Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive311

Eben Alexander (author)

This page currently refers to a source that has been discredited: Dittrich, Luke (August 2013). "The Prophet: An Investigation of Eben ALexander, Author of the Blockbuster "Proof of Heaven"". Esquire. All facets of this reference and its libelous and defamatory claims should be deleted from Wikipedia, in the interest of delivering a factual account. Note several of the other defamatory references are primarily derived from the Dittrich reference (ie Thompson, Dave. "Neurosurgeon reprimanded by state board", Jeff Bercovici. "Esquire Unearths 'Proof of Heaven' Author's Credibility Problems". Forbes. Retrieved July 13, 2013.), and should likewise be dismissed. Eben Alexander was never found guilty of malpractice, and was not terminated from any position "for cause", are the facts to be clarified by dismissing the Dittrich article.

The evidence discrediting Dittrich comes from this article: Esquire article on Eben Alexander distorts the facts. Available from:

The article is detailed and worth reading to clarify this claim. Here is their conclusion:

"To me the Dittrich article is shoddy and irresponsible journalism—shoddy because of Luke Dittrich's and his Esquire editors' evident failures: failure to consider alternate explanations (rainbow), failure to check with the cited witnesses (Phyllis and Betty Alexander), failure to verify information with additional witnesses (Holley Alexander, Michael Sullivan and others), failure to check with medical experts (on the likely cause of coma), failure to check again on crucial testimony of the sole cited witness (Laura Potter), failure to read the book carefully (Dr. Wade’s statement about Alexander’s coma), failure to verify conclusions via other witnesses (Holley Alexander and Sylvia White), failure to exercise care in asserting erroneous facts (use of drugs was not mentioned in the book), failure to exercise care in quoting and interpreting recorded remarks (Dalai Lama), and failure to exercise common sense in interpreting the meaning of statements (Dalai Lama). And Dittrich's article was irresponsible because of the impact—the real harm—the resulting distortions have caused."

Dittrich was previously an award-winning journalist, yet this Esquire piece is one of the last major articles published by him. His curious disappearance is likely related to the publishing industry being aware of his inability to write factual articles without sensationalizing them through distortions of fact.

Another example of Dittrich's unreliability concerns the criticism he received after posting an excerpt of his book Patient HM in the New York Times. Over 200 scientists related to MIT sent the following article concerning his distortion of facts:

Please let me know if you have other questions about this request. Correcting this erroneous information on Wikipedia greatly improves the reliability of this article to reflect the facts of the case. Ealexander3 (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC) EAlexander3

Why should we give any credence to Robert George Mays's article given that it is self-published per WP:RSSELF rather than through a peer-review journal or newspaper? He might be an expert in this area but we have no idea if his evaluation is WP:Fringe either. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Is he actually an expert though? As far as I can tell, he only has a bachelor's in chemistry, is not affiliated with any research institution or school, and doesn't perform scientific research. His only publications (which are mostly with his wife, who has an AA) are through the JNDE, which is (pretty damningly) not indexed by PubMed. He sounds like a NDE enthusiast who writes pseudo-philosophical interpretations of other people's retrospective studies. JoelleJay (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts (talk) The "fact-checking" of Esquire for that article was shockingly absent, according to one of their main sources, Dr Laura Potter, who felt very threatened by the process, and claimed Dittrich completely distorted her statements. Robert Mays article, although long, is very well-written, with multiple points that can be independently verified (one of the most flagrant being Dittrich's total distortion of the Dalai Lama's validation of my story, very apparent to anyone who takes the time to view the video Dittrich himself references). That alone reveals Dittrich's biased distortions.

Much more powerful is the reality portrayed by the peer-reviewed case report on my medical records published in September 2018 (a far more reliable source than Dittrich, given the extensive medical peer-review process) that, to anyone with some medical knowledge, validates the case I made about the severity of my illness, surprise at any kind of mental function arising from a brain whose neocortex is so demonstrably damaged, and struggles to explain how such a patient could make a complete recovery over months . That is the truth Wikipedia readers should glean from my case, not Dittrich's clickbait version.

One can certainly argue with my interpretation of my case. The crime of Dittrich is trying to confuse everyone into thinking I made the story up, and am untrustworthy.

I hope you will at least include the medical case report on my page to offer some facts to your Wikipedia users.

Thank you for responding. (Apologies for my unfamiliarity with WP formatting)

Ealexander3 (talk)

I am trying to understand the exact information you want added to your biography. Is it that the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease reviewed your medical files and include some paraphrasing of "Although E. coli meningitis has a high rate of neurological complications and death, this patient recovered completely without any deficits, and recalled an elaborate near-death experience that occurred during his coma."? Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts (talk): Such paraphrasing would be useful. Might I also suggest some aspect of the following, all from same article:

"Patients with Gram-negative bacterial meningitis have a high rate of neurological complications, particularly impaired mental status, systemic complications such as septic shock, acute respiratory failure, acute renal injury, and death (Pomar et al., 2013). There is a reported mortality rate of 53%, with E. coli accounting for 38% of such deaths (Pomar et al., 2013). Most reported cases have residual neurological deficits; however, this patient attained full neurological recovery within 2 months, which is remarkable and rare. This recovery is particularly striking in light of the poor prognostic signs, including descent into coma within 3 hours of symptom onset, GCS score of 6 to 11 with absent oculocardiac reflex, and CSF glucose of 1."

"This is particularly relevant because of the specific and devastating effect of meningoencephalitis on the neocortex, compared with cardiac arrest and other more common conditions associated with near-death experiences. Of interest, other near-death experiences occurring under well-documented medical supervision have been associated with unexpected recovery from conditions thought to be irreversible (Alexander, 2017; Dossey, 2011), suggesting possible benefits from research into possible mechanisms by which near-death experiences might facilitate healing."

"It is noteworthy that the patient’s near-death experience can be placed between hospital days 1 and 5, when his GCS scores were lowest. This association of a mystical state of consciousness with diminished brain function is consistent with recent neuroimaging studies of psychedelic drug-induced states showing that brain connectivity in the default mode network is inhibited rather than excited by psilocybin (Carhart-Harris et al., 2012), ayahuasca (Palhano-Fontes et al., 2015), and LSD (Carhart-Harris et al., 2016)."

Direct response to Dittrich's claim that my coma was simply "drug-induced":

"It has been suggested by persons without access to this patient’s medical records that his coma might have been pharmacologically induced, with the implication that that might reduce the credibility of his near-death experience account (Mays, 2016). His medical records suggest that his coma was not drug-induced, as his brain function and level of consciousness were clearly impaired and on a downward trajectory before sedation and started to improve before sedation was discontinued."

"The question has also been raised as to whether this patient’s subjective report is more consistent with a dream, hallucination, or delirium, rather than a near-death experience (Mays, 2016). Phenomenologically, this patient’s description of his experience was consistent with other near-death experiences, with an impressively high NDE Scale score, and bears little resemblance to a dream or hallucination. Furthermore, the fact that he maintained elaborate memories of his experience after his illness resolved argues against it having been a dream, hallucination, or delirium, as memories of those experiences typically fade with time. Near-death experiences can be differentiated from dreams, hallucinations, and deliria by their phenomenology and sequelae (Greyson, 2014), and represent an entirely different phenomenon, the memory of which does not fade over time (Greyson, 2007; Moore and Greyson, 2017)"

The important aspect is that Wikipedia readers deserve to know there is more to this case than the simplistic dismissal of it as fabricated.

Thanks again for your attention and time in trying to set the record straight.

Ealexander3 (talk)

I've added in the counterpoint from the Journal to directly address the Esquire criticism. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts (talk) Robert Mays' position on this is also published in 2 peer-reviewed medical articles. The first was a critique of John Fischer, a philosopher who received a $5 million grant from the Templeton Foundation and embarrassingly included the Dittrich article as a source in their conclusions:

"One can see the clever way Dittrich manipulated the meaning of the Dalai Lama’s statement to be the exact opposite of His Holiness’s actual meaning. Fischer and Mitchell-Yellin have a responsibility in repeating an erroneous report about someone’s character. Out of their own confirmation bias, they failed to conduct a thorough investigation of the accuracy of Dittrich’s article. They failed to consider that it does not even make sense that His Holiness would invite a person to speak at the convocation of one of his colleges, then turn around and proclaim the man unreliable and a liar. Instead, they characterized the Dalai Lama’s statement, as Dittrich erroneously reported it, to be “insightful advice from the Dalai Lama” (p. 176).

"By uncritically accepting Dittrich’s distorted account of Eben Alexander, Fischer and Mitchell-Yellin have amplified Dittrich’s errors by giving them the unqualified endorsement of a distinguished professor of philosophy, thereby further unjustly undermining Alexander’s good reputation."

In a second article, Mays states the following:

"In the following statement and accompanying footnote, Fischer and Mitchell-Yellin (2016) also employed another apophasis to infer—but not state directly—their apparent assessment of Eben Alexander’s character and the account of this NDE:

Our aim is not to call Alexander’s character into question and thereby discredit his account of his near-death experience. (Footnote) There do, however, appear to be legitimate questions about Alexander’s credibility due to the facts about his past, as uncovered in the reporting of Dittrich (2014). (Fischer & Mitchell-Yellin, 2016, p. 178)

Mitchell-Yellin (2017, p. 107) reiterated that his and Fischer’s (2016) aim was not to discredit Alexander. Given that we pointed out in our critique that they had relied on Dittrich’s (2014) distorted and misleading account of Alexander, we would have hoped for some expression of regret that, in effect, they had done just that."

Ealexander3 (talk)

Yeah, Robert Mays works for the International Association for Near-Death Studies (IANDS), which publishes the Journal of Near-Death Studies. That is hardly independent enough to qualify as a reliable source. A cursory review of the IANDS suggests fringe science all over that coincidentally features you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I have asked people from the Fringe Theories Noticeboard to participate in this discussion.[1] Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

All facets of this reference and its libelous and defamatory claims should be deleted from Wikipedia, in the interest of delivering a factual account. This is not exactly a legal threat, but I think it important that the account posting here be made aware (again) of Wikipedia's policy on such matters (as linked). If this source really is libelous and defamatory as is claimed, there ought to be a ruling of such in a court of law. Otherwise, this is a matter of personal opinion that is best documented in venues other than Wikipedia. jps (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I also am concerned with the litany of accusations being leveled in this thread on living people with whom Alexander has ongoing feuds (Dittrich in particular). WP:BLP applies to all living people, not just article subjects, after all. jps (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller might have some insight. fiveby(zero) 15:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts (talk) I submit that the attention to fact verification is far stronger at the Journal of Near-Death Studies, as a peer-reviewed medical journal, compared with Esquire (especially under editor David Granger, who was openly pushing for sensationalist nonfiction articles before he was fired). The scientists of IANDS knew from the beginning that assiduous investigation of cases with rigorous scepticism, not sloppy uncritical assessment, would be crucial to any successful effort to understand these cases and share the science with the public - it is not "fringe science". Also, I would hope Wikipedia would see the factual nature of the medical case report on my case as being a much higher level of fact-checking than the Esquire article.Ealexander3 (talk)

I'm afraid that Wikipedia is a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia and does not entertain the fantasy that either IANDS or the remnants of Ian Stephenson's group at UVa represent something other than WP:FRINGE. If you are convinced otherwise, you should try to convince Nature or Science that parapsychologists have actually made these amazing breakthroughs rather than wasting your time on this crowdsourced, tertiary website that is stubbornly attached to rules like WP:NOR and WP:RS. jps (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Scientific American should be a reliable source for Wikipedia. The following article by Jesse Bering suggests Ian Stevenson's work is worthy of note. In my case, I am concerned Wikipedia editors have not necessarily read the material they are dismissing as fringe, and I worry that you are trusting Dittrich and Esquire, who are very dubious as sources (see above) and given their main goal with the article against me was to experiment with a $1.99 paywall in an attempt to make a windfall by libeling and defaming the reputation of an author (Eben Alexander MD) whose book was the New York Times #2 non-fiction bestseller for the year 2013 (a run that ended with Esquire & its support by Wikipedia), published now in over 40 languages. If you insist on keeping the Dittrich reference, I suggest you at least also include the Robert Mays Researchgate reference listed above, for reasons stated above. The power of that article is anyone can check the primary sources, like the video of the Dalai Lama and Eben Alexander at the graduation ceremony, and see with their own eyes that Dittrich completely distorted his report of that video to an interpretation opposite to what it actually shows. Your readers deserve to see that truthful version of events - they can then judge Dittrich on the primary data. Ealexander3 (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's look at the facts. There is no question that there was a malpractice lawsuit. The source we use in the article (not the Esquire article) says :The case was dismissed by the plaintiff in 2009, according to court documents. The court file did not indicate whether the case had been settled; attorneys associated with the litigation either declined comment or did not return messages last week.

A transcript of a videotaped deposition on March 18, 2009, in that lawsuit shows Alexander admitting he operated at the wrong level of the patient’s spine; he said he didn’t initially divulge the mistake because the surgery had alleviated the symptoms. At one point, Alexander says, “I wanted to see if his symptoms came back quickly because people sometimes will have a placebo effect to surgery, and I wanted to see if this was truly a … durable (benefit of the surgery).” Alexander later states, “So in a sense, I had done the correct operation, even though it was not the intended operation.” "

So even though he admits to have made a mistake he still says he was correct "in a sense".

That was just one of two operations he made on the wrong section of a patient's spine. Worse, he altered the records for one of them. The consent order he signed "states that Alexander did not initially inform one of the patients that he operated at the wrong surgical site, and altered his original operative report to imply that the area he operated on was in fact the intended site." On the second operation he "did not follow up on a postoperative X-ray report that showed the error, the order states." Our article is wrong in using the source to say he lost privileges at the hospital, the source simply says they were told he no longer had privileges there - possibly they were up for renewal and the hospital didn't renew them. Hospitals are very careful about what they do. This is just an anecdote and not about this article, but I know of at least one case in the UK from my own research years ago where an anaethisist who bungled operations got passed around from hospital to hospital quitely. In any case I'd be surprised if he was ever found guilty of malpractice, the question for me is how many malpractice suits were filed against him and how were they disposed of. The Esquire article seems to have been used by other reliable sources, and if the author was lying Alexander should have been able to take legal recourse - if they are lies, they are major ones and a libel suit should have been easy and very costly for Esquire (who I presume would have been liable, although maybe both author and publisher would have been). Doug Weller talk 11:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I have never been found guilty of malpractice but I have settled several cases brought against me. Settlements are made to avoid the steep costs of litigation, not as any admission of guilt. The debacle of the malpractice environment in this country was made quite apparent in a 2011 article from the New England Journal of Medicine that reported neurosurgeons to be the specialty most at-risk for facing malpractice suits.. This is not because more neurosurgeons are bad doctors than are found in other specialties, but has to do with the treacherous and often life-destroying situations we are called to help our patients and their families face (head and spinal cord injury, brain tumors, ruptured aneurysms, stroke, etc.). That study painted a stark reality for neurosurgeons in the United States: on average, expect a lawsuit every five years. In a lifetime career, don’t be surprised to encounter several lawsuits, especially if you deal with more difficult cases. My father, a global leader in neurosurgery and one of the kindest and most respected people I ever knew, faced three lawsuits (like me, he was never found guilty).

That is the fact Wikipedia needs to know. Dittrich makes lots of noise about malpractice, yet those cases had nothing to do with my career, and nothing to do with my deadly meningitis, my miraculous recovery (as the case report reveals), and my reporting of it. My career was never in jeopardy.

Luke Dittrich tried to attack my integrity through a distorted and incomplete presentation of one such lawsuit. His most damning assertion of my career as a neurosurgeon concerned a specific malpractice case in which I was involved. By Dittrich's account, I operated on a patient’s cervical spine at the wrong level, then altered the operative note to reflect the actual operation in an effort to cover up the surgical error. He noted that I “finally confessed” the error to the patient on his third post-operative visit, only to face a $3 million lawsuit from the patient a year later.

The facts behind the case reveal a more complete picture, quite opposite to that presented by Dittrich (similar to his distortion of the Dalai Lama video). The patient had presented with radiographic evidence of three adjacent levels of abnormality (C45, C56, C67), but my assessment based on his symptoms indicated that the middle of the three levels (C56) was the actual culprit. One principle of spine surgery is to address the patient’s symptoms and neurological signs in deciding what level might need surgical correction, with the radiographic abnormalities helping to guide that effort (though not the primary evidence dictating the surgery). Thus, my surgical goal was to decompress and stabilize the C56 level only, expecting that would alleviate his symptoms.

After the operation, the patient reported excellent relief of his symptoms. Most such operations are successful in fixing the problem, so that came as no surprise. I routinely performed an X-ray at that follow up visit just to check the integrity of the stabilizing bone graft. Checking this X-ray after the patient had left my office, I found that I had operated at C45, one level above the intended C56 level. I was shocked that such an operation had relieved his symptoms so perfectly, because it called into question my surgical reasoning that had led me to target C56 in the first place.

I knew that patients could have a strong “placebo effect” from surgery alone, so my plan was to reassess him in follow-up to determine whether his relief of symptoms was due to placebo effect as opposed to a bona fide surgical benefit. After follow-up confirmed a true surgical benefit, I discussed the situation with my neurosurgical partners and hospital attorneys to lay out the best way to proceed with informing the patient. I reasoned that even if he had benefitted at this point, that he might well come to need decompression of that C56 level at some time in the future. The hospital agreed with me that the patient should not have to pay for such a procedure if he redeveloped symptoms, so my plan was to inform him of the wrong level surgery and offer to cover all expenses if he ever needed that C56 level decompressed.

With plan in hand, I had my office schedule the appointment for this discussion with the patient. He was doing so well, back at work farming, that he skipped the appointment, necessitating yet another follow-up call to bring him in for full disclosure.

“Doc, I’m doing fine,” he insisted after I had explained the entire issue of having operated at an unintended, but apparently effective, level. “I don’t need any more surgery. You’ve done fine.” I believe my extensive explanation of our financially covering any additional surgery, even if he chose to have it done elsewhere, led him to pursue a malpractice suit.

Of course, one problem that the malpractice attorney originally faced was that the patient had done so well after my operation. Even knowing of the surgical error, it was hard to argue with success. Hence the attorney created a negative spin of my correcting the surgical note (which was just my effort to reflect the actual facts of the case as they became known to me) to imply an intentional cover-up, allowing a charge of “fraud.” Dittrich had found this concocted accusation in the plaintiff’s court records, and used it as the basis of his distorted version of events. But interpreting it as a cover-up was illogical and egregious, given that I was the one who revealed the surgical error to all parties – it was not discovered by anyone else. That fact has never been disputed, and is crucial to understanding my overall integrity in the case. Some of my colleagues questioned whether I shouldn’t have kept quiet and said nothing.

This case, like all such questionable cases, resulted in detailed investigations by numerous agencies, including all state boards where I held an active medical license (those of Virginia, Massachusetts and North Carolina) and the American Board of Neurological Surgeons. I was exonerated by all investigating groups after paying a fine concerning medical record-keeping, and attending a weekend CME course that addressed such issues. Proper protocol indicates that I should have dictated an addendum to my original surgical note, as opposed to correcting the facts about the actual level of surgical decompression in the original surgical report. I also should have informed the patient immediately, instead of monitoring his progress to verify true surgical benefit as opposed to placebo effect.

As stated previously, settlements are made to avoid the steep costs of litigation, not as any admission of guilt. I continued with my state medical licenses and board certification fully intact. That was not a truth Dittrich wanted to reveal, thus he painted a false picture of my being a failed neurosurgeon to enhance his accusation that I made up the entire story presented in Proof of Heaven for financial gain. The odd thing is that he knew many of these facts about me, based on our interviews, but never included any of it in his story. My integrity in taking care of my patient should be clear from the facts of this case - in fact, it was my over-the-top effort to inform him and make sure he was financially compensated for repeat surgery if it was ever necessary that should be clear to all, given the outcome.Ealexander3 (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

As for the criticism by scientists over the Patient HM book where he says that Corkin stated that she shredded her work, here is Dittrich's comment on it[2] and a comment in a book by Steven Lubet says "The intentional destruction of such irreplaceable notes, covering over forty years of research and experiments, would have been professionally irresponsible, but it appears that Prof. Corkin had been trying only to discourage Dittrichs inquiry for reasons of her own."[3] Even Alexander's source seems to accept that Corkin was reported correctly. Doug Weller talk 11:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Caroline Calloway

There has been rampant vandalism of Caroline Calloway with several users. I'm on my third revert so I would appreciate extra eyes on this. I will request a page protection in the meantime. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I usually keep an eye on this article but haven't been able to pay much attention to WP the past few days for medical reasons. This article draws a lot of WP:SPA haters. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 02:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Samuthirakani

He acted in a Indian crime movie named Walter and a movie in Tamil named Vattam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.14.54.183 (talk) 04:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Claim about David Patterson (historian)

An experianced and very respected editor and Wikipedia administrator made a claim on Holocaust denial talk page while discussing a Patterson's book (isbn=978-1-107-04074-8) published by Cambridge University Press. The claim is Patterson essentially equates Islam with "Jihadism" and claims that the extermination of Jews is inherent in the Sharia. in this diff. Does WP:BLPTALK apply? Can someone review and remove if the claim found as inappropriate. Thank you. Infinity Knight (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Infinity Knight: you didn't think it at least courteous to notify User:Zero0000? That comment was over a week ago. Pinging the others involved in this discussion @The Four Deuces, Buidhe, and El C:. Doug Weller talk 09:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not involved in the discussion. (t · c) buidhe 09:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Nor am I. El_C 09:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Infinity Knight, what I see on that page is a thorough analysis by Zero0000 that shows your preferred content to be incorrect and bordering on tendentious. Your best bet here is to thank Zero for his diligence and helping you to avoid a gross error. Guy (help!) 12:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

To start with, the BLP rules are not intended to prevent us from arguing that a source is unreliable. Without the ability to discuss the reliability of sources, we cannot do our work as policy requires of us. In this particular case, I already gave a source for my comments on the talk page, and I repeated on the talk page that I had given a source before ∞K filed this report. The source is a review of Patterson by Jay Geller (Professor of Modern Jewish Culture at Vanderbilt University). For those who can't see past the paywall, here is the pertinent passage: "Though he states that 'Jihadism' is only a 'perversion' of Islam (p. 38), he all but identifies Islam with it. When discussing Jihadi torture he states: 'The question remains as to whether Islam can de-Sharia itself: Is it possible for a Muslim to object to the torture prescribed by Sharia in the name of Sharia? If not, then it is impossible for a Muslim to oppose either Jew hatred or torture. One goes with the other' (p167). Since Patterson gives no instance of an Islamic objection to torture, the reader may assume that so long as Muslims, whether self-described Jihadis or not, follow Sharia, they will ultimately sanction genocide in general and the extermination of the Jews specifically." Geller doesn't stop there, but what I have quoted is enough to see that what I wrote is almost verbatim from my source.

Nor did I base my opinion only on Geller's review. I examined another of Patterson's books "Anti-semitism and its Meta-Physical Origins" and found it to have an extended diatribe on Islam (and Christianity) with the most weak allowance you can imagine that not all Muslims or Christians are genocidal. Another academic reviewer writes that Patterson comes from a Jewish-fundamentalist viewpoint, believing that "anti-Semitism is rooted in the anti-Semites’ desire to become like God themselves, and that by killing the Jews — God’s witnesses — they are killing God...". And, again, "the existence of God and more precisely the God of Judaism, in assuming the existence of the soul, the truth of the revelation to the prophets of Judaism, the truth of the Jewish holy scriptures (the Torah, Talmud, Midrash, etc.), the truth of the claim that the Jews are the chosen people, the truth of the narrative of the Jews’ mission, that they are chosen for the absolute ethical responsibility, the truth of the claim that Israel is the land of the chosen people and that the Jews have a special connection to God through this holy land, that Hebrew is the holy tongue, that we all descend from Adam, etc. These all form a set of premises presumed to be true throughout the book." (Jews who don't believe such things are "self-hating" or "anti-semitic Jews".) I could go on, but this is too long already. Is this the sort of work we want to use as a source on Muslims? Zero^talk 14:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The posting seems to accurately reflect Patterson's position. If it doesn't, then perhaps someone could recommend a better phrasing. TFD (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

We should exercise caution when discussing living people. In the first one, it says "... he states that 'Jihadism' is only a 'perversion' of Islam..." so I guess that we could say something like "Patterson says that 'Jihadism' is a 'perversion' of Islam, however Geller says that Patterson essentially equates Islam with "Jihadism" attributing opinions properly. Zero Thank you for providing the quotes. Infinity Knight (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Zero0000:, would you be willing to amend your claim on the article talk page? Infinity Knight (talk) 06:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Infinity Knight: There is a difference between article space and talk space. In David Patterson my personal opinion would forbidden and all opinions would have to be properly attributed as well as sourced. In talk space on the other hand, it is normal practice to express personal opinions on why sources are reliable or unreliable. Complete attribution would amount to adding "in my opinion" but I think everyone can see that implicitly. I'm not saying that there are no boundaries, which is why I carefully restricted my statement to those opinions that could be justified by reference to reliable sources and Patterson's own words. If this was a forum, I would quote more of Patterson and state stronger opinions about it. But it's not a forum so I only went far enough to make a case for unreliability. Zero^talk 07:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Zero0000: The BLP policy applies to any living person mentioned, including talk pages. Since Patterson explicitly denied, the claim should be amended. Infinity Knight (talk) 07:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Infinity Knight, it is important to understand that there exists a clear distinction between claims of a personal nature regarding a living person and opinions regarding the published works of an author who so happens to still be alive. It wasn't necessary for Zero to have said something like "In my opinion, Patterson essentially equates..." - it is already obvious that this is his opinion, we don't need him to tell us this. Also, he did include the word ' essentially ', which acknowledges that Patterson made no such statement overtly, but that that is his interpretation of what Patterson said. Again, (and like Zero already said as well in this discussion), it is already clearly his opinion, thus we do not need him to say "in my opinion" at the beginning of each sentence.

In short: discussions about sources are not the same thing as statments about living persons, regardless of whether or not the authors of sources are living. If WP:BLP meant that editors are barred from discussing the reliability of sources except ones with deceased authors, the entire project would be unable to function. Firejuggler86 (talk) 07:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The only thing I can consider doing (in fact, don't mind anyone doing) is copying the quotes from the two reviewers to the relevant talk page. Then readers can see the whole story. But I don't see how it would improve anyone's view of Patterson's writing to see the criticism in the words of highly qualified reviewers rather than as my opinion. Zero^talk 02:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Zero, please keep in mind, BLP applies also to talk pages. So your view that There is a difference between article space and talk space... In talk space on the other hand, it is normal practice to express personal opinions on why sources are reliable or unreliable... should have a disclaimer. Expressing your opinion is OK as long as it does not violate WP:BLP. Infinity Knight (talk) 06:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Mercola

Joseph Mercola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) added as courtesy Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

In the description of Dr. Mercola, I would like to see the word "charlatan" replaced with controversial. I am not associated with Dr. Mercola and I don't buy his products but to label him a charlatan because he has a dissenting voice is not the American way. Some of his ideas on Covid-19 have appeared radical but then I've noticed that a few weeks later, some of them appear as mainstream treatment. Some of his ideas strike me as crazy. In American we value many voices to reach the truth. And sometimes even in conventional medicine, what was truth becomes false as more information becomes available. The fulcrum always swings right and left before we reach the center. That doesn't make the right or left charlatans. It makes them controversial. Please consider using a different word to describe Dr. Mercola. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dianelmann (talk • contribs) 05:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

"Charlatan" is sourced. We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia or to outright falsehoods.

He is not called such because of politics but because medicine is a science... A science he regularly demonstrates downright incorrect knowledge of (instead of merely a lack of knowledge). Ian.thomson (talk) 05:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not immediately clear to me that the precise word "charlatan" is directly sourced. What are you thinking of? The Chicago Magazine reference uses the word but not as a direct description of him. I'm not questioning any of the rest of the lead, and certainly not accepting Dianelmann's suggestion, but we need to be careful with BLPs. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

This was just discussed a few days ago at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Dr._Joseph_Mercola. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, very helpful. I see my concerns are similar to those raised there, and that the issue wasn't clearly resolved. It would be nice to have a clear unambiguous reference for "charlatan" or "quack" if we are going to use that as the principal description in the opening sentence of the lead. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Caren Turner

Caren Turner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Talk:Caren_Turner#WP:UNDUE

I think there's a very strong claim that this is a textbook instance of WP:UNDUE weight being attached to her tertiary involvement in a traffic stop wherein her daughter had an out-of-state registration and it takes up more than half the article. I'll suggest to shorten the section to some variation of "In 2018 New Jersey police released the footage of an incident wherein Turner confronted police who had impounded a relative's vehicle for lack of insurance and current registration tags. Turner had told the officers she was "a friend of the mayor" and insisted on being referenced as "Commissioner" by the officers, while asking the officers to explain their decision. Turner later apologised for her behavior and resigned from the Port Authority board, after facing fierce criticism for her intervention.".

Terms like "with the New Jersey Star Ledger writing that she was "unencumbered by clue" while a commentator for the Today Show described her as having "all the tact and manners of a zoo animal at feeding time.", have no place in the article and certainly do not help "communicate the complexity and nuance of the situation"...not that there is any complexity or nuance to the situation, which is exactly my point. The news rated the VIRAL VIDEO one of the biggest moments in NJ, not the fact somebody had license plate tags out of date or that their mother tried to intervene. This is a BLP, not an article about a viral video

I have zero connection to Turner, or New York/Jersey, I am not even from the United States - this is just a case of Wikipedia unfortunately contributing to the pillorying of a BLP over a minor incident that, had it not been for Youtube, would not have registered even a sentence in any newspaper. Mostcommonphraseongoogle (talk) 03:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

She was removed from her job, an (unpaid?) position of authority. We also claim the incident led to introduction of legislation, which passed the New Jersey Senate. I think that makes the incident something beyond just entertainment or just minor. If YouTube and viral videos lead to laws, we cover that. Perhaps similar abuse in the past would have "not registered even a sentence in any newspaper". That's an interesting and important difference between now and then. I support making some sense of this subject's career, and covering their other noteworthy deeds. I think this subject could be noteworthy for a single incident, which would mean they don't merit a page about themselves. However, before this incident, we considered her generally noteworthy, apparently for being a commissioner. Now she's also noted for how she lost that job. Mcfnord (talk) 00:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

BLPCAT and conviction categories for people exonerated

I noticed someone on a category for people convicted of murder in NZ who I knew had been exonerated and removed them. After looking more carefully and noticing at least one more I decided to have a look at the wider cats and was concerned to find Category talk:People convicted of murder#RfC. Am I the only to be concerned that the outcome of that 2015 RfC is in conflict with WP:BLPCAT at least when it comes to people who are still alive?

Unless someone checks out the article, it's not at all obvious that someone in those cats were exonerated. It seems weird to me to be so concerned about putting a person in in a catholics cat when the article says they were raised and confirmed Catholic and still sometimes go to church but consider themselves lapsed or non believing, to make up a random example. But we don't worry about putting someone in the convicted of murder category when the conviction while factual was overturned and the person is well accepted as innocent.

Further as someone noted in that discussion, those cats are even effectively subcats of the murderers category, yet someone exonerated is obviously not a murderer (unless of some other murder). At the very least, shouldn't we add text in the cats noting it includes people who were exonerated?

Nil Einne (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems like that's not exactly what that RfC determined. The RfC was in relation to Category:People convicted of murder and Category:People wrongfully convicted of murder. There was no consensus to change the then-current way of doing things, which is include them in both lists, and the latter list is a subcategory of the first. BLPCAT still states that the category is relevant when it relates to the person's notability. I'd imagine that typically a person who was both legally convicted, and later that conviction was overturned, has a substantial part of their notability due to said criminal status. But I don't think it's such a black-and-white issue, and it does deserve comment from other editors. On a tangential note, I think you're referring to Teina Pora in this, the categories on that page are a bit of a mess. I question the need for both Category:People convicted of murder by New Zealand and Category:New Zealand people convicted of murder, and it's certainly inconsistent with other countries' categories. Whatever the resolution of this issue, I suspect quite a few categories need cleaning up. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The religion thing I get. I was raised a Presbyterian, but if you were to categorize me as such, I would have to object. I still hold some of those Christian beliefs embedded in my upbringing, which came fully intertwined with and colored by the pagan beliefs of my ancestors. I celebrate Christmas, even though the British/American version is totally a Viking holiday filled with Viking traditions, and Halloween, a totally Celtic holiday. But if you asked me my religion, I would say I'm predominantly Christian, yet I'm totally Taoist. I'm more than a little Buddist, with a good heap of Celtic, a wee bit of Greek, and a hell of a lot of Viking. I mostly believe in science, and that science is constantly changing. So just categorize me as a Jedi, of the Raven Clan of the Eskimos.

The problem I have with categories in general is that they are too stereotypical. When you put someone into a category, you're basically defining that person solely by the title of that category, and the world is rarely that black and white. Categorization is necessary for memory and comprehension, and is hard-wired into the brains of any animal with an amygdala; eg: everything we see we automatically categorize before storing it in the hippocampus. The problem is that this is also the source of stereotyping and the psychological roots of prejudice --and there are plenty of reliable sources I can cite for that-- so we have to be extremely careful about categorizing things. Since the dawn of time categorization and stereotyping has been used for very nefarious and even horrific purposes. Some categories are very useful, but some can be very misleading and totally one-sided, providing no balance, and I think a category of convicted felons is a good example of a bad category. Zaereth (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

And of course, you can't source categories. So for categories that are based on some subjective aspect, now you create severe problems, particularly if you have BLP in the category. At least with a list, you can source each item on the list. --Masem (t) 05:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't deny that religion is a sensitive thing and complicated. The thing is though, from my PoV as someone who is best described as agnostic or atheist but who was raised catholic and was confirmed just before adulthood but never go to church any more, I would be mildly annoyed if an article on me categorises me as catholic. I'd be pissed off if an article still categorises me as 'convicted of murder' when I was exonerated and widely accepted as innocent. I doubt I'm the only one. I recognise that technically the catholic cat is not correct under most definitions, but the 'convicted of' would often be argued as technically correct, but IMO there are still reasons why the latter is far more of a problem. I'm assuming the article adequately conveys both my religious views and my conviction status, so IMO the big issue is someone that people will see the cat without properly reading the article, or more likely without reading it at all. I'm not saying we should ignore problems with religious cats, but rather I just find it weird we're so sensitive to problems with them, but at least in that 2015 discussion didn't seem to be that worried about the ramifications of putting someone in a 'convicted of' cat when the conviction has been overturned and is well accepted as wrongful. (That said, I'm fairly sure trying to re-add [4] George Pell to Category:Australian people convicted of child sexual abuse or Category:Australian people convicted of indecent assault wouldn't go down well.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I fixed your comment as you forgot a : for the NZ cats so were categorising this page in them rather than linking to them. That isn't the only article, as Arthur Allan Thomas has the same problem. I feared there may be more, but actually there doesn't seem to be. I suspect you're right though and other articles with other country subcats and maybe even those in the general cat have the same problem one of the reasons I started this discussion. The problem is the RfC didn't seem to consider the BLP implications at all. Yet given the outcome, from my POV I would be in violation of it if I were to remove those 2 articles from the convicted cats. Yes technically it didn't address the issue of country subcats, but to argue it doesn't apply to them seems wikilawyering to me, the RfC clearly established that people should be listed in both a 'convicted of' cat and a 'wrongfully convicted of' cat. I imagine one of the concerns is 'wrongfully convicted' is likely to be far smaller, therefore it may not make sense to make subcats per country making it difficult to find cases per country but IMO this isn't good enough. I guess the other consideration is if you remember someone who was convicted of murder and with only a vague memory of their name and don't know they were exonerated, you may be confused by being unable to find them. But again, IMO this also isn't a good enough reason. Nil Einne (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

If an unsourced category claims someone was convicted of murder even after they were un-convicted, I would have a serious problem with that claim. Saying via the category quibbles that some were exonerated while still calling them a murderer is not an acceptable compromise. Pretend the category is "People NOW convicted of murder". That is, today, right now, are they murder convicts? It seems simply unacceptable that I might be convicted in the past, but not today, and yet I'm on some list on Wikipedia due to... accuracy? The most serious charge deserves the most serious evidence, and here we don't even offer evidence, just quibbling about some kind of category nerd compromise? How about: No way. It is not unreasonable to think about the subject of the BLP and ask what they or their kids would think of a claim we all kinda know is MISleading. Of course the article itself would cover what happened (with prominence on the legal outcome). Mcfnord (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Robert Brustein

Sort of a strange question that I am not sure where exactly would be the most appropriate place to post, so apologies if this should be elsewhere. An editor claiming to be a son of Robert Brustein has been adding non-notable family members to the page without proper references. When I contacted the editor per WP:BLPNAME, he claimed that the subject of the article requested that the family members be part of his article. Now I know that we do not follow whatever the subject tells us to do, but the main justification for BLPNAME is respecting the privacy of the individuals, which does not seem to be an issue here. I have not yet contacted the subject to verify his desire to have the family included, but I am wondering if, hypothetically, the subject did express this desire (and verifiability was met through an OTRS ticket), would the information be permissible in the article or no? Canadian Paul 03:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The first question I would ask myself is, does having the names provide any benefit for the reader in understanding the subject? If the family members are not notable enough to have their own articles, then I would leave them out, otherwise they're just meaningless names to the reader and trivial info. For the reader, 99% of the time simple generic descriptors can work just as effectively (ie: so-and-so is married and had x number of children).

Second, I don't know if it's up to the subject to relinquish the rights of privacy for his family members, even his children, or rather, especially his children, who may not yet be old enough to give their own informed consent. The subject may not even have considered the potential problems that could arise from naming them, both in the present and the distant future. I would say err on the side of caution and leave them out unless there is some compelling reason to show that it's absolutely necessary for the reader's understanding of the subject. If none exist, then we shouldn't add them for the mere sake of vanity. Zaereth (talk) 04:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Is it true that the standard for including living family member's names, in a biographical article about a notable living subject, is their own notability? If so, there are a lot of articles and info boxes that run afoul of this, especially when it comes to spouses. Ditch ∝ 04:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME doesn't say not to include but we always should apply caution and defer not to include if the names haven't been readily discussed in connection to the BLP/BIO page. That, to me, means you should be easily able to verify the name and the relationship via a simple news search (assuming its a recent person), and not have to dig into tabloids, or things like obits, marriage announcements, social media posts, etc. --Masem (t) 05:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

And yes, referencing on these names is absolutely required. --Masem (t) 05:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I actually think the second point is key here. I've always interpreted BLPNAME to be worried about the BLP implications for the named parties. I don't think the subject's concerns are themselves that big a deal so their views have little sway for me. This is perhaps one issue editors including me can fail on, forgetting the implications on other living people especially when the subject of an article is themselves a living person. By that I don't mean indirect effects, I can understand why reading that person A was a rapist may be distressing for family and friends but other than to the limited extent of BDP, I don't think their concerns arise to BLP. However if an article says that during their first marriage person A suffered spousal abuse even if person A is the subject of the article and the spouse is unnamed, we do need to consider BLP when dealing with such claims. Likewise if person A was recalled as an ambassador because of some allegations about their spouse's activities. Or if one of person A's defences against a murder conviction is that the boyfriend did it. (The latter two are are real examples BTW.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The main thing I tend to look for is whether of not it adds some value to the article. If nobody has ever heard of these people, then what is the point in naming them? What value does it add? To the average reader, it's just a word without any meaning; a name with no "face". Does it really matter if he has, say ... a son named Mark? Would it make the slightest difference if the name was Kevin? Or Bob? Would the meaning stay the same if we just said "son".

It's a different matter if the person has a Wikipedia article we can link to. Then you have a "face" with that name. It also automatically demonstrates that naming the person will not be an invasion of their privacy. The same could be said in certain circumstances where the subject is very well-known, such as a celebrity or politician. Their family members may not be notable enough to have their own article, but if the names have been very widely published then they should probably be included, but in most of these cases I'd say immediate family only.

However, if the family member is unknown and the subject is not a public figure, then what good do the names do for the average reader? The only people who would give a damn are the friends and family, hackers, identity thieves, child molesters, stalkers, etc., etc. In my opinion, it's best to err on the side of caution and leave them out unless there is some reason the names are necessary for understanding the subject. If you can cut the names without changing the meaning, then there is no point in having them. Zaereth (talk) 01:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all for commenting with such detail and thoughtfulness. These are all pretty much the responses that I expected, but I appreciate having a broader discussion to be able to point to should the issue rise again. Thanks again. Canadian Paul 02:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Covid-19 & BLPs

Various celebrities have contracted Covid-19, some have self-identified as doing so. But is it usually worth mentioning in their bios? Millions of people have contracted the thing and it usually emerges as fancruft/wailing/gossip in the case of celebrities. We're not a news website, so is it really worth recording unless they have some prolonged episode/outcome? I am just concerned it becomes a bit like saying "they had measles". - Sitush (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

My gut wants to agree with you. Mcfnord (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that unless significant media attention was given to it (ala Tom Hanks as a prime example), I would agree that simply having them and recovering with no serious issues is trivial information. --Masem (t) 16:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed - do not include unless that individual specially was notable for having it like Tom Hanks noted above. Meatsgains^(talk) 16:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

How would we determine that the person is "specially notable" for having it? By definition of being a celebrity, the news gets plastered everywhere. I'm sure there are exceptional cases but can we come up with some rough-ish guideline to work with? - Sitush (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

A very rough guide would be whether or not reliable, independent sources have covered it - so not their own Instagram account, and not tabloids etc. GiantSnowman 17:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Another consideration might be whether it had a considerable impact on them. If someone had mild symptoms and shrugged it off, it hardly seems worth mentioning; it damn near killed Michael Rosen however, and it seems unlikely that he will fully recover - leaving it out would seem ridiculous. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's my unless they have some prolonged episode/outcome exception. - Sitush (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Sitush, yes, sorry I should have said that I agree with you on that. As with anything else, if it's an important event in their life, we should mention it, but if it's just something that's in the news because special correspondent Mr Phil Space (or Ms Phillipa Page) has been commissioned to write a celeb covid piece, we should probably pass over it. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Phil Space? You've been reading Private Eye. I'm still trying to find somewhere to cite page 94. - Sitush (talk) 09:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Thinking about this more, the way I would treat it is almost (and this is not meant to insult people that get it) as a sexual misconduct accusation - we shouldn't include it until is known that it has some major impact on their life. Tom Hanks - he was forced to stop shooting a film and go into quarantine and was one of the first big celebs to get it so clearly that was a career impact we should include. Or as another example, Damian Kulash's sister got COVID (she came out ok) which led to him to write a song & video for OK Go to praise first responders that got coverage - that's a career impact that should be covered. But a random celeb already in lockdown saying in their social media "Oh, I got COVID symptoms but doctors told me to quarantine for a few weeks" and they come out fine at the end with no career changes, that just should passed over, just as if they got the common cold and were out of commission for a few weeks. --Masem (t) 03:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

^ This ^ is my concern. But based on prompting at the article talk page, which itself was based on the outcome of this thread, I've just made this edit. Can't say I'm terribly happy about it but I do appreciate the irony of someone who apparently was helping government get its message across then fall foul of the disease. "Mild symptoms" wouldn't usually get someone hospitalised but of course he is privileged. It should be noted that this particular article gets a lot of fancruft. - Sitush (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Steven Pinker

Newish editors are, I think, using the article Steven Pinker to Right Great Wrongs. But it's my bedtime. -- Hoary (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Or perhaps a Great Wrong (singular); I'm not sure. I'm impressed by the energy of the SPAs, but if they're breaking any rules then they aren't doing so very blatantly. -- Hoary (talk) 01:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

How many pictures of this person are a good number? One? Two? Oh five. Mcfnord (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The obvious place to ask this question is Talk:Steven Pinker. -- Hoary (talk) 04:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Laura Whitehorn

The description 'domestic terrorist' has been added to the first sentence several times recently. If there's a consensus that it's appropriate, fine. If it's not, then all instances merit rev/deletion as defamatory. 2601:188:180:B8E0:5B0:DC19:883:CA94 (talk) 04:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

At first I agreed, but now I don't know! The subject pleaded guilty to "conspiracy and destruction of Government property". In 1990, is this what we called terrorism? I have doubts. We can Only infer the lede from the charge that stuck, which is conspiracy and destruction of Government property. I suspect she has not been convicted of being a domestic terrorist. She's a convicted felon, so I've dialed the claim back to that as we discuss. Mcfnord (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a popular misconception that the first sentence of the lead has to summarise the rest of the lead. Since her convictions are detailed later in the lead, I think we can do away with "domestic terrorist" and/or "convicted felon" from the first sentence. FDW777 (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

It's misleading, or somehow incomplete, to omit her felon status. She was not convicted of minor offenses. Perhaps she's a perfectly delightful revolutionary from back in the day, but she made bombs. They robbed banks. She did 14 years. I don't think she was a political prisoner during that period. Her activism led to reckless, dangerous behavior that we consciously do place outside the realm of mere activism. She is, for whatever motivations, noble or not, a felon who destroyed government property. Activists definitely do need to understand this particular actvist's consequences. We shouldn't bury the lede. Mcfnord (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not omitted! The lead ends with She participated in the 1983 United States Senate bombing and served 14 years in federal prison for her crimes. As previously stated, the lead summarises the article. There's no requirement in WP:LEAD for the first sentence to summarise the rest of the lead. FDW777 (talk) 06:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Ghislaine Maxwell

The infobox says she is merely a "naturalized citizen" (because "that's what a source says"). This is not NPOV. Everybody else's citizenship is simply given as "United States" if at all (see for example Charlize Theron, Christian Bale, John Oliver...). I don't think we should be creating nativist ghettos for those half-Americans that don't really belong here and are 'not one of us'. 184.101.189.72 (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd help you jam US naturalized citizen into their infoboxes. Do you know of any other American designated in this way in an infobox? IMcfnord (talk) 05:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Epstein's "Black Book" & BLPs

Recently there has been many edits adding that the person is included in Epstein's "Black Book", however I cannot find any evidence that proves that this book actually belonged to Epstein, the only source provided is simply a scan of the book, unless any evidence can be provided I think this should be considered libelous. FozzieHey (talk) 10:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh heck yeah! Mcfnord (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The New Yorker has a long article on Epstein's "Black Book" and some of the names in it. The New Yorker is a reliable source for indicating that the book belonged to Epstein. However, I don't think the little factoid that an individual was in the book should be included in a biography article. It is undue weight to a minor fact. Mentioning it also creates the impression that the individual was associated with Epstein's sexual activities. The black book is merely his address book. It is not a little black book of his sex clients. -- Guest2625 (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The New Yorker article just seems to referrence Gawker publishing the book, which is not considered a reliable source under WP:RSP. FozzieHey (talk) 11:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Vanity Fair has a direct interview with the reporter Nick Bryant who obtained Epstein's black book. Vanity Fair is a reliable source. --Guest2625 (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's presume that the authenticity of the book is valid as well as the names documented by the New Yorker. This still feels like inappropriate information to add just because the name appeared in the book with no other connecting information. Being included in this book, which should be taken as just a contact book and thus not necessary good or bad, has clear implicit complications when it is being labelled as Epstein's "Black Book" which has negative connotations. Unless the person has been connected already to Epstein prior, we should not be including this on the respective BLP/BIO pages at all. --Masem (t) 17:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

• Disappearance of Madeleine McCann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:BLPCRIME effectively prohibits the naming of low-profile individuals who have not been convicted of "a" (I interpret this as 'the') crime.

Does this extend to naming someone already convicted of 'a' similar crime, but not 'the' crime in question? I removed the offending text in Special:Diff/965810697, which was reverted twice by the editor who initially added it Special:Diff/965821327. Christian Bruckner is serving time as a convicted sexual offender for other offences. But he has not been convicted of this sexual offence / possible murder. He's under investigation and a suspect, but he hasn't even been charged.

Therefore, my question is, is it indeed a violation of WP:BLPCRIME to name a low-profile individual convicted of a similar, but unrelated, offence? They're indeed innocent of this offence, currently. My view would be that BLPCRIME does extend to such cases as well, even if he were charged, otherwise we'd be setting dangerous and shaky precedent, but it'd be nice to clarify the matter for the record. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

This has already been discussed on the article's talk page and the consensus is to include the name. Further consensus should be gained there if you want to remove it. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Lard Almighty, there is no consensus on the article talk page, and talk consensus never overrides the BLP policy even if there were. The closest to a discussion is here, and this doesn't address the BLP policy at all, nor did it receive much participation - no other editors clearly agreed with you. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

There is. There was a discussion on whether to include the name and it was agreed that we should. BTW, I did not add the name. It was first added on 3 or 4 June and I did not edit the article on those days. I merely edited the article later to reflect the consensus. There is no WP:BLPCRIME violation. The individual has been named by German police using his first name and last initial and that has been reported in many WP:RS, so there is no BLP problem in including it. Other sources have given his full name, so again I see no BLP problem. We and the RS are not saying he is guilty of involvement in Madeleine's disappearance, merely that he is a person of interest. Therefore there is no issue with including that in the article. Should we remove the name of everyone who has been a person of interest from the article? Lard Almighty (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The BBC has decided to go along with the Christian B recommended by German law.[5] The Guardian has gone for Christian Brückner.[6] Personally I don't see a problem with the full name as it is easily available in the public domain by now and the most important thing is to make clear that he is a suspect. He has not been charged, let alone tried or convicted. The German prosecutors have hyped this up somewhat, because when you look at the overall evidence it is nowhere near enough to secure a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The Portuguese police have said that they knew about Brückner a long time ago and consider the case against him to be weak. Most of the hype on this is coming from the German prosecutors, not the Portuguese police.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I've linked to the discussion in my previous response, you don't need to summarise it in your own words for me. A discussion was made, the editor who started it didn't agree with the idea, stating We should presumably likewise avoid mentioning his name, for now?, and you were practically the only other participant in the discussion. But again, this is irrelevant, as talk page discussions don't override the BLP policy, and I see no reference to the BLP policy to show that editors even considered it.

Believe me, I don't want helping a sex offender to be the hill I die on, but every living person is afforded to equal protections under our BLP policy, regardless of whether I find the person contemptible. Sex offences are particularly awful, reputation-wise, and allowing this to stay sets awful precedent in the future to convicted criminals later accused of unrelated crimes. Discussions in the BLP archives have always found, across 8 years, editors in favour of retaining a conservative view on WP:BLPCRIME, even and especially when reliable sources widely report and name the individual, unless the person meets WP:WELLKNOWN (which this person doesn't).

BLPCRIME covers your rebuttal. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction and editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured (to be clear: "must seriously consider" has been interpreted as "do not include" across archives).

And yes, if the article names any other persons of interest (who were hence found to not be involved), they should absolutely be removed and are a perfect example of why we don't name suspects. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

In light of ianmacm's comment, I agree that the lede could have been written better. I have changed "In June 2020, the police in the German city Braunschweig announced that they suspect a convicted sexual predator, Christian Brückner, is responsible for McCann's disappearance." to "In June 2020, the police in the German city Braunschweig stated that a convicted sexual predator, Christian Brückner, is a suspect McCann's disappearance." to emphasise that he is only a person of interest. Lard Almighty (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, this doesn't really change the issue. Per BLPCRIME, we do not name suspects, people under investigation or people charged. Clarifying that he's only a suspect doesn't relieve the BLPCRIME issues here, in fact, it only makes it worse because we're effectively suggesting he did the crime when he hasn't even been charged, much less convicted. (also, ping Levivich for thoughts, since you enlightened me to the BLPCRIME archives, am I being too enlightened in this case?) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia. We need provide as complete as possible a summary of events. That includes stating that people have been declared persons of interest. As long as we don't state that anyone who hasn't been convicted is actually guilty of a crime there is no BLP violation. Not including something that is in the public domain in RS does our readers no service. Lard Almighty (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The comments on this are entirely my own. Unless the German prosecutors have some revolutionary new evidence that they are not telling us about, there is nothing much new to say about Christian Brückner, because apart from being a known sex offender, there is no knockout evidence linking him to the crime. The Portuguese police have already said this. I believe strongly in WP:BLPCRIME but there isn't much point in hiding things that are in the sources anyway.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Ianmacm, indeed; it's a crime over a decade old and so, as expected, the evidence is circumstantial at best. The police could be right, they could be wrong, but we don't include for the very reason that they can be wrong. but there isn't much point in hiding things that are in the sources anyway I'd have agreed a few days ago, but we collate information that persists over time better than external sources, especially after recentism dies out. BLPCRIME exists precisely because RS might name people and we need an overriding policy to prevent inclusion, and discussions in archives have disallowed naming per BLPCRIME even when widely reported by RS. Naming suspects falls horribly foul on our policy, and the spirit and reasoning behind the policy, and I fear sets dangerous precedent for future issues of this nature where our naming could cause serious issues to a living person. I feel serious problems will arise in the future if we fail to enforce BLPCRIME for all individuals, regardless of how badly we detest them.

The Portuguese police knew about Christian Brückner in 2013 and they cannot understand why the German prosecutors are hyping him up so much in 2020 unless they have major new evidence. The fact that Brückner has not been arrested is interesting, because it shows that the evidence is circumstantial at best. I am still worried about hiding things that are in the sources, but it doesn't add much context to know his name.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Are we sure Brückner qualifies as a low-profile individual? Recenticism and all that, but there's still been a lot of coverage and suspects can become public figures if their name and face are splashed on the front page enough times. --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

RaiderAspect, he does, per WP:WELLKNOWN and its supplement WP:LOWPROFILE. I'll save a paragraph since those pages write better than I can, but the whole point of WP:BLPCRIME is that RS' will publish names, and that may give rise to 'fame', but we shouldn't. Wikipedia's definition of "well known" isn't the same as notoriety. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME is also particularly relevant here, I think. It states that for individuals that are not public figures and have little to no notability outside the context of the article subject, to consider: whether any substance critical to the subject of the article would be lost by not including their name; and, that a useful test for whether the name should be included is whether the name can be found in secondary sources such as academic journals, etc, other than news articles. If the name can only be found in news media articles, it probably should not be included. Firejuggler86 (talk) 08:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

However unpleasant/evil or infamous the person is, they are still just a suspect in relation to this major crime, Wikipedia is not a repository of what is in the news WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. We wait until is a matter of history that they are convicted. WP:BLPCRIME should be respected and enforced. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 12:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

This is not about the individual. It is about what is and is not appropriate to include. This very article shows that there are exceptions to WP:BLPCRIME. Both the McCanns and Robert Murat are named as having been suspects in the case. They have not actually been exonerated; their arguido status was lifted when the Portuguese police ended their investigation. It is impossible to accurately convey the events without mentioning these facts. Likewise, it is impossible not to mention a major development in the case. We cannot do so without linking to sources that name the individual involved. And as has been pointed out, allowing people to discover the name by clicking on a link in a Wikipedia article is no different to having the name in the article itself. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

This argument has been made countless times since 2012. It's slightly disrespectful that you refuse to read the WT:BLP and BLP/N archives, so that you can understand the arguments made against what you are saying. You don't have to agree with them, but at least don't rehash exhausted points. The whole point of BLPCRIME is to not name suspects. The fact that people were previously named as suspects and are no longer is the exact reason why we don't include names, and labelling them as 'suspect' rather than 'convicted', as you believe is a solution, isn't. This discussion refers to the purpose of BLPCRIME to avoid media sensationalism damaging BLPs, This failed 2017 discussion, and this 2019 discussion reiterates how BLPCRIME should still be interpreted conservatively. There are dozens more across archives. I'd say the spirit of BLP applies, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment., but after 8 years of continued acceptance of the conservative approach I think it's beyond spirit and it's now well-established consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It is slightly disrespectful that you assume I have not read it. Notwithstanding previous discussions, Wikipedia policies allow for exceptions and as I say this article is a case in point. You are failing to understand that we do mention at least three people as suspects in this article even though nothing has been proven against them and they are almost certainly innocent. That's how the Portuguese legal system works. Imagine stripping all mentions of Kate and Gerry McCann and Robert Murat as suspects and all sources that mention them as suspects. The article would become meaningless. Likewise, in this case, if we wanted to remove any possibility that Wikipedia identified the suspect, we would have to remove all sources that named him as well as his name from the article. That would mean we couldn't mention a significant development in the case as all the sources I have seen either give his full name or first name and initial. Clearly not mentioning this development would be detrimental as it would not give readers the full picture.

That said, if you can find sufficient RS that fully cover this development in the case and that don't mention the suspect's name, then I would be happy for it to be omitted. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

You don't have to stop using the same RS currently used. You can cite the same sources already cited, we just simply can't name the people. Yes, people could follow the link and see the names, but that's (mostly) outside the scope of BLPCRIME. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

So what's the point of not including the name in the article if we are linking to it anyway. One way or another, people are getting the information from Wikipedia. It just seems a technicality, especially as we do name other suspects in the article. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not really a technicality because most readers don't follow through every source and read it. Information exists outside of Wikipedia, it may even be easy to find, but our articles persist for longer, after the sensationalism and recentism dies out. No context is lost on the reader by not naming the person. Nobody knew who he is anyway, he was just another non-notable guy in prison outside of this. Naming him doesn't add any valuable information for the reader, and nothing of value is lost by replacing of his name with "an individual", "a previously convicted sex offender", or some variant thereof. (for recent discussion on using refs that mention name, see this ANI discussion) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do think it's a technicality. The point is whether or not Wikipedia should enable people to find a certain piece of information. Wikipedia enables people to find information in two ways: by including the information in articles and by linking to sources. Either way, the information is found via Wikipedia and if it is something that the community has determined should not be found via Wikipedia, I believe that it should not be found in either way. That's partly why we have policies like WP:DAILYMAIL, to ensure that we don't state something in an article that isn't reliably sourced but also to ensure that people are not directed to unreliable sources through Wikipedia, and indeed why we remove non-RS in general. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The BLP policy exists because WP is one of the most popular websites on the internet, and that amount of visibility means we should be very cautious with what we put in our articles. Putting something in the article text as opposed to leaving it in the sources gives it a lot more visibility. BLPCRIME says we should not give that extra visibility to low-profile crime suspects, and rightly so. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, I disagree. Simply hovering over the ref reveals the name of the suspect. There is also a huge difference between an individual with an otherwise unblemished reputation being mentioned and one whose reputation isn't. That is why exceptions are allowed under WP:BLPCRIME after careful consideration. This was considered on the article's TP. Believe me, this is one of the most-watched articles for WP:BLP violations. I can think of half a dozen editors at least who regularly weigh in on BLP issues. If they had any concerns, we would have heard them during the discussion. And I repeat - this article is a case in point for WP:BLPCRIME exceptions. Robert Murat had no profile when he was first named as a suspect, but has been listed as such in the article since June 2007. He remains a low-profile individual, and therefore shouldn't be given extra prominence using this logic. But again, careful consideration has been given to this over the years and it has been determined that his name should remain in the article (even though his character was previously unblemished). I think this case is substantially the same, but the argument for inclusion here is even greater since he is a convicted criminal and therefore reputational damage by being listed as suspect in this case is minimal - certainly less than for Robert Murat. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Lard Almighty, you say that a careful consideration was made before including the name of the suspect - that is, the positives were weighed against the negatives and it was decided that the positives outweighed the negatives in this case.

This seems very doubtful to me, because I cannot think of any positives, let alone such strong positives that they would outweigh the negatives. What, exactly, does having the name of the suspect in there add to the article? Can you show us the benefits of including this information? Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion on the TP was brief but no objections were raised. But the addition was not made without thought. The benefits are that we give the fullest possible information. As long as the name is reported in multiple WP:RS, and we do not in any way suggest that he is guilty of these crimes, I see no problem with being as complete as possible - as I see no problem with naming Murat in the article. Exactly the same sitiation. Why would we name one and not the other? Lard Almighty (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

As I've pointed out to you, and as you already know because it's in the talk discussion you keep referring to, you're the only editor in there who clearly supported addition of this content. The first comment starting the section starts with We should presumably likewise avoid mentioning his name, for now? Ghmyrtle only pointed out the inconsistency. You were the only editor in that discussion clearly supporting inclusion. There is no evidence of "serious consideration" to BLPCRIME anyway, and talk page consensus never overrides the BLP policy. I AGF but since I've pointed this out 2-3 times already, I question if you're trying to be honest here. Second, "careful consideration" means almost never, in this context, if you refer to the archives I've mentioned to you several times. Finally, there is a reputation to destroy here. There's a massive difference both in public perception and notoriety between the crime he was convicted of, and the crime he is suspected of (but not yet even charged for). And as mentioned already, other suspects (I presume Murat is one) shouldn't've been mentioned either, but they can't be removed because you edit war over removals, hence why we're at this board. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm really struggling to AGF here, and I am also starting to question your honesty. You have made several false statements in this discussion which you have not corrected. You said I originally added the German suspect's name; I didn't. You now say I "edit war over removals". Show me the diffs where I edit war. Show me the warnings for edit warring on this article. As I said, Murat's name was added in June 2007, a month after the events and there has never been a serious suggestion that it should be removed. If I "edit war", it is precisely to prevent BLP violations on this article (which isn't edit warring). I (and about half a dozen editors) have been closely watching this article for years, and keeping it free of BLP violations. That is why I say that the discussion on the TP was sufficient, because if any of those editors had concerns they would have brought them up. And it was about whether to include the name or not. Surely if Ghmyrtle had any objections to including the name, he would not have pointed out an inconsistency but actually said "I don't think we should be including the name". That is precisely my point. This article is on the watchlists of several editors who watch articles for BLP violations, and they have never hesitated to weigh in with concerns. And indeed, there is a further discussion about whether this suspect merits his own section or even a separate article which three further editors contributed to with no suggestion that we shouldn't name him. It was clearly accepted on the TP that he should be named. As for other discussions, I have been editing here (including combating vandalism on BLPs) a heck of a lot longer than you (assuming that this is your first and only account) and have read and participated in many, many discussions over the years. You talk about "overriding" policy, but these policies are open to exceptions. It's that very fact that allows Murat to be named for example. You are consistently refusing to accept that. And as for damaging reputation, there is a huge difference between stating (in non-wiki voice) that as reported in multiple RS someone has been declared a person of interest by the police and saying that in wiki voice as if they were guilty of the crime. I would certainly argue against inclusion if it was a non-notable person or even a notable person with no previous allegations of this type against them. Indeed I have on this very article. (An example is where we refer to a 30-year-old former Ocean Club bus driver and his 24-year-old and 53-year-old associates without naming them, even though they admitted breaking in to apartments in the complex.) But in this case, I can't really see that saying in non-wiki voice that a convicted kidnapper and sex offender is a person of interest in another disappearance is going to cause any reputational damage. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

As long as the name is reported in multiple WP:RS, and we do not in any way suggest that he is guilty of these crimes, I see no problem with being as complete as possible Lard Almighty, that may be your view, but I think it is clear by now that consensus is against you on this. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 00:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

See my response to ProcrastinatingReader above. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Lard Almighty and ProcrastinatingReader, the conversation between you two appears to be completely derailing, so I'm going to put your arguments into a table and I'm going to suggest that you both shut up unless you have better arguments yet to bring. Obviously I'm biased; please tell me if I've misrepresented your arguments or missed anything important.

Lard Almighty	ProcrastinatingReader
There are plenty of BLP-sensitive people watching this page, and they haven't objected; in fact, there is consensus for inclusion at the talk page.	The consensus for BLPCRIME and its strict interpretation is broader and trumps any local consensus. Also, I don't agree that the consensus is there.
He's already a convicted sex offender, so no reputational damage.	What he's accused of here is seen as more terrible than what he's convicted of, so yes reputational damage.
We're not saying that he's actually done it, just that he's a suspect.	We should not name him at all.
Another person was also included when he was just a suspect, and he was not a convicted sex offender.	Then that was a mistake.

Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 16:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I guess the word "derailing" merits some explanation: you're both making long comments with nothing new in them (certainly these last two). At that point, it's better to stop. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 19:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

PJvanMill yeah, I think we have both said our pieces. I would have hoped that a few more people would have participated (on either side) to get a clearer consensus, but I think we can close this for now and agree to leave the name out for the moment and see how things transpire with any further developments in the case. Lard Almighty (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Lard Almighty edited my table, which probably indicates they're not quite happy with my summary of their arguments. Their additional clarification is preserved below.

1. In the same way there is consensus for mentioning Murat. There has been no acknowledgement that the policy is open to exceptions, even though there is a clear exception made in the very article. We should consider whether tis is another such exception.
2. To suffer reputational damage you have to have a reputation to lose. Someone who is a convicted sex offender and kidnapper would have a difficult time claiming his reputation has been damaged simply by being declared a person of interest in a similar case - which is all we're saying he is.
3. He has been declared a person of interest in the case by the German authorities, as reported in multiple WP:RS.
4. This inclusion is longstanding and has remained because there is consensus for it to remain, again showing that there can be exceptions. If it was a mistake, why hasn't it been removed?

I've taken these out of my table; per WP:TPO, please do not edit others' comments. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 19:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, this isn't a TP, it's a project page, and I thought it would be clearer in one place. Anyway it's kind of moot now! Lard Almighty (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Lard Almighty, just so you know: the talk page guidelines also apply to noticeboards. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 12:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Outside interloper: Sorry, I did just want to clarify that the statement "but there isn't much point in hiding things that are in the sources anyway." is an appalling misreading of BLP and BLPCRIME policy - other than that, I don't know enough about McCann or that which you're all discussing...just wanted to interject to say "Whoa, back up - that's wrong" to that one sentence fragment :) Mostcommonphraseongoogle (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the point he was making is that a policy that says we can't have something in the body of an article, and yet we can link to something off-wiki that mentions what we aren't mentioning kind of defeats the purpose. Yes the policy allows it, but if the point of WP:BLP is so that Wikipedia is not enabling people to find certain information in the body of an article and yet facilitating people to find it through something linked here, that rather defeats the purpose! Wikipedia is still how they found it. Lard Almighty (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, I didn't receive the July 3 ping for whatever reason; just noticing this thread now. I agree the name of the suspect should be excluded per a straightforward application of WP:BLPCRIME. We don't name low-profile suspects. Whether or not the suspect has been previously convicted of another crime is irrelevant to the analysis. That RSes name the suspect is also besides the point. Or, rather, it is the point. If RSes didn't name the suspect we wouldn't even be having the discussion, it wouldn't pass WP:V. But the point of WP:BLPCRIME is that it's a special rule to exclude suspect's names even when it's sourced (even when it passes WP:V). Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Adrian Zenz

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

Adrian Zenz is a German researcher who works on the Xinjiang re-education camps and his work in this area has been used by journalists and academics. However, he is a born again christian and co-authored the book "Worthy to Escape: Why All Believers Will Not Be Raptured Before the Tribulation" in 2012, which has been claimed by pro-Chinese sources like CGTN (link), Global Times (link), and The Grayzone to say that the dominant world philosophy is the spirit of the antichrist, alongside homophobic and pro-corporal punishment sentiments. The obvious intent of these sources is to discredit him and his work on the Xinjiang re-education camps, but of course that doesn't mean that these claims about the arguments of the book are necessarily inaccurate. These claims have been added by IP and new users and there appears to be evidence of off-site canvassing by pro-China twitter accounts. There is an ongoing RfC on the talk page about whether these sources should be included and how much of the book should be mentioned or even if it should be mentioned at all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Tom Lackey

Tom Lackey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Msqared80 is repeatedly adding contentious material on this page supposedly based on court documents, contrary to WP:BLPPRIMARY (see [7] and [8]) apparently misunderstanding the role of primary and secondary sources on Wikipedia. Given the user's edit also on Steve Fox (politician) (see [9] and [10]), a repeated political opponent of Tom Lackey, it looks like an attempt to further some off-wiki dispute and may be indicative of a COI. I've pointed the user to WP:BLP and tried to address some of their valid concerns, when I've been able to find supporting secondary sources. An outside opinion might be useful, but the user has not changed behavior on other pages when reverted by multiple editors so I'm not sure of the proper path forward. Thanks. --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Given his other current contribution appears to be edit warring to removed the LDS from various Christian lists [11], [12], I suspect the way forward is some sort of block. --RaiderAspect (talk) 09:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Tarek Hussein

I've removed this section about serious allegations against the subject for now, as none of the three sources meet verifiability and reliable sources thresholds for WP:BLP as far as I can see (the first doesn't mention the subject by name, the other two result in 404s). Requesting more eyes on this, as there are several IPs and accounts squabbling over inclusion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Aleen Nichol Johnson

I wasn't sure here, but the info box image looks rather inappropriate and also professional, so I was wondering if there maybe a copyright issue there or not. Govvy (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Govvy, according to the exif data at Commons, the copyright holder is @rawviszuals who is a professional photographer- and if you check their instagram, lo and behold there is the pic. An earlier pic has already been removed from the article as a copyright infringement [here]. Sourcing- New York Post and the Daily Star are tabloids and should not be used on a BLP. I'm not sure the subject is really notable. Perhaps try WP:COIN ? it smells a bit like UPE to me... Curdle (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Janice Lourie

Janice Lourie is doubtless notable, an the Wikipedia article is presumably pretty accurate, but (as we've discovered through various discussions on Commons -- see especially User talk:Janvermont#proposal to authenticate Janice Lourie Wikipedia page, it was largely written by people close enough to the subject to have conflicts of interest. Ms. Lourie has an account here as User:Janvermont, and at this point (see prior link) she clearly understands the issue. I think everyone who has been involved with the Commons discussion, including Ms. Lourie, agrees at this point at least that someone unconnected should verify the references in the Wikipedia article and clean up any issues of tone that reflected the authors being too close to the subject. It might even be desirable to restart from scratch, but I think not: the basic facts seem right and her being the first person at IBM to get a software patent would merit an article even without her numerous other achievements.

For the record: I had no connection to Ms. Lourie prior to the recent exchanges on Commons, but I'm too engaged in other projects right now to take this on myself. - Jmabel | Talk 18:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I worked on the article long ago and I will take a look. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I am here to respond to queries and to accept sources, both old and new, relevant to the Janice Lourie Wikipedia page.Janvermont (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Janvermont (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Janvermont (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Francisco J. Ricardo

Francisco J. Ricardo has seen a recent blow-up of edits to the article. I don't think it was ever a real quality article and just kind of always reeked of a vanity page, or something assembled by 'eager students' (is probably the nice way to put it), but the recent edits have really turned it into an advertisement. There are copious walls of—well, I don't know what the academic version of technobabble is, but there are walls of it:

"Ricardo's approach has been acknowledged as contrary in process to narrative methods used in conventional filmmaking, often driven by his perspective as a scholar. Of F for Franco, the phenomenological approach to generating James Franco's subjective experience is an explicitly visual part of the content, suggesting that experiences rather "facts" are being recounted."

Based on the structure of these walls, it looks like these could also be copyright violations, although a few copy/pasted Google searches didn't yield anything for me. Since I'm busy IRL as well as on-site, I'm afraid that this is going to quickly drop off my radar, so I thought I'd bring it here for wider attention. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this article is a perfect candidate for deletion. There are no independent, secondary sources except for the two film reviews, and those only mention his name in passing as the director and are used in the article only to say that so-and-so reviewed the film, a self-made documentary that hasn't really been shown anywhere. Everything else are sites that are selling his products, including many links to Amazon and Bloomsbury. A quick search of google turns up no reliable sources.

The article itself is mostly incoherent, as the sample above portrays. I haven't found any evidence of copyright per se, but all these quotes had to come from somewhere, and my guess would be from his classes. To understand what any of it is trying to say one would need a substantial amount of background info that is not provided, and without it reads like the ramblings of someone who is really stoned. None of this really tells us anything about the subject, but at best is an attempt to promote his works.

I would delete all of the unsourced material and unreadable sections, but that would leave us with, "...The film was reviewed by so-and-so and this other company" and that's it. I wholly recommend sending this to AFD for deletion, or perhaps an admin could come along and speedy it under any number of criteria, but I see nothing here or out there that confers any notability on this person. It looks like self-promotion. Zaereth (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for deletion. Woodroar (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Possible vandalism on Sibylle Berg

The article Sibylle Berg was possibly vandalized. Especially the references, but also the text. Grimes2 (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Include mention of Kanye West's presidential campaign in the lead of his Wikipedia article?

Kanye West (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Kanye West#Presidential campaign material in the lead. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Eyes requested on Ramsey Carpenter-Bearse

Ramsey Carpenter-Bearse, a beauty contestant winner and ex-teacher, has recently been sentenced for a sexual offence involving a 15-year-old boy. The article has been subject to some PoV editing from unregistered editors, both criticising and defending her. I have left the lead section in what I think is a neutral and appropriate state, and I think that the section on her arrest and conviction in the article body is OK, but I've not checked carefully against the sources. However, I will have very limited internet access for the next few days. I'd appreciate if some experienced editors could keep an eye on the article. Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 09:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Adrian David Cheok

This article "smells" of an attempt to attack a living person Adrian David Cheok. Almost no words are written about the person's positive achievements which made him a figure of interest, and almost everything is focussed on negative and potentially libel matters. Either there should be a balanced perspective positive and negative in a fair way, or this article is a source of libel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.123.191.11 (talk) 05:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I am a journalist at a major newspaper in Malaysia. I do not know the subject Adrian David Cheok personally, but as a journalist I do know he is a very well known scientist with many achievements and accolades. If the original author's believe he should have a page in Wikipedia (and I am not saying he should have a page in Wikipedia), then they should show in a fair way the positive and negative facts. The way this article was first written shows to me, as a professional journalist, that they had malicious intent to slur his name and slur his reputation, which I think in many countries would be prosecuted as libel. In any case, either delete the page if the subject is not of interest to Wikipedia readers (his scientific work is rather in an area which is not readily known by the general public, it is not something like mathematics or physics), OR present it FAIRLY and in a unbiased way. I have added facts which I believe the original authors deliberately left out in order to paint a very negative picture of the subject, who is a living person and therefore we must follow Wikipedia rules and not write potential libel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewStraitsTimesJournalist (talk • contribs) 10:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Sexual Misconduct / Harassments is being implied in this article without evidence One of the edits described his remote kissing machine as a sexual device, when it has never been described as such in any reference or video I can see on "Kissenger" a remote kissing machine. In fact the inventors Cheok and Zhang constantly talk about remote family interaction (such as grandparent and grandchild).

The only work described in the sources that he used with his female student was the remote kissing gadget Kissenger. It has never been described by the inventors Cheok & Zhang as anything sexual, in fact on the video all the examples they give are family interactions (grandmother, grandchild etc.). The complaint is only about one female student which is the actual co-inventor Emma Yann Zhang who is Cheok's PhD student. We should not go into dangerous territory of potential libel of implying sexual misconduct or sexual harassments by a living person unless we have valid independent evidence, we should not be making the "judgement" on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve from NYU (talk • contribs) 06:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't forget to sign your edits on the talk page, guys, four tildes at the end of the last paragraph! Licks-rocks (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NewStraitsTimesJournalist. All three significant contributors to this thread have been identified as socks. I recommend its immediate closure. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Create exception to BLPPRIMARY and BLPSPS for court docs & expert SPS in articles about court cases with public figures?

I've started a discussion on the BLP talk page re: modifying the WP:BLP policy. I'm proposing that we make an exception to the WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSPS restrictions for court documents and expert SPS for notable court cases involving public figures. That talk page doesn't get much discussion, so I'm posting this heads-up here, inviting interested editors to discuss the proposed change there: [13]. I've included more background info and an argument for the change there. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Eben Alexander (author) 2

There was an entire page of unresolved issues concerning the Wikipedia page on "Eben Alexander (author)" that should be reposted here on Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Wikipedia continues to support libel and defamation by refusing to eliminate its source article The Prophet by Luke Dittrich, in Esquire July 2013. As mentioned in the prior page (which should be removed from archives and placed on this Noticeboard until issues are fairly resolved), Dittrich is an unreliable source who wrote the piece as clickbait for a $1.99 paywall, it had no fact checking, and was an unethical violation of journalistic integrity. His editor at Esquire, David Granger, was known for promoting sensationalist articles, apparently focusing more on sales than on truth. A rebuttal, including primary source data that any reader can verify to support it, found that:

"To me the Dittrich article is shoddy and irresponsible journalism—shoddy because of Luke Dittrich's and his Esquire editors' evident failures:

"failure to consider alternate explanations (rainbow), failure to check with the cited witnesses (Phyllis and Betty Alexander), failure to verify information with additional witnesses (Holley Alexander, Michael Sullivan and others), failure to check with medical experts (on the likely cause of coma), failure to check again on crucial testimony of the sole cited witness (Laura Potter), failure to read the book carefully (Dr. Wade’s statement about Alexander’s coma), failure to verify conclusions via other witnesses (Holley Alexander and Sylvia White), failure to exercise care in asserting erroneous facts (use of drugs was not mentioned in the book), failure to exercise care in quoting and interpreting recorded remarks (Dalai Lama), and failure to exercise common sense in interpreting the meaning of statements (Dalai Lama).

"And Dittrich's article was irresponsible because of the impact—the real harm—the resulting distortions have caused."

The case report on Dr Alexander's medical records paints a version of his illness much in line with his sharing of it in talks and the book "Proof of Heaven", totally different from Dittrich's version in which he is a failed neurosurgeon who made up the story for monetary gain. The case report, by 3 physicians not involved in his care, but fascinated, as are many in the medical and scientific community, by his complete recovery, is available to all. Wikipedia would be wise to follow the scientific lead of the case report in trying to understand Alexander's extraordinary experience. That story is completely inconsistent with the Dittrich version, that Wikipedia has kept alive by treating it as a factual account.

In addition, Wikipedia would be wise to eliminate its statements by Sam Harris concerning this case. The following comments from Bernardo Kastrup are far more factual and relevant to Alexander's case and how it informs the current scientific debate about consciousness:

“To dismiss Alexander's experience on the basis of warped speculation about residual neocortical function amounts to dismissing extremely interesting, anomalous data. Something extraordinary has happened, and true skeptics should take a critical look at it while retaining a healthy dose of skepticism towards the standard explanations too; that's how science historically has moved forward.”

“The notion here is that Alexander, a practicing neurosurgeon and Professor at Harvard Medical School (here is his resume  and here his extensive list of academic papers), does not understand what part of the brain does what while he is hacking at people's brains every day.”

“Maybe neurosurgeons are not doing research at the leading-edge of functional mapping, but Alexander is most certainly well qualified to understand what parts of the brain should correlate to what kinds of experience. It is ludicrous to suggest otherwise.”

“The bottom-line is this: Alexander not only has the scientific credentials required to interpret his experience properly, he also has the unique perspective of having had the experience himself, something Harris didn't. It is Alexander that is in the best position to judge the situation, both from an empirical and from an academic background perspective.”

And another article that makes the following points:

“Harris' thinking seems to be the following: 'Since the phenomenology of NDEs is such that I can eliminate all other theoretical possibilities that I can think of, then NDEs are delusions and confabulations, despite all evidence to the contrary.' Well, this thinking doesn't say much about NDEs; though it says a lot about Harris' ability to devise theoretical alternatives.”

"Sam Harris refused to debate me on Alex Tsarkiris’s podcast, Skeptico, and Bernardo offered the following: “This is not a rumor; it is a public fact that Harris refused to debate [Alexander], when he was given the chance to do so, the man he had earlier taken the initiative to attack in an intellectual drive-by shooting. The record of his refusal is publicly available online in this page. And the email exchange that leads him now to characterise podcast host Alex Tsakiris as 'irritating and unscrupulous' is also publicly available online here, so you can judge for yourself.”

“Again, Harris seems to be, at best, confused and ignorant of the facts; or, at worse, wilfully biased in his appraisal of the available data.”

“As I said in a previous post, I used to have special respect for Sam Harris and what I perceived to be his unbiased attitude. I regret to admit that such special respect is gone now. Harris' last post, in my view, is disgraceful. It is intellectually weak and flawed, it ignores empirical fact, and embodies either a dangerous form of purposefully-misleading prejudice or an astonishing lack of ability to devise theoretical possibilities. In my view, given his latest writings, Harris is as blinded by fundamentalist beliefs as his fellow 'horsemen.'"

Sam Harris’s comments came from his own Making Sense Podcast, so surely Bernardo’s blogs qualify to rebut him.

Much of my supporting arguments for these corrections for Wikipedia are on the now-deleted version that was on this page (Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, Eben Alexander (author)) in mid July 2020. Please retrieve it from archives until these issues are resolved.Ealexander3 (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

References

If there are sources meeting WP:RS that support text critiquing the sources published earlier, then we could add text to the article relating those critiques. I don't see this as a reason to remove the text and sources already there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

www.bernardokastrup.com is blogspot with a domain name, thus unacceptable for any claim about third parties due to WP:SPS. FDW777 (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Alexander, if Esquire has libeled you, you have a remedy for that - you can sue them. But if you can't get Esquire to retract the article, it is going to be fair game as a source on Wikipedia. As has been discussed at your previous posting on this, the rebuttals are too associated with the topic to really be credible. - MrOllie (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm reading this situation fresh and I see nothing harmful at all in the current prose of the BLP article. As MrOllie points out, we can't be responsible for what Esquire wrote, and a short search shows that article did get coverage in other RSs (Wired, the Atlantic), so NOT to include it would be improper, but the tone and wording around it simply points out that Esquire found contradictory information; it does not say, in Wikivoice, that Alexander is wrong or the like (which would be a BLP violation). We even include an article that includes Alexander's defense, and a scientific paper that also suggests the situation was truthful. Given that we cannot ignore the Esquire piece, this is as neutral as we can cover the situation. --Masem (t) 19:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Jim Kenney

Edit warring to add negative content from a political ad from a YouTube video [14], [15], [16]. The cited content was published in a newspaper-is it legit for use here? Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The source cited in these edits is not "a newspaper", it is an attack ad on youtube. The source is not reliable for anything (the quotes, relevance of the quotes or interpretation presented in the edits). The supposed quotes are, in full, "pepper spray" and "clubs on the head". Was he saying the police should be free to use them under whatever circumstances they see fit? Was he saying the late Frank Rizzo used them repeatedly against peaceful protesters? Was he listing controversial tactics? Who knows? The 2015 attack ad certainly has an opinion and finds them relevant, but they are not a reliable source for that interpretation or relevance. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and now I can be quoted as saying "pepper spray" and "clubs on the head". - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and thank you, SummerPhDv2.0. The IP hasn't yet shown a willingness to add sources, and then there's this. I gave a level two warning. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

This Inquirer article refers to the 1997 interview mentioned in the Youtube video and quotes him as saying We now have discussions, ironically, about no longer allowing police officers to use pepper gas . . . I mean, come on. You can’t use flashlights, you can’t use the clubs on the head, you can’t shoot anybody. What’s next? Are we gonna hand them feather dusters?. It would appear the addition to the article misrepresents Kenney, in my opinion at least. FDW777 (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

That's very helpful, FDW777. I did a rather cursory search and turned up nothing. Thank you. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Michael Strickland (blogger)

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.

---

• Michael Strickland (blogger) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a left tard Marxist hit piece. Full of innuendo and political posturing. And official reports covering up Rioting and assault.' It is blatantly running in the face of hours of multi-sourced video establishing Strickland was assaulted and attacked. This is pure left turd MArxist Krazy shit. Burn Portland Burn This incident and the Andy Ngo's assault is the start of the shit hole that is Portland. Fortunately we can federal troops in and start putting some of the corrupt politicians in Jail.I include lying lawyers and Turd "Jedges." I've seen this before . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Ranger RR (talk • contribs) 00:08, 20 July 2020 (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.

Dennis Slamon

Dr. Slamon collaborated with the California biotechnology company Genentech (once listed on the NYSE under the symbol GENE before the Roche buy out), not "Genentec". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winklma2 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

It's been corrected. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Philip Giraldi

Could other editors take a look at various issues, including sourcing, about the Lead section of the Philip Giraldi article which are being discussed on the talkpage here, please?     ←   ZScarpia   14:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Michael Silverstein

Page indicates a date of death of 17 July 2020, but does not cite any reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.100.72 (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Has been cited by Austronesier. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Don Tapscott

• Don Tapscott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Alex Tapscott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a medium-term campaign to include in this article material about legal difficulties experienced by the subject's son, Alex Tapscott, in relation to some company he was involved in—here is the most recent insertion. The material is well enough referenced, as far as it goes, but the references do not mention Don Tapscott in any way except, occasionally, to mention as a point of interest that Alex is his son. As such, from my perspective, it is clearly inappropriate for inclusion in the article about Don. More eyes and opinions appreciated. Steve Smith (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

After looking for new refs, I've removed the content. At issue is Don's involvement with the company Nextblock. I'm not finding any high-quality refs (I'm not considering any blockchain-related publications to be reliable). There's related info at Alex Tapscott that could use additional eyes as well. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Dua Lipa

Dua Lipa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Since 20 July, an editor (@WEBDuB:) who is involved in Kosovo-related disputes has been trying to insert that [17][18] Dua Lipa is somehow generally accused of neo-Nazism based on the fact that on twitter one political scientist called her views "stupid nationalism" and some Serbian and Macedonian twitter users called her neo-Nazi because she posted a photo of Kosovo as part of Albania. It's a massive BLP problem when random twitter accusations about neo-Nazism make it into wikipedia as actual accusations with very little of it having any relation to neo-Nazism. The fact that the editor who is trying to push forward this narrative is also involved in many Kosovo-disputes about Kosovo Serbs and Kosovo Albanians (Dua Lipa is a Kosovo Albanian), indicates some larger issues which contribute to the generation of such egregious BLP violation. Justifying an inclusion of such accusations with "Well, some people call her that" on twitter is extremely UNDUE and lowers the quality of the project to the level of tabloid newspapers. Wikipedia doesn't collect every sort of information that is generated in social media. Pinging admins with experience in Balkan issues: @El C:, @Peacemaker67:, @Drmies:. The editor involved has been pinged already. --Maleschreiber (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify things, she didn't post a photo of Kosovo within Albanian borders. The photo is of Great Albania, an irredentist and nationalistic concept that involves territory-annexation of 4 other countries. I am pretty sure BBC is a pretty reliable source. — Tom^(T2ME) 12:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not greater Albania and it's not neo-Nazi in any way, shape or form. Tomica who insisted on adding the neo-Nazi accusation with it doesn't mean, she is, but people are calling her that has also removed every criticism of random twitter accounts like an article in Clash which says that Last night (July 19th) the singer shared a picture of the Albanian map and its emblem, insisting that Kosovar Albanians are an indigenous people. It’s an un-complicated, factual claim, but that didn’t stop the internet from going into overdrive. Some mistook her claim for a Far Right meme, while others argued with Dua’s statement on the rights of Kosovar Albanians. It’s a weird muddle, the kind of illogical twists that only social media can provide. Indeed, the insistence that Kosovar Albanians – many of whom are Muslim – are not true Albanians is a claim made by the Far Right; meaning that what Dua is saying consciously contradicts and confronts neo-Nazi propaganda in Central Europe.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you trying to tell me that that Clash magazine has more reliability than BBC? The article was probably written by a Lipa fan. And no, you can't twist the truth here about what the map represents. — Tom^(T2ME) 12:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I was pruning that article a little bit. It seemed to me that WP:FART should be applied, and that anything that takes so much time to explain is probably best left out. Drmies (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: that is true, it is part of the 24-hour news cycle and its sensationalism. Like all things twitter probably nobody will remember it next week, so full-scale removal is better than writing a whole paragraph to explain a single tweet, which in turn would create an WP:UNDUE problem in the article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

It is not hard to imagine your reaction if a Greek celeb had tweeted a map of Northern Epirus. I will archive a link to this discussion in case of such a future eventuality. Khirurg (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Neo-nazism is a bit much, but there's no question the map she tweeted out was of Greater Albania and represents an irredentist concept used by Albanian nationalists and extremists as pointed out in the BBC article linked by Tomica. So the accusation is understandable. Bieber's commentary on the issue is perfectly apt, given that he is a historian and expert on Balkan issues who has also criticized Serbian nationalists; useful for the "autochtonous" bit. The Clash magazine article is basically a joke as it is written by an entertainment reporter with limited knowledge of the conflict who used a tweet by an Albanian organization (who made some misleading claims in their tweet) to support her point. The issue has enough coverage in media to warrant inclusion, and it even resulted in Dua Lipa sending out an (disingenuous) apology tweet. It's three lines of the political views section, for comparison the Israel issue also has about the same amount so its current version is not WP:UNDUE. --Griboski (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Obviously a lot of this is not afoul of DUE (I have cited Florian Bieber in articles, for one), but I do agree with Drmies that if not checked, the coverage could become too long. No offence to Ms. Lipa but it's obvious she is not the most well-informed individual about ethnicity and geopolitics (there are no "fake Jews", you are either Jewish by mother or conversion... or you are not. For example); her statements on this and that are part of her public image as is the reception of them but we should still take care not to let it get too long. It's part of her public image but she is not an ideologue, she's a singer. And that goes also for adding material to "defend" her. My two hundred cents at least. --Calthinus (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber: First of all, please, stop labeling. Assuming good faith is one of Wikipedia's fundamental principles. (WP:CIVIL) Furthermore, the posting of an extreme nationalist and expansionist message has attracted worldwide attention, as well as the reaction of thousands of people around the world (not just from the Balkans) are well documented in the media. Accusations of neo-Nazism also exist (the Greater Albania project succeeded with the support of the Axis powers) and that is a big deal. Many similar scandals of other public figures are described in this way. However, according to BLP, we must respect the sensitivity of the information. I admit that I may have added too strong descriptions and I thank everyone who pointed it out. I'm sorry if anyone felt bad about it. This event should be explained in the section on political views, but it is Ok to remove the label of neo-Nazis. Kind regards.--WEBDuB (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

There's an issue regarding Florian Bieber. A peer-reviewed paper by Florian Bieber in his field is a reliable source, not just because Florian Bieber is a specialist in his field, but also because it has passed a peer-reviewed process. Florian Bieber writing on twitter is just that: Florian Bieber's twitter. In terms of the Dua Lipa article, it's not more important than any other twitter account which operates under its real name. A published article on the other hand is a reliable source and in any case we should present all views equally. The opinions of those that called it a "nationalist" tweet are not more important than the opinions of those who refuted it.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The matter really should not have more than two sentences. The non-RS nature of a tweet is a good point, actually, I hadn't considered that. --Calthinus (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber: So in your opinion, it's not a nationalist tweet? Yes or no. The story has since been picked up by the BBC, so of course it's notable. Khirurg (talk) 01:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Sarah Amiri

Here's an interesting one. The PERSIAN page for Sarah Al Amiri Sarah Amiri contains the assertion that she is of Iranian, Baloch origin. She emphatically is not - the source linked is not credible - most certainly not to BLP standard - and Amiri herself is descended from the Emirati Awamir tribe, the singular of which is Al Amiri, hence her family name. There is also a Persian family name of AlAmiri which has no link whatsoever to the Emirati Bedouin origin name. The Persian page is unique in containing this assertion and has been protected for only approved users, at a time when Al Amiri is prominently the focus of legion global news stories because of her involvement in the Emirates Mars Mission. So how does THAT one get fixed? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Alexandermcnabb, this is en.wiki, an entirely separate organisation from Persian wiki. You'll need to enquire there. John from Idegon (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Alice S. Fisher

There is a severe distortion of facts at: Alice_S._Fisher#Major_cases. (I work for Latham Watkins, where Alice Fisher works and have a COI.) The following paragraph has been distorted to make it seem like Fisher blocked or obstructed the prosecution of Jack Abramoff, when in fact, it was Fisher who coordinated the case in which Abramoff pleaded guilty to three felonies.

The existing paragraph is:

"One of her first major investigations in the DOJ according to a January 2006 The Washington Post article, was the Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal involving Jack Abramoff, who was a movie producer, an American lobbyist, and a businessman. According to a May 1, 2005 Newsweek article, the case was particularly challenging because of the alleged close relationship between Abramoff and then House majority leader, Tom DeLay (R-Tx). The Abramoff investigation was overseen by prosecutor Noel Hillman. With Fisher's appointment as AAG, Hillman would be working under her leadership. According to the Newsweek article, while Fisher was "widely respected", she was also a "loyal Republican socially close to DeLay's defense team". The case was settled in September 2008, after Fisher left the DOJ, leading to the imprisonment of Abramoff for 48 months on "corruption, fraud, conspiracy and tax evasion" charges."

First, the paragraph omits that Abramoff pleaded guilty as part of a broad public corruption investigation during Fisher's tenure; the charges were announced by Fisher and she coordinated the case.

Second, the Newsweek article cited above is from before Fisher even became Assistant Attorney General - it speculates on how she might do her job if she were to be appointed. But on Wikipedia, the Newsweek article is positioned as though it is a critique of her work investigating Abramoff while she was AAG - in fact, she didn't start as AAG until seven months after this article appeared. The related Wikipedia sentences have been positioned severely out of sequence to distort the meaning - taken together with the failure to mention Abramoff pleaded guilty, the paragraph is written to make it appear as though Fisher didn’t pursue the Abramoff matter because of politics. This is false.

Third, the source about Abramoff's sentencing does not even mention Alice Fisher and it does not say that Abramoff had already pleaded guilty under Fisher's tenure. The final sentencing, which this press release announces, was held until after it was assured that Abramoff had fully cooperated with the ongoing public corruption investigation - yet the paragraph on WIkipedia makes it seem like Abramoff wasn't prosecuted, for political reasons, until after Fisher left -- a completely false narrative.

Here is a suggested replacement paragraph, which also corrects smaller problems, such using a non-existent Washington Post article (I looked and found no Wash Post article that says this), and replacing sources that don't actually support statements:

"One of Fisher's first major investigations at the DOJ focused on congressional corruption and the Jack Abramoff Native American lobbying scandal. As part of a broader investigation of public corruption, in January, 2006, Fisher announced a deal in which Abramoff, a Republican lobbyist, pleaded guilty to three felonies, including conspiracy to bribe public officials, in return for Abramoff's cooperation in the broader investigation."

There are more details in a proposal I posted at Talk:Alice S. Fisher#Request Edit May 18. No one has participated yet and this is too contentious a matter for a simple Request Edit. I've left a notice there that the discussion is being moved here. JZ at LW (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Francis Gurry

Posted again, after it was archived without having received any answer. --Edcolins (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Could somebody have a look at this edit? I have removed similar material quite a few times [19][20][21][22][23] over an extended period but did not manage to convince Torm65 (talk · contribs) that better sources are needed for such controversial material. In particular, IMHO, this source is insufficient (as further explained here). Thanks. --Edcolins (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I removed it, broke down the sourcing issues at the article Talk page, and left a discretionary sanctions notice about the higher standard required for BLP content at that editor's Talk page. They're a SPA who's only ever edited that article, so we'll have to see what happens from here. Woodroar (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

And User:Torm65 reverted the removal almost immediately. Note that they've never once discussed any of these changes, either on the article Talk page or their own Talk. Woodroar (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

And this is now at ANI. Woodroar (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Kevin Deutsch

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

In accordance with Wikipedia policy, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue."

The "Kevin Deutsch" article requires attention from administrators due to repeated attempts by users deleting and mischaracterising source material they don't like, most notably a clarification/correction to the primary source article , an online piece published by Rolling Stone. The RS article states in an update: "Update: This story has been changed to clarify that Deutsch was never formally accused by any major news organization of fabricating sources." It is the most recent journalism on the subject of Deutsch's controversy - a NEW amendment to an OLD article - and should be included in the first sentence or at least paragraph of the subject article in accordance with the living persons policy, as it is the last word on the matter as far as RS is concerned. As of right now, the article does not mention Rolling Stone's clarification/amendment to their piece, despite its demonstrable importance/recency. This and other violations of the living persosn policy are chronicled in greater detail in mine and others' posts on the article talk page. The language currently used in the article is potentially actionable due to libellous and demonstrably false misrepresentations, particularly the sentence at the top stating there are "allegations that Deutsch has repeatedly fabricated sources, quotes, and events." This language does not appear anywhere in the source materials, intentionally and knowingly mischaracterises the events of 2017, and should be revised immediately. Thank you.

References

Harringhome1977 (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

More context at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Kevin_Deutsch - MrOllie (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'd prefer to keep this discussion in one place, and note that Harringhome did not ping me about this, but I want to just address the idea that the disputed sentence in the lede is "demonstratably false." It says that Deutsch was alleged to have "repeatedly fabricated sources, quotes, and events." Note that in the AFD, it was agreed that these allegations are the only notable thing about Deutsch, that his career as a freelancer journalist would be instantly deleted as non-notable otherwise. This sentence is amply backed by multiple, independent reliable sources in the article.
  • Was this source invention "repeated"?
    • "In July, the paper said it found 109 people whose existence it could not confirm in 77 articles, out of roughly 600 written by Deutsch. Henley, the paper's editor, steers clear of characterizing this figure, or imputing intent or motive. But if one assumes that the people Newsday couldn't find are made up, the number is shocking. Most mainstream news organizations would fire a journalist for a single instance of inventing a source or a quote, let alone dozens and dozens of them." https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/a-journalist-on-the-crime-beat-becomes-the-subject-of-some-skeptical-journalism/2017/09/15/c5139096-9711-11e7-82e4-f1076f6d6152_story.html
  • Was Deutch accused of fabricating quotes?
    • "Problem? iMediaEthics contacted G4S and it says they never had an employee with that name. "We have no record of an employee (current or former) named Eric Baumer (or close variation)," Monica Lewman-Garcia, the Communications Director for G4S Secure Solutions – North America, told iMediaEthics by e-mail. (Detailed quote by Eric Baumer follows) https://www.imediaethics.org/exclusive-572-stories-fmr-ny-daily-news-crime-reporter-review-nyt-admits-source-fail/
  • Was Deutch accused of fabricating events?
    • "(Quoting Pill City, Deutsch's book:) "People from all over Maryland come to pay their respects to Marvin Grier: clergy members, cops, Black Lives Matter activists, and, of course, his fellow interrupters," Deutsch writes. "They trade stories about the fallen preacher, marveling at all he's given this wounded city—his time, his fortune, and, finally, his life." Something like this large funeral did happen with Little Melvin Williams in December 2015. But Williams died of stomach cancer, and Deutsch is adamant that he did not model any "Pill City" characters on Little Melvin or create any composites. He also says that Grier was not an accountant. City Paper asked Deutsch to put us in touch with anyone who might have known the real Grier. He refused, citing his promise to protect his sources." The article also discusses that most of the events of Pill City appear to be made-up, but the huge funeral especially. http://www.citypaper.com/blogs/the-news-hole/bcpnews-inconsistencies-raise-questions-about-pill-city-a-baltimore-tale-of-drugs-and-murder-20170217-story.html
• Again, these are just allegations. Maybe they're incorrect. But these allegations happened; you can't say that Deutsch was not accused of them, by respectable, mainstream outlets. Yes, we shouldn't over-focus on the negative, but unfortunately for Mr. Deutsch, he is famous in the same way Stephen Glass is famous: famous for having the veracity of his work questioned. It'd be disingenuous to not mention this key fact in the lede, the only reason why Mr. Deutsch has a Wikipedia article at all, the only thing that reliable secondary sources have covered about him. SnowFire (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Karlie Kloss and Tavi Gevinson

• Karlie Kloss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Karlie_Kloss#Political_views
• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Karlie_Kloss

Kloss is a model, married to the brother of Jared Kushner. Like most articles on models, there is excessive detail. Like other articles on the Trump family, there are lots of poor sources to draw from if we choose to do so.

There are a few sentences in dispute:

Project Runway clip, added to the "2011–present: Recognition and success" section:

A clip from an episode of Project Runway in which contestant Tyler Neasloney brought up Kloss' ties to the Kushner family went viral in January 2020. In the clip, Neasloney questioned whether Kloss would wear his dress "to dinner with the Kushners". Kloss discussed the viral clip on Watch What Happens Live with Andy Cohen, stating that she "honored to be one of the first memes of the decade".

References

BLM Instagram post, added to the "Personal life" section:

Kloss posted on Instagram in support of the Black Lives Matter movement in May 2020, stating that people should combat bigotry and bias "by having the first conversation at your own kitchen table." This was criticized by commentators in light of Kloss' own family ties, with writer Tavi Gevinson accusing Kloss of trying to "have it both ways"."

References

From my perspective, this is all trivia that doesn't deserve mention per NOT and POV, the BLM bit being especially poor. Others' viewpoints would be appreciated. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

They don't seem important in the grand scheme of things, but multiple reliable sources are covering these tidbits. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

For the BLM bit, we have poor and unreliable sources. For the rest, we've NOTNEWS and UNDUE detail. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

You have to look at why diverse but high quality sources like Vanity Fair and the LA Times would cover the incident before waving the NOTNEWS and UNDUE flag. The BLM dispute was also covered by the Evening Standard[24] and Town & Country (magazine).[25] Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I already did. She's a model. She has a relationship to the Trump family. The better publishers are competing with clickbait.

Thanks for the additional refs. They read too much like gossip columns to me.

You didn't address UNDUE. Maybe trim it each to a single sentence as a start?

In both cases, these are simply snipes at Kloss because of her relationship to the Trump family. There's no substance beyond that. We already have a paragraph on being criticized for this relationship. Why are we padding on? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Sources like Vanity Fair and LA Times are looking for any material to give them 24/7 relevance in the world today. Just because they happen to cover social media "faux pas" does not mean we should cover it. If its an issue covered by multiple RSes as to make to DUE for inclusion, then yes, but just point out a couple articles that address some issue on social media is not appropriate. Our BLP articles, particularly with those with ties to Trump, cannot be just a laundry list of these, we need more more discretion in such articles. --Masem (t) 16:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Well said Masem. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Masem, yup, sure looks that way. Guy (help!) 21:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Determining substance is subjective, Hipal. I would rather let high quality reliable sources determine that rather than editors substituting their own ala WP:IDONTLIKEIT. What you see as mere swipes, I see as her relationship impacting her work and inviting criticism. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I see as her relationship impacting her work and inviting criticism. And what high quality sources verify that? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

What? Vanity Fair and LA Times are not good enough for you? How about USA Today[26] or the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette[27]? Maybe The Guardian[28] or The Daily Beast[29]? Vulture is part of New York (magazine) Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I'm asking for what sources specifically verify the perspective you've presented, that there's some impact on her work. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Those links show how her relationship with the Kushners is impacting her work (as host of Project Runway) and invite criticism on her advocacy. It's not a stretch. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like that's "not without syn". --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I haven't inserted any language for you to be screaming SYN. I'm perfectly fine letting the reader infer whatever they want to infer. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

If it's not verifiable, it's of no help. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

No help for what? I'm not trying to convince you, but you're not making sense either. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, sorry for any confusion. I'm looking for any verifiable info meeting BLP requirements that demonstrates my opening comments to this discussion are overlooking something. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

You keep shifting the goalposts Hipal, First you say the sources aren't good and then when better sources are provided you say the information is not relevant.Jaydoggmarco (talk) 03:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

You keep shifting the goalposts Absolute nonsense. My concerns have always been for NOT and POV problems: at the article, at the article talk page, and here. I'm looking for sources that might alleviate those problems. You're not going to get consensus this way. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The sources are good, You have refused to add the information back because, In your words "we already have a paragraph in the article on her being criticized for being related to the Trump family by marriage. Why are we expanding with examples?",, "Not all verifiable information is encyclopedic or worth mention." and "Thanks for providing better sources, but it's still trivia". Which means that no matter what you will always be against the information being added to the article. A consensus has already be reached by me, Proudandbeautiful, Trillfendi and Morbidthoughts for the info to be added back.Jaydoggmarco (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see any policy-based arguments in your response. Ignoring, misrepresenting, or attacking others is not how to create consensus. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

That's funny, But Los Angeles Times, Vanity Fair, USA Today and The Guardian are reliable sources. You don't have any sources to offer contradicting them.Jaydoggmarco (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You're completely missing the point, or don't care to. You can't build consensus from ignorance. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

"the better sources are competing with clickbait" what's your evidence for this claim. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:CAPTAINOBVIOUS. Any awareness at all of the current media environment substantiates this claim as broadly true for any celebrity or politician article you wish to name. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks like this is all promotion for Tavi Gevinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I hadn't noticed the spillover previously [30]. Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion, nor squabbles from celebrities. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Bullcrap, Neither i nor Proud have any ties to Tavi. This gaslighting is possibly because you have been accused by other users of working with Karlie Kloss.Jaydoggmarco (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You're banned from the articles. Please respect that ban. Bad faith comments like this will get you blocked. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

References