Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 13:14, 23 January 2025

• 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

Poorly sourced Russian spies/ex-spies poisoning claim of Bashar al-Assad

Bashar al-Assad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) BLP attention is needed. On the talk page I have warned about the Russian spies'/ex-spies' Telegram claim of Bashar al-Assad being poisoned being too poorly sourced. Probably because of al-Assad's status as a fugitive wanted for war crimes and crimes against humanity and as an ex-dictator, few people seem to be bothered with leaving the rumour in place, despite the low quality of the sourcing that all point to a viral rumour based on the General SVR Telegram channel. The WP:WEASELly "may have been" and "it was reported that" seem to be seen as sufficient to justify propagating the rumour, without attribution to General SVR as the source of the claim. After half a day, none of the more regular mainstream media sources appear to have said anything about this, including independent reliable Russian sources such as Meduza and The Moscow Times. Currently there are two sentences with the rumour (one in the lead, one in the body of the article). Diffs:

• Adding the rumour:
  • 08:50, 2 January 2025 by BasselHarfouch source = WP:THESUN
  • 18:49, 2 January 2025 by Bri source = The Economic Times
  • 02:04, 3 January 2025 by Richie1509 source = The Economic Times
  • 04:24, 3 January 2025 by Geraldshields11 source = WP:NEWSWEEK
• Removing individual instances of the rumour:
  • 02:14, 3 January 2025 by me (I didn't realise that other occurrences remained)
  • 04:33, 3 January 2025 by Nikkimaria

Boud (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I see, thanks for letting me know about it. Richie1509 (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

See also: Claims of Vladimir Putin's incapacity and death#October 2023 claims of death from the same source. Boud (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing up this point, i was not aware of it. I will be careful in the future BasselHarfouch (talk) 07:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Dear @Boud: Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I understand how important it is to maintain high standards for sourcing on Misplaced Pages. When I added the reference to Newsweek, I did so in good faith, as I recall it being a respected publication during my upbringing. I wasn't aware that the community's perception of the source has shifted over time, and I appreciate you pointing this out. If we had talked about it first, I would have gladly reverted it myself. Collaboration and communication are key to building a better encyclopedia, and I value the chance to learn and improve. Thank you again for bringing this to my attention, and I'll be more careful about vetting sources in the future. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do to help address this matter. Geraldshields11 (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Joe Manchin

Today we have an unnecessary edit war on BLP outgoing Sen. Joe Manchin (and perhaps many other articles this morning) about the addition of infobox data which is factually incorrect at the time of insertion (, diff]). Nobody is arguing the data, just the timing of the edit. While User:Therequiembellishere is one person jumping the gun, they are a longtime contributor here. Their position should be taken in good faith, IMHO. Also in my opinion, these edits are technically BLP violations because they impart incorrect information. Under policy, such clear BLP violations must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion (bolding from the original) by ANY editor. This sort of thing might lead to an edit war in which everybody is trying to do the right thing. Note: the page was correctly edited for the change; one click would have changed it at the proper time of transition.

1. Does this sort of thing happen every opening of congress?

2. Isn't this a potential future problem for BLPN, since edit wars on this are built-in to the apparent excitement of awaiting the actual moment of transition?

3. I'm inclined towards timed page protection, but page protection is not normally done preemptively. Here's the page today literally under attack for BLP violations. If we know this is common for transitions of administration, isn't this an exception?

While this noticeboard doesn't normally discuss policy, should we be aware of such disruption in advance? Making it harder for sooner editors like Therequiembellishere who feel... Well, I'll let them make their own affirmative position here if they wish. BusterD (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Page protections is the only way. IMHO, most editors who do these premature changes every two years, don't actually realize it's too early. They seem to assume once mid-night occurs, start updating. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I raise this issue not to cause a problem today. I'm not trying to unduly embarrass any editor for taking a position I don't agree with. On the other hand, we have established BLP policy the hard way through sometimes brutal disagreements about how to carefully calibrate opposing positions based on good faith argument. I trust the BLP policy because we earned it. We don't need to re-learn these lessons. But we could discuss how to proceed next time. BusterD (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Under policy, it would be within the responsibility of any editor to revert these edits and report the editor to this board. But for my starting this conversation, it would be within my remit to revert the edits, fully protect the page and warn Therequiembellishere (and others). I haven't done that. I want the discussion about what to do next time. BusterD (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand, this is for the next time around when terms end & begin. PS - I should note, that the premature changes in the BLPs tend to have a ripple effect on related pages. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I've said everything I want on this on Manchin's talk. It's just a lot of pedantry by a few editors with obsessive fealty and exactitude that doesn't meaningfully help anything or anyone, least of all a casual reader. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Verifiability is not "pedantry". Members aren't sworn in until noon EST, correct? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I can understand changes being made about 1 or 2 hrs before the actual event, when dealing with so many bios. But 12 hrs before the event, is too early. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Obvious BLP violations are not pedantry. Those edits added provably incorrect information. Can User:Therequiembellishere provide a policy-based answer why those edits do not violate BLP guidance? This is just bad acting under the cover of labelling others. Do they not see that? BusterD (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Therequiembellishere's response here demonstrates we actually have a problem, at least with that user, whose reply here is non-responsive to the issue. BLP policy does indeed require obsessive fealty and exactitude, as long experience with this board has shown. As my OP suggested, any user might justifiably have reverted Therequiembellishere right into 3RR and immediate blocking, just by merely diligently following policy. Therequiembellishere might bookmark this thead for when it happens to them two years from now. I could have done it this morning, but instead chose to create this thread and invite the user to comment. Would preemptive full protection be a reasonable solution to such flippant disruption? BusterD (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I oppose pre-emptive full protection. I strongly support an immediate sitewide block of any repeat offenders, with the block to expire at noon Washington, DC time on the swearing in day. Cullen328 (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm with Therequiembellishere on this: a prediction, especially one based on clear US law, is not a false statement or a BLP violation. Joe Manchin's term does end on January 3rd, 2025, and that was still true on January 2nd, 2025. It's, in fact, been true for over a month now. The only way it could end on a different day would be if Joe Manchin had died before then, which would obviously be a BLP violation to assume.

(Unlike Therequiembellishere I don't even think the opposition is pedantry. Pedants are technically correct; to say that the end of Joe Manchin's term was not January 3rd before January 3rd is not even technically correct. It's just false.) Loki (talk) 07:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

IMO the issue is not the term ending time but the claim Joe Manchin served as senator etc when he was still serving as a senator at the time. Nil Einne (talk) 10:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

For further clarity. I think our readers reasonably understand our articles might be outdated. So if the article says Joe Manchin is serving and his term ended a few hours ago or even a few days ago that's fine. I mean in other cases it's reasonable to expect them to even be weeks or months out of date. But if out article says Joe Manchin served, I think they reasonable would expect he is no longer serving. As I understand it, there's no more issue. But if this reoccurs, I'm not sure Cullen328's solution is correct. I mean if some admin is volunteering to mollycoddle each repeat offender then okay I guess. But otherwise the norm is we expect editors to obey our policy and guidelines by themselves without needing handholding in the form of continual blocks everytime something comes up to stop them. Therefore I'd suggest either an admin subject them to escalating blocks quickly leading up to an indefinite if they repeat perhaps under BLP or AP2; or we do it via community bans. While I'd personally be fine with a site ban, it might be more palatable to the rest of the community if we instead do it as a topic ban on making such changes. With a clear topic ban, hopefully an admin will be more willing to subject them to escalating blocks. Even if not, I think the community would be much more willing to siteban such editors if they repeat after a community topic ban. As a final comment, I also don't see why editor feels it's something so urgent that they need to do it 12 hours in advance. This almost seems one of those lame edits we sometimes get at the ANs resulting from the apparent desire of an editor to be first or get the credit so we have editors creating "drafts" with basically zero content long before there's anything to write about then some other editor is sick of this editor doing this and so ignores the draft and makes their own. Nil Einne (talk) 12:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Technically speaking, if you are still serving you also have served. So it's not technically speaking false, although this really is pedantry and I would not say it's the most true possible statement.

I'm still not convinced it's a BLP violation, though. Loki (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the argument is being made @LokiTheLiar:, that editing in someone is no longer holding an office, when they still are & somebody has assumed office, when they haven't yet, is problematic. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I concur with User:GoodDay. The problem is that such an edit violates WP:NOT, specifically WP:CRYSTALBALL. Yes, it was highly likely and in fact Joe Manchin did survive to January 3, 2025 and completed his last term as a senator as everyone had expected. But posting that information to his infobox before that date was horribly premature. There was no way to know in advance if his term would have been ended prematurely by any number of unpredictable awful scenarios. For example, the end date for the term of Secretary of Transportation Ron Brown is April 3, 1996, the day he died in a plane crash. WP is not in the business of predicting those scenarios. We simply designate a current office holder as "incumbent" and then we add on an end date when we actually reach an end date one way or another. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@BusterD: maybe a RFC or something is required, to establish how to handle future premature changes to such bios. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

List of pornographic performers by decade

• List of pornographic performers by decade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of pornographic performers by decade is a remarkable article in that it has existed for 20 years and yet, if I were to follow WP:BLPREMOVE to the letter right now, I would have to cut the article down to its first sentence, the section headings, and a single see-also. Saying "X is a pornographic performer" is, obviously, a contentious claim, and as such every entry needs its own citation; it's not enough to rely on the articles as their own de facto citations, as is the tolerated practice for noncontroversial lists like List of guitarists. This is all the more the case because the definition of "pornographic performer" is subjective. With help from Petscan, I've found the following people on the list who are not described in their articles as pornographic performers: Fiona Richmond, Amouranth, F1NN5TER, Kei Mizutani, Uta Erickson, Isabel Sarli, Fumio Watanabe, Louis Waldon, Nang Mwe San, Piri, Megan Barton-Hanson, Aella (writer). Many (all?) of them are sex workers of some sort, so in each case, there may be a reliable source that exists that calls them a pornographic performer, but without one, it's a flagrant BLP violation. And if it were just those, I'd remove them and be done with it, but even for the ones whose articles do call them pornographic performers, there's no guarantee of being right. I removed Miriam Rivera from the list after seeing that an IP had removed the mentions of porn in her article, which had indeed been sourced to a press release about a fictionalized depiction of her life. No, each of these entries needs an individual citation appearing on the list article so that the claims can be judged.

So, there are about 650 entries, and we know at least some are questionable, and we cannot assume that any of the rest are correct. What do we do? Again, the letter-of-BLP answer here is to remove the unsourced items, but that would leave literally nothing. The only two citations in the whole thing are to search pages on two non-RS porn databases. So at that point we might as well apply WP:BLPDELETE. Another solution would be to find sources for, I don't know, two or three people in each heading, just so it's not empty, remove everything else, and stick {{incomplete list}} there. A third option is AfD. Does anyone have any ideas?

P.S. I haven't even looked at other lists of pornographic performers. Are they all like this? -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 05:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't have a solution to this @Tamzin, but the first name I looked at was Isabel Sarli. Her article references her full frontal appearance and describes it as sexploitation. Sexploitation films are not pornographic films. I can't see any mention of pornographic acting in her article? This is a problem. Knitsey (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Doing some spot-checking, Kōji Wakamatsu is described in his article as a director of pink films but not as an actor – and it does not seem as though pink films are necessarily pornographic; Harry S. Morgan is categorised as a porn actor but the text of the article does not seem to support this. Clearly there's a problem here. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Hm, yes, per WP:BLP each LP on this list should have a decent ref (better than Internet Adult Film Database, see ), and it wouldn't hurt the others either. I'm slightly reminded of a complaint I made at Talk:Holocaust_denial/Archive_21#Notable_Holocaust_deniers. It's not the same, but it's still sensitive. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Btw, per List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films and List of actors in gay pornographic films, it seems they're not all like that, but List of British pornographic actors lists people without WP-articles, my knee-jerk reaction is that that's not good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

List of British pornographic actors most seem to be referenced using "International Adult Film Database" which is user generated. Imdb for born actors. Knitsey (talk) 07:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_British_pornographic_actors#People_without_WP-articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I thought we'd dealt with this before and it was no longer a problem. I'm sure in previous discussions we're generally agrees such lists should only contain notable individuals with articles i.e. no black links or red links (if an editor believes someone is notable they need to create the article first). I thought we'd also agreed to strictly require inline citations when adding names regardless of what the individual articles say. I couldn't find many of the previous discussions though but did find we seem to have a lot more of these lists in the past. Nil Einne (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm aware of a few circumstances in which pornographic actors faced serious obstacles in their lives after leaving the industry and tried hard to separate themselves from their prior career. I would hope, in these cases, we respect their wishes and just leave them off. Simonm223 (talk) 12:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Depending on situation, we might or we might not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

My main concern is for people who have explicitly expressed that they no longer want to be public people, being honest. Those who have struggled to transition to non-pornographic acting, music, etc. is less of my concern. Simonm223 (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

That's understandable but it runs into issues with WP:PUBLICFIGURE where editors think that once someone is a public figure, it is forever.

Recently there was I believe the son of a lady who had appeared in Playboy a long time ago who had asked for her article to be removed on BLPN. The specifics that I remember are vague, but essentially she had been a Playmate one year and editors had built an article for her even though she was a relatively private person other than the fact she was in Playboy in the early 80's. The family member had suggested that the article basically loomed over her head and caused harm to her reputation since it was something she did once 30+ years ago and distanced herself from almost immediately. I can't say i disagree that in cases like that, there shouldn't be an article.

Awshort (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that specific case but that is precisely the sort of circumstance under which I think a private person's right to privacy should be weighed more important than Misplaced Pages completionism. Simonm223 (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm reminded of Richard Desmond per . Other end of the scale, perhaps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Nil Einne You may be thinking of this discussion which you commented on.

Awshort (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it was really that, although I did forget about it so thanks for reminding me. One of the issues with that list is since it was such a high profile case I felt it likely there would at least be secondary source coverage, and also as pornographic appearances go, I feel being Playmate is a lot less controversial than other stuff; so while it was bad, I didn't feel it quite as severe as most of the other stuff we're doing or have been doing. I was thinking of older discussions probably especially the RfC below. Nil Einne (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know where to get sources for this. I would suggest doing as you say, and cutting every non-verifiable person from the page. Anyone interested can hunt down acceptable sources for each entry. GeogSage 01:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Given the lack of referencing and the entries included in error, pointed out above, then I would be in favour of removing every unreferenced entry on the list. If that leaves literally nothing, well - AFD. If somebody really wants this information, well, categories exist. Bastun 14:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I would support this as well, and honestly would probably still vote to delete a list with only the referenced entries if it were brought at AfD. A list page doing the job of one or several category pages and nothing more has no purpose. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 13:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Would a blank-and-soft-redirect to Category:Pornographic film actors be a good solution here? That way the list is still in the history for anyone who wants to restore it with references. The "by decade" might be misleading in that case, but we could first reverse the hard redirect from List of pornographic performers, which this probably should have been at anyways. Another option would be a list of lists at Lists of pornographic performers and redirecting there. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 18:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I think your first suggestion is a good idea, I'd support that for sure. Definitely less favorable to a list of lists though. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 20:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• I knew we had a lengthy RfC/Discussion about this subject matter, it just took me a while to find it though – Unreferenced lists and porn stars RFC, and also this AfD as well. Discussions are ten years old, but I don't think anything in the lengthy close of the RfC has changed. I was one of the volunteers who helped add refs to this article → List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films, which if I recall correctly, was the impetus for the RfC. Good luck, sourcing these types of lists are a massive chore. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  RFC closer said in 2014:

  Q: Should all pre-existing lists of porn performers have a reliable source supporting each entry?

  A: The rough consensus below is that it's always more controversial to call someone a porn performer than to say they're engaged in most other professions. A reliable source should be added for every entry that's challenged or likely to be challenged. But as a concession to the practicalities, editors are asked not to go through the pre-existing lists making large-scale and unilateral challenges, as this will overwhelm the people who maintain these lists with work, and there is a legitimate concern that this is unfair. If you do intend to remove unsourced entries, please proceed at a reasonable, non-disruptive speed dealing with what you judge to be the highest-priority cases first. If you could easily source an entry yourself, then removing it as unsourced is rather unhelpful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Well, removing ~650 entries after 10 years of the list's maintainers doing nothing to fix this would average out to, what, ~1.2 per week since that RfC? That seems like a reasonable, non-disruptive speed to me. Courtesy ping @S Marshall. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 16:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I do vaguely remember making that close ten years ago. I agree that it's appropriate to implement its outcome in full now.—S Marshall T/C 17:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  I support that. GeogSage 01:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Based on discussion above, I have redirected the list to Category:Pornographic actors. This way, the content is still there in the history, and can be restored by any editor willing to take the time to dig up the sources. If anyone objects, I'm happy to argue the case at AfD. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 03:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

For the interested, Talk:List_of_British_pornographic_actors#People_without_WP-articles is ongoing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Citations are a WP:SURMOUNTABLE issue. In 2018 (example here), every BLP entry required and had WP:RS citations. Editors at the time considered the requirement to be overkill, and a requirement for an existing WP article supported by good references was deemed sufficient. It was a compromise among editors. Does selectively restoring the sourced 2018 content and then re-adding male, non-binary and new female entries that can be sourced sound like a viable plan to you? • Gene93k (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you consider AVN (magazine) a good enough source in context? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

AVN's newsroom content is considered reliable as noted at WP:RSPS. Caution must be applied in distinguishing hard news reporting from repackaged press releases. If an AVN citation is not good enough, other references that sustain notability for the existing stand-alone WP article can be brought in to overcome any BLP concerns. • Gene93k (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Gene93k: I find it very strange for an article to have had a recentish consensus to move away from a more BLP-compliant version. But I guess overall I'm relieved to know that there was a more compliant version once. Yes, definitely no objection to restoring the sourced version, as long as the sources used are reliable, and then to adding back previously-unsourced entries as people find sources for them. If you do so, let me know, and I'll go retarget all the redirects that have just been retargeted to the category. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 00:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Kith Meng

This person's Misplaced Pages page is being continually changed to remove any mentions of well-documented accusations against him, often by Misplaced Pages accounts that are named after his companies. Now somebody who seems to be a bit more knowledgeable about Misplaced Pages has removed all of the references to crime and corruption, despite them being widely reported on by the press, claiming that it violates Misplaced Pages's policies to mention any accusations if they haven't been proven in court. But many of the incidents mentioned are verifiable, even if he wasn't actually convicted of a crime over them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khatix (talk • contribs) 07:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

FYI, this is the disputed edit by Georgeee101 who raised BLPCRIME. I guess the question is whether Meng is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE for the allegations to be reinstated. That could be done through a RfC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I have to be honest, I don't know what that means. I am not a big Wikipedian, I just do edits to articles about Cambodia. Kith Meng is pretty notorious here, there are countless independent articles about some of his antics. But I noticed that his Misplaced Pages page kept getting updated by somebody whose username was the name of one of his companies. I kept undoing them, which wasn't a big deal because they were mostly unsourced, written in poor English. But these new edits are also sanitizing his Misplaced Pages page, removing all of the corruption and scandals and reading like one of his publicity announcements, but this time by somebody who seems to know what they're doing. clicking undo didn't do anything. I assume he hired a specialist. Khatix (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It means you should start a discussion on the talk page of the article on whether the allegations should be included given the available sources that are reporting on them. If there is not enough participation, you can notify Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cambodia or request a WP:RfC for outside comment. You should also assume good faith on the intentions of other editors and not presume that they are undisclosed paid editors. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I started a discussion and included some different sources from the different media outlets. If nobody responds for awhile, is it alright for me to unilaterally edit it again? I am not sure what the rules are for trying to settle these sorts of disagreements. I used to always change it back when the account removing the corruption allegations was openly his PR team, but I am a bit nervous about being seen as a vandal if I undo it now that it's somebody else. Khatix (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Now that it's been disputed under BLP grounds, you must gain consensus before reinstating them. That is why I encourage you to notify Wikiproject Cambodia of the discussion and then a RfC to gather more participation. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Scott Ritter Biography - Noncompliance with MOS and BLP Guidelines

I am requesting approval to fix issues in the Scott Ritter article regarding the description of his convictions. The article states in its second sentence: He is a convicted child sex offender. Labeling Ritter as a "child sex offender" carries moral judgment and appears to be name-calling, which the MOS explicitly warns against. According to MOS:CONVICTEDFELON: Labels such as "convicted sex offender" are imprecise and could be construed as name-calling or a moral judgement. It is better to describe the specific crime itself. The current wording fails to comply with this guideline.

2) Undue Weight: MOS:CONVICTEDFELON states that legal issues should only be highlighted in the lead if central to a person’s notability, which is not the case with Ritter's convictions. His notable career as a UN weapons inspector and outspoken critic of the Iraq War is the basis for his fame, not his convictions. Placing this legal information in the second sentence gives it undue prominence, overshadowing his primary achievements. Convictions for online communications with an undercover officer are not what make Ritter notable, as many non-notable individuals face similar charges and nobody is writing their Misplaced Pages bios.

3) Imprecision: The term child sex offender in the Ritter bio links to the article for child sexual abuse, which that article defines as a form of child abuse in which an adult or older adolescent uses a child for sexual stimulation, whereas Ritter's convictions involved contact with an adult undercover police officer posing as a minor. This distinction is significant and misrepresented by the current label.

To bring the article in line with Misplaced Pages's policies, I propose we replace He is a convicted child sex offender with: In 2011, Ritter was convicted of several criminal offenses following an undercover sting operation, during which he engaged in sexually explicit online communications with a police officer posing as a minor. This phrasing avoids imprecise labeling and provides accurate context.

Placement Adjustment: Move this information to a "Legal issues" or "Controversies" section later in the article, ensuring balance and compliance with the undue weight guideline. However, since this information is already covered in the body, we should simply remove the statement from the first paragraph, or move it down to the bottom of the second paragraph.

I attempted to edit the article to reflect these changes, but my edits were reverted with the explanation that "there was consensus found to include this in the lead." However, no justification was provided for how the current wording and placement comply with MOS and BLP policies. I raised my concerns on the article's Talk Page, but they have not been addressed. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think "convicted sex offender" is particularly useful in a lead given the breadth of its meaning, and I think it makes far more sense to describe the conviction. The current lead does seem to violate the MOS guideline. – notwally (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I've changed this per the suggestion. Hopefully the problem is solved. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

An editor just reverted the changes without discussion () after I had already made an article talk page comment about this BLPN topic and the violation of MOS policies (). Lardlegwarmers (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

We're instructed not to make stand alone controversies sections etc so that would be the opposite of balance and compliance with the undue weight guideline unless I'm missing something here. Do you mean as a seperate section of the lead? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Doing like it was in this diff: would be good; a more accurate sentence, at the bottom of the lead, that gives details about the conviction. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes that is preferable, in the lead but not in the first sentence. I think we could say less than that though. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Please note that That One Editor has once again reverted it to being the less-detailed version in the first paragraph (after having been stymied on a campaign to add unsourced or miss-sourced material to the full sentence.) Can we get more hands on this? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back Would you like to propose some language? The key is that we should briefly but accurately state the facts of his conviction instead of labeling his person as such. It seems notable that the convictions resulted from a sting operation (versus contact with an actual minor). Lardlegwarmers (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

How about "In 2011, Ritter was convicted of criminal offenses after engaging in sexually explicit online communications with a police officer posing as a minor." Pretty close to OP's proffer but a little shorter. JFHJr (㊟) 01:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Now at AE, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Luganchanka. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure it should be in the lead at all as it doesn't seem like the thing that made him notable. However, if he is only notable for the combination of his offense plus his other work then the lead should make that clear. As a stand alone fact it should either be at the end of the lead or not at all. Springee (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

He is only notable for his other career activities. The criminal offenses by themselves fail notability. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:LEDE is supposed to summarize the article rather than merely stating the notability of the subject. The article has a top-level "§Arrests and conviction for sex offenses" section, so a sentence in the lede noting that aspect of the topic is reasonable. Per CONVICTEDFELON, the fact that it's not specifically relevant to his notability means it can go fairly late in the lede rather than in the first sentence where the person is identified and notability established. In contrast with the CONVICTEDFELON thought about not including it at all per Tim Allen, that person's article does not have a top-level section about it. And unlike that case, where it seems to be an isolated biographical aspect, here there is at least a mention in the criminality section that does relate to the Iraq aspect, which is a major part of his notability. DMacks (talk) 04:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC:

To settle the issue once and for all, I have created an RfC on the adice of RTH at AE, see Talk:Scott_Ritter#RfC:_Ritter's_sexual_sex_offenses_convictions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: the consensus ("Providing clarity that Ritter's offenses were not with an actual child was the consensus of the BLPN discussion and I think is the most reasonable position.") you describe on that talk page as existing here doesn't appear to exist. Was it a different discussion being referenced? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that there is no consensus about the "actual child" aspect. The consensus that seems to be forming here is that the crime should be described per MOS:CRIMINAL rather than merely using a term such as "child sex offender". – notwally (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Peter Berg

There seems to be some editing back and forth going on in the Personal Life section re: Caitlyn Jenner controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearlessfool (talk • contribs) 01:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

What's the back and forth? There don't seem to be recent back and forth problems in the edit history. Do you mean WP:UNDUE discussion in the prose? Please feel free to voice your concern on the article talkpage before escalating here. This is a forum for when consensus isn't apparent or serious BLP violations occur. JFHJr (㊟) 03:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any back and forth either, but in my view, using WP:TMZ as the sole source for that paragraph is a BLPVIO. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I gave it a shot. If you'd still like to replace the TMZ cite with a cn tag, I wouldn't dispute it. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 00:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think leaving it unsourced is the best solution, so I just replaced TMZ with better sources, since it received widespread coverage in multiple sources. I do appreciate your effort though. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Sandra Kälin

This article and its references are a combination of two different people (de:Sandra Kälin to see the german article for both), how should this be best addressed? Split and 2 Stubs? Nobody (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Yep. JFHJr (㊟) 21:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Coréon Dú

I tried removing promotional-sounding text and irrelevant citations on this article a while back. I also rewrote the section on nepotism and his work which has now been blanked.

Theyve been reverted and the sections on criticism marked as disputed, by an account that has only edited this article: .

Could someone take a look? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FossilWave (talk • contribs) 20:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Michael Caton-Jones

This article features the following paragraph thatwas removed today by an IP (wwho otherwise seems to be engaged in puffery - adding various unsourced awards cruft, referring to the subject by his first name)

Caton-Jones has been accused of sexual harassment with Sharon Stone alleging in Vogue Portugal that during the shooting of Basic Instinct 2 he asked her to sit on his lap to receive directions and refused to shoot if she did not do so. She stated "I can say we all hated that and I think the film reflects the quality of the atmosphere we all worked in”.

It previously linked to this as a source - https://www.vogue.pt/sharon-stone-interview, a page which no longer exists but did as recently as December 19 last year https://web.archive.org/web/20241219112132/https://www.vogue.pt/sharon-stone-interview

In that original article the actual quote is "I loved doing most of my films. Hated? Well, I worked with a director on Basic 2 who asked me to sit on his lap each day to receive his direction, and when I refused he wouldn’t shoot me."

Basic Instinct 2 was directed by Caton James but original source doesn't name him. The subsequent source cited at the end of the paragraph does however - https://www.ibtimes.co.in/you-got-hired-if-you-were-fkable-says-sharon-stone-recreate-basic-instinct-scene-797651

The orginal story about "a director" is well sourced in various pirces from around the time of the publication of Stone's memoir. https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2021/03/sharon-stone-on-how-basic-instinct-nearly-broke-her?srsltid=AfmBOoqO1KjUnXmRZSUZYl3RHgCqkYT8itBvDv6BJg7kNDOESs8wjd-5 , https://deadline.com/2021/03/sharon-stone-me-too-experiences-the-beauty-of-living-memoir-news-1234718660/

Should this paragraph be in the article? It feels like SYNTH to name him as the subject of the allegation, but there is at least one source that does so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golikom (talk • contribs) 12:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:Syn is intended to stop us connecting different things when no reliable secondary source has made the connection. It does not apply to connections made by reliable secondary sources. However per WP:RSPS International Business Times is not generally considered reliable so if that's the only source then there are no sources and it would be syn to add it to Caton-Jones article based on sources talking about Stone's allegation and other sources which say he was the director but which don't mention Stone's allegation. Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I should further clarify that appearing in a reliable secondary source doesn't guarantee inclusion, it just means syn isn't really our concern any more but instead issues like WP:UNDUE etc. Nil Einne (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ido Kedar

This one is a bit strange. I am bringing it here because I do not wish to be directly involved but it may warrant neutral eyes. The subject, Ido Kedar is non-verbal and suffers from autism. He has two books which are said to be authored by him, runs a blog, and does presentations. At one stage he was using facilitated communication which has serious problems and is certainly pseudoscience, but videos also show him independently typing on an iPad keyboard. Those videos makes it look a lot more like augmentative and alternative communication, which is credible. Anyway, the AFD is going down the lines of accusing the subject, who is a living person whether or not he has autism, of not having written anything and being incapable of communication. I'm concerned that such accusations are degrading, especially if, as the sources claim, he is capable of communication and also considering that there are no BLP sources that say he is not. I am not sure of the best way of tackling this, but if he can communicate, as the sources claim, unsourced accusations that it is faked and that he is having his fingers dragged by someone else across a keyboard seem like BLP violations instead of the usual AFD discourse. - Bilby (talk) 10:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Wow, yes, it's completely clear that he can communicate independently at this point. I was hoping Misplaced Pages had got over this panic of erasing everybody who has ever used anything that looks anything life FC/RPM. Thanks for bringing it here.

One video of him communicating independently, for reference. Oolong (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm less concerned as to whether or not he communicates independently. I am concerned that he may communicate independently, and statements such as "Someone grabbed his fingers and moved them on a keyboard to type a lot of stuff" or "our article about how he has written books is fiction" are degrading and feel like BLP concerns. If there is a possibility that he can communicate, direct unsourced accusations such as this are extremely insulting. - Bilby (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Bilby, what do you suggest? The BLP policy clearly applies to the AfD discussion. I agree that there are comments in that discussion that are contrary to some of the BLP policy, especially the parts about removing "contentious material ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced" (I'd say your quotes falls into this category) and never using SPS "as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article" (some people have linked to / referenced blogs). Once or twice I've removed content from articles for BLP violations, but I've never removed an editor's comments from a discussion, and I'm hesitant to do so, partly because I'm not that experienced an editor (though I'm not a newbie) and also because of my extensive participation in that AfD discussion. I guess I'll start by simply posting a reminder of the relevant parts of the BLP policy and asking people to check their own comments (and I'll check mine). Do you have any guidance about whether something else should be done? And if any other editors have guidance, please weigh in. Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

At this point the thing is a train wreck. We woud have to delete various !votes to clean it up, along with a number of comments, which is going to be ugly. At this stage I think a courtesy blanking is going to be required once it is over, but I am not sure what we can do in the meantime. - Bilby (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I think Berchanhimez's suggestion would work. Although I left a general note there yesterday, I didn't name anyone in my comment, and another option might be to ping specific editors whose comments are concerning, to see whether they'll act themselves after being asked specifically. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems like the most sensible way forward. - Bilby (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

For blatant BLP violations, the template {{BLP violation removed}} can be used - it redirects to {{RBLPV}} and produces the following (BLP violation removed). That allows you to remove only the text (down to the specific word) that is a BLP violation. When editing other peoples' comments, as allowed by point 4 in TPO, you should strive to remove as little as possible. As an example, if the statement is Not a vote berchanhimez was convicted of arson and he is a wifebeater who other people have said smells funny" (signature here) then I would only change it to Not a vote berchanhimez was (BLP violation removed) and he is a (BLP violation removed) who other people have said (BLP violation removed)" (signature here). That allows the bulk of the comment, including the !vote, to remain while removing the specific terms arising to the BLP violation. At the least the !vote and the signature can be retained. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for that info and the example, which was helpful. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez: That is correct, but in this case there is no blatant BLP violation, and editing the comments of others against their wishes is very very likely to be counterproductive, see here. Polygnotus (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:BLP itself doesn't seem to allow as much wiggle room for 'non-blatant' violations. It's pretty plain: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion and The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material. I'm certainly in agreement that practices of facilitated communication is rightly discredited, but if I'm understanding rightly that users are making a leap from that to conclude and say, repeatedly, without BLP-appropriate sourcing that this particular living person, who happens to be autistic and nonverbal, must be incapable of communicating—contrary, crucially, to what reliable sources report about him (and these sources don't say he's communicating via facilitated communication; they describe him independently typing words with no description of physical 'aid')—then I'd say that that's quite contentious material about a living person. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

if I'm understanding rightly nope. Why did you not read the page before responding? Polygnotus (talk) 07:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Why did you not read the page before responding? I did read the deletion discussion page, and there are literally users saying what I said they're saying. Should we be asking if you read the page? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

And yet that is not what you claimed happened... Q.E.D. Polygnotus (talk) 07:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Your Albert Tappman impression is wasted on me. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hydrangeans: If you do not understand what I am saying then I am happy to explain. Polygnotus (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Polygnotus: what I'm seeing is you aggressively dismissing another editor's seemingly reasonable description of what's happening, without explaining yourself at all. - Oolong (talk) 08:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I love tea! The aggressive behaviour came from the other side, and that description of what's happening is either misinterpreted or incorrect (depending on which one you are referring to, the one at the start of this section or the one that contains if I'm understanding rightly). People could've just asked for help; I am happy to explain. Do you have any specific question? Polygnotus (talk) 08:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that. Are you saying it's untrue that peope have said "repeatedly, without BLP-appropriate sourcing that this particular living person, who happens to be autistic and nonverbal, must be incapable of communicating"? Oolong (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Oolong: Yes, I am saying that that is untrue. At least not in that AfD at that point in space and time. If I missed something (perhaps on another page, perhaps something that was later removed) I would like WP:DIFFs. Polygnotus (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Oolong: sorry I forgot to ping. Polygnotus (talk) 08:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I turned it into a little table for those curious. I've extracted the relevant parts, but please also check the full context to see if I did that correctly. It should be obvious that the left column is not a accurate description of the contents of the right column.

• users is plural, only one diff was provided.
• say, repeatedly only one diff was provided and it did not contain repetition. The user left only a single comment.
• must be incapable of communicating that is not what it says. The right column contains what appears to be a description of facilitated communication, but says nothing about an inability to communicate.

So to then claim that there are literally users saying what I said they're saying is silly. The only reasonable explanation is that they did not read the AfD but based their entire comment on the first comment in this section, which incorrectly states: the AFD is going down the lines of accusing the subject ... of not having written anything and being incapable of communication.. Polygnotus (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Polygnotus, I disagree that there are no blatant BLP violations. Re: "Someone grabbed his fingers and moved them on a keyboard to type a lot of stuff," the editor made no attempt to provide RS for this, it's false (notwithstanding your assumption that it "appears to be a description of facilitated communication"), and it's degrading. I consider that a contentious claim about a living person. There are multiple editors making these kinds of statements in the AfD discussion (e.g., one editor asserts "none of this is actually him" without providing any evidence for it, more than one editor has analogized the article's RSs to media credulously reporting that someone has psychic powers and is communicating with the dead, another editor said that the article was WP:INUNIVERSE, "Yes, that is about works of fiction. As appears to be most of this article"). Frankly, I'm baffled that you don't consider these contentious. A couple have cited blogs, which is contrary to BLPSPS. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I disagree I think we can agree to disagree on that one since there are a billion other things we agree on. the editor made no attempt to provide RS for this we don't usually require RS for opinions on talkpages. it's false Wasn't FC tried at some point? it's degrading I don't think that is the case or (perhaps more importantly) the intention. Perhaps an incomplete description or even understanding of the situation? I (think I) understand how we read that AfD so differently. Mocking FC is not the same as mocking a person. Polygnotus (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Polygnotus, I'm not actually sure what you think we agree on. Whether people do or don't refer to RSs on a talk page —and more importantly, whether they need to cite an RS — depends on the specific issue being discussed. If an editor makes make what appears to be an entirely false claim about a living person, where that claim is also insulting to the person the claim is about, then that editor had better provide an RS to show that the claim isn't false.

Re: "Wasn't FC tried at some point?", I don't entirely understand why you're asking this, so I'm not sure that my response will actually be responsive, but here goes: Ido Kedar uses FC. But if you look at video, no one is touching him, much less grabbing his fingers and moving them around the keyboard (the implication being that it's the facilitator—his mother—who is authoring the content rather than Ido Kedar). Even if the editor's intention wasn't to degrade, that's the effect, and the BLP policy focuses on the effect, not the intention. You're also entirely silent about the other examples I pointed out, even things that should be totally black and white, such as the fact that some editors are supporting their claims about Kedar with blogs, in violation of BLPSPS. I don't understand why we're reading it so differently; since you think you do, I'd appreciate your sharing your conjecture about this. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion: One quick question before I write a more detailed response. Ido Kedar uses FC. But if you look at video, no one is touching him, much less grabbing his fingers and moving them around the keyboard (the implication being that it's the facilitator—his mother—who is authoring the content rather than Ido Kedar). Do you think that that video (at about 1 minute), in which no one is touching him (or the iPad) and he is typing on his own without any outside help, is an example of FC? Because I certainly do not. Polygnotus (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I am new to learning about FC, RPM and other augmented means of communication. (I've only started learning about them since entering the AfD discussion for this article.) The WP article on FC — admittedly, not necessarily a reliable source — says "In some cases, patients learn to give specific responses to cues from the facilitator, such as in cases where the facilitator only touches their shoulder or does not touch the patient at all," still considering that to be FC. Several other editors in the AfD discussion are calling his communication FC, and yes, they've seen similar videos of him typing, which they dismiss, saying things like "The handlers are still present in that video. They can still prompt" and "the facilitator is within sight of the person, they can still be cuing the person." Moreover, whether or not one considers it FC, the claim that "Someone grabbed his fingers and moved them on a keyboard to type a lot of stuff" is false and therefore a unsourced contentious statement about a living person. In other words, a BLP violation. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Louis Theroux has an interesting documentary about facilitated communication called Tell Them You Love Me. Not an easy watch! I am certain that the people dunking on FC are not talking about people who communicate on their own. And they are not insulting/mocking the BLP subject, but FC. FC has caused a lot of suffering for non-verbal people (and their families), which is messed up. Polygnotus (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Wow, no, they are absolutely insulting the BLP subject. The example in your table above is an insulting false claim about the BLP subject. Here are other examples (click through to read the insulting text, which I'm not going to quote): "none of this is ...," "This is especially concerning...," "The skeptics who have commented..." (which links to a blog discussion about the BLP subject, and that same blog was linked to a second time later), "Sources which uncritically argue...", this entire comment, "To be clear, yes...," "this is just another story...," and that's probably only half the examples. Have you truly read that entire discussion? FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The thing is, facilitated communication is a strawman. Kedar does not use FC. I know everyone is running around in the AFD saying that FC is a psuedoscience, and therefore it does not work, but it isn't even being used in this case. - Bilby (talk) 10:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, I've now raised that issue with a few people in the AfD discussion, and I'll see what they say. FWIW, WP's FC article says "In some cases, patients learn to give specific responses to cues from the facilitator, such as in cases where the facilitator only touches their shoulder or does not touch the patient at all," sourced to an article reproduced from the Pasadena Weekly by an arts editor that says "Sometimes, the influence of the facilitator is less obvious, because the facilitator might not hold the person’s hand, but support an arm or touch a shoulder—or even simply observe the typing" (emphases added in both). Is the italicized text an incorrect statement about FC? If so, it should be removed from WP's FC article. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bilby: Do you have evidence for that claim? It has been used at some point in the past right? His mom said: "He couldn't hold his own pencil, so I had to hold my hand over his hand and as we were doing this I started feeling the pencil moving under my hand" so that sounds a lot like FC. RPM is closely related to FC (according to Misplaced Pages), so maybe people write FC but they actually mean RPM, which Kedar has years of training in. Do we know how the book was written? @FactOrOpinion: Is the italicized text an incorrect statement about FC? That probably depends on who you ask, but those people in that AfD are not talking about a hypothetical form of FC where the communication is basically un-assisted/un-facilitated.

The idea that people are insulting Kedar is dead wrong. FC has been tested and has been shown not to work. That does not necessarily mean that Kedar cannot communicate.

@Both: Check out that documentary if you get the chance! I once had a conversation with someone on the spectrum and he said (something like) "those NTs just lie all the time!" and I said (something like): "No, they are not lying, their speech is just imprecise because to them the 'I believe' or 'I think' part of their sentence is implied because they wouldn't say that sentence if they didn't think or believe it. You should prefix all their statements with 'I believe' or 'I think' in your head".

Give that a try on that AfD. You will see that the AfD comments suddenly become far less offensive.

Note also that his father says he used "one word utterances". Polygnotus (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

You have refused several times to address the quote in your table. Please state explicitly how someone can falsely claim that about him, yet you believe that it is not insulting to say that about him. Please state explicitly how people can deny that he is communicating; can analogize believing that to believing in psychic powers, communication with the dead, aliens, UFOs, and astrology; can assert "nothing about this person is actually from him," yet you do not find a single one of those things insulting. As for the quote from his mother, she was talking about when he was 7 years old. Based on what he's written, he's ~27 years old now. I don't GAF whether he used FC when he was 7. These editors are making statements about a living person in the present. You claim "those people in that AfD are not talking about a hypothetical form of FC where the communication is basically un-assisted/un-facilitated," so just what do you think they're talking about, given that video shows him using a tablet where no one else is touching him or the tablet? They are not having some unrelated discussion about FC. They are arguing that there is no evidence that he has ever communicated independently, and that every single piece of writing that has been attributed to him was actually authored by a facilitator. And no, I am not going to give something a try on your behalf. I you want to give something a try in that discussion, do it yourself. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Whatever. I tried to help you because you don't understand the situation, but I don't have the time and energy to deal with childish behaviour. Polygnotus (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

My behavior isn't childish, and I'll remind you of WP:NPA. You insisted that "they are not insulting/mocking the BLP subject," but apparently you cannot be bothered to actually explain yourself when confronted with evidence that they are insulting/mocking the BLP subject. I think that either you are the one who doesn't understand the situation, or you recognize that actually they are insulting him, but you don't want to admit that you were wrong. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Whatever. You can try to find someone else who is willing to explain things to you, but if you behave like this it is unlikely that people will try to help. Polygnotus (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The only thing I've asked you to explain in this entire exchange is why you keep claiming that none of those things is insulting. No one else will be able to explain why you believe that no one has insulted him. Only you can explain your beliefs. And I'm not the only one in this discussion who has asked you to explain why you're denying that the editors there are insulting a living person. As Oolong said to you: "what I'm seeing is you aggressively dismissing another editor's seemingly reasonable description of what's happening, without explaining yourself at all" (emphasis added). Saying that something is not insulting does not explain why you think that. I'm behaving like this with you, because you keep denying that there are any insults there. My interactions with most editors is just fine, thank you though. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

His mother has described how they tried FC, and then when she went home and used FC she found it to be unreliable, as she and her hsuband both got different unreliable responses, so they stopped. They did moved to RPM after this, which some say is related, but is also untested as proponents have not taken part in studies. Then there is augmentative and alternative communication, which is what the videos show him using, which is not pseudoscience. The problem is by using FC and spending massive amounts of time debating a discredited method which he does not use the well is poisoned. We should have been discussing RPM, or AAC, which are the ones he actually uses. Not FC, which he does not. - Bilby (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

RPM is not "untested". It has been tested and there is no evidence that it works, which is why webpages like https://www.asha.org/slp/cautions-against-use-of-fc-and-rpm-widely-shared/ and https://www.aaidd.org/news-policy/policy/position-statements/facilitated-communication-and-rapid-prompting-method exist. The videos also show RPM being used, and it is unclear how the book was written. RPM is not better than FC (or at least there is no scientific evidence to show that, despite the fact that research has been done). And the reason people talk about FC is that at least some of the problems with FC are also present in the videos (which is explained in the AfD). Repeatedly claiming that FC is not used is not helpful, and if you swap out FC with RPM people still have the same objections and questions. The label is just a label, it does not really matter if people use the wrong one. Some people who think they are helping or defending Kedar and others in his situation are doing the exact opposite of helping. See https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40489-019-00175-w and https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17489539.2016.1265639 for more information. Polygnotus (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that those links say what you think they say. At any rate, it seems that you agree that this is RPM and potentially AAC (although I understand that some people believe that the latter is not the case based on their interpretations of the videos), so I do not believe that discussing the merits of FC is helpful due to the risk of poisoning the well. Nor does it address the core problem of the presence of BLP violations. - Bilby (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

About the BLPVIO thing; I don't think I can convince you and vice versa. If there would be any BLPVIOs then I would expect them to get redacted by an admin, and those who posted them to be reprimanded, but that hasn't happened and is very very unlikely to happen. Polygnotus (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I think you're wrong, that does appear to be a BLP violation... And I share the confusion of others as to the relevance of this line of questioning to notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. But I think we can agree to disagree on that one since there are a billion other things we agree on. And, for the record, I understand that confusion (although an attempt has been made to explain that in the AfD). Polygnotus (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Also note the Streisand effect in effect. Polygnotus (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you think you see there. The AfD page was created on 1/16, so it's no surprise that you see an increase on 1/16-17. There are so many comments about other things at the BLPN and the Teahouse that I don't see how you interpret any Streisand effect from either conversation. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Imagine that, hypothetically, there would be an AfD page filled with horrible insults. Linking to and talking about that AfD page on 2 other pages with far far higher viewcounts would only draw more attention to that AfD page. So it would be counterproductive. Contacting an admin who can actually delete the page would be far better. Polygnotus (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

There is no reason to consider a hypothetical. We have an actual case, and there's no evidence that it's drawn more WP readers to the page. However, if I ever encounter this situation in the future, I will consider your advice along with Berchanhimez's suggestion. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Polygnotus, you appear to be responding to virtually every comment in this discussion. I think you are veering into WP:BLUDGEON terrority and may want to step back a little. I also agree with the multiple other editors here who believe that there are BLP violations in the discussion about this article subject. – notwally (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Notwally Bit late to the party mate, I already gave up trying to help and moved on. I recommend Tell Them You Love Me. Polygnotus (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Polygnotus, you commented on this thread just 4 hours ago (and only one other person had commented since then), and have left more comments than anyone else. I recommend not bludgeoning discussions like that and being more civil and less aggressive in your responses as others have also recommended. – notwally (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Notwally One of the least productive things one can do on Misplaced Pages is, after a debate died down, jump in without understanding the situation and try to reignite a debate with one of the parties. Posting ad hominems and then talking about civility is not a good look. There are plenty of resources online for those who want to learn about FC and RPM and people can check those out if they want to have an informed opinion. Polygnotus (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

It appears you know neither what "ad hominems" nor "moved on" means. I am not interested in further back and forth with you, and so please take care. – notwally (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

More insults from the side that demands civility. Such a great strategy. Take care. Polygnotus (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Domineering conversations by responding to literally everything while saying nothing in defence of your position isn't much better civility-wise. I also note you haven't really engaged with what FactOrOpinion says above. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 04:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

So when someone tries to help people by explaining their mistakes they are domineering the conversation. But when someone is tired of dealing with someone who behaves suboptimally and ignores them you note that they haven't really engaged with what they say. Polygnotus (talk) 04:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Break

The AFD is due to be closed within the next day. It seems that there is a ganeral if not universal consensus that it contains BLP violations because of unsourced negative descriptions of the subject. Would it be reasonable to opt for courtesy blanking when the AFD is complete, whatever the outcome of the AFD may be? - Bilby (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

There is no consensus that there are BLPVIOs. A loud minority is not a consensus. If there were any they would've been redacted by an admin a long time ago, and that admin would've possibly reprimanded those who posted the hypothetical BLPVIOs. Touching the comments left by others is frowned upon, see WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS, and a blanking would be quickly reverted. Polygnotus (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok. I am asking, then, if we can form a consensus as to whether or not some statements made in that AFD represent violations of BLP, and if so whether or not courtesy blanking of the discussion after the AFD closes is an option. I acknowledge that you do not belive that courtesy blanking should be used. - Bilby (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

You wrote: unsourced negative descriptions but I predict that people will say that sources have been provided. AfDs are noindexed, the AfD will not appear in search engine results when looking for Kedars name if that is what you worry about, (https://en.wikipedia.org/robots.txt) so the only person likely to encounter the AfD page is a Wikipedian, and Wikipedians usually know how to use "View history". Polygnotus (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

About the BLPVIOs, my advice would be to ask an administrator. Having a group discussion about which (if any) statements are insulting has the downside of drawing loads and loads of attention to sentences that would normally only be read by the two dozen people who respond to the AfD. And sure, if there is a consensus to blank then that is fine (to me its not very important, although I see no advantages and some downsides). If you want to you can ping potentially interested parties (but look at WP:CANVAS first). I am just some guy; I can't overrule anyone. Polygnotus (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with some of this, but at the moment I think that isn't really a concern. I regard you as not seeing any signifcant BLP violations, and not wanting to courtesy blank. I'm interested in now seeing if there is a consensus different to that. Let's see how that goes. - Bilby (talk) 07:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of experience with AfDs, and none with courtesy blanking. As I understand it, a non-admin may close an AfD discussion in some circumstances; however, my sense is that the contentiousness of the exchange in this specific discussion means that it should be closed by an admin. My understanding is also that if the article is kept, there will be a permanent notice on the article's talk page linking to the AfD discussion, which concerns me. At the very least, I think that the administrator who closes the discussion should review all of the comments for BLP violations, not only for keep/delete arguments. Would a request for courtesy blanking also involve an admin reviewing all of the comments for BLP violations (in order to decide whether or not to blank the page)? If an admin reviews the comments in this way, then I am comfortable leaving the decision to the admin. I would hope that if the admin thinks it better to keep the page, that any content the admin assesses to be a BLP violation would at least be replaced with (BLP violation removed), using the template that berchanhimez noted earlier. How would a request for courtesy blanking of an AfD discussion proceed? (That is, do you go to a noticeboard and ask an admin to review a page with that in mind? It seems to me that this is a different situation than a BLP subject requesting that the article about them be blanked.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe it'd involve posting something at the Administrator's Noticeboard? (not to be confused with the more urgent and higher octane Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents) Whatever the appropriate mechanisms, I'd certainly support courtesy blanking or replacing BLP violations with (BLP violation removed), for the reason you point out: AfD discussions are usually permanently linked from talk pages. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

In the entire exchange here, I haven't seen anyone other than you saying that there are no BLP violations in the AfD discussion. Bilby, Oolong, Hydrangeans, Horse Eye's Back, notwally, and I have all said that we see BLP violations there, and I'm baffled that you consider all of us to constitute a minority. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Polygnotus also said yesterday that "I already gave up trying to help and moved on" but yet they have continued to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion since then. – notwally (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

For the record, I courtesy blanked the AfD, not because of BLPVIOs but because we should be ashamed of it, as a community. Polygnotus (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Kevin Cooper (prisoner)

It seems to me that great chunks of this article are in breach of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and WP:NOTBLOG. Just checking whether other experienced BLP editors agree? Looking at the article history, it seems there's been some problem editing, which isn't too much of a surprise, given the state the article is in. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 12:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, I guess I'm on my own on this. I'll get out a scythe. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 18:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I've done some chopping. Reviewers of what I have done welcomed, event (especially) if you disagree. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 09:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Darrel Kent

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

User:Earl Andrew keeps adding contentious material about the article subject back into the article:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Darrel_Kent&diff=prev&oldid=1269810226
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Darrel_Kent&diff=prev&oldid=1269816467

I posted a notice on the talk page, see User talk:Earl Andrew#January 2025. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

How on earth are those edits in any conceivable way contentious? -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll bite. How is the parenthetical (Ottawa would eventually get a light rail tunnel in 2019.) in any way relevant to this guy's bio? The last time he ran for office was in 1991. If a reliable source has pointed out that such a clear and decisive rebuke to Kent's ideology occurred 28 years later, that should be sourced. Woodroar (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

While it has nothing to do with Kent himself, I do think giving readers some context on that issue is relevant.-- Earl Andrew - talk 18:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

But it's not up to you or me to decide that. We need to let reliable, secondary sources decide that it's DUE to mention it in Kent's article. Woodroar (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence from the article, including a source that doesn't even mention the subject. Woodroar (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Allan Higdon

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

User:Earl Andrew keeps adding uncited content to the article including content about immigration status and employment by organzations who make controversial decisions:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Allan_Higdon&diff=prev&oldid=1269810502
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Darrel_Kent&diff=prev&oldid=1269810226

There is a notice on his talk page, see User talk:Earl Andrew#January 2025. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I will find sources for that article in time. I reverted your edits to this article as you have been going around removing information from articles in bad faith, citing that you are removing contentious information, when in fact you are not. Most of what you are doing is removing non contentious information only because it lacks proper sourcing. Instead of going around and being a destructive force, why not try and improve articles by finding sources? -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

If you want to succeed in adding information to articles, do it with a source. Don't be surprised if people aren't willing to take your additions on faith. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

"Adding" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. I simply reverted their edits because I didn't believe they were constructive, based on the user's recent editing history of removing non contentious information from various articles. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN is clear that, whether you're adding or restoring content, you need to include a source. Woodroar (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand. I am just concerned about this particular user's decision to quickly remove non contentious content from several articles. They are within their rights via WP:BURDEN, but it's not typical user behaviour (from my experience), which is why I believe we should exercise some caution. Especially considering they removed information that was sourced, albeit not with inline citations (of course, within their rights via WP:BURDEN, but I mean, feels very bad-faithy to me, no?) -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Would placing a citation tag, been a better option? GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this is usually the best way of handling uncited, non contentious claims. Or at least, the most common way.-- Earl Andrew - talk 18:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

No because in my opinion, these claims are contentious and they're about a living person, so under WP:BOLP they must be removed immediately. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

How are they contentious, especially when everything is sourced (though, not with an inline citation) with the reference at the bottom? Why actively destroy an article, when you can make things better by adding inline citations? You can cite policy until the cows come home, but your actions are quite unusual, and are certainly raising suspicions, from me at least.-- Earl Andrew - talk 18:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Working for people who make controversial decisions is a contentious claim like tribunals and government departments. Information about immigration status is contentious, especially with the recent controversy around wage suppression https://www.newcanadianmedia.ca/temporary-immigration-programs-are-pushing-down-wage-growth-in-canada-economists-say/ and the article's specific claims about him working for the PC party while which seemingly conflicts with their principal of training Canadian workers to do Canadian jobs https://www.poltext.org/sites/poltext.org/files/plateformesV2/Canada/CAN_PL_1984_PC_en.pdf. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Whatever you want to call it, birth place is definitely not something which should be in the article without a source. Feel free to add such information back when you find a reliable secondary source but it stays out until you have. Nil Einne (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I already put an inline citation (it was already sourced, just not properly)-- Earl Andrew - talk 01:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Ali Khademhosseini

I have been trying to add a new section about the scientific concerns raised by Elizabeth Bik and another data sleuth against a very large number of articles by Ali Khademhosseini, and this research's subsequent responses.

A new user was created immediately after (Special:Contributions/EvandorX) and has started a series of long edits to the page, including some reverting of my own edits. While some of these edits appear reasonable, others are not (e.g. reverting ‘citation needed’ tags or introducing typos in headings). I would appreciate another pair of eyes on the page (I sent a request for page protection too). I haven't been active on WP for at least a decade and I'm a bit rusty with the policies, but I'm not convinced that the page meets NPOV. 81.109.86.251 (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Călin Georgescu

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

Now are we WP:CENSORing The Atlantic? tgeorgescu (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Misogynistic explanation at . tgeorgescu (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

An opinion piece is usually not worth everlasting biographical WP:WEIGHT. And it's accurate to describe its author as one woman. I would have said one person. The fact that it's an opinion is the WP:BLP concern. If you feel someone is being misogynistic, WP:ANI is your forum. BLPN isn't generally for editor behavior problems. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't look like anyone did anything to The Atlantic. It looks like someone edited Misplaced Pages, doubting that this one opinion piece was worthy of inclusion. That sort of discussion seems appropriate to the article talk page; even though it's in a BLP, it's not a BLP issue per se. Looks like you added it, someone else reverted the addition, and that's a good time to get into the WP:BRD cycle. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

JD Vance & Jon Husted

Ohio governor Mike DeWine hasn't announced his pick (yet) for the US Senate. Yet already, IPs are jumping the gun & attempting to update JD Vance & Jon Husted, as though Husted were picked. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

PS - I've given up, trying to hold back the premature updates. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Deb Matthews

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

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

This article contains various uncited election results. Elections are contentious topics. Thousands of people go to the polls to decide who should represent them. Many people did not get their way.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Deb_Matthews&oldid=1269868441 and User talk:Adam Bishop#Deb Matthews. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

These results don't appear to be contentious, though. There are citations at the linked articles about the elections themselves. Have you considered copying those citations over rather than deleting the results? MrOllie (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

No, I'm not touching that page, because I've been reverted by an admin. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Ministry of Education (Ontario)

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

Ministry of Education (Ontario) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article charges with being Minister of Education, without citation. In accordance with the principal of Ministerial responsibility, this is a very serious charge. A Minister is responsible for all actions that go on in their Ministry. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Ministry_of_Education_(Ontario)&oldid=1269877806. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@Legend of 14: Are there any BLP claims in this diff that can't be sourced by copying a source from the person's article or doing a quick Google search? If nothing else, it seems that would take up less time in the long run than removing, discussing on talk, and then discussing here. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

There is an uncited table with over 14 living people. It isn't practical to quickly find a source for every one of them. I only posted here because my talk page discussion was removed by an administrator. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

We don't have a deadline here, it is not needed to 'quickly' find a source. MrOllie (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The content should be removed immediately under WP:BLP, because it is uncited and contentious. There actually isn't time to find a source. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Why is it contentious? Do you have some reason to believe these people were not in fact Ministers? We're trying to build an encyclopedia here, not robotically delete uncontentious, easily sourced material. MrOllie (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Most of the people were probably Ministers of Education. Are the dates right though? Sometimes people can confuse the date of announcement or election with the date of appointment. If it so easy to source, why don't you source the content. I'm not touching the article, I've been reverted by an administrator who wants me blocked. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

'Sometimes people can confuse the date' does not equal contentious - we're not claiming somebody committed a crime. MrOllie (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

It just a claim that people responsible for the actions of dozens of people access decades. These are serious claims. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Serious perhaps, but not contentious in the manner envisioned by WP:BLP, so there is no rush to delete this noncontroversial information. Please do not blank anything like this again, from this or from other articles. MrOllie (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

If researched, maybe. But how about checking the sources (like Tamzin said) for yourself? Or perhaps, as a gesture of good will, a send-back to the pit of fire. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 17:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

You mean reverted. With good reason (I'm sure that you've paid attention), and you should kind of clearly understand by now that there are ways to constructively do so. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 17:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I used the article talk page. See above. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

That sounds like something that would take roughly 14 minutes—less if you find an RS that lists multiple or all of them. Look, I like removing unsourced BLP content as much as the next BLP/N-watcher, but there's a common-sense limit, and I think you've surpassed it. Just find the damn sources. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Not my WP:BURDEN. I wasn't aware of the clause in the WP:BLP that says contentious material must be removed immediately, unless you've already removed a lot of BLP material recently. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Correction: *BLP violating material. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@Legend of 14: I don't mean limit on quantity. I mean limit on scope. You're taking an extremely broad definition of "contentious" and then making zero effort to find sources even when they exist in linked articles. This is not a pattern of editing that improves the encyclopedia, and Misplaced Pages is not a court of law where "but technically..." works. Stop it. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Any advice about article editing practices directed towards me is moot because I'm done editing articles. But, thanks for trying to help me anyway. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Right. Is that all you got? Is that what you said when your world went to crap?

It's still on you, especially if these sources have never been contested. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 17:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand the logic here but I'm going to take a shot: @Legend of 14 is your argument that, without citations that clearly indicate which minister was responsible for the ministry at any given time, Misplaced Pages might accidently assert that one minister was responsible for the actions of another minister's administration? Because that seems pretty inside baseball. It's deeply unlikely that anyone outside of, like, a provincial archivist is going to be so sensitive that you can't take the time to validate the dates against plentiful reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Kinga Surma was accused of being responsible for things that happened before she became a Minister: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s75dKt5FDwc. I don't think Misplaced Pages was the source of the bad date, but this shows that a high level of care should be taken with regards to dates of appointments and that information about Cabinet appointments should be treated as contentious. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

A YT video's not a reliable source. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 18:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that's the point of the YT link. Which, for the record, is actually a recording of the Legislature of Ontario question period for December 5, 2024. I think their point is that an MPP accused Surma, during question period, of being responsible for things that happened during her predecessor's ministry. The concern is reasonably legitimate. However the urgency is not evident. Just find sources and make sure the dates are right. Simonm223 (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, just to note, the Kinga Surma situation involves the Ministry of Infrastructure rather than Education. Simonm223 (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The urgency is based on WP:BLP. The content should not be present, as it is contentious, unless and until it is sourced. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

So find sources. These are routine details and while being accurate is a good thing here - not least of all to prevent some well-meaning NDP or Liberal MPP from accusing Jill Dunlop of making a decision actually made by Todd Smith - there isn't even really any reputational risk here for the BLPs in question - especially as we are currently four education ministers deep into this administration. It might take you half an hour to find all the necessary references - you've probably spent as long defending your decision to delete them. Simonm223 (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Something being "routine" has no effect on if or not it needs to be sourced to stay in. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

It absolutely does. This is the root of your misinterpretation of WP:BLP. Many things are not 'contentious' and do not need to be immediately deleted without discussion. MrOllie (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Certainly not one that involves questions asked by some MP conservatives over something allegedly controversial. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 18:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)