Please remove from the profile.

This article ( Ulf Mark Schneider) hasn't been edited at all for almost three weeks and the worst vandalism was in late May and early June. All the vandalism was quickly reverted, and protection was put in place for a time in response to it. There's nothing which requires action at the current time. Neiltonks ( talk) 10:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Its Google's preview on the right again, its still showing in the search results (picture is still widely available). Nothing to do with wikipedia (anymore). Only in death does duty end ( talk) 10:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Martin Eberhard

Users with only an IP address have repeatedly added slanderous information to the page for Martin Eberhard. For example, this one https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Eberhard&oldid=1033776988

Another user, David Gerard, minutes after I added one external link, suddenly decided that the entire list of external references, which has been present for months/years, suddenly is "excessive" and deleted the entire list except 1, with any reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PamKayJohnson (talkcontribs) 07:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I took a look at this and the external links were a mess, many of them 404s, one was an archive link of a parked domain. I left the CSPAN links and removed the rest. I also removed the "ongoing" section as completely unsourced. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 11:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Category: British conspiracy theorists / Andrew Wakefield

I have removed (and been reverted) the link from the Andrew Wakefield article to the Category 'British Conspiracy Theorists'. This is clearly a highly contentious relationship, and I do not believe the article sufficiently backs up this assertion as per the requirement in WP:BLPCAT. The term 'Conspiracy theorist' is not even used anywhere in the article. Must the article state explicitly 'He is a conspiracy theorist' before being linked to the category of 'Conspiracy theorists'?

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants has provided a number of references on Talk:Andrew_Wakefield which talk about 'Conspiracy Theories' and Andrew Wakefield at the same time, some are behind a paywall and the only one I can verify that directly calls him a conspiracy theorist is wired.com, not sure that this is verifiable enough. The assertion that 'He's related to anti-vax, which is in turn sometimes called a conspiracy theory, therefore he is a conspiracy theorist, sounds like Original Research to me. Can I have a second opinion please? JeffUK (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPCAT states that we should not even have categories for classifications that require inline sources (eg naming people as conspiracy theorists). A list article would be appropriate since sources can be added, but not categories. -- Masem ( t) 13:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't see that statement at BLPCAT. Instead, I see "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources," which says pretty much the opposite. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Ah, the correct link is WP:OPINIONCAT. (This is why categories like Category:Climate change deniers no longer exist, see [9] and [10]. -- Masem ( t) 13:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't see "conspiracy theorist" as an opinion, though. It's his actions, like making Vaxxed that place him in that group, and those actions (spreading conspiracy theories) are extraordinarily well-sourced. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Same logic was argued for CC deniers. Its still a contentious term even if numerous RSes apply the label. It it makes it appropriate to use in the body w/ attribution of some type (even if "many sources state he is a c.t.") and for a list-style article, but not for a cat. -- Masem ( t) 13:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Actually, reading through that first discussion, there's a clear consensus to keep the category, and the closing rationale doesn't address the arguments for keeping it, only outlines the arguments of the minority view. I'm a little surprised that close didn't result in an DRV thread over a POV closure. I mean, there's at least three !votes that amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT in the form of editors claiming "I'm personally not a denier, but a skeptic," which is about the worst form of that argument possible, as it's an admission of POV pushing.
And while the follow-up BLPN thread shows a clear majority in favor of keeping the cat deleted, the arguments for doing so seem to hinge mainly upon the patently false assertion that climate change is controversial in science. I note more "I'm a skeptic, not a denier" arguments there.
In both discussions, your argument seems to be the only reasonable one that supports the outcome, and though it's a reasonable concern, I don't think it's enough to really settle the matter. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
This is clearly a highly contentious relationship Not if you go by the sources, it isn't.
The assertion that 'He's related to anti-vax, which is in turn sometimes called a conspiracy theory, therefore he is a conspiracy theorist, sounds like Original Research to me. "related to", really? He started that conspiracy theory by committing fraud, and has been pushing it ever since. His "relationship" to it is both maternal and paternal. The term "related to" which you falsely attributed to me here is as much a joke as your use of the word "sometimes". I said quite clearly that in every single instance in which I found the anti-vaxx movement being discussed, Wakefield was mentioned by name. That's not "sometime". At best, that's "consistently".
P.S. Imagine claiming that something is OR in the same edit in which you acknowledge that you've read a source explicitly stating it. lol ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
If I intended to deliberately misrepresent your position I would not have posted on both the talk page of the article, and your user talk page, making you aware of this post. I do not believe that his original 'work' fuelling a global conspiracy theory is proof that that he is a conspiracy theorist, he reported a relationship between MMR and Autism, for personal gain, not because he believed there was some major cover-up. JeffUK ( talk) 13:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm not saying you deliberately misrepresented my position. I'm saying that you misrepresented my position. I'm sure you're engaged in good faith here, I'm pointing out the failings of your argument, here, not making accusations of POV pushing.
BLP concerns are something that are always worth discussing, but that's not to say that BLP concerns are always correct. In this case, I think you're wrong, and relying on extraordinarily weak (and even self-contradictory) arguments to make your case.
And I agree about his motivations for publishing his original fraud. It's everything he's done since then which I believe justifies the category. Had he admitted his wrongdoing, instead of doubling down and denying the facts, the anti-vaxx movement would likely not even exist in a recognizable form, today. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
It's long past time to treat Wakefield as "contentious". Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 13:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Clearly Wakefield is a controversial (bad) figure due to the harm his ideas/"teaching" has caused/continue to cause. However, that doesn't mean we should ignore the process. I think a case can be made that Wakefield is, in effect, responsible for child abuse. Convincing parents to do something that harms their kids is, in my book, a type of child abuse. That doesn't mean I think we could label him as such. Springee ( talk) 13:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Which sources say Wakefield is a conspiracy theorist? Anti-vax is obvious but conspiracy theorist is less so. This is a case where we really need to respect the process and not pile on because we (rightly in my view) don't like Wakefield. We might also consider Wakefield guilty of child abuse for convincing parents to forgo vaccines that would have saved their child from some harm (read the intro to The Panic Virus) but that doesn't mean we should add the category [people who abuse children]. This really is a fundamental issue with Wikipedia. Too many articles try to label as problematic rather than just describe the facts of the events/person. Springee ( talk) 13:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I provided 8 of them at article talk. The OPs complaints about the sources not saying so are rooted in their inability to see past a paywall, and are admittedly false (they confirmed it in the Wired source), in any case.
In any case, the vaccines and autism claim is very widely labelled a conspiracy theory, and Wakefield is only notable for committing fraud in support of that, breathing new life into what was previously an extraordinarily fringe view. If it weren't for Wakefield, that CS would likely not even warrant mention on WP. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Come on Springee -- given that sources are provided on the talk page, why are you asking this question? It wastes time. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 14:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm not on that page and the question is being asked here. If the only conspriacy Wakefield is involved with is the MMR-autism link then I certainly object. Remember we need to be impartial and not apply scarlet letters just because we don't like the person. Wakefield linked MMR and autism initially via a novel hypothesis. The problem was he doubled down (and tried to profit) when it was clear his theory was wrong. This isn't someone who is spreading a wide range of conspiracy theories. Instead he is associated (causally) with one conspriacy theory. That makes the cat a poor fit. That and Masem's concerns. Really the question is do we think Wikipedia is right that we need to be extra cautious when dealing with BLP articles or do we decide that it's OK to label people so long as some RSs use the label. Springee ( talk) 14:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Let's try another answer: you couldn't be bothered to click through, even though it's clear from the discussion in this section where the sources are given. Timewasting... Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 14:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Please keep the discussion civil. Some sources is not the same thing as the sort of overwhelming sourcing that would be needed to put this in Wiki voice. Springee ( talk) 14:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Here are two reliable sources reporting that Andrew Wakefield is a conspiracy theorist: here ( conspiracy theorists, including Andrew Wakefield) and here ( he [Wakefield] was in Texas with those who shared his views on vaccines and conspiracy and He [Wakefield] and those around him now believe there is a massive conspiracy, among other passages). To the extent that reporting, in Wikipedia's voice and without violating WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, that the anti-vax movement is fundamentally based upon conspiracy theory(ies), we also have sources that include this ( Andrew Wakefield...give[s] conspiracy theories their scientific credentials), this ( prevalent conspiracy theor[y]...enflamed by a now thoroughly debunked paper by Andrew Wakefield), and I suspect many more. As presented by User:MPants at work above, the veil of WP:OR cannot hide the fact that Wakefield is a seminal proponent of the modern, conspiratorial anti-vax movement. Do we really need to ask if the sky is blue? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Neither of the 'Two reliable sources' are linked on the article, coming back to my original statement that the article does not support his inclusion in this category. Being able to provide a link when asked in a talk page is not the same as the statement being verifiable based on the article. And surely you do need to prove 'the sky is blue' when making potentially damaging accusations about a living person? JeffUK ( talk) 14:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Are you interested in improving the encyclopedia? Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 14:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, which is why I removed an unsourced potentially damaging claim about a living person, as per the policy. JeffUK ( talk) 14:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
And yet you know the claim associated with the category has sources available -- but instead of actually developing the article you're complaining here. Why? Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 14:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
The problem is, as you described, the fact that the page doesn't use those sources.
The problem is not that Wakefield is categorized as a conspiracy theorist, because that's an easily verifiable fact. So, if you are interested in improving the project, the only logical path forward is for you to edit the article to include those sources and their statements about Wakefield, not to contest a factual category. Contesting the factual category when you very well know that it's factual is, quite literally, damaging the project, not improving it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Not complaining, asking in good faith whether or not the inclusion in this category violates the policy. My position hasn't changed, that the article AND reliable sources do not support him being 'a conspiracy theorist' as per WP:BLPCAT. I think the claim should be added to the article with an in-line reference, and I'm not willing to do that as wired.com is not good enough for me to say 'he is a conspiracy theorist' on a public forum, and risk personal liability. Also, I removed the claim prior to taking it to the talk page, and prior to the new sources being presented, I don't see how you can possibly accuse me of 'damaging the encyclopedia' on the basis I ignored evidence that was presented to me after I did something. JeffUK ( talk) 14:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
My position hasn't changed, that the article AND reliable sources do not support him being 'a conspiracy theorist' as per WP:BLPCAT. Well, that's just factually inaccurate, as has been demonstrated quite clearly by JoJo quoting the sources.
I'm not willing to do that as wired.com is not good enough for me to say 'he is a conspiracy theorist' on a public forum, and risk personal liability. Reporting what RSes say could not possibly open you to liability, and you should probably be more circumspect about such speculation per WP:NOLEGALTHREATS.
I don't see how you can possibly accuse me of 'damaging the encyclopedia' on the basis I ignored evidence that was presented to me after I did something. You're still arguing about this. You falsely claimed in this very comment that the RSes do not say what they very clearly say. I didn't suggest you were intentionally damaging the project with your original edit, but the more you argue here (especially by making demonstrably false claims as you just did) the less willing I am to entertain the possibility that your concerns are legitimate.
  • You claimed it wasn't stated in the article: I explained that it's stated in the infobox, as well as in the text of the article.
  • You claimed that the sources don't state it: JoJo quoted the sources stating it.
Literally all of your objections have been addressed and shown to be based on false premises. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I have now added the reliably-sourced material to the Andrew Wakefield lede. And no, I am not afraid of personal liability. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 15:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
but the more you argue here (especially by making demonstrably false claims as you just did) the less willing I am to entertain the possibility that your concerns are legitimate. I find accusing someone of acting in bad faith simply because I tried to follow and understand the policy is unnecessary and unprofessional. I removed unsourced material from a BLP, now that material has been correctly (in your opinioned) referenced. How is that damaging? This is my only comment after the problem was resolved. (thanks JoJo, by the way) JeffUK ( talk) 15:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
You repeated false claims multiple times after they had been corrected. I haven't yet accused you of acting in bad faith, and in fact, have stated quite the opposite very explicitly. But the more you say, the less sure of that belief about your motivations I become. That's not an accusation: that's a statement of fact. If you're trying to convince me that you're engaging in bad faith, then continuing to make false claims about what the sources say is a very effective way to do it. If you expect me to believe that you're engaging in good faith, I'd advise you not to make false statements to further your position in the future. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Those sources aren't really a lot to hang the label on. The Wired piece [11] talks about him hanging out with conspiracy theorists, but never quite describes him as such - it is an interpretation, but not really clear. The closest are two parts "Last month's cruise featured a caravan of stars from a surprisingly vast galaxy of skeptics and conspiracy theorists, including Andrew Wakefield, known for his questionable research and advocacy against vaccines", which could be read as saying that he is a conspiracy theorist, that he is a skeptic, or both, but either way isn't a direct statement, and "What were some of the conspiracies discussed on board? ... some technical or scientific experts, but only one scientific speaker, Wakefield, had a legitimate education", which also stop short of specifically saying he is a consipracy theorist. The Guardian is clearer, but depends on one line: "He and those around him now believe there is a massive conspiracy to force vaccines upon our children, driven and funded by the wealthy pharmaceutical companies and those who take their shilling." The other two sources mentioned, [12] [13] both (correctly) argue that Wakefield provides fuel to conspiracy theorists, but that isn't the same thing as saying that he is one. Is this really enough to hang a specific label in a BLP? It isn't as if you can read the article and come away with a positive impression of Wakefield as it is. - Bilby ( talk) 18:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
This feels like the common problem of "cherry picking" of sources to try to apply a label (in article or as a cat or in a list) where its really not appropriate. I've talked in past cases of a need to do a source analysis to see, of the RSes that talk about the person, how frequently a contentious term like "conspirary theorist" is used. And unless its used with a high proportion of sources (it depends on multiple factors), we should absolutely avoid this type of cherry picking to get a result that some editors seem to want to push for, per UNDUE. And that definitely means to keep the BLP name far away from the contentious category. -- Masem ( t) 19:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
This is just muddying the waters. The claim that it's unclear whether the Wired piece is calling him a skeptic or CT hinges upon the remarkable assumption that calling him a skeptic would be even remotely reasonable. It also ignores the entire context of the article.
As for the rest, what exactly would one consider a conspiracy theorist, if not one who promotes conspiracy theories? This is like arguing that "a cylindrical non-crystaline amorphous solid container of H2O" doesn't refer to a glass a water. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
There's objective restatements, and there's subjective restatements. Objective restatements can be made as long as we don't violate NOR/SYNTH (eg we could not restart "a cylindrical non-crystaline amorphous solid container of a transparent liquid" to "a glass of water" as it makes a presumption not present). But subjective restatements will always involve synthesis, and outside very close synonyms, we should be extremely careful of trying to adopt language not present in the source. If it is a DUE point to raise in the article but it doesn't directly link to the term, then quote it with attribution. -- Masem ( t) 19:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Wired never actually states that Wakefiled "is a conspiracy theorist" - it is something we can read into the statements, but it isn't an unquestionable statement. As to the other, they don't say that he promotes conspiracy theories, either. Try [14] - a paper that would be a good source. That says:
"Andrew Wakefield, a former gastroenterologist, has been campaigning against vaccines for 20 years. In 2016, he stirred up fears against the MMR vaccine again with his anti‐vaccination propaganda movie Vaxxed. “Those voices are very influential and can sway people”, said Karen Douglas, a social psychologist at the University of Kent (UK). “They give conspiracy theories their scientific credentials”.
This is providing fuel to conspiracy theorists, but doesn't specifically say that he promotes them nor that he creates them. I certainly think you can make an argument that he does promote conspiracy theories, but that isn't what the sources provided say, with the possible exception of the Guardian, and I don't think that is enough to hang the label on. - Bilby ( talk) 19:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
So let's see here: You have to change the words I used in my analogy to something completely different in order to respond to it, you've got to ignore the rest of the Wired article and everything we know about Wakefield to argue that Wired doesn't call him a conspiracy theorist, and you haven't got anything resembling a definition of "conspiracy theorist" that excludes (or even permits the exclusion of) people who promote and/or invent conspiracy theories.
Why are you even bothering? This is actually less convincing than plugging your ears and screaming "wake up, sheeple!" ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
That's also only one article, when given there are 150 sources already on that page, would normally fall into FRINGE/UNDUE to be including that. -- Masem ( t) 20:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
That's not even close to what WP:FRINGE is about. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I have seen FRINGE applied many times to argue away minority viewpoints on topics not related to fringe science or the like. But regardless, one source among 150 still fails a DUE inclusion aspect. -- Masem ( t) 22:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
So you're claiming that something appearing in an RS, stated as a fact is fringe because it's not repeated in multiple RSes? That's going to come as quite a shock to, well, every editor who works in fringe topics.
You also might want to see the comment I'm going to make right after this one. It'll blow your mind. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
If it is a contentious statement such as being a conspiracy theorist, 100% yes, per BLP + NPOV. Even if it was a singular mention from the NYTimes, and that was the only source in 150+, it would be a problem to treat it as fact. -- Masem ( t) 22:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Contentious among whom? Among editors? That doesn't matter one bit. Among reliable sources? I've yet to see the slightest evidence of that, and as you may have guessed from my comment below, I've actually looked for them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
"Conspiracy theorist" is already a loaded term aproiri. Wakefield seems to also object to it. Just because no RS necessary disagrees with that does not take away from the contentious nature of that term, and that actually points to the fact that we should have a strong body of RSes to start actually using that term. If Wakefield is to be considered a conspiracy theorist on WP, it should be something that clearly falls out of a universal review of the sources, not hand picked from selected sources. WP is not here to be going around labelling BLP with loaded terms just because a selected handful of sources happen to do so, a major problem across the project right now. -- Masem ( t) 01:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I've provided at least 8 reliable sources which explicitly describe Wakefield as a conspiracy theorist. I've seen zero reliable sources that contest that.
Also, WP is an Encyclopedia. Labeling and describing the subjects of our articles is literally our ultimate goal. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
We do not require sourcing to determine if something is contentious; we are not blindly held to hold our logic to what is printed in the reliable sources. It is common sense that using the term "conspiracy theorist" to a person has negative connotations, so unless there's a huge wealth of sources that make it clear that that is how the person is categorically called (eg Alex Jones), we should consider its application by default as contentious. Eight sources is moving towards a "wealth of sources" but still in the realm that I can also call this "cherry picking".
Additionally, WP's function is absolutely not to label and describe subjects. We're to summarize sources about subjects in a neutral, impartial, and dispassionate way, and going out of our way to label them (in article, in categories, wherever) is not part of that. If labeling falls out of the summarization of sources naturally, then we'll include that with attribution, appropriately, as with something like Alex Jones. But if its something that you have to hunt and peck for when trying to summarize, that's beyond the function of WP. -- Masem ( t) 13:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
We do not require sourcing to determine if something is contentious [citation needed] ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
OK, WP:V. Springee ( talk) 13:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
If we're talking inclusion of describing something as contentious, we absolutely need RSes to say that it is contentious. But behind the scenes, in terms of how WP editors write articles and determine what to include, we are not fixed to only what RSes say and commonly use our best judgement and consensus to determine if things - even if sourced to RSes - are inappropriate to include or have to be stated in certain ways. BLP is wholly based on this (factors of privacy that we consider that many RSes do not), NPOV also considers this, and in terms of contentious material, that's what the function of YESPOV is, and how WP:LABEL functions. So yes, as editors, we should recognized, a priori, that "conspiracy theorist" is a contentious term where inclusion in mainspace on a BLP requires strong sourcing to back it up, and should not be something of UNDUE weight compared to other material. So yes, you've found 8 sources that you say claim he is a conspiracy theorist (though I will point out the Forbes source is unusable per SPSBLP as a contributor piece, and a few others do not explicitly "Wakefield is a conspiracy theoriest" or fall in RSOPINOIN that shouldn't be used on BLP articles, but I suspect you can find more since you said that was a simple google search). Assuming eight sources was the extent you could find on Wakefield where at least 150 other sources exists, you're just skimming the bare minimum for something like DUE inclusion, but no way to treat "conspiracy theorist" as a broad label since you're still overcoming the basic contentious nature of that term; it would have to be limited and in-line attributed to those sources, and certainly shouldn't be used to put him into a category. If it was something closer to, say, 25, and that depends on the quality of sources and their nature, then maybe there's more weight to apply "conspiracy theorist" at a broader level. As I've said, if you want to be including "conspiracy theorist" as such a broad label on a person, it should be something that readily falls out from a broad survey of all sources for that person, and not just cherry picked from a limited set, as that's just not objective, forcing a contentious aspect just because you happened to find a handful of sources. -- Masem ( t) 15:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
My understanding of WP's function is to include factual, reliably sourced information about article subjects/topics, and to do so in a neutral manner that follows the model of consensus. If "labels" or "descriptions" are factual information supported by multiple, independent, reliable sources, that information can be added to articles without violating DUE. To do otherwise seems to me a (inverse?) version of "cherry picking" that is contrary to WP's function. All subject to consensus, of course. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 14:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
That people have found 8 sources that use the term Wakefield and conspiracy theorist together would mean we could use a general attribution in the article "he has been called a conspiracy theorist [collapsed citations] as opposed to using a direct attribution "Dr Patel of the Patel Institute called Wakefield a conspiracy theorist". One of the problems here is Wakefield is almost exclusively known for a single thing (his anti-vax work). Using "Andrew Wakefield" as a keyword search I got 350,000 Google hits. Google-news search resulted in 15,800 hits. Looking at the first 10 news hits, 1 was behind a paywall so I will look at the other 9 sources. Seven of the 9 say nothing about conspiracies. Of the other two both were from The Guardian and neither said Wakefield was a conspiracy theorist. One mentioned conspiracies in context of a Facebook group but not Wakefield. This one [ [15]] says Wakefield is claiming conspiracies with respect to vaccinations but doesn't specifically call him a conspiracy theorist. So of the 9 articles in question none would support even an attributed label. If we are going to make such a claim in Wikivoice I would hope that at least 1 of 9 articles at the top of a news search would use the label. Springee ( talk) 13:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
One of the problems here is Wakefield is almost exclusively known for a single thing (his anti-vax work) Which is widely considered a conspiracy theory, lol. So you're asserting that he's not really a conspiracy theorist because he's actually better known for spreading conspiracy theories. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Yet we don't see sources widely describing Wakefield as a conspiracy theorist. How many sources do we need to go through before we get one that says he is a conspiracy theorist as opposed to he is a key person behind a particular conspiracy. Perhaps part of the problem is that he really is only associated with a single type of conspiracy/conspiracies, anti-vax. Contrast that with people who promote a wide range of conspiracies (secret government this, cartel of business that etc). Why would Wakefield need to be categorized with people promoting moon landing conspiracies or CIA black op conspiracies when "anti-vax activist" is the obvious category? Springee ( talk) 14:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • For anyone complaining about a lack of sources "directly" calling him a conspiracy theorist:
Steven Salzberg directly calls Wakefied a "conspiracy theorist"
The Washington Post didn't just call him that once
but makes a habit of it
Paul Offit thinks he's one, but that's not really a surprise
Hey, look, even deprecated sources can be relied on to call him a "conspiracy theorist"
Think Progress is getting in on that action, too
The newsletter of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health wasn't about to be left out, either
The LA Times might have just been doing it to be cool, but they did it all the same
I know my google-fu is strong, but jesus... This took me less than 5 minutes. It's not even remotely difficult; I just did a google search for "Andrew Wakefield" "Conspiracy Theorist" and then started looking for RSes in there (I clicked on the Sun link just for shits and giggles). With only a handful of exceptions, each RS I checked was explicitly calling Wakefield a CT, as opposed to simply containing both terms. This is what happens almost every time I see the argument "Well, the RSes don't directly call them an X!" I go searching to see if there are RSes calling them an X, and I find them. Sometimes it takes enough effort that the argument is understandable (even though it remains wrongheaded), but I always find them. So maybe it's time to stop trotting out the same, tired old excuses for why we can't do our job when a public figure decides to make themselves into a whatever-term-you-object-to, get off your asses and do a little research before you start making claims about what the sources say. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Some of these are actually decent. Couldn't this have been done earlier, instead of using sources that didn't say what you claimed? - Bilby ( talk) 22:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, you could have done this at any time prior to me doing it. Research should generally come before making arguments based on what the sources say. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
So what percentage of sources about Wakefield are actually calling him this? Yes, key word searches are great and let you find examples but we need to show this is what most sources call him vs just some. Just some means we can use this with attribution or in line citations. Springee ( talk) 23:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
So is "most sources" ( i.e., greater than 50%) linked to an explicit BLP policy, or is that just a personal preference? JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 01:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
There's no exact number since there's a large number of temporal factors that can arise (but that also brings up the issue of rushing to include a contentious term/label in the short against RECENTISM). But it should be clear that there's some level of sourcing to merit inclusion per UNDUE/BLP/RECENTISM issues, and a further higher level of sourcing that would make it possible to start considering a term as nearly factual. The latter needs far more than a smattering of a few opinion pieces and works with systematic media biases. Whether that exists for Wakefield here I don't think is yet proven with the handful of sources above. I stress that we should not be trying to force such terms through cherry picking - it should an unavoidable facet to include -- Masem ( t) 01:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
What percentage of sources declare the sky to be blue?
What percentage of sources declare water to be wet? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Along with the additional reliable sources presented immediately above, there are also examples of Wakefield expressing what sure seem like conspiracy theories here ( Do I feel that I was framed by the pharmaceutical industry? Yes, I think I was") and here ( We have just witnessed yet another example of the power of corporate interests censoring free speech, art, and truth.). I wrote 'sure seem like' because I can find no reliable, independent sources that confirm Wakefield's claims of victimization. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 01:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Using those to translate to "conspiracy theorist" is 100% SYNTH and a violation of BLP. -- Masem ( t) 01:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Relying on sources that directly label him a conspiracy theorist, however, is certainly not. BD2412 T 02:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
WP:SYNTH states Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.
The conclusion is explicitly stated in at least 8 reliable sources in this thread. You know as well as I do that there's nothing synthetic about it.
Also, bringing up WP:RECENTISM is strange, because these latest 7 sources range in pub. dates from March of 2019 to May of 2020. That's over a 4-year period which ended over a year ago and began almost 6 years after the event which set him on his current path. It's not too close to the event, and it's not some recent change in the sourcing due to some other factor, like the pandemic. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Which still falls into RECENTISM, given how many sources exist already prior to those periods. We have no idea if this is going to end up being part of his legacy 10 or 20 years from now, based on sources that spanned a one year period. Particularly for BLP, while we do need to clearly document career-affecting factors (and events that led to why he may be called a conspiracy theorist would seem to fall within that), we should be very careful about using short-term characterization to make very broad claims in Wikivoice until its clear that is part of a lasting legacy of the person. That's RECENTISM. -- Masem ( t) 15:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. RECENTISM concerns sources that come out during and immediately after an event, and sources that reflect a current fad. It doesn't cover sources written over a 4 year period that started 6 years after the event (note this this is the interpretation of that page I've always seen you take prior to this discussion). There categorically were not a bunch of sources covering Wakefield prior to his fraudulent study, and coverage in the past years is mostly negligible, except for passing mentions in articles about anti-covid-vaccine activism. Your arguments here about "short-term characterization" fly in the face of both the way I've seen you approach RECENTISM in different circumstances, and the fact that Wakefield is undeniably a conspiracy theorist. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh wow, this old discussion again. The problem with labels like "conspiracy theorist" is that it's a pejorative term meant to invoke an appeal to emotion rather than giving actual facts. As such, it is a logically flawed construction that fails to convince ... unless the person somehow makes a profession of being a conspiracy theorist, such as the producers of Unsolved Mysteries. It's usually a term for nuts of the tin-foil hat brigade who focus on alien cover-ups and moon landings and other nonsense. In reality, however, conspiracies exist all around us, and to find the real ones all you really have to do is follow the money. I totally get the mistrust of the medical industry here in the US. (Bunch of highway robbers, in my opinion.) I've had my own bad experiences with them, going back to when I was very young, and since then I could count on one hand the number of times I've been to a doctor. Its not until those times I'm on death's door have I ever gone back to a hospital. I can't tell you how many times I've reset my own broken bones and dislocated joints, given myself stitches, pulled shards of glass and metals out of my own eyes... It amazes me that people in the medical industry try to act so shocked when us regular folk think they care only about their profits, not their patients. They can't really be that self-unaware, can they?

But that's the problem with groupthink, wherein the individual members of the in-groups are usually good people at heart, but the group as a whole begins to display all the hallmarks of a sociopath. That's not necessarily a conspiracy, but a problem of social construct.

The problem with labels like this --and I say this specifically to help those who want the label-- is that it is an extremely poor way to make the point, and a very childish way to tell a story. It only works on the very small-minded; to anyone else it just comes off as condescending to the reader. And do you really want to insult the intelligence of the very people you're trying to convince? In writing, it's always more convincing to show, not tell. Zaereth (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion about whether to refer to Wakefield as a conspiracy theorist in text, though. It is about whether to include him in a category, in which persons identified as conspiracy theorists are grouped for various functional purposes. The category would be one of many at the bottom of the page (far below the usual line of reader sight), where it would sit alongside other categories containing Wakefield, such as Category:Autism pseudoscience, Category:English fraudsters, Category:Health fraud, and Category:Medical doctors struck off by the General Medical Council. As for mistrust of "the medical industry", that's kneejerk anti-capitalist rhetoric, and is never consistently applied. The same people who fret about vaccines being made by pharmaceutical companies because "capitalism = bad" don't think twice about taking pain-killers and antibiotics, and raise no fuss about hydroxychloriquine and ivermectin being for-profit products of the same companies. BD2412 T 03:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
We need to include the label in the text in order to include the category, so it is technically both. The thing is, Wakefield isn't significant as a consipracy theorist - a few people may have attached that label to him, but I'd never think to identify him as a conspiracy theorist. I'd file him under anti-vaccination activists, or under health fraud, or scientific misconduct. Alex Jones, on the other hand, I'd expect to find under conspiracy theorists. Lately we've seemed very quick to apply the category, and we seem to do what we're doing here - decide we want to label someone as a consipracy theorist, then try to find the sources to justify what we want to do. This doesn't seem like the best approach. - Bilby ( talk) 05:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
An activist whose activism is premised on the argument that basically the entire apparatus of goverment, medical professionals, and pharmaceutical manufacturers are cooperating to conceal information about a particular line of pharmaceutical products, and who claims that the consequences they have faced for their own discredited research in this area is part of this concealment effort, fits quite squarely within the definition. Of course, this is the basis for sources labeling him such. BD2412 T 06:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
That's a bit of a leap. His activism is based on his belief, as a result of a seriously flawed study, that vaccines can cause autism. He is known for his study, the retraction, and the impact his study had in providing much of the basis for the anti-vaxx movement. To a lesser extent, he's known for continuing to push his findings in spite of the evidence to the contrary. And perhaps, to some degree, he's also for arguing that there's a cover up to hide the results of his research. But if that was what he was primarily known for, we wouldn't have had to go digging for sources that make some mention of him in relation to conspiracy theories, as opposed to the multitude of sources that reference him in regard to the primary issues. But of you have a reliable source that states exactly what you described, by all means let's use it. - Bilby ( talk) 07:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
His activism is based on his belief, as a result of a seriously flawed study, that vaccines can cause autism. The fact that you're willing to assume Wakefield actually believes the results of his fraudulent study might say good things about your moral character, but it doesn't really reflect well upon your critical thinking, here. In fact, it's a shockingly naive position to take.
Also, less than 5 minutes of googling (most of which was spent reading sources) hardly counts as "digging". More like "looking at the ground". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Seriously, whether or not Wakefield was right - and clearly he was not - there's no reason to claim that he doesn't believe what he says he does. - Bilby ( talk) 14:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Uh, yes there is. He's been benefiting financially this whole time, and his very obvious motivation for the very first incident was financial benefit. He's literally a confirmed fraud. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I guess I see why you're so strong on this issue, then. - Bilby ( talk) 15:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I've never had any experience with anti-vax nonsense beyond pointing out how stupid it is on the internet and to those few brave, foolish souls who thought it was a good idea to spout some of that nonsense to me in person.
Wakefield's status as a fraud who deliberately brings harm to people for his own financial gain is something I find distasteful, but not something that bothers me more than the thousands of other callous frauds out there. Attempting to suggest that I'm personalizing the issue is wrongheaded and an indicator of just how weak your argument here is.
Truth is, I honestly enjoy these kinds of arguments. I get a big laugh out of arguments like Zaereth's, and I rather enjoy taking apart more (though obviously not entirely) reasonable arguments like yours. Actually, as a rule of thumb, you can assume I'm having a grand old time any time you see me arguing with Masem. Masem is a very talented debater.
And of course, every once in a while, someone will convince me to change my view, and those instances are incredibly enjoyable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Oooh, this is my favorite part. When someone shows up to make an emotional appeal in an attempt to convince us that stating a simple and verifiable fact is actually an emotional appeal.
Bonus points for claiming that plainly stating a simple and verifiable fact is an "extremely poor" and "very childish" way to... [ checks notes] ...plainly state a simple and verifiable fact. Or is it that including an article in a category in which it's membership is a simple and verifiable fact is an extremely poor and very childish way to include an article in a category in which it's membership is a simple and verifiable fact? Either way, it's damn funny. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Review and suggestion

The major elements of the discussion to this point: some editors (including me), backed with numerous RS, believe it appropriate to prominently describe Wakefield as a conspiracy theorist; other editors, primarily citing arguments related to WP:DUE, do not believe it is appropriate to describe Wakefield as a conspiracy theorist. Please correct me if that broad interpretation is an over-simplification or is otherwise incorrect.

I here suggest that the article include the reliably-sourced descriptions of Wakefield as a conspiracy theorist, but not prominently. Specifically, the brief passage in the lede that I added here is to be removed. Similar language/passage(s), supported by the available RS, is to be added into the body of the article. Perhaps such material would fit best within or near the Political activism and Vaxxed film sections? I believe that new structure would enable category listings that some editors desire, provide inclusion of reliably-sourced factual information about the subject, and not violate DUE, SYNTH, or OR. As Wakefield's activities continue, appropriate modifications to that structure can of course be made. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm ok with this, but I wouldn't mind a more general discussion about what is needed for this category to be applied to a livng person. Not sure if this is the right location, but I'd like to follow this issue up. - Bilby ( talk) 14:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
This is the general problem with any type of subjective categories related to persons and why we should not have them per OPINIONCAT, because we can't manage nor source inclusion. Lists are different in this fashion though still should maintain high inclusion standards. If we're talking conspiracy theorists, we know Alex Jones is going to be that can easily be sorted into such a list or cat because its near impossible to look up information about him in RSes and not trip over the association as a conspiracy theorist. With Wakefield here, we have to hunt and peck to a degree. We should only be including in such cases of subjective characterization when it is clear and obvious (tripping over sources) that that characterization is consistently associated with the person, otherwise we start entering the realm of editor's subjective picking-and-choosing. This is far from an objective measure, but at least it is a sourced based thing that should be easily tested for evidence in consensus based discussions. -- Masem ( t) 19:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
It's not subjective. There's nothing subjective about this category. Either his claims are conspiracy theories, or they're not. They're not conspiracy theories in certain circumstance, or to certain people. That's the very meaning of "objective". And I find the notion that we should only accurate describe subjects with well-sourced descriptives when we're "tripping over" the claim in the sources to be actively detrimental to this project. You're literally advocating that we not include relevant, accurate information, because some editors don't like that information being included. I see absolutely no benefit to this project from your claims about how we should treat these questions, and significant damage, because the standards you outline would preclude us from accurately describing 99% of conspiracy theorists. Alex Jones and a tiny handful of others whose sole indicator of notability is the spreading of conspiracy theories on a wide variety of topics would be the only conspiracy theorists we could label as such, all because you and a few other editors can't fathom that sometimes, RSes don't feel the need to use every factual descriptive term to describe someone. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
As I said above "accurately describing 99% of conspiracy theorists." is absolutely not WP's function. We're not here to label all the nutcases or the like that we think are nutcases; that's simply not an objective treatment of the material. We're not here to label anyone like this, and in fact in this case feels like WP:RGW (that we need to warn readers that these people are kooks in Wikivoice). If we're going to use contentious terms and labels, they need terms that naturally fall out of the bulk of reliable sources about the person. As soon as we start stretching or digging harder for those terms, that's a problem, specifically against BLP as well as NPOV. We can (and need to under MEDRS) 100% warn readers about bad science and actual conspiracy theories (and in Wakefield's case, making sure that the anti-vax theory he supports as being labelled as a conspiracy theory). But we cannot make the leap of logic that just becuase a BLP expresses support for just one known conspiracy theory suddenly makes them a full-blown conspiracy theorist. Whereas Alex Jones can be labelled as such as he's recognized to have a huge body of conspiracy theories he subscribes to. "Conspiracy theorist" is simply not a factual term, its a subjective term and typically based on how far that person may have gone down the rabbit hole in their off-kilter beliefs.
I would add that I am not saying that from the sources you've found so far (and the suggestion more can be had) that we can't include in the body, sourced, in-line attributed statements of who has specifically called him a conspiracy theorist. This seems fully reasonable to mention on this current assessment, but it would have to be kept as a subjective descriptor and should not be as a lede term or use in categorization. -- Masem ( t) 20:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
The reason I'm asking more generally is that we seem to have multiple criteria for classifying someone as a conspiracy theorist. The first problem is what we regard as a "conspiracy theory". Does it need to be generally agreed to be false? For example, if someone originates a theory incorprating a conspiracy that is accurate, do they belong in this category? If they claim one that might be accurate, but has neither been proven to be accurate or inaccurate, is the category applicable? If they didn't create the theory, but belived it and activly progated it, (eg, podcasts about the theory, books), are they a conspiracy theorist? If they didn't specifically claim to belive the theory, but published an account of the theory by a third party, where do we sit? What if their engagement was to retweet claims or videos about conspiracy theories? And if they then said that they didn't necessarily believe what they were tweeting? How about the extent - did they retweet a lot of claims, or only a few? What about descriptions - if some people describe them as conspiracy theoriests, is that enough? Is one source good enough, or must there be multiple? And what if other people say that they aren't? Or if no-one actually says "this person is a conspiracy theorist" but they are covered in regard to conspiracy theories? I've seen all of these applied, and I'd like to try and clean some of this up, but I know that every time I try to remove the category I'll recieve pushback. So what I'd like to know is what criteria the community thinks we should apply. This isn't about Wakefield, but how to handle what I suspect will be a very large number of BLPs. - Bilby ( talk) 01:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
As I said above "accurately describing 99% of conspiracy theorists." is absolutely not WP's function. It categorically is, and only a failure to understand what an encyclopedia is would permit this to seem true. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
No it isn't. We're not here to be cataloging anything based on subjective measure in wikivoice. We can include such subjective measures with attribution when it fully DUE to include from weight of sources, but that still needs to be presented as subjective and not objective fact. In regards to biographies, we absolutely have to be more careful of this subjective characterization. Even on bios of long dead individuals that were highly-reported with subjective terms, we're careful to avoid stating these in Wikivoice without attribution.
Now, I would agree that with a term like "conspiracy theorist" that there's a certain point where the weight of sources can make that no longer subjective but objective and stated as fact - that's Alex Jones' case for example. But that's for that case where we're tripping over these non-op-ed RS pieces that we simply can't ignore under the weight of DUE. Wakefield is clearly a case where DUE of treating "conspiracy theory" as an objective claim is not well-met based on given sources and editor consensus, and given that BLP is designed to minimize harm, we clearly cannot make the jump to that conclusion yet.
That points to the problem where editors who really feel that we need to call out such individuals are going to cherry pick and claim DUE is met. But really, BLP and UNDUE are thresholds that should be surpassed before we include, and not seen as simple checkboxes ("public figure? check. a couple RSes? check." is not how we should be deciding this under these policies). We want to meet those thresholds so that when we have those IPs/new editors come by to complain about "but this article's not neutral", we can point to the wealth of sources that make it unavoidable. -- Masem ( t) 18:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  • It sounds like this cat should not even include BLP subjects given WP:OPINIONCAT and the previous discussions about similar cats mentioned by Masem.[16][17] PackMecEng (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I have removed several from British Conspiracy Theorist category; one great example is Richard Lacey (microbiologist) he was labelled a 'conspiracy theorist' for `suggesting a link between bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and its human Variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease.` Objectively 'Conspiracy Theorist' is not supported by the article, but subjectively, he should not be in a list with Alex Jones, because he was bloody well right! It's a minefield. JeffUK ( talk) 09:37, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
So according to you, a guy WROTE A BOOK called Clinton Bush and CIA Conspiracies: From The Boys on the Tracks to Jeffrey Epstein is NOT a conspiracy theorist? -- Calton | Talk 12:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Please discuss on the article talk page. But as it pertains to this discussion According to me is entirely irrelevant, according to reliable sources is the measure. JeffUK ( talk) 12:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
I think I provided some very clear evidence of what reliable sources say on the subject. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH

Peter A. McCullough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please delete the Wikipedia Page Listing for Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH. It contains false and misleading information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmccull975 (talkcontribs) 16:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Your request for deletion would be likely denied. Please review WP:AUTOPROB and list the items that you feel are false or misleading so that we can review them and check against the sources. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 19:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

François Hollande

François Hollande (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IP accusing former head of state of terrorism. May be grounds for short block despite first offence. Melmann 21:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Robert J. Brennan Page

Robert J. Brennan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 

Vandals keep adding information that is against Biographies of living persons. Continually adding "His tenure has been largely unexceptional although he has received criticism from lay groups for his persecution of orthodox clergy and his handling of Covid-19 in 2020. This prompted a campaign to discourage people from contributing to his Annual Appeal.[6] Nevertheless, he is generally viewed favorably by Columbus' large LGBTQ+ population. and links to contentious materials in violation of the Biographies of living persons guidelines.

Page is Robert J. Brennan Found in section Diocese of Columbus.

Violates with languauge that is opinionated and also uses sources found in violation of the section below Challenged or likely to be challenged Main page: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Reliable sources Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynamicomega (talkcontribs) 23:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The material is highly questionable as it stands, being sourced from a couple of advocacy sites including one specifically set up to oppose him. Mangoe ( talk) 00:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Robert J. Brennan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mangoe just looked into this - Page keeps having content that violates biographies guidelines readded by dynamicalpha. Have tried talk and their user page but they keep re-adding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynamicomega (talkcontribs) 02:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Admin assistance here would be helpful. An IP has been edit warring poorly-sourced claims into the article, and they've now registered as Dynamicalpha ( talk  · contribs), a clear attempt to impersonate or troll Dynamicomega ( talk  · contribs). Woodroar ( talk) 03:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
I've blocked Dynamicalpha indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Jan Żaryn

Continuing on the discussion mentioned here, we now have an RfC going at Talk:Jan Żaryn#RfC: Jan Żaryn; editors are invited to vote and/or comment. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Janet Daley

[Janet Daley] In thie biography of Janet Daley found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Daley Paragraph 7 references a Telegraph article on 5 June 2021 and states that Janet Daley made claims about autism. In fact, the linked article does not mention autism at all. As it stands this reference is therefore inaccurate, misleading, and potentially libellous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.187.98 (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Earl Belle

(refactored from Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons)

I can find no sources confirming the death of this individual, and it's possible he still may be alive. The article creator stated the subject died in 1995 but cited no source.4meter4 (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Copyright