Notice that the page on Russian scientist Anatole Klyosov contains politically charged comments about his work which are borderline slander. It is quite possibly grounds for defamation. You cannot just publish such comments without being a willing eco chamber for libel. That section must be edited asap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ps1946 ( talk • contribs) 18:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello, Ps1948. You will need to be much more specific. The article summarizes this article, and Foreign Policy is a reliable source. Please also familiarize yourself with No legal threats, which is policy. Cullen328 ( talk) 20:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

He was a mainstream and well-respected scientist in the past and described as such on the page. However, after 2008 he proposed some "theories" (e.g. "white race" originating from Slavs) that are overwhelmingly described as pseudoscience in multiple RS, including publications by other scientists. That is well-sourced and reflected only in a couple of paragraphs on the page. This is fully consistent with our WP:BLP policy. In fact, an effort was made to describe him in the most favorable fashion on that page. My very best wishes ( talk) 18:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Cullen328 77.100.225.124 ( talk) 20:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Your sentence ' ... after 2008 he proposed some "theories"... that are overwhelmingly described as pseudoscience in multiple RS, including publications by other scientists ' is so politically charged and judgemental that I realize it is pointless continue arguing. Let me just say that scientific opinion is gradually accepting many of his ground-breaking research. Keep your toxic so-called article and be happy. Peace. Ps1946 ( talk) 12:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with politics, but we include peer reviews and opinions of significant people in the scientific community, both good and bad. The reality about science is that, despite all our vast knowledge, we really know nothing. Ignorant people are the ones who think we have it all figured out, but it's similar to the Dunning-Kruger effect. People who don't know don't have enough knowledge to realize what they don't know, and the universe is small and simple to understand. But the more you learn the more questions you have, until one day you realize that all science is built on a vast web of guesses and theories that will one day be proven wrong. As Richard Feynman said, "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything... I'm smart enough to know that I'm dumb."

Just look at history. Many of the greatest scientists were considered pseudoscientists in their time. Antoine Lavoisier was laughed at and even had his life threatened for promoting the oxygen theory of combustion. Thomas Young was beaten up for his theory that light was a wave. Alfred Wegener became the laughing stock of the scientific community for his theory of plate tectonics. Today, long after their death, these are considered some of the greatest scientists, but at the time they were considered pseudoscientists, and if Wikipedia existed back then we would reflect that in their articles. Now I don't know the first thing about this subject, but if some of his work is considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, then we are bound to say so in his article. Simple as that. In the future, if his work becomes accepted, then we will reflect that if and when it happens, but not before. But the reality is that any great leaps in science began by studying the fringes and challenging the accepted theories of the time, so the greatest scientists of today were the pseudoscientists back then. But we can only go with what we have right now and wait to see what the future holds. Zaereth ( talk) 16:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• @Ps1946. Of course there are topics like Genetic genealogy and Genealogical DNA tests that are very much mainstream ( DNA genealogy currently redirects to population genetics). However, these mainstream concepts and techniques have been developed by people other than Klyosov. He has nothing to do with them. I understand that his "DNA genealogy" is something different, on the subject of "Slavic Arians". To be honest, I did not get what it is exactly. Russian version of his BLP page says his theory "is a mixture of biochemistry, history, linguistics and chemical kinetics". Wow! You might wish to contribute to his BLP page some content that would be consistent with our policies and explain what his theory was about. My very best wishes ( talk) 17:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I translated and expanded information about a Dutch journalist. But that person is generally seen as "affiliated with Russian propaganda and disinformation". I tried to make this as objective (NPOV) as possible, but I'd appreciate if someone could double check this, given this is a BLP article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I've gone other the article and it's sources, I can't see anything blatantly wrong with it (other than a minor typo). Everything is properly referenced and attributed as necessary. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @» ° ∆t° 17:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply

On the article for Tiffany Henyard, information pertaining to an arrest and charge has been repeatedly reinserted using Chicago Police records and an NY Post article. However, per both WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:NYPOST, I'm 90% sure that this information should be removed until better sourcing is utilized. I am also fairly confident that this constitutes a 3RRNO exemption under reason 7, but would prefer this resolved without leaning on that. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 14:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

It looks like all parties are in agreement now on the page, but comments from the experts here would be appreciated. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 14:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

That article is a mess of WP:BLPCRIME violations and near violations. Especially the section on her political tenure. I've never heard of Henyard before so there may be context I'm missing but much of this article should be nuked. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I came to it during a brief anti-vandalism sojourn and it's been popping up in my watchlist with BLP issues since. I feel like I lack the BLPCRIME expertise necessary in this context, but I may remove some of the most obviously not-permitted stuff. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 14:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I mean please do. Apparently she's a public figure (I've never heard of her and she's apparently the mayor of a village in Illinois but I guess that counts) so accusations can be included, I suppose, but we should certainly be avoiding anything in Wikivoice that says she's an extortionist and should likely be avoiding lurid blow-by-blow details of things like arrests. (for the record, the BLPCRIME adjustment for public figures is If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.) Simonm223 ( talk) 14:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Wow, that article is absolutely terrible. I couldn't get past even the first few sections without my eyes glazing over and nodding off. It has a hell of a lot of words that don't actually say anything. (I'd almost guess it was written by a politician.) It comes off like the usual political-mudslinging that someone tried to turn into an article. For example, here's just one paragraph:

"As mayor, Henyard has become greatly embroiled in scandals involving allegations of corruption, fraud, and other misconduct. By early 2024, these scandals had attracted attention from national, and even foreign, news outlets.[29] Henyard has dismissed criticism of her, accusing opponents and the news media of engaging in "politricks" (a portmanteau of "politics" and "tricks").[30] She has accused political opponents of being misogynistic.[31]Within the first several months of her tenure, a number of controversies she was involved in had caused her to face protest from some community members and calls for her resignation.[32] In February 2024, Fox 32 Chicago (WFLD) reported that numerous individuals in Dolton had confirmed to them that they were interviewed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as part of an evident probe into Henyard's activities as mayor.[33] The Chicago Tribune soon after reported that an unnamed law enforcement official had confirmed to them that a FBI investigation into Henyard existed.[34] The FBI itself has not confirmed this.[35] In 2022, the editorial board of the Chicago Sun Times called alleged corruption in Henyard's governance of Dolton as, "a theme that's common in too many south suburban governmental units."[36]"

Yet the article never describes any facts of this alleged corruption, fraud or other misconduct. We never actually describe these alleged controversies beyond saying they exist. No facts or details about this alleged FBI investigation. It's all just a bunch of doubletalk, and the entire article reads like that! And my goodness is it a long article, even for a president let along a mayor of a small town, and it apparently reads like that all the way through! It looks like it's just a laundry list of allegations, none of which are described with facts or in any detail except to say the the allegations allegedly exist. (And on a side note, does anyone think it's really necessary to explain "politricks" to the average reader, or does that simply come off as condescending?)

Then there's other crap about her having mold in her house and wishing the former mayor well after his stroke, and stuff like that. Really trivial crap no one is interested in.

But when it comes to the allegations and how it relates to things like BLPCRIME, I don't even know where to begin, because other than a long, drawn-out list of vague statements we really have no facts or details about them that I can tell. Granted, I was not even able to make it halfway through the article before my brain was numb, but I'd say first this article needs a complete rewrite to make it even readable, and massive amount of that stuff cut out, before getting into specific accusations, because as is I don't know what this is all about or even where to begin. Zaereth ( talk) 21:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

•"article never describes any facts of this alleged corruption, fraud or other misconduct"...."none of which are described with facts or in any detail except to say the the allegations allegedly exist" is a patently dishonest assertion on your part

•" does anyone think it's really necessary to explain "politricks" to the average reader, or does that simply come off as condescending", Wikipedia is supposed to be accessible to readers. Not everyone (especially some neurodivergent individuals) pick up on puns and portmanteau's as you might.

•"having mold in her house" demonstrates poor reading comprehension on your part, as that is not about mold in her own residence. It was mention of practices of Henyard as a landlord of a property which was reported to contain mold and to have continued to collect Section 8 compensation in absence of a tenant. Conduct of a public figure as a landlord and recipient of section 8 federal compensation seems to have some similarities the mentions of PPP loan dealings of various politicians' businesses, business ventures of politicians (such as Lauren Boebert), and landlord practices of officeholders such as Ronald Gidwitz. But if you really think it should not be included, okay.

But you seem to be of two contrasting assertions. You seem to be arguing both that article needs to be way more detailed; but also to be arguing that the article being detailed and being descriptive is something that needs to be avoided. SecretName101 ( talk) 23:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

No. I'm saying that the article is terrible. That's not meant as an insult but constructive criticism, but I have to be blunt about it because it would take a wall of text to sugar coat it. Seriously, in the real world I charge a good fee for what I'm giving you for free. Writing is hard! But hard writing makes for easy reading. Put yourself in the reader's shoes. Try imagining how hard it is for the average reader to read that article and try to come to a coherent understanding of all that.

An encyclopedia is a quick reference guide, not an in-depth story or analysis. We briefly tell you what a nuclear reactor is and kinda how it works, and leave all the atomic-physics details in the textbooks. An encyclopedia is a summary of the sources, which means cutting out all of the boring, extraneous details and boiling everything down to the nitty gritty. The gist of it. We don't need blow-by-blow details in narrative style. We don't need every single thing she's ever done wrong or has been criticized for. We're not a newspaper or a book. We use "expository summary style", and summarizing means cutting out stuff, the boring details, the trivial crap, and focusing on the main points.

As counterintuitive as it may seem, summarizing is very helpful to the reader. All the details and trivial stuff is always added for the writer's benefit, but it just bogs things down and hides the really important stuff like a polar bear in a snowstorm. In the case of writing, there's an old adage, "Less is more." Quality over quantity, because adding too much has the opposite effect intended. People won't absorb any of it if the article is unreadable, will they?

There's another old adage in the writing profession, "Show, don't tell" and it's just as true for an encyclopedia as it is for any other type of writing. When you give us the big picture in broad strokes, it leaves plenty of room to describe those big-ticket items in just enough detail for the reader to comprehend. Don't tell me she committed fraud or was part of some controversy. Show me. That's what separates a boring article from an interesting one. For example, check out any well-written article and look to see how they differ from this one. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth ( talk) 02:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is not the same as a literal encyclopedia in regards to the brevity employed. WP:NOTPAPER. That is genuinely a key facet of this website. SecretName101 ( talk) 03:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Ok, I have a feeling you're not quite picking up what I'm laying down, so I'll put it another way. There's a difference between good writing and bad writing, and this is bad writing. It's universal, across all languages and cultures, and has been since... always. People first began to define it in the days of Babylon, ancient Greece, and Persia, but they didn't make it up. They just worked out the principles that were always there.

There are four basic styles of writing: descriptive, persuasive, narrative, and expository. Descriptive is what you see in poems and travel brochures. Persuasive is in opinion/editorial columns and political commentary. Narrative is almost exclusively used for fiction. so if you're writing in a narrative style it will come off to the reader as fictional.

Almost all non-fiction is written in some form of expository writing. What makes encyclopedic writing different is it's a tertiary source, and as such is written in WP:Summary style. We didn't make that up either. It's is also universal, going all the way back to their inventor, Pliny the Elder, 2000 years ago. It's what makes it useful to the general reader who just wants the gist of it and is not interested in reading the entire book (which is a vast majority of readers, like 99+%).

If you don't believe me, then look it up for yourself. I recommend the books: On writing well: The Classical Guide to Writing Non-fiction by William Zinsser, Understanding Journalism by Lynette Sheridan Burns, or Reading and Writing: Nonfiction Genres, by Kathleen Buss, Lee Karnowski. Or, since expository writing very much mimics the scientific method, Philosophy of Scientific Method by John Stuart Mills. As Zinsser's Law says, "Easy writing makes for hard reading. Hard writing makes for easy reading." Now, do you honestly think it's better to have an article that is badly written or one that is written well? Zaereth ( talk) 03:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

If you are so troubled by the article and so good at writing, you have a wide open invitation to revise/repair the article SecretName101 ( talk) 04:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I'll chip in here since I made prior comments about the article at its talk page: I cited WP:UNDUE after adding Template:Overly detailed due to the extensive list of allegations/controversies stemming from local sources, but I agree that some of the issues probably fall more clearly under BLP policies – I'm just not too familiar with those policies (hence why I didn't try to discuss them originally). RunningTiger123 ( talk) 20:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Here's the deal, as I see it. As BLP policy is concerned, the subjects falls under the rules in WP:WELLKNOWN. This means that things such as fraud that are criminal allegations need to be widely reported in RSs. Not a single source, but widely reported. Other things such as lawsuits and "controversies" that are not criminal matters need to be weighed and portioned out according to NPOV.

The big problem here is none of these allegations or controversies are described in the article, anywhere, so how do you judge what's criminal or civil, or even what's real and what's mudslinging politics? These things should all have a what, where, when, who, and how. In other words, there needs to be some substance to them or they're just hollow, meaningless statements. It's no different from name calling. But in cases such as using the word "fraud", now we're into criminal offenses, so regardless that falls under WELLKNOWN.

If a fraud was committed, there should be a time, place, and person it happened to, and a specific way that it happened, so one would expect that info to accompany the allegation. Likewise, the definition of "controversy" is a "large public debate about a topic or an issue", so there should be some coverage of this debate and what is being debated. This article lacks all of that, so it's hard to know exactly what are BLP problems and what are not. It amounts to basically name calling, and in my opinion that in itself is the biggest BLP problem, which is why I suggested we blow it up and start over, below. Zaereth ( talk) 21:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

To the original comment, yes. Her automobile-related arrest should not be re-added. Its removal was correct. SecretName101 ( talk) 00:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Pinging @ SecretName101: since they are the primary author of the article. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 23:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I've made a second-pass at cleanup here, focusing on WP:DUE principally, along with a few grammar fixes. It's still really rough but I feel it needs more eyes than mine. Anyone else want a go? Simonm223 ( talk) 13:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Simonm223 you've insisting on the elimination of any mention in the body that the former mayor of Chicago being hired to investigate? The degree you are cutting is verging into whitewashing. SecretName101 ( talk) 18:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Need to comment that every controversy should be widely reported by RSes per WP:PUBLICFIGURE; not just documenting exclusive reports by WGN or a local news source. Given the sheer amount of controversies surrounding Henyard, WP:WEIGHT should be steered towards more prominent sources than Illinois Answers. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 18:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Precisely. I think the presence of a former mayor being maybe brought in to investigate her was simply unnecessary salacious detail and, frankly, per the sources a violation of WP:CRYSTAL since it's unclear whether she actually will be involved to any significant degree. I believe I also noted that removal with WP:TOOSOON in my edit summary. But I would suggest centralizing this conversation at the article talk page. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

T@ Simonm223 The town board voted yesterday to hire her (with Lightfoot indeed present and accepting). She's the former mayor of Chicago. That is highly notable and tangable. You are either mis-judging or intentionally whitewashing. SecretName101 ( talk) 19:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

This is edging to a WP:AGF. Violation here. I literally hadn't heard of Henyard before seeing this mess of a BLP violating article. I'm just trying to clean the crap up but I'm thinking that WP:TNT may be required if you will get this heated over what was, frankly, a light touch cleaning out the cruft. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Simonm223 No, it is not assuming bad faith to acknowledge that you are either mi-judging or intentionally misacting. I assert neither is the more likely motivation. That's not assuming bad faith. SecretName101 ( talk) 19:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Please redact your claim that I am intentionally white-washing this article. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I never claimed you were. I said that’s one of two (or more) possible things that might be going on. You excluded from your quoted excerpt my mention that a valid explanation is that you are simply making (good faith) misjudgments. Please do not mischaracterize/ selectively quote my comments in a manner that misframes them. SecretName101 ( talk) 20:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Either way, it's a form of deflecting. It's deigned to take the focus off the real issues, but (to Simonm) that only works if you let it. Please see WP:NOTNEWS. If this person was hired yesterday, then there is nothing encyclopedic to even tell yet. Not everything reported in the news is worthy of being in an encyclopedia, and especially when it comes to breaking news. We need stuff that will pass the ten year test. This reminds me a lot of the Kate Middleton article at the top of this page, except at least that one was readable. When summarized properly, that entire article was able to be condensed to a couple of short paragraphs in the main article. Much the same needs to be done in this article, except this is the main article. Yet as far as I can tell the best solution is basically the same. It would be far, far easier to simply TNT it and start over from scratch than to even attempt to fix what is there, because it's that much of a dumpster fire. Zaereth ( talk) 20:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The opening of the investigation itself is indeed noteworthy. You are making mis-judgements, and elsewhere Simonm223 has stated that their rationale is a personal dismissal/judgement of the investigation as a "publicity stunt". SecretName101 ( talk) 21:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Eventually one tires of saying WP:CRYSTAL WP:NOTNEWS constantly and feels a need to point out why these policies apply. Your cries of "bias" don't change that. Simonm223 ( talk) 11:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

What constitutes a public figure

So working on Tiffany Henyard has me wondering what constitutes a public figure. Because it seems clear from review of the sources that Henyard is notorious but what she's notorious for is entirely coextensive with the various things she's been accused of doing. If Henyard is only a public figure by dint of being accused of a bunch of things then it almost seems like we shouldn't be covering her on Wikipedia. However if her status as a public figure is because she's a mayor then we have a smaller problem but still a problem. That is that her controversies are the entirety of her page. And they're extensive and heavily detailed. This raises the question of WP:DUE. I'm curious to see if we can find reasonable comparables. I found one but it was a much shorter page about a municipal politician who was convicted of crimes rather than merely accused of them. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't think she's a public figure because of her alleged crimes. But I think her being an elected mayor means she is a public figure "a public figure, a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs" Note this doesn't mean she is notable as plenty of public figures are not notable. Nil Einne ( talk) 22:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I agree. The term "public figure" is actually a legal term that was defined by the Supreme Court back in 1964, although it has been around since the 1700s. The definition is very specific and applies to Wikipedia and its authors just as much as it does to newspapers and journalists. The reason is because a public figure cannot sue for libel or defamation whereas a private individual can, and the laws recognize this. This especially applies to politicians, because there's an overriding "public need to know", so while actors and rock bands must rise to the level of celebrity to be considered a public figure, anyone holding a public office is automatically given that status.

That said, I'll reiterate what I said above. I think the easiest way to fix this article is to WP:Blow it up and start over. I don't necessarily mean delete the article, but in that the text is just too far gone to fix. It'd be far easier to fix it by wiping the slate and starting from scratch. List only those allegations that have been widely covered and have some kind of significance, with facts, a point, and everything, and leave all the mudslinging in the campaign ads where they belong. Zaereth ( talk) 01:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I apologize in advance for my peevery, but Zaereth, I agree almost entirely with you both on the policy and the best path forward. I do need to just slightly correct that, for the United States, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan did not say that public figures cannot sue, they made the standard much more stringent, by creating the actual malice standard (which, of course, has nothing to do with malice). Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 01:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

No need to apologize. Your input is always valued. That's actually true, because of course anything can be taken too far and cross the line, but I was trying to keep my reply short so I guess I glossed over that. Zaereth ( talk) 02:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I have trying to fix that mess on my long-list of things to get around to but I want to be cautious and patient here so feedback on this is really valuable. Simonm223 ( talk) 23:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

She's definitely a public figure. WP:LOWPROFILE is clear that a key point for whether someone is a public figure or not is whether they seek fame; seriously running for mayor (especially successfully, but probably even if it had been unsuccessful) would normally make one a public figure in that regard. The article is still clearly placing WP:UNDUE emphasis on the accusations against her and minutiae related to them that have received relatively minimal coverage, but the standard it needs to be trimmed down to is clearly the one in WP:PUBLICFIGURE and not WP:NPF. -- Aquillion ( talk) 02:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

In response to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Thom Darden/1, I have added two stories about Thom Darden that are unflattering. I want them to be reviewed here.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• @ Wizardman:, be advised, I have added content.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I have removed his alleged contribution to the ouster of his coach since The NY Times article does not directly verify this, instead using the weasel language "Some Browns historians remembered that Thom Darden had been one of the ringleaders in the players' unrest". It can be seen as WP:BLPGOSSIP and also requires more than one RS citation under WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Also, the Boston Globe sports columnist, Michael Madden, should not be used to assert facts under WP:RSEDITORIAL. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 00:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

User:Morbidthoughts Are you saying that the content can be restored with supporting RS?- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes. Multiple RS are needed to discuss his role that led to the alleged ouster while RS is needed to support whatever facts Madden raised. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 04:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

User:Morbidthoughts, Can I readd the ouster with the recently added content?- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Just added a bit more.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Reviewing the cited news article, the detail about the ouster is more appropriate in the Forrest Gregg article. Also, there may be too much detail about McInally when the focus of the article should be on Darden. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 05:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• I have given all three bios some content.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• I am skeptical about the first paragraph of Thom Darden#Post football. Is the fact that in 1985 he was allegedly listed as a suspected drug dealer in a single FBI document really due weight? I cannot find any evidence that anything ever came of this. Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 09:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • It was very widely covered in the press, which is why I included it. In terms of weight, it is only 2 sentences. I did not see press about any formal charges related to this suspect status.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Who knows if there was actually a FBI document. It was testimony by a government informant that he saw Darden's name on a document the FBI gave him. It's not clear what the context was in terms of the trial. I need review the cited sources. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 03:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The cited stories are variations of these two. [2] [3] I could not find any mention of this incident in RS after November 1985. [4] Morbidthoughts ( talk) 03:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Do these edits meet our NPOV and sourcing policies? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply

There are some BLPCRIME concerns since it's not clear if he is convicted of anything yet. [5] It seems like he is in jail awaiting trial. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 04:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Morbidthoughts Ouch. Apologies, I didn't include a diff! Specifically [6], Thanks. Doug Weller talk 07:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm not 100% familiar with how wikipedia works but I noticed a change on the wikipedia page for the shoegaze band Whirr ^[1] about how they have influenced other shoegaze artist such as Wisp and Flyingfish. Not only is this claim unsupported by any sources, Flyingfish is not a shoegaze artist and rather categorizes themselves as alt rock on their instagram bio. I also think this information does not belong in the category of history, but I could be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.255.141 ( talk • contribs) 12:57 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The genre and impact of this band are not claims about a living person, so this isn't the appropriate place to discuss this topic. Please start a discussion on the article talk page instead. Jfire ( talk) 01:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Third-party claims in BLPs and about living persons need to be reliably sourced. A BLP claiming to participate or any other verb in a genre revival needs citations. Claiming to influence any particular band needs citations. I've removed the paragraph. Anyone with a reliable secondary source is welcome to replace any supportable prose that I removed. Cheers. JFHJr ( ㊟) 04:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

A question has come up whether the mention of the name of one of the victims of crime mentioned in the article's Expansion section, Taisa Marunchak, in connection with an incident involving her in 1996 and her later testimony in a criminal case is necessary to the article in the light of WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLP1E. The article includes many rather graphic details of crimes involving the subject gang and their adversaries during the 1990s. The primary and sole source for naming Marunchak is a book by a journalist who covered the events at the time: Langton, Jerry (2015). Cold War How Organized Crime Works in Canada and Why It's About to Get More Violent. Toronto: HarperColllins. ISBN 978-1-4434-3255-9. The other sources cited as references in the article are not cited for the name. A search of the Newspaper Archive for the terms "Manitoba Warriors" turned up 1,481 articles from 1996 alone. I wasn't able to go through each one. But clearly the gang was extensively covered in news reports from the time period around the incidents detailed in that section of the article. However, a search for Marunchak's name did not turn up any mentions in the same resource. It appears that a case opened in the Office of the Privacy Commission of Canada (FIPPA-2014-0188) (PIPEDA- 032066) led to the removal of Marunchak's name from articles on the internet. I was not able to determine whether the lack of mentions in the newspaper article resource was due to that action by the Privacy Commission, or simply that there was no mention of Marunchak by name in those articles. Would removing the name and identifying the victim (and later Crown witness) by her age be a solution which would not significantly affect the quality of the article? Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 13:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The name should be removed under WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 17:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Good point. I'll remove the name. Thanks for the feedback. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I have never edited wikipedia before so I don't know how this works but I am swedish and sources 5-9 are listed saying "She has repeatedly said that she cannot stand white people." which is not quoting the news articles listed. I think this is due to a twitter hate campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.24.142.97 ( talk) 20:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I couldn't read most of the sources from my computer because they seem to require cookies, and the place I work at doesn't allow websites to download cookies. However, I was able to read sources 6 and 9 and they are op/ed pieces and not actual news articles. You can tell because the author is expressing her own opinion. Not only that, but they are the exact same op/ed simply printed in different sources. While I agree with the sentiment of the author, in that racism is not limited to any single race, op/ed columns are not reliable sources for anything but the author's opinion. If the other sources are also opinion pieces, then I would suggest simply removing the section based on unreliable sourcing. If they are actual news articles, then I would suggest giving the actual quotes and a brief summary of the point of the articles, but that has to be determined by someone who can actually see the sources, which unfortunately I can't. Zaereth ( talk) 21:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

8 is also an opinion column. 7 is by the subject, but based on a Google translate of it, does not appear to contain the statement being cited (and I think it was 8 that made a reference to the subject saying they were finding it harder to stand the people in question, which is a different statement from "can't stand". Number 5 looks like it may be some sort of usable interview, but it is behind a paywall that I do not have the time an energy to navigate right now. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 21:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

In that case I'd just go ahead and remove it, but it looks like it has already been taken care of. Zaereth ( talk) 22:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes, thanks to the unnameable site I was made aware of this BLP (and later of this discussion). A couple of us have now edited it extensively. My latest edit expands it considerably. I can confirm that the "Controversy" section was based on opinion articles not labelled as such; another was added by the article creator, Drmies, in one of the first edits to the article, with the edit summary including the words "his opinion isn't worth much". Unfortunately it Drmies didn't tag it as opinion, and it is a hostile article, essentially a counter by another columnist to the subject's columns in the same newspaper. Her work has indeed occasioned controversy, and many articles about her and interviews with her are paywalled. I don't advocate protection; one of the editors who inserted a "Controversy" section based on opinion articles is History & References (who I will welcome after posting this) and although such content has also been inserted by IPs, it's been removed by at least one IP ( 10 March). I think heavy attention by watchers is required. Yngvadottir ( talk) 21:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Yngvadottir, you know very well that there was no "controversy" section in the stub I created and worked on. Citing the first half of my edit summary is a bit misleading--anyone can see that it was meant to indicate that presumably the facts would have been checked. We do not usually "label" or "tag" sources as "opinion articles", but I did, as the entirety of the summary indicates. The suggestion that I would somehow be responsible for a BLP violation is a bit unsavory. Drmies ( talk) 23:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

If History & References happens to come by, perhaps they can explain how they defend the BLP violation in Kadir Kasirga, where the only evidence for "has been featured in Swedish police investigations connected to his brother" is from a right-wing populist rage which contained vague and tendentious allegations, without a shred of evidence, like "in interrogations it is alleged that the money instead comes from the politically active elder brother Kadir Kasirga" and "Voices are now being raised that it is a security risk with politicians in the Riksdag who have close relatives who are serious criminals." Which voices? Sure, he's been "featured", but in the press, saying he and his brother chose different paths in life. Drmies ( talk) 00:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Drmies: Thanks very much for looking at the editor's other work and giving them the BLP contentious topics notification. I in no way intended to implicate you in a BLP violation; your edit summary did indeed make clear why you were using that source (although ironically the Expo foundation was in the source on the award) and as I stated, the "Controversy" section was inserted—and edit warred back in—more recently. Unfortunately you didn't use the "type=" parameter in the citation, so some readers and editors may have assumed it was a neutral report. Anyway, I hope I've got it right in my recent edit, and this is an article that I do believe needs to be watched. Yngvadottir ( talk) 01:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

/info/en/?search=Talk:Sion_Sono#Edit_Request

We suggest that the source is not a reliable source, is insufficient, and should be removed in accordance with the WP:BLP policy.

Reason :

• The cause of suicide is unknown, and no information exists anywhere to determine the cause of suicide.
• Writing on this page suggests that Sion Sono is the cause, and lacks fairness and neutrality.
• The information source linked as a source is "Shūkan Bunshun". It's tabloid journalism and not a reliable source of information.

Wikipedia's BLP policy states, "The material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism."

• The source article is not open to the public. that is insufficient information source.
• The Wikipedia BLP policy states the following:

”contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion.”

We kindly ask for your cooperation. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Min01f ( talk • contribs) 21:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

It is indeed a tabloid (I am aware of it, never read it before, but did read it now without translation). The tabloid is not a reliable source. The text was not supported by any other source. I removed both. Cheers! JFHJr ( ㊟) 04:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

PS. Who is "we"? It looks like you might want to read WP:COI. Depending on your situation, you may need to disclose your particular relationship with the subject or with a group (each time you post a new discussion or join an existing one). JFHJr ( ㊟) 05:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

JFHJr, Thank you for your cooperation.

Sorry, I was wrong. The correct word is "I", not "We".

I didn't understand English very well. In most cases, I translate and read.

Thank you for your comment. Min01f ( talk) 18:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

User:Haani40 wants to insert a conspiracy theory that apparently Arvind Kejriwal received money from "Ford Foundation" to destabilise India at the behest of the US. The only source for this is a random commercial book written by a certain RSN Singh who is a retired military official and participates in partisan talk shows. I removed it [7] but he added it back in [8], so I am bring this here directly because it looks deeply libelous and I see no point in discussing it with him if he can't see why it shouldn't be in the article. MrMkG ( talk) 22:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The same claim is also found at RSN Singh. Sourced to this book: Singh, RSN. The Jihadis Plus - Know the Anti-Nationals. Lancer Publishers. Retrieved 3 April 2024.

Lancer Publishers self-describes as "the foremost military publishing house in India since 1983." Thoughts on reliability for this statement? Rotary Engine ^talk 22:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

It's just marketing. There is a big market for military related books in India and there are dime a dozen junk books. The publishers are solely commercial interest based. Anti-national is also a deeply partisan pejorative term being used to demonise the opposition and dissidents ( p. 86). MrMkG ( talk) 22:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The first thing I usually do with books is check the publisher's reputation, because that's one of the best ways to tell reliability. I couldn't find any reviews of Lancer Publishing, which is discouraging but not definitive.

Then I looked at the book. It's not a historical account or anything but is a persuasive book, and persuasive style quite often includes both fact and fiction to make its point, so strike two, I would not count it as being very reliable. Third is that the edit in question is simply the author's opinion of the subject. An opinion by qualified people on a subject is often very informative (for example, a book review, restaurant review, or peer review of a medical journal), but I see no reason why this author's opinion is of any significance. As the book states in its preface, its goal is to "expose the modern day demons who are on a do or die mission to destroy the Bharat Nation", and the whole thing is written in that tone, so strike four. I would not count it as a reliable source. Zaereth ( talk) 22:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Any allegations like that require multiple RS per WP:REDFLAG and WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 23:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

As a new user, I have been seeking advise from Kautilya3 and doing as he says. I have even mentioned in my edit summary that I have sought advice from him. Please see this diff. I believe that this should have been discussed on the Talk page of the article first. When there is a discussion on the Talk page also, I ping Kautilya3 when I am unsure of something. I have read what the other editors have written and will not edit war over this point and request not to be sanctioned (especially since there was no discussion about this on the Talk page of the article). I am expecting Kautilya3 to write a few words in my defense here. Thank you!- Haani40 ( talk) 03:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Your explanation is sufficient. No need to defend yourself. This board is for answering questions about policy, giving advice, and enforcing BLP policy. This is not WP:ANI and we don't judge an editor's actions or "punish" them here, so no need to worry. Just take it as a learning experience to remember in the future. Zaereth ( talk) 04:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for explaining @ Zaereth:. Another user has reverted my edit at the RSN Singh article which can be seen in this diff. If I add another reliable source about the allegation on Arvind Kejriwal by RSN Singh will it pass muster and be accepted at least in the RSN Singh article?- Haani40 ( talk) 04:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

No, not if you are using Kejriwal's name. BLP policy overrides all other policies and applies to any article that discusses living people. It even applies to talk pages and noticeboards. Instead of focusing on this one point, instead try summarizing the point of the book itself, without naming any specific people. Better yet, find reviews of the book and summarize those instead. This one detail is far too specific. Zaereth ( talk) 04:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

A move request in relation to this article could have BLP and legal implications. PatGallacher ( talk) 18:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The move is just fine. The subject, a detainee, was found outside of detention per multiple reliable sources. Sue us. JFHJr ( ㊟) 00:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Also... The escape was only *alleged* perhaps while he was unaccounted for, before apprehension outside detention. I realize escape is also a crime he is charged with, but we have to use plain English in titles, and if the event is notable, then the move is a good idea. JFHJr ( ㊟) 01:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Without comment on the requested move; the topic itself seems to impact poorly with WP:NOTNEWS. Rotary Engine ^talk 01:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I agree. That's why I piped to WP:BLP1E in my response. Personally, I'd rather not go for the jugular until the page is settled in its spot. JFHJr ( ㊟) 01:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I agree. BLPE1E, but I think BLPCRIME also applies. I know he was caught red-handed escaping, but we can't really tell that story without discussing why he was in jail in the first place. Those are some pretty stigmatic charges he hasn't been convicted of. Zaereth ( talk) 02:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

If alleged events lead to detention (CRIME, 1E), and an independently notable escape and capture occur (superseding, let's say), what result? I think CRIME means minimizing the WP:WEIGHT of text describing the background of the escape. In the present edition, that comprises about a third of the text, perhaps less. If you'd like to excise more, I might agree. But it seems pretty concise and neutrally worded to me. I think we'll only know definitively how CRIME applies once court finishes. JFHJr ( ㊟) 02:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Yeah, the current article is trying to thread the needle by taking the absolutely bonkers stance that he only allegedly escaped and was allegedly on the run, and yet saying in wikivoice that he was recaptured. So the article would have us believe that it is possible that he was simultaneously in Wandsworth Prison and 14 miles away on the Grand Union Canal towpath in Northolt. Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 12:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Why is this even an article? Non-notable person, no clear long-term importance. Failure to meet NEVENT and NOTNEWS. -- Masem ( t) 12:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)PatGallacher reply

That may or may not be so and BLP1E/BLPCRIME may well be relevant. But, PatGallacher, why on earth is there an issue about taking "alleged" out of the article title. In your oppose on the talk page you refer to "legal" and "BLP" issues preventing the move. They might be relevant to whether the article should exist - but the escape happened. There's no doubt about that. Can you explain the issue you have with taking out "alleged" from the article title. DeCausa ( talk) 12:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

An editor has started a discussion at Talk:Will Fowles#Do we need to add a section titled 2023 rape allegation? about whether a section of text in the article covering sexual assault allegations should be expanded upon. Experienced editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPath ^talk 07:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

We have to be very careful about walling off something in its own section, because that can create an imbalance by giving much more emphasis to it than is due. It's similar to the way newspapers use headlines to emphasize a story. Controversy sections, for example, do this by pigeonholing any negative information in a single section instead of distributing within the timeline of events.

In discussing what is due weight for the information, well that's more of a simple math problem than anything else, in figuring out percentages. It's necessary to weigh all the sources that exist about a subject against the sources containing the particular information, factoring in the weight of the sources themselves and how much they devote to the particular info, and with that determine just what percentage of the article should be devoted to that information in terms of space. Does it deserve an entire section? A single paragraph? A single sentence, or would even that be too much? That is best done by those who have read and are familiar with all the sources, and that's what the talk page discussion should be focused on.

I will say that the other user in that discussion seems hell bent on including the word "arrest", as if it has some significance. In Australian law, just as in the US, and arrest occurs when "police take hold of you; or, police tell you that you are under arrest; or, you are arrested by written warrant." It's usually a part of the normal procedure of being taken in for questioning but, of course, it doesn't mean guilty, although to those who don't know enough to know better it may insinuate that, so it seems a bit sensationalist. But the significant information is what caused his resignation, and the rest is basically, "they asked him questions, let him go, and nothing happened" which sounds pretty insignificant when spelled out like that, doesn't it? The more important thing is to get the weight and balance correct and focus on the significant aspects of the story. Zaereth ( talk) 17:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ SpringStreetUpdates, the editor above has some well said words. TarnishedPath ^talk 01:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I do agree actually, that makes sense. The fact of an arrest itself isn't necessary information for an encyclopedia, it adds weight to the seriousness of the sexual assault allegation and gives reasoning for inclusion of the allegation/investigation/outcome but is not a paramount detail. SpringStreetUpdates ( talk) 03:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Ben Zimmer is an American linguist, lexicographer, and language commentator. I came across this biography as I recently AfD'd an article from the page creator. A cursory browse of the references section suggests the article presents considerable issues requiring clean-up, if an experienced editor has some time to expend. Thanks! IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 17:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Issue Overview: The "Lifestyle" section of Pastor Ed Young's Wikipedia article primarily relies on an investigative report from WFAA, which is secondarily supported by a Dallas News article. The latter mainly references the former, raising concerns about the independence and verification of the information presented. ^[1]

Concerns: Source Reliability and Independence: The primary source, WFAA, relies on anonymous sources and lacks substantial corroborative evidence. The Dallas News article does not independently verify the claims but simply references the WFAA report, raising questions about its independence and the verification of its content. ^{[2] [3]} 5dondons ( talk) 20:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The source from Dallas News is an op/ed column which I wouldn't call a reliable source. It's written in a narrative style, which in itself makes it suspect. Same reason we don't use Forensic Files or Ken Burns documentaries as sources, but if you look closely you can see the author injecting their own opinions. The News 8 (WFAA-TV) source is a well-written news article, and I see no reason it shouldn't be used. Of course, there's a matter of due weight and balance to consider, but I see no reason the source can't be used. Zaereth ( talk) 20:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your feedback. I agree the Dallas News article's narrative style and op/ed nature make it less suitable as a reliable source for factual content in addition to using the WFAA as its source for the contentious material, particularly in a biography of a living person.

Regarding the WFAA article, while it is well-written, I agree we must consider the due weight and balance. The reliance of a single source for potentially contentious material in a BLOP is problematic.

Given these points, we should continue to seek additional independent verification. If we are unable to find additional support for these claims, we may need to reevaluate its inclusion. 5dondons ( talk) 21:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Hipal doesn't agree its an op/ed however I do, and listed the reasons it is in a reply to him. To address his concern about it being used as a source for other pieces of the article, i have since found new sources for those pieces. I will give more time for other seasoned editors to weigh in however with only 1 source being used for contentious material I don't find grounds for due weight and I believe it should be removed entirely. 5dondons ( talk) 03:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The initial source is legit, the second source is not an op/ed but a lifestyle piece, but all it does is confirm that those things were said. As the sentence stand, it's not even an accurate reflection of the source material, as neither source claims that the jet was purchased by the subject or his church; one source says "operated by", the other says it was leased

We do have enough to say that he was criticized for living a lavish or expensive lifestyle, and the second source citing the first shows that that criticism was seen as significant, but the details are a problem. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 03:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

While the clarification on the nature of the sources is helpful, it underscores a fundamental issue: the existing sources do not robustly support the claims made in the "Lifestyle" section of the article. The distinction between "operated by," "leased," and "purchased" significantly affects the factual accuracy of the claims related to Ed Young's lifestyle.

Furthermore, the narrative style of the Dallas News piece and its reliance on the WFAA report, which itself uses anonymous sources, raises concerns about the overall reliability and independence required for such content in BLOP to ensure it does not perpetuate potentially misleading or unsupported claims. 5dondons ( talk) 14:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Can a source be counted as 'reliable' if it does not add any additional information on the topic but solely quotes another source? All the Dallas News source does is verify that the WFAA article was written. 5dondons ( talk) 14:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Absolutely. it is reliable for the fact that the WFAA makes its claims, and an indicator that the WFAA coverage is of interest. Per WP:SECONDARY, Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources.. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 15:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Neither of the linked references are used in the article. Why they being brought up rather than the ones in use?

I cannot access either of them. -- Hipal ( talk) 22:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

My apologies, these are the articles I was referring to, they are the ones sourced on the page:

WFAA - https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/investigates/prominent-grapevine-pastor-linked-to-luxury/287-338287756

Dallas News: http://res.dallasnews.com/interactives/2013_December/pastored/ 5dondons ( talk) 22:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

It looks like user Zaereth clicked the links within the actual article and was able to access them from there. His points should still carry weight. 5dondons ( talk) 22:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Very concerning that you identified different references than those used in the article.

I'm not clear what Zaereth is referring to. The correct Dallas News ref doesn't appear to be an op/ed. It's a lengthy piece already used in the article elsewhere, it has a great deal of background and comparisons (hallmarks of a well-researched news piece), multiple photos of the Young family, a tour of their home, and quotes from the family members. The presentation can sometimes take or formal or entertainment style. -- Hipal ( talk) 23:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Zaereth read the article from the source on the main page. You still haven’t addressed the fact that the Dallas News articles source for the information included in ‘Lifestyle’ section comes directly from the WFAA source without adding any additional sources. 5dondons ( talk) 23:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Just read the Dallas News article again and its definitely an op/ed. It uses a subjective tone, includes the author's opinions, and focuses on broader commentary about Ed Young's ministry practices. It opens with a personal anecdote and provides subjective analyses, such as saying Young "knows how to titillate and provoke." These elements, along with a lack of immediate newsworthiness, mark the piece as an op/ed rather than an objective news report. 5dondons ( talk) 02:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

No, that makes it a magazine-style article, which is an acceptable source. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 15:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

There have been past attempts to WP:WHITEWASH Dominic Ng, including by paid editors who were subsequently discovered, and it would be good to get more eyes on this to see if there is presently an attempt to whitewash it. - Amigao ( talk) 22:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

There is also an attempt to censor the Cantonese-language name from a very prominent figure in the Chinese-American community, which seems bizarre for a BLP. Anyone encountered this sort of thing before? - Amigao ( talk) 01:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

You need to gain consensus for disputed edits for inclusion per WP:BLPRESTORE. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 07:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I would support including the name in the article. However from my experience it's hardly uncommon that editors insist such inclusions are generally unnecessary on the English wikipedia, for people who live in an English speaking country or even feel that their are "othering" the person. In this case it's complicated by the fact he doesn't seem to use his Chinese give name in English but does I assume use it in Chinese. But still seems a fair chance this remains an issue of editors disagreeing on whether the English wikipedia needs such details. Nil Einne ( talk) 10:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi, I’d like to ask for some comments on a contentious matter relating to the article for Simon Williams (chess player).

The subject of the article is a minor chess grandmaster (currently rated 1,303rd in the world), and also a youtube streamer and chess author. He is relatively well-known in chess circles, but is by no means a public figure under the Wikipedia definition of that term.

In the recent past Williams was mentioned in a determination by the UK pensions regulator re: some events that occurred while he was the trustee of a pension scheme. This has received a limited amount of press coverage, which has prompted some discussion on the talk page for Wiliams re: whether or not the matter should be mentioned in the main article.

(It’s not really relevant to the underlying issue here, but some of the edit summaries / talk page comments in relation to this matter miscategorise the events in question as ‘fraud’. The pensions regulator’s involvement was actually solely in relation to the way in which the scheme was administrated and did not relate to fraud.)

In trying to resolve whether or not some reference to these events should be included in the main article I checked the guidelines on biographies of living persons. To the best of my understanding, the relevant section would appear to be under WP:NOTAPUBLICFIGURE:

"Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, regardless of whether they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability".

In the case in point I’m interpreting that as meaning that for a minor chess grandmaster we only include ‘material relevant to their chess career'. On that basis it seems (to me at least) that the matter described above should not be in the article, even if it has had limited coverage in broadsheet newspapers.

I have no connection to the subject, just giving my interpretation of the relevant guidelines. Am I correct? Any assistance gratefully received. Axad12 ( talk) 04:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Bilorv's version of the material ( diff) seems fine. I think given the in-depth coverage in Financial Times and The Times, it should be okay to include. WP:BLPCRIME may advise us to err against including this kind of information for people who aren't public figures, but I don't see that as being intended for someone who's getting this kind of coverage, and additionally William's career as a streamer/commentator/selling chess courses kind of relies on him being a public figure to an extent, at least in the chess world. Perhaps less importantly, it seems like there isn't actually an accusation of criminal wrongdoing here, so there may be less of a BLPCRIME concern. I think as long as the article is based on the FT and Times articles and not the primary source Ombudsman report, it's fine. Endwise ( talk) 05:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your thoughts here. You've put your finger on what seems to be the key point, which is...

Does being relatively well known in a pretty obscure subculture make someone a public figure (and no longer subject to WP:NOTAPUBLICFIGURE)?

I'd imagine that in the UK fewer that 0.1% of people are even vaguely aware of Williams' chess-related activities (and even fewer elsewhere), so I'm struggling to see how he constitutes a public figure by any normal definition of that term.

If somebody could clear this up for the sake of my understanding it would be appreciated. Axad12 ( talk) 05:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Williams is certainly a "public figure" in the sense of Wikipedia jargon. He has sought attention through his role in the ECF, courses, books, commentary etc. He promotes himself through the name "GingerGM". This doesn't mean he is "famous": he doesn't have to be someone that 0.1% of Brits are aware of because that's not related to the criteria. A lot of people misunderstand what "public figure" (or synonymously, "high-profile") means in Wikipedia jargon. It doesn't even require a figure to be notable: Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable.

The text I wrote wasn't intended to accuse Williams of criminal wrongdoing and describes factual events with quotes on his behalf. I think it's quite a generous framing, backed up with substantial coverage to show this is encyclopedic content. Apologies for not realising there was related discussion on the talk page and thanks for bringing this to BLPN. — Bilorv ( talk) 07:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I take your point re: seeking out media attention, but my assumption is that the quote you give is intended to refer to media attention with rather greater exposure than low circulation industry/hobby publications.

Simon Williams' chess-related activity has never been covered in any form of media beyond chess magazines and chess websites and, to the best of my knowledge, he hasn't sought to promote himself outside of that very small pond.

There are a huge number of individuals who maintain some form of youtube presence to assist with sales of books, DVDs, etc. on niche subjects (chess openings in Williams' case), but I'm far from convinced that that constitutes 'seeking out media attention'. Axad12 ( talk) 08:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

To give a comparable example, if an individual had a youtube channel about fishing and used it to leverage sales of their own brand of fishing bait, I don't think there would be any suggestion that they were seeking out media attention. Axad12 ( talk) 08:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Agree with Endwise. It's a little unfortunate it's a separate section, but it doesn't really fit in an existing section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I appreciate that I’m very much in the minority here, and also less experienced than the other users to have commented. However, I’d really be grateful for some clarification of how Williams’ rather small-time activity to promote his books etc solely within chess circles constitutes ‘seeking media attention’.

If it doesn’t constitute seeking media attention then it still seems to me that WP:NOTAPUBLICFIGURE applies and the pensions material doesn’t belong in the article.

By comparison, if the 1,303rd ranked golfer in the world was censured by an ombudsman for his performance while doing a part-time job, I hardly imagine the matter would even be up for discussion. Axad12 ( talk) 11:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

He's seeking media attention, yes, within the context of the sport he participates in. I don't like the jargon "public figure" and "low-profile" but that's what we use and the examples given at Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual of low-profile individuals are people who are unwittingly or unknowingly wrapped up in something, or only speaking on behalf of an organisation. He's not reached his position (of being somewhat well-known among the English-speaking chess world) unwittingly. Williams has successfully created a persona and brand, within the world of chess, with the name "GingerGM"—presumably because only the very top players in the world can make a living from chess competitions but many more strong players can make a living from coaching, courses, commentary etc. — Bilorv ( talk) 13:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

(A bit late, but) I have no idea who the 1303rd ranked golfer in the world is, but they likely have a lower profile than Simon Williams, for a similar reason that the 1302nd ranked chess player also likely has a lower profile than Simon Williams. Endwise ( talk) 08:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The section was balanced, factual, and supported by high-quality sources. It should be restored. 100.36.106.199 ( talk) 12:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes, but none of that is relevant if WP:NOTAPUBLICFIGURE applies... Axad12 ( talk) 12:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

“It could be harmful to my reputation to have my misdeeds, which are much better sourced than any other part of my biography, described neutrally and accurately” is a good reason for marginally notable people not to create Wikipedia pages about themselves (and feel free to send this article to AfD), but it is not a general shield that prevents the inclusion of neutral and accurate information that happens to reflect negatively on article subjects. 100.36.106.199 ( talk) 12:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

If you are suggesting that I am Simon Williams then I'm afraid that you are (a) wrong, and (b) making a serious allegation of COI which is frankly ridiculous. However, well done for having the courage to make the allegation while hiding behind an IP address. Axad12 ( talk) 12:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

As you did not create this article I can't see how you can possibly interpret the IP's comments as suggesting that you are Simon Williams. Back to the matter at hand, without taking any view as to what if anything should be said on the pensions thing, it seems to me that Williams clearly is not a low-profile individual as that term is defined by Wikipedia at WP:LPI, and therefore, WP:NPF does not apply to him. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 13:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I was working on the basis of the comment 'a good reason for marginally notable people not to create Wikipedia pages about themselves (and feel free to send this article to AfD)' - which implies that I have some kind of COI here and might wish to take the extreme course of trying to get the article deleted.

Also on the basis that a different IP user has previously accused me (on the article talk page) of pursuing this issue in bad faith and of being a sockpuppet.

However, I have no particular views on Simon Williams either pro or con. I've only ever been attempting to get clarification on the correct application of the relevant policy.

I'm very grateful for your comment above (and also for the recent comment by Bilorv) in clarifying that my understanding of the relevant policy was faulty. I will now take the issue back to the article talk page to discuss the best form of words for the issue to be included in the article. Axad12 ( talk) 13:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I have no idea if the article creator is the subject but it's very common for article subjects and others with a CoI to create articles at a time when the promotional coverage is considered useful and then later it becomes a problem for them when something on them blows up. We non-CoI editors need to deal with it as we can when we become aware there are issues, which can including sending the article to AfD if the subject doesn't seem notable. Assuming there is reason to think it may have been the subject who created the article, it's perfectly reasonable to acknowledge these 2 common trends. Even if the original CoI editor is still around, we don't want them making more problems by sending the article to AfD. That should be decided by non-CoI editors only. So if the IP was suggesting you had a CoI but should send the article to AfD frankly they should be ignored. But I see nothing in their comment to suggest they intended to suggest that you seem to be connecting those two related but distinct points in a manner that wasn't intended. (Per WP:BLPREQDEL the subject's opinion may be relevant, but it should still be non CoI editors deciding whether it's even worth discussing.) Nil Einne ( talk) 15:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

My purpose in bringing the issue here was to get guidance on the correct interpretation of the relevant policy. The IP comment that you are referring to was clearly inferring that the subject created the article (the basis for which suggestion seems entirely unclear), and/or that I might wish to refer the article to AfD if I had a COI and found the contents of the article inconvenient in some way.

Since the discussion up to that point had related solely to a policy question I hardly see why the IP user thought it necessary to make any suggestion of possible COI in relation to this article.

I've removed the pension-related issue from the article on, I think, 3 different occasions over recent months - but surely the discussion on the article talk page and my decision to bring it here to get a consensus decision demonstrates that I've been acting in good faith. So, again, why was there any need for the IP edit to bring COI into the discussion at all? And since I was the only user in favour of removing the material, who could he have been referring to except for me? Axad12 ( talk) 15:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

My purpose in bringing the issue here was to get guidance on the correct interpretation of the relevant policy. Which you have received; and now because you don't like the answer you are engaging in extremely heavy deflection. -- 100.36.106.199 ( talk) 17:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC) I retract this part of my statement, as it seems the edit has been reinstated and you have stated you don't object to that. I'm sorry you are so worked up about things I didn't say, that wouldn't make sense if I had said them; since the substantive question is settled in what I consider the appropriate way, I don't have anything else to add to this discussion. 100.36.106.199 ( talk) 18:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

On the contrary, I couldn't be less invested in the outcome, hence my genuine thanks above to Bilorv and Caeciliusinhorto, which I'm happy to repeat. I'm very glad indeed to see that there is consensus and resolution - which is what I came here for.

Your introduction of COI into the discussion, on the other hand, was entirely uncalled for (as was your misguided ad hominem comment directly above). Axad12 ( talk) 17:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Of possible interest to BLPN watchers: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wardrobe malfunction (2nd nomination). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Concerns about repeated addition of content that looks WP:UNDUE. Subject has an arrest record without convictions. More eyes, please. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 00:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I've trimmed the unsourced/poorly sourced information, and will try to keep an eye on it. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Despite receiving attention on and off Wikipedia before and during COP28, there has been no update on Sultan Al Jaber to communicate the results of this event.

I would like to disclose my Conflict of Interest in regards to this article and request some changes to address missing information. I have proposed language at the Talk page for consideration, for which I would gratefully appreciate the review of people familiar with BLP policies to ensure the tone is totally neutral. Many thanks! Dedemocha ( talk) 17:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

An IP has added content which violates BLP guidelines, specifically unsourced allegations of sexual abuse [9]. I've reverted, but it probably needs to be scrubbed from the history. Similar allegations about this person go back a long way, but reliable sources are rarely, if ever, added. It's a difficult case for various reasons, but I thought I'd bring it here for admin attention. Thanks, Bretonbanquet ( talk) 18:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

EDIT: Fixed it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EliJarmel ( talk • contribs) 19:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I work with Andrew Schneider and can confirm that the photo featured in [ | this page] is not him.

The man in this photo is the Andrew Schneider that the above page is referring to.

The erroneous photo is the first image that appears when "Andrew Schneider showrunner" is searched, which has caused confusion at times.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EliJarmel ( talk • contribs) 19:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

vandalism to article and unsubstantiated allegations repeatedly inserted as if factual — Preceding unsigned comment added by Womenwiki2050 ( talk • contribs) 02:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

This user's only contributions to Wikipedia are on Liang Wang's article. There seems to be a conflict of interest. Womenwiki2050 keeps removing allegations which are now part of an ongoing story with responses by Wang's colleagues. The allegations are sadly germane to the article. Trumpetrep ( talk) 02:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply