Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:36, 19 July 2021

• WP:BLPN
• WP:BLP/N
• WP:BLPNB
• WP:BLP/NB

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

Additional notes:

• Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
• For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
• Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

• Prohibiting the creation of new "T:" pseudo-namespace redirects
• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Donald Trump's mental health

Although the proposer wanted to consider this under WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:NFRINGE, commenters were more concerned about WP:BLP and WP:MEDRS; I find consensus is that these trump PUBLIC FIGURE and NFRINGE for the purposes of this discussion and that there is consensus not to include.

The question was raised as to whether this is even worth this discussion, and consensus seems to be that it’s not, due not only to BLP concerns & MEDRS concerns, but also due to previous consensus, which can be found at Rule 39 and in discussions from June 2019, July 2019, August 2017 and July 2017. Therefore I find consensus that the question of whether Donald Trump’s mental health and/or mental fitness should be included in any article about him should not be brought up for discussion again until we have an announced formal diagnosis or MEDRS-level sources, preferably retrospective scholarship. Rule 39 should be updated to reflect this.

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.

Would it be within policy (such as WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:NFRINGE) to add the following line to Donald Trump?

Since running for president, Trump's temperament and mental fitness has been a regular topic of public discussion. Trump has responded by saying that he has a "great temperament" and is a "very stable genius".

A similar issue was discussed at BLPN#Dianne Feinstein's health with @Snooganssnoogans, Springee, Masem, ValarianB, GoodDay, Aquillion, PackMecEng, The Four Deuces, Einsof, and Elizium23:, and at Help desk#Health speculation with @Alexis Jazz and Novem Linguae:

A relevant example is Kim Jong-un#Health which mentions the 2020 rumor of his death.

The outcome of this discussion could lead to a change to Donald Trump#Current consensus #39. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Updated proposal with quotes found here. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

References

1. Levin, Aaron (25 August 2016). "History of Goldwater Rule Recalled as Media Try to Diagnose Trump". Psychiatric News. American Psychiatric Association. doi:10.1176/appi.pn.2016.9a13. Retrieved 25 April 2020.
2. • McCarthy, Michael (February 17, 2017). "Experts debate Trump's mental health in US press". BMJ. doi:10.1136/bmj.j864.
   • "White House Daily Briefing January 4, 2018". CSPAN. Retrieved 20 March 2021. REPORTER: WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT'S REACTION TO THE GROWING NUMBER OF SUGGESTIONS BOTH IN THIS BOOK AND THE MEDIA THAT HE IS MENTALLY UNFIT TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT? MS. SANDERS: THE SAME WAY WE HAVE WHEN IT HAS BEEN ASKED BEFORE COMBAT IT IS DISGRACEFUL AND LAUGHABLE. IF HE WAS UNFIT, ...
   • Rucker, Philip; Parker, Ashley (8 January 2018). "The White House struggles to silence talk of Trump's mental fitness". Washington Post. Archived from the original on 28 March 2020. Retrieved 18 May 2020.
   • Maza, Carlos (24 January 2018). "The awkward debate over Trump's mental fitness". Vox. Retrieved 18 May 2020.
   • Haghbayan, Hourmazd; Coomes, Eric A.; Cheema, Asim N.; Shojania, Kaveh G. (October 2018). "Media Dissemination of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment After President Donald Trump's Medical Evaluation". JAMA Neurology. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.1777. PMC 6233843.
   • "The 25th Amendment: Can Trump be declared unfit for office? Democratic Congress members tell Vice President Pence that Trump cannot remain for full term as not 'mentally sound'". Al Jazeera. January 7, 2021. Retrieved 20 March 2021.
3. Cillizza, Chris (1 August 2016). "Donald Trump's ABC interview may be his best/worst yet". Washington Post. Archived from the original on 17 October 2019. Retrieved 18 May 2020.
4. • Rucker, Philip; Leonnig, Carol (2020). A Very Stable Genius: Donald J. Trump's Testing of America. Penguin Press. ISBN 9781984877505.
   • Cummings, William (July 11, 2019). "Trump says he's 'so great looking and smart, a true Stable Genius' in tweet bashing 2020 Dems". USA Today. Retrieved 22 May 2020.
   • Parker, Ashley; Wan, William (July 22, 2020). "Trump keeps boasting about passing a cognitive test — but it doesn't mean what he thinks it does". Washington Post. Retrieved 1 July 2021.

I would oppose any mention of "mental fitness". I don't see any problems with descriptions of temperament and personality quirks. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• Bear in mind the outcome of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Health of Donald Trump, which focused to a great degree on reports regarding his mental health. BD2412 T 20:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• Temperament and personality should be fair game, with all caveats of RS, BLP, NPOV, etc. Mental health rumor mongering is a problem in line with the Goldwater rule, which maybe should be adopted by Misplaced Pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

  The Goldwater Rule does not prevent members of the APA from discussing the fact that Trump's mental health is discussed in the media. Dr. Jack Drescher said the following in the APA's own publication: "In the past four years, claims were repeatedly made about the mental health of President Trump and his psychological fitness to govern. As an APA member who follows the Goldwater Rule, I cannot ethically comment in a public, professional capacity on the mental health status of public figures—nor do I wish to." Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

  Good on Dr. Drescher. Talking about how the media talks about Trump's mental health just creates a feedback loop. Just because the media talks about something does not mean that we should include it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• Given the consensus clearly expressed in the deletion process noted by User:BD2412, I suggest you'll need much newer sources than those provided above. The many cogent arguments made in that deletion discussion demonstrate it would be difficult to find page consensus for inclusion on the subject's main article page. It's a BLP; the threshold is necessarily high. Putting these older sorts of sources and assertions into the Presidency of DT page would be more likely successful, but still unlikely. BusterD (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

  Unless those sources are WP:MEDRS based upon direct examinations of the subject (not mere speculation), then I doubt they'll pass muster for BLP purposes. Due to things such as doctor-patient confidentiality, requests such as this almost never make it into articles. Zaereth (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

  I have 2020 and 2021 sources included above. My proposal is not to write about Trump's health, but to write about the media's discussion of his health. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

A distinction without a difference. Zaereth (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I think there is; and I cited WP:NFRINGE. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• Trump was nuts & Biden is senile, so competing news media have told us. Which do we believe? GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Psychologists breaking the Goldwater rule and right-wing pundits spewing nonsense are very different beasts. Media coverage of the former is a question worth discussing (though only the media coverage of it; such claims should not be given credence for the same reason the Goldwater rule exists). The latter is clearly not suitable for inclusion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

A question. If one of Trump's political opponents made a statement directly questioned his mental health, would we be able to cover it? Specifically, if they were to call him "slow", "crazy", "nutty", or terms like that, could we include those (with attribution) anywhere on Misplaced Pages, as we do on eg. List of nicknames used by Donald Trump? Because Trump has called a lot of people crazy and we currently cover all of those despite the lack of a formal diagnosis. --Aquillion (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I mean, if it were notable enough, yeah. In the case of Trump's disparagement of others, he's done so to a degree that the media took note, which made it notable (much to my chagrin, I might add).

I'll note that this is why I said there's a discussion to be had about the Goldwater rule violations. We should be covering those incidents using the principles of WP:FRINGE, even though it could be argued convincingly that they're not actually fringe opinions (I'm sure there's a lot of agreement among psychologists that Trump isn't exactly "all there"). We write about what third parties have said about them, good and bad, with a focus on reality (that reality being that none of these experts have actually formally diagnosed Trump). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

You cannot say something has been a regular topic of public discussion without a source that exactly says that, per unattributed contentions. Obviously for someone with his profile, lots of people are going to discuss him, but it's not significant unless it is noted in reliable sources.

The lone source used is a BMJ news article that says 35 mental health professionals wrote a letter saying that "was unable to tolerate views different from his own." Sure that comes under temperament and mental health, but without reporting what they said it makes the criticism seem worse than it was. Also, 35 mental health professionals isn't a significant number. The American Psychiatric Association has 38.800 members, while the American Psychological Association hasw over 122,000 members.

Also, instead of quoting Trump's response, it would be better just to say he rejects the claim. Without context, it's unclear if he was being ironic, whether that's how he normally speaks or whether he has delusions of grandeur.

If you included it in a section about his personality, I would say that a group of medical professionals wrote a letter to the New York Times saying that Trump's lack of tolerance of other views made him unfit for office. That would be a neutral tone.

TFD (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

"olumnists and op-ed writers decided en masse to diagnose one of the candidates with mental illness.(Levin)

"The White House is struggling to contain the national discussion about President Trump's mental acuity and fitness for the job".(Rucker)

"Is Trump mentally unfit to be president? That is an awkward question, but it's one that's being asked on every major news network in America. President Trump's fitness for office is now the top story in the country."(Maza, video)

"The cognitive fitness of President of the United States Donald Trump and the ethics of his cognitive evaluation have been the topic of intense discussion among both the general public and medical professionals in recent months."(Haghbayan)

It could be included in a public image section. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• Just to be completely clear, are you questioning whether sources that say that Trump's mental health has been a regular topic of public discussion exist, or are you just noting that we would have to actually include them? Either way, they plainly do exist (some of them referenced above, but for completeness):

• : Trump’s mental health (or lack thereof) is a trending topic on the Internet; on cable news programs; in magazines and newspapers; and most hilariously on Saturday Night Live. And political pundits, politicians and comedians pored over the so-called Bible of Psychiatry, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), and reached the consensus that Trump suffers from narcissistic personality disorder. (The author opposes this diagnoses, but acknowledges that Trump's health has been a major focus of conversation over an extended period of time.)
• After several calls from high profile psychiatrists with concerns about Trump’s mental health, what does the MoCA tell us about his cognitive health?
• Experts debate Trump’s mental health in US press
• Scientific American Yet the rioters’ actions—and Trump’s own role in, and response to, them—come as little surprise to many, particularly those who have been studying the president’s mental fitness and the psychology of his most ardent followers since he took office.
• CJR: Just about every week, the media invites a psychiatrist or psychologist to admonish other psychiatrists or psychologists for calling Donald Trump mentally ill.
• Politico: Consequently, he is plainly out of sorts, say former close associates, longtime Trump watchers and mental health experts. ... The people who’ve known Trump well, the people who’ve watched him for a long, long time, the mental health professionals — they’re worried, they told me, about what’s to come, in the next month, and in the months and years after that.
• Washington Post The White House is struggling to contain the national discussion about President Trump's mental acuity and fitness for the job, which has overshadowed the administration's agenda for the past week.
• mlive.com: U.S. Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-Holly, joined growing calls to remove President Donald Trump from office before the next president is sworn in on Jan. 20, citing concerns from high ranking military officials that Trump is unfit for office. Slotkin, a former CIA analyst and Pentagon official, said she’s been in conversation with senior military officials at the Pentagon who are concerned about the president’s mental health. Members of Congress were forced to evacuate offices and barricade themselves as pro-Trump protesters broke into the U.S. Capitol and disrupted the certification of Electoral College votes.
• BBC: It is a question that has dogged Donald Trump - fairly or otherwise - since he was elected president: is he mentally fit for office?

I can find many more comparable sources if people want to see them, but you get the idea. Note that many of these sources are new and postdate previous discussions (in particular there was increased coverage following the January 6th riots, though almost all of it notes that it is an extended controversy that dogged him for most of his time in office.) I think it's obviously important that we avoid implying a specific diagnosis in the article voice, but given the sustained nature of those discussions and the significant impact it had, we have to acknowledge that they took place; when it comes to public figures, the Goldwater Rule and similar cautions only mean that we cannot imply that someone has been diagnosed when they haven't, not that we must omit any coverage of discussion that relates to their mental health at all. This is no different than eg. a public figure who is suspected of a crime - the bar for covering that without a conviction is high, but it is not at the unreachable point where some people are trying to argue we need to place eg. extended media coverage discussion a politician's mental health. In fact, Trump's article currently lists numerous accusations, investigations, and so on that did not result in a formal conviction; discussions of his mental health seem precisely comparable. Yes, we must be cautious with such controversies, but when a controversy follows a politician for their entire time in office - and multiple high-quality sources describe it as such - we are clearly required to at least note its existence. --Aquillion (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I was replying to the question posted which begins with a source saying that 25 mental health professionals question Trump's tolerance for differing opinions. Bear in mind that conclusions reported in articles, in this case that "Trump's temperament and mental fitness has been a regular topic of public discussion," should be based on sources that make those conclusions not on the conclusions reached by Misplaced Pages editors, per no original research.

I would point out also that only one source is required for any statement made in Misplaced Pages. In my experience, when editors provide multiple sources, none of them say exactly what they want to say, but they believe that all put together they do, which is implicit synthesis.

The one source you provided I looked at was "Misdiagnosing Donald Trump," which says, "Trump’s mental health (or lack thereof) is a trending topic on the Internet; on cable news programs...." It doesn't say that "Trump's health has been a major focus of conversation over an extended period of time." Trending means "currently popular." (Oxford) Nor does it say that the discussion is significant relative to overall coverage of Trump, which is required to support noteworthiness in the article.

I don't see why I should have to read 20 articles to determine if any of them support the text. Please hit me with your best shot and provide ONE source that alone is adequate to support the text.

As an additional comment, should the information be added, it should also explain the degree of acceptance of the claim.

TFD (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Let's not get hung up on the precise language proposed; the question is whether to include any content about the attention given to Trump's mental fitness/health. There are so many examples I'm not sure which one is best, but notice a quote I already mentioned:

"In the past four years, claims were repeatedly made about the mental health of President Trump and his psychological fitness to govern." (2021) Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

"The questioning of Trump’s fitness has persisted throughout his Presidency, as members of his party and his close associates fed the narrative of a deteriorating mind. " (Oct 2020) Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• Please hit me with your best shot and provide ONE source that alone is adequate to support the text. I do not believe one source could ever be sufficient, since WP:SUSTAINED coverage is necessary for something of this nature, and since (as I'm sure you're aware as an experienced editor) WP:PUBLICFIGURE specifically says that If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out - multiple sources are flatly required by policy here, and in general, for something as high-profile as this, I would expect people to at least skim a large number of sources to make sure that the ones being directly cited are representative per WP:BLP's requirements and to come up with a sentence that accurately reflects what they say. But if you're unwilling to do that extended reading, two of the most useful ones I linked are are:

• BBC (It is a question that has dogged Donald Trump - fairly or otherwise - since he was elected president: is he mentally fit for office?)
• Washington Post (The White House is struggling to contain the national discussion about President Trump's mental acuity and fitness for the job, which has overshadowed the administration's agenda for the past week.)

I should emphasize, as mentioned above, that my point isn't to decide one specific wording (that is another reason I presented so many sources, allowing us to go over them and figure out the best wording out of what they cover) - the question we're deciding now is whether we should say anything at all about the discussion over Trump's mental health. That requires an extended survey of a large number of sources to establish whether it meets the high standard set by BLP. --Aquillion (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

This is likely a topic that we should wait until we have better backwards-looking sources covering Trump's presidency as a whole to make a summary like this, along the likes of TDF's comments above. Certainly the subject of Trump's mental health has been reported, but it would be so piecemeal that we risk potential problems (given the close on the other health article). But backwards-looking summaries of his presidency would be a better place for us to start with the type of summary that is being asked. If this is added before we get a good summary, it must be kept brief and short as suggested. --Masem (t) 04:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure I agree with the implication that we'll have a better view in years to come, but it's likely good advice nonetheless. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Not necessarily that we'll have a better view, but we'll most likely have a better retrospective that can frame how his mental health (or discussions relating to it) framed his presidency, to provide the type of structure that is a good secondary or even tertiary source to build from. Then we can fill pieces with now-current sources on specifics if necessary. --Masem (t) 15:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I believe I was being unclear. I agree with your advice. I was just saying that there's no guarantee that we'll have any better perspective on a subject like this, where Trump can (and absolutely will) do his best to obfuscate any information that might reflect poorly on him, and will (inadvertently) endeavor to get any information that reflects well on him pushed out in a manner that draws it into doubt and/or incoherence.

Most topics; yes, we'll definitely have a better picture in years to come. This topic? I think it's very unlikely that we'll look back in ten years and have any clearer of a picture than we do now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree on the specific topic of Trump's mental health we'll likely not have a solitary work devoted to it in the future. But we will likely have plenty of works to discuss his presidency and lead-up to it (and likely fallout), and those works, if his mental health or the discussion around it was a core part of the narrative around his presidency, will find a place to document enough of it for us to know where to discuss it and to what level of detail, drawing from now-current sources if necessary. Maybe it will be found to have been a red herring for the most part and its simply glimpsed over, and to that end we should remain vague as well (which is what most advice here is recommending as well if mention is even made). --Masem (t) 16:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Yep. I would dearly love to see the results of a legit psych exam, though. And an IQ test.

Not just because of my own views on the topic (I'm so far convinced he's just dumb and narcissistic, with no other pathology there), but because of the fact that it's been such a topic of hot discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Kolya Butternut: The outcome of this discussion could lead to a change to Donald Trump#Current consensus #39. Then why start this discussion here and not on the Donald Trump talk page? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

  This is the place to have a community-wide discussion for policy questions about BLPs... Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

NO, not unless he had been Profesionally diagnosed by a qualified professional as part of a formal (and face to face) examination.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• As a general comment, I'd say that "Over the past several years, numerous experts have raised concerns about Donald Trump's mental health..." and "Over the past several years, numerous claims about Donald Trump's mental health have been made..." are two very different ways of phrasing this. The former is flatly unacceptable, and should never be entertained, even though it's strictly true. The second is worth discussing, but I'm still unsure of whether it's a good move myself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
• Some inclusion of the rampant speculation about his mental state seems DUE but needs to be carefully worded. It cannot be "numerous experts" because I'm pretty sure providing armchair diagnosis, as some of them did, is in violation of practicing guidelines for licensed practitioners; you cannot diagnose someone who isn't even your patient and who you haven't even examined. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
• I would disagree that speculation about his mental health should be included. There is so much speculation about Trump and it's hard to say what is legitimate vs motivated by dislike of a person who was easy to dislike... even before he ran for office. I agree with Masem that this is a case where we really should wait for a retrospective review of the topic and it's impact. We should also keep BLP and the idea of do no harm (even if it is Trump) in mind. Springee (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
• No. We should stick with the longstanding local consensus (#39 as mentioned by the OP) not to include any speculation about his mental health. For heavens sake, our BLP policy clearly states that we need firm sourcing to say negative things about a living person. There is nothing but speculation, "armchair diagnosis," and POV-influenced punditry as sources about his mental health. We should not raise questions about it, and we should not report that other people have raised questions about it. BTW this discussion should not be influenced by how we personally feel about Trump or the state of his mental health. This is the BLP board and we are discussing how to apply BLP policy. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  This is why I think it's worth discussing. There are arguments to be made for inclusion (the broad coverage in sources, for example), but as you pointed out, there are arguments to be made for exclusion, as well.

  If a consensus to report on this stuff emerges, I'm gonna look like a red hatted POV pusher to anyone not familiar with my editing history in discussions of how to include it. It's gonna have to be absolutely neutral and dispassionate and there can't be even a hint that WP endorses any of those views. They'll need to be framed as examples of people breaking the Goldwater rule, not as examples of experts describing Trump's mental state. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• I am somewhat upset at Kolya's now second attempt (at least) to try to relitigate the mental health RfC. The RfC was vitriolic, long, and painful. The issue was solved according to our policies, leading to consensus #39, and should stay put to rest. This is little more than a disruptive attempt to find a different venue that might agree with them. I have no personal opinion on the subject but firmly stand by my close of the mental health RfC, believe little new info has come out that would change the decision, believe consensus has not changed, and ask Kolya to drop the stick already. This is a waste of editor time. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not familiar with the course of that RfC, but assuming you're correct, I may need to re-evaluate the advice I gave them below to go with a new RfC. I'm going to go look it up now, and my impressions of that will color my next response to Koyla. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  I am raising this again now because I have found so many sources which were not discussed in the previous RfC (and many newer sources since 2019), but I guess in this forum I should have asked the general policy questions below not specific to Trump. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  I read through the RFC linked to #39 above, and I think there is a subtly different question being asked - or least as editors here have responded. No, we don't want a paragraph-length discussion about his mental health until better sources as identified at the RFC come about. But acknowledging briefly that there has been discussion in political media related to his mental health in a sentence or two at most is a far different issue than what details were being sought at at the RFC. This is not to say we need to have it, it's still very touchy if we should and there's clearly overlapping issues to consider. --Masem (t) 21:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The problem I see is that if we do it for Trump, then we have to do it for everyone else. How much coverage did speculation about McCain's health (both mental and physical) get? The answer is: a hell of a lot. Same with Palin. Same with Bush, and Reagan. Not that it's limited to one side of the aisle, what about all the speculation about Hilary Clinton's health? Joe Biden's? Walter Mondale? Bob Dole? Would people be arguing this same thing for candidates they like, or is it only limited to one's they dislike?

I consider myself impartial, because I dislike them all equally. I'll admit, I voted for Trump, but I would have voted for Daffy Duck if that was an option, just to give my big middle finger to the entire system. Trump's one redeeming quality is that he had no filter. I don't think he could pull off a lie with a costume, stunt double, and a script, which is a rare quality in any politician.

They taught us in debate class to play devil's advocate; to walk a mile in your opponent's shoes, so to speak. You learn a lot when you try to argue the position you're against. If the situation were reversed, and we were talking about your favorite candidate (using "your" in the collective sense) would you still be in favor of this? I think it's a Pandora's box that we don't want to open, even if it is Trump we're talking about. We need to have better standards than that, and I wouldn't want to set a precedence. Zaereth (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is different with Trump. The Goldwater Rule was even violated. A video summary of coverage just in January 2018: Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

No it's not. Anyway you try to rationalize it, it's still the same. The Goldwater Rule is a code of ethical conduct within the psychiatric community, not a law. Trump is not a psychiatrist. You can find all kinds of psychiatrists breaking that rule for McCain, Palin, Clinton, etc... Maybe it's just me, because I have an eidetic memory, or maybe others just have the memories of goldfish, I don't know, but I see no difference between this and all the others. It's so much the same it's like they just keep recycling the same script, just changing the names. Zaereth (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Masem, you seem to appreciate what I'm asking about here. I still have several unanswered questions I wonder if I can get your opinion on.

1. Do you think the previous RfC and Consensus #39 may not apply here? The RfC seemed to be about whether to maintain the previous consensus to "include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals who have not examined him." Previously included paragraph found here. My proposal is just to briefly mention the media story in the Public image/profile section.
2. Can you discuss PUBLICFIGURE and BLPGOSSIP? Do both of these policies apply, and inclusion is simply a question of WEIGHT? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

CaptainEek, can we start over? I understand that you are frustrated, but I have brought this question up again after finding many more sources since last year, including more current sources. I thought it made sense to post here to discuss the policy questions before discussing starting a new RfC or challenging your RfC close. I want to proceed with the least disruption possible, but there are many issues I feel need to be addressed. I am considering first challenging your RfC close as overbroad, and then at Talk:Donald Trump discussing the new sources I've found to see if folks think this content is now DUE. Do you have any thoughts on this? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:48, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• Community consensus has been pretty clear and consistant on this topic and the topic in general. Speculation like this has no place in a BLP. PackMecEng (talk) 02:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

  PackMecEng, can you tell me which discussions you're referring to? Even thought the Trump RfC wasn't about including the speculation itself, above I gave the example of Kim Jong-un's rumored death. We also write about speculation that Sean Mendes is gay. Speculation about Anderson Cooper's sexuality had been included before he came out. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

  Kolya Butternut, Yes I am referring to the RFC at the Trump article here. I believe that speculation on mental or physical health should not be included in any BLP article. And yes unless a doctor has examined and diagnosed the subject in person it is indeed speculation. I would oppose it in all the ones you listed as well as Biden's article for example. It is not appropriate. PackMecEng (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

  PackMecEng, what is the policy basis? Even noteworthy speculated diagnoses should be included per NFRINGE (not in this case IMO). Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC) added ping Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

  Paul McCartney's 1969 death rumor is included, and it's a featured article. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

  Kolya Butternut, It is rooted in BLP policy and a broad consensus. Again I do not care about what other articles, also that example has nothing to do with this. PS your ping did not work PackMecEng (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Donald Trump mental health - policy analysis

Could we have more direct analysis here of WP:PUBLICFIGURE, WP:NFRINGE, etc.? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Why? Those policies have nothing to do with the question at hand. PUBLICFIGURE is an exception to BLPCRIME, but we're not talking about any crime here. NFRINGE is about the notability of fringe theories, which is again is completely off topic. What we're talking about is what happens with every politician: political rhetoric and rank speculation. It's about as likely to gain consensus here as it did with McCain, Palin, Obama, Clinton, Bush, and all of the others since the beginning of time. Normally this kind of thing would simply be undue weight (eg: trivial nonsense), but when you start getting into any speculation about a subject's medical health or conditions, suddenly you've entered the world of MEDRS, and standards there are extremely high.

Mostly, it's about common human decency, and you'll have a hard time convincing people that this kind of stuff is not in incredibly bad taste and thus encyclopedic in nature. We should not be a vehicle for pushing political diatribe. Zaereth (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

In their close, CaptainEek wrote that armchair diagnosis is likely WP:FRINGE, and must meet the requirements of WP:EXCEPTIONAL. So a question here is whether the coverage since the last RfC raises characterizations of Trump's behavior to notable fringe. I'm not arguing either way on that point. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• WP:BLP is about getting it right (according to the best sources available). What happened in the latter part of Michael Jackson's life was a tragedy, but it is fact that speculation about his medical and mental health had a massive, life-changing impact on his later career; covering that is not optional, and appealing to common human decency to argue that we had an obligation to omit it while he was alive is an inappropriate attempt to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by arguing that the genuine, wide-spread coverage in reliable sources was unfair and that the impact it had on him is a tragedy that Misplaced Pages should correct. We aren't allowed to make those determinations. "The sources are bad", fine. "It's not significant enough based on the sourcing", fine. "Only a medical diagnosis, fullstop" is inappropriate and not defensible as a standard. And certainly MEDRS does not apply to covering the existence of public debate regarding the health and mental state of a public figure, since it is not something that implies treatment. The question for us is purely how significant that public debate is, how much impact it had, and whether it is a major part of the subject's biography (a point at which, not-incidentally, appeals to basic human decency fall flat because our coverage of something that is manifestly a major part of the subject's biography cannot reasonably harm them; Jackson may have detested the Wacko Jacko nickname and the reputation that came with it, but it played a major role in his life to the point where it's unrealistic to argue that we harmed him by reporting on it during his life.) I am fine with the argument that such things are often or usually not significant, but there are plainly places where it defines the course of the subject's life, and in those cases we cannot omit it. --Aquillion (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Donald Trump mental health - WP:PUBLICFIGURE

Does WP:PUBLICFIGURE only apply to criminal allegations and incidents, or would it apply to noteworthy claims and speculations about health, etc? Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Why are you asking this? Both of the cited examples are non-crimes. I do see someone asserting that this only applies to crimes, but the section very clearly doesn't.

Zaereth raised other points which are worth addressing (or acknowledging). Focusing on the one instance of a clearly wrong claim, and pretending to need clarity about whether it's wrong isn't helpful.

The question about whether to include this information is not directly addressed by policy, so trying to make a policy-based case for it is misguided at best. There is a consensus answer to this specific question, and if you want a different answer, the way to get that is to try to achieve a new consensus. To that end, an RfC at the appropriate talk page is the way to go. Continuing to argue your case here is not helping. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm asking a good faith question. I didn't phrase it well. I could have asked whether it only applied to allegations of wrongdoing, although it's true that the divorce example shows it's broader than that. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I want to repeat my advice: Go start an RfC to discuss this. I'm fairly neutral on the core question of whether or not we should have this material, though I lean very slightly towards "yes". But this is not the place to decide that. This is an open question wrt our actual BLP policy, so you need a consensus to do this, and given that a consensus not to do this exists, you need to address that by way of a new RfC. A notification here would be appropriate, but trying to establish the consensus here... Well, not so much. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe a better question here would be about if and when any material like this would be in a BLP, rather than about Trump in particular, to answer the policy questions. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Note my comment in response to Captain Eek above. I've reviewed the previous RfC (and the closing statements of the AfD and the prior discussions...) and I'm now of the opinion that you should drop this matter and simply accept that this is not going to happen. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

That RfC was mostly about including information about his mental health, not just mentioning that there has been public discussion of his mental health. And like I said we have many more sources now. I'm still looking for where sources were discussed in that RfC but I haven't found much. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• I am curious how people who want to omit this feel we should have covered Michael Jackson when he was alive. Speculation about his health and mental state were major aspects of his notability in the later part of his life and completely defined the final parts of his career - is the argument here that we would have had to completely omit them, regardless of the level of sourcing, unless we had someone presenting a formal diagnosis? This does not seem to reflect WP:BLP; we obviously have to be careful about what we state in the article voice, but allegations about public figures should be covered (and in extreme cases must be covered), with attribution, if they become a significant part of their notability. The sourcing requirement to cover such things is high, but requiring a medical diagnosis specifically, simply to cover high-profile opinions with extensive secondary coverage, is completely unsupported by policy and completely unworkable as a standard. Sometimes people speculate about other people's mental health; sometimes that speculation, itself - whether it is right or wrong - becomes central to the course of events and receives massive secondary coverage to the point where an encyclopedia cannot ignore it. I can understand the people who are uncertain whether discussion over Trump's mental health reached that point (ie. if it passes the "Wacko Jacko" standard, where a biography of the subject simply does not make sense and can never be called complete if it is omitted), but I do not think that strictly requiring a formal diagnoses is a defensible position. A hypothetical, for example - suppose we had extensive, high-quality WP:RSes stating that public concerns over Trump's mental health played a role in his losing the election. Could we omit that? (Partially, more than Trump specifically, I want to nail down what people consider the dividing line.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

WNBA players described/categorized

WNBA players are being categorized as American emigrants to/expatriates in Turkey (or wherever), and described in the lead as being "American-Turkish", apparently because in order to play for the Turkish national team in the offseason they have to get a dual passport/citizenship. I do not think agreeing to obtain Turkish citizenship so you can play basketball for the Turkish national team makes you "American-Turkish" or an American expat in Turkey or an American emigrant to Turkey. I've seen this at two articles, Kiah Stokes and Alex Bentley, and after the second one I thought I'd better come discuss. I don't know if this is happening with players in other leagues, but I think we should see these folks describe themselves as "American-Turkish" or whatever in RS before we use this in articles about them. I think we should refer to them as 'holding a Turkish passport' or 'holding dual citizenship in order to play for the Turkish national team' or whatever instead of calling them something they may not consider themselves to be. —valereee (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

So can I assume I can remove such categorizations/descriptions? —valereee (talk) 10:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: I agree that calling them "American-Turkish" is not ideal (and calling them only "Turkish" would be even more misleading). One good phrasing in articles I've seen (e.g. Kho Sin-Kie, Giovanna Almeida Leto, Diane Chen, Laura Munana, Oei Liana): "is a CountryWhereTheyLivedMostOfTheirLife athlete who represented SomewhereElse in international competition", which covers various cases and avoids thorny POV questions about whether the person really identifies with whatever other country whose passport they hold or whether they just got it opportunistically.

You might get more response at WT:MOSBIO. In the first place, this is a real shortcoming of MOS:CONTEXTBIO; the lack of guidance on what to do when notable people add or switch citizenship after they've already become notable under their original citizenship, has led to awkward descriptors and perennial disputes on multiple articles (e.g. Tina Turner).

One more issue: some WikiProjects have a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that the lead sentence & infobox should list only the nationality of the team which the player represented internationally (or which they're eligible to represent under sport-specific rules like FIFA eligibility rules); see e.g. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Football/Players#cite note-nat-4. I'm not sure whether WP:BASKETBALL has some consensus like this about only using FIBA eligibility rules nationality. Cheers, 61.239.39.90 (talk) 03:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

61.239, the main issue here is that this isn't like male basketball players who didn't get drafted or got released so they go play their career overseas. They are just people who earn so little money (until recently the median WNBA player made $60K. That is not a typo.) that to support their families, they go play during the WNBA off-season overseas, then come right back home.

(background: Recently the WNBA and the players' union ratified a new CBA that increases salaries enough that the WNBA is hoping this can actually just stop -- that the players will feel they're earning enough to support their families without having to play two seasons a year, which risks injury that can take them out of a WNBA season and makes them unavailable for off-season promotion of the WNBA.)

To me this feels like a very different situation than for someone who was released at age 25 and decided to go play in Italy or wherever. These are side gigs.

I'll go check at WikiProject Basketball, thanks! —valereee (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Possible BLPDOB problem

I'm on Wikibreak but made the mistake of checking out ANI and noticed this Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Lugnuts' mass-creation where a commentator seems to be completely ignoring WP:BLPDOB. I'm not sure if the IP's allegations are accurate, but if they are, it sounds like there could be a far bigger and more wide spread problem where an editor has added dates of birth sourced solely to some Olympics database. Hopefully others can keep an eye on that thread and ensure any possible problems are dealt with. Nil Einne (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Olympedia, the source in question, is a reliable source used in thousands of articles, and "Misplaced Pages includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources" (from that very page). Olympedia is a peer-reviewed database, and therefore is a reliable source, and so I do not believe any BLP violations are occurring by using it. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

No evidence has been given that Olympedia is not a reliable source, so I don't see the basis for the OP's claim of WP:BLPDOB violation. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Joseph2302 There was a tentative start at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_335#Olympedia, and if frequently used, Olympedia likely merits further discussion. After all, the policy (WP:BLPPRIVACY) states "Misplaced Pages includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources" Edwardx (talk) 10:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Since no one else has really dealt with it I just logged in to mention this. @Joseph2302: you're missing the point. I never claimed that Olympedia is not a reliable source. However information only in a database like Olympedia cannot by any token be considered widely published. As I already said at ANI, BLP policy explicitly goes beyond requiring reliable sources when it comes to dates of birth and other information considered private. Therefore while Olympedia not being a reliable source would be relevant, Olympedia being a reliable source is irrelevant in terms of the specific BLP concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the concern over adding DOBs sourced to a single database. The concerns at WP:BLPDOB are about privacy concerns, rather than verifiability or reliability. If the DOB is only included in a single source, especially a mere database, then it should not be included in a BLP because it has not been "widely published" by reliable sources and there is no indication that the article subjects would not object to including it. This is even more important given that this discussion appears to be the result of creations of articles about many relatively non-notable individuals. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Wallyfromdilbert and Edwardx. Anyway I wanted to apologise as my follow-up was poorly worded and offer clarification to try and ward off possible confusion before I leave this dispute completely. Saying it being an RS is not relevant is unnecessarily confusing. What I should have said is that if it wasn't an RS, then yeah that's a definite problem that we need to resolve, call it a slamdunk no. But even if it is an RS, that doesn't mean it's definitely okay to use for a DOB, it's not a slamdunk yes. While I'm not certain Olympedia is an RS, I can see enough of an argument it is that I won't investigate further especially since I'm still on a wikibreak. However what caused my concern was the suggestion on ANI, repeated here, all that matters is whether Olympedia is an RS, which is not what BLP says. In my mind, it's clear that an exact birthdate only published in Olympedia or actually most databases, shouldn't be considered widely published and therefore fails BLPDOB. So it is a slamdunk no even if Olympedia is an RS. I don't think I'm willing to come back from my wikibreak to argue this point so if others disagree, well I'll just have to leave that for now. But at a minimum, it is imperative that anyone editing BLPs recognises that there are additional considerations beyond whether there is an RS that is why I was so concerned as editors seemed to be ignoring that important point. Nil Einne (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up the issue here, Nil Einne, as I had a similar concern about the discussion, and I posted on the ANI thread as well about the higher standard for inclusion of personal information about living persons due to the privacy concerns discussed in WP:BLPPRIVACY. A single database containing DOBs of BLPs is not sufficient for inclusion under our current policy. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that a single source, even if reliable, doesn't constitute 'widely published in RS'. —valereee (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I think there's reasonable concerns about the notability of articles sourced only to bare statistical data on Olympedia/sports-reference.com/cricinfo and similar sources. I'm not sold on these as particularly high-quality sources - these sources are not "peer reviewed" (which is an academic process for research papers) despite what Joseph2302 says. It is not clear whether any actual real human review or confirmation happens between the data being recorded by some national/regional sports association and it appearing on this database. Regardless of the reliability of these sources, bare mentions, particular bare statistical coverage, is never going to be a WP:GNG pass. You might say that these are still WP:SNG passes, but if they are not obviously GNG passes then this makes them "borderline notable" for the purposes of WP:DOB, meaning we should "err on the side of caution and simply list the year" at least for living subjects.

TL;DR we shouldn't be publishing the full DOB of some guy whose played one game for the Chinese Taipei national football team or made a very minor appearance at the Rio games in *insert minor sport here* and is still living, and for who we only have database references. If they are clearly notable (i.e., are clear WP:GNG passes), this concern does not apply. FOARP (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Heather K. Gerken

The article describes Alan Dershowitz as an alleged sexual predator matter of factly in the controversies section. 132.147.45.65 (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Gerken handled another case very differently. In January 2020, when Trump attorney and alleged sexual predator Alan Dershowitz, with ties to convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, made a complaint to Gerken regarding medical faculty Bandy X. Lee about her public speech, the Law School immediately ceased referring student cases to Lee, which led to her termination from Yale for having no "formal teaching role." Lee had been a popular professor who taught at the Law School since 2003 through a partnership with Yale School of Medicine, covering mental health aspects of asylum law, criminal justice, and veterans’ legal services. Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe dubbed it "a disgusting way for any university to act." Lee is taking legal action listing five causes, including breach of contract, breach of good faith, and wrongful termination.

132.147.45.65 (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I removed the alleged thing as at a minimum I think we need further details in the Gerken article if we're going to mention that. The ties thing doesn't really seem to count as further details since it's not necessary to mention the alleged thing if that is all there is. I've left in the ties thing since that sort of stands on its on although I'm not entirely happy with it. Note that the Trump thing while a part of the case is also without explanation in our article, it seems like a random detail just thrown in. I'm on wikibreak so won't be dealing with this any more but saw this when checking out the above and felt it was serious enough to try and partly deal with. Nil Einne (talk) 13:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Scratch that. I removed the whole thing since when reading again I realised it makes no sense that the law school would be significantly responsible for firing someone's who's main expertise and employment at Yale was medicine. Looking more carefully, none of the secondary sources mention Gerken except I couldn't check law360 so I don't know. This source specifically says she had no connection to the law school. Perhaps that came about because of Gerken's actions I don't know. It's irrelevant to us as editors as long as the only sources mentioning it are court filings or other such legal documents. Until Gerken's alleged actions in relation to Lee are covered in reliable secondary sources, this stays out of her page. Nil Einne (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I would add that frankly the rest of the section is or was also looking problematic with too much focus on stuff where the relevance to Gerken seemed limited. Thankfully someone else looks to be cleaning it up. Nil Einne (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

One million BLPs

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

I'm sure each one has exquisite BLP sourcing... JoelleJay (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

And it's not 950,000 white men... Levivich 01:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Or 850,000 one-sentence bios based on sports-reference.com. FOARP (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Patrick McDermott

• Disappearance of Patrick McDermott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not sure if this fits here, but this is a good place as any. This individual disappeared in June 2005, presumed drowned. Since they were the romantic partner of famous actress Olivia Newton-John, they have been repeatedly subject to unsubstantiated tabloid rumours over the last 15 years that they are still alive in Mexico. The article is currently a mess of claims and needs cleanup. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Ottaviano Del Turco

There are weakly sourced negative assertions of criminal activity, not all of which has apparently led to a conviction. I 'm not in a position to find good sources on this subject, so I'd appreciate another editor looking. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@DGG: I found Italian ex-minister jailed for nine years over bribery from Business Standard but that was all I could find for the actual conviction. For the fraud assertions, there is also an article from The New York Times: Italian governor is held on corruption charges. I don't know if either of these help at all. Notfrompedro (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Ibrahim shichenje

This user page purports to be a bio of the person whose name the account is named for. But it ends with unsourced negative claims involving criminal activity. Since it's a user page, I assume I'm not allowed to edit it, so I'm bringing it to the attention of others here. Largoplazo (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Tagged for deletion WP:NOTHOST. Notfrompedro (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Lauren Bastide

I believe the material added to this article in may be WP:BLPREMOVE or WP:UNDUE. I'm not able to read french clearly but it seems to me the translation of the information from the source has been mangled. I've tried to communicate this with the editor who added this but so far haven't gotten any dialog other than their initial message on my talk page. I'd appreciate clarification or discussion. Philipnelson99 (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not comprehensible in English and, to the extent that it is understandable, violates NPOV for the reasons you've stated. I reverted and pointed the editor to the talk page. I'll also drop a note on the user's talk. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Eggishorn thanks. I just had been thinking about it and wanted a second look. I didn't realize there was a BLP noticeboard to handle this exact situation. Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Eggishorn, the same content has been added again by a different editor without any discussion. Philipnelson99 (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

H. D. Kumaraswamy

This article H. D. Kumaraswamy is filled with undue accusations in the controversy section likely by one user. Most of the page is now controversy and violates BLP. 2409:4072:806:73D5:2B21:F8A7:7958:1AF3 (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Layla Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is Layla Love a brand name foremost? What is her given name and what makes her notable? This biography of an artist unknown to the general public reads like a press release and links a website of merchandise. When I search this artist, a more popular person with the same name comes up and is an adult film actress.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sennagod (talk • contribs) 13:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I've removed what seems to be unsourced and confusing puffery from the lede. As for the rest of the article, it certainly comes across as rather promotional, and could do with trimming. I suspect that the sources cited are sufficient to meet Misplaced Pages notability guidelines though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Jamie-Lee O'Donnell

• Jamie-Lee O'Donnell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Persistent attempts to add date of birth, when as detailed at Talk:Jamie-Lee O'Donnell there are multiple references giving different dates/ages, making the person's date, or even year, of birth unclear. FDW777 (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Ramiz King : unfair edits by @bonadea

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.

Ramiz King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I want to highlight that I tried voicing my opinion to Bonadea on their talk page but they deleted it. It was about how they labeled a well reputed reliable source from Hindustan Times as a press release when it was a editorial independent and interviewed article written by a reputed journalist and this editor did not take in consideration that Hindustan Times adds a disclaimer to their press release articles and without any evidence they made a press release comment visible on the article and when confronted the messages were hidden and this makes me question all their edits which I want another mediator to do so too without being biased. Is this truly a fair space? Positiveilluminati (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@Positiveilluminati: Your related complaint at WP:AN has just been rejected. Looks like you're admin-shopping. Favonian (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Assassination of Jovenel Moïse

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

That looks almost exactly like the stuff that WP:BLPCRIME suggests to avoid. The names don't give us any useful information. One assumes that the suspects have names, and it's not like any of those names are linked to Misplaced Pages pages. Naming them is pointless and problematic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Multiple sources have discussed their names and why their identities and nationalities are important, being entrepreneurs and ex-soldiers ensnared in the assassination. If naming them is pointless then one can say naming any suspect at all is pointless. In fact naming any suspect in any article is pointless by that standard if names here are pointless. The Haiti police already believe they are guilty to some extent. If you think including names of suspects is wrong, then remove names of suspects from every article. WP:BLPCRIME allows exception. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The names do not tells us their nationalities, do not tell us their jobs. Those things can be discussed without invoking the names. And yes, to a large degree naming suspects who are not otherwise notable is pointless.... and we have WP:BLPCRIME to reflect that. Police believing someone is guilty is not a conviction or even a charge; it places them in the category of "suspect", which is very much in the realm of what WP:BLPCRIME is meant to cover. If the list of suspects included W. C. Fields, Manuel Noriega, and Dolores Umbridge, that would indeed be conveying information of interest, but a list of names that the reader is not going to recognize just tells us that these people have names, which is generally assumed. If the fact that there is a sourceable name for a suspect is enough to overcome the BLPCRIME guideline, then why would it exist? --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

They do if you try to notice how their names are different than common American names and are clear French or Spanish, and names are used to identify who the suspects are in any investigation. Plus are we supposed to leave people unidentified? You say they are not notable but what's your criteria of that? Because these people have been discussed by dozens to hundreds of sources. Yes people can become notable just for one act per Misplaced Pages policies and that's why we include names of suspects. WP:BLPCRIME has exceptions for reasons and it involves coverage by other sources. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Except becoming a suspect is not an act one takes, it is something that is done to one. And if we don't have a source discussing the nationalities of the suspects, but are supposed to be making some point based on what kind of people the reader thinks they sound like, that's weak-ass encylopedaling. We are not a news organization, where bringing forth the name can be part of bringing forth people with more information. Our goals are different, and we can wait out the seas of suspicions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

By the logic you used we don't need to wait it out. Because as you said their names don't tell us anything about them. We should never include their names even if they are convicted. These people were witnessed and even recorded by multiple people. There's already enough evidence to convict them. Their identities have already been discussed many-many times. We aren't a news organisation but real encyclopaedias aren't run by personal emotions over anything. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the issue that NatGertler brings up is valid: none of these twenty names are notable in any way, and outside of the two dead ones, mostly interchangeable in describing the event, and so less a BLPCRIME issue and just "information overload", there is no need to name them at this point, which also defers wisely to BLPCRIME until they are actually arrested under charges, as a minimum standpoint. --Masem (t) 13:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I can argue with that logic there's no need to ever name any criminal even if convicted. Because it can't tell us their motive, jobs, or anything. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Here it is the fact there are twenty people involved, none of them notable. What's notable about them is the number, and their nationality, which can be included more simply. Now, maybe when all is said and done, and the remaining 18 are convicted, then a list of names would be most appropriate as well as meeting BLPCRIME to flesh it out as to complete the article without any BLP issues. But we have the questionable factor of if these yet meet inclusion for BLPCRIME yet, atop that its just noise for the most part, so the intro section to that paragraph captures the best way to currently sum them up until convictions are made. --Masem (t) 15:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

They are notable for the murder itself. Yes one act makes people notable enough and why we have articles for criminals too. Even ones that may not have been convicted. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

BLPCRIME specifically says that convicted suspects in a crime are not immediately notable and we dont create articles on them unless they have more notability beyond having just committed the crime. --Masem (t) 15:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no mention of anything you are saying in WP:BLPCRIME and yes we do create articles for people notable for just one crime. Mohammed Atta would never have an article if it wasn't for 9/11. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

For Atta, there has been an intensive study of why he committed 9/11 and the events leading up to it, the subject of multiple indepth sources. We have zero information on these people at this point and because they acted as a group, it is likely only one or two of them are the masterminds that may have planned it out. It is far far too early to be discussing individual notability here, and that's why BLPCRIME say even to wait to name them until a conviction comes around. --Masem (t) 15:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Those studies would have never been conducted if it wasn't for 9/11 and people don't really care for his psyche or background. Just that he did it. So yes Atta is only notable for 9/11 no matter how you want to put it. BLPCRIME doesn't prohibit naming suspects and there's already clinching evidence. Studies on criminals are always done because they committed that crime, they are not independent of it. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The BLPCRIME and BLP1E guidelines do not apply to Mohammed Atta as he is not an LP. Misplaced Pages has both ethical and legal reasons for being more circumspect regarding living persons. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Those guidelines apply even after death depending on cases. The period depends up to the editors. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

And anyway when we can have names of Guantanamo Bay detainees like Shaker Aamer who were suspected of terrorism but never once charged, I don't see a problem here. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Aamer has more about him than just being suspect of terrorism - it is the fact he had been incarcerated in G.Bay and fought that over the year drew additional notability to him, so BLPCRIME doesn't apply. Again, the key about BLPCRIME is that if all we know is that a non-notable person (beyond the crime) is only known for the crime itself and nothing else, we generally avoid naming them until a conviction is made, and whether they then are notable beyond that for a standalone article is based on whether there's more indepth coverage that extends beyond just the crime (eg like in Atta's case), which is also covered by WP:BLP1E. At the current time, these 20 people are not notable for any other activities beyond their suspected involvement in the assassination, so there is clearly no reason to name them under BLP policy, and even if they are all convicted, we have to wait to see if there is any further coverage of them beyond the scope of their involvement in the assassination to judge if they should have separate articles - as I said, as a group, I expect one or two would be the masterminds and may be given such but the rest were likely hired mercs and not notable otherwise. --Masem (t) 16:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

He's incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay solely due to being suspected of terrorism. And again he was never convicted yet we have an article of him. This could lead to victimisation of him being a possible terrorist despite him never being convicted. The killers of the Haiti president are also notable in the news for more than just the murder, they are notable for being ex-Colombian military turned mercs. It's not something I'm making up, it's been discussed a lot of times. So that argument doesn't do you any good. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Also the Unabomber is another person notable due to one crime. Talk about studies or whatever but those are not what led to Atta's article or Unabomber's article. It was their involvement. Then there are people like Robert John Bardo. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

No, you're missing the point. For Aamer, the fact he was in G.Bay without charges, fought that, drew attention to his questionable incarceration, all gave him significant coverage beyond any criminal act itself, and thus made him notable well beyond the basic caution of BLPCRIME; we have a wealth of sources over time to know this now. Kaczynski's criminal acts were subject to a wide berth of psychology analysis to try to understand his criminal intent, so there's far more than just "he did a crime, that's it". In the case of Bardo, his crime influenced subsequent law and the popular culture; if these events didn't happen, we'd likely not have an article on him in the first place per BLPCRIME but there's far more than just the crime here. But key here is that we have the passage of time for sources that have told us in all these cases that these people are individually notable beyond the bounds of BLPCRIME.

Here, in this assassination, we have people that okay, they may have been former militia, but they have no notable facets of those careers before that point, nothing in-depth at all about any individual in that block of 20, at this time. If they didn't carry this out, they would have remained non-notable ex-militia members. And again, to stress, they are still only suspects, no convictions have been made. While they were all involved, it may be only one or two will be convicted of the actual assassination, the others maybe charged with some related conspiracy charges, I don't know, no one knows. BLP tells us to take caution before naming people until we know this for certain. The assassination is notable, and clearly once the suspects rounded up, the investigation completed, and legal resolution completed, we'll likely have a few named people, but we should not be doing it now when there are too many questions up in the air, per BLP requirements. --Masem (t) 16:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Every criminal fights charges and it gets reported. My example of Aamer wasn't about him being notable due to his crime. Yes he's actually notable being imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay rather than his terrorism, even though his imprisonment stems from it. Regardless it's just one or two things he's notable for. And two isn't a dramatic improvement either. However the reason for bringing him up was, the accusations against him were never dropped. And someone like the US military accusing you of terrorism is something that shall remain forever with you. The article will lead to victimisation because more people will know.

The suspects are soldiers, not militia. And them being ex-soldiers who were recruited as potential bodyguards, as well as their past activities have been discussed as well at least in some cases. And their names are a key aspect to differentiating them and knowing about their past. Or in the cases of the Americans them and their background has been discussed as well, has been a subject of discussion in many sources. Just because you say nothing else is notable about them doesn't make it so. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Notability beyond BLPCRIME requires significant coverage about these people as individuals (not as part of the group), which is the case for Aamer, Kaczynski, etc. All we know is tidbits of these people but nothing close to significant coverage to qualify for notability as to be beyond the BLPCRIME issues. That may come in time, but it is not there now which is the key point. --Masem (t) 17:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

And? That's why we didn't build whole articles for them yet and only included them in the article itself, because there isn't enough material. Because not a lot of details are available. But the ones that already are, are significant. If it wasn't for Guantanamo or their crime, no one would have even bothered to find out any life details of Aamer, Unabomber and Atta. No one would care for them it wasn't due to one significant thing that happened to them. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

No they are not significant compared to what the other cases are. They are unknown people that were in the military. This is not significant information by any means. And they have yet to be convicted, they are only suspected, so we are not to include these names under BLPCRIME until conviction happens. --Masem (t) 19:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

All criminals are relatively unknown before they do a crime. People who run their own businesses and are decorated veterans don't fall within that group.

WP:BLPCRIME does not prohibit naming people nor it is a rule about that. Please don't add something to a guideline what it doesn't even say. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

No, not all criminals are "relatively unknown" before they do a crime. In the past couple days, I've edited Michael Avenatti, (a lawyer who was famous for his representation of Stormy Daniels before he did the crimes he was just convicted of or is supposed to do have done ones he still faces charges of), and Thomas Radecki (well known as an anti-TV violence, anti-D&D crusader decades before he set up the program wherein he traded opioid prescriptions for sex, thus landing him in prison.) O.J. Simpson's record-holding football career, advertisements,and film career had made him one of the best known folks in the country well before the actions he was convicted of, or even the earlier actions that he was tried and cleared on. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

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

I was myself getting confused on this but it's because I keep forgetting things. The rule that concerns naming criminals is WP:BLPNAME. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually, WP:BLPCRIME, also known as WP:SUSPECT, very much applies to the naming of suspects, as " editors must seriously consider not including material that suggests the person has committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." Stating that someone is a suspect is indeed suggesting they committed the crime. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

NatGertler Assuming someone's innocence does not apply to their name. If naming someone simply makes someone think that thwy are guilty then it is their fault and not anyone else's. Naming suspects is a usual police procedure and not intended to cast doubts. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

If we really assume these men are innocent (as we must, regardless of what the police think, what their lives are like, or even what the evidence is) then there is nothing interesting to say about them. We wouldn't include a list of twenty of Moïse's neighbors, or the last twenty people that he met with on the day of his assassination. Doing so would be useless and boring. When truly assuming innocence, we must treat the arrested suspects similarly.Hadron137 (talk) 03:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Presumption of innocence doesn't mean absence of suspicion. Besides just because we included a person's background doesn't mean you are treating them as guilty. It's just simply a desire to know more about a person and sometimes also used to know what might have lead them to do a crime. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I really should stop monitoring BLPN I'm wiki break but I didn't so just couldn't resist the urge to point out that "The period depends up to the editors." is partially incorrect. The maximum time suggested by WP:BDP is 2 years. Perhaps an argument could me made to extend it one or two years beyond 2 years in some extreme case although I've never seen that. But nearly 20 years total? No way. Also User:LéKashmiriSocialiste sorry but part of your argument is flawed since it seems to lack any support from our current article. I'm not American but I do have a lot of exposure to American culture. Many of the names I saw sound like they could easily be from many of the large number of Latino/Hispanic Americans. I have no idea how on earth I'm supposed to know the names are not common American names unless I embrace bigotry and assume you must be a WASP to be a "real American". If their names not being common American names is a significant issue as supported by level of discussion in reliable secondary sources then we should add this to the article first along with these sources, so that readers know and don't have to be experts on American names since as I said for someone even on the slight outside, these sound like they are common American names. Perhaps then we can consider whether it's also necessary to add these names to help the reader further understand, especially if there is discussion/analysis of what makes these names uncommon. The fact some random Wikipedian thinks this is the case is irrelevant to us if that's all we have, so it's not an argument for adding them. Nil Einne (talk) 05:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm even more confused now. I had heard that many of them were Colombians. I assumed from the above discussion it a number of them were also Americans. I now see only two seem to have been? Why do we need to add so many names to establish these two don't have common American names. And I definitely don't understand the relevance of Colombians not having common American names. Maybe there's something I'm missing but that's why our article needs to be improved first with sources explaining all this. I assume American means someone from the US since as much as I sometimes find the weird that American means this, if someone wants to use a different definition I think this should be made clear first. Nil Einne (talk) 06:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:BDP says in which case the policy can extend based on editorial consensus for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death. Although I admit that I hadn't correctly read the two year part. I'm sorry for that. But my reason for bringing up Atta was that we do create articles for people notable only for one thing. In Atta's case it is 9/11. Even living criminals notable for a crime as I pointed out have articles like Robert John Bardo. There are many others, I could give a long list. Without their crime no one would care about them. And anyway I'm not some random Wikipedian, nor any user here is. Please don't try to reduce people to irrelevance here. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

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

• The list should be reinstated. The efforts to delete the list have referred to inapplicable rules. WP commonly mentions names of arrested people as having been arrested, in major terrorist attacks and in assassinations. The important thing is to reflect the RS statements that they have been arrested. And - if they have not been charged - to not indicate that they have been charged. And that indeed is what the language in the indicated policies refers to. But these people were being listed for being arrested in connection with this investigation, which is by itself perfectly fine. The made-up notion that they need to have an independent article on each named person is .. made up. That is not wp policy at all. How can we have intelligent discussions here if people base their views on made-up rules, rather than existing wp policy? I think what we have now, the stripping out of the article of mention of all the arrested, including the Colombians, the Haitian doctor, and the two Haitian-Americans, is absurd - their names have been in dozens of articles .. what do people seriously think they are doing that is sensible here? Have they lost sight of the goal here - which is not one that is present when you have dozens (hundreds?) of articles on these people? And don't editors here realize that information is added when names like this appear - information on people arrested in relation to such events are typically built up on pages such as that one, over time. Deleting the names of the American, the American-Haitians, and the Colombians is not in keeping with wp rules, with wp practice, or with common sense. How are you going to tease out the info that person x (as has been reported) was the second-most senior member in the Colombian group, and appeared to be a primary contact .. which just came out today? Or tie their names perhaps into the visits of the Haitian security head to Colombia of late .. no doubt info will come out as to who he met with in Colombia, and what forces they commanded, if they did command forces. BTW - does anyone think that the 9/11 attackers names cannot be mentioned, because they were never tried? --2603:7000:2143:8500:643C:473C:C984:2D47 (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

As you will see mentioned in the above discussion, WP:BLP issues do not apply to the actual 9/11 attackers, as they are not living persons any more. If there are individual arrestees of note, that may overcome the concerns listed above for them, but a mere name dump tells us nothing of value. The idea that the fact that the names have been published overcomes WP:BLPCRIME concerns doesn't work; if it was only meant for names that had not been published, we wouldn't need BLPCRIME, as that's simple failure of verifiability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree that the names should be reinstated. It seems like there has been a lot more reporting since this thread started. Per WP:BLP, the names of suspects have now been "widely disseminated", which means we can probably start relaying them. NickCT (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

As I'm still on Wikibreak, I have not and will not be evaluating the sources so have no comment on whether the names need to be excluded. I also have not and will not be evaluating the discussion. However if there was an earlier consensus against including the names, these 2 comments cannot be reasonably be taken as an indication consensus has changed. Nor do I see anything approaching that on the article talk page. So if consensus has changed, there's no clear sign of it yet. I'd note that 2603's comment has a number of obvious flaws. Maybe someone said there needs to be articles on each person before we name them, but definitely many people opposed to inclusion never said that. NatGertler has already explained the flaw with the 9/11 point, which as they also pointed out, was discussed before 2603 commented. Finally there is zero reason why we should treat this as a binary. It may very well be the case there is merit to discuss certain specific individuals and their alleged actions or roles and background and to do so effectively it will be necessary to name them. (To be clear, it's sometimes possible to discuss background or other such details without naming the person.) That doesn't mean it is necessary to name them all. It's perfectly reasonable we may name certain individuals but not others. Again, I'm not saying this is what we should do in this case, simply that it's something we can do. So the argument that we need to name them all because otherwise we cannot discuss the roles of certain individuals is clearly flawed and not supported by any policy or guideline. Nil Einne (talk) 06:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I looked into this a bit more and it seems to me one of the big issues is that editors seem to be conflating different things. This discussion started of about a list of all suspects names with no context. There were several editors opposed to such a list. It seems now some editors want to name certain suspects and discuss their roles in more details. As I said above, there may be merit for this, there may be merit to name them so we can do this. Discussion can resolve this. It's a related but separate issue from just including a list of names. If editors only want to discuss and name certain suspects, they should be clear if this what's their advocating rather than the earlier issue of a list of all suspect's names. I'm not actually sure if anyone above said under no condition whatsoever can we name any of the living suspects until a conviction is secured, but I'm not going to check. I suspect the dispute is more likely to be over under what conditions we should name them and how many and who. Nil Einne (talk) 08:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Not appropriate per WEIGHT. I think coverage focus is on the number, nationality, and backgrounds. It would be slightly preferred to cite to source that goes into details like a list of names, but the Misplaced Pages article should not list names. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/Athena_Salman#Controversy

I believe the controversy section was created by an anti-Palestinian hate group or someone with an animus toward Palestine. The author makes a false statement about Salman's comments. They claim she falsely accused the Israeli government and provide no evidence for this. Further, they cite a blog created on the Independent News Network, which isn’t a legitimate news organization.

Two editors were edit-warring over this but that seems to have stopped now and the section is no longer in the article. FWIW, the news article cited as the source is described as an opinion piece so it's not suitable for Misplaced Pages regardless of whether the website generally is accepted as reliable (I've no view on that). Neiltonks (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we got it worked out yesterday. All's calm now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Dave Sharma

Dave Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My name is Dave Sharma. I am an elected representative in Australia. A prior version of the page about me was "Good Article" ranked, thanks to the efforts of @Callanecc: and @MPJ-DK:. However, someone added a "Controversies" section and made other changes throughout the page that seem to be geared towards emphasizing negative things. I believe much of this content violates Misplaced Pages's BLP and other rules. For example:

• Citation 32 describes itself as "Tips and rumors" and asks crowd-sourced readers to submit tips anonymously.
• Citation 37 appears to be a guest post on a personal blog.
• Citation 38 is an op-ed from someone that sued me.
• Citation 41 is not a reliable source (this will become obvious if you read it).
• Citations 40 and 42 just say that I have made numerous investments, not that I have been "criticized for a number of insider trading offences"
• Saying "This move was considered tone deaf by some" does not seem like Misplaced Pages's preferred tone
• Is this image of protestors swarming and mocking me really appropriate?

These are a few examples and there are similar issues throughout the page. Would someone here be willing to review the article to ensure Misplaced Pages's policies are being applied? It seems a lot of the content has been removed and re-added a couple times already.

PS - There are similar issues on the Tim Wilson (Australian politician) page (a fellow liberal party colleague) involving some of the same user accounts. For example, there is an LGBT section discussing asylum seekers using male sex workers to prove their sexuality citing some kind of advocacy website. Davesharma (talk) 23:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Let me take a look at these and offer my input. If edits need to be made to the article, I'll be happy to make them on your behalf.

• Cite 32: Crikey seems to be a generally reliable source, but the article linked doesn't read like an RS. I think it might be worth discussing this at the talk page.
• Cite 37: You're correct, and as a blog, it's not a generally reliable source. John Menadue seems to be a notable figure, and as such, his own views might be worth including with attribution, but this entry wasn't written by John. Melissa Parke, the author, is also a notable figure however. This may be acceptable, as long as it's properly attributed.
• Cite 38: There's a paywall there, so I can't read it. Is Melissa Park the same person as Melissa Parke? If so, this may be used with attribution, just like the blog entry.
• Cite 41: You're correct. That's a generally unreliable source.
• Cites 40 & 42: Again, it appears you are correct.
• "Tone deaf" language: That seems to be an appropriate summary of the source.
• Image: That's up to editor judgement, really. At least one editor seems to believe it belongs.

I'm going to head over to the article and make some changes. I'll leave a note at talk. You should feel free to engage at the talk page of the article, but you would do well to leave the actual editing to others. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Bloody Sunday (1972)

• Bloody Sunday (1972) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Soldier F is a living person whose identity is protected by a court order and anyone breaching it leaves them liable to prosecution for contempt of court. Following a politician in the UK revealing his name using parliamentary privilege, there have been repeated attempts today, by at least two editors in the UK, to add this name despite the name not being published by the media due to the court order. I feel the name is a clear and umambiguous violation of WP:BLPNAME, but thought it better to bring it here for wider attention. FDW777 (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The Ryan Giggs super-injunction affair, and Misplaced Pages's role in it, can help elucidate this issue. A decade ago, the encyclopedia as a whole took a dim view on the use of court orders to suppress widely-known information that's in the public interest, and Jimbo literally said that if it appears in reliable sources, injunction be damned, it's eligible for inclusion. Hansard is a reliable source for the statement "Colm Eastwood named X as Soldier F", and such an extract from Hansard is explicitly protected under parliamentary privilege per the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840. Additionally, as a member of the armed forces during Blood Sunday and an alleged war criminal, I would argue that Soldier F cannot in good seriousness be considered a "private individual". Sceptre (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed: the only case this would be an issue is if the case was in the US and the protection was specifically extended to any media outlet with servers in the US (which I have never heard of happening before in contrast to a few notable UK cases). --Masem (t) 23:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Even in the case of a universal injunction (which I believe was the case in the Trafigura affair), it's a constitutional principle that the proceedings of Parliament are unimpeachable, and under PPA1840, reporting the proceedings of Parliament is protected. Sceptre (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it would be extremely extremely rare to ever encounter a case where by law WP should not include a name sealed by courts but otherwise widely reported by trusted RSes. (On the other hand, if trusted RSes are keeping mum, while sources like Daily Mail and Fox are blabbing it all over, that may give us cause to think...) --Masem (t) 00:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

That's the thing, trusted reliable references are keeping mum since they are subject to the court order. They are reporting Colum Eastwood said it, but not including the name. FDW777 (talk) 07:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hansard is a "trusted reliable reference". It's entire existence, and statutory protection from censorship, is derived from the fact it is a true and accurate record of the proceedings of Parliament. Sceptre (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, the reason why other sources are witholding from reporting the content of Colum Eastwood's disclosure can be speculated upon but are ultimately irrelevant; Hansard stands as the primary source and I doubt anyone is realistically considering challenging it's reliability. Hibarnacle (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

We would need much more reliable sourcing beyond Hansard to include the name in Misplaced Pages. Even if this weren't a BLP, in general we need coverage from secondary sources for extraordinary claims, and especially because this is a BLP, the relevant policy is WP:BLPPRIMARY, which states Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Additionally, my understanding of parliamentary privilege is that it gives government officials protection against liability from exposing the identity of Soldier F, but it is not clear to me whether this same legal immunity extends to private individuals who use Hansard to expose the identity of Soldier F. Importantly, the BBC source that FDW777 mentioned declined to identify Soldier F for legal reasons. We should follow their lead. Mz7 (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hansard isn't primary, so it should be included. Mztourist (talk) 03:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Is it not? It bills itself as the "official report of all Parliamentary debates." Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, not of court proceedings which is what it would need to be considered primary. Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Not "other public documents"? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's not correct. The specific source we are attempting to use is the official transcript of a parliamentary debate. Surely that's a primary source per WP:PRIMARY. A secondary source would be a news article (or something of the sort) that reports on what is written in the debate transcript. Mz7 (talk) 03:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Primary would be court documents or public prosecution service documents. Obviously no news article would mention (Redacted) because that would breach the UK court order. I believe that wee should reinstate this edit but with the deletion of "as (Redacted)" Mztourist (talk) 03:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

From my memory of the now deleted edit, that would basically involve saying that Colum Eastwood revealed the name of Soldier F using parliamentary privilege but without actually including the name in our article? I would have no problem with that, since it's only the inclusion of that name itself that is problematic. FDW777 (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, the inclusion of the content of Colum Eastwood's disclosure notwithstanding we can state that he made the disclosure and refer to the nature of it without issue. There may be some discussion about whether that itself is notable enough for inclusion.Hibarnacle (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

So, nobody has actually read WP:BLPNAME apart from me then? Where are the secondary references reporting on this story that actually include the name? FDW777 (talk) 07:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, good point. Sources in the UK can't report it but maybe it has been reported in other countries? Most US news outlets are either unavailable in Europe or hidden behind paywalls so I'm having difficulty checking: maybe someone based outside the UK can have a look for sources? Neiltonks (talk) 08:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

A quick samping of the main Irish media outlets confirm that while they are reporting on the Colum Eastwood story, they exclude the name despite not being subject to the UK court order (I read somewhere a while ago that other countries tend to respect anonymity granted by courts, as I did not understand how a UK court had the power to issue a worldwide ban regarding the new identities of James Bulger's murderers). See for example RTÉ, Irish Times and Irish Independent. I can't find any US or other countries media reporting the name. As WP:BLPNAME says, When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. As Soldier F already has an accepted and widely used pseudonym, I do not see how any context is lost. FDW777 (talk) 08:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPNAME we should not be including the name it has not been "widely disseminated".  Spy-cicle💥  21:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

But it has been widely disseminated; apart from the fact that Soldier F's identity has been an open secret in Derry for decades, the identity of Soldier F (according to Colum Eastwood) is now in the public record as part of the official proceedings of Parliament. Sceptre (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

If it's as widely disseminated as you claim, you should be able to provide many references. Where are they? FDW777 (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

He does not need to provide "many references." Per WP:BLPNAME what is required is a primary source and that particular weight be given to the name's appearance in "scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts." This has clearly not happened with Soldier F, but it does highlight a particular issue with Soldier F and BLP. BLP asks us to consider "whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." Soldier F's name would add immense value here for at least two clear reasons; it would identify the perpetrators of one of the worst atrocities in British and Irish history in living memory, and secondly it opens the topic to discussion that the state attempted to defend this person from justice for 5 decades. This is an immense topic in it's own right and I would argue too complex to discuss here, but it's weight is inarguable, and these two reasons alone add massive weight to the arguement for including Soldier F's name now that Eastwood has provided a primary source disclosing it in Hansard.Hibarnacle (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

BLPNAME asks for secondary sources, not primary sources, so we need more than just Eastwood’s disclosure in Hansard. So far it seems that no other reputable secondary source has been willing to include the name. As a compromise solution, I don’t think I would be opposed to mentioning the fact that Eastwood revealed a name in the article (without actually including the name), but I remain opposed to including the name itself until multiple secondary sources can be provided. Mz7 (talk) 06:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sceptre: Then please provide some reliable secondary sources that demonstrate the name is "widely disseminated". Regards  Spy-cicle💥  21:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

We have no obligation whatsoever to follow an injunction by the UK on this matter, unless there is a ruling by WP:Legal that we must do so. (I think it's they who have the obligation of saying what is legally permissible to write on WP--we can decide here on what is ethical, or what is appropriate, but not on what is illegal. ). But the problem with using Hansard as a RS is that although truth may be said there regardless of an injunction, so can untruths (subject of course to the jurisdiction Parliament has over its own members for what takes place there). I am not aware of any recent instance of this, but perhaps those in the UK may know of some examples. So I think there does have to be another RS, though of course it need not be a UK source. And if the name is restored, common prudence would suggest it not be done by someone under the jurisdiction of the UK. I'm deliberately talking here in general terms. DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

You're essentially asking the question about whether Colum Eastwood was truthful in identifying Soldier F. This is a bit of a difficult issue, as we can either take him at his word or say we simply don't know, but the fact of the matter is that Soldier F's identity has been an open secret for decades, and the reason that it has not been publicized for so long despite being known by so many for so long is ... murky.Hibarnacle (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Has it really been an open secret for decades? The soldiers were granted anonymity at the 1972 Widgery investigation. This was further extended at the Bloody Sunday inquiry. Soldier F's identity would have been revealed at a court hearing in September 2019, and certainly there would have been many interested observers from Derry and elsewhere present, but the media were banned from reporting the name. That's the first time the name would have become public knowledge, as far as I'm aware. The BBC stated in September 2019 that "Soldier F" had been in use since 1972, so this isn't just a recent attempt at privacy. FDW777 (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

https://www.royalark.net/Morocco/morocco9.htm

The link provide valid reference for: Genealogy for biography of Princess Lalla Fatima Zahra daughter of Mohammed V of Morocco. The link provide evidence to Princess Lalla Fatima Zahra's maternal grand-father: Moulay Mohammed al-Mamun — Preceding unsigned comment added by AvaBrandon2000 (talk • contribs) 06:59, July 14, 2021 (UTC)

@AvaBrandon2000:, #1) please sign your posts. This can be done by typing four tilde characters ~~~~at the end of your post. #2) royalark.net is not considered to be a reliable source because it is one of a number of self-published peerage websites of variable quality. #3) It is not clear what relevance your post has or what article you are referring to. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Mirza Masroor Ahmad

hi

Can you change this article please as its not presenting the truth. Mirza Masroor Ahmad is not a muslim. he doesnt beleive in the finality of the prophet Muhammad (pbuh). beleiving in the finality of the prophet is one of the articles of faith without which a person is not muslim. he is certainly not the Khalifa of the muslims at the moment. please make this change asap so people are not deceived.

many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.84.177 (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

As is very clear from discussions at Talk:Mirza Masroor Ahmad, Ahmadi Muslims are Muslims, and he is, within Ahmadiyya, the Fifth Caliph of the Messiah. —C.Fred (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Oviya article

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

Hello. I am concerned that this article is devolving into a puff piece of sorts, as much of the content is meaningless. It would be helpful to have a few more watchers on this article to help bring it in line with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV policy. Thank you for your time. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Wang Zheng (pilot)

Wang Zheng (pilot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At this article there's been some back-and-forth about ongoing lawsuits, between an IP claiming to be the subject of the article and a couple SPAs with no edits to any other articles. This should probably be looked into in more detail. jp×g 04:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I've been meaning to get back to this article and do some reconstruction, but it's not high on my list of priorities. Mrs. Wang is no stranger to this board, and this ongoing battle between the two have been going on both on and off wiki for a long time now. It should probably be page protected so only autoconfirmed users can edit it, or maybe pending change reviews would be a good option. Mrs. Wang would be best to open an account and get it confirmed at ORTS, and declare her COI. Although I find the whole thing to be quite boring, I do have an interest in flying, and still plan to get back to it someday, if no one else beats me to it. But not today. I'm partly hampered by the fact that I don't read Chinese, and google is no where near as good at translating it as French or Swedish. It could really use some help by someone who is fluent in both Chinese and English. Either way, something should be done to stop the battle from continuing on wiki. Zaereth (talk) 07:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Anti-vax activist and COVID-conspiracy tags

What is the standard for adding these tags to BLP pages? I noted a number of articles where the use of these tags is in dispute. What is the evidentiary standard required for each. Take the Ricky_Schroder page. It was tagged as American anti-vaccination activists. Looking at the article it appears that Schroder has voiced his opposition to mandatory COVID vaccinations. I'm not sure this rises to the level of "activist". Also, if someone is only concerned about the COVID vaccinations but not vaccinations in general (fine with MMR etc) does that make a person anti-vax or just anti-COVID-vax? I have a similar question regarding COVID-conspiracy tags. In Steve_Hilton's article it appears he was tagged as a COVID conspiracy theorist because he supported the lab leak theory Steve_Hilton. Is that the standard? It would seem to me that many of these tags would violate WP:NONDEFINING since, in many cases these are not the defining characteristic of the subject. Ricky Schroder is an actor (at least was... not sure if he still is). His opinion on COVID vaccines is hardly his defining characteristic. Looking for group input. @Masem, Calton, TJD2, and RandomCanadian: as editors whom have been involved with the general topic (ie I saw them make related edits/comments). Springee (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC) (and @Jaydoggmarco: for the same reason) Springee (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems inappropriate to me; the COVID category is currently at CfD for reasons similar to the ones you've brought up here. To me, the primary issue is the presence of categories based on vaguely defined political views that don't include activism. For example, Barack Obama admitted to having smoked weed when he was in high school, but this doesn't mean he belongs in Category:American cannabis activists. Similarly, John Hickenlooper (the governor of Colorado who issued an executive action adding 2012 Colorado Amendment 64 to the state constitution and legalizing weed in that state) is not in the category either. Indeed, a large number of famous people have said that they vote for Democrats or Republicans, and they are not in Category:American political activists. jp×g 22:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Why yes, the category CfD, but, no, you're not getting a lot of buy-in for your claimed reasoning. --Calton | Talk 03:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I am having trouble understanding this comment. What do you mean by "claimed reasoning"? jp×g 05:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Springee asked for my comments on this on my talk page earlier and I'll readdress them here: I think these categories are inappropriate, similar to the climate change deniers/skeptics aspect. These are very subjective classifications which should never be used for BLP, though RS sourcing in the article body is fine to talk about it within the article. --Masem (t) 23:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

You're in the wrong place for that argument: if you're against the category to begin with, take it up at the CfD itself. Doin it here is just a back-door attempt to render the category moot. --Calton | Talk 03:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Not really. The question isn't if the category is legitimate. I personally think Andrew Wakefield absolutely fits an anti-vaccine activist category. He is know specifically because of his anti-vaccine efforts. That is different than Ricky Schroder who has only made a few comments on the subject. That a category might be problematic is an argument for removing it but if we set some understandable limits I think the BLP questions/concerns can be addressed without removing the category. However, if the category is fundamentally a BLP problem then the BLP policy has to take precedent. Springee (talk) 03:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Springee: I've made my opinion clear on Calton's talk page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Seems that those on the losing end of the CfD are attempting an endaround... Zaathras (talk) 03:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

There are currently ten "keep"s and ten "delete"s at the CfD, so I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. jp×g 05:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to add the conspiracy theorist tag at Matt Gaetz as another example. The article cites the COVID lab leak theory but nothing else in the body of the article suggests the tag applies and I can't see how this would pass NONDEFINING. Springee (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Great, more of these contentious, BLP-sensitive categories. Most of the time, the category is either (i) not verifiable from the body or (ii) if it is verifiable, it makes up one sentence from the entire article. WP:COPDEF states that biographies should be categorized by the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for. Categories are not supposed to be a coatrack of every contentious label the person may or may not be associated with. Unless we're dealing with someone like Wakefield, as Springee mentions, then we're always gonna run into WP:SUBJECTIVECAT or WP:BLPRACIST issues. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Anyone who has been around BLPN for any length of time has already heard my views on categorization, so I am loathe to repeat myself yet again. For anyone who hasn't, you can read about it at User:Zaereth#Little boxes. Zaereth (talk) 07:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Everybody who's seen my edits knows my views on this topic, but these discussions are getting too volatile and toxic for my taste. I'm going to recuse myself from these political pages - feel free to add any sort of bias or crazy labels to people. I'm going back to editing music and gaming pages. Everybody on the right is a conspiracy theorist anti-vaccine anti-science racist homophobic bigot, you know!TJD2 (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

"Everybody on the right is a conspiracy theorist anti-vaccine anti-science racist homophobic bigot" Actually that's 100% true especially for trumpers (Even though you meant it as a joke), The only one with a bias is you and all of the people who are having this discussion to remove the category. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

When did I say ANYTHING about Trump? Trump has absolutely nothing at all to do with what we are talking about here. On a side note I don't even personally care for the guy but I don't link everything in my life back to him. Stay focused, we were discussing conspiracies and whether or not disliking a single vax makes you against ALL vaccines. I wasn't even going to respond to this comment but it made me laugh out loud. At least we now know what this is really about.TJD2 (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Interestingly, when people say stuff like that about others, regardless of what side they are on (or not), they are almost always unconsciously describing themselves, and unwittingly letting everyone else know. Zaereth (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

This is the kind of statement that should immediately disqualify someone from editing American politics related articles. If you had already been notified of the discretionary sanctions I would have requested a topic ban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

If one believes in the right to bodily self-determination, they may have received the Covid vaccine, recommended it to their friends and acquaintances and yet oppose mandatory vaccination. So, opposition to mandatory vaccination is not the same as anti-vaxxer. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I've been trying to make these same points in an orderly manner in multiple talk pages for the better part of a month, even inviting discussion from opposing sides. It doesn't matter what we say or how many points we have - this is WP:TENDENTIOUS EDITING run amok. Like I said above - if a person doesn't get the covid shot - to these editors they must be an anti-vaccination activist or a conspiracy theorist. Black and white, no middle ground. You can't debate these points. I'm trying not to make it about the editors themselves but it's getting very difficult - which is why I want to be focused on how ridiculous the assertions are. You are absolutely correct - being anti mandatory vaccinations does NOT make you anti-vaccination. That said, it doesn't matter apparently.TJD2 (talk) 02:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Picture of a cake as a source of year of birth

There has been constant pushing to include the date of birth of Dream (YouTuber), in part based on this tweet from August 2020 with a 21 on a cake, the only text accompanying the image being the word "yummy". A second tweet from the same day states that it was his birthday. In my opinion, the cake tweet is not a explicit enough source for YoB, I don't think we should use the second tweet to infer that the cake refers to the birthday, but others over at Talk:Dream_(YouTuber)#Birth_date_and_age_inclusion disagree. Thoughts? Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

This has come up here time and again, and Twitter has never been deemed a reliable source for birthdates. Especially one where it is not implicitly stated, but where we have to infer the date ourselves from vague statements or pics. We not only need secondary sources, but multiple secondary sources to be able to reasonably infer that the subject will not object to us publishing the date. In my opinion, we should never use Twitter as an RS in and of itself. Unless tweets are discussed and interpreted by RSs, then we shouldn't be trying to do so ourselves. Zaereth (talk) 07:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

In the specific case, no. Nothing says it's his birthday cake or that the pic was taken the day of the tweet. On using tweets for YOB:s/DOB:s in general, that can work per WP:ABOUTSELF and Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Tweets_announcing_"Happy_birthday_to_me!_I'm_21_today!". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

If we use a search engine for "dream youtuber 21", there are several decent sources that mention Dream being 21. So we could at least use {{birth based on age as of date |yy|yyyy|mm|dd}}. Edwardx (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, I get 3 google hits for that, none of which screams "BLP-good". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Once you get to the second page or so, there are quite a number. Edwardx (talk) 22:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The thing is we do know that it is his birthday due to . Posting a cake with a number on it after he established it was his birthday is pretty obvious what he means; claiming there's a meaningful chance he meant anything else is just unreasonable. BappleBusiness (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Is the cake produced by a bakery with a reputation for fact-checking and corrections? I mean, we can't accept it if it was produced by Fox Bakery, with their history of politis-icing their cakes, but Cake-SPAN or the Confectionary Broadcasting System, sure. (Pies can sometimes be used for date reference, but only if they're Marie Calendars) --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it's worse than that, afaict the cake is anonymous. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

No, no cakes are reliable, as they are frequently lies. JoelleJay (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

So you're telling us the cake is a lie? --Masem (t) 17:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

While we would allow self-made Tweets that are very clear that they are speaking directly and factually about their DOB, this is not such an example since there's not sufficient context to know if it is a cake meant for them , or if the "21" has any implication on his age. There's the Occum's Razor factor, but we cannot use that for BLPs. --Masem (t) 15:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

To expand on Masem's point. Selfpub would cover unambiguous statements. We are talking someone using a verified twitter account posting "21 today!" or "Its my 21st birthday today". Not a cake picture. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Not unambiguous enough as a statement that they don't mind their full dob be published, so a no for me. —valereee (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I also agree that it should not be used as a source. To be valid it should be explicit. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I would say no, especially without more background as there is always a possibility that the number on the cake is inaccurate for comedic purposes or other reasons. An explicit statement on social media is flimsy enough, this takes the cake. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Ouch. —valereee (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

2 Cold Scorpio (and others): continued addition of unsourced material

IP user 125.142.221.231 has been adding large blocks of WP:UNSOURCED material that he calls "Professional wrestling highlights" to BLP articles about professional wrestlers, with details about different wrestling moves, managers, and even theme songs for wrestling matches to various BLPs including this, this, and others. IP has been warned and has continued the disruption past final warning. Johnnie Bob (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Christian Rowan

https://www.couriermail.com.au/amaq-boss-christian-rowan-sidelined-after-backing-newman-government-doctor-contracts/news-story/34add335362ff5705e3d56f35218d593 This information is defamatory or libelous information which has already been subject to proceedings. It was retrieved for partisan political purposes during the 2020 Queensland state election campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.87.6.230 (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

article Denis Vidal

I made two sorts of corrections about an article of[REDACTED] which concens me personally

- I rectified false or imprecise informations ( wrong dates for my degree, wrong academic and institutional affiliations, etc.)

- I deleted excerpts of reviews about one of my books which are are critical of the book and may express the views of some reviewers but which are neither fair in my opinion nor représentative of the whole content of the book nor particularly representative of its academic reception. One could have chosen as well other excerpts of other reviews of the same book and given a very different view of it

I dont't think that it is the function of a[REDACTED] article to give either false academic informations or to express indirectly personal views of a written work by selecting some excerpts of reviews and not others about it

And I don't see any reason why the initial author of this article has been trying twice to delete my rectifications — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erreurscorrigées (talk • contribs) 14:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Zina Bash

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

Yup. It is quite clear from the multiple reliable sources being cited that there is no evidence Bash was making any sort of 'white power sign', and frankly there seems little justification in including any content at all on what seems to be a rather silly conspiracy theory. Misplaced Pages can do better than this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Nope. We are not at liberty to interpret accusations as being either true or false. Accusations can be made and denied. Proof, here, does not exist. Attic Salt (talk) 03:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution