Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:20, 10 May 2020

• 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.

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Alice S. Fisher

Comments are appreciated on whether a Senator’s opening statement from a Judiciary Committee hearing of Alice S. Fisher are appropriate to include in a nominee’s bio. Talk:Alice S. Fisher#Proposal to Delete Paragraph Using Only a Primary_Source JZ at LW (talk)

Shincheonji Church of Jesus: current alleged persecutions

Greetings

I wrote it to Oversight, who advised me to address it here instead (see their reply below).

Self-paste follows:

I may be overly sensitive here and inexperienced (see my edit and WP history) but I have just come across a danger of using a current event and a WP article as a basis for witch hunts, harm and more. I am using this tool for the first time and am typing it on a mobile early in the morning, so please excuse brevity and style.

The article is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Shincheonji_Church_of_Jesus

the presumed danger here: https://en.shincheonji.kr/bv_covid19Response_9607 and my, maybe naive, public musings about it on its Talk page, diff: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Shincheonji_Church_of_Jesus&diff=943849273&oldid=943847663

Please monitor it, lock it, or else tell me I am being paranoid here.

Best regards

Zezen, far away from Korea and without any COI

Oversight wrote: Unfortunately, the edits associated with your request cannot be suppressed under our policy <" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="" style="">https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Oversight>;. If you think this matter needs attention from administrators or editors, please visit the appropriate noticeboard (<" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="" style="">https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Noticeboards>;). Thank you for sharing your concerns and please contact us again if you have any in the future.

Sincerely, Primefac The English Misplaced Pages Oversight team

Max Baer Jr

The article cites Filmography, List of Credits, 1982, The Circle Family, unknown role, Television Movie. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0286546/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 states that Max Baer Jr. played the part of Hearst Circle.

Edward Kosner

There is disagreement whether to note Edward Kosner's religion (Judaism) in his article. It was added in August 2019 and removed in December 2019 by Coffee following an email request by Kosner at WP:OTRS. Kosner wrote about this experience in Commentary (magazine). There is a lot more background on both why it should and shouldn't be included which can be found on the talk page. At the moment no consensus about how to apply our BLP policy can be found at that talk page and at least a couple of us felt that this noticeboard might help us achieve consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• As I have stated at that talkpage, it is my opinion and experience, that ethnicity and religion are almost always noteworthy, both because they are usually mentioned in almost all in-depth coverage of people and because they are indeed important aspects of the lives of the subjects of the biographies themselves in their own eyes (and these two reasons are obviously logically connected). The same is true in this case: it is well-sourced that Edward Kosner is Jewish and that being Jewish is something that is important to him. Ergo, we should have it. Debresser (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

On a sidenote, which I nevertheless feel that needs to be added, I would like to say that the OTRS ticket and the magazine article are IMHO not worthy of consideration, as Misplaced Pages operates based on its own, community established, principles.

Another sidenote, which I am even more reluctant to add, but feel that must be taken into consideration, is that the removing editor, Coffee, has not so long ago been reported at WP:AN for mass removal of Jewish categories. Debresser (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I also support inclusion in this case but think your link to the AN thread is not helpful; we're here to discuss content not conduct by particular editors. The issue there was the mass removal of such information not this removal (or any other individual removal). In fact a proposal to revert his changes did not have consensus. The close even noted the limited scope of AN in this matter. So AN has not weighed in on whether Kosner's page should or shouldn't have this article and it would be beyond the scope of that forum to do so in anycase. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

While a common underhanded tactic used in political campaigns, poisoning the well does not strengthen your argument here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• The evidence here is clear: Kosner was raised Jewish, but he does not wish to be publicly known as such. He finds the descriptor of "Jewish" to be regarding his religious background. So, our standard consensus that we not include such information unless the subject wishes to self-identify, in my view applies. It is verifiable that he is a non-observant Jew, but WP:ONUS specifically notates that not all verifiable information need be included in an article. On a BLP, I would think ONUS should apply more often than not. The fact that this discussion solely began because Kosner wrote an op-ed about how much he disagreed with the description's initial inclusion, brings forward ethical implications of our potential actions that I feel are being under-considered currently. (It wasn't a commentary in Commentary about how much he wants the world to know he's Jewish, it was quite the opposite.) While I understand the side of discussion that 'because we're an encyclopedia we should try to report as much data as we can', in this case I (the article subject, Jimbo Wales and several others) fail to see how this is truly relevant to Misplaced Pages's coverage of Kosner's life (especially when the article subject has implored us, in the highest degree, not to include it). I plead with those who participate in this discussion to consider not just whether this would be the most accurate thing for us to do, but also whether we find ourselves to be acting ethically (a standard that is oftentimes lacking here) when dealing with the effects our actions can have on our fellow living human beings. With sincerity and hope, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  Kosner has seen fit to write about his Jewish identity in both his autobiography and again, after this very incident, in Commentary. There are verifiable facts that are not in the article and should not be in the article respecting Kosner's privacy. However, we have both Kosner himself, as well as reliable sources (WSJ and New York Times) noting this fact. It is my contention that our BLP policy does not say that Kosner can decide which places he's OK having the information (again in an autobiography and an influential journal) and which places he's not OK; if he'd changed his mind since his autobiography we could also respect that but Commentary makes clear that he hasn't changed his mind about publicly discussing this topic. We should, instead, characterize the facts as he does that he is a proud if non-observant Jew. These six words, if placed in the body, are not undue and self-identifies him exactly the way he wishes to be. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  I do not believe an article subject writing an op-ed about how they were covered in Misplaced Pages, including a minor statement about how their actual religious beliefs are not important to their public life, rises to the threshold of notability so far that we have to include it (if anything, I continue to believe it furthers the notion that we should not). The most important facts of his life are already duly covered in his article. To me, this suggested addition simply does not appear to warrant inclusion. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  That his Jewish identity is mentioned in sources such as the New York Times, Wall St Journal, and his own autobiography, and that he's mentioned in three additional sources about prominent Jews in the media, all suggest to me that it is an important-enough detail to include in our biography of him, too. And those sources were all published long before the Commentary piece. Levivich  05:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  We are WP:NOTNEWS. Everything that occurs in a minority of news coverage about a persons life (and it is the clear minority here, given how much of this man's life has been covered by reliable sources) does not need to be covered here. That is especially the case when it comes to religion. Kosner has stated clearly he considers the description to be of his religious affiliation, and so our clear consensus requiring self-identification of religion (regardless of how many sources state it) should stand (see WP:BLPCAT/WP:CAT/R). Kosner, in the Commentary piece, clearly and quite logically explains how his religious upbringing has not affected his notability. Using his statement that he does not wish his religion to be considered as part of his public life/notability, as some sort of loophole to that policy, is beyond the realms of how we should act here in my view... as is attempting to use him bringing up his upbringing as a form of self-identification of his current beliefs. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  Those six sources are not "a minority of news coverage about a persons life". Two of them are from newspapers. One is his autobiography. One is an academic paper. The other two are books. So WP:NOTNEWS is WP:NOTAPPLICABLEHERE.

  Kosner's own view of what does and does not affect his notability is irrelevant. First, the standard for inclusion is set out in WP:V and WP:NPOV (significance); it's not "notability" (WP:N, which has nothing to do with this content dispute). Second, the BLP subject's views are not what dictate inclusion in the BLP.

  My entire argument has, throughout, been that the weight of reliable sources suggest inclusion, because they include it. You have, so far, over four months, brought zero sources forward. You just keep hammering away at what Edward Kosner wants. Who cares what Edward Kosner wants? That's not how we right an encyclopedia.

  At long last, Coffee, do you have any sources to share that suggest that "Jewish" is not a significant part of his biography? What biographies of Kosner or other sources should we be looking at besides "the six" and Commentary (all of which include "Jewish")? Levivich  06:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  It's not just what Kosner wants that matters when it comes to discussing his religious beliefs, it matters what every article subject thinks when it comes to religion. What the BLP policy states on this is very clear: Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such) or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. ... These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and {{Infobox}} statements (referring to living persons within any Misplaced Pages page) that are based on religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation... — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  BLP policy is 100% completely satisfied here because the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such) when he wrote his autobiography years ago, and again this month when he wrote "a proud if non-observant Jew".

  Again: any sources that suggest "Jewish" is not important enough to include in this guy's biography? Levivich  06:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah, the one Kosner himself wrote here. If you also want me to list the myriad of sources from newspaper archives discussing this man's life that do not find his religion a relevant part of his notability, I will gladly do so. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  Wha--seriously, you want me to ask you one more time? OK, fine. Yes, please share whatever sources you think support excluding "Jewish" from Edward Kosner. Links would be great if possible. Don't need them all; the best two or three or however-many would be fine. (It might be better to post them at the article talk page in addition to or instead of here.) Levivich  06:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  I'm way more than happy to do so, as I've already discovered a few dozen within the past few minutes. I will be listing them here once I've decided I've found enough (and have clipped them all so everyone here can read them without a newspapers.com subscription), since you've made this the locus of your dispute. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  OK great. But, I have not made this the locus of my dispute. I don't know why there's a need to make things so personal. It's not "my" dispute. This is a content dispute involving a lot of editors. Don't post things here, or there, because of anything I have said or done, OK? Just... help resolve the content dispute. Post whatever sources are helpful, not to prove something to me, but to educate all the editors who are participating in this discussion, so that we can all be informed, and we can all arrive at consensus. OK? Levivich  07:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Here's just a quick selection of all of the newspapers covering this notable man (most are in-depth too), without once discussing his religious background (and this is not nearly all there is, I just require sleep and can't devote literally all of my time to this task): The Los Angeles Times - 2006 "A media memoir", The New York Times - 2003 "Editor of Daily News to Retire in March", The Herald-News (AP) - 1997 "Editor Kosner Leaving Esquire", Daily News - 1997 "Kosner Cashes In", Hartford Courant - 2002 "Pagnozzi", Rutland Daily Herald 2002 "Newpaper's undercover exploits raise ethics issues", The Los Angeles Times - 1979 "Editor of Newsweek Fired; Conflicts, Decisions Cited" part 1-part 2, Journal and Courier - 1975 "Time, Newsweek duplicate cover stories on rock star", The Brattleboro Reformer (AP) - 1999 "Mike Barnicle to Write for Sunday Daily News", The Honolulu Advertiser - 1979 "Editor of Newsweek Gets Walking Papers", Daily News - 1985 "Update", The Times Recorder (AP) - 1993, The Charlotte Observer - 1976 "Newsweek's New Editor After More Scoops", The San Francisco Examiner - 1980 "Time Keeps Marching On", The Ithaca Journal - 1975, Daily News - 2000 "Daily News circulation is on the rise", Austin American-Statesman - 1997 "Esquire's editor in chief leaving", Rutland Daily Herald - 1996 "Esquire Magazine Struggles to Find Role in the 1990s", Daily News - 1998 "Edward Kosner to edit Sunday News", The Los Angeles Times - 1998 "Magazines Feel Increased Pressure From Advertisers"...

And then there's these two, which are particularily interesting: 1. The Honolulu Advertiser - 1982 "Wrong color?" where Kosner is discussed regarding an issue of sending journalists to cover geographies that relate to ethinic backgrounds (specifically his choice to not send black reporters into Africa). While in it Kosner discusses sending Jewish reporters to Israel (without once mentioning he is Jewish), the reporter who wrote the article does not once bring up the fact that Kosner is Jewish (something one would think if it were a notable part of his life, would be worth noting in this case) 2. Daily News - 1989 "Publisher Kosner backs what Simon says" wherein Kosner specifically addresses the nature of anti-Semetic remarks made by drama critic John Simon, stating "There is no place for anti-Semitism, racism or anti-homosexual attitudes in New York magazine, and you won't find any there." Yet, the news article does not once mention that Kosner is himself Jewish. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Including every mention of him in the media doesn't persuade me. I looked at the first three and the two you highlighted and none are a biography of Kosner's life. Any that discuss his early life or personal life that don't mention he's Jewish? I wouldn't expect an announcement that he is leaving one employer to join another to include information about his identity, and I especially wouldn't expect the last two you highlighted to include that information. It's not like when an editor sends a reporter to Israel, they're going to mention that the editor is Jewish. Levivich  13:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I did not "include every mention of him". But, that is besides the point. You asked for sources that covered Kosner without bringing up he is Jewish, there are a litany provided and even more I can provide. To now say none of those count because they aren't a "biography of his life" is a clear instance of moving the goalposts and simply not accurate. The very first LA times story you state you have read is titled "A media memoir", if a memoir isn't biographical I don't know what is. Regardless, all of those combined give a clear picture of his biographical tale and yet never mention his religious beliefs (or lack of such). In my view that is more than enough to show the weighting of sources do not cover Kosner in this way. So, I think at this point we will have to agree to disagree. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

No, I did not move goalposts or ask for sources that covered Kosner without bringing up he is Jewish. I know better than to ask for something like that. Of course there are tons of sources that mention Kosner without bringing up he is Jewish–he was an editor at several major publications for decades, obviously there is going to be a ton of newspaper articles mentioning him, particularly surrounding his high-profile departures from various employers. Those aren't biographies. (And weren't you just saying NOTNEWS, yet all your sources are contemporaneous news reports...) I kinda figured you were going to WP:REFBOMB, which is why I specifically wrote, Don't need them all; the best two or three or however-many would be fine.

What I asked for was: ... do you have any sources to share that suggest that "Jewish" is not a significant part of his biography? What biographies of Kosner or other sources should we be looking at besides "the six" and Commentary ... please share whatever sources you think support excluding "Jewish" from Edward Kosner ... Post whatever sources are helpful ... Thank you for doing that, but if these sources are what you consider "biographies of Kosner", then yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree. Note that the "A media memoir" article is not, despite its title, a memoir, nor a biography of Kosner. It's an interview with Kosner about Kosner writing his memoir, which does include some biographical details, but isn't what I'd call a biography (it doesn't mention his childhood or family at all, for example). Kosner's actual memoir – which I agree is a good source to look at – spends like 10 pages discussing his Jewish upbringing, and is one of "the six" sources supporting inclusion (now we're up to eight with recent publications). BTW, I noticed that none of the newspaper articles you posted were written after Kosner released his autobiography, which is another reason I don't find them as presuasive as more-recent sources ("the six eight"). Levivich  18:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Something doesn't have to mention one's children or family to be considered a biographical source. If the only sources we permitted for BLPs discussed those facets, we'd have a lot less BLPs on this site altogether. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

And it is worth mentioning I specifically asked you if "you also want me to list the myriad of sources from newspaper archives discussing this man's life that do not find his religion a relevant part of his notability, I will gladly do so". You directly and emphatically said "yes", without all these extra stipulations you're now adding. That is what I did, and this is where we are. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Copied from Talk:Edward Kosner as relevant here as well (diff):

  I very much agree with Coffee and Jimbo Wales on this. WP:ONUS states — and I quote — "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content.". As Jimbo Wales has stated, I too have been concerned for some time with Sir Joseph's editing history on topics like this. This is further compounded by an apparent lack of understanding around the core site principle of consensus; Sir Joseph's insinuation that one (or two) editors is a strong consensus for inclusion of material that has already proven itself quite contentious is extremely troubling and disruptive, as his participation in a discussion that clearly falls under his topic ban: "Sir Joseph is topic-banned from the Holocaust and from anti-Semitism, both broadly construed."

  --TheSandDoctor 03:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  TheSandDoctor, how is this relevant here as well? Levivich  04:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  I believe that is quite obvious. This discussion is about Edward Kosner's article including a descriptor of him being Jewish, the discussion where TheSandDoctor copied that from was the exact same topic. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  This quoted excerpt is about the conduct of an editor and doesn't seem relevant to the content dispute at issue. And what's a bit puzzling is that the editor at issue stopped participating in the discussion shortly after TSD posted the above quote on the article talk page, and yet a week later, TSD posts it again here. To what purpose? TSD already got what he wanted. This is unnecessary mudslinging. Levivich  06:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• I don't know about the ethics of all this. I mean we're not talking about doxing or victim shaming here. If Kosner was notable for being Jewish, then the info should be in the article (regardless of OTRS, OpEd, or Jimmy's opinion). However, in this case I agree that his Jewishness (or degree thereof) is not tied to his notability, so it shouldn't be included. Ditch ∝ 03:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  Ditch Fisher, we frequently include information that is not directly tied to their source of notability. For instance Laura Bush is not notable for having twins and yet we note it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Both twins you mention have their own Misplaced Pages articles, and, by the way, nowhere in the Laura Bush article does it give mention the religion/nationalism she was raised in. Regards. Ditch ∝ 05:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC) I am wrong, sorry. It's been a long 3 weeks. Ditch ∝ 05:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• In my opinion, Kosner gave up any claim to a right to object to his Jewish identity being discussed in his Misplaced Pages biography when he wrote his essay published recently in the Jewish intellectual journal Commentary where he talked at length about his Jewish identity, including several Jewish literary references in the article while simultaneously praising Coffee. Had Kosner not spoken up so openly, I would have no objection to leaving out the Jewish bit, but he has shifted the debate in favor of inclusion by his own actions. Four months ago, Coffee took Kosner's specific complaint, and set off on a bot-like campaign of erasure of hundreds of non-controversial entries on Jewish lists, removing, for example, many highly notable Jewish writers and poets from the appropriate lists rather than showing even a modicum of discretion or editorial judgment. It is not contentious to be a Jew, no matter what Kosner and Coffee claim, and bot-like tagging or untagging of Jews is not useful. Every such edit should be thoughtful and carefully considered. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  Interestingly enough, there was no consensus to undo a single one of those removals. Some were added back with appropriate references, but that should have been done before those names were added to the lists to begin with (as WP:BLPCAT and WP:LISTPEOPLE clearly required). Suggesting we should state something in an article specifically because we know (from them publishing a commentary on the ordeal) that they don't want it in their article... that's bordering on retribution, and would appear to be because you didn't like what Kosner had to say (which clearly conflicted with your statements at the earlier AN thread). If it shouldn't have been in the article before Kosner spoke up "so openly", it shouldn't be in the article now. TheSandDoctor 05:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  In the spirit of accuracy, TheSandDoctor, I never mentioned Kosner in the AN discussion and repeatedly said that each person should be individually evaluated using editorial judgment, rather than formulaic bot-like editing. I will continue to argue that it is not contentious to be Jewish until the day I die, and that Jewish identity is much broader than formal religious beliefs. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  There was no consensus to mass-revert the removals. Levivich  05:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  Moving the goalposts still does not change the fact that at no time was there consensus against the removals that had already occured. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  I disagree, but anyone who wants to can read the thread and/or the closing statement and judge for themselves. There really isn't much point to arguing at BLPN about an AN thread from months ago. Levivich  05:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  I agree entirely it's not worth bringing up here, but I'm not the individuals who decided to bring it up. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) It would certainly be seen as retribution by any entity external to Misplaced Pages. Kosner stated quite clearly how his religious beliefs are not a notable facet of his life. Even though Cullen has now agreed it wasn't necessary to include before, now that Kosner wrote a commentary that disagreed with Cullen's own assertions at AN (that being described as a Jew cannot be contentious) it somehow needs to be now included? Hogwash. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  Cullen328, you can cast thinly veiled aspersions about my character all day if you must (I'm not one to run from bullets), but suggesting we should deliberately go against the wishes of an article subject merely because they opined publicly about their tiresome ordeal? That I am not remotely okay with. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• History of the content dispute – Some of the comments above are inaccurate with regards to the history of this content dispute. For the sake of a clear and (I think) complete record: the content at issue was added Aug 25, 2019 at 6:01, reverted by an IP with no edit summary at 6:02, and reinstated at 6:14. It was removed by Coffee, citing to an OTRS ticket, on Dec 18, 2019. The was the second of about 340 removals of "Jewish" from articles Dec. 18 – Jan 1. Those removals were discussed at an AN thread Dec 31 – Jan 15; the Edward Kosner article was mentioned in that thread. It was also mentioned (by me) at an AE thread Mar. 3 – 19. I shared six sources supporting inclusion of "Jewish" in Edward Kosner on Coffee's talk page on Mar 12. Kosner's Commentary piece about his OTRS ticket that Coffee handled was published about Apr 15 (archive). The content was added again, in different form, on Apr 17, along with a talk page discussion. It was removed Apr 21, readded, and removed again. Category:Jewish American journalists was added today (Apr 28) and removed. I hope we can solidify consensus on this content dispute. Levivich  05:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm split on this. On the one hand, it isn't usually necessary to mention a person's religion in their BLP article. People have said "If X is a Roman Catholic/Protestant, it isn't usually mentioned." On the other hand, it is difficult for Misplaced Pages to ignore things that have been in reliable sources.--♦IanMacM♦ 07:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• It's obvious that attempts at persuasion will not lead to consensus -- so, I have started an RfC on the article talk page: . Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I highly disagree that an RFC is needed to gain more participants to a discussion that already has many participants, and I doubt anyone can know what will come of any discussion that has only been allowed to transpire 12 hours before being ran to another forum. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
    • The "other forum" works out to be -- the article talk page! Good luck peddling the notion that this is forum-shopping... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
      • From the policy on forum shopping: Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators or reviewers, or any one of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. It being on a talk page of the article does not absolve you of clear forum shopping. Disgraceful behavior on your part. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
        • So take it to ANI. Not sure why this is causing you such grief -- it's a good-faith attempt on my part to get a resolution to the dispute. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
          • Because 1. While here there were several discussion participants who had made themselves aware of the underlying issues, and a robust discussion between us was taking place, you've now created a second place everyone who has participated here will have to pay attention to if they want their voice included in the consensus. 2. I've still not slept because the ethics of this initial issue were disturbing me to no end. 3. You have attempted to state an RFC has to happen because you think it needs to, as if everyone participating here can't have made that decision up for themselves when the time was deemed necessary. 4. This is presenting unneeded stress to an already heated issue. - I will not be taking this to ANI, because I do not see a need for a third place to have this exact same discussion. If this is truly good-faith on your part, I implore you to suspend the RFC until this discussion thread concludes. There is no absolute urgency to have two discussions about the same issue right now. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
          • Launching an RfC was considered and instead I decided to come here. That might have been the wrong way to resolve this dispute but starting an RfC so soon after the discussion started here is definitely the wrong way in my opinion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
          • In a sense, launching an RFC did help bring about agreement... that launching the RFC was premature. Levivich  13:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
            • Thanks to Rosguill who has closed the RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Not controversial? With respect to this article, it seems beyond debate that there is controversy. Misplaced Pages's experience is that Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality tends to controversial. It seems hardly surprising that such text in articles would also lead to controversy. With respect to Jewish identity, such controversy seems to reflect the state of the world beyond Misplaced Pages, examples in no particular order (to begin with, notice all the question marks?):

• Who Is A Jew? What Is A Jew? 23 Rabbis Respond
• Who is a Jew?
• What are Jews?
• Jews: A religious group, people or race?
• Members of Whose Tribe?
• Judge rules that Judaism is not a race but Jewish people can be targeted for racism . . .
• Are Jews a Race? . . .
• What-does-it-mean-to-be-genetically-jewish
• Are Jews an ethnic minority?

-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

While "who is a Jew" might be a controversial question in theory, whether or not Kosner is Jewish is not controversial. Nobody controverts it. Nobody says Kosner is not Jewish (including Kosner himself). So his identity isn't controversial. What's controversial is whether it's DUE, but that doesn't make the underlying fact controversial. Levivich  13:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The questions, who is a Jew, what are Jews, etc seem manifestly controversial, not just in theory. So, the concrete question 'What do we put in Kosner's article about Jewishness if anything?' also seems manifestly controversial. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

That seems uncontroversial. But it probably isn't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• The person can't have it both ways. They can't say at Commentary that they are proud to be a Jew but at the same time maintain the untenable position that Misplaced Pages should not say that they are Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Precisely. I find that argument decisive in this case. Cullen said the same above. Debresser (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The individual is not articulating a stance similar to Feynman. The individual is articulating a stance approximately similar to 50% of American Jews—not observant but to varying degrees prideful. And of course we do delve into Feynman's relationship to Jewish identity even though his notability is not related to Jewishness. Bus stop (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Arb Break 1 (Kosner)

Hello all. Edward Kosner has, via OTRS, requested that the following be pasted in this section:

I find these discussions flabbergasting—the modern equivalent of the medieval scholastics arguing over how many angels would fit on a pinhead.

I understand that you are trying to adhere to your understanding of Misplaced Pages policy in this instance. The obvious problem is that Misplaced Pages standards for identifying religion are ambiguous and contradictory. Misplaced Pages seems to think that Jews are an ethnicity, like, say Armenians. Hitler had the same idea. But Jews come from many countries on the globe. Some look like Paul Newman and some Orthodox look like Old Testament prophets and some look like Nordic gods. Only a fraction of Jews speak Hebrew or Yiddish. Most speak the language of their home countries. For some Jews, religion is central to their identity; for others, it's an accident of birth irrelevant in any meaningful way to their experiences and careers.

This is the crux of the problem. Misplaced Pages does not as a rule identify notables as Roman Catholic, Buddhist, Baptist, atheist or agnostic in entries unless their religion or lack of religion is genuinely relevant to their careers. Roman Catholics are black, white, yellow, brown and mixed. Somehow, it is understood at Misplaced Pages they they are members of a religion, not an ethnicity. The same goes, to a lesser extent, for Methodists, Baptists and other Protestant denominations. Most Episcopalians are white. But in New York City, most are African-American. Why should Misplaced Pages—inconsistently—identify Jews? The answer is because some Wikipedians consider Judaism as a nationality or ethnicity. I am an American journalist and editor. I am not a Jewish-American journalist and editor. Wouldn’t it look odd if one of your Jew-tagging editors identified me as a Jewish-American journaist? If I were an Israeli-American journalist and editor, that would be a valid description. But I’m not—I’m all-American and my religion or lack of it is irrelevant to my career. You don’t have to be... Einstein to get the distinction here.

Your colleagues have spent a lot of time hunting down references to my religion, many of which I’ve been unaware of until now because they are so obscure. Both the New York Times and the Wall St. Journal reviews of my memoir were published fourteen years ago, and are, to my knowledge, the only such references in mainstream media. This is clear evidence of how little my faith has mattered in my experience and career. I also get a whiff of vindictiveness in some of the talk-page comments—we’ll show this smart-ass who’s in charge of Misplaced Pages! Or am I being over-sensitive? Need I remind you that the trigger for retagging me was the publication of my Commentary article examining the peculiar Misplaced Pages policy of inconsistent Jew-tagging? This is a Kafkaesque interpretation: I am eligible to be Jew-tagged because I self-identified as Jewish in an article about my being Jew-tagged!

I fear I’m going to have to have a big fat paragraph or more about this issue, my Commentary piece, and the response in Misplaced Pages appended to my entry. This should satisfy those of your colleagues who insist on identifying me as Jewish—and it will inform readers of the entry about some of the complexities and contradictions of Misplaced Pages.

For those who have access to the OTRS sytem, the relevant ticket is ticket:2020042910010551. I hold no view on the subject of this comment or the validity of the claims therein. Regards, Vermont (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm curious about the term "Jew-tagging". Could the person writing the above tell us about that choice of wording? Some people are Jews. Some encyclopedia articles say that some people are Jews. What is the impetus for calling that "Jew-tagging"? I'm interested to know if the writer of the above finds that choice of wording defensible? Isn't that choice of wording a little bit slangy? Bus stop (talk) 01:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Kosner seeks to frame this matter around the phrase "Jew-tagging", but we might say instead that this is really about "Jew-scraping" Misplaced Pages. Why is that any less contentious or malevolent? StonyBrook (talk) 02:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

StonyBrook—the salient point is that his comments including references to "Jew-tagging" pertain to Misplaced Pages in general. If he wanted to get the word "Jewish" out of his article the way to accomplish that is straightforward. He could simply distance himself from that identity by for instance saying "I don't consider myself Jewish"—or anything approximating that. I've asked others to articulate the basis for removing this information. I think I detect a disinclination to have such a conversation. Bus stop (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

What would be more helpful from Ed Kosner is sharing with us what he thinks are the three best biographies of him that we should use as sources for this article. The NYT and WSJ pieces might be 14 years old, but they're the most recent that I can find. His autobiography is also 14 years old, but those three are the best three available AFAIK. The sources posted by Coffee above are as old or older. If there are newer or better sources, we all want to know about them, they will help settle this dispute. BTW, someone should tell Kosner he needn't communicate through OTRS; it's the encyclopedia anyone can edit; he is welcome to join here directly (subject to WP:COI procedures). Levivich  01:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

If you'll pardon my bluntness: quite frankly, I don't give a wooden nickel about what Mr. Kosner thinks. Having said that, however, I find that this is certainly a strange conundrum we're in: could we not simply that "Kosner has written about his conception of his identity in Commentary," and be done with it? — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 02:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, it is Misplaced Pages BLP policy: "Subjects sometimes become involved in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a representative. The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern." -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

True, though on the other hand it's tough to show kindness to someone who calls you an anti-Semitic Jew-tagger, repeatedly, in public. Levivich  02:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

If we might set aside my cantankerousness (which is due to my being sleep-deprived), I fear we're missing the more substantive point of my earlier comment: couldn't this be resolved with a sentence about Kosner and his conception of identity, and leave it at that? — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 02:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Javert2113—you said could we not simply that "Kosner has written about his conception of his identity in Commentary," and be done with it? That should be "Kosner has written about his conception of his Jewish identity in Commentary", shouldn't it? Why omit the word "Jewish"? Bus stop (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

You are indeed correct; I should have been more clear in my original statement, and I'd like to plead exhaustion, but it was actually a deliberate omission in a misguided attempt to forge a poor compromise. Sorry. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 02:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Nary a problem. Bus stop (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

My concern with that approach is that he doesn't really say much about his conception of his identity in the Commentary piece; I think he says more in the email to OTRS above, but that's unpublished and thus uncitable; I also think he says more about it in his autobiography. Also, when it comes to what's WP:DUE, it's not up to the subject, it's up to the sources. In this case, the subject is a source, but only one source. As counterintuitive as this may sound, I don't think we have much of a decision to make about whether or how to include this content. I think the decision we have is what are the leading sources. Once we identify those, following the sources is easy: we include it if they include it, and we include how they include it. Levivich  02:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that approach. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 02:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

To be fair to Kosner, I think in his Commentary piece he suggested that 'jew-tagging' could also be the result of working to claim an article subject, not for anti-Semitism too, like 'see all the greats who are'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

But they are writing "I fear I’m going to have to have a big fat paragraph or more about this issue". So why not keep it simple: he is Jewish. That is all that needs to be said. 50% of American Jews are nonobservant but proud of being Jews (approximately). I don't see how this situation pertaining to this individual is special in any way. The issue raised is about so-called Misplaced Pages Jew-tagging. I am not sure but that may be a separate issue from the subject's individual article. Bus stop (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

But he seems to say Jewish is a religion to him, so his phrase 'non-observant Jew' would just reinforce how little it matters. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

"Religion" or "religious" is mentioned 18 times in the Commentary magazine article so I'm not sure which occurrence you are referring to. The reference that I have in mind is "I'm a proud if non-observant Jew, but my religious origin had never been mentioned in the many articles that have been written about me over the years." I could ask you a simple question: what is the object of the referred-to pride? Of course it is Jewish identity. Bus stop (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

He explicitly says he views it as a religious origin, not an identity, a religion he does not observe. One can take pride in being non-observant and not be ashamed of something that's not an identity. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker—I'm struggling to understand what you are saying but not making any headway. The first thing you have to understand is what an "ethnic Jew" is. You say "And saying that someone is a proud ethnic Jew, makes no sense when they don't view it as ethnic to begin with." Even out of context, words and phrases have a degree of intrinsic meaning. An "ethnic Jew" is a person who is Jewish by dint of birth. This is in contrast to a person who is Jewish by dint of conversion. Such a person is not ethnically Jewish. They are Jewish nevertheless. They are Jewish by dint of having converted to Judaism. The terminology "ethnic Jew" does not at all equate to the terminology "nonobservant Jew" though our Who is a Jew? article states otherwise without a citation. Bus stop (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Your struggle is not with me, you are struggling against the subject of this article. His points include the rather well established concept that claimed ethnicity for someone else that he and others cannot even see as one ethnicity, so it's not an ethnicity at all, is bound to present problems for that person. Then too, arguing with him about his identity, makes this whole thing exceedingly fraught with personal controversy. Do you or anyone else really want an argument about your personal identity. He says it's religious origin, he objects to it being ethnicity, he says it does not matter. None of that hardly seems unfathomable, especially when actually trying to understand someone else. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

My "struggle" cannot be "against the subject of this article". The subject of the article is one voice among many and all participants including the subject of the article require support in reliable sources for all assertions under consideration for inclusion in the article or even for the omission of this area of material from the article. This isn't formless palaver. The question is always: what do the sources say? On that we will make our decision as to whether to include or not and if to include, in what language? Bus stop (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• This is an important discussion and controversy that Mr. Kosner, through his OTRS ticket and Commentary article (and Coffee's subsequent interventions) might finally help solve. It has a lot more to do than just the simple horse-trading over policies and sources. Much of the underlying issues boil down to perception and opinion. Mr. Kosner himself has portrayed this debate as one about whether being called Jewish means as part of a religious group or as an ethnicity. He stated his opinion that the ethnicity option is incorrect, on two counts: one, because Hitler considered the Jews an ethnicity, a nation within a nation so to speak, that therefore had to be opposed from a nationalist point of view. This is a cogent observation, because it has been at the heart of much Jewish suffering over two millennia of exile. Secondly, Mr. Kosner points out that Jews couldn't be an ethnicity because some are fair, some look Middle-Eastern etc. I believe that it is not about one or the other (religion vs. ethnicity), but really a little bit of both. Yes, I am one of those Misplaced Pages editors that Mr. Kosner says believes Jews are an ethnicity, and that in turn, a minority of those Jews are also religious. There is a Jewish look too, and I believe that Mr. Kosner has it. As far as there being "Nordic-looking" Jews or whatever, they will either intermarry with gentiles and have Jewishness disappear from their descendants entirely, or otherwise intermingle with other Jews, with their descendants eventually acquiring that look. As Mr. Kosner himself tells it, he stumbled upon his Misplaced Pages article one day and 'discovered' that he is Jewish. What this probably means is, like many other Jewish people before him throughout history, he had been spending his entire life trying to escape his Jewish identity, only to have Misplaced Pages (or whomever else, it doesn't really matter) remind him of it. For the record, I believe we should mention that Mr. Kosner is a proud (ethnic) but unpracticing (religious) Jew; as Cullen and others have stated, there is nothing shameful about Jewishnes; not only is it valid biographical information, much the same as when we state that so-and-so American writer has Lithuanian heritage, I believe it is simply wrong on a deeper level for any famous or infamous person to try to deny or cover up from whence they came, and with it the influence that that background inevitably played in making them who they are. I don't think it is fair for Mr. Kosner to characterize this as being about how Misplaced Pages editors will "show this smart ass who's in charge". Misplaced Pages relies on reliable sources, whether it is about Jewishness or criminal convictions (no, those two aren't the same), and, per Misplaced Pages policy, none of it can be censored. As far as advice on how to Jewishly disappear from Misplaced Pages, I agree with Mr. Kosner that the absolute wrong way to go about it is writing about it in a highly visible magazine. StonyBrook (talk) 04:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Especially a highly visible Jewish magazine like Commentary. Kosner is certainly entitled to his opinion that being Jewish is a religious identity but not an ethnic one. However, that does not jibe with his statement he considers himself proudly Jewish despite not observing religious rituals. Scholars of ethnicity certainly recognize a Jewish ethnic group broad enough to encompass Ethiopian Jews, Mexican Jews, Yemeni Jews, Argentinian Jews, British Jews, Iranian Jews, Moroccan Jews, Turkish Jews as well as all the varieties of Israeli Jews and the Ashkenazi American Jews who speak several dialects of Hebrew and Yiddish, and love bagels and lox and falafel and hummus, and all those people interact mostly happily as part of their shared Jewish identity. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Let us just bear in mind that you could be mistaken when you say "What this probably means is, like many other Jewish people before him throughout history, he had been spending his entire life trying to escape his Jewish identity, only to have Misplaced Pages (or whomever else, it doesn't really matter) remind him of it." Unless they say this it should not be accepted. Bus stop (talk) 04:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

That is why I said "probably". I don't know anything of Mr. Kosner except what he himself has written on this subject; using a little "Talmudic" logic, I think that some of that might lead a person to this conclusion, that's all. StonyBrook (talk) 04:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I think they are mistaken when they say above "The answer is because some Wikipedians consider Judaism as a nationality or ethnicity." They don't know Misplaced Pages. I regard "Jewish" as an identity. There are implications to words. "Judaism" tends to evoke religious practice. There are "religious" Jews and "nonobservant" Jews. Except in articles devoted to this purpose, context tells us the implications of words and phrases. There is too much hangup on pigeonholing "Jewish" into "ethnicity" and "religion". Anything can be further subdivided but simply pointing out that someone is "Jewish" goes a moderate distance in shedding some light on that person's identity. If they didn't identify as a Jew their way to articulate that is simple. They can say "I don't consider myself a Jew." But this is at odds with "I'm a proud if non-observant Jew". Bus stop (talk) 05:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

There is another point to be made here: If Mr. Kosner is stating that he is a proud Jew, what could possibly be the hangup with having his background mentioned here? I don't believe that it has much to do with possibly being confused with a religious person; I do fear it has more to do with the all-too-familiar refrain that the Jews control the media. If my suspicion is correct, it puts Mr. Kosner's problem with Misplaced Pages in a clearer light, meaning he might be uncomfortable with possibly having this canard being bolstered through him. Maybe admirable in some respects, but as I've said above, I concur with those above who assert that being Jewish is not a liability. Jews don't control Misplaced Pages either. StonyBrook (talk) 06:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

In no way would he have to be suspiciously ashamed of his religious origin. To him at 82, it's a distant religious origin, one that he does not observe, perhaps almost never observed, and according to him has nothing to do with his life's work. And saying that someone is a proud ethnic Jew, makes no sense when they don't view it as ethnic to begin with. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

All this is so strange to me. His parents were Jewish, he was bar mitzvahed, he was married by a rabbi in a synagogue (I think multiple times), he writes in a Jewish magazine that he's a proud Jew, yet he's going to great lengths to keep this word out of his WP biography. I wonder if he asked the Times and Journal for a retraction when they wrote that he was Jewish? Did he threaten to cancel his subscription? Or is this special treatment just for Misplaced Pages? Levivich  15:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Life is strange and living people are regularly unwilling to be boxed. Regardless, when I examine his underlying assumptions and arguments in good faith, I find it within normal human reason. (Just one example, if an NYT reviewer says about me something like 'ham eating Jew', one reasonable reaction is 'WTF does that mean, it means nothing, nothing but snark').-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

"WTF does that mean" might be a reasonable reaction to "ham eating Jew" for some, but not in this case, not for Kosner. "Ham-eating Jew" is a reference to a Jew who doesn't keep kosher (pork is forbidden). It is a way of saying "a non-observant Jew", or at least a Jew who is not so devout as to keep kosher. One might think this was some kind of slur, or at least criticism–i.e. a "ham eating Jew" is not a real Jew–but actually it's not. Most Jews don't keep kosher; I am also a ham-eating Jew. It's not really the most polite phraseology–I wouldn't suggest we write that in the encyclopedia–but it's not a criticism or an attack, as Kosner seems to suggest. Here's what he wrote in the Commentary piece about it:

The reviewer called me a “ham-eating Jew” because I’d mentioned that my American-born and fiercely assimilationist mother had occasionally served us a slab of grilled ham from Safeway topped with a slice of pineapple—that midcentury delicacy “Ham Steak Hawaiian.”

But that's not really truthful. For one thing, he didn't write in his autobiography that his mother "occasionally" served ham, the word he used was "often". More importantly, it was Kosner himself who used the "ham eating" to illustrate his and his family's Jewish identity. Here's what he wrote in his autobiography about it, starting at p. 17:

Like other assimilating second-generation American Jews, my parents were observant in the most idiosyncratic way. My mother lit the Sabbath candles and patronized Shulman, the cranky lobster butcher, but often served ham steak Hawaiian from Safeway.

The autobiography goes on for several pages from there, describing in some detail his Jewish upbringing and his parents' Jewish identity. Kosner himself is using ham eating to show that they didn't keep kosher. I'm not sure why he objects to the NYT review echoing his own words, or why he objects to "Jewish" being mentioned at all in his Misplaced Pages biography. Levivich  17:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

That would appear to be because, as Kosner stated directly above, "I’m all-American and my religion or lack of it is irrelevant to my career.". — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

But we know that we include material that is relevant to a subject's life, not just to a subject's career. Wouldn't that be why we delve into Feynman's distancing himself from Jewish identity? Bus stop (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

If it's not relevant, then why did he write about it for pages and pages in his autobiography? Why did the NYT and WSJ mention it? It doesn't matter if it's relevant to his career, because we're not writing a LinkedIn page or a resume; we're writing a biography. It is relevant to his biography; that's why he wrote about it in his autobiography, and why we should mention it in ours. Levivich  18:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I take from this line of Kosner's above "For some Jews, religion is central to their identity; for others, it's an accident of birth irrelevant in any meaningful way to their experiences and careers" and this line "This is clear evidence of how little my faith has mattered in my experience and career" that he also finds his religion (or lack of such) irrelevant to his life, including and excluding his career. Talking about how one was raised in a religion in his autobiography, doesn't mean he has to be identified by what his parents believed in his Misplaced Pages entry. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

His email to OTRS is not a source that we can cite. It doesn't matter if the subject thinks it's important or not. We are not writing an article entitled "What Ed Kosner Thinks About Stuff". It matters what the reliable sources say. In all things. I think you continue to place way too much importance on the subjects own views and desires. Levivich  18:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

We cannot insist that he experience these things the way we do, and therefore find him not understandable. It seems almost impossible he would be the only person to go through religious ceremony in youth or later life or not participate in cultural practice (of the something that has somewhere to do with religious food law) and not see it as just religious, of no personal import. But even if he were, when you see something is of no import, it doesn't mean it is relevant. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

He described himself as a proud Jew in public, so this isn't a case where someone was raised Jewish but renounces their Jewish identity later in life. This is not, and never was, about whether or not Kosner is "Jewish". He is Jewish, even he himself says he is Jewish (a proud if non observant Jew). The question is whether this should be mentioned in his WP article. He thinks that, although he is Jewish, that shouldn't be mentioned. But he's not saying "I'm not Jewish anymore" or anything like that. He says the opposite. And personally I don't understand how one can say "I'm a proud Jew but don't mention that in my biography because it's irrelevant." Huh? Seems totally contradictory to me. I can't square "proud but irrelevant" in my head. Levivich  18:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

At present the article does not contain any reference to the subject being Jewish. Is anyone opposed to this version which simply says "Kosner, who is Jewish, was born in New York City, the son of Sidney Kosner, a salesman for a men’s and boy’s outerwear manufacturer, and Annalee Fisher Kosner, a housewife" and it includes the person in Category:Jewish American journalists. Bus stop (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

It would seem there are several of us who are clearly opposed to that here and at other pages discussing this (myself, Kosner, TheSandDoctor, Jimbo Wales, Govindaharihari, Ditch Fisher, Alanscottwalker and Masem, yet also several in favor (yourself, Levivich, Barkeep49, Debresser, Hemiauchenia, StonyBrook and Cullen328), one person who is essentially undecided (Ianmacm), and one person who has expressed takes on both sides (Gråbergs Gråa Sång). If I'm leaving anyone out, feel free to mention them. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I haven't checked myself but assuming that list is complete, and not counting Jimbo or Kosner, and counting wally below, I think that's a 7-7 split, assuming all arguments given equal weight. Shall we now discuss a neutral RFC question? Levivich  19:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

There's Zaereth who also just lent their opinion, and I don't think it neccesairly fair to discount Jimbo (although I get the community's penchant for not listening to him, in this case I think his arguments had decent weight as well). However, I would propose that whomever closes this thread recommend whether an RFC should be the next step. If it is decided that is the most reasonable step to go with, the RFC should sum up all of the discussion here and should neutrally present the question in the same way Barkeep49 did when he opened this thread. Either way, we should definitely wait until conversation stops here before moving to the next step - (48 hours after no comments have been made, perhaps) - but I would highly recommend we get an uninvolved admin to close this at that time before we move forward... for the sake of ensuring fairness. Does that sound reasonable to everyone? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm agreeable to that. Levivich  18:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Hi. I should just post that I am still , as previously stated and for the same reasons opposed to this detail being included. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• I have to agree with Govindaharihari here. I admit that I don't have nearly enough time to read through this entire discussion, but what I mainly see here are a lot of inferences being made based upon vague implications. We're basically drawing conclusions about this person's private life based on passing statements, hints, and outwardly conflicting comments. If anything is included it should probably be a direct quote, but then again, how do we choose. If we even have to argue about it, then it seems apparent that how he identifies himself is unclear. Personally, I see it as none of my business, so I think leaving it out is likely best. Zaereth (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • No there are no inferences or vague implications. We have seven sources explicitly and directly stating he is Jewish. They are on the article talk page. The autobiography spends I think 10+ pages on it; nothing vague about that. Levivich  19:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Coffee (and Govindaharihari too)—I would be interested in seeing reliably-sourced reasons for not including that he is Jewish as well as reliably-sourced reasons for not including him in the "Category" of Jewish American journalists. Can you present such sources? Consensus as you know is not just voting. Bus stop (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I've already done that at length above (and on Kosner's talk page), and do not find it necessary to repeat myself. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• I think we should be very careful with adding religious identity and other similar personal information such as ethnicity to articles, and I do not think the sources show that Jewish identity is important to Kosner's notability. I also do not think we should use autobiographies or other articles about oneself to include information when the individual specifically objects, especially the recent article in Commentary where he is only discussing the information to point out a problem with its inclusion. I think that gets too close to punishing someone for speaking up about potential problems with Misplaced Pages. The autobiography would be more relevant, but I am still generally opposed to including information written about oneself that one has expressed they do not want included in encyclopedic biographies about themselves when is not significant to why they are notable. I am not sure how that plays out with the balance of the other sources, but they seem to largely be passing mentions or inclusions on lists, which I do not find very persuasive for establishing significance for inclusion. If his Jewish identity is eventually included, I think it needs to have a disclosure that he is "non-observant" and also include something about his statements regarding its inclusion. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The fact that he is Jewish does not need to add to his notability in order to be included in the article. Once a subject is notable, we write all kinds of things about them, basically anything that there is not specific reason to leave out. So if he is Jewish, we can have it. And since he has stated that being Jewish is important for him, how can we leave this out? Debresser (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The fact that the subject doesn't want it in the article is irrelevant since he used the occasion of his request to have it removed to write about just how important the very fact he wanted removed is in a reliable source. So we give him what he wants...does he then write another editorial on how he manipulated our contents? This is folly. John from Idegon (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I wrote this before but after the last comment I will write it again. we added it and he didn't like it, complained about it to us and then and wrote that he didn't like it, so we can include it, that doesn't seem to me to be a great way to include content in regard to living people. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, he "complained about it", but on what basis, Govindaharihari? Subjects of biographies don't write articles about themselves. Editors in general write articles, and assertions are based on reliable sources. Mere complaint should not carry the day. The assertion that he is Jewish was reliably sourced long before the Commentary magazine article. Bus stop (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• I'm going to agree that people are too focused on religion or ethnicity even when it does not contribute to notability. These include reliable sources. This sort of information is traditional in a biography, but we have editorial discretion not to include that. The arguments for ignoring his wishes can be reduced to "Well, you're a Jew. We have plenty of people that say so, even you. Deal with it". If he says he doesn't want to be labeled as a Jew in terms of ethnicity or religion, then we should respect that. We shouldn't be trying to parse his words otherwise, and we shouldn't use the Commentary article as some kind of gotcha justification to retain this information. We may not see the "Jew tagging" as a perjorative, diminishing his career, or putting a target on his back but he does and that is a type of harm. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  Two thumbs up for this. I couldn't have said it better. Zaereth (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts, Zaereth, this version of the article is not "in terms of ethnicity or religion". It says "Kosner, who is Jewish, was born in New York City, the son of Sidney Kosner, a salesman for a men’s and boy’s outerwear manufacturer, and Annalee Fisher Kosner, a housewife." Bus stop (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, so? I was trying to cover the bases of why he objects to the label. However he reads it, he doesn't like it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts—you are saying "If he says he doesn't want to be labeled as a Jew in terms of ethnicity or religion, then we should respect that". But we are not saying that he was born Jewish or that he is religious. Again this is what the article said "Kosner, who is Jewish, was born in New York City, the son of Sidney Kosner, a salesman for a men’s and boy’s outerwear manufacturer, and Annalee Fisher Kosner, a housewife." That wording does not explicitly or implicitly say that he was born Jewish. And that wording does not explicitly or implicitly say that he is religious. Bus stop (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, it doesn't matter if we're explicit in defining Jews as a race or religion when we label someone as a Jew. Enough with the parsing. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts—in this version we are not "defining Jews as a race or religion". It reads "Kosner, who is Jewish, was born in New York City, the son of Sidney Kosner, a salesman for a men’s and boy’s outerwear manufacturer, and Annalee Fisher Kosner, a housewife." Bus stop (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:DUCKSEASON: "However he reads it, he doesn't like it." Words have meaning. What you see as not implying anything can be perceived as a microagression because of people's implicit biases. You are focusing on the wrong thing. See WP:RACIALISM. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the ambiguous wording is significantly worse than stating that he describes himself as a non-observant Jew. We should respect BLP's preference for how they want to be religiously defined. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts I liked the "Well, you're a Jew. We have plenty of people that say so, even you. Deal with it" part! True, that is how Misplaced Pages works. It is sourced, we'll have it.

@Govindaharihari Precisely! That is precisely how it works. It may not seem a great way, but it is the only way to be a good encyclopedia. Disregard the wishes of the subjects of your articles, and just tell your readers the truth. Put this way, it sounds even better to me... Debresser (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Naw.WP:VNOTSUFFWP:NOTBUREAUCRACY It doesn't improve the encyclopedia here. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Disregarding your clear misinterpretation of what Morbidthoughts and Govindaharihari said, we have a long-standing consensus to consider article subject's wishes. WP:BLPREQUESTDEL even says that we can delete entire articles from the site (amazingly enough, even if there are reliable sources stating their existence), at the behest of article subjects (given certain conditions). We've listened to those wishes a myriad times, and have not somehow decreseased our encyclopedic integrity. Your suggestion that we should treat an article subject with such disrespect - that you think it is okay to tell them to essentially screw themselves and we'll do whatever we want without care for the impact it may have on their lives - simply flies in the face of how we're supposed to handle BLPs. It is indeed not how Misplaced Pages works. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

That's not what BLPREQDEL says. It applies very narrowly, to "relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus". I agree with Debresser, how Misplaced Pages works is that we write an encyclopedia by summarizing reliable sources. The wishes of biography subjects are, and should continue to be, irrelevant. We are not a vanity press. Levivich  22:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I second what Morbidthoughts said as well, WP:VNOTSUFF and WP:NOTBURO are encyclopedic standards that are highly applicable here. They literally permit us to not cover everything in our articles just because it happens to be verifiable. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Coffee—there is nothing shameful about being Jewish and we are not limited to only that material that has bearing on his career. As I've asked you before please articulate with reference to reliable sources why it is your opinion that this material should be omitted from this article. Bus stop (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, reliable sources are not needed to show why something shouldn't be included. Reliable sources are the onus for inclusion, but information being included in reliable sources is not the standard for inclusion on Misplaced Pages, and less so for BLPs. Unless content is simply unsourced, discussion about exclusion is more often about reasoned discussion and consideration of other factors, and it certainly is when it comes to BLP policies, where we do consider living person's opinions, especially for personal topics like religion. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, who has said anything about Kosner being ashamed? I don't think anyone has made that argument as a reason for exclusion. Privacy is not only an issue of shame. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert—please provide one or more reliable sources in support of your argument that this material should be removed from this article. Bus stop (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, that is not how Misplaced Pages policies work. They are based on discussion between editors. Please see my above comment if you still do not understand. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Aren't you conceding that you don't have any sources to support your argument? Bus stop (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

No. Your argument is a fallacious one. You can't prove a negative. Zaereth (talk) 00:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't "I don't consider myself a Jew" be a "negative", Zaereth? Bus stop (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

wallyfromdilbert—correct me if I am wrong but it sounds like you are conceding that you have no source asserting that Kosner might not be Jewish. On what basis should we remove this material? Has anyone, including the subject himself, suggested that Kosner might not be Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey man, have you stopped beating your wife yet? You're ignoring WP:ONUS by insisting the lithmus for inclusion is verification. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

And my answer to your question to me is, no. For example, a person can find all kinds of proof that God, or the Higgs boson, or whatever you believe in exists. You'll never be able to produce a single ounce of proof that they don't. You can prove a man's guilt, but he can't prove his innocence by lack of evidence. Lack of evidence is not proof. Zaereth (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, no one is disputing that he is Jewish. The issue is whether the content is appropriate or significant enough to include. That is a decision that is made between editors based on our policies, and a reliable source wouldn't be able to prove the content wasn't significant enough to include. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

wallyfromdilbert—please present your argument in support of omitting the information. Bus stop (talk) 04:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, I have already done that here. You should refer to that: . – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Subjects of articles don't control the content of their biographies, Wallyfromdilbert. Reliable sources play a large role in determining content. Misplaced Pages should reflect sources. This isn't about your opinions on topics—"I think we should be very careful with adding religious identity and other similar personal information such as ethnicity to articles". We are not in the role of dictating to the world the proper or recommended way to cover a topic. It would be more correct to say that reliable sources are in the role of dictating to us how a topic should be covered. Misplaced Pages isn't censored. I know that you know that. But you sound like you are imposing your opinions on an uncensored project under the guise of filtering out some material that you feel would be improper for inclusion. Bus stop (talk) 05:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

No, we don't simply include anything because it is published in a reliable source. We use our editorial discretion based on our reasons and established policies. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• I want to say we are dealing with two different problems here that as a net result, a conservative approach would be leave out these details in ethnicity and religion unless they are a central facet to the person's notability or importance. Not just oft-repeated.

  Point one is the "Jewish" confusion between the religion and the ethnicity which has been a long-standing problem on WP. (I think the last big issue came up around Bernie Sanders around last election cycle). I am neither by-ethnic nor by-faith Jewish but I know there's so many different levels of subtlity involved in there based on past WP discussions that its almost a problem we want to avoid unless for the BLP or topic that has BLP connotations it is essential to discuss, and when that comes up, we want to be using what the BLP has said themselves avoid the accidental implications, in the case that "Jewish" may give.

  The second point is that are some ethnicities and religions that gain undue attention for better or worse. There are editors who I am sure that they are a proud person of ethnic/religion X and would love to make sure that BLPs of X are highlighted when they can be identified; that's human nature. I also do believe that there's a far rarer set of editors that are a bit more malicious that would like to call out certain ethnics or religions (something akin to calling out people aligned with the old Nazi Germany state). Either way, this leads editors to focus on trying to prove these details out, and that might lead to poor source choices, or digging beyond what we'd want them to.

• For a combination of these reasons, I'd rather us not include either ethnicity or religion unless you cannot talk about the person without that being core to their importance. --Masem (t) 00:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

But that is exactly the point; ethnic or national backgrounds make up the core of every person who has an article here. It tells us a lot about them, and we are seeking knowledge here after all. And a person cannot deny their upbringing as surely as a leopard cannot hide its spots. StonyBrook (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

What are the policies or guidelines that necessitates this background information for a "good" biography? Closest thing I can find is MOS:ETHNICITY, and even then it tells us not to emphasise ethnicity or religion if it's not pertinent to their notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Mostly, I think this is one of those cases where more than a little editorial judgment is required. In sensitive cases such as this, I would usually lean hard toward respecting the subject's own wishes. Ethnicity is really a very subjective matter; almost as much as religion. Go back 30 generations and you can count millions of people that you can call great, great grandparents. We're all a little bit of everything. But in the case where the subject specifically requests not to be labeled anything, then I would want to honor that request out of basic human kindness. It doesn't seem to me to alter the person he is one way or the other. You can't possibly write a policy for every possible situation, nor would it be a good idea. Guidelines are just that, guides to use our editorial judgment wisely.Zaereth (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Zaereth—this isn't the forum for you to wax eloquent about "grandparents", "generations" and "kindness". Perhaps a User Talk page would be a more suitable place. Bus stop (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Dude, WP:Battleground. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Zaereth a fair point about people being a little bit of everything, but we are talking here about a full-fledged Jewish person by all accounts. StonyBrook (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

It also might be worthwhile to review the discussion around the removal of the religion field from the infobox, there's a lot of overlap there. --Masem (t) 02:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts MOS:ETHNICITY only says to keep ethnicity out of the lead section, not the article body itself. StonyBrook (talk) 02:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

... and nowhere does it say it's necessary to a good biography if known. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

"Necessary" isn't the applicable standard. If we reduced the biography to just what was "necessary", it would be a stub, or perhaps not exist at all. Better questions are: does it improve the reader's understanding of the subject? Is the reader's understanding incomplete without it? I'm hard pressed to imagine a biography that doesn't discuss the person's childhood and family. To me, if a person was raised in a particular religious or cultural or ethnic or whatever tradition, that's important information for a biography of the person. You wouldn't have a complete understanding of the biography subject if you didn't know that they went to church every Sunday, or temple, or not, or that they were bar mitvahed or Christened or baptized or similar. That might not be an important part of someone's career, but it is an important part of someone's life, and a biography (unlike a resume) is about a person's life, not just their career. Levivich  16:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

We do have standards for determining good articles, that states good articles should stay "focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". Kosner has repeatedly said this part of his life is not important, and this back and forth about necessary and important falls under WP:ITSIMPORTANT. From reading his objections and the excerpts of his autobiography that you provided, he is concerned that being labeled Jewish or raised in a Jewish family would feed into implicit stereotypes and invalidate his life and work, and your comments about "complete understanding" makes his concerns valid. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure which GAR criteria, or other WP policy/guideline, says that we should exclude that which the subject thinks is unimportant. You'll also have to explain that last part to me about my comment validating his concerns. You don't think someone's childhood, family, or cultural background are important parts of their biography? Levivich  18:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Read up on microinvalidation: "communications that exclude, negate, or nullify the psychological thoughts, feelings, or experiential reality of a person belonging to a particular group" You are arguing that background information like ethnicity or religion gives us insight into the person (how so?) when the subject says it doesn't. This is classic microinvalidation. I don't believe childhood, family, or cultural background is important for EVERY biography, and no standard or guideline mandates them. In fact, MOS:IDENTITY warns us not to label people carelessly. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Believing that a person's cultural background is an important part of their biography is not a microaggression or anything like that. Disagreement is not invalidation. Levivich  19:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

It is microagression to impose a label onto Posner and his family that he says doesn't apply. Your attempt to reframe this as a general best practice for biographies does not excuse this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

In his autobiography he wrote that his parents are American Jews, and in the Commentary piece, he wrote that he is a proud if non-observant Jew, so I'm not seeing how that is "imposing a label...that he says doesn't apply". He never said the label doesn't apply–he is not saying he's not Jewish; he says the exact opposite, that he is a proud Jew. He doesn't say the label doesn't apply, what he says is it's not important enough to include in his biography. And my belief that it is important enough to include in his biography is not a microaggression or any kind of aggression or misconduct; it's rather ridiculous to suggest otherwise. And nobody is "imposing" anything on anybody here. Levivich  20:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Despite the seeming contradictions, he believes it's a misleading label the way it's presented.. That his upbringing was Jewish when he has written that his family wasn't very Jewish in its practices. He also clearly has an issue with being labeled, Jewish American journalist, which was inserted as a category. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you're entirely missing the point that we're not just doing this because the article subject wants it, there are currently a majority of Misplaced Pages editors who do not want this added to the page. While not a consensus yet, I would definitely say there isn't a consensus that this has to be added. WP:VNOTSUFF specifically states: While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. Nowhere in there does it state editors have to prove there's an additional policy that says we don't have to include something for it to be excluded. If there is no consensus to add disputed content or consensus deems something unworthy of inclusion, it is simply omitted (regardless of how passionately some disagree). That's all the policy there is, and that's all the policy that need be. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure where you're going with this. Nobody is saying we don't make decisions by consensus. Levivich  18:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Coffee—Please be so kind as to present your argument for why we should filter content in this instance. Alternatively, you could initiate a community-wide discussion, for instance at the Village Pump, to omit related content in related circumstances. I would like to have a civil discussion, so please compose your thoughts carefully, and I promise I will do the same. Bus stop (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I've already done that at extreme and exaustive length in the preceeding parts of this thread. I will not be participating in repetition ad naseum. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Coffee—you may think you have presented a cogent argument but you have not. You can engage in dialogue with me or not. You can't claim there is consensus to omit information that is standardly included in biographies, both at Misplaced Pages and virtually anywhere else. You are not going to slip through a practice in this instance which obviously is not practiced community-wide. The subject of this article literally said they are proud to be a Jew in a recent article in Commentary (magazine) so we're not "outing" this person in a facet of their identity in which they would rather remain "closeted". Discussion is the lifeblood of Misplaced Pages in cases of dispute. You can tell me one good reason this material should be omitted and I can try to match your reasoning with reasoning of my own. In the absence of dialogue you can't claim any kind if legitimate consensus. Consensus at Misplaced Pages is based on the quality and strength of the arguments on the different sides of an issue. As I've suggested, you can also present your argument on a community-wide basis at the Village Pump. Your refusal to engage in dialogue I think forfeits any solidity of ground that you may think you stand on in this issue. Bus stop (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Editors don't have to agree with your opinions for there to be a consensus, nor have you been appointed the 'arbiter of logical soundness'. I don't think any impartial soul could possibly think I have not discussed this matter to the fullest extent possible. To your statment "which obviously is not practiced community-wide"... that is flat out wrong, and empirically so. There clearly is such community-wide consensus, and I already quoted where it is documented above (in WP:VNOTSUFF). As far as stating religion specifically, our current encyclopedic standard is also documented at WP:BLPCAT, which requires that if we're to include a religion, the subject must self-identify that way, and such "beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability". Even if we're to make the troubling step of pretending his statement about being Jewish in Commentary as self-identification (a form of "gotcha" action that could be expected of a shit tabloid, not a reputable encyclopedia), it remains clear this is not relevant to Kosner's public life or notability. You're free to disagree, but I'm in no way required to keep explaining this to you. Good day, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts I would like to believe that your statement above he is concerned that being labeled Jewish or raised in a Jewish family would feed into implicit stereotypes and invalidate his life and work gets to the crux of Mr. Kosner's objection to the Jewish content in his own article, but his comments below demonstrate that he has instead embarked on a much larger crusade to make systematic changes to this encyclopedia, which began with his collaboration with Coffee. So let us not make this as if it is only about him. It clearly is not. StonyBrook (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

We're only discussing his issues with respect to his article. Good luck to Mr. Kosner on trying to impose his issues onto all articles involving Jewish Americans or American Jews or Americans that practice Judaism. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Arb Break 2 (Kosner)

I have now read through the entire Biography discussion and I’m more stupefied than ever. Misplaced Pages obviously needs an ombudsman—at the minimum, a highly-skilled lawyer—to sort through these arguments. That person would clarify some of the imprecise and contradictory statements made by the participants, arrive at a clear—not a muddled—analysis of the issue under discussion and recommend a resolution. This could be voted on by the participating editors and accepted or rejected.

Your colleagues don’t seem to understand a founding truth about America: We are Americans, not hyphenated Americans, especially those born here of American parents. I do not accept—nor do many Americans—that being Jewish is an ethnicity. There has been a long struggle against the noxious notion that American Jews have a dual loyalty to America and to some alien nation, most recently Israel. This has been a central, tragic element in anti-Semitism in Europe and here for centuries.

If being Jewish is not deemed an ethnicity—certainly in America—it is a faith. And if it is a faith, it is no more appropriate in a Misplaced Pages entry about a native-born American than being Roman Catholic, Buddhist, Chaldean or whatever—unless it is plainly relevant to the experiences and career of the subject and would be so recognized by readers. This is the fair and commonsensical standard used by the New York Times in its obituaries. It is the standard I would like to see Misplaced Pages adopt for both living and dead subjects and it is the underlying reason I have pursued this matter so strenuously. - Edward Kosner

This message was requested by Kosner to be posted here, relevant OTRS ticket is ticket:2020050110006632. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

FYI: I merged the ticket to the earlier ticket (ticket:2020042910010551). --MrClog (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Mr. Kosner seems to think that he can use his own article as a crowbar to work his own political views into the encyclopedia. This is highly inappropriate, because the weighty issues he raises, should simply not be discussed in connection with an editorial debate about his own article. I will not take the bait and tangle with some of the issues he has raised, nor, I believe, should anyone else. StonyBrook (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't believe anything he stated is evidence that he wants to "work his own political views into the encyclopedia", much of what he proposed is already part of our system as documented at WP:BLPCAT and WP:CAT/R. I find your disrespectful tone to be inappropriate to this forum, and entirely out of line with the WMF's resolution on how we're to respond to BLP subject's complaints (specifically note 4: Treating any person who has a complaint about how they are described in our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encouraging others to do the same). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Coffee—the subject of the article is primarily addressing Misplaced Pages as a whole. They are not primarily addressing their article. Bus stop (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Coffee respect is not a one-way street. In his Commentary article Mr. Kosner saw fit to characterize Misplaced Pages "editors" he doesn't agree with in scare quotes. In this way he has potentially offended many Wikipedians and he ought to apologize or at least clarify what he meant before trying to get something changed. And my comment about this not really being about him but rather a broader agenda still stands. StonyBrook (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@StonyBrook: your response to Kosner crossed a line. Attacking article subjects and casting aspersions for merely proposing ideas is not appropriate conduct becoming of an editor. --TheSandDoctor 21:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Certainly not my intention to offend or attack. I am the only editor addressing our subject with an honorific. StonyBrook (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I also don't see a "don't piss off[REDACTED] editors" exception to WP:BLPKIND. I agree it's not helpful, but we shouldn't be carrying grudges into discussions on how to improve the encyclopedia. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@StonyBrook: Saying an honorific before someone's name does not then somehow give a "free pass" or "get out of jail free" card to then disparage them anyways. That is fallacious. --TheSandDoctor 23:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• • • I think his stance "Jewish is not an ethnicity" is a point of debate - or in that, its a statement that Misplaced Pages will never state in wikivoice; we can talk to that debate of course but WP isn't going to take sides in it. But that points to the end of the day that a person being Jewish-by-ethnicity or Jewish-by-religion is a very personal thing, and thus something we should keep out (as Kosney points out and in agreement with the NYTimes standard) of our BLPs unless relevant to the person's life. --Masem (t) 20:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• • • • It is a point of debate. To quote one reliable source, Pew Research Center: One of the first decisions that had to be made in conducting this study and analyzing its results was to answer the question, “Who is a Jew?” This is an ancient question with no single, timeless answer. On the one hand, being Jewish is a matter of religion – the traditional, matrilineal definition of Jewish identity is founded on halakha (Jewish religious law). On the other hand, being Jewish also may be a matter of ancestry, ethnicity and cultural background. Jews (and non-Jews) may disagree on where to draw the line. Alan posted a whole bunch more sources that address this question at the beginning of this thread. BTW, Kosner is also wrong about most Americans not accepting being Jewish is an ethnicity. According to the American Jewish Committee's 2019 Survey of American Jewish Opinion , 59% of American Jews think being Jewish is "mostly a matter of ethnicity or culture"; 24% think it's "mostly a matter of religion". Surveys in Israel find the same thing ; in Israel, 51% of Jews think it's mostly ethnicity or culture; 24% mostly religion. The truth is the opposite of what Kosner is claiming. Levivich  20:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

How do surveys of Jews in America and other countries prove Kosner wrong?! His argument rests on Americans in general and their views, not specifically Jews? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Masem that it is unlikely we will find an end to all the multiple related issues of 'What is a Jew?' per the number of source links I put in my first comment above. Also agree, with Masem's result for the Kosner article. Kosner has certainly done nothing wrong, here. It's regularly Misplaced Pages's process and often hope that article level issues lead to thoughts about improvements to Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines, but I just don't see these issues being worked-out by us for improved guidelines, at this time, maybe down the line where there are several similar circumstances to talk about.

On a more prosaic note, and certainly not addressed to Mr. Kosner who has only commented twice as people avidly discuss his person, but to the rest of us, it is time to really look at the advice in WP:BLUDGEON, especially its words on such personal matters as religion/ethnicity/nationality, etc. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, this this entire discussion is circular. The one side is never going to convince the other, and visa versa. Outsiders to this whole debate like Masem and I, who have frequented this page for a long time, have tried to give our opinions, to no avail. I really don't understand the passionate need to push something like this into an article, but it is prevalent wherever people are so passionate about some specific trait, such as religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, and so many other things which for many are very private and personal things. I personally think that when I get this passionate about something then I've likely lost the ability to see or handle it with any objectivity, and perhaps it would be time for me to step back.

At any rate, someone here suggested RFC, and I think that's a great idea at this point. Those like me with no dog in this fight probably don't have all day and night to leave more than one or two comments a day, so they're just getting drowned out by the fray, so I think this forum has outlived it's usefulness here. The RFC format I think should help, because then it's more or less one comment per person, and thus is more manageable. But there is no point in everybody repeating themselves over and over here. This is already long past spiraling out of control. I think it's best just to close this down, everybody step back and take a few breaths, and take it to RFC. Then listen to what the outsiders to this conflict have to say instead of circling the same old wagons. Zaereth (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Zaereth—speaking only for myself I am "passionate about" opposing censorship. The subject of this article is not a participant in this discussion like you and I are. I cannot directly address the subject of this article. The subject of the article cannot directly address me. The subject of the article primarily addresses issues other than the Edward Kosner article. For instance we are not entertaining the propriety of the purpose-built notion of "Jew-tagging". Our purpose is writing biographies. They're are meant to be informative. They are not meant to be censored. We don't need filters screening out "micro-aggressions". We are not discussing nationalities. We are not discussing hyphenated Americans. "Jewish" need not be pigeonholed into a slot of religion, ethnicity, and so forth just to say in a biography that someone is Jewish. The sources say it. The subject himself says it. The subject of the article is addressing a wide range of issues but not necessarily the one article that we are discussing. A month ago they wrote in Commentary (magazine) that they are proud to be Jewish. Just because they have other things to talk about doesn't mean the article in question should not say he is Jewish. This isn't the Madoff article or the Epstein article or the Boesky article—all of which say the subject is Jewish. The Kosner article is an article on an erudite writer who last month publicized his pride in being a Jew. Misplaced Pages should not be turned on its head by this incident. Misplaced Pages should continue to be uncensored. Bus stop (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

There is zero censorship going on here, and to suggest there is is disruptive. (Censorship would be an outright ban on any mention of "Jewish" or any religion altogether across the border. --Masem (t) 23:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Masem—you reference an outright ban on any mention of "Jewish" or any religion—but we aren't talking about "religion". Do you see the word "religion" in this version of the article? Of course not. It says "Kosner, who is Jewish". Bus stop (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, no one has claimed that Kosner is not Jewish, no one has claimed that being Jewish is shameful, and no one has argued for "censorship" (unless you are using your own idiosyncratic meaning). If you are going to respond to every comment thread, then I believe you need to be more careful with characterizing others' arguments. If you genuinely are unable to understand the arguments others are making, then you may want to limit your responses to them. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

^^^^^ This. Every discussion I've seen Bus stop in seems to degrade into this. They should know better. --Masem (t) 00:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I concur 100%. Their arguments are often flawed and fail to convince, which inevitably leads to aspersions, deflections, repetitions, more repetitions, and finally cries of censorship; the last-ditch resort of desperation (short of personal attacks). I gave my opinion and that hasn't changed, so I feel no need to repeat myself, and Bus Stop's arguments have only served to reinforce them, so I'm out. The only thing I'm convinced of is that feeding this discussion isn't going to help solve anything. And, please, everyone look up the definition of "censorship". That's a far cry from this. Zaereth (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• I apologize to Zaereth, Masem and wallyfromdilbert. I was too forceful in my argument. I obviously disagree. But a more low keyed approach would have been preferable and I regret my shrill tone. I hope for a reset, meaning that I hope you all will accept my apology at face value. Bus stop (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  I accept your apology, but we're not trying to hurt your feelings. You don't get to be a writer without facing a hell of a lot of criticism, so I tend to be blunt. As a writer, you learn that it is meant to help you, not hurt, but there's no point beating around the bush. My advice is to slow down for a second and seriously consider other points of view. Only then can you really understand your own, and realize why this is important to you. (See: Theory of mind) The hardest person to see clearly is ourselves, by a long shot, and in seeking all knowledge, we're really only seeking to learn about ourselves. You'll be able to formulate a much better argument that way, but in the process you may also see that other's may have points worth considering. My mind is always open to change, but I strongly feel that race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc., have absolutely no bearing on who a person is on the inside, and that's what is important to me.

• That's what I love about this place. It doesn't matter who any of us are in the real world. All that matters is what we do here. We are here to provide a summary of all information, not all information, and Misplaced Pages has rules and guidelines about lots of things that are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. But in the end those can only guide our editorial judgment on what is necessary and what is fluff. That involves two things you can't put into rules, consciousness and a conscience. We have to whittle it down to the nitty gritty, and my conscience leans hard toward following the subjects wishes on publishing information that has little significance in telling us who they are as a person, you know, just a human being. Zaereth (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• A quote from Harold Rosenberg: "Whoever undertakes to create soon finds himself engaged in creating himself." Bus stop (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Include Many people never make public mention of, or don't even know, their ethnic ancestry. So for many articles about Americans it is omitted, and for less multi-ethnic nationalities it may just be assumed by their nationality - but neither omitted or included on any different standard than any other BLP (although I am not sure we are consistent about one significant and fundamentally multi-ethnic country, the UK). Once a subject self-declares it in public and it is covered in RSs at all, it becomes somewhat relevant to their biography. Kosner has created a Streisand Effect scenario by publishing anything about it and that only adds to the significance. I think both the Jewish-tagging and Jewish-detagging camps are disruptive and we should handle it on an individual basis sourced to statements by the subject themself, or DNA testing, that sort of thing. If someone published DNA testing results or analysis about themselves it would potentially become significant for the article, and the more of a big deal they make about it (like going to the point of writing an op-ed about it) the more relevant it becomes. Let me put it simply: if you are writing a biography of someone and know that they were "born to Jewish parents" or are a "proud but non-observant Jew", that is relevant to a certain degree. If I want to understand the background/childhood/whatever of an American one of the first things I'm going to wonder is what their ethnic background is. Am I alone in that? Lots of BLP subjects have wishes about what should be included or not. Lots of people wish they could undo Streisand Effect situations. We're here to be informative and publish any relevant cited information. If Kosner did not want to be identified as Jewish he should've said he is not a Jew or entirely ignored the topic. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I find the idea that we should require (or even suggest) that article subjects release DNA tests to prove or disprove ethnicity, to be one of the most abhorrent ideas I've seen in my 13+ years on this site. I am seriously aghast that anyone would think that is okay. Kosner has already made clear his ethnicity is "all-American", not Jewish. It is absolutely not our place to ask for his DNA to attempt to prove or disprove that statement (nor to please your personal curiosities). The line he wrote in Commentary about being a "proud but non-observant Jew" is in an article that discusses how little relevance that religious description is to his life, and notability. Context is important here; the context doesn't show an attempt to censor out facts of his life, it shows him plainly stating this isn't a relevant fact (and he doesn't want his life work to be boxed in by the description). Saying an editor of four major news publications should have kept silent or else we implement some form of Streisand effect, is also completely irrational. The Streisand effect is not a Misplaced Pages policy, nor is it a required outcome of any situation regarding personal privacy. We aren’t mandated to post every verifiable fact about subjects (per WP:VNOTSUFF), and we certainly aren’t required to do so purely because they publicly complained about our actions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

    Point well taken on DNA. But I read that Mr. Kosner asserts that he is an "American journalist and editor" and also that he is "All-American", but not that his ethnicity is American. He never said that. Is "American" an ethnicity? I don't believe it ever was, although there was a running chance for it to happen in the first half of the 19th century. Certainly not after 1965. StonyBrook (talk) 06:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

    I took that indication from this statement "The answer is because some Wikipedians consider Judaism as a nationality or ethnicity. I am an American journalist and editor. I am not a Jewish-American journalist and editor. Wouldn’t it look odd if one of your Jew-tagging editors identified me as a Jewish-American journaist? If I were an Israeli-American journalist and editor, that would be a valid description. But I’m not—I’m all-American and my religion or lack of it is irrelevant to my career." - It honestly isn't up to me what he considers his ethnicity, I'm merely relaying what he considers it to be. (It would seem per Race and ethnicity in the United States and White Americans that one can certainly call themselves simply American if they want, as you can write in such a descrtiption directly onto the census. There isn't a requirement to choose some other group if the respondent doesn't want to.) — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)'

    It's clear to me now that Kosner labels himself Jewish in terms of religion only. Even though he doesn't practice the religion, he considers himself Jewish just like there plenty of people that identify as Christian even though they don't really practice the religion. Note that he uses the term to describe his parents, American Jews rather than Jewish Americans. To expand on the Christian analogy, the popular term to describe Americans who are Christians is American Christians, not Christian Americans. Kosner has been rather consistent in rejecting the label of Jewish as an ethnicity and the attempted parsing by multiple editors to argue ethnicity had detracted the discussion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

    Sorry, I was more broadly speculating about this topic. If he is a Jew by religion only then let us label him has he identifies himself. As for a more generalized or analogous example and answer to your example, can someone who is a WASP not be a Christian? Is there a difference between an Anglo-Saxon Protestant and a Protestant Anglo-Saxon? I've heard WASP applied to people who are not even ostensibly Anglo-Saxon. Like Jew it is sort of an ethno-religious label that means less about the religion than the ethnic identity. If someone says they are a WASP but we know (for some reason) that they are neither Anglo-Saxon nor Protestant, well, I guess we just pass on the misstatement as a fact? —DIYeditor (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

    I'm not following the analogy and I'm not interested in parsing the meaning or why people describe themselves WASPs when they're not. Morbidthoughts (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

    A Christian who "does not really practice the religion" to quote you is not a Christian any more than a person is a WASP by merely being white and having Protestant ancestors. Again, while possibly tangential, this situation has implications for other articles since it is garnering so much attention. I understand that Misplaced Pages precedent (probably rightly so) is that self-identification for things like gender, race, religion, sexual preference is what we use - but we state these things as facts. Further, do we let the subjects of BLP dictate the meanings of those terms? Maybe I should form my thoughts more cohesively and start a separate thread? I guess where I am going with this tangent is that maybe we should use "so-and-so identifies as" rather than "so-and-so is" for anything like race, religion, gender, sexual orientation. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

    I know plenty of people do, but I don't like to second guess people's religious identities against their practices. People can believe in the Christian god and Jesus yet do not go to church or live the way their religion expects them to. They consider themselves Christian and the label is not based on ancestors so I didn't understand the WASP analogy. I don't know if that applies to Kosner with respect to Judaism. Morbidthoughts (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

    Kosner identifies as a "proud if non-observant Jew" but stated he does not wish to be described as Jewish in his Misplaced Pages biography. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

    I would support that, DIYeditor. (I wish I would have thought of it myself.) Bus stop (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

    That makes me a little nervous because I don't think going around looking for people to flag as Jewish is a reasonable use of volunteer time (POINTy at best) and I seem to remember that it has been an issue for you. In this case it seems clear that he has tagged himself though. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

    It makes you "nervous" that I endorse your suggestion? Bus stop (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

    Well I don't know if you are Jewish or not and I don't know the details of the arguments about Jew-tagging, I just remember that you were involved in some drama regarding that and I don't see any reason why it would be a good idea to make a mission out of identifying people as Jewish. So I don't want any part of that. I also don't want to see special treatment because someone starts throwing punches about their BLP. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

    DIYeditor—you say "it seems clear that he has tagged himself" I don't agree with that. We don't "tag" anybody. He hasn't "tagged himself". Misplaced Pages doesn't "tag". We convey identities of all sorts that are reliably sourced. We convey to readers that which is adequately supported in sources. These "identities" can include tons of things, including nationality, ethnicity, gender orientation, gender itself, religion... Bus stop (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

    I agree that if someone is editing a BLP and they know someone identifies as Jewish it is one of the identities you would want to include for the information of the reader. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

    Morbidthoughts you are correct in pointing out that Mr. Kostner views Jewishness as being indicative of religious observance only; he has made this abundantly clear (does the term "Christianness", i.e. expressing one's fealty for that religious background, exist as well?) But your second point is lost on me; in discussing his parents, wouldn't the term "American Jews" be indicative of the primary stress being on Jews, with American being the qualifier, that is to say an American kind of Jew? Jewish American OTOH would seem to be the way to go if one wishes to place more importance on Americanism. Regardless, Mr. Kostner himself is only interested in being called an American. StonyBrook (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

    For whatever reason linguistically, ethnicity usually precedes nationality (Black Americans vs. American Blacks) while ethnicity or nationality usually comes before religion (Thai Buddhists vs Buddhist Thais). I don't know if importance has anything to do with the order. Following that linguistic order, you can see why Kosner might object to using Jewish American (ethnicity nationality) vs American Jew (nationality religion) Morbidthoughts (talk) 12:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

    I have no idea what on earth made you take away that I thought we should require DNA tests or ask him for a DNA test. It was just an example. If he says he is Jewish that is fine. The Streisend Effect is effectively policy because if you cause some kind of coverage in RSs or even in an op-ed you have created the grounds for inclusion. Should this pick up any more coverage it will almost certainly be grounds for inclusion of the fact that he has made an issue of being Jewish. The bigger of a deal he makes and the more attention it gets, the more it is relevant. He should've kept it private between him and WMF rather than publishing an op-ed if he didn't want to create public attention to the topic. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

    You have "no idea what on earth" made me see that's what you said? Let me quote directly what you suggested above: "we should handle it on an individual basis sourced to statements by the subject themself, or DNA testing". If you're not willing to stand up for your own words, perhaps you should have never suggested something so ludicrously abhorrent to begin with. The rest of my comment stands as well. Good day, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

    (edit conflict)I certainly did not intend to suggest anything in particular about requiring or asking for DNA tests I was just exploring this topic in a general sense and thinking of possibilities. If you think suggesting that we could allow inclusion of published DNA results is abhorrent I have no idea where you are coming from but it is increasingly off topic in this thread. Perhaps this is more about religion. It is not clear whether being Jewish is more of a religion or an ethnic identity and in many cases it doesn't matter. At this point since he chose to use his public standing to publish an op-ed to the whole world, rather than for example coming to the noticeboard like regular folks do, should it pick up any more coverage it would definitely be relevant to the article to say "Kosner published an opinion piece stating he did not wish to be identified in his Misplaced Pages biography as Jewish but that he is a proud if non-observant Jew." It looks like one more publisher has picked up the op-ed so it is heading in that direction for sure in my opinion. If someone twice-published an opinion piece stating they were Catholic or bisexual or etc. would we not include that in their biography? It's a primary source yes, and primary sources are perfectly reliable for statements of a BLP subject about themself. How we handle this has implications for a lot of articles. What prerogative does this subject have to censor his biography of information he has himself published? —DIYeditor (talk) 08:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

    I also think that Coffee misunderstood what you meant regarding DNA tests. Let's close this part of the discussion, ok? Debresser (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

    You're free to think whatever you like, but I completely comprehended what they wrote. The suggestion, example, *insert euphemism here*, was entirely a bad one. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude: I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the GDPR or article 6 of the French law n° 78-17 (6 janvier 1978), which are very clear about the automatic treatment of ethnicity & religion. Now the usual caveats apply, a publisher will not be taken to court in France for saying a rabbi is Jewish (cf. WP:DEFINING), but the court would object to someone with a perceivedly Jewish surname being categorized as Jewish in an on-line database (as happens from time to time at en.wp). This case is somewhere in between those two poles, obviously. Were Kosner European, he would have grounds for complaint because he was included in the ad-hoc category Jewish-American journalists until Coffee removed the category (here). I think in cases like this people should respect the wishes of the entry subject. Still, there is no GDPR in the US. Disclosure: I am no more Jewish than I am Charlie (or Bravo, for that matter).-- SashiRolls 23:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  Well, French law does not really apply here. In any case, this is not "someone with a perceivedly Jewish surname being categorized as Jewish". That Kosner is Jewish is something that he has stated himself and which is reliably sourced. An encyclopedia should not cater to the whims of people who want information removed from their biography, whatever information that would be. That is censoring. Debresser (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  Agree with this. A great many BLPs, particularly about actors and the like, include information like religion, ethnicity, and sexual orientation even when it has not had a significant impact on what they are notable for. These sorts of information are I think fundamental to a biography. Once disclosed by the subject I don't see how this can just be swept under the rug. It's a slippery slope and bad precedent. This article should not get special treatment. —DIYeditor (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  Let's make a difference between "fully disclosed" compared to "alluded to", in terms of a facet of his life that has no relevance on his importance. From what I've seen of Kosner's statements to "Jewish" in the published material, even his own words, this I would call "alluded to", and thus something to avoid inclusion. If and only he had said, in as so many words "I am of the Jewish faith", then we could include that as full disclosure. As soon we consider any language less than a direct disclsoure as acceptable, we may be second guessing meaning and violating BLP. --Masem (t) 16:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  "I’m a proud if non-observant Jew" is the direct statement he made. So we could quote him. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  He says he's a non-observant, so that's a good reason to exclude, unless for some reason there was a need to address his faith. Then we could quote him. --Masem (t) 17:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  Masem—you refer to "the Jewish faith". I don't think the slicing and dicing of the word "Jewish" into ethnicity, religion, faith, et cetera, is necessarily relevant to this discussion or even necessarily knowable. (You write If and only he had said, in as so many words "I am of the Jewish faith", then we could include that as full disclosure.) Bus stop (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  So we should only say someone is "Jewish" or put them in a "Jewish" category if they're an observant Jew? That would be treating "Jewish" as solely or primarily a religious belief, which is a minority view, not the mainstream view of reliable sources and Jews (the mainstream view being that it is primarily ethnicity or culture, not as primarily a religion, see e.g. the Pew and AJC sources I posted above). That Kosner views Jewish as primarily or solely a religious belief is no reason for Misplaced Pages to do the same, particularly when that's the minority and not the mainstream view. Levivich  17:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  That is not what Masem said; this is not a black or white choice. The crux of the matter is that 1. he does not consider himself to be devoutly religious, 2. his religious background has come up in a minority of sources (NYT's singular reference to his upbringing as a ham-eating Jew, does not declare in any way what his beliefs were as a notable adult), 3. there is no evidence this is in any way key to his notability (that matters because the entire reason we have an article on him is the notability of his career), and 4. we are in no way required to cover irrelevant (or minor) facets of living people's lives on this encyclopedia. It is simply not our position to force Kosner to accept he is of an ethnicity he resoundingly states he is not, regardless of what the "mainstream" view is. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  What you are suggesting could have far-reaching implications. For instance you say "we are in no way required to cover irrelevant (or minor) facets of living people's lives on this encyclopedia". Would it then follow that we should remove mention that people like Ivan Boesky and David Berkowitz are Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  I hold no opinion on those articles, I have not reviewed them, and they are not what is being discussed here. This discussion should not (and in my opinion, does not) have "far-reaching implications"; what is included or excluded is determined on a case by case basis (per WP:VNOTSUFF). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  OK, maybe it doesn't have "far-reaching implications". I can accept that. But do you think Kosner is primarily speaking about his article? I don't think so. They are primarily addressing the project as a whole. For instance one thing they say is "This is the fair and commonsensical standard used by the New York Times in its obituaries. It is the standard I would like to see Misplaced Pages adopt for both living and dead subjects and it is the underlying reason I have pursued this matter so strenuously." (It is found at the top of "Arb Break 2 (Kosner)". ) Bus stop (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Coffee, 2 points: Mr. Kosner has stated in reliable sources that he is Jewish, even proud of it. We are not forcing anything upon him that he has not willingly placed upon himself. We can simply state that he is Jewish without getting into exactly what that means. Secondly, you say that we are under no obligation to report minor facts, but we are reporting that his father was a clothing salesman and his mother was a housewife. Not only is it appropriate to mention facets such as these, it also goes a long way in preventing this bio from looking like a resume. StonyBrook (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Read what Kosner has said above: his point, and several others have said here, is that there is that is information that may be widely published in news sources that is still not appropriate for inclusion an encyclopedia that is meant to be about enduring long-term coverage. Because he is a journalist with absolutely no work involved in any area where his past ethnicity or religion would come up, he should not have to worry about discussing this in his own writings and having it appear in reputable biographies of his that follow the NYTimes standard for biographies (which we should be reasonably following as well). As a journalist, I *would* expect that where he went to school, where he worked before, etc. would be 100% relevant. If his journalism work focused on the Jewish community in New York City, then that also may his Jewish background relevant, but that's not the case here. --Masem (t) 22:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Masem 100%. People continuing to take Kosner's statement in Commentary out of context, simply to suit their arguments, is getting incredibly tiresome. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

It is not clear to me why Masem is referring to the individual's "past ethnicity or religion" when the individual confirmed approximately 1 month ago that they were Jewish. One month ago is hardly the distant past. Bus stop (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Let me be clear: in my opinion, whether Kosner wrote in to OTRS or not... his bio should never have been tagged with Category: Jewish-American journalists. As for the text in the entry, prior to his OTRS request I would not have seen a problem with it being included. However, all things being equal I see no encyclopedic grounds for doing so against his will. So, IMO, the categorization was wrong-headed from the get-go (albeit common practice on en.wp, if not on fr.wp or de.wp) , whereas the inclusion of the label in the text of the entry only became so after his request. I also would note that the Commentary article came after attempts to deal with the situation quietly via OTRS. (That said, I'm somewhat sympathetic to Levivich's comments above about hell-raising / name-calling in the press as a means of pressure.)

  Also, Mr. Kosner seems to have two WikiData entries (Q16104700,Q22998227), though I'm pleased to report that (at least for now) neither one of them includes ethnic or religious tags (property-value statements).-- SashiRolls 16:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  SashiRolls, what about Category:American people of Jewish descent? The inclusion statement for that category is "Listed are American people for whom reliable sources have been found indicating partial Jewish ancestry, but who are not considered Jews. For Americans who are, see Category:American Jews." Levivich  17:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  I feel that that category, in its entirety, falls afoul of the guideline WP:CATDEFINING. A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), . -- SashiRolls 18:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@SashiRolls I don't understand why you are so happy that his WikiData entries don't include "ethnic or religious tags". I see nothing good about this encyclopedia lacking information about its subjects, and unequivocally support inclusion of relevant information regarding ethnicity, including in categories. Debresser (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

This is probably understanding why BLP makes Misplaced Pages different from a typical encyclopedia. If we were talking someone who died 20 years ago, we'd not have this concern, but BLP is a higher principle over "completeness" of data even if that data is available. --Masem (t) 18:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that BLP has anything to do with this. Debresser (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

You "don't think" how we cover a biography of a living person on this site "has anything" to do with our Biographies of living persons policy? That is clearly a fallacious special pleading: "Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle (without justifying the special exception)." — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't think that there is anything in BLP that says that we should honor a person's request to remove information which is neutral and well-sourced. Please don't use cheap rhetoric. Debresser (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Logic is not "cheap rhetoric". Regardless, the BLP policy applies across the board in this case (and it clearly states we should consider and respect complaints by article subjects). Let me quote an area of the policy that has been left out thus far, but is entirely applicable (emphasis added): Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. ... Also beware of circular reporting, in which material in a Misplaced Pages article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Misplaced Pages article to support the original edit. This is something I and many others find irrelevant to include (his notability does not hinge on his religious affiliation), and the argument presented by those proposing inclusion has relied heavily on the circular reporting of Kosner's Commentary piece. You may believe we shouldn't treat BLPs differently than other article topics, but our long-standing consensus says otherwise. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Entirely separately from this discussion but related to this last comment, BLP should discussion avoiding material that has been the subject of a Streisand effect, unless that does become a factor towards the person's importance (such as, the fact that the Streisand effect is named after what happened with Barbara Streisand). What's happened with Kosner here - definitely falls into this area. --Masem (t) 21:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Coffee, in reference to the quoted policy, I do believe that the biographical data we are discussing absolutely belongs in a disinterested appraisal of the subject. As for the circular reporting, I do not see the correlation; it is not as if a journal picked up on some unsourced assertion placed in WP. Patapsco introduced it with a source, it was deleted, then a new source appeared which corroborated Patapsco's inclusion even more strongly, this time with Mr. Kosner stating in his own voice that he is Jewish and even proud of it. It matters not how it came about, and it is not a circular reference as the policy is delineating it. StonyBrook (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The source used the second time was a Commentary piece about the edit being made on Misplaced Pages, that is clearly circular reporting. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

That is not how I understand WP:CIRCULAR, which is all about using a journal or mirror that uses an unsourced fact that appeared in WP at some point; I get it that you recoil from considering the Commentary piece as a source, but the assertion being made therein is not depending upon something only found in WP and nowhere else; there are plenty of sources backing it up. StonyBrook (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Coffee, I still see nothing in your quotes from BLP that has any bearing on this discussion, so I am sorry to say, that I still view your invoking BLP as cheap rhetoric. Others have explained this in more detail, like StonyBrook in his word right above mine, but the point we are both trying to get across to you is, that there are no BLP issues involved. Debresser (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Your inability to perceive how that policy applies does not affect the reality that it does. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Unless of course it doesn't. "The fact that I disagree with you does not mean I don't understand you." Debresser (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Debresser: if you click on the wikidata entries above and have a look at his VIAF entry or his LOC entry there is no mention of ethnicity / religion. I don't believe international databases list ethnicity as a general rule because of the differing cultural and legal frameworks concerning such labeling.-- SashiRolls 18:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Good to see we're getting closer to consensus. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Funny because I was coming here to close the thread because it's apparent there is no consensus here. What we do with no consensus in this case is clear (exclude). What are you seeing that is getting closer? I see largely the same arguments being trotted out for and against over and over again. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that Nomo's post was sarcasm. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I think Barkeep49 was joking too since they've been involved in the debate and can't really close it. Since Debresser added the empty ref-list talk template below, I guess I'll fill it up with the relevant reference for what I was saying above about ad-hoc categories and the GDPR (one of the differing cultural & legal frameworks I mentioned above). Actually, this gives the "includes" a boost because of e). Also FWIW, I (automatically) merged the two wikidata entries back down to the original pre-excitement entry.-- SashiRolls 17:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I do still think Coffee was right to remove these items for all of the internal reasons (guidelines/policies cited above) and general data-publisher "best practices". (+ being congenial) There is a tendency to categorize here in clerk-land, as everywhere. I understand the Chinese do a lot of classifying of people, too.-- SashiRolls 19:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually my post was not sarcasm. I opened this thread and so I was going to make a bold "It's clear there's no consensus here" close; I sought feedback about how the community thinks and it's clear the community (like me) cares about this and also clear that we don't agree on whether it should be included. Our policies on what to do are clear in that instance (omit the information until there is consensus to include it). At this point I am not going to do that but i do think it's the right close to this thread at this moment and I hope someone does it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

"No consensus - Exclude" seems reasonable at this point, an Rfc can always be opened sometime in the future if someone feels the need. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The theme, and possibly the consensus, that has emerged from this thread, is that the subject should be described not simply as "Jewish" but rather as a "nonobservant Jew" or similar wording. As several of us are supporting the inclusion of that further modifier—"nonobservant" or "non-practicing"—that could be a resolution to this massive discussion over what in my opinion should be a minor blip in an article on an erudite individual for whom I have unbridled respect, admittedly gathered from watching YouTube video interviews. Bus stop (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Is not better to allow some uninvolved person to assess consensus rather than users that have been major contributors to the discussion? Govindaharihari (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Govindaharihari—I accept that an uninvolved editor should ultimately decide how to close this thread. Bus stop (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

and to include in that consideration, the projects high level of editing quality as regards WP:BLP including the subjects expressed concerns. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

But we should not misconstrue "the subjects expressed concerns", Govindaharihari. Their expressed concerns are not primarily about this one article. They are clear that the underlying reason they have pursued this matter is to bring about an adoption at Misplaced Pages of standards found at the New York Times for both living and dead subjects. Please see their above OTRS post. This thread is largely an irrelevancy. To institute their recommendation would appropriately call for a discussion at Village Pump and of course an outcome of such a discussion would apply to other articles as well. Bus stop (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

You should not misconstrue the word underlying to mean primarily. "Underlying" in this context refers to what has motivated him, it does not necessarily reflect what his primary concerns are at any given time. Saying we can't take his concerns about his own article into account, because he has discussed other articles, I find to be a red herring. What we're discussing here, primarily, is Edward Kosner's article. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

He has not "discussed other articles" and I have not said that he has "discussed other articles". Bus stop (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

As I understand it this is just the sort of thing (a throw away line in a review) that BLP is supposed to be about. The subject has objected to it ].Slatersteven (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

How do you tell the difference between a throw away line in a source and a keeper? FWIW, it's a throwaway line in two reviews, plus several pages (I guess throwaway pages) in his autobiography, and the three other sources that list him as a notable Jewish journalist (I guess those are throwaway entries). Not that I'm trying to give you a hard time Slater, but I think calling the sources "throwaway lines" is rather dismissive, and I beseech upon you not to believe or repeat the falsehood that this dispute is based on a single mention in a single source. I wouldn't have argued for inclusion if it were; none of us would have. Levivich  22:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe BLP is designed to protect people from throw away lines being included here. I 100% believe that. I believe that so strongly that I implement that in OTRS tickets I respond to. I don't believe it's supposed to be about BLP subjects being able to write about a topic in influential thought periodicals and in significant detail in their autobiography but also say we're not supposed to write about it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

It is really all so simple. It is sourced. It is "self-identified". Discussion over. He likes it, he doesn't like it, he wrote an article about it, he corresponded with Coffee about it; it is all irrelevant. Debresser (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The individual is primarily addressing Misplaced Pages as a whole. Why should only their article be affected by their suggestions? Their argument does not pertain primarily to their article. They are suggesting a standard based on what the New York Times uses, that they argue should be applied to Misplaced Pages as a whole. They reference their own article at points in their OTRS posts but they make clear that "the underlying reason have pursued this matter" is to cause Misplaced Pages to adopt the "commonsensical standard used by the New York Times in its obituaries". Consider for example: "This is the fair and commonsensical standard used by the New York Times in its obituaries. It is the standard I would like to see Misplaced Pages adopt for both living and dead subjects and it is the underlying reason I have pursued this matter so strenuously". Bus stop (talk) 03:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Because discussing something, and self identifying are not the same thing (after all they self identify as a non observant Jew, so why not actually call him what he has called himself?). I could say "I am a nonpracticing musician (by the way I am nonpracticing because I cannot play)", does that mean I have self identified as a musician. Moreover he has explicitly said he does not wish to be identified as a jew at least partly out of fear. We have to take that into account as well.Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

For someone to convey that they cannot play at all, they would say "I am not a musician"; to convey that they can only play a few chords but not professionally or even regularly, they would say "I am not a practicing musician," but they are a musician nonetheless. As an aside, a bar mitzva boy (such as the young Mr. Kosner) who read the Torah (not clear if he did) is a kind of musician too. StonyBrook (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven I suggest calling Kosner exactly what he has called himself "a proud if non-observant Jew". If you were notable and RS had taken note of your musical skills and you called yourself proud if non-practicing musician I would suggest we could note that as well. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven—you say "Moreover he has explicitly said he does not wish to be identified as a jew at least partly out of fear." I have looked in the "Commentary" source and their OTRS posts but I'm not finding that. If you could post an excerpt that might help. Bus stop (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The eighth paragraph of the Commentary article is where you will find that answer. Along with Kosner's statements here (and their initial statments conveyed via OTRS that have not been released) there is a clear picture of someone who does not want their religion to be noted in their Misplaced Pages entry out of a fear (a word Kosner himself used in his first comment on this thread) of their life (and work) being stigmatized. I'm growing quite tired of rehashing this discussion. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Kosner's "Jewishness" should be excluded. First, we have no obligation to mention someone's ethnicity, even it it's written somewhere. Second, Kosner is correct that we have put him in a strange situation: the description in his wiki bio might have been excluded, but Kosner's objections to inclusion, and a published critique, are being used against him. The implication is that the subject of a BLP can do little to defend themselves. This is particularly troubling since there was and remains, throughout the world and in history, a problem of "Jew-tagging," however you want to understand that. Third, More or less all the "controversy" of Kosner's ethnicity first arises not from published sources, but from our own actions. Kudos to Kosner and to Coffee for the patience and persistence to put up with this nonsense. To the highly capable editors who have argued for inclusion, with all due respect, I disagree with you. -Darouet (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Now that he wrote the article, there is no way we can not have it. :) Jew-tagging may be a problem, but since the arguments of the editors who favor inclusion are policy and guideline based, this is not relevant. I woud have prefered it if you would have left the word "nonsense" at home. It kind of strikes against the hairs of people who disagree with you, like me, with respect, of course. Debresser (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Debresser no offense intended, and if it helps, you can mentally substitute my word "nonsense" with Kosner's phrase, with which I agree: "...the modern equivalent of the medieval scholastics arguing over how many angels would fit on a pinhead." -Darouet (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Although that expressing I think refers to a scholarly discussion of not too much practical import, while in this case you do have an opinion regarding the practical issue at hand. Debresser (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Darouet—how is anything is "being used against him"? They wrote that they are proudly Jewish. Had they written that they were not Jewish or that they did not consider themselves Jewish, the descriptor would have been immediately and uncontestedly removed from the article. But instead they chose to say that they are proudly Jewish. How is anything being "used against him"? Bus stop (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bus stop: your comment seems to prove Kosner's point that common sense is being ignored. Put yourself in Kosner's shoes. He wrote, "I felt that the introduction of my religion in Misplaced Pages was intrusive... I rarely if ever came across religious affiliation noted in Misplaced Pages biographies of other secular journalists and writers. So I set about stripping the reference from my entry, only to find that I’d been barred by Misplaced Pages from editing my own biography." Now, his attempt to remove what he felt was an inappropriate reference to his ethnicity or religion is being used to argue against his request, i.e., is being "used against him." If you want to argue that his wishes are irrelevant that's fine, but don't pretend he hasn't contacted us multiple times now asking to remove the "jew tag." -Darouet (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe this point might go to the heart of this dispute. The deletionists assume that the passage is being used against the subject and the inclusionists do not. Is the editing community as a whole against our founder because we kept certain inconvenient truths in his own bio, something that the founder himself unsuccessfully tried to remove? We couldn't possibly be. And those facts could reasonably be described as putting our founder in a negative light, while here it is a really long stretch to claim this, no matter how passionately it is argued for. StonyBrook (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@StonyBrook: is the fact that one is born Jewish an "inconvenient truth?" And since we're representing a publishing house here, what in your editorial judgement is the public interest in putting that tidbit in? -Darouet (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Because I am just trying to illustrate a point. There is stuff in Jimbo's page that anyone can find because it was placed there and allowed to remain, and yet that doesn't translate into "Wikipedians are against their founder" because that is not a correct thing to say; here that is surely not even remotely correct. Of course being Jewish isn't an inconvenient truth; but some editors, and Mr. Kosner himself, seem to think that it is. StonyBrook (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@StonyBrook: my apologies, my question was unclear. What is the public interest in adding Kosner's Jewish ancestry? Something more substantive than, "it was placed there"? And if being Jewish isn't an inconvenient truth, maybe your comparison wasn't, in fact, apt? -Darouet (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The interest is quite simply: Knowledge. As to your second question, the unevenness itself is the proof; the Jimbo case is using argumentum a fortiori. StonyBrook (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

If this discussion is to achieve consensus, then my views align with Coffee, Masem and Darouet...and I think Levivitch is in there, too. Considering the possibility that I may have inadvertently missed a few arguments that may also align, the rest is, well...if I may say...not kosher. _Talk 📧 20:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Atsme—the subject of the article does not primarily want to have "Jewish" removed from their article. They primarily wish to bring about a change at Misplaced Pages. You should read their OTRS posts. For instance: "This is the fair and commonsensical standard used by the New York Times in its obituaries. It is the standard I would like to see Misplaced Pages adopt for both living and dead subjects and it is the underlying reason I have pursued this matter so strenuously.". Bus stop (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Seriously, this discussion would advance a lot faster without the red herrings ad nauseam. Kosner clearly wants to have "Jewish" removed from his article, and that is primarily what we're discussing here. Kosner's musings about the site overall do not change that we're only talking about removing the religious descriptor from one article (Kosner's) currently. If that one line in his posts referring to the whole site is all you wish to focus on, please feel free to open up a broader discussion about the issue of jew-tagging overall at the Village Pump. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Kosner's statements don't have any impact on site policy overall: we're discussing his bio. -Darouet (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

While framing this discussion to deal with his bio is correct, it is valuable to consider his point re: the NYtimes policy that avoids mention of ethnicity and religion on obits as a rational basis to consider for our own BLP. Whether to include that would need to be a policy discussion there, and treated as a suggested brought by a WP editor to be reviewed as per any other suggestion, but from the discussion here, it certainly has enough weight to consider having an RFC about it with some thought to make sure its framed right. But this discussion only will touch Kosney's bio, nothing else immediately. --Masem (t) 06:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Darouet—you ask "What is the public interest in adding Kosner's Jewish ancestry?" Let me ask you a similar question—what is the public interest in adding the Jewish ancestry of Boesky, Madoff, Berkowitz, and Epstein? Bus stop (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Whataboutism is a poor argument to use when dealing with BLPs. We aren't discussing those articles here, and no one has to jump through the various loops you're constructing to hold an opinion on whether to include or exclude the information on Kosner's article. If you think a discussion needs to be held on those articles, please open one up at the relevant talk pages. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Coffee, and while I'm not an expert in those cases, a quick investigation of scholarly sources shows that Madoff's relationship with the Jewish community has received a lot of attention, with references to his own heritage prominently placed in the titles of articles on the topic. There's no comparison here with Kosner. -Darouet (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Darouet—let us bear in mind that I am just responding to you. Surely you don't think your points should go unchallenged. You say "we have put him in a strange situation". I do not accept that assertion. Presumably Kosner spoke of their own free will when they asserted that they were proudly Jewish—in lieu of for instance an assertion that they did not consider themselves Jewish. I find it difficult to accept your characterization that "we have put him in a strange situation". Bus stop (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/edward-kosner/jew-tagging-wikipedia/
2. https://mosaicmagazine.com/picks/jewish-world/2020/04/the-mystery-of-the-wikipedia-editor-who-obsessively-keeps-track-of-jews/?print
3. "Article 9 GDPR: Processing of special categories of personal data". "gdpr-info.eu". Retrieved 4 May 2020. e. processing relates to personal data which are manifestly made public by the data subject

• Exclude: the subject does not want to identify with the Jewish faith in his biography, considering the recent examples of anti-Jewish violence in the US. It's unclear who it's going to hurt to leave it out. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

This encyclopedia is going to get hurt. It is reliably sourced and there is no policy or guideline-based reason not to have it. If we start leaving out such information, we might as well close up shop. Debresser (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The subject wants to be identified as an American in his wiki bio. Yes, some sources mention his Jewish background, but it's a minor detail that is not critical to readers' understanding. It's not like Kostner is asking us to remove a major scandal; causing distress to a BLP subject is not the purpose of the project. It's common decency. I appreciate Coffee's efforts in this regard. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Weak include, reliably sourced, subject self identifies as such. If there are broader issues with Jew-tagging this needs to be brought up elsewhere, this discussion is way overblown for such a minor issue of a person's biography, and everybody involved probably needs to cool off. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Off the topic of Kosner, but interested editors may want to take a look at this , is it Jew-tagging? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

It definitely Jew-tagging his father. The information about how he describes himself half-Jewish and not getting to decide whether he's Jewish or not is more appropriate in his personal life section. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

"my father's Jewish, my mother's not. I don't identify as Jewish in a religious way." Definite Jew tagging. Jews wouldn't consider him Jewish ethnically since his mother is not. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Awards

I have List of awards and nominations received by Beyoncé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on my watchlist, following some spectacularly lame edit warring. It is, frankly, revolting. There is no version of reality where we should be including the "VH1 Best Celebrity Bikini Body" award in an article.

Is there already a guideline on what to include in awards sections / lists? These are a plague on Misplaced Pages, with many software companies, for example, sending their PR teams to pad out articles with utterly unremarkable industry awards that everyone in the business knows are purely a promotional tool for the awarding publication (and an excuse for a lucrative "gala dinner"). In my view we should not include an award unless:

1. There is an article for the award (e.g. Academy Awards), and ideally the specific award (Academy Award for Best Actor);
2. The award is covered in reliable sources independent of the awarding body (i.e. provably not press releases).

See if you think the Latina Beauty Award for Styling Product for Holding your Style qualifies. Yes, really. Guy (help!) 17:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I know of no such policy, but I think there should be one. Of course, there are likely some I've never seen before, but WP:Awards doesn't cover it. (Perhaps we should change that to WP:Industry awards so someone can make a policy.) I see the same thing here a lot, because we get so many no-name porn stars cross this page, whose entire article is sourced to some industry awards nobody outside the industry has ever heard of before. I might as well have an article for receiving a barnstar. As you mentioned, I think this is at the intersection of multiple policies and guidelines, such as RS, GNG, Notability, Significance, etc... If it looks trivial, walks trivial, and quacks trivial, there's a good bet it's probably trivial, and I think a little common sense and editorial judgment is required. Zaereth (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Rear of the year I'll get my coat Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Only in death, that's one I was thinking of including as an example: it's widely discussed in the press, but you note that these days it tends not to be mentioned outside tabloids because the world has moved on. I would suggest the same might apply to the FHM 100 most beautiful women list. It exists mainly to sell copies of FHM, and most of us would know better than to imply that someone's merit as a human is in some way defined by how hot the editors of FHM think they are.

I think we should not include these. See also WP:HOTTIE for evidence of the evolving Misplaced Pages position on this - that used to point to a satirical essay saying "all hotties are notable" (itself a response to arguments for inclusion of biographies based on presence on similar lists). Guy (help!) 13:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the governing policies are DUE and NOT. I would agree with a guideline along the lines Guy suggests. Levivich  21:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Coming at this problem for other awards like for video games, it should be: the award should be notable (the body of awards), or the award is being given out by a notable press or trade group with a document-able process that involves some type of nomination and voting stages that is vetted by those not involved. Those that are just decisions made by a single outlet or person, those strictly based on fan voting, (awards that include a mix of panel votes with fan votes can be included) or the like should not be included at all. This should generally help eliminate sill vanity or BLP-problematic awards, and leave those that have shown a reputation due to the notability of award or group giving the award. --Masem (t) 21:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I have created a starter for ten here: Misplaced Pages:Awards and accolades. Guy (help!) 13:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a good start. Thanks. Zaereth (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I would like to add my two cents here if that is ok. I think we should only include the major awards that are popular across the media (tv, movies, and music). I do not understand why we can’t use some particular bodies for sources like the people’s choice awards as all of the nominations are done by the fans and posted to the official website and I know some people like to update the tables as soon as they win before it’s even published online anywhere because they are watching it or listening to it. Same with the Pulitzer Prize as we should be able to list their website as the source since they are the official source. I also do not feel we should include Miss USA and other beauty pageant winners on their respective articles because it is only open to women who are slim, pretty teeth, most men (and some women’s) dream date. I think as a team we could compile a pretty complete impartial list of what awards throughout the world (soon universe as people on Mars may have their own awards and Misplaced Pages too) and to what is considered the valid source for them. Just thinking here. Galendalia 10:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

What I would say is that we are not a newspaper, and we don't need to be as up to date as they are. We don't want to be a newspaper, because they are at the bottom of the barrel as far as reliable sources go. Why, you ask? Because they rush things and that causes too many mistakes. Way too many, especially at the beginning. We don't have their deadlines, so we can afford to take our time and get it right. The official website is a primary source, and it most certainly can be used, but it should be backed up by a secondary source. That means, we can wait until it is covered by Newsweek, or Time, or your local news, or whatever secondary source you like before we go back to the primary source. Everything you mentioned are things that are likely to be covered by some secondary source, so it's no big deal to wait for them. What we're trying to cut down on are these awards that someone just made up off the fly for the sole purpose of handing someone an award, and I think Guy's idea is an excellent way to filter a lot of those out. Zaereth (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this should be moral or cultural. You are saying "we get so many no-name porn stars cross this page, whose entire article is sourced to some industry awards nobody outside the industry has ever heard of before". Why would we be concerned that "nobody outside the industry has ever heard of before"? Bus stop (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Sexual assault accusations Timothy Hutton

This is the continuation of a discussion on the merits of maintaining the statements of sexual assault allegations on Timothy Hutton's article. This discussion was originally started at Teahouse:

Buzzfeed News broke the story in March 2020 that Timothy Hutton had sexually assaulted a child in 1983. These allegations were put in Hutton's article, with Buzzfeed News as the primary source. All the other sources that serve as additional references to the sexual assault allegations statement are not exactly news sites or trustworthy and highly consistent. Entertainment Weekly, for example, had simply copied a large bunk of BuzzFeed News's original article and did little to no original reporting.

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

I would assume that while these allegations are definitely noteworthy and relevant by their very nature, it is of no less equal importance to maintain high standards in terms of verifiability and multiple reliable third-party coverage. I'd appreciate to hear two cents on this from more seasoned, experienced editors in this regard. Charmanderblue (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I dug around and found a few more sources, including a March 2020 Variety article and Deadline Hollywood article, that details both the incident along with the legal aftermath, that could be included in the article. Both of those articles are considered reliable by the Misplaced Pages community. Charmanderblue, I think there are more than enough reliable sources to include that information in the article. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Existence of the allegation and of Buzzfeed reporting seems clear, if not DUE much content as it's not a lot of coverage. I see it also mentioned in Fox News, LA Times, The Independent, NY Daily News, Vulture, Variety, MSN, etcetera. It so far is just a bare notice and seems handled with a 10-foot pole, but the Buzzfeed story on this is mentioned in numerous places. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Anuna De Wever

Not sure if this is the right place, but the BLP Anuna De Wever (a climate activist) has in the past 24 hours attracted a couple of IPs with a bee in their bonnet about the prominence of an unofficial Flemish "battle flag" being mentioned in relation to a far-right attack on her (e.g. here and here). At the time of the event there was as much (or more) in the media about the flag as about the attack itself, but these IPs claim it was not relevant and are removing sourced material that draws on that media coverage. Some measure like semi-protection would seem to be in order. I don't want to just keep reverting, given the 3RR rule and this removal of sourced material not being blatant vandalism like page blanking or inserting derogatory information. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Andreas Philopater, I requested semi-protection over at WP:RFPP. The article has been a target for the past year or so. I warned the new IP about WP:edit warring, it looks like 95.19.235.124 was blocked for edit warring earlier today. -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the page has been semi-protected for a year. -- LuK3 (Talk) 02:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

There looks to be some liberties in the disputed paragraph that the cited sources do not directly verify. Namely that she was attacked due to her fame and that the men who attacked her were members of the far right. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Andreas Philopater, why did you make edits that contradicted one of the citations? Also your POV pushing in this edit summary is peculiar. Also, English is my first language. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

John Ashton (public health director)

There seems to be an edit war, regarding contentious accusations, ongoing at John Ashton (public health director). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, protected for a week. Guy (help!) 17:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Joey Gibson COVID-19 video

• Joey Gibson (political activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Joey_Gibson_(political_activist)#Covid-19

Disputed content:

In April 2020, Gibson attracted controversy for posting a video protesting against the Covid-19 lockdowns, in which a child holds up a sign saying "Arbeit macht frei" ("Work sets you free"), the words used over the gates of Auschwitz and other Nazi concentration camps. After receiving criticism, he deleted the video from his website and Facebook page.

1. https://twitter.com/thedefector/status/1255969490459783168
2. Garcia, Arturo (May 2, 2020) "Did a Right-Wing COVID-19 Protester Carry a Sign Displaying a Nazi Slogan?" TruthOrFiction?

I'm unclear how the Twitter ref is reliable in any manner, let alone meets BLP criteria. (It redirects for me, and I'm unable to determine who the author is and what it is supposed to verify).

I don't know what the TruthOrFiction ref verifies at all. This ref was added after edit-warring about the content.

I've looked for better refs, but have come up empty. I also notice that there's no corresponding content at Patriot Prayer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• WP:NOTNEWS. Yes, it definitely happened (I saw the tweet before it was deleted), but reliable sources have not yet said anything about it (at least naming him), so neither should we. Guy (help!) 17:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. It is not necessary to point out every tiny bit of controversy a people (particularly those already the subject of controversy) gets into. Wait for the larger picture and see if RSes make a significant deal about it. --Masem (t) 17:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
• I don't see any valid assertion of notability. Buffs (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Zoe Boekbinder

Sarahsullivan555 created Draft:Zoe Boekbinder, and when this was declined due to lack of notability, proceeded to remove the redirect at Zoe Boekbinder and replace it with their article anyway. I have reverted this change and informed the user via their talk page but they are unresponsive and continue to revert my edits. I'm assuming the user is acting in good faith but there's not much more I can do here. Akakievich (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Thry also conserved their talk page into an article for the person. I tried to remove it but a bot prevented my from doing so.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

James harden

He also won 2019 mvp award. You forgot to add that.  Not done

Giannis Antetokounmpo won the 2019 MVP. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Josh Olson

Hi all,

I was doing new pages help before, not really with existing pages. So this is nearly my first time I read a BLP and think it has issues. (I have no COI, this is just a question of article quality)

With this page another contributor, Maravelous, perhaps more familiar with film awards than I am, seems keen on adding information like

• award winner (seemingly irrelevant),
• the same thing again,
• reference to 'last' film credit (seemingly unverified),
• stating he is 'former' screenwriter (seemingly nearly impossible to verify unless in an interview),
• remove 'film director' description (that surprises me as one would normally add information to an article and not remove...) and state "It did not win any of these awards",
• added "He did not win any of these. " + two remarks about lack of credit and about article subject being called an "<censored>" on some forums.

There seems to be an agreement against these additions at the talk page of the article, at least as of this year; I've not been able to check prior discussions.

I hope to gain clarification about the following points:

1. Whether it is appropriate to remove the reference to the winner of the award, where the article subject was nominated but didn't win, I think in this case the winner is not relevant in the BLP.
2. Whether it is appropriate to not write "His latest film credit was film XYZ in 2005" until reliable sources are found confirming that he did nothing for films since then (imdb is not reliable), whether it is ok to write in article instead "He was credited for film XYZ in 2005" without the 'latest' assumption.
3. Whether it is appropriate to remove content from the article in cases when one contributor thinks it violates BLP policy, and not re-add it until consensus is reached. The re-addition of "won by black-something mountain" up to five times, after continued attempts to add "he did not win any of these awards", strikes me significantly as superfluous or redundant.
4. How to write in correct English that the film which is discussed in the second paragraph won these awards for screenplay specifically and not just for the film ( the film won many other awards for things other than screenplay, and these three are for screenplay specifically ).

Thanks, --Gryllida (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

the film did not WIN any awards Maravelous (talk) 06:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I am happy with your removing the awards entirely if you feel they are irrelevantMaravelous (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I find the nominations relevant, but not their winner. Gryllida (talk) 02:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Briefly skimming through this, it looks like you are taking good precautions. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Hipal. Thank you. I also would be interested in answers to these questions so that I can get a clearer idea of how the current policies apply to this article and this situation. Gryllida (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Quick answer to everything: If high-quality, independent and reliable sources don't mention it, neither should we.

So, unless sources state otherwise:

1 - The winner is irrelevant, UNDUE, and undermines the pov of the article.

2 - Including "latest" is original research, and undermines the pov of the article.

3 - I interpret BLP's The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material and WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE to mean that content should not be restored without consensus. The situation you describe is edit-warring against BLP.

4 - I'm not clear what the question is. Diffs would help. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!

For 1, please confirm that the event of

• one contributor removing content from BLP and writing somewhere, either in edit summary or in talk page, that they think it violates the BLP policy,

is sufficient circumstances for another contributor to not re-add this content until agreement (consensus) is reached.

For '4', the diff is here. I am wondering what is the correct unambiguous way to specify this in the current revision. Is writing 'He was nominated' sufficiently informative, or more should be written? I am a foreigner and would be interested in an independent opinion.

Thanks, Gryllida (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Please indicate if I'm missing something, with a verifying source: In both cases, it appears the sources don't mention it, so it doesn't belong. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden

The sexual assault allegation section violates WP:BLPBALANCE against Tara Reade. There is only text from the NYTimes in Biden's favor, such as " former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade's allegation", but there is no mention of the other half of the story by the NYTimes which is in Reade's favor: "Several of Ms. Reade’s friends have said she told them about a traumatic sexual incident involving Mr. Biden." Until some balance can be achieved, this non-consensus edit-warred( ) text should be removed. I've been working on finding text to balance out the section at Talk:Joe Biden#Reade's story corroborators, but for now at least the NYTimes text should be removed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Note: this section heading is now void any mention of assault. Whitewashing at its finest. petrarchan47คุก 21:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

There's a different between corroborating details of anyone else who happened to be in the same general offices at the time of said allegations to see how details from Ms. Reade's story matched up, and Ms. Reade saying that she told friends about the incidents. Those are not "corroborators" at least to the events of the alleged charges, only "corroborators" to the point that Ms. Reade was making allegations at that time (eg that some have said she's only bringing up these allegations now in the election cycle) That is Ms. Reade's friends corroborate that she did raise allegations issues then, but they are not the corroborates as to the specific incidents of what is being allegated. It's an apples v oranges thing here in terms of arguing BLP balance here. There would be a problem if there was a reliable source (outside Ms. Reade) who corroborated the details of her allegations and WP editors were purposely omitting it. My read of the story is that this does not exist. --Masem (t) 13:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, balance does not mean the average between high quality sources and tabloids. Biden has authorised release of all relevant material from the official records, which indicates to me a degree of confidence that the underlying facts are as stated: no complaint matching these specifics was made at the time. It is right and proper that we follow the heavyweight media in treating this with enormous caution, and to date the NYT's statement appears to be the most comprehensive and analytical in the mainstream media.

Remember, Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. We will often lag behind a developing story. This is by design: the cutting edge of reporting is vulnerable to errors. I suggest you follow Ronan Farrow on the Twitters, though - if he says it's true, that would be a watershed. Guy (help!) 13:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Tabloids? My three proposals I linked to are all sourced to the NYTs and WaPo. It doesn't matter what type of corroboration it is, the type of corroboration that Reade's friends have given is what the sources have all been talking about which they say gives her story more credibility. RS decide what's important. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes it does matter. Her friends cannot collaborate what happened in the offices, they have no knowledge of that, only that Ms. Reade told them of the allegations she's making now, back then. You're asking about balance, and if the point of balance is to find the challenge to the NYTimes' statement "no one at the office corroborates Ms. Reade's allegations", its certainly not her friends that can counter that because they weren't there. I am sure that there are other media bodies beyond the NYTimes looking into this themselves to get a third opinion, given that there concern of collusion of the Times with Biden's campaign, and assuming that comes from an RS, we'll likely add it whether it agrees or condradicts the Times' statement. --Masem (t) 14:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Biden's coworkers cannot corroborate what did or did not happen in a basement corridor while Biden and Reade were alone. I just said the evidence in Reade's favor is sourced to the NYTimes! It is WP:OR for us to decide which evidence is more important. Read about sexual abuse trials; look back to Christine Blasey Ford, but most importantly, read the RS which are reporting on this story. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

They can confirm other aspects that were more visible: who else would have been around, office layouts, routines, behaviors, roles, if others experienced the same from Mr. Biden, etc. I don't have any idea what exactly the NYTimes asked but this is what I would take to mean corroborating the story as to see how many of Ms. Reade's details line up with details of those that worked there, which is far more information than Ms. Reade's friends could have. So far, only the NYTimes has done this analysis, and as I noted, I'd expect a second or third media source to be doing the same (checking the story with the former staff) given how big this could be if the allegations are true. But only the NYtimes has done the closest corroboration at this point, so that's the only one that should be included. --Masem (t) 14:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like you don't have any idea what's in the NYTimes story. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Given that the Times states "The Times interviewed Ms. Reade on multiple days over hours, as well as those she told about Mr. Biden’s behavior and other friends. The Times has also interviewed lawyers who spoke to Ms. Reade about her allegation; nearly two dozen people who worked with Mr. Biden during the early 1990s, including many who worked with Ms. Reade; and the other seven women who criticized Mr. Biden last year, to discuss their experiences with him." before drawing its conclusions (my bold), I would assume this would include the friends that are in question above, so their point is actually included in the Times' conclusion. Now, I'm fully aware there's question of Times' impartialness at play here due to one change they made early on in reporting this story, and I would agree as an editor that I'd like to see at least one more source also do their own evaluation to add to the Times, but we don't have that yet from any other RS, and until we do, the Times is an RS that we can't throw doubt at outside of adding the attributed statement as currently present in the article. You're basically asking for balance where sources don't exist to make it any more balanced, yet. --Masem (t) 14:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

As an act of good faith, I would suggest Steelmanning rather than (perhaps due to carelessness) misrepresenting the sources. You haven't heard me deprecate the NYTimes here, on the contrary, I have said that my proposals cite the NYTimes. You have left out everything else the NYTimes says; you have ignored my mention of WaPo which has done their own extensive investigation; you are ignoring the many other RS which have also investigated. You haven't given weight to the NYTimes quote in my first comment: "Several of Ms. Reade’s friends have said she told them about a traumatic sexual incident involving Mr. Biden", and everything I've cited at Talk:Joe Biden#Reade's story corroborators. You have ignored that the NYTimes found that two interns corroborated that Reade abruptly stopped supervising them in April 1993. When it comes to controversial BLP text, you must steelman the argument which prevents a potential BLP violation. It's probably best to let others weight in because we're not having a productive discussion, but you could revert the edit-warred non-consensus text. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I believe you are seeing this from the side of being a BLP violation w.r.t. to Reade, but at this point she is not a notable individual (even with coverage of these accusations), and we still have to deal with the BLP issues around Biden, who is a notable individual. This is not at all to dismiss anything about Reade as unimportant, but that the weight of how we succinctly cover the overall situation, given that there's a separate article on it (though I have my own reservations on that, but that's a different matter). We're giving fair time to address that Ms. Reade made an accusation and what it was, that Biden and his campaign denied it, and at this point, the only third party the NYTimes has reviewed via interviews the relevant parties to determine there is no corroborating evidence to support the accusation. To get into the details, that Reade told her friends (which is part of the NYtimes story) is too much details, but its omission is not a BLP issue against Reade as it not misrepresenting Reade's story; the language in the section on Biden's article doesn't bring up the question of whether Reade mentioned those at the time at all. In as far as what RSes have said about this, we have have a section that appears to balance the BLP concerns for Biden and those of Reade. --Masem (t) 16:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you have that reversed; it is people who are WP:NOTPUBLICFIGUREs who require more protection. You have not addressed that the text I am asking to be removed has zero consensus. If your concern is that without the existing NYTimes text there would be a BLP violation against Biden, then I suggest you remove the entire story about Tara Reade. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Masem, I was not being rhetorial; please remove the Tara Reade story. There is no hurry to include this story if we do not have consensus. The only thing we can do right now is remove everything and hash it all out later; what we have now is a violation of WP:CONSENSUS (and in my opinion a clearly unacceptable WP:BLPBALANCE violation against someone who is WP:NOTAPUBLICFIGURE). Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Tara Reade is now a public figure. See Misplaced Pages:Who is a low-profile individual: "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable." – Muboshgu (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, do you agree the text in my initial comment which I provide edit-warring diffs for is indeed non-consensus? If so would you revert it? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, the text from NYT? I can say there is opposition to it, I can't say whether there is consensus or not. Consensus doesn't require unanimity. Someone else should judge if there is consensus, I'm too involved. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, is there an administrator you can recommend? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, I think Masem is excellent, MelanieN too but I think she may be INVOLVED also. El C, Bradv, 331dot, Jayron32 and Drmies are a few more who know their stuff. Is there a full roster of all of us? If not, there should be. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah there are lists. Misplaced Pages:List of administrators/Active. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem is a strong admin who is politically conservative (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong). – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: Meh. My politics were conservative in the middle of the 18th century. Regards the modern world I am largely apolitical. To the extent I pay attention to the politics of the moment it is usually for the comedy. Beyond which, I think there are enough cooks in this particular kitchen. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, do you still believe in the individual's right to property? And what kind of res can fall under property? Let's hash that out, 18th-c style. Muboshgu, I'm always ready for a good BLP scandal, but this one, I don't know. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, fair enough. Re: Biden, I think we need as many cooks in the kitchen as we can get for the next six months. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps fewer cooks and more restaurant critics. Where’s Craig Claiborne when we need him. O3000 (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Apolitical sounds ideal to me. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

When you think an Admin is needed, you can go to WP:AN and summon one. That's a neutral sure-fire way to have your request considered. SPECIFICO talk 00:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The BLP violation is the more serious issue, and it's too late now; I can't forum shop. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't bring me into this mess. You all work this out on your own. I have no interest in getting mud on me here. Maintaining my impartiality as an admin is contingent on me not getting involved in these sorts of intractable debates, and my ability to work safely as an admin without having every move subject to unreasonable objections by people with axes to grind depends on me not taking sides in this sort of thing. --Jayron32 12:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you've hit the nail on the head for why administrators are not taking responsibility here. Folks would rather let policy violations stand than stick their necks out. The easy solution to not creating the impression of taking sides on the content is to remove the text because it had no consensus, and leave us all to roll around in the mud to find consensus. It sounds like you're prioritizing your own safety over the safety of the editors whom you serve. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I serve the encyclopedia, I job I couldn't do if, for example, I stepped in and decided that you were wrong and needed to be stopped. If I did so (and I'm not saying that you are, merely using it as an example of the problem I would face), I cannot forsee you backing down on the matter, but instead seeing me as a now your direct enemy and yet another person for you to do battle with. The same thing would happen if I were to decide to come down in favor of your opponents in this intractable debate. Having to deal with that impedes my ability to do my job. It's not my job to decide which content is correct here. You need to work that out first, then make consensus clear. You haven't established consensus yet, so there's nothing for me to do as an admin. You haven't actually done anything wrong here except to try to argue your case, as those who take the opposing stance have also done. I'm not sure what you want me to do, if not to decide who's version of the article is more factually correct, and again, in my role as an admin, that isn't my job. --Jayron32 18:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

There never was consensus to include that specific NYTimes text (only something from the NYTimes, so what you can do is remove it and warn anyone who restore it, if that's the procedure. (Yes I know this isn't the edit-warring forum, but you've been notified about the issue now.) I don't understand why I'm hearing you talk about "facts" and "correctness", when the issue is inaccurate summary of RS, but maybe that's what you mean. I don't make enemies of people I disagree with, just the dishonest ones. In a perfect world I wouldn't have to battle admins on a noticeboard; they could steelman my argument and I could battle against it myself to see if it holds. But as of yet I haven't even heard my arguments represented accurately for what they are.

There's a serious problem on the site with dishonesty, and I can't say anything about you, but I don't know why else it would be tolerated other than people not wanting to stick their necks out. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The problem with intractability is that intractability usually operates in someone's favor—those with the least tenable argument. It is in their interest to extend argument interminably, hence intractably. Bus stop (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I would have thought that's only true when the goal is to maintain the status quo. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

There's no BLP violation in regards to Reade here. No statements are being made against her at all, and her accusation is given the appropriate coverage that is due (given the amount of coverage it is getting in the media) and there's clearly consensus to cover this. Removing it is not appropriate either. The overall issue is that at this point it is a yet proven accusation against Biden that Biden has denied. We can't presume Reade's side of the story nor Biden's, so it doens't make sense to drill down beyond the top level. There is no need to go into any significant details beyond acknowledging the basic claims of the accusation of Reade and what has been corroborated by third parties so far. Omitting parts of Reade's side (in this case, that her friends can corroborate she told them her concerns in past) is not a BLP issue, as it doesn't change how the story as currently present reflects on anyone involved given that we're talking a high-level overview. We're not going into the details that Biden's side has presented either for the same reasons. The BLP factor here is that overall we're trying to avoid the excessive blame game on yet-proven accusations to protect both individuals. --Masem (t) 20:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so Muboshgu is you are right on this point that Reade is a public figure, which means Masem was you were wrong when they you stated that Reade "is not a notable individual (even with coverage of these accusations), and we still have to deal with the BLP issues around Biden, who is a notable individual."

How is there consensus over this?? Did you see my initial comment where I include every diff showing how much it has been edit-warred? Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe there is consensus against adding corroboration that she had made the allegations previously to multiple people. They've told you why here and on the article talk page. You have the onus of gaining consensus to add this information to Biden's article. The corroboration that she previously made the accusation is more appropriate on the accusation article itself. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

That's not at all what this discussion is about asking for; you're discussing different text. The text that has no consensus is the text that has been edit-warred over which I provided all the diffs for in my initial comment; this is what I'm saying should be removed; the ONUS is on the editors who want to include it. It's frustrating that throughout this long discussion there hasn't been a single acknowledgement of the obvious edit war over this text. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I should have been more to the point. I believe there is consensus against adding corroboration that she made the allegations previously to balance corroborations that review the substance of the allegations. To be clear, I believe there is consensus reviewing both the talk page and this noticeboard that the existing paragraph is properly weighted. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit wars are best reported at ANI. First, we should avoid any hear-say testimony. Nothing reliable can come from that. The Times in this instance is a primary source, and while that in and of itself doesn't necessarily make it a bad source, that should be taken into consideration. I would much prefer a statement like that to come from the authorities. All in all, this is a developing story, and there will be a lot of misinformation, disinformation, and crappy, rush-judgment reporting before this all gets sorted out, so I would just give the bare bones of it for now and wait to add any details after the dust settles. Zaereth (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Her friends are not being used to provide hearsay evidence; their statements are not evidence that the allegations are true, their statements are being used to provide evidence that she told the same story decades ago, which gives her credibility; all the RS consider this to be supportive for her story; it is WP:OR to decide that we should summarize the story differently than every single RS. But why are we still talking about text which is irrelevant to this discussion? I am discussing removing existing non-consensus NYTimes text which you state is from a primary source; I'm not discussing adding anything. A "bare bones" telling of the story would be precisely what we'd have if you or anyone else removed the edit-warred text. I cannot bring this to another noticeboard, and it shouldn't be necessary, anyone can revert this text. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

It's still hear-say, and I can't speak for everyone but I don't participate in edit wars. I gave you a good argument for removing the text, so my suggestion is to discuss it at the talk page. It's not a BLP violation, but I can see good, non-BLP reasons for removing it. (Hint, primary sources should be backed by secondary sources.) Zaereth (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is hearsay, but that's irrelevant, you know? It's not being used that way; such evidence would be admissible in court for the kind of evidence which it is, which would not be hearsay evidence, and regardless, this is what the RS include in the summary of the story. I already removed the text with an edit summary that it was primary-source-based original research as well as non-consensus, and it was reverted. I wouldn't be here if we'd made any progress at the talk page; it's been edit-warred for nearly three weeks. Please discuss why you feel it is not a BLPBALANCE violation against Reade, considering that all the RS present balance. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

That rings hollow when these bits of friends & family hearsay are being pushed as "corroboration" of her claims by several enthusiastic editors on article talk pages. SPECIFICO talk 21:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a misrepresentation of the word "corroboration". As I stated, they corroborate that she told them her story, they don't corroborate that the allegation happened. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The article is not about Reade. BLPBALANCE says we need to be fair to the subject. It doesn't say anything about his accusers. By fair, that means by a preponderance of reliable sources. (ie: views for and against climate change are not given equal space, because that would be a false balance when you weigh all of the sources.) And that you're participating in the edit war doesn't help your case any. When talk pages fail, RFC is the next step in dispute resolution. Then mediation or arbitration. But you may just have to talk it out for a long time. For example, see all the weeks and weeks worth of discussion I had to go through at Talk:Sarah Palin over the "bridges to nowhere". I wish you luck in your crusade, but I would advise avoiding edit warring whenever possible. I hope that helped. Zaereth (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like you have a misunderstanding of how BLP works; it's irrelevant in which article text occurs; BLP applies to all figures in all Misplaced Pages spaces. RfCs are not necessary for removing non-consesus text are they? The text should be removed before starting an RfC on which text to include. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I know very well how BLP works. You're trying to rationalize it into something it's not. We do not need to give equal space to unproven allegations. There is nothing there that is a BLP violation against Reade. Not a single word. And while I agree in an ideal world disputed text should stay out until consensus is achieved, it's not an ideal world, nor is it a blatant BLP violation that would allow you to ignore 3RR. Talk page discussion is what is needed to work out the fine details of the other policies that these issues fall under, but as Masem points out below, it doesn't look like anyone is talking over there. RFC is really for when a talk page discussion is going nowhere, and some outside assistance is needed to break the tie. That is often a better format because ideally it's only one comment per person, although even there people will try to sway the balance with quantity instead of quality, the format is much more manageable and easier to determine actual consensus. Now I gave you some good advice for formulating an argument for removing the NY Times part, and you're welcome, so that's all the advice I will give you except this, don't argue with people who are agreeing with you (at least on some points). Oh, except this, there is nothing about a conversation here that prohibits you from reporting an edit war at ANI, except maybe that you might be found guilty of warring yourself. Zaereth (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you haven't addressed what I challenged about your understanding of BLP, or much of anything else I said. And as others state, the ONUS is on those who want to include text to discuss it into the article, not on those who don't agree to it to RfC it out. You haven't addressed my response to Masem; there has been much discussion and not much consensus. Thanks anyway. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I did. That you don't see that is ... intriguing. That you don't see that I have actually been trying to help you achieve your ultimate goal, that is even more ... intriguing. Argue with me if you like, but I can see why you're not getting anywhere. Oh well, you can lead a horse to water... Zaereth (talk) 02:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Ugh, I can't even. I wouldn't have to argue if you didn't say such things. I did not comment on whether you were trying to help.... Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• At the risk of repeating myself, I think WP:ONUS is very clear and trumps all: that text, and all text, should stay out until and unless there is consensus established to include it. Editors who reinstate challenged text without consensus should be warned on their talk page and if they still do it, reported at AE. I think that should be the procedure we follow on all sides of this issue. Levivich  23:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • An issue is that I'm seeing is that there's no discussion on the talk page on the core statement from the NYTimes. There's concern about the text that NYTimes removed. There's concern about additional facets that Kolya's discussing here, there's additional points. But saving for the editing warring listed here, there is no discussion about the actual NYTimes that that I'm easily seeing (I might be missing it, but the talk page is a mess there). Reading around all the other discussions in relations to the NYTimes, I'm seeing consensus, as well as the general principle of BLP and NPOV, that the basic NYTimes story - as both a normally reliable sources, (seemingly) neutral to the situation here, and not involved otherwise with Biden or Reade - is the necessary to include alongside Reade's accusations and Biden's denial, and until anything more can be said, that's just a reasonable amount of information on Biden's page to summarize the situation and let the standalone go into the more nuances. For WP to not include the accusations is not appropriate - there's far too much out there to not talk about them though we do not know until the dust is settled to what degree we'll need to, so this is a suitable summary. The only thing I would do is cut down the Times' quote to the last part, and summarize the rest, eg "The New York Times interviewed staff members from Biden's office at the time, as well as Reade's family and friends who she told about, and found 'no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden.'", again leaving the more nitty details on the separate article at this point.
  • Troubling is the fact edit warring is going on on a page that is clearly under AP2 and I don't know offhand if there's any 1RR restriction here but if there are a bunch of hands need to be slapped for edit warring over this. --Masem (t) 00:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

This is the basic summary the NYTimes gives for its own story:

"The former aide, Tara Reade, who briefly worked as a staff assistant in Mr. Biden’s Senate office, told The New York Times that in 1993, Mr. Biden pinned her to a wall in a Senate building, reached under her clothing and penetrated her with his fingers. A friend said that Ms. Reade told her the details of the allegation at the time. Another friend and a brother of Ms. Reade’s said she told them over the years about a traumatic sexual incident involving Mr. Biden. A spokeswoman for Mr. Biden said the allegation was false. In interviews, several people who worked in the Senate office with Ms. Reade said they did not recall any talk of such an incident or similar behavior by Mr. Biden toward her or any women. Two office interns who worked directly with Ms. Reade said they were unaware of the allegation or any treatment that troubled her."

This sounds much different than the text which is included. Also remember that this story is from April 12; more witnesses and the Larry King video have come out since then, which RS now include in their summaries, giving more weight to the story corroborators in general. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, why is it a problem to just remove the story? It's an encyclopedia; people will just assume it hasn't been updated; surely nothing is better than NPOV text. We don't even have a section header yet. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

And, the initial comment opening the NYTimes talk page discussion is precisely about opposition to the entire NYTimes quote. If editors discuss particular opposition to one piece of that quote we cannot assume they therefore did not oppose the entire quote. If no consensus is evident we must revert. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I am one of the first editors that would be screaming "NOTNEWS" if there was a problem, and in fact, that's why I think the separate article right now is a problem given the state of the situation. But are the accusations ignorable? Unfortunately no. They're two months old, they have gained a raft of media coverage, they are starting to impact his campaign and other parts of the gov't. It would be a disservice to a reader coming to his page to not briefly mention Reade and the current state of the accusations. But because there's more questions than answers, then per NOTNEWS, BLP, NPOV and a bunch of other policies we should only cover this at the surface level, the who-what-where-when question.

That then begs the question that if we are going to cover, what is the neutral way to cover it, and that appears to be to assert what Reade claims in one or two sentences, what Biden claims in one or two sentence, and because we have it, what the "impartial" NYTimes has determined in a sentence at this point given that the NYTimes embodied the epitome of journalistic ethics in the US normally (the other would be the WaPost) Anything else goes to the point of NOTNEWS - we just don't know enough right now to go into more detail.

But there is the fair question that has not been discussed plainly on the article talk page but instead hedged around: should we be including the NYTimes article at this point given the change they made at the request of Biden campaign? (There was a question of adding additional text to make this clarification that didn't have consensus but that's a different matter). Instead, people edit war over inclusion. As suggested elsewhere, the right action at this point is to start an RFC narrowly around the question if the NYTimes statement should be included at all, does that leave the current summary on Biden's page sufficiently neutral? I don't know though. --Masem (t) 01:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

That is not an accurate representation of the talk page discussion I linked to, which I participated in. The question was not about adding additional text, the question was about whether to include the sentences which through this discussion I am also asking to be removed, because there has never been consensus for them, and they have been directly discussed. They remain simply because the edit war has been won in that direction.

A story being noteworthy to readers has no influence over the consensus policy or the BLPBALANCE policy, which I assert is violated. But yes, let's steer towards the solution; we can cover this on the surface level:

In April 2019, Tara Reade said that in 1993, while she was a staffer in Biden's Senate office, he had inappropriately touched her several times on her shoulder and neck. In March 2020, Reade accused Biden of pushing her against a wall and digitally penetrating her while on Capitol Hill in 1993. On April 9, 2020, Reade filed a police report with the Washington Metropolitan Police (MPD) alleging she was sexually assaulted in spring 1993. The case was later described as "inactive" by the MPD . On May 1, 2020, Biden said, "It's not true. I'm saying unequivocally it never, never happened, and it didn't. It never happened."

(We could even leave the police report bit out for now, but we worked hard for consensus on that.) Or a little deeper:

In April 2019, Tara Reade said that in 1993, while she was a staffer in Biden's Senate office, he had inappropriately touched her several times on her shoulder and neck. In March 2020, Reade accused Biden of pushing her against a wall and digitally penetrating her while on Capitol Hill in 1993. On April 9, 2020, Reade filed a police report with the Washington Metropolitan Police (MPD) alleging she was sexually assaulted in spring 1993. The case was later described as "inactive" by the MPD . On May 1, 2020, Biden said, "It's not true. I'm saying unequivocally it never, never happened, and it didn't. It never happened." The New York Times reported that "In interviews, several people who worked in the Senate office with Ms. Reade said they did not recall any talk of such an incident or similar behavior by Mr. Biden toward her or any women." "Several of Ms. Reade’s friends have said she told them about a traumatic sexual incident involving Mr. Biden."

Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

You are making this far more complicated than it needs to be. Certainly, I think you agree that Reade's accusations in her words, and Biden's response in his words, are appropriate; its what is beyond that that you seem to be taking issue with. You are arguing that the statement from the New York Times has no consensus to be there, so either you or others have edit warred to remove it (trouts around for those on both sides here for the editing warring on a AP2 page), or you are asking to add the comment about Reade's friends, to make it neutral before asking about base NYTimes state. You need to ask as an RFC a real simple question about the NYTimes before you can proceed further, otherwise you are confusing issue top issues which as you are arguing consensus is unclear. That's all I'm trying to say. If you can get that "no consensus to include the NYTimes pieces" then we're good and the second facet isn't needed. Otherwise, then you can ask in a second RFC about it. --Masem (t) 05:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

It's confusing to hear you say I'm making things more complicated, when you still haven't accurately represented what's happening here. I am simply stating that there is no consensus to include those particular NYTimes sentences. I believe those particular sentences are a BLPBALANCE violation regardless of whether the comments about Reade's friends are added. The edit war has not been to "remove" the NYTS sentences; the edit war has been to add them. I am asking that the existing NYTimes text be removed; adding comments about Reade's friends will not create consensus for those NYTimes sentences. I suggested examples of alternative quotes from the NYTimes above (but which shouldn't be added either until comments about her friends are added). I am not arguing consensus is unclear over those NYTimes sentences; it is clear there is no consensus. We do not need an RfC over whether the NYTimes as a source is acceptable to use, because that is unrelated to whether those particular sentences are acceptable. The issue of the NYTimes editing those sentences at the request of the Biden campaign is not my personal issue; it is over the sentences themselves (although others oppose it for that reason, and that adds to my opposition). It's very simple; there was never any consensus to add those sentences, and not including comments about Reade's friends makes things worse. An administrator should revert the BLPVIO non-consensus addition, and if it's restored this can go to WP:AN/EW. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand you're specifically talking on the NYTimes's end conclusion of its investigation, as to the statement JzG added 17 April (the first diff you had linked at the start). And reading from the talk page: It's never been shown to be against consensus. The closest where any of that is discussed is the "NYT on Reade" section started the same day that the specific text from the NYTimes was added; if I were an admin to have to use that discussion to judge consensus, I would have to close that there was favor in general to keep it but not necessarily the full quote. (I mean, there is the ONUS aspect, but there's clearly support to keep it there from that discussion). I can tell you that as it stands this is not a hard-nosed BLP violation that would require immediate admin removal (in contrast to saying, for example "John Q. Smith is a rapist" without sources). So at this point it is a matter of working consensus of what is appropriate to include. You could have an RFC to challenge the inclusion of that statement from the NYTimes but I'm pretty confident that would end with it being included: the New York Times is generally considered the gold standard for this type of coverage, so some statement on their investigative results as they have completed them would be expected to be included; even if you could argue the current version doesn't have consensus, it will need to be eventually put back in as per expected coverage (barring any other third-party doing a similar set of interviews and summary). I fully agree the full quote isn't necessary, and there's a way to paraphrase their article to identify whom all they spoke too on both sides before making their conclusion, for the purposes of a short summary in Biden's article at this time. My advice (and this is only looking at Biden talk page now and seeing where your discussions are going presently) is to try to work on keeping the NYtimes statement in to its barebone core point, that "The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden" on 12 April, and adding the necessary paraphrasing text of a sentence to explain how they concluded this. --Masem (t) 13:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you still haven't gotten this right. A consensus to keep the quote in some form is not a consensus to keep the sentences as they have been added, so all of the sentences must be removed until consensus can be found. Yes, there is consensus to include text about the NYTimes conclusion, but not that text. What you have described as the "barebones core point" of the NYTimes is not at all the essential takeaway from their investigation, as it says nothing about her allegations. A good replacement would be the other summary NYTs text: The New York Times reported that "In interviews, several people who worked in the Senate office with Ms. Reade said they did not recall any talk of such an incident or similar behavior by Mr. Biden toward her or any women." But even that should not be added until the BLPBALANCE violation is addressed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

But AN/EW should not be necessary, anyone restoring contentious BLPVIO text which hurts Tara Reade's character should be warned. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

What exactly is hurting her character? It is definitely not a BLP violation at all that if a person makes allegations against another and stands strongly by them but sources find no support for those allegations to report that those allegations don't hold, that's nothing against the person's character that we can't help, once this is covered as much as it as in the RSes. That's not's Misplaced Pages fault when media aren't finding the support for a person's allegations, so that's not a BLP violation. --Masem (t) 13:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

If you don't know how that hurt's her character, you should look at what is happening in the media when people mischaracterize the NYTimes' conclusions by taking quotes like the ones added out of context. She is being ruthlessly attacked by people who believe the NYTimes has concluded nothing happened. The NYTimes includes information that supports the credibility of her claims. They say no one at the office knew anything about the assault allegations, and they also say her friends corroborate she told them her story contemporaneously, and they report that two interns corroborate that she had her responsibilities changed in April 1993. We cannot include text that hurts her credibility which is inconsistent with how the RS report the story. Also, the NYTimes is by far the only top-tier RS which has investigated this. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Sadly, that is out of our hands. That the media have decided to use the NYTimes against her is not our fault, but to avoid the BLP, we don't have to touch that part of the story (and nor should we). But it is also not our place to try to repair her credibly either by adding more facts that the statement from the NYTimes are you claim address that, or by removing the troubling statement. Again, WP is not involved in this story, we're trying to summarize neutrally the key events. We cannot worry about how other media pieces have taken the NYTimes piece if we are just trying to summarize its conclusion. We simply cannot worry about how a statement by a quality RS like the NYtimes may impact the reputation of those involved if is part of a necessary summary of events to date. Clearly the NYtimes piece (as I read it) is not out to attack or discredit Reade, simply that they found no evidence to support her accusations or other issues of sexual misconduct in Biden's office at the time. That other media is using that to attack Reade is unfortunately not our concern, as long as we aren't repeating those attacks. --Masem (t) 17:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't feel like you're hearing me. We have not neutrally summarized the NYTimes. I only discuss the media to illustrate misreporting similar to what we're doing. We don't need to repair her credibility, we need to not misrepresent the source to harm her credibility. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

But even then I would argue how off-neutral the two sentence NYTimes statement is is a point of debate. To know why its not neutral requires reading beyond the text in WP's Biden article. (Eg the quote omits Reade's friends but we don't bring them up in the first place). But the level of neutrality concern is very low as to not require such a drastic "we need to fix it now!" response, it's nowhere close to a BLP issue that must be resolved, and the neutrality issue is one that requires consensus discussion. Which is what I'm stressing you need to engage in on the talk page for Biden, to suggest that less quote and more paraphrasing of the Times would be a better summary. --Masem (t) 20:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I've been engaging with one participant on the talk page about how to change the text (but I'm not confident). So you're saying that if the current NYTimes text were very off-neutral so as to harm her, that would be a BLPBALANCE violation, but you don't expect that to be found? It's hard to see it that way. The tone of the current text makes it sound like the NYT has concluded she is not credible at all, whereas her actual story is very credible. Not only are we leaving out all of the evidence which supports her story, we're leaving out all the character evidence about Biden's serious instances of lying (but I doubt that piece has weight yet anyway). Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I am trying to read the NYTimes article as a whole, and as that quote (the full quote as used) as with much as an open mind as possible, trying to take Ms. Reade's side here but keeping in mind rules of traditional journalism and how these situations are reported on, and it is really really a hard stretch to say in any way that the NYTimes article or the quote in any way or tone is demeaning to Ms. Reade or doubts her credibility. That they can't back up her claims of what happened in the office is one thing, but they are using what I would almost say is boilerplate language by RS in the media when these types of allegations are found to be lacking anything they can take action on. They aren't saying the accuser is flat out wrong, nor being a liar, nor anything of that sort, and in factor are trying to respect Ms. Reade here as much as they possibly can. Note they never say the allegations are false or the like, and in fact they keep the possibility they still may be true. They aren't dismissing that the truth may be something in between Reade's accusations and Biden's "nothing happened", but can't say which side has more weight from what limited information can be gleaned. This is extremely typical and fair reporting on the situation as a whole and I have squint long and hard to find any start of a direct BLP issue here. It is respectful that Reade may still have been experienced what she did, just that they can't conclude that from the list of people they spoke to. --Masem (t) 06:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Compare this hyperbolic quote with a real quote from the NYTimes: "We interviewed two hundred employees and we didn't find anyone who was able to corroborate anything about any sexual assault, nor anything about any behavior out of character with what we know about Biden." vs:

"The former aide, Tara Reade, who briefly worked as a staff assistant in Mr. Biden’s Senate office, told The New York Times that in 1993, Mr. Biden pinned her to a wall in a Senate building, reached under her clothing and penetrated her with his fingers. A friend said that Ms. Reade told her the details of the allegation at the time. Another friend and a brother of Ms. Reade’s said she told them over the years about a traumatic sexual incident involving Mr. Biden. A spokeswoman for Mr. Biden said the allegation was false. In interviews, several people who worked in the Senate office with Ms. Reade said they did not recall any talk of such an incident or similar behavior by Mr. Biden toward her or any women. Two office interns who worked directly with Ms. Reade said they were unaware of the allegation or any treatment that troubled her."

A concise summary of this paragraph is what adheres to BPBALANCE (at the time of this out-of-date story). (And remember, the NYTimes found the interns remember she weirdly was removed from supervising them, and NYTimes leaves that out of both conclusions! That is an example of corroborating her story.) Beyond that, looking at the criticism of the NYTimes piece should illustrate the problem. Interview with Katie Halper who released Reade's original interview, at 45:20.

I don't understant why you don't find a BLPBALANCE issue. The policy states, "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints". The existing text is a cherrypicked one-sided summary. The paragraph above is BALANCED (if you add the interns' corroboration).

As I have said before, there is no consensus for the exiting New York Times quote. You have found consensus that something from the NYTimes be added, but folks are opposed to this quote, so it should be removed on that basis alone. Please see there is another discussion which may show where consensus is at this point. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The NY Times does not write that the interns remember she was weirdly removed... Facts matter. Also, completeness and context matter. A lot of little misstatements can add up to a significant misrepresentation, so we need to take great care with BLP text. SPECIFICO talk 15:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

That's your contribution here?  Pedantics? Or after all of this are you still unfamiliar with the story?   "An intern who worked under Reade, and who asked to remain anonymous, said she does not recall Reade discussing any allegations of assault or harassment. But she does corroborate Reade's claim that she was abruptly relieved of her duties as intern supervisor in April 1993, a move that the former intern found odd at the time." Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

This board is all about accurate representation of valid sources. That's not "pedantics." If somebody saw your abrupt reply to me and said Kolya Butternut made a weird reply, would you think that was accurate? I see lots of thoughtful comments from experienced editors and Admins in this thread. I hope you recognize them as such. SPECIFICO talk 17:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Does this kind of talk usually work on people?  In real life I would normally ignore this, but you haven't been blocked from this website yet, so I have to assume that administrators can't see through you. Do I need to cite a thesaurus?  The intern said it was odd.  We notice you left that part out and cited the word "abrupt" instead, while maintaining plausible deniability by pedantically limiting your focus to the New York Times piece that you referenced while ignoring Business Insider. Next time if you notice something that sounds inconsistent with a cited source, point it out politely but save the lecture.  Superficial civility only works the first time.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Because you had claimed the NY Times piece said something in loaded and bizarre way, I was just pointing out that your words were a misrepresentation of your cited source. No reference to the Business Insider was at play. More generally, I suspect the NY Times journalist recognized that the "abruptly" is a more or less objective description of a change without warning, whereas "weirdly" even if another intern had said it, would have been a subjective evaluation of staff management, a topic on which a 20-something mailroom intern would have had no credible expertise. SPECIFICO talk 19:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

You're still ignoring Business Insider and their use of the word "odd", and you are now changing the subject.  This is about whether the word "odd" misrepresents the story as sourced, not whether it deserves weight.  As I said, if someone cites a synonym for a word which is not contained in the cited RS, point it out, and you will receive a clarification that it came from a different source; no lectures needed.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I was making a very narrow specific comment about your misrepresentation of the source that you and you alone cited to support your proposed article text. When I point out that you and you alone have changed the subject, to Business Insider, not cited in your propoal, it's not I who's changed the subject. If you want to explore WEIGHT, that's more a topic for WP:NPOVN. If you're saying that you made a mistake and meant to cite Business Insider instead of NY Times, that is a different matter, but generally folks assume you have cited what you meant to cite. Then they respond according to what you said, not what you later say you should or would or could have said. Anyway good luck. I don't think this thread is going to produce anything new or different for you at this point. SPECIFICO talk 20:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you focus on the content rather than pedantries about communication. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Trying to avoid the elephant in the room, but I feel that the only way that one could take the NYtimes pieces as improperly inbalanced against Ms. Reade is to be starting on the presumption that Ms. Reade's allegations are factual. And we have to be careful in WP in taking that stance. (This doesn't mean by default we're also taking the stance that Biden did nothing, period. As I noted, many times in these cases, the actual truth tends to be something in the middle validating both sides, and that's generally where we have to start in our thoughts as editors). If one starts on the assumption that Ms. Reade's allegations are true, then it becomes "easy" to see the fallacies in the Times story, but that's sorta bad analysis. It's why I'm trying to have viewed this as neutrally as possible and from what her side would have been and from Biden's side would have been to see how far off neutral the Times' article and the quote itself is, and its really hard to see that unless you're coming in with a prejudgment on who is right. That all said, I am glad there's a fresh discussion of the test you pointed out with enough points from here resonating there. --Masem (t) 15:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm not hearing any comments in response to what I said, instead I feel like I am hearing assumptions about what I am thinking. My argument comes from extensive familiarity with the sources.  And immediately above you can see that the existing New York Times quote misrepresents the story as a whole, because it leaves out that the interns do corroborate part of her story.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I am trying to listen to your comments, but you keep going to this position that is a non-starter that expresses doubt to the NYTimes version of its own investigation. I understand the point on the quote, but taking the whole of the NYTimes report, and the overall story, the only way that quote bends the truth is to presume the NYTimes story already bent the truth, which we simply can't start with. Specifico is expressing my same concerns here, above, as well as Zaereth below; I am trying to give as much good faith here to what you said, but you appear to have a singular focus on what this story needs to say instead of coming from how WP normally handles such allegations in the media. Again, its fair to the inclusion of the full NYTImes quote but this I think is more smoothing out some possible wrinkles and not trying to repair any major faults related to BLP and neutrality. --Masem (t) 19:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I have wanted to hear my argument repeated back to me so that I know we're on the same page, because so far I have not heard that you understand what I am saying. You have come close, but it feels like you're dancing around my point.

I am not expressing doubt to the NYTimes' version of its own investigation; I am not saying the NYTimes quote is bending the truth. (The intern bit is just poor phrasing which when taken out of context leads to misinterpretation.)

I am saying that the quote currently in the article does not summarize the piece, and the summary I cited is missing a key detail. Regardless of the missing detail, if we used that summary the BLPBALANCE issue would be mostly addressed.

So, I cited the NYT's own summary of its piece. Using that quote instead (or a truncated paraphrasing) would correct the BLPBALANCE violation. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• I don't believe the entire quote from The New York Times needs to be there. It can be paraphrased down to that no former staff members corroborated the details of Reade's allegation. I don't understand the importance of declaring that there were no other allegations or a pattern or practice of sexual assault and turning the NYT into a primary source. Same with the May 1, 2020 Biden quote. That detail can just be merged into a line that states both Biden and his campaign officials have denied the allegation. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

There are conspiracy theories all over reddit and twitter about that NY Times thing. I think that Fox and the talk radio guys have mow given up on that, but at any rate, that's why it isn't going away. SPECIFICO talk 01:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

"A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. The term has a pejorative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence." Really? The only thing I heard was that the NYTimes removed some text because they agreed with the Biden campaign's criticism of the awkward phrasing. Good thing we don't have to use direct quotes. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

You know, I'm going to try again, one more time because I kind of like you. You remind me of a brother of mine, who will argue with anyone and everyone. Please read these next words carefully: I AGREE! THE DISPUTED TEXT SHOULD GO! That doesn't mean I'll accept your gracious invitation to an edit war. But if you will let go of this tree and take a moment to look at the forest, I graciously gave you an argument you actually have a chance in hell of winning. I gift wrapped it for you, with a little bow on top, and put it right in your lap. Let go of this idea of adding the hear-say. What you really want is removal of the disputed text, right? There is your best argument, right up above in black and white. Use it or lose it, but the rest is up to you. I can't do it all for you. Zaereth (talk) 02:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok...let's peel back the onion; you said: "The article is not about Reade. BLPBALANCE says we need to be fair to the subject. It doesn't say anything about his accusers." I disagree with that. BLP applies to everyone, everywhere, right? So it applies to Tara Reade when she is mentioned in Biden's article. No need to again get into the argument over whether there is or not a violation, but that is the first point with which I recall disagreeing, which I don't recall you acknowledging. I just offered two stripped-down proposals above, which can be added BOLDly. It baffles me that there is any question that the NYTimes sentences do not have consensus, that not one administrator acknowledges that, and that anyone would suggest shifting the ONUS to me to start an RfC to remove text which never had CONSENSUS. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

This is the first time I'm looking at this long-winded and extraordinary discussion, after I've been repeatedly trying to engage Kolya Butternut on the Biden talk page. It seems to me the solution to Kolya's immediate problem is simple: remove ALL mention of the Tara Reade issue until a consensus text has been worked out at Talk:Joe Biden. That way, there can be no argument that any subject is being treated unfairly or misrepresented. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Scjessey: please don't mischaracterize the discussion by suggesting that it is I who am resisting engaging with you, when the opposite is true, but we can discuss this on our talk pages. But yes, thank you for acknowledging that removing all mention of the Tara Reade story is an immediate temporary solution. Although this is an essential story to Biden's bio, that fact does not override other policy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, we don't yet know if this is an "essential" story. BLPs are written from an historical perspective, so the Reade accusation will only remain in the article if it becomes a significant event in the entire life of Joe Biden. With that said, I am glad you agree a temporary removal of ALL material is the way forward. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I'll play peel the onion for a moment. I have been working at BLPN for the last 11, almost 12 years. In all that time I've never seen someone so intent on making enemies out of everyone, adversaries and potential allies alike. You brought this case here so people more familiar with BLP could chime in, right? Here we are. Yes, BLP applies to everyone living or recently dead. But there is nothing in the article that is a BLP violation against Reade. We don't say something like "Reade is a murderer or a child molester." Nothing disparaging about her at all. You are confusing fairness for Reade with fairness for her accusations. BLP doesn't cover her accusation as they apply to her. That argument is fallacious as it's a non sequitur. No BLP violation exists here, as many people have told you, and you can leave a million more comments and they still won't change that.

You're trying to argue five different things all at once, when you should be focusing on the one thing that really matters: the NY Times source. All these other things are just confusing both you, everyone else, and the real issue at hand. There is a time to pick your battles, and this is one of them. BLP is not a magical tool that you can invoke just because you disagree with something. The real issue here is WP:RS. The NY Times source in this particular instance is a primary source. If you really want to win this battle, that's the one you need to focus on and forget all the other ones, because they are not helping, but only hurting your case. I seriously hope you can see that. I really do.

It is not fair to the subject to give equal weight to unproven accusations. In the context of BALANCE, "fair" means weight. Now, if you want to win here (which by now I'm not even sure is the case) then you should really forget all the non-sequitur arguments and focus on the NY Times bit as being a primary source. That's an argument you actually have a shot at winning. But first you need to figure out what makes it primary in this particular case, and why that should warrant it's removal. Look it up in policy. Look it up in books. Take some time to study it and get all your ducks in a row, and you will have a good shot at getting it removed. This is very good advice, but only if you choose to take it. Otherwise you're just wasting everybody's time, including your own. Trust me. Drink the Kool-Aid.

Beyond that, I have no desire to help you if you're not willing to help yourself. If you had actually read anything I said, you'd probably be finished by now. We don't enforce consensus here, nor do we deal with edit wars. Non sequitur. This is not a BLP violation by any stretch of the imagination. It's an RS issue. Now I've done all I can to help you. I have a real life, and don't have time for this back and forth nonsense. Drink it. Drink the Kool-Aid if you want to win. I hate politics, so it really doesn't matter to me. Zaereth (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I would ask that you discuss what you and others are doing rather than focusing solely on me. I think part of the problem here is that discussion does not often begin with showing that the initial argument is understood. You characterized me as "so intent on making enemies out of everyone". I am not at all intent on making enemies with anyone. Forcefully refuting untruths and inaccuracies is not a desire to make enemies. I brought this case here so administrators would remove a non-consensus BLP violating addition. You are not accurately assessing my claim of BLP violation. This is why I would suggest that folks engage in empathy (not the touchy-feeling kind) to show they understand the argument, before refuting strawmen. Yes, I am having to respond to too many arguments. I will not ignore inaccuracies, but I agree I should at least structure my responses differently so the focus is highlighted.

RS is not the issue here, as I've explained many times. The simplest issue is that non-consensus text was warred into the article. The simple solution is for an administrator to remove it and administrative action can be taken by anyone who has been warned about warring it back in. You don't deal with consensus and edit-wars here? Regardless of whether this is the forum for that, now that administrators are aware they should take action. But there is a BLP violation.

I have read every word of this discussion. So far I've only read about two comments where I actually felt heard. If you want to help, try to understand my arguments, (and focusing some of your criticism on the other people in the room would be nice). (Please no tone-policing tho.)

Administrators don't take action against years of civil-POV pushing sealions, so something's poison in the Kool-Aid. Dishonesty and abuse by editors doesn't seem to be a priority. Now that's a non-sequitur.

This isn't about winning; this isn't about politics; this is about accurately telling the story that the RS have told about a woman who hasn't been listened to. Feels familiar.... Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised. I understand your argument(s). I'm telling you they do not have a snowball's chance in hell of getting you what you want. Listening is a two way street. I am not arguing with you, I'm giving advice on how to achieve your goal (removal of the text you were edit warring over), which I would call winning, wouldn't you? That is it. When people give you advice, it's your choice whether to take it or not, but it's usually a very bad idea to argue with it or you will likely get no more help in the future. And speaking of future help, I'm out. I tried to be your ally, and you've rejected that friendship at every turn. All I can say is I tried. I really did. Good luck, because you're going to need it. Zaereth (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

You know, I'm going to give one more piece of advice here, and this is to all of those take this WP:BLUDGEON approach toward achieving consensus. Beating us over the heads with the same old arguments does not increase their validity. We heard you the first time. If what you keep doing keeps getting the same result, try a different approach. This is really universal wisdom, and I couldn't say it any better than this:

"The problem with the original circuit was worsened by additional relays the engineer had added to "compensate" for the apparent fault. We are not inferring that the engineer was incompetent, he had just become too involved with his original logic to look at it objectively. This illustrates the point that all of us occasionally "cannot see the forest for the trees," and should consider asking someone else to take a fresh look at a problem that has us puzzled. There should be no shame in having someone look over your shoulder when you hit a snag in the system you are working on. In this case history, a simple change in the input hardware allowed us to remove the problem, instead of correcting it with more circuitry." --Clarence A. Phipps, Fundamentals of Electrical Control

And understand that we're all wrong at one time or another, and if consensus goes against us, there is a time to accept it and move on with our lives. Consensus is something you have to build, and you really get one shot at the apple before it gets redundant, so make it count, or find a better way. Zaereth (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Zaereth: I'll ping you just this once.

I have to say that I actually am surprised that I'm hearing you speak to me the exact same way even after what I've told you. When I say that I feel you do not understand my arguments, as I said, I would like you all to "begin with showing that the initial argument is understood" before repeatedly tearing it down when someone tells you they feel unheard. I also asked that you stop talking about how you feel about me, and how you feel about what you're doing, and consider how I am experiencing you all, and what I want. Friendship does not mean repeatedly offering flowers which the recipient has stated they do not want; friendship does not mean calling her a bitch when she's not grateful the third time they were offered; friendship does not mean patting her pretty little head with unwanted words of wisdom. (I hope we can all get over our egos and not pearl-clutch over analogies.) Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

You know, I'm going to ask you one more thing; why do you think women don't like it here? Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea. Are you a woman? Does that mean I'm supposed to treat you any differently, and walk on egg shells? Don't expect me to make that assumption. I agree that the disputed text needs to go. I see a very clear way to make that happen. If you don't even want to consider it, fine, keep doing what you're doing. Like I said, I'm out. Do it all on your own, because this is a content dispute that otherwise I really don't care to get involved in. Good luck. Zaereth (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

What a sexist thing to say.  Typically, a woman appreciates knowing that what they're communicating is understood, or evidence of self-reflection, or just some indication that the other person is listening.  You're still focusing on yourself and your ideas and showing no indication you understand my argument.  if I don't point that out to you nothing is going to change here.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, your comment seemed pretty sexist to me too, as the idea of gender never once crossed my mind. I also agree that you seem focused only on yourself, with no indication that you're listening to others. In my experience, when people make comments like yours about other people, they are almost always unconsciously describing themselves. Once again, I wish you luck in whatever it is you are trying to accomplish here, because it obviously has nothing to do with the edit-warred text. Zaereth (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

How chivalrous. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not here to be anyone's knight in shining armor. I don't care what your gender is. I can count on my fingers the number of Wikipedians whose gender I know, and it still doesn't matter. I respect them for who they are. My only interest here was in removing the text you all were fighting over. Period. And I don't even need to look at the source for that. It's all right there in the text, plain as day. And I probably would have left it at that along time ago, because that's what I do. I just drive by, drop a comment that I think will help, and go on about my merry way. You're the one intent on dragging this out and making it all about you. I'm sorry, but the martyr thing doesn't affect me much. I'm sorry you're having a bad time and you feel no one is listening to you, but if that were the case you wouldn't have gotten any replies at all, let alone this many. There's no way I'm going over to another political page and getting myself involved in that mess. If you would have asked, I would have told you and everyone else exactly what I see that is so obvious about it, but you can forget it now. It's not a BLP issue thus is irrelevant to this page, so I don't care. Zaereth (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

That was sarcasm, i.e., "how magnanimous" /s. We both got offended; I'm over it now. I appreciate your efforts, but I don't want to go in that direction. Back to content: I've made a BLP argument which you feel has no merit. Based on the responses I've received, I do not have the sense that my argument was understood, so I wanted my argument repeated back to me so I would have known we're on the same page. All is forgiven, all is apologized for. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Listen, I fully understand you point of view, honestly I do. Repeating them back would be redundant. Isn't it enough that we respond to them? There may in fact be a balance issue here, but I don't have to dig that deep. That would be covered by NPOV. The issue doesn't rise to the level of a BLP violation, which means it's a talk page issue to be discussed through the normal dispute resolution process. BLP is designed to protect persons from harm. Nobody is being harmed by what we have in the article, and if they are, your arguments haven't demonstrated that. I'm sorry. That doesn't mean there aren't issues to be worked out, but I don't see anything there that would rise to the level of BLP. If I'm just not seeing how this is causing harm, then please feel free to enlighten me. Personally, I think any balance issue would be fixed by simply removing the NY Times text, and then any further discussion would be moot. My personal feeling is that it is just too soon to go into any detail yet. Zaereth (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

You may understand, but what I'm saying is I don't know that you do. Ideally I would hear a steelman, but that's a lot to ask. I'm not sure what you mean about removing the NYTs text; that's what this whole discussion has been about. I believe it's a BLP violation; I also believe there was never a consensus to add the text. (I also feel like my argument for no consensus has not been addressed.) I see there's an argument that we should use a secondary source which summarizes the NYTs investigation, but that would take a long time, and I also feel like this policy issue should be addressed. The NYTs issued clarifications summarizing their investigation which seem like the obvious text to use (quoted below by Petrarchan47). Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to un-indent, because this is moving so far to the right that it's almost off my screen. I am a steel man. Ask me anything about steel and I'll tell you. (Look at my edit history.) I know that's what this discussion is about. That's what I've been saying all along. You may believe that it's a BLP violation, but that's why us BLP experts like Masem and myself have been trying so hard to explain it to you. That's the wrong argument for the right cause, no offense intended. It just is. To put it simply, the NY Times is not an authority on the matter. Their investigation doesn't count for squat. Simply remove it, and WP:BALANCE is satisfied. To rely on the NY Times for this is like relying on them to give medical advice. Likewise, their clarifications don't mean squat.

Look, if this were not a public figure, we wouldn't even have this info in the article unless/until a conviction was secured in a court of law, per WP:BLPCRIME. Since it is a public figure, this article falls under an exemption to that, called WP:WELLKNOWN. We have to say something about it to let the public know that Misplaced Pages is aware it's going on, but we can wait for the authorities to do their own investigation and not rush to put some half-ass investigation from a news outlet into the article. Above all, we still have to go into this with a presumption of innocent until proven guilty. That's where BLPBALANCE comes into play. I sincerely hope that makes sense. Zaereth (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and I wish I could help with your argument about consensus, but there is nothing in my power that I can do about it, although I do agree it should be removed until this is resolved. I've stated my opinion, and perhaps that may sway another, who knows. But that is all I can do. And any admin who involves themselves in this discussion is no longer an admin in this case, but just another user. The job of an admin is to (for the most part) stop disruption, page protect, and block people if necessary. When one feels this has gotten out of hand, I'm sure one will step in. Until then, we're on our own. Zaereth (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm laughing...not at you, but the absurdity of this situation. I asked you to repeat my BLP argument back to me, or better yet steelman my argument, and your response sounds like you're just stating you understand my argument and it's wrong. I feel like I'm speaking a foreign language.

I'm blocked from editing the text, and everyone else is seemingly afraid to. Administrators are not stopping the disruption or addressing the real problem; it's less controversial for them to just block people who violate clear-cut procedural violations. I got blocked after an involved administrator shared with an uninvolved administrator that I violated 1RR, without also sharing the context of the CIVILPOVPUSHING I was faced with. I was careless and distracted when I made the edits, hoping I was technically adhering to 1RR, but 1RR is rigid. I still think it should be removed immediately per BLPBALANCE. You all keep saying no, but I'm not hearing my argument broken down as I understand it. "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints". BLP policy does not say how severe the violation needs to be. Only one piece of the NYTimes' conclusions on the story is given space. You could argue that doesn't constitute "viewpoints", but I would argue this does violate the spirit of the policy. The presentation of the evidence does not just effect Biden's reputation; irresponsibly not giving balanced space to evidence which supports Reade hurts Reade's reputation. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, the sexual assault allegation section violates WP:BLPBALANCE by quoting of only NY Times. The specific NYT words are not significant in effect enough to deserve being quoted, and are not the sole coverage here -- there is missing negative coverage in the corroberation of sources she told. If all details were excluded then it would be just a simple allegation and his denial per BLPPUBLIC. But if the article is going beyond this into details and outside views, then it needs to observe BLPBALANCE to include evidence against Biden, and to follow NPOV in doing so proportionate to the WEIGHT of coverage. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• Agree with MarkBassett and Levivitch; hat tip to Koyla for their tenacity, and to Jayron32 for saying the quiet part out loud. It strikes me that this experiment in building an encyclopedia by consensus by mob rule is a failure, and Jayron32 points to the reason: enforcement of the policies and guidelines is done by volunteers who can just as easily volunteer to look the other way. It is astonishing that anyone would argue we should use the Biden-camp version of the NYT piece without signaling to readers the history and controvery behind the edit, and tell them what it originally said. We are passing it off, as some Democratic leaders have also done, as an independant investigation and the final word (even though it is outdated by about 3 corrborating accounts).

Arb break 1 (Biden)

The Times gave a summary of their Reade reporting when they cleared up a lie being spread about it from the Biden campaign, as evidenced by leaked talking points. (The Biden camp was mischaracterizing the piece as having concluded that they found "the accusation was not credible".) Their summary of the piece removes all spin and shows only the gist:

ur story found three former Senate aides whom Reade said she complained to contemporaneously, all of whom either did not remember the incident or said that it did not happen...The story also included former interns who remembered Reade suddenly changing roles and no longer overseeing them, which took place during the same time period that Reade said she was abruptly reassigned,” the statement continued. “The Times also spoke to a friend who said Reade told her the details of the allegation at the time; another friend and Reade’s brother say she told them of a traumatic sexual incident involving Biden.

I suggest using a summary of this version, but also include the Washingont Posts List of corroborators. petrarchan47คุก 21:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I knew I read that somewhere but I couldn't find it! I had assumed it was a piece in the NYTimes, but it was a statement the NYTimes made to CNN in your link. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, I can't figure out what's going on with the CNN link; I thought I saw your quote there and now I don't. But it looks like the NYTs issued the same statement to HuffPo. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

WaPo has the whole statement which was circulated around the media. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I should stress that from what actual little confirmation or lack thereof that has come out of this for the purposes of an encyclopedia, taking BLP into account but also NOTNEWS factors, the accusation needs mention on Biden's page but little else (the standalone can get into more detail): a statement summarizing what Reade said happened to her from Biden needs to be included, and what Biden and/or his campaign has refuted. Ideally we also want a neutral third party that has done the investigation and the NYtimes' story should be it, normally. The fact that the story mistook and thus created a whole another mess, whether that should be included needs to be determined based on the relevant weight of how much the misuse was covered relative to the original accusations. If only a couple sources picked up on that, then it's probably UNDUE to have in on Biden's page (but okay on the standalone). If it has major weight, then more coverage can be given but I do agree that with the groups grossly simplify the NYTimes story (when the NYTimes was very careful to avoid gross simplifications) as to make Reade look bad, and there's large enough coverage of that, that should be included to reflect the BLP issue towards Reade. What is very clear now is that the Times' quote itself is still fine and not a BLP issue, its the fact groups decided to misquote the Times that's causing the problem, and whether to cover that is a UNDUE evaluation that needs to happen. --Masem (t) 06:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of using the NYTs' clarification has nothing to do with the distortions reported in the media; the purpose of using (a stripped down version of) NYTs' clarification quote is because it may provide consensus text for the existing non-consensus BLP violating text.

I am hearing your declarative statement that the "Times' quote itself is still fine and not a BLP issue towards Reade, but I have not heard a response to my specific concerns. I feel like we're continuing to dance around the question. Please respond about at my last comment. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The Times' clarification is fine to add, but adding it in full would require adding a bunch of details of what happened with the Biden campaign mis-concluding the original Times' conclusion, and for sake of this still being yet an unproven accusation that hasn't made much effect on anything beyond media time, we still want to be high level about it on Biden's page. Something akin to : The New York Times, after interviewing staff at Biden's office at the time, and th friends, family, and associates of Ms. Reade who she told of the incident, and others, found "no other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting" and "no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden". Buzzfeed discovered that the Biden campaign internally concluded from the Times report that the allegated events "did not happen", to which the Times clarified, "Our investigation made no conclusion either way." That would be sufficient fair and neutral to all without getting lost in the weeds of the details of what the issues were behind the situation barring the need to get into it more. --Masem (t) 21:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

No the text you've suggested is not based off of the two quotes we've proposed, which are limited to the clarification and the text I first quoted at 00:30, 5 May 2020.

Masem, this post is about BLP. I have not gotten a response to my concerns about why the existing text violates BLP and lacks consensus. I have heard some of your rationale for your conclusions, but those reasons do not respond to my given rationale for why I believe there is a violation. Do you know what my rationale is? I have tried to explain it, but in this very long conversation I have heard no response. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

As best as I can make out, you feel the Times' statement as taken in the article presently is too terse and seems to omit any of the corroboration that may have come from Reade's friends even though the rest of the article clearly mentions them and that the Times conclusion includes their input. Hence why shorten it up to explain all whom the Times talked too (including Reade's side) removes that issue. If its the two intern part of the story, that's a huge amount of speculation we shouldn't be touching at all. ---Masem (t) 22:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that Times quote is not a summary of their investigation. It is a BLPBALANCE violation against Tara Reade. As the policy states, "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints". BLP policy does not say how severe the violation needs to be. Only one piece of the NYTimes' conclusions on the story is given space. You could argue that doesn't constitute "viewpoints", but they are "claims" about an event, and I would argue this does violate the spirit of the policy. The presentation of the evidence does not just effect Biden's reputation; irresponsibly not giving balanced space to evidence which supports Reade hurts Reade's reputation. That Times quote should be removed. Removing that quote without adding anything else would leave us with a bare-bones and balanced summary. Or, we could replace it with the Times' quote above, "Our investigation made no conclusion either way." Not only should the existing quote be removed for BLP violation, it should be removed because it was inserted against consensus. There may have been consensus to add something about the Time's conclusions, but there was no consensus on what text to use, and that quote has been repeatedly reverted. These violations can be solved in two ways: remove the quote, or replace it with "Our investigation made no conclusion either way." Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Masem, this is what I've been asking you to evaluate. If this is not explained then this whole discussion answered nothing. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

You're arguing that the quote hurts Reade's reputation. (There, I read it back to you.) I ask, what reputation? This is an unknown person who decided to throw herself into the spotlight during an election cycle. Nobody has ever heard of her before now, and while this has made her a public figure, she is not notable enough to have her own article, and really has no reputation to speak of. The only thing anybody really knows about her are her allegations. Nobody is calling her a liar, but we have to treat these allegations as unproven. That's why we say "alleged" when describing them, not to give any less weight to her accusations but make sure we are not unfairly implicating the subject of this article in something that can be very harmful to him. This is not the place to try this case, and we don't need to worry about balancing the evidence. We just need to make sure the subject of the article is not being unfairly convicted before the authorities have a chance to weigh in. Nothing there is being used to imply that these accusations are true, thus no BLP violation exists. As I've said, it is just a content dispute over normal policies, in this case NPOV. And the source in question falls under RS.

Once again, I have no intention of hurting your feelings, but I think you have a misunderstanding about policy and how it works. BLP policy is not a catch-all for anything that happens in a biography. All other policies apply to that bio as well. BLP is there to cover all the things those policies don't, primarily to protect people from harm. She made these allegations, and that has a huge possibility to cause undue harm to the subject. That she might be thought a liar by some was a risk she assumed, and until the authorities weigh in on the matter, she bears that risk willingly. She does not have the same potential for harm as the subject does, not by a long shot. That's why this does not fall under BLP, but the other policies. Arguing like a lawyer never gets anyone anywhere here. We really have to look at all of the policies as a whole, like one giant equation on some Einstein's blackboard, where each factor must be met to satisfy the entire equation. BLP, although it ultimately trumps all other policies, it still works in accordance with and is modified by those same policies, just as they work with and modify each other. While this may be a problem covered by WP:BALANCE, that is a completely separate thing than WP:BLPBALANCE, which is there to protect the subject from harmful accusations, not to protect the accuser from harm, real or perceived, that they may bring to themselves in the act of making those accusation. She assumed that risk. I only hope that makes sense.

Now, as far as I can see, there has never been consensus for this issue one way or another. I've looked at the talk page, and nowhere do I see a place where consensus was established. An uninvolved admin is likely to lock the page from edit warring on whatever version happened to be there at the time if there is no consensus either way, and whoever gets their toes stepped on just has to deal with it. They can't be seen as taking sides, so it's usually done at random. If you want consensus to either remove or add something, it's up to you to build it --on the talk page, not here-- the only consensus we build here is whether something in a grey area is a BLP vio or not. This is not a grey area in that respect.

Now I hope I have answered your questions. I know it's not what you want to hear, but that's the way it is. I still agree that the quote should be removed, but that is an issue for another noticeboard. Zaereth (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry but that does not speak to my BLP questions. And your discussion of the consensus issue lacks precision so I am unsure if you have answered the question. I don't know if you're saying there was no consensus for anything about Tara Reade, or if you believe there is consensus for some things about her allegation but not others. You said, "If I want consensus to remove", but no one should need consensus to remove something that never had consensus.

As for BLP, you're discussing too many things unrelated to my question, and not addressing my question. I'm sorry, but because you haven't addressed them I have to break them down into lawyerly yes or no questions:

1. The BLP policy applies to every person, regardless of whether that person is discussed in the article of another, correct?
2. If we misrepresent an RS in such a way as to present an accuser as a liar, that would be a BLP violation, correct?
3. The Times' quotes included in the article do not provide a balanced summary of the Times' findings, correct?
4. The Times' quotes leave out the half of the story which makes Reade more credible, correct?
5. If we include text in an article presenting a person as less credible than the cited RS presents them, when their credibility is essential to their reputation, that is a BLP vio, correct?

I don't think it matters who could get harmed worse; we just have to accurately present the RS so no one is unduly harmed, but your statement that "She does not have the same potential for harm as the subject does, not by a long shot", is shocking. Biden could lose the presidency and carry on as normal, nothing gained, nothing lost from what he had before. Reade could be murdered. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Point by point : #1: yes, even to those relatively unknown. #2, yes, on the basis of "if" we did that. #3, arguably, yes, does not paint a complete picture as to whom all the Times spoke to. However, #4 is no, because even though #3 omits parts of the what the full story covers, their conclusion incorporates their interviews with Reade's friends and family and still came to the result of inconclusive of any evidence of the event happening. So the answer to #5 here is no, on the point that #3 is a fixable issue by cutting out part of the quote and doing a better job at summarizing the Times' investigation to support what they concluded for #4. --Masem (t) 22:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm hearing you say:

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. You haven't answered this question as it was asked.
5. You haven't answered this question as it was asked.

Ok, I'll start with the simple question, #5. What is "fixable" is irrelevant to my question. #5 is about a hypothetical article; Biden's article is irrelevant. The answer to the question, however, will inform our conclusion about Biden's article.

5. Please answer yes or no: If we include text in an article presenting a person as less credible than the cited RS presents them, when their credibility is essential to their reputation, that is a BLP vio, correct?

I will rephrase #4: Does the following information make Reade more credible: Two people corroborated that in the 90s Reade told them Biden sexually assaulted her. Two other people corroborated that years ago Reade told them of a traumatic sexual incident involving Biden. A 1993 call from Reade's mother to Larry King Live confirms that Reade had told her about a problem in Biden's office at that time which was so serious she considered going to the press. Court documents from 1996 show that Reade told her ex-husband that she had experienced sexual harassment in Biden's office. Two former interns who Reade had supervised remember that she abruptly stopped supervising them within the time frame Reade says she was assaulted. One intern said she thought that was odd at the time. Does this information present her as more credible?

4. Please answer the above, yes or no. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

4 and 5 are both no as we would normally handle such cases. For 4, it is normally "no" because the Times already covers all those parts in summarizing whom they talk to, and even if they didn't state that, because of the reputation of the times, it would normally be presumed that they would not make such a conclusion without seeking all parts of the story; the Times is never going to be going out to discredit anyone in reporting these types of stories, because of their reputation, which is something you're asking us to question. But it is only because of the Biden campaign jumping to a conclusion that the Times did not make does it make sense to make sure readers also don't make the same mistake (particularly if they have only heard the Biden campaign side), and thus summarize the list of ppl the Times talked to from the Apr 12 report, and then conclude with the statement made in the clarification from the post-Biden campaign response that they cannot confirm or deny the accusation. With the New York Times, we should not normally have to do that, but this situation that a major player in the events took it out of hand we can use the more direct clarity, avoid the quote that is causing the problem and use the quote that eliminates it. --Masem (t) 03:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you understand why I feel like you're not listening? (No need to answer and get sidetracked.) I am not "asking us to question" The Times, and that is not an answer to #4. #4 makes no mention of the Times' story. Please do not discuss extraneous inferences that do not help me understand the logic of policy. Please answer #5 as well. (Remember, this question is not about the Biden article either.) Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

As a fundamental question, except for the part about the interns, everything else about #4 bolsters the credibility of her claims. The interns situation is the type of thing that would need more evidence to confirm what happened. But that all said, this is why we have to recognize that the Times already accounted for all those people related to your question #4 in their article in terms of how #5 is to be answered. A hypothetical case: what if it was the Biden campaign said they talked to the people in the office at the time, and only the people in the office (none of Reade's friends) and found no assault took place? Now your line of questions makes sense to where we'd avoid some language on purpose were we to use the Biden's campaign stance. But again, the NYtimes has made it clear they talked to everyone include all those you're pointing out for #4 that boost Reade's credibility, such that there is no harm to it. If everyone had accepted the Times' result that there was nothing actionable and moved on, with no further statements towards Biden NOR Reade, we'd not be here. Its what's happened since that we know we have to refine a bit of what the Times presented to make sure we present the Times' message clear that there was no evidence either way and no one should be taking Reade's claims as uncredible, just impossible to prove at this point. --Masem (t) 13:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

No disrespect, but it hurts your credibility as an expert at policy interpretation when you do not interpret questions accurately. #5 asks nothing about the Reade story. Please do not read into it. Please answer this question: If we include text in an article presenting a person as less credible than the cited RS presents them, when their credibility is essential to their reputation, that is a BLP vio, correct? Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

There's no inalienable right to be considered "credible". It's really important that we source text to secondary RS summary evaluations, such as Vox and NY Times, rather than have WP editors pore over dozens of disparate sources to cobble our own conclusions. This editing issue comes up in BLP and non-BLP articles all the time. SPECIFICO talk 13:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, please stop. I do not want to address the problems with your comments here when I have specific questions for Masem Start a new thread. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, if what you want is a private conversation with Masem, I might suggest that you have that on your talk page or his. As a public noticeboard where editors are encouraged to participate, I should think any relevant, respectful commentary is well within bounds. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll rephrase that, my question is meant for somebody who's going to answer the question, not make disrespectful comments suggesting anyone is cobbling together sources, when the only piece of information not in the New York Times is the word "odd". Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I think Dumuzid and SPECIFICO are introducing static when Kolya Butternut is obviously asking a question of Masem that grows out of an already-developed line of reasoning and argumentation between Kolya Butternut and Masem. Bus stop (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

And you are more than welcome to ignore any "static" from me or any other editor. What sticks in my craw a bit is when one editor appears to be ordering others around. If you'd rather not have contributions from the peanut gallery, don't hold your conversation in front of the peanut gallery. That's all. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Please consider the context of this long discussion and critique the other editors as well. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

So to be perfectly frank: at the core policy level, you are looking for "yes" to both #4 and #5, which I would agree with as basic policy. But policy has to be applied case by case, and I will disagree that they apply to this case for reasons I have explained numerous times before; it requires a very nuanced view of the Times' end statement of their April 12 story to presume the quote used in the article is discrediting Reade and thus a BLP violation. There is a valid reason to argue to not have that quote in light of what the Biden campaign misrepresented the conclusion and the NYTimes' subsequently clarification (that is: to summarize the investigative points of the Times' April 12 article and quote the clarification), but that's due to this exceptional situation, being aware of the mess created beyond the reliable sources. WP cannot take any more of a preferential treatment towards Reade than what you seem to want, and we are not yet any point where any text in Bidens article is harming Reade's reputation, it's only because stuff external to WP that we may want to be more direct and clear to the point as the NYTimes as had to do so there's no question. --Masem (t) 14:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I keep saying that making inferences about what I want and am thinking and discussing things extraneous to my questions are not advancing the conversation.  I am asking specific questions about policy interpretation.  Right now, the Biden campaign's misrepresentation of the New York Times and the  clarification are extraneous to the questions I am asking.

Ignoring everything else: If we include text in an article presenting Reade as less credible than the April 12 Times article presents her, when her credibility is essential to her reputation, that is a BLP vio, correct?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you provided an specific example with your question. Generally speaking, it would not be a WP:BLP violation to "include text in an article presenting Reade as less credible than the April 12 Times article presents her" provided such text is backed up by reliable source(s) and, is not an opinion of the source. It is not our position to determine the credibility of either Biden or Reade. The reader can review the sources and make their own determination as to the credibility of the party. CBS527 16:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I've said it before: Misplaced Pages has no responsibility to "correct" anything that other people do to a source like the NYTimes to misrepresent it, if we ourselves our not including that misrepresentation. We are looking at the NYtimes as a reputable source only, and unless as cbs527 points out that there is severe concern the the NYTimes directly was undermining Reade's credibility, we'd do something about that. But it's not the Times at fault, its Biden's campaign that took the Times at a different conclusion. Technically, we could care less about there, and there is certainly no policy to drive us to correct what external sources that we're not even using have misused, though we can consider an alternative that is a bit more direct to the point like what I've suggested. --Masem (t) 17:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

That comment literally ignored everything I just said.  Please let's avoid non sequiturs.  

Ignoring everything else: If we include text from the April 12 Times source in an article to present Reade as less credible than the April 12 Times article presents her, when her credibility is essential to her reputation, that is a BLP vio, correct? Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

And as I said before many times before, ignoring all else that's happened since, the text incorporated from the April 12 Times articles says nothing to affect Reade's credibility with everything else already there, so there's no BLP violation. --Masem (t) 17:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a yes or no question, reading into The question to answer something else derails the conversation.  I need to understand one piece at a time.  Please answer yes or no.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

KB, it appears that you are starting from the premise that Reade is entitled to be regarded as "credible" and as a consequence that you are concerned that WP accurately citing sources that are sceptical about soome of her allegations might undermine that credibility. If that is your concern, that would not be what our BLP policy is intended to do. It could still be a valid issue for WP:NPOVN. SPECIFICO talk 18:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Please refer back to my previous comment.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

If the question is framed incorrectly, "yes or no" can't resolve it. Ones reputation and credibility are not assets in a vault such that RS reporting of facts can be suppressed as if the reporting were theft or assault. SPECIFICO talk 18:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

If the intention of my question is not clear then I'm sure that someone who intends on answering it could ask for clarification.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

(last attempt) The matter cannot be clarified without discarding the false premise of your questions. They appear to be related to NPOV, not our BLP policy. SPECIFICO talk 18:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Masem, I'll clarify: Ignoring everything else, if we only include text from an RS in an article which presents Reade as less credible than that same RS presents her, when her credibility is essential to her reputation, that is a BLP vio, correct? Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

To that generic question yes.

But one last time this does not apply to the NYTimes quote we are using as, as the quote as taken and in context of our use, does not make Reade less or more credible, so there's no BLP violation at all. --Masem (t) 19:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no need to repeat yourself when I am making clear what I want to understand through yes or no questions. We're getting close.

Now, do these two hypothetical paragraphs for the Joe Biden article convey the same level of credibility towards Read?

1. ...The New York Times reported that "No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade's allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden." A friend said that Ms. Reade told her the details of the allegation at the time. Another friend and a brother of Ms. Reade’s said she told them over the years about a traumatic sexual incident involving Mr. Biden. Two former interns who Reade had supervised corroborate that she abruptly stopped supervising them within the time frame Reade says she was assaulted.
2. ...The New York Times reported that "No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade's allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden." Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they bear the same level of credibility to Reade, or more specifically, neither impact/reduce the credibility to Reade, which is of the biggest concern. Hence why there is no BLP issue here. --Masem (t) 21:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

So we could include all of the evidence from that story which corroborates Reade, and none of the details which corroborate Biden, as long as we keep that Times quote, and there would be no BLPBALANCE violation against Biden? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Makes no difference. It is likely to be reverted for other reasons, already discussed on the artilce talk page at some length. SPECIFICO talk 22:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Please stop interjecting non sequiturs.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

A BLP violation can crop up at any time if one is not careful. Everything depends on the specific text in question, the context its in, and how it's phrased. The only thing I've been trying to explain is why this particular text is not a BLP vio. I really don't care bout the rest of it. Policy is designed to be flexible to account for different situations, and Specifico is right that there are far more policies at play here. I won't comment on future texts that haven't been conceived yet. The only thing I will consider is the text under discussion, which Masem is correct, in that it's not a BLP vio no matter how one tries to spin it. Your best bet is to end this discussion here and begin one on the article's talk page, where the building of any real consensus should take place. And there needs to be a real effort there to achieve some sort of consensus. Only when it can be demonstrated that no consensus will be achieved should you resort to RFC, and then you should accept whatever consensus results, whether you agree with it or not. There is no point in taking the BLUDGEON approach where you argue with anyone and everyone who makes a comment you don't like or understand. And foremost, achieving consensus is about convincing others of your point, and gaining support from others, which will never occur if you continue to fight with and insult and try to make enemies out of everyone, especially those who show some support, albeit in a way you didn't anticipate. Now I have nothing further to say, because this entire conversation is circular, and I really think it's time for someone to come along and close it down. Zaereth (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

That seems really unfair to interject to ask that the discussion be closed down now that we're so close to finally approaching the questions that everyone has been dancing around for so long. Zaereth, please do not characterize me as trying to make enemies and insulting people; I feel like you're not looking at things from my perspective. I am not bludgeoning, it is that others keep talking about everything other than what my concerns are. If you're going offer criticism solely in my direction and not speak to my concerns then your comments are a distraction. This is a discussion about understanding BLP policy, nothing else (besides the original consensus question, which has been left behind). Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Masem, I am asking about BLPBALANCE in the other direction, relative to Biden when using the text I described. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

BLPBALANCE to add that? No. NPOV to how much the situation is being covered on Biden's page? Oh hell yes. You may now WP:DROPTHESTICK. --Masem (t) 23:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems like the confusion is that you are characterizing the Times quote as a conclusion, when it is not a conclusion at all, so Reade's confidants are not summarized by that quote (which appears in the middle of the article). The included text is The New York Times reported that "No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade's allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden." The part about "no other allegation" surfacing is irrelevant to the assault itself, as is whether they found a "pattern of sexual misconduct". So the only piece of the quote relevant to Reade's allegation is "nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade's allegation", but that is not a conclusion about their investigation. That speaks to what the staff members knew, not what Reade's friends knew, so the basis of your conclusion that there is no BLP vio is invalid. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you understand that her friends and family cannot corroborate any details of what actually happened in the offices, only that she told them of the allegations in the past? This is the whole point I started with at the top that you're missing. Her friends weren't at the office, they can't speak to how Biden or any of the other people there behaved. The Times would not be asking them those questions of people who weren't in the office at all. You are failing to listen to all these arguments and at this point beating the dead horse about the BLP. There's a valid NPOV concern but not a BLP for the last time. --Masem (t) 00:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

You said that her confidants did bolster her credibility. You mistakenly interpreted The Times quote as a summary of their findings, when it was not. You said that quote incorporated Reade's confidants, which it did not. The staff members who knew nothing do not tell us whether the assault occurred any more than Reade's confidants tell us the assault occurred.

You said that BLP policy applies to Tara Reade even in Biden's article, you said that The Times' quotes do not provide a balanced summary of The Times' findings, you agreed that the corroboration of her confidants bolstered her credibility .  And lastly, you agreed that if we only include text from an RS in an article which presents Reade as less credible than that same RS presents her, when her credibility is essential to her reputation, that is a BLP vio. (but you say that would not be true if the NYTimes quote we are using does not make Reade less or more credible).  But your opinion on the Times quote was based on the mistaken belief that it was a summary conclusion.  You stated that Reade's corroborators bolster her credibility, therefore Biden's corroborators bolster his credibility, therefore The Times quote does make Reade less credible, therefore there is a BLPBALANCE violation. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I addressed the BLPBALANCE violation with this version. (This edit was immediately reverted with the false claim that the previous version was "stable":

In April 2019, former Biden staffer Tara Reade said that she had felt uncomfortable on several occasions when Biden touched her on her shoulder and neck during her employment in his Senate office in 1993. In March 2020, Reade accused Biden of pushing her against a wall and digitally penetrating her while on Capitol Hill in 1993. On May 1, 2020, Biden said, "It's not true. I'm saying unequivocally it never, never happened, and it didn't. It never happened."

While The New York Times was investigating the Reade allegation,  no other allegation about sexual assault surfaced, and no pattern of sexual misconduct was found. 

References

1. Riquelmy, Alan (April 3, 2019). "Nevada County woman says Joe Biden inappropriately touched her while working in his U.S. Senate office". The Union. Archived from the original on April 1, 2020. Retrieved April 14, 2020. He used to put his hand on my shoulder and run his finger up my neck.
2. Halper, Katie (31 March 2020). "Tara Reade Tells Her Story". Current Affairs. Retrieved 10 May 2020.
3. Phillps, Amber (5 May 2020). "What we know about Tara Reade's sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden". Washington Post. Archived from the original on 6 May 2020. Retrieved 10 May 2020.
4. Lerer, Lisa; Ember, Sydney (2020-04-12). "Examining Tara Reade's Sexual Assault Allegation Against Joe Biden". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-04-25.

I'm not seeking more input; this is just my opinion to conclude this discussion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Esther Mbulakubuza Mbayo

The picture indicated is not for Mbayo but rather for Specioza Wandira Kazibwe (Uganda's first female Vice President) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NellyKapo (talk • contribs) 17:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The article has no picture. If you saw this picture on Google or some other search engine, then we have no control over that. You'd have to take that up with Google. Zaereth (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages The 💕 Copyright Violations

The follow is what is what is above Subject/headline: Content that violates any copyrights

Misplaced Pages : Copyright violations

Jump to navigation Jump to search

"Misplaced Pages :CV" redirects here.

For Courtesy vanishing, see Misplaced Pages : Courtesy vanishing

For the policy on personal webpages, see Misplaced Pages : What Misplaced Pages is not

§ Misplaced Pages is not a blog, Web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site

Green check.svg This page documents a Misplaced Pages policy with legal consideration

Shortcuts WP:CV WP:COPYVIO This page in a nutshell: Do not add content to Misplaced Pages if you think that doing so may be a copyright violation. Contributors should take steps to remove any copyright violations that they find. For more information on copy and pasting text, see Misplaced Pages:Copying text from other sources. For more information on closely paraphrasing text, see Misplaced Pages:Close paraphrasing. SO DOES THAT INFORMATION APPEAR ON EVERYONES "Content that violates any copyrights" ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesenatemployee (talk • contribs)

@Thesenatemployee: We have a template for warning about copyright violations, which links to that page. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Peter Strzok

Additional eyes are needed on this biographical subject in the news. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Gregory Tony

Gregory Tony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), There is an online "newspaper" that has posted info that is derogatory about this person. The online paper is the Florida Bulldog which has information that contradicts an actual newspaper's account Sun Sentinel. The main facts in dispute is that one says he was arrested and charged while the other says he was not arrested or charged and that it was self-defense. Neither source is listed at WP:RSP. If the counter argument based on a published paper can't be used to present the opposing position from what appears to be an online blog, then the entire event shouldn't be in the article at all.ToeFungii (talk) 04:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I have edited the article in question. To centralize discussion, please comment at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § RfC: Is the Florida Bulldog reliable?. Thank you, and stay well, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 07:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC) RSN section link updated 17:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Why was the Philadelphia Daily News article mention also removed? Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

After reviewing the three articles, the controversy should be mentioned using this sentinel article as the primary reference since it discusses both the Philly News and Bulldog article . Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Both sides need presented for WP:NPOV and I think Morbidthoughts suggestion to use the Sun-Sentinel article is a good one. It's used as a source for over 9000 articles on WP and a traditional paper. Tony can't prove a negative, which would be he wasn't charged or arrested because if that's true there would be no docs saying that (even expunged or sealed records remain on a law enforcement inquiry for a record when he was hired). So all he can do is make the statements that he did which is what the Sun-Sentinel reports while the Bulldog does not (and other media picking up the story are basing their reporting on Bulldog thereby ignoring Tony's statements). So saying he was charged/arrested/etc is ok, but Tony's side that he was not should also be presented for a balanced view, ie pro/con.

(The RfC is whether the Bulldog is reliable only mentioning Tony because it's what raised the question, while whether/how this shooting should be reported is the purpose here on BLP noticeboard which isn't the place to argue whether the Bulldog is reliable.) ToeFungii (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The main thing is to report that he shot and killed a man when he was 14 and failed to disclose it when his job expected him to. You can note what he said about why he failed to disclose it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

My issue is that multiple editors removed Tony's contradicting statements, so Morbidthoughts we agree, put both sides out there. To adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:BLP both sides need to be aired. It's no different than Biden's sexual assault allegations. A claim has been made against him, and he disputes it and both sides are aired. If Tony's statements are correct that he was not arrested, then look at the copy of the paperwork in the Sun-Sentinel article and he did not lie. The paperwork asks have you been arrested or fingerprinted. If he was not arrested, then the answer no to that question is not a lie. Make no mistake, if he lied, and its proven, then that should be out there, but thus far there are no sources disclosed in any article incl Bulldog. The only paperwork ever referred to but not made public is a police report which apparently did not state there was an arrest or this would be over. This is like me asking when did you stop beating your wife. If you've never beat your wife, then how do you answer and prove it. The answer is you can't prove a negative which is why such a question would be objected to in court and sustained by a judge. I'll also grant that Tony could make this all clear if he simply gave a release to make the documents public. I'd like to know the truth so I wish he would, but doubt he will, but that does not change the facts as we know them now. Both sides must be presented or the issue should not be allowed on the page. ToeFungii (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

You have to give greater weight to what reliable sources say than Tony's interviews and recollections that may be self-serving. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Josephine Cashman

Josephine Cashman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A user claiming to be the article subject has inserted promotional material instead of purely removing disputed material, while making legal threats. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I have aligned the text with the citations in the article in a neutral manner rather than from her edits. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Adam Riess

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

Can some additional eyes, particularly familiar with BLPs in the sciences, look in on this article? IP user 130.167.171.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is holding himself out at Riess and voicing some concerns about the controversy section of the article. If I follow the salient points, the claims in the controversy section all source from a rival(?) scientist. I think it is worth looking into the IP's claims, even though I'm not ready to pull the section out pre-emptively. —C.Fred (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I removed the suggestion that the data was doctored since the source was a personal blog rather than a peer reviewed journal. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• FWIW. Carrying over content from my duplicate post. Assertion of libelous content removed in this edit. They take umbrage with the Controversy section. I don't see it myself. A complaint from someone claiming to be Riess was carried over to ANI - --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 05:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin: Comparison to Hitler

The Putin page includes two long sections where all kinds of politicians and pundit debate whether he's like Hitler or not. This seems like a BLP violation. It's also just weird and unencyclopedic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Completely agree. Putin may not be a good person but I don't think that sort of content has any value here and comparing people to Hitler is typically not a good thing. Springee (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Obviously WP:UNDUE and a breach of WP:NPOV. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• The stable version had just a couple of sentences, not 13 paragraphs. Editorially it is over-cited and I don't really like the long list of wikilinked names (maybe move them to a footnote?), but probably due. I think addition of a sentence or two from historians noting that Putin is not Hitler (which can be gleaned from Guodata's expansion) would help with neutrality and also serve to show that a brief mention of this viewpoint is due. I do agree that the proposed expanded version quickfails and I have reverted per BLP. VQuakr (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• I think the content even in VQuakr's version is undue, especially as its own section. I also don't particularly see the relevance of the comparisons when made by non-experts. Maybe it would be relevant to include something in the section about Ukraine, but the sources should be high quality and preferably discussing multiple instances of the Hitler comparison, not just a bunch of miscellaneous sources discussing single individual instances. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• Should be removed entirely. I see a huge list of politicians who have compared him with Hitler but Misplaced Pages is not a WP:SOAPBOX and such sections are highly capable of setting a bad precedent. Aman Kumar Goel 12:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Patriot Prayer

Related to the Joey Gibson issue above, my edit to be more WP:NPOV and avoid WP:LABEL in Gibson's group Patriot Prayer has been reverted by two editors, and I would like outside people to look at this contentious topic. I remember from the Stephen Miller example that we avoid or deemphasize the far-right label if they do not adopt it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The label was also reinstated in Joey Gibson's article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

When NBC News directly and factually describes someone as "the leader of a far-right group," The Guardian describes someone as a "far-right leader," KOIN describes someone as "the leader of the far-right group Patriot Prayer," and the Los Angeles Times describes someone as a "far-right activist," it is not in any way a BLP violation to describe either that person or that group as far-right. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

If you looked at the edits, I didn't remove the label. I put it into the next sentence and attribute it in a more passive voice for WP:NPOV. I also wasn't sure why the bit about other groups who attend their rally was in the lead Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The label doesn't need to be attributed, per WP:YESPOV - Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Misplaced Pages's voice. Please explain what is contested or controversial about the factual assertion that Patriot Prayer is a far-right group. That is, which reliable sources expressly reject the label and argue that the group is not far-right? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I may have conflated Gibson's rejection of the alt-right label with far-right (discussed in his article). However these are not factual assertions, rather they are labels based on political opinion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

None of the sources I cited are opinion sources - they are all standard factual news stories. So no, they're not opinion - they're factual statements made by reliable sources. And Gibson is not a reliable source for factual claims - if it is true that he rejects the label, that is probably worthy of mention, but it does not alter our approach to factual statements made by reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, these political labels are subjective depending on where in the spectrum you are.See Fox News News articles are not immune to this either. Gibson has rejected being labeled as such. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts, most far-right figures don't want to be called far-right. The obvious solution is to stop being far-right, but that doesn't seem to be an option for some reason. Guy (help!) 18:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I read Gibson's article and he repeatedly repudiates being far-right and white nationalism and the SPLC doesn't list him or Patriot Prayer, etc. I do understand that you believe the US right is far-right, but just being right wing in the US doesn't mean someone is far-right. I would expect you then to label those on the left, far-left, and expect you to label antifa protesters with the same zeal. Sir Joseph 18:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, I don't actually believe that the entire US right is far-right. There is a worthwhile distinction to be drawn betyween the two still. But they are getting closer together - damning entire religions and putting children in concentration camps is a bit Hitlery, after all.

A lot of sources identify Patriot Prayer as far-right, including the BBC. That makes sense, given what the group does. I have no specific opinion on Gibson. Maybe a moderate can start a far-right group, I would not know, I have never tried. Guy (help!) 19:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

JzG, so Obama is far-right then since the detention centers started in his tenure? Sir Joseph 20:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

You've won the Godwin's law sweepstakes. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that would at all be an instance of Godwin's law, Morbidthoughts. Bus stop (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Uhh, okay there. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

There would be no one who could think "Obama is far-right". I don't think a remark said in a tongue-in-cheek manner would likely be an example of Godwin's law. Bus stop (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you're misreading things. Look at how it's indented. Morbidthoughts' joke is not aimed at Sir Joseph. Zaereth (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. Bus stop (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The Camas-Washougal Post-Record article you linked helpfully explains exactly why it's appropriate for Misplaced Pages to describe him as far-right. I'd recommend you read it carefully. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I read it. How else did I find it? Did you agree with the adopted approach in Stephen_Miller (political advisor) since you participated in that discussion also? I'm trying to understand why using the passive tense is that objectionable if biographical information is supposed to be written conservatively. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

One concern I have is that the source used to label Gibson as far-right is a left-wing UK source. I would imagine someone can find a source from the US to do so. The Guardian is probably not the best source for US political discourse to label people. Sir Joseph 18:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

What does "far right" translate to here? The article does not mention explicitly neo-fascist or neo-nazi ideology, the leaders of the organization have decried white supremacy, and the extend of biogoted proclamations in the text mostly implies Islamophobia. Not that different from other right-wing organizations. Dimadick (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Dimadick, do we care? If that's what RS call the group... Guy (help!) 16:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The problem is the wikilink that attaches to the label. Gibson keeps complaining that the media mischaracterise him so I was curious how academics label him. I learned a new term, alt-lite, which seems to generally describe the group. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

A test that I've suggested before: out of the body of reliable sources that discuss the group or the person, how many of those use "far right"? Focusing on when one or two sources use the two is not good for pushing the label. As a completely simplified first pass via google news:

• "joey gibson" gives 4510 hits
• "joey gibson" +"far right" gives 2170 == 48% , reasonably high enough that its fair game as a label without attribution.
• "patriot prayer" gives 7,800 hits
• "patriot prayer" +"far right" gives 3760 = 48% as well, so same result.

Now, I will generally agree that "far right" should not be used in the first sentence of the lede as a label, or at least not until you get past "X is a y" statement. In the case of Patriot Prayer, I would write that as Patriot Prayer is an activist group based in Portland, Oregon. Broadly considered a far right group, Patriot Prayer describes itself as advocating in favor of free speech and opposing big government.... That removes the first sentence problem but gets the wholly appropriate label as reasonably early and in a statement contrasting with their purpose. --Masem (t) 23:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Masem—I would disagree that "joey gibson" plus "far right" gives 2170 equals 48%, reasonably high enough that its fair game as a label without attribution. Those Google hits are including instances in which both "joey gibson" and "far right" are found at the same website. No surprise there; they are related topics. In general I don't think we should be tossing around labels willy-nilly. The terms are far from clear. And I think the reader should know right away what entity is applying a term such as "far right". Therefore I think we should err on the side of attribution within the sentence, rather than "without attribution". I think it is less preferable to have the attribution buried in a citation at the end of a sentence where the reader might not see it. Bus stop (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

There may be too many to list or credit. That's why I didn't passively attribute the label to a specific source and kept it general in my disputed edits. Masem's suggestion is similar to what was done in Stephen Miller (political advisor), and I agree with his suggestion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Let me back up. A label like "far-right" needs sourcing, no question. Most of the time it should be attributed, but we're asking the question here "are there enough sources that consider Joey Gibson/Patriot Prayer as 'far-right' to be able to not have to use direct attribution"? That is, my example of "Broadly considered" is still attribution but not named because my rough news calc shows enough support for its use. I would still source it but make use of the best and most neutral sources. I can find several news (not opinion) articles on the NYTimes for Gibson, while BBC has "far-right" easily for Patriot-Prayer. This is where being aware of even the bit of leftist nature might be a concern eg, I'd not use The Guardian here for this purpose as its a slightly-left paper from the UK. Not that there aren't plenty of sources for either case though. --Masem (t) 01:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The problem, as has been identified in this thread, is that "far-right" is not a meaningful term. I don't even think "right" and "left" are meaningful terms. Is Bret Weinstein "left" or "right"? Labels in general are problematic. A few good examples can be included in an article: according to Entity ABC so-and-so is "far-right". The reader probably already has an opinion of Entity ABC, and that will help them to understand the characterization of the subject of the article as "far-right". 01:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

You know, I actually agree with you here, Bus stop. Google hits are not a reliable source, because they don't give an accurate tally of sources. Has anyone ever looked at all 5000 hits to see what they actually say? Personally, I would base any assessment upon the reliability of the sources and the context in which the term was used, and compare that with other sources of equal or better reliability. I'd also keep in mind that how a person defines a label is more than a little dependent on that person's own biases and internal value systems (ie: those who lean far-left may likely see anything two inches to the right as being far-right, and visa versa). I'd also keep that in mind when assessing sources, because these days they often take no steps to hide their biases or even try to appear neutral. Personally, I don't think attribution is a bad thing in any instance, so I don't see why not, but then again I haven't dug too deep. I'd also keep in mind, Bus stop, that your argument here is also a good one to use against you up there in the Kosner section. Zaereth (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes I should be clear, that was a simple Google News search. I would definitely recommend a more thorough one that limits to known RS, probably elimininating local sources involved. But the type of analysis should still help determine how frequent the label is applied to the point where attribution-by-named source would be excessive and a broad term should not be too unreasonable. --Masem (t) 01:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

A more meaningful article is created when you say that Entity ABC considers the subject of the article to be a far-right activist, or a left-leaning ideologue. Bus stop (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

if only a handful of papers or journalists that have written about a person or group in the bulk of reliable sources have only used a label like "far-right", then yes, we want to use that type of language ("Entity XYZ considers this group a far-right group"...) but at that point that language does not at all belong in the lede as that's UNDUE as well. If, with the proper source analysis as Zaereth describes below, the label is frequently used by reliable sources given sufficient coverage of the person, we're not going to spend time naming every reliable source that uses that label in a summarizing sentence; we still need avoid the seemingly factual claim that is "X is a far-right activist" in wikivoice (unless we know they self-associate with the label), but we can allude to the broad agreement in sources with the type of language I discussed, and this can be mentioned in the lede. --Masem (t) 13:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Understood, Masem, and I get what you mean. My point is that, I'm one to dig deep into google, never satisfied with the first thing that pops up. Three, sometimes six, seven pages in and it starts throwing whatever it's got at you. It may pick articles that have one word and not the other, and in the bottom corner in small print are the words "missing " Some hits may not even have the words at all. You'll start to come across the same site or book multiple times, because they apparently use the words more than once I guess. I mean, from my experience, I wouldn't use that as my standard. All I'm saying. Although I do think we need to weigh it all to be fair, but some sources carry much more weight than others, generally speaking. Zaereth (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

It appears well sourced. If editors want to take the time to identify the very best sources on the group (high-quality sources with in-depth coverage, ideally from a historical context), then it might be easier to resolve this. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

This is the type of thing that should be done and documented whenever editors agree that a label applies so broadly as to not need direct attribution; this documentation should be to the talk page so that it falls to an archive, so that should an IP/new editor come along and try to edit war the label away, you can point to this analysis section to validate the use. The very slow "edit war" of just trying to justify a label by continuing to add selective sources that use the label isn't the best approach. May be a PITA to do but its once-and-done step that avoids a lot of PITAs in the future. --Masem (t) 16:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Any objection to implementing Masem's suggested edit with the proper citations over how it's currently worded? Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Brendan Leipsic

https://en.wikipedia.org/Brendan_Leipsic

OK, this guy was a naughty boy. But marking him as 'death by Instagram' is vandalism of the Wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.39.35 (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah that edit was vandalism which I reverted. It looks like HickoryOughtShirt?4 semi-protected the page earlier as well. -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Tarek Fatah

Problematic content added by a blocked sock which claims that the subject: "has been criticised for spreading fake news.... Fatah had tweeted the same video twice in the past, each time spreading a different lie against Muslims.... his continued pattern of spreading fake news on Twitter... some critics have argued that he is an external agent who wants to create communal disturbances in India.... AltNews.in accused him of "blurring the lines between rational scepticism and contempt toward the Muslim community."

I am sure that accusing him of being a hoaxer and a liar and using some critic' website and his own opponents to accuse him of promoting violence and religious hatred is absolutely a BLP violation. He hasn't been charged with any of these allegations levied on him by his opponents. --Yoonadue (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Theodore Roethke

Someone added a pic to Theodore Roethke which looks like a completely different person than the original pic in the lead. The caption of the new pic has the right name though. Now there are two different people pictured on one article and I don't know what to do. I know he's not living but wasn't sure where else to ask. Hillelfrei 22:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Relatively easy to judge by image quality that the newly added image is a completely different person than the one documented in the article (the documented one died in 1960s so we can tell the diff). --Masem (t) 22:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

It is a male model. User account reported to UAA Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Brian Krebs

It looks like some serious BLP violations are going on at Brian Krebs including posting of SSNs and other sensitive information by user Drugyn. Please can someone assist, I suggest protecting the article, banning the offending user and removing the sensitive data from the history. Shritwod (talk) 09:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Offending edits have been revdel, the used adding blocked for a week. --Masem (t) 15:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Dana MacDuff

Poorly sourced bio. I attempted to remove names of previous wives, unourced, non notable and BLP concerns. More eyes appreciated. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and afd'd the article due to his unclear notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I thought of that after initiating discussion here; thank you, Morbidthoughts. Isn't there a speedy deletion rationale for articles created by blocked accounts, too? If so, that might be relevant here. 2601:188:180:B8E0:79AD:9587:3F30:15D7 (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

There is but the article has been around over 8 years and been contributed to by multiple editors that a speedy wouldn't be appropriate. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Got it. I've seen it invoked a few times, but have never used it myself. 2601:188:180:B8E0:79AD:9587:3F30:15D7 (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Terry Considine

A brand-new user has made some major edits there with what looks to me like a promotional edge. Bringing it here in the hope of drawing another pair of eyes. --JBL (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Duncan Lemp

Looks like somebody with an axe to grind has got an interest. If I wielded a hatchet on that, it would be a terrible mess. Could somebody (much) more expert in BLPs take a look? Thanks. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 07:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Roxy. Long time no see. That article is a terrible mess. It is full of the opinions of the author, and misrepresents the sources all over the place. Even the Washington Post source, which has the long "quote" in it, that quote is not found in the source anywhere but is another opinionated bit of editorializing from the author.

Most of the sources are good, but are not always accurately portrayed. The American Conservative sources are all op/ed columns and are not good sources. The one thing I see is that this is a case of being notable for only one incidence, unfortunately his death, and I don't think that is enough to pass BLP1E. I think this article is ripe for deletion rather than trying to fix what is there. It certainly hasn't blown up enough in the media to be a stand alone article about this incident. Zaereth (talk) 07:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

If the incident is covered internationally, it may just be renamed to the event to satisfy WP:BIO1E. It really is about an event. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

It may be appropriate to rename it "Duncan Lemp killing". Bus stop (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/Piers_Robinson

Dear Editors,

This page, set up without my knowledge, has repeatedly been edited in order to smear me. It seems a battle between editors has gone on for several years.

At the moment the[REDACTED] page is making two defamatory claims. The first is that my occupation is as a 'conspiracy theorist'. This is false and defamatory.

Second, the page gives the clear impression that I left Sheffield University because I had been accused of spreading conspiracy theories. This is entirely false, my departure from the University ofSheffield had nothing to do with amy criticisms regarding my research.

Unless action is taken to resolve these defamatory claims, I will be forced to consult legal advice.

Yours Sincerely

Dr Piers Robinson Co-Director, Organisation for Propaganda Studies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:46FA:C700:BC59:1B0F:D508:DE4 (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

If you are apparently reputable, can you explain why you promote The Greyzone as a reliable source of information on your twitter account, when it was depreciated as a source on[REDACTED] for publishing "false or fabricated information"? Also, Misplaced Pages abides by the WP:No legal threats policy, do not use charged language like this. If you think content on[REDACTED] is libellous, then you need to contact the email linked at WP:LIBEL. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution