Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

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

Jean-François Gariépy

His page needs deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J-E-N-O-V-A (talk • contribs) 14:06, 5 Aug 2021 (UTC)

@J-E-N-O-V-A: On what grounds? The sourcing at the article looks robust. —C.Fred (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

it's a series of hit-pieces that has served simply as attempts to socially and economically destroy his life. he literally has escaped to the wilderness because of this wikipedia article and its associated articles. isn't there an ethical basis to not put up an article that could lead to violence or economic disenranchising? the guy is not racist or far right, and even if he was, is it wise to put that in wikipedia article in our divided time of political turmoil?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by J-E-N-O-V-A (talk • contribs) 01:40, 9 Aug 2021 (UTC)

@J-E-N-O-V-A: These are serious allegations, but they also need to be backed up. For example, can you demonstrate that what is written in the article is false, exaggerated, or unfair? It certainly appears that the article heavily relies upon a daily beast article, particularly in the more sensationalistic parts about his relationship with an Autistic woman. But, while the daily beast appears to be considered biased by many editors, its factual reporting isn't considered bad. Apart from that Daily Beast article, it doesn't seem this individual is mentioned a lot in the English press or is particularly notable. What exactly do you find wrong in the article? Av = λv (talk) 21:32, 11 August 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveCree2 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 19 Jul 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 [1] and [2]. --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 oder 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 [3] 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, [4][5] 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 [6] - 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 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 [[7]] 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)

Content removed from lede, added (with multiple RS) to Political activism section. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I endorse the edits you made. I don't much care whether it's in the lede, and I'm not fully convinced we need to say more than to name the sources who's referred to him as the term. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:37, 3 August 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)

Please provide me with a definition of "Encyclopedia" that precludes the labelling/describing of the subjects of its entries. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

To MPants' request I would append "when such labels/descriptors are supported by multiple, independent, reliable sources." JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The key phrasing missing there is "labeling/describing in characterzing/subjective language..", which is exactly what most of NPOV is cautioning about. I've never seen EB pick up and directly state characterizating/subjective language in its voice, for example. We do want to make sure when it comes to objective or neutral terms that absolutely we are classifying topics within those appropriately in a factual voice. Just that as has been pointed out "conspiracy theorist" is not always an objective term. --Masem (t) 13:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

We just keep going round in circles. It's objective in the sense that reliable sources characterise people using the term. It's really that simple. We're not going to get anywhere with people who insist on arguing with the sources, or failing to recognise that they exist in this instance. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I've acknowledged that some sources use the term, to a point that we can include the term with in-line attribution and in context within the body. That's fair. But we're talking about tipping this to categorically calling Wakefield in Wikivoice a "conspiracy theorist" based on, so far, a small handful of sources that say that explicitly compared to the body of sources about Wakefield in general. There needs to be far greater body of sources that say this, and that should be far removed both from the topic and in time, before we can cross that tipping point. Its why we can reasonably go there for Alex Jones as the key example, but for Wakefield, what's been demonstrated by sources, as well as we're only a few years out from the events that led to him being called that would put this far too close for Wikivoice to be adopting that language directly for a BLP. --Masem (t) 13:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

You are of course entitled to that view. But the fact that in your view there aren't enough sources doesn't make the categorisation "subjective". That idea is confused. The problem with "not enough sources" is, of course, that for some editors there are never enough. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Your argument here only makes sense if we are only capable of categorizing Wakefield as a conspiracy theorist. Except we also have plenty of other categories. Is it wrong for us to place him in Category:1956 births, simply because we only have one source confirming it?

And what difference does it make? He's already categorized as a fraud, which is arguably far worse than being a conspiracy theorist, so it's not like this category has any potential to harm his reputation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

On the last point, BLP exists to minimize harm to living individuals. Even if he is already labeled a fraud, we should not be looking to extend that without good reason. Hence the need to reach a threshold of sourcing as well as making sure that's enduring in time. Related to your first point, I cannot tell you what that threshold is, and it is very much more a "I know it when I see it" type thing and thus highly subjective itself to editors' views, but that's what consensus should be trying to develop. Once that consensus develops, backed by sourcing review on a talk page, then you have ammo against those that come along and complain about it. When you have someone like Jones that has been at this for 20 years and has gained a large body of articles that are highly critical of him and his body of conspiracy theories, that threshold is well and truly met, easily demonstrated by a source survey, and pretty much impervious to any outside complaints that the label doesn't apply to him. With Wakefield here, the weak body of only eight-ten sources, several which are op-eds, isn't enough to be that defense.

But your last point, you're now conflating objective, factually-demonstrable information with subjective info. A birth date is factually demonstrable by a birth certificate, and presumably we only need a single RS that affirms this. That's not a piece of information that can be contested depending on who is writing about it. Same for being a former physician and academic (his career history is documented). Same with publishing the fraudulent Lancet article, since that was determined through scientific and academic review (the effective "court of law" in this area). Those aren't subjective things. But whether he is a conspiracy theorist or not simply because he promotes one known piece of pseudoscience (anti-vax) is very much a subjective interpretation based on both the history of the term as well as the sourcing around Wakefield and the term. You cannot simply use one source for that and claim that its sufficient in that case, that's exactly what NPOV demands against. Particularly for categorizaton which is putting that subjective term in Wikivoice; it's why WP:OPINIONCAT tells us these cats normally shouldn't exist. --Masem (t) 14:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

On the last point, BLP exists to minimize harm to living individuals. Even if he is already labeled a fraud, we should not be looking to extend that without good reason. I seem to recall providing 8 good reasons in this discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

And I specifically mentioned that those eight sources, relative to the 150 already used in article, suggested that UNDUE isn't met. As a simple metric, "andrew wakefield" gets 14,600 google news hits, while "'andrew wakefield' 'conspiracy theorist' -'conspiracy theory'" (as to capture those that are calling him directly a conspiracy theorist) are only 156 Obviously, haven't gone through to judge context and reliability of those (eg the latter brings up this Guardian article but it doesn't expressly state Wakefield as a conspiracy theorist , only an anti-vaxxer), but if a point is only being brought up in 1% of the news covering a person at best, that seems very much a failure to make it fact as UNDUE. To compare, "alex jones" has 167,000 hits while the narrower search gives 12,900 hits - far closer to 10% and more reasonable for that inclusion there. --Masem (t) 16:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

And I specifically mentioned that those eight sources, relative to the 150 already used in article, suggested that UNDUE isn't met. You've yet to provide a single source that contradicts it. The fact that some sources don't feel the need to use one particular label among the many that apply to him isn't compelling. As I previously asked: How many sources explicitly state that the sky is blue, or that water is wet?

Oh, and for the record: It's an uncontroversial statement among the RSes that Wakefield committed fraud with his MMR-Autism study. Yet after going through the first 70-80 sources on that page, I found only 6 that directly stated that Wakefield committed fraud or that Wakefield's study was fraudulent, and two of those attributed the claim. I found even fewer that called him an anti-vaccine advocate, or any variation of the term.

I could apply the standard of "sources that say this versus sources that don't" to any claim in any article and then argue that it's undue. Only a single source for his birth year? Undue. Only a handful of sources noting that he was struck from the medical register? Undue. Only a small handful of sources calling his study fraudulent? Undue.

How many sources do you think label him British? Not many. Undue. Only one source supports that he went to King Edward's School. Undue.

I could do this all day. I could use your logic to trim this article down to a blank page, because by your logic here, absolutely nothing we say about him is WP:DUE. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

UNDUE and NPOV applies to subjective information. A person's date of birth is typically objective (I'm sure there are a handful of exceptional cases where one's birthdate has been the subject of debate but that's the exception not the rule), nor where they went to school, what career positions they held, etc, and thus we do not expect for that type of factual information to meet UNDUE; there's other factors of standard biographical information that are typically included in a biographical article as well for completeness purposes. It is when that material is subjective and contentious -- which does not require any specific sourcing to say it is contentious per YESPOV; we use common sense and knowledge beyond what RS are limited to know when certain words and descriptions can be a problem through consensus. Its why coming into a discussion "we are required to label these people as such" is a bad starting point because it does not meet the principles of YESPOV.

And keep in mind - I am not saying that with only those eight sources, you can't mention anything about "conspiracy theorist". That's enough sourcing to include in the body in appropriate context. But with the relative to the weight of all other sourcing, its not enough to say that subjective assessment in wikivoice or give it predominace over objective factors we should be focused on - it must stay attributed and treated as opinion and thus can be used for categorization. To constract, the google news test gets me about 1400 and 1500 hits for "lancet" "fraud" and for "anti-vax" respectively , relative to his 14,600 hits overall. Again, that 10% number that would suggest that we can treat these more factually (though again, that's skimming numbers and not a full source review). ---Masem (t) 17:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm loath to defend Wakefield but how exactly is the article stating he committed fraud. Was he convicted by a court? Science Magazine [[8]] said, " [he] was convicted in 2010 by the British General Medical Council of four counts of dishonesty." It also said the BMJ accused him of fraud. I think it's clear he is widely accused of fraud but unless he has ben convicted (the GMC conviction may count) I think BLP rules say we should attribute the fraud statement. Personally I think there is no doubt that his efforts were fraudulent in the end even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and assume his early research was done with honest intent. Still, like Masem, I think BLP rules should be interpreted in a strict sense when we are saying a BLP subject did something wrong/illegal/contentious etc. This use would fail several parts of wp:Overcategorization. It is at least questionable based on WP:OPINIONCAT(who is a conspiracy theorist is a subjective determination) and possibly WP:OVERLAPCAT (if we think vaccines are a conspiracy then there is a large overlap between anti-vax and conspiracy theorist based on anti-vax views). Finally, we have NONDEF, "a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. " While 8 sources is enough to establish weight for a generally attributed inclusion, it's not clear this "commonly and consistently" used to define Wakefield. For these reasons, even if we (and I do) think Wakefield is a pile of immoral excrement, the cat should not be used here. Springee (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Once again, because apparently nobody's willing to consider their words before typing them: Whether Wakefield spreads/creates conspiracy theories is categorically not a subjective claim. It is an objective fact that he has done so, and it is also an objective fact that multiple RSes have noted this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

There are two issues with this view. I agree it's an objective fact that Wakefield promoted a specific claim. However, we are still two subjective jumps away from "objectively a conspiracy theorist". First, is if the information is objectively or subjectively a conspiracy theory. It's not always clear even if some sources say X is a conspiracy theory. Second, even if the person spreads something that is widely considered a conspiracy theory, does that make them a theorist? We have a somewhat similar question regarding "anti-vaccine activist". Even if someone is staunchly anti-vax, are they an activist? Does one conspiracy a theorist make? These become subjective questions and as such we should avoid putting them in Wiki voice. Springee (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

1. You really need to familiarize yourself with the definition of a conspiracy theorist.

2. I don't much care what you think about it in any case, as you've already shot way past the point of WP:PACT as far as I'm concerned. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

So lacking a logical reply you are attacking other editors? Springee (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

So you don't know how to count to two? That's just... Wow. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The size of the pin-head on which the angels* are dancing is getting vanishingly small. People are just throwing words around... (*not actual angels...) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:14, 2 August 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.[9][10] 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, again

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

---

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 (talk • contribs) 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)

Few days later

Please delete this WIKI page. It falsely labels INFORMATION as MISINFORMATION and is not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmccull975 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia pages are generally not deleted by request, it has to go through a process at WP:AFD. Presumably, and predictably, this is going to be about the Covid-related material in the article, but at first glance it all appears to be sourced and accurate. Zaathras (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, you got this same answer just now as when you asked here several days ago. DMacks (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

First, Pmccull975, you have an unaddressed COI inquiry at your user talk page. Second, I highly recommend discussing a potential deletion at the article talk page to build at least a smattering of support before beginning the AfD process. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Chandler Thornton

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

Recently, an IP added a section to the article that is WP:UNDUE, inflammatory, and poorly sourced. I trimmed it a bit, but it's not anywhere nearly enough. I posted to the article Talk page, but the article has very few page watchers, and thus far no one has responded. If more experienced editors could take a look? The section at issue is now called "2021 election controversy section", not ideal, but better than its original name.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• Footnotes 8–15 (cited sources) are either questionable or unreliable sources, and should be removed along with the material that they support since this is a BLP and the information is as Bbb23 described above. Atsme 💬 📧 00:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• Removed the section entirely, multiple clear and unambiguous violations of WP:BLPSPS. There might be something salvageable in the National Review articles, but I decided to take the safe option and remove everything pending discussion. FDW777 (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• It turns out I didn't, since I wrongly assumed the editing after Bbb23's version introduced the problematic material. Deleted all the Twitter stuff. FDW777 (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Jimmy Nelson

Lili hildering (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)I am reporting libelous text on Jimmy Nelson's Wikipedia page. This text has a very spiteful and personal tone and in some cases is not even supported by any sources. The sources that are referred to either don't include material that supports the claim, or the sources are unreliable and are a personal opinion. In other cases, the sources are even non-existing links. Statements are made and pretend to be factual but are in fact very subjective. These opinions of a few people have a very dominant place on Jimmy Nelson's Wikipedia page and continue to have a negative impact on his reputation and his mission to spread a positive message of which the essence is that every human is a unique beautiful individual and that we should respect one another.

I have copied in the text I'm referring to below.

Authenticity Nelson's work has been the subject of much criticism from a variety of sources, including the very people he photographs and represents in his book.[16]--> this is not reflected in the source.

Generalizations Nelson's work has also been criticized for harmful inaccuracies and generalizations, which Nelson uses to make himself and his photography look good, but which harm the cause of the tribal people he is using. --> this is not substantiated by a source and is very subjective.

Nelson also received criticism from fellow photographers, such as Timothy Allen, a veteran photographer for the BBC's Human Planet. He states that, "the patronizing and self-aggrandizing narrative behind 'Before They Pass Away' is literally painful to watch."[4] --> This is an opinion of Timothy Allen, of which his opinion is not substantiated by a source but is personal by nature, while at the same time his opinion gets a very prominent place on the Wikipedia page.

Exploitation Nelson denies exploiting any of the indigenous communities and claims that only after gaining trust and understanding of their culture they grant him access.[13] --> wording such as "he denies" and "he claims" frame Jimmy Nelson's opinion and counterargument sound as a lie instead of an honest answer.

Papuan tribal leader Benny Wenda has also criticized Nelson for describing his tribe as "headhunters", when in fact the Dani have never practised cannibalism. Mr Wenda said: “The real headhunters are the Indonesian military who have been killing my people. My people are still strong and we fight for our freedom. We are not ‘passing away,’ we are being killed by the brutal Indonesian soldiers. That is the truth.”[20] --> There is no reference in the source used to back up the statement that Jimmy Nelson describes the Dani as headhunters and also that Jimmy "passing" away means "something else than being killed"

The headers "Authenticity", "Generalizations", and "Exploitation" also attract negative attention and I don't see why these would be necessary, since they also refer to the opinions of literally three people.

I would very much appreciate it if you could remove the blaspheming text. I am also very curious about your opinion on this matter.

I am looking forward to your response.Lili hildering (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I assume you mean Jimmy Nelson (photographer)? There are a lot of Jimmy Nelson articles. Unless you are asserting that Nelson is a god nothing in the article is "blaspheming". Notfrompedro (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I have consolidated the criticism since much was WP:UNDUE.[11] There definitely was too many quotes from WP:RSOPINION when the points had already been summarised over and over. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Tim Pool

Tim Pool has recently come under some heat after a recent edit by an unknown user IP to add a potentially inflammatory to the header of the article[12]. The article body does not maintain such a depiction and the tag itself is poorly sourced. Seeing as this is WP:BLP I'd kindly request some assistance. Some users have made reverts that appear to be in good faith but are not addressing the concerns raised. Kind Regards Alexandre8 (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Tim Pool is not far-right… yet. He’s many things but far-right is at this time a stretch. 2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:8E6:3B6:8508:359D (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• That source is useable, but I wouldn't put it in the lede, but rather in the "Views" section, and attribute it, such as According to The Daily Beast, "Tim Pool has racked up more than a billion views and millions in earnings while dangerously whitewashing the far right."

The IP implying that Pools politics are complicated seems to be correct, as well as with the (more explicit) statement that Pool is moving further to the right over time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Abdullah.masood.766

User appears to be engaging in impersonation of BLP article subject Derek Muller. Melmann 10:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Rachel Brookes

Rachel Brookes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

verifiable, public domain link to the subject's date of birth is being repeatedly deleted by contributor 'Owen Parr 77' — Preceding unsigned comment added by IPv4-21August1974 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

That source doesn't look good enough to me to meet WP:DOB. I suggest you stop edit warring and discuss on the talk page. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

That source isn't reliable, it should be nowhere near any assertion about a WP:BLP. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Long-term disruption at Rachel Brookes. FDW777 (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

OP blocked (along with many other accounts). Girth Summit _(blether) 13:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Should probably be at AFD. I cant find any content about her that would pass as a reliable source. Two of the references in the article are content written by her for her employer, so are not even considerable for notability. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Only in death, the other one is a Wordpress blog, so... Girth Summit _(blether) 14:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Steve Baker falsely claims to be FRSA

Steve Baker (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The Steve Baker page claims that he is a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRSA). The List of Fellows of the Royal Society does not mention him. Either their list should be updated or his claim should be removed. I have emailed the Royal Society and await a response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterFV (talk • contribs)

It doesn't appear that it's really that hard to join. Based on this you just fill out an application and pay a bit and blammo, FRSA. Share your personal contact information Answer a few short questions about your interests and alignment with our values Provide payment details for a one-off registration fee of £75 and a charitable subscription of £15.17 per month. Maybe FRSA doesn't mean as much as it used to? Also I assume this is about Steve Baker (politician) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: wrong RSA, the OP is referring to Fellow of the Royal Society whose list can be found https://royalsociety.org/fellows/fellows-directory and Steve Baker doesn't appear on the list. Given its references to Twitter, self-serving and there is reasonable doubt as to whether he is (since he doesn't appear on the list) I'm removing it. FDW777 (talk) 12:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually @ScottishFinnishRadish: you had the right RSA, going by his personal website which does link to the one you said. Our article linked him to the wrong RSA. FDW777 (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On his personal biography page it linked to thersa.org, and in the article I believe it linked there as well. But with a different Royal Society that seems more legit I agree with removing the information on him having been scammed into paying a group of people to have his name on a list that is vaguely like another, fancier list. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be a great deal of confusion here:

Royal Society - "the oldest national scientific institution in the world", founded in 1660.

Royal Society of Arts - founded in 1754 as "the Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce".

Both organisations have a Royal Charter. Neither organisation can remotely be described as a 'scam'. Both have 'Fellows' (FRS and FRSA respectively), and both have included a lot of very significant individuals amongst them. If the only source that states that Baker is a FRSA though, it doesn't belong in his biography, until other sources consider it worthy of comment. And if becoming a FRSA now involves little more than regular donation, Wikipedia probably shouldn't be trying to compile a list of current members. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

This isn't a BLP issue but if becoming a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts just requires a payment, then our article needs to be updated since currently it says:

Acceptance into the fellowship is strict. New fellows are selected by the nomination of an existing fellow or by a request for fellowship.[11] If applicants apply without a nomination, they have to be supported by two referees. All nominations and applications are reviewed by a fellowship admissions panel.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know anything about them, but looking at their website I got a Mensa vibe, where you try and convince smart people to be not quite smart enough to avoid paying you to say they're smart. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Request to block Object404 from editing BLP of RJ Nieto and others

The old version of RJ Nieto is blatantly contentious for a long time, with poorly-cited references, circular self-referential opinion articles as references, and is intent on putting the subject on bad light, calling him "propagandist, fake news peddler, state-sponsored troll, paid blogger" and other labels. All previous attempts to revise the article and fix the multiple issues tags were futile because Object404 who is intent on gatekeeping the article is always reverting it, engaging in edit war with previous editors who tried to revise it, and reverting to his edit version, adding superficial citatio to justify the contentious materials, and attempt to absorb the added content to the article only to remove it later on to restore its negative tone. But perhaps the most blatant thing in that article is its downright discrimination against RJ Nieto, as an openly gay person, and against LGBT people in general. The subsection "Cultureal Criticism" that I keep removing but Object404 insist on restoring labels LGBT people as evil people who deceive other people through blogging, and citing a "scholar" whose works are not apparently verifiable or if the "scholar" even exists at all. Suffice to say that Object404 is a homophobe and so I am requesting to prevent him from editing BLP of LGBT people. Another BLP that Object404 is gatekeeeping and vandalising with contentious materials is Mocha Uson and Mocha Uson Blog. The request to block him from overall BLP is because as exhibitd on RJ Nieto article he is also capable of sneaking libelous magerials about other living people deep in subsections of article about related persons such as what he did to Rigoberto Tiglao which he label as "propagandist powered by politicians" and citing the same poor sources like opinion pages and articles that present opinions as facts. Object404 (Redacted) seems intent on using Wikipedia to malign the perceived supporters of the Duterte government by creating, gatekeeping and maintaining articles that are negative in tone and violates BLP policy on neutrality. How he is left allowed to do that for so long is also need to put into attention. How come the downright homophobic/transphobic content on Neito's article remain unchallenged, unremoved for so long is simply appalling given the apparently strict measures imposed on BLPs. And as per BLP policy, even if a statement has citation sources, if its content is contentious such as "scholarly" opinions attributing negative aspects to their race, gender, nationality, (dis)ability, it must be removed. So why is Object404 aparently exempted from this and has been allowed for so long to write and maintain contentious articles about BLP? @User:HighInBC Azuresky Voight (talk) 07:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

This report will likely not give you the result you were looking for. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

HighInBC, pinging, as I don't think the original ping went through. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

globelamp wiki controversies section.

ok so the Elizabeth Le Fey Dapena globelamp wiki keeps being edited likely by one of her stalkers 'Bo' , a Charli XCX stan (we don;t even have a problem with Charli and saw her live) who is toxic and has been stalking us for several years. I have tried to remove the slander but Wikipedia keeps putting it back even though the 'sources' for the Globelamp controversies section are the tweets of this guy la the idler wheel and not real sources. Very sexist troll who has also helped spread lies that my gf hurt me. If you ever see that it is NEVER true. And trying to use hearsay as fact in the wiki section, completely one sided out of context lies. Every single thing in that section is a false recounting of events and completely debatable or literal legal falsehood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:dc40:99:49d9:bb3d:ad60:e3f3 (talk • contribs) 2021-08-06T19:05:06 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. This issue seems to have since been addressed at Talk:Elizabeth le Fey § Sourcing in Controversies section, and the article (presently) doesn't contain any information sourced solely to independent Twitter accounts. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 02:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Quinn (soccer)

See talk page on Quinn (soccer) (and page history) re MOS:NB / WP:BLPPRIVACY / WP:BLPNAME related issues.

I've already contacted WP:RFO about it, and emailed Quinn directly to let them know (including links to the relevant policies and email address for the Oversight team in case they wish to express a preference).

I believe it's all good faith so far (aside from some quickly revdel'd vandalism), but may merit attention as needing a BLP policy decision or just calming things down while that's in process. So, FYI. Sai ¿?✍ 18:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

See also WP:ANI#Newimpartial claming BLP protection for edit warring Sai ¿?✍ 18:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I am curious why you feel that ANI might be relevant here...Newimpartial (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Because you are involved in both, for almost exactly the same issue. Per your talk page, this seems to have been a recurring concern. That's relevant to contextual awareness and consistency of response for admins. I'm not expressing any negative view of you nor your viewpoints, just gnoming. Sai ¿?✍

Unless you think that including non-notable deadnames is somehow the same issue as misgendering BLP subjects in categories (or with pronouns), what you just said makes no sense at all. Newimpartial (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll be honest, Sai, I've read through the talk thread after you pinged me, and I've read through this, and I still have no idea what the issue is here.

• It's a matter of public record that they're nonbinary/trans. We always note this in such cases.
• The fact that they were AFAB is a matter of public record and is relevant to the reader. I support omitting nonbinary people's GAAB where it's not relevant, but when someone plays for the women's national team, readers will want to know if they're AMAB or AFAB (especially given all of the fuss about trans women in women's sports).
• They were not notable under their full birth name, so we don't note this, per MOS:GENDERID.
• They were notable under their birth first+last name, so we note this, per GENDERID.

Personally I think MOS gives too much weight to the former names of subjects, trans and cis alike, but that's a much broader policy question that would take a large RfC to resolve. What is it, exactly, that you think is being done here that differs from how we treat other trans people's biographies? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Tamzin: I saw it only due to the mononymy, which I maintain. I don't generally touch BLP pages aside from the occasional random gnoming. In particular, I didn't say I thought anything was being done same or differently from how other trans people's biographies are treated. I merely noted the existence of controversy on the (full) talk page, bordering on overheated, which BLP admins may want to address. Sai ¿?✍ 23:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Utada Hikaru

This biography seems to feature a reliably sourced announcement of nonbinary identity, which some editors don't like. More eyes, particularly ones familiar with MOS:GENDERID, are needed There have been issues with misgendering in categories, and different approaches proposed to whether or not to include personal pronouns in the article and if so, which ones. Newimpartial (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

If the subject has reliably said that they're nonbinary, and hasn't qualified that with "but still consider myself a woman" or something, then we should not say that they're a woman. And if the situation is ambiguous, then we should err on the side of caution and avoid calling them a woman or nonbinary until we have a clear answer. But under no circumstances should we, with the facts we have right now, be calling them a woman. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

CallMeCarson

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

Hello, I'm not entirely sure how this page works but, unsourced or poorly sourced statements about this person, CallMeCarson, which potentially violate BLP are being repeatedly re-added to this article. I wasn't sure if i should put this here or simply continue to remove the content but hopefully this will help resolve the problem. Xoltered (talk) 05:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The allegations about Carlson and underage grooming have been covered in Business Insider, so it's not like it's being sourced to blogs or tabloids. That said, their inclusion should be handled with care. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

David_Popovici

I am writing on behalf of David Popovici himself and his father, Mihai Popovici. Please help changing the current photo, as it is an old one so it became irrelevant.

Please note we have all copyright licenses and rights to use for the pic below. Thank you!

David Popovici by Inquam Photos

I have posted on User_talk:Baaobaab's talk page detailing the right way to get a new photograph onto this article. (In brief: Upload an appropriately licensed image, request for that image to be included on the article via the talk page) JeffUK (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Reginald Boulos

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

A very poorly sourced biography of a Haitian businessman (and opposition politician?), which is currently semi-protected due to BLP violations, i.e. allegations of involvement in the assassination of Haiti President Jovenel Moise being added to the article. More eyes on the page would be welcomed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Mark Brnovich

Article Mark Brnovich, subsection "Voting rights and redistricting". Article claims "Arizona Republicans hired a firm headed by a pro-Trump conspiracy theorist to audit the Arizona election." This potentially libelous claim is not sourced. The reference given at the end of the paragraph does not contain that claim. I placed "citation needed" in that sentence; it was removed without response. This appears to be an inappropriate and problematic original editorial opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surakmath (talk • contribs) 21:42, 8 Aug 2021 (UTC)</span

@Surakmath:I've removed the conspiracy theorist bit, as unsupported by the source. Let's see if it's reverted again. Neiltonks (talk) 12:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Chloe Melas

Hi Fences&Windows.

I was expecting problems because that´s my experience with Wikipedia.

After supposedly, the matter of CNN's Chloe Melas fabrication of 2018 Morgan Freeman harassment report being exposed at Spanish spoken media sufficiently discussed, so the conversation been archived: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=1016980354#Chloe_Melas

Now, our friend Marquardtika that made the original flagging has erased all the refrences to Melas´fraud claiming "yikes, this is a major WP:BLP issue with dubious sourcing"

On December 4, 2018, El Mundo reported on a post on the Red Etica blog published by Fundación Gabo (es) that accused Melas of racism and fabricating the report on Freeman.[21] Two years later, La Opinión also noted this accusation.[22]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chloe_Melas&action=history

Problem is that I could not find all his arguments, proofs, links, etcetera, to make his case. He kept quiet when the matter it was publicly discussed here. And now he erase those information falsely claiming "dubious sourcing."

I´m gonna revert to the previous editing, not made by me. But I publicly put the matter on the table. To fix it or to show the hypocrisy of a supposed way to manage editing here at Wikipedia. Remember I record all.

This is not an answer to all the question you raised, including the false charge of “incivility” by me. Because what I did it was answering to the incivility of your fellow wikipedians like Nil Einne that even erased the image of the tweet by newspaper El Mundo, that it was erased by the pressure of CNN. By no reasonable reason. It takes no brains to know who pays him for that action.

Or about the "COI" issue. After showing my "debate" with Jimmy Wales, in which I pointed out to him that you, the community, never flagged the editing by him of his own entry but it was done by an external person, seems "COI" are in the eye of Wikipedia beholder. But I will answer about that too.

But I must quote myself on what I wrote to Wales, because Nil and Marquardrdtika prove my point:

I´s not about your vanity of believing being the sole founder of Wikipedia or about your private life. It´s about Wikipedia entries not vandalized by trolls but manipulated by Wikispin-doctors "to fix history" or "please" a lover, friend, associate..."

https://twitter.com/Tomoo_Terada/status/943967264721784832?s=20

It's neither an answer to all the lies that were said against me, for instance, claiming the falsity that publish with Gabriel García Márquez Foundation is “self-publishing,” but I could not answer then for being outnumbered. I'm tagging all those that I could recognize were part of that former conversation. Maineartists Zaereth Masem

I decided to not answer back then as the conversation it was already archived, but as it still going on, I´m going to answer you about it, point by point.

Tells a lot that the erasing is being done in Chloe Melas entry, not Morgan Freeman´s. Gee, the powers that be really protect that corrupt woman, here, there and everywhere.

P.S. I correct and sign it. Please C.Fred can you explain me how to decide the place of the post on this board? https://web.archive.org/web/20210808231354/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomoo Terada (talk • contribs) 23:27, 8 Aug 2021 (UTC) Tomoo Terada (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC) Tomoo Terada

I think it's definitely a BLP issue to say "On December 4, 2018, El Mundo reported on a post on the Red Etica blog published by Fundación Gabo (es) that accused Melas of racism and fabricating the report on Freeman. Two years later, La Opinión also noted this accusation." So...a blogger accused her of being a racist liar? Anyone can accuse anyone of anything. This is a serious claim. Is the person/outlet making the claim even noteworthy? Did Melas get to respond to this charge? Marquardtika (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

It appears that a writer named Tomoo Terada accused Melas of racism and lying. Now, a Wikipedia editor with the user name Tomoo Terada is trying to add these accusations to the article. Maybe this should be at the WP:COIN noticeboard instead. I think the edits are a WP:BLP violation, but even if you think the edits aren't, the author of the accusations certainly shouldn't be the editor adding them to the article. Marquardtika (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

LOL is so egregious the hypocrisy of this guy Marquardtika he does just part of the protection some at Wikipedia guaranteed to Chloe Melas.

As anyone can read at the original CNN report, Chloe Melas was a supposed "victim" by Morgan Freeman and the co-author of the article "exposing" him. If Wikipedia don´t stress on that then has a double standard on COI. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/24/entertainment/morgan-freeman-accusations/index.html

When CNN broke the story on Morgan Freeman, fabricated by this poor woman, it “strangely” was erased from her Wikipedia entry how privileged her upbringing had been. What Diana Davison talks in the video, it's on the erased information on Melas privilege.

Clearly it was done to support the then ongoing media narrative that the privileged one it was Morgan Freeman (a contemporary of Emmett Till, that had to work a lot to get what he has). Nobody has explained why the erasing on Melas privilege.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UFoqjzHN8Y

"On December 4, 2018, El Mundo reported on a post on the Red Etica blog published by Fundación Gabo (es) that accused Melas of racism and fabricating the report on Freeman. Two years later, La Opinión also noted this accusation" only expose what sources published. It's not on Wikipedia to "white knighting" Melas if claims to be a NPV source of information.

The post was published by then named Fundación Gabriel García Márquez para el Nuevo Periodismo Iberoamericano now Fundación Gabo. It was created by the Nobel Prize winner.

https://latamjournalismreview.org/articles/journalistic-foundation-fnpi-of-colombia-changes-its-name-to-fundacion-gabo/

The post is publicly available to anyone, knowing Spanish or not, to read. The fact is, in more than three years neither CNN and Chloe Melas has challeged it, even if they knew about it.

https://fundaciongabo.org/es/etica-periodistica/blogs/dando-luz-un-fraude-periodistico-morgan-freeman-y-cnn

It had an enormous impact in Spanish spoken media. These are only some headlines, all from Spanish spoken media that has entries at English Wikipedia. Of course Chloe Melas and CNN had any chance to challenge it through a rebuttal, a lawsuit. But they prefered to do undue pressures instead of a denial. The BLP claim had to be done more than three years ago. So, for that reason I doubt any sincerity in the worries for poor Chloe Melas good nameUser:Meters/SPIs.

---

SPAIN

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Mundo_(Spain)

"The accusations of harassment against Morgan Freeman come to nothing, who now restores his reputation?"

https://www.elmundo.es/cultura/cine/2018/12/04/5c056c7821efa01b378b4737.html

---

SPAIN

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Peri%C3%B3dico_de_Catalunya

"Morgan Freeman, victim of a montage"

https://www.elperiodico.com/es/extra/20181206/morgan-freeman-victima-de-un-montaje-7188203

---

SPAIN

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Pa%C3%ADs

Morgan Freeman: "The only mishap I've had in my work has been spraining an ankle"

"When last year a CNN report accused him of sexual harassment, the company terminated his contract and did not resume it even after the accusations were dismantled when several holes were found in the CNN report."

https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/09/06/icon/1567801014_563365.html

---

PERU

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Comercio_(Peru)

"Geoffrey Rush wins defamation lawsuit and gets a millionaire payment"

"-Antecedent-

Rush's case is reminiscent of Morgan Freeman's. In May 2018, the website of CNN's US parent published a text with the title "Women accuse Morgan Freeman of misconduct and harassment." According to its authors –the journalists Chloe Melas and An Phung–, 16 people affirmed that there was a pattern of behavior of the winner of the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for "Million Dollar Baby" (2004). Morgan has always said that he is innocent.

The accusations have come to nothing. Even the Mexican writer Tomoo Terada, in a text published on the Ethics Network of the Gabriel García Márquez Foundation for New Ibero-American Journalism, questioned the complaint by stressing that the accusations lacked evidence and substantiation, and that the evidence presented was edited. and taken out of context. So far, CNN has not retracted."

https://elcomercio.pe/luces/geoffrey-rush-gana-demanda-difamacion-obtiene-pago-millonario-noticia-ecpm-638144-noticia/

---

MEXICO

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

"The fraud behind the alleged sexual harassment of Morgan Freeman"

https://www.la-saga.com/entretenimiento/el-fraude-tras-los-supuestos-acosos-sexuales-de-morgan-freeman/

---

SPAIN

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

(Tomatazos is Rotten Tomatoes for Spain)

"Morgan Freeman: False Sexual Harassment Accusation Shows How #MeToo Movement Works"

https://www.tomatazos.com/articulos/355100/Morgan-Freeman-la-falsa-acusacion-en-su-contra-sobre-acoso-sexual-demuestra-como-funciona-el-movimiento-MeToo

---

SPAIN

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

(I link to the Catalan language version, to show how I have caused Chloe Melas to be "attacked" in Spanish, Catalan, Portuguese. I´m proud of that)

Ignacio Martínez de Pisón is one of the main novelists of Spain.

"In my article "Reputations" of November 23, I reflected on the risk of defenselessness in the face of certain sensational accusations and gave as an example the case of actor Morgan Freeman, victim according to all indications of a journalistic fraud with racist overtones."

https://www.lavanguardia.com/opinion/20190118/454188637199/dues-comedies.html

---

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

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

"A 2018 marked by sex scandals"

"CNN journalist Chloe Melas who decided to fabricate a web of rumors to tarnish Freeman's image. As it was noticed, of the 16 alleged people who had accused him, 14 were anonymous and 2 ended up admitting that they had no problem with the artist.

In an article published by the Red Etica portal of the Gabriel García Márquez Foundation for New Ibero-American Journalism, Tomoo Terada wrote that the proof Melas gave was a video intentionally edited so that a joke by the author (sic) would be out of context."

https://www.diariolibre.com/revista/cine/un-2018-marcado-por-los-escandalos-sexuales-LF11726386

---

ARGENTINA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am%C3%A9rica_24

(In this tweet there´s a clip in which Argentinian journalist Eduardo Feinmann in dialogue with lawyer Francisco Oneto talk about how Morgan Freeman was innocent. What I don´t know is why they both say there were 44 accusers)

https://twitter.com/RamiroNLeone/status/1074803420563951616?s=20

---

CHILE

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

"Accusation against Morgan freeman was "journalistic fraud" (behind paywall)

http://impresa.lasegunda.com/2018/12/04/A/1K3GROK2/843GRPAN

---

ETCETERA ETCETERA ETCETERA

Why English-spoken people has never heard about all this? Ask people like Nil Einne Marquardtika Meters Hey, that´s a "personal attack?" I don´t think so. Just saying they make clear why act like they do.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomoo Terada (talk • contribs) 03:07 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Tomoo Terada (talk) 03:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Tomoo Terada

To reduce confusion, I'd note I cannot delete any image as I'm not an admin on any Wikimedia project. I may be able to delete a link but I'm fairly sure I did not do that since I still see a dead link on the article talk page. I probably did ask for the image of the tweet to be deleted somewhere since it was a copyright violation, just as I would for any other clear copyright violation. The fact that I had to ask does of course mean someone else, someone agreed with my reasoning.

As I suspect I explained at the time, we would require a copy of the tweet at an archival service like archive.org or something, or a report on a tweet at some reliable source before we can consider using a deleted tweet. We cannot host copyright violations here on Wikipedia, if the tweet was authored by CNN then only CNN can release it under a free licence. We do not allow NFCC for delete tweets to be used as source.

Also if CNN is supposed to pay me can someone tell them that? I have no contacts at CNN and indeed I do not know any journalist period. I'm fairly sure if I were contact CNN's email contact and tell them Tomoo Terada says you have to pay me they probably just ignore me or send a generic response.

BTW, I'm fairly sure I never said anything about El Mundo not being a reliable source. I may have said the specific El Mundo source is not useful sufficient since all it seems to say is that some blogger has made some claims, that is of course a fairly different thing from saying El Mundo is not reliable.

I would note that this seems to be a classic case of "okay but then were at the sources?". This was allegedly a big deal in the Spanish media. Why then are we even arguing over Gabriel García Márquez Foundation when there must be hundreds of other Spanish sources? From what I can tell, so far there have only been 2 or maybe 3 RS so far, and mostly what they seem to do is report that someone wrote a blog.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC) 11:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Just a quick comment, I realised my comment above on the tweet failed to mention an important point. It is very unlikely we can use this tweet without a reliable secondary source discussing any controversy about it. We definitely cannot call it a deleted tweet or draw any conclusions about its disappearance anywhere ourselves even though it may now be gone even if we find existence of it on an archival service. My point above was more intended as general comment on how we can cite a deleted tweet in those few cases we can cite tweets directly. Generally cases where are using them as WP:SPS or those very very very rare cases when the publisher can be considered an RS (which may apply to CNN but it's very unlikely we have reason to cite a tweet except for a statement from someone). Noting also given the inability to edit tweets, a lot of the time of a tweet is deleted we have to be more cautious than normal about assuming the tweet can still be taken as an RS once it's deleted. Nil Einne (talk) 09:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

First of all, as I write at Nil Einne talk page (I paid him a visit after many times he jumped at my talk page to threaten me, to set the record straight) he can be a minion of CNN, but ther´s no way to prove it or disprove it.

"If you are or not in the CNN payroll, your hiding behind a pseudonym make it impossible to check it that, as any other COI you could have. In some sense, like the famous Essjay controversy, you can claim to be an expert on how COI works, when in fact CNN pays you.

A pseudonymed user like you should not need to be explained that, by definition, you´re not accountable, so you can edit in the sense that the one paying you wants you do it."

https://web.archive.org/web/20210812013500/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nil_Einne

So any "I have no contacts at CNN" claim by this guy is just an empty speech,because of a pseudonymed user, by definition, is not accountable. So what it must be seen is to whom objectively benefits his bullying and manipulation (CNN and Melas).

---

Why all his crap to justify an image of a tweet to be deleted? Because he claimed at the Chloe Melas entry tal page that

They (Spain´s newspaper El Mundo) don't seem to clear accept the claims as true.

To which I answered:

In fact, they did, and then CNN reacted pressing and threat for the erasing of this viral tweet that it says: "A journalist from CNN fabricated evidence to accuse Morgan Freeman of sexual harassment. Now it has been known the actor is innocent, however, its image will be damaged forever."

https://web.archive.org/web/20210812055202/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chloe_Melas

The image of that tweet is the one this guy erased to hide the fact El Mundo at first stand with me, before being pressed by CNN to erase the tweet.

You can see the image of that erased tweet here, for instance, as many at Twitter take screenshots of it at the time. Of course, the copyright issue is just an excuse by manipulative guy. And, anyway, copyright doesn´t belong to CNN as this guy says. https://twitter.com/diazvillanueva/status/1070004912069767168

---

More lies, as anyone can see guy erased two sources, one of them El Mundo, that now, after seeing the light, says it´s reliable. I fought for both sources.

---

Of course, what this manipulative guy does it´s to misrepresent the facts. According to him Spanish spoken media are a lot of idiots that made a fuzz because of "someone wrote a blog." Of course not, the fuzz it was because from an supposed "inferior" language like the Spanish it was exposed the fraud done by powerful media in English (CNN).

Coupled with the likely COI (user name here and the reporter behind the material to be added), the fact is that this is one person's opinion about the actions of Melas. Just because reliable sources are repeating that opinion does not mean that opinion is necessarily appropriate to include, particularly as they are rather radical (that Melas fabricated evidence to try to accuse Freeman). If there were many more corroborating opinions, and ideally from newspaper op-eds than from blogs, there may be reason to include, but this seems like material that is being pushed to be added to slander Melas based on one single blog. And again, the COI factor here is very disconcerting. --Masem (t) 04:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Masem from Wikipedia, that claims Forbes contributors that sign their opinions and face the consequences of sustain them are nor reliable sources, but it´s implicit believes that pseudonymed Wikipedia editors like himself are the "reliable" ones, now giving lessons on journalistic ethics. LOL.

More hypocrisy. Talking about COI why don´t say a word of Melas being a supposed "victim" and a co-author of the fabricated report exposing Freeman like a harasser?

One of the main Spain´s novelists is on record writing in an op-ed that "actor Morgan Freeman, victim according to all indications of a journalistic fraud with racist overtones."

And why CNN keep silent of being accused of fraud, and instead of a rebuttal prefered to promote an anonymous attack against the author?

Use of DOB in article for skateboarder Sky Brown

A previous discussion determined date of birth should not be included in the Sky Brown article because "the date of birth is not widely published in reliable sources" and "there's no need for a under-16 person's details to be in an encyclopedia." As Brown is an Olympic medalist, and a notably young one at that, her birthdate is very widely published and can easily be found, for example at the IOC athlete database. As for the statement that birthdate should not be included for anyone under-16, that would substantiate a major recalibration of Wikipedia standards and cannot be determined in a limited discussion for a single page. The DOB should no longer be considered contentious and ought to be included in the Sky Brown article. – Spitzmauskc (talk) 00:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

We shouldn't be pulling from records like the IOC's database for this. But its clear that the RSes have identified how old she is enough to peg a month and year but not to the exact date, as she was one of the youngest athletes to compete. But none that I see list the date exactly. Thus the best course of action is to give the month and year but not the date. --Masem (t) 00:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

"Not to the exact date" only if you don't want to do basic math. Lots of major news sources in England published her 3rd place finish as "the youngest Olympic medalist in the history of GB" at 13 years and 28 days at the 4th of August, at this point is really just a matter of again, a simple calculation to her DOB. But shouldn't we pull from IOC database, really? I'd say it's the most realizable source there is since they use the athlete's documentation, and since it's public access I wouldn't say it's much of a privacy matter to replicate said data on to Wikipedia. Also many other articles do use this information to state the person's DOB if said person was in the Olympics. Really, why isn't the olympics dot com website a RS? Gwennire (talk) 10:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

We shouldn't be pulling any birthdate information from primary sources like the IOC database. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Our articles for the silver medallist in Brown's event, Kokona Hiraki, has a full DOB, as does Hend Zaza, a Syrian table tennis player (and the youngest competitor at the 2020 Olympics) and they are both 12 years old. Perhaps we should widen this discussion to include them, as we ought be aiming for consistency. Edwardx (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

July 2008 seems fine, the issue before was that there was some contention on whether the exact date is 7 or 12 July- though IOC database states the date explicitly, other sources e.g. newspapers are just doing it as age at a point in time. Note if we're not going to show the whole date of birth, we should also probably remove at the age of 13 years and 28 days from the article- as that implicitly gives an exact date of birth. And we should probably have a wider consensus for all under-16 or under-18 Olympic competitors about this, as there will be quite a number of articles that could become inconsistent with each other. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Gwennire AFAICT, no one has said the database isn't an RS. BLPDOB explicitly requires we go beyond requiring the information is published in a reliable source. It requires the information is widely published or published by a source linked to the subject. As I mentioned in a previous discussion, I'm in agreement with ScottishFinnishRadish and Masem that simply being in the database does not qualify as widely published. And while competitors would be involved in the process of providing the information to the IOC (or whoever), I don't think we can say they agreed or wanted the information republished. Repeating again this has nothing to do whether it's an RS. If other sources are using the database and republishing the information that's fine. When other sources choose to republish some information because they think it's reliable and significant, and it becomes widely published we accept that privacy concerns are sufficiently allayed. That's precisely how BLPDOB is supposed to work so the fact this sometimes or even often happens doesn't mean we should change our view of the database. Indeed I had planned to write something similar when Masem was the only respondent. Note this means it's unlikely there will be consistency across all articles except in so much as consistency when the circumstances are very similar. In some cases sufficient sources may have re-published the information. In other cases, especially when the competitor wasn't a medal winner or otherwise do something which generated wide-spread coverage, it's may not be. Finally, I'd note I'm fairly sure we've established before that calculating a date of birth based on a date at a given date is a routine calculation per WP:CALC and therefore not OR. Indeed we even have a template for it I'm sure. So if lots of reliable secondary sources reported on someone's age at a certain date, IMO that qualifies for "widely published". I'd even support allowing the database as an additional source for the date of birth if it's already widely published via precise age at a certain date. Although again that doesn't mean it happened in other cases, that need to be established on a case by case basis. Note that personally I'd support even greater privacy protections for DOBs of minors, but I'm not sure that's support by current policy so I don't feel comfortable advocating it as a reason for excluding the information. Nil Einne (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, once a minor has surpassed notability measures and falls within PUBLICFIGURE (as the case for Sky Brown), any non-legally-binding privacy measures due to be a minor that we normally employ are out the door; my simple reasoning not to include the date (but month and year) is that no source I've seen gives a direct or CALC-accepted way to get that date, and we shouldn't include DOBs pulled from primary databases. Would be true if Sky was 16, 46, or 96. --Masem (t) 13:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Sources using WP:CALC birthdate include BBC, The Guardian, and Business Insider Japan. These articles use the 7 July 2008 birthdate, as used in the IOC database. – Spitzmauskc (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I was going to raise concern that we don't know exactly when the copy of those articles was written versus when they were posted, but the Guardian one is very clear that it identifies the day of the week from which they are counting (not the publication date of the article), and so yes, CALC would be fine to apply to that. --Masem (t) 21:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Completely misrepresenting racist gesture by Cecilia Salvai

Any mention of the fact that Cecilia Salvai's controversial actions were racist are repeatedly removed because of "huge POV" despite being consistently and unanimously referred to as such by every reliable source (including the one cited in the wikipedia article). The wikipedia article completely misrepresents what every source on the matter says, and is entirely devoid from reality.

Sky sports calling it racist https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12374263/juventus-say-they-made-an-unforgivable-mistake-after-racist-tweet-appeared-on-their-womens-team-feed

CNN calling it racist https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/06/football/juventus-racist-post-asians-intl-scli-spt/index.html

Insider calling it racist https://www.insider.com/juventus-women-twitter-post-player-racist-gesture-2021-8

The Guardian calling it offensive and referring to a well known commentator that calls it blatantly racist https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/aug/06/juventus-apologise-after-being-condemned-for-offensive-tweet

Indy100 calling it blatantly racist https://www.indy100.com/news/juventus-women-racist-tweet-asian-apology-b1898017

CTV calling it racist https://www.ctvnews.ca/sports/juventus-apologizes-for-racist-post-shared-on-women-s-team-s-twitter-feed-1.5537182

BBC calling it racist https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/58109308

NYPost calling it racist https://nypost.com/2021/08/05/juventus-soccer-team-delete-racist-picture/

ESPN calling it racist https://www.espn.com/soccer/juventus-itajuventus/story/4446605/juventus-apologise-for-offensive-picture-on-womens-twitter-account

The Telegraph calling it racist https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2021/08/05/juventus-women-forced-apologise-racist-tweet/ 2001:56A:F343:2700:FC35:9E49:7241:4CF6 (talk) 03:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

establish a consensus - Re: Aaron Coleman talkpage

help establish a consensus ?

sorry for any mistakes in advance. I will log off from Wiki until I hear back from someone with more experience with this website... dont like having my hard work deleted for no reason. I have better things to do than kill time on the internet

OsagePizza 08/10/2021 - OsagePizza72 (talk) 03:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

As I explained in detail on the talk page, I don't think you have much chance of establishing a consensus for your proposed addition of that minor story you brought up on the talk page. No comment on the other issues. Nil Einne (talk) 11:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Caitlyn Jenner and MOS:DEADNAME

Hi everyone! You may want to view or participate in this discussion regarding debate over what name to use for Caitlyn Jenner in the article Athletics at the 1976 Summer Olympics. I am bringing it up here per a MOS:DEADNAME notice at the relevant talk page indicating that "in the case of living people", this noticeboard should be notified if "material violating this guideline is repeatedly inserted". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Julia Michaels

Hello - all of the Guild of Music Supervisor awards listed on the page for Julia Michaels were actually won by Julia Michels, who is a different person: http://www.formatent.com/julia-michels

I am not skilled enough to make all the corrective edits, but wanted to draw attention because this is incorrect! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alyssamarie (talk • contribs)

I removed that section after checking the sourcing. Seems like Julia Michel shouldn't be a red link with all those awards. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Ian Gillan

Can I get a few more eyes to review this edit? I am aware that Gillan has publicly criticised his Wikipedia article in the past, and I have attempted to fix it up and adhere to BLP. But removing stuff that was in an old revision of his autobiography because he's changed his mind about wanting to publicly mention it isn't really what BLP is about. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Mocha Uson

Hi. I saw an archive of your action taken against User:Object404's sockpuppet User:JMR raggster a few years ago, with the former engaging in edit wars and vandalism. Object404 apparently has not changed ways. He has been vandalizing several articles that blatantly violate the Biography of Living Persons policy on neutrality, as well as blatantly adding content that are downright discriminatory against LGBT members. His vandalism is most prominent on articles about RJ Nieto, Mocha Uson and Mocha Uson Blog, in addition to the pages of Ferdinand Marcos' descendants and people related to Rodrigo Duterte. If you check 404's edit history, he has been insistent in keeping the contentious materials on these articles even when they have been contested in the past for several times; with him engaging in edit wars, reverting to his version that labels the subjects "propagandists", "fake news peddlers", "LGBT experts in fake news", "state-sponsored trolls", and so on. In few cases he would pretend to incorporate neutral edits added by other editors but would then again delete such and revert to his version that is contentious. And even when the neutrality of the article tone has been raised in light of BLP policy, he would argue that such malicious content have references, but a closer look on his citations most if not all of which were merely opinion articles presented or masquerading as facts. Any content that contradict such citation he would remove and claim as untrustworthy source. I do not know to what extent does Object404 vandalise other BLP articles but those three aforementioned have been so severe. There have also been disputes on the transparency of his edits as he seem to be affiliated with groups that are directly adversarial against the subjects of articles he has been vandalising. I have since informed other admins but are yet to take action. I am bringing this to your attention because you were the one who have imposed an action towards the erring editor in the past, and one who has utmost potential to investigate the extent of his activities. @User:Bbb23 @User:HighInBC Azuresky Voight (talk) 11:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)