Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:25, 3 December 2018

• 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

Censored identity of slain Israeli soldier

On the page Gaza–Israel clashes (November 2018) a conflict has erupted over whether to publish the name and identity details of the slain soldier such as his age, ethnic affiliation and parental status (father of two). It has been discussed here Talk:Gaza–Israel_clashes_(November_2018)#Name_of_the_deceased. I and other editors think this information if pertinent to the article. Reason being that soldiers KIA is a big deal in Israel, just like it is in the US, and leads to consequences. In particular, Jewish MKs have tweeted pictures of him and his non-Jewish ethnicity has been a point of discussion and his funeral was attended by thousands. Another editor resists attempts to add this information, claiming it violates the WP:BLP policy.

The name and identity of the slain soldier is currently an "open secret," the information circulates in Israeli social media and blogs and is essentially known to all - even Israeli MKs. Supposedly because the soldier was a member of a special forces unit, the Israeli Military Censor has banned the Israeli media from printing his name and identity. Therefore there is no "reputable" source that has printed his name, possibly save for one Arabic al-Jazeera article. But the article admits that it picked up the name from Israeli social media.

Can someone who understands the policy well clarify whether adding his name is a WP:BLP policy violation? I would think not, because Misplaced Pages isn't bound by the rules of the Israeli censors, but I don't know. ImTheIP (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not a question of Israeli censorship - which has no bearing on Misplaced Pages. The BLP question here is whether you have a WP:BLPSOURCES complaint source - which a blog (which incidentally, has some of the details wrong, but that's besides the point) is not.Icewhiz (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

There are at least six sources; , , , , , one of which is al-Jazeera.

His identity has also been published by mistake by Israeli authorities and Israeli MKs and journalists claim to know who he is. Shelly Yachimovich of the Zionist Union tweeted a blurred photo which makes him trivial to identify because the photo was taken from his Facebook account.

If I understand your argument correctly, the conclusion of it is that no names that the Israeli military has censored can ever be published on Misplaced Pages because the Israeli media generally objeys the restrictions of the censors. ImTheIP (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand the tenets of WP:RS. What the Israeli censor does or doesn't do has no bearing on how[REDACTED] assesses its sources. Five of the six "sources" you mention are totally unacceptable, and Al-Jazeera is imo dubious. -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 16:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

As of this point in time, I've found ten sources that all publish the same name (although in Arabic or with different transliterations to English), age, ethnicity and hometown. These are Richard Silverstein's blog, Islam21c, Al-Jazeera, Saree Makdisi on Twitter, Sama News, Al-Jarida, Russia Today, Khaberni News, Echorouk News and Euronews. Given the circumstances, I do not understand how that can't be sufficient. ImTheIP (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi. As was previously stated by some who replied to your concern, the number of sources does not matter because it all boils down to whether they are reliable according to Misplaced Pages standards. Blogs and Twitter posts, for instance, are questionable and you can check the details here: WP:RSSELF. Even those sources that sound reliable must also have a reputation for fact-checking in order to qualify. See: WP:UNRELIABLE. Darwin Naz (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

But most of those sources are from news sites, so I believe the reliability criteria is full-filled per WP:NEWSORG. ImTheIP (talk) 12:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Josh Hawley, incorrect birthplace

Josh Hawley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Josh Hawley's birthplace is currently listed as Lexington, Missouri, but should be listed as Springdale, Arkansas. This violates the Verifiability policy because Lexington, Missouri is not backed up with a citation. Lexington, Missouri as Hawley's birthplace also violates Verifiability because the article's first cited source, Josh Hawley's Worthy Climb | National Review, contradicts the article's information about his birthplace and instead says he was born in Sprindale, Arkansas (top of fourth paragraph).

Gavin McInnes

• Gavin McInnes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has been placed in Category:Canadian white nationalists despite there being no RS supporting this, and the subject denying it. Could use discussion here, or more opinions at Talk:Gavin McInnes#White nationalist. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

He founded a white nationalist organization that regularly commits acts of public white nationalist violence while he hangs around waving a sword fFS. The sky is blue and McInnes is a bigot. Simonm223 (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

BLP is very strict and there is a difference between attaching a WP:LABEL which requires multiple sources, especially for a BLP, and noting that he is the founder of a group that is considered white nationalist/white supremacist. This is definitely not a WP:SKYBLUE situation and WP:RS would have to be added to the article that support inclusion in the category.Seraphim System 17:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

No, he's definitely Canadian, the sources are clear. Guy (Help!) 17:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I totally get what you guys are saying but almost all the sources I am finding are about the organization. Seraphim System 20:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Almost all. Not the same as "all", is it? --Calton | Talk 06:17, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

actually leans much further to the right than the Republican Party. His views are closer to a white supremacist's. "I love being white and I think it's something to be very proud of, he said. I don't want our culture diluted. We need to close the borders now and let everyone assimilate to a Western, white, English-speaking way of life."- The Edge of Hip: Vice, the Brand" by Vanessa Gigoriadis, New York Times, 28 September 2003

Nope, no reason to think he's a white nationalist AT ALL. --Calton | Talk 06:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: Can you tell us if your comment above can be taken as a support for inclusion? I am staying neutral so if we have 3 support, 1 against I think we would be heading towards a consensus. Personally, I don't want to oppose, but I haven't seen sufficient sourcing to support yet. Seraphim System 06:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Guy's remark was to say that it's clear that McI is a white nationalist, so the only possible area of dispute is whether he is Canadian or not, and Guy answers that by commenting that he definitely is. At least, that's the way I read it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

And if we're counting noses for the purpose of consensus, Koavf, who added the cat originally, and PeterTheFourth, who restored it once, should be counted in support, and an IP editor who removed it should be count in opposition. With Guy presumably in support, that would make 6 supports and 4 opposes (Kendall K-1, Seraphim System, Galobtter and the IP) Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken is absolutely correct. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion. This fails WP:CATDEF; some sources describe him as perhaps being like a white nationalist, but I haven't found a source that straight up says "Gavin McInnes is a white nationalist"; he is regularly described as far-right or as having far-right views so Category:Far-right politics in Canada is a perfectly valid category, but White Nationalist? Not so much; If one wants to add the category, find enough sources to add "Gavin McInnes is a White Nationalist" in the article - I note that most of the other articles in the category straight up call the person a white nationalist/supremacist etc in the lead sentence, as they should for the category to be applicable. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Support inclusion - The evidence is quite clear from the sources in both articles that the Proud Boys represent its founder's personal ideology, so adding this category -- which is quite mild -- to the article is justified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Support inclusion - Leader of a white nationalist extremist group, and I'm reasonably sure he's Canadian too. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion - he disavows white nationalism whenever the topic is addressed, and he isn't associated with any key figures of the movement. Is there an advantage to categorizing people who have made racist statements, as white nationalists (which is a political movement), when they disavow the movement, and are not associated with its advocates? Avaya1 (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comments Fascists usually deny being fascists when they're asked. Simonm223 (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

  His denial isn't relevant but that there aren't much (if any sources) explicitly calling him a white nationalist is. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Even if you could read both articles given to claim he is a white nationalist, that is two articles, which is nowhere close to a bar for inclusion within the category. Labels like this only should be applied if there's a clear overabundance of direct association given. --Masem (t) 15:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. It's actually less certain that he's Canadian than it is that he's a white nationalist, whatever PR spin he attempts. --Calton | Talk 16:00, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support inclusion - He admits he's the founder of an extremist group with ties to white nationalism, apropos labeled by the FBI, and he's Canadian, according to that source. And he certainly talks like one. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• Obvious support for inclusion of this, a clearly defining category. He is best known for his association with the white nationalist terror group. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• Obvious oppose. Clearly not appropriate for this category. The article cited above is excellent but it doesn't support what some editors seem to believe it supports. The only thing I support is blocking several editors above for the BLP violations at the BLP noticeboard. I would rather discuss this with the biggest POV-pushers than with editors who have zero regard for BLP. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 13:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Wumbolo: What, are you that sensitive about someone being called Canadian? --Calton | Talk 15:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• Obvious oppose adding a BLP to the white nationalists subcategory without reliable sources. Anyone saying we should doesn't know WP:BLP or they're such ridiculous povpushers they don't care. 2A01:4A0:4A:52:0:0:0:E2DA (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, and the edit summary for that comment makes you look competent. No, my mistake, it makes you look like a 13-year old. Black Kite (talk) 23:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Right, the adults are the ones throwing jars of urine. NPA is still policy and your comment hurt my fee fees. 2A01:4A0:4A:52:0:0:0:E2DA (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support - The sources are rather telling. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support per many of the sources on the page, but especially this one. Advocating closing the borders and letting everyone "assimilate to a Western, white, English-speaking way of life" is a clear white nationalist agenda. Bradv 20:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• support he's been described as a hipster racist by Vox and Media Matters for America. This NYT piece says:" His work is often inflected with a tone of crass, satirical bigotry that leaves him just enough room to declare it all a joke. While Mr. McInnes insists that the Proud Boys are “a normal fraternal organization like the Shriners,” the sentiments that unify its members are often tinged with disrespect for nonwhite culture. Of white men, he once wrote: “We brought roads and infrastructure to India and they are still using them as toilets. Our criminals built nice roads in Australia but aboriginals keep using them as a bed.” Hence the "hipster racist" thing.

References

1. Hemmer, Nicole (December 2, 2016). "Tweedy racists and "ironic" anti-Semites: the alt-right fits a historical pattern". Vox.
2. Theel, Shauna (5 June 2014). "Meet The Hipster Racist Fox News Guest Attacking Neil deGrasse Tyson". Media Matters for America.

-- Jytdog (talk) 12:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• • Hard oppose. BLP is the area of Misplaced Pages where the most care is and should be taken. I think it's clear that McInnes is a racist, but if he has disavowed being a white nationalist, and there are no good clear RS identifying him as one, then it is not up to us as editors to judge that since we think his attitudes and actions are those of a white nationalist, he ought to be put in the white nationalist category. Simply leave him out of that category and let the article describe his racism and readers can decide.Happy monsoon day 00:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Hanna Sądej

Hi. There are two articles about the same person: Hanna Sądej and Hanna Rycharska--Pbk (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

They don't seem identical. Sądej is 6ft 0in and Rycharska is 6ft 1in. They also play different positions, have different stats, as well as the different last names. --Auric talk 23:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I have doubt that the two articles are about same person. The two articles are lacking sources and the date of birth of these two persons are same. Content of these two articles are almost same except dob and height.

Hamim000000 (talk) 07:21, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Both articles have one source apiece.--Auric talk 15:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

This is the OP's first post in a year, which is strange since they requested renaming in 2015 and their username was moved to Pbk~enwiki --Auric talk 15:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Absolutely typical problem with articles on sportsists. They are drawn from directory-style sources, often only one namecheck, and it's impossible to reconcile the sports fans' desire for a copmlpete directory of every player with Misplaced Pages's sourcing criteria. Guy (Help!) 13:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• see i.e here: "Rycharska (pod panieńskim nazwiskiem Sądej)", and use the google translator:)--Pbk (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Reviews needed of some articles related to Rodrigo Duterte

Articles being used to attack or promote their subjects, obviously for political reasons.

I have no interest in looking through the background and history of these articles, but my inclination would be to remove large portions of the articles (which I started to do before seeing the scope of the problems), protecting the articles, and notifying all relevant WP:SPA editors. Maybe there are sanctions beyond BLP that apply?

• January Navares-Duterte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mocha Uson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Paolo Duterte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ronald dela Rosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sara Duterte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sebastian Duterte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Those are from the the edits of Juanelo1931 (talk · contribs). I've not looked further. --Ronz (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Since there's been no reply, I've further trimmed the articles. There's still a great deal that's appears to be poorly translated into English, and content more suiting a tabloid than an encyclopedia article. --Ronz (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I've done some futher trimming and brought it to Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines#Reviews_needed_of_some_articles_related_to_Rodrigo_Duterte. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

when it doubt, throw it out (for BLP certainly).Happy monsoon day 00:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Cindy Hyde-Smith's daughter

Please take a look at Cindy Hyde-Smith. The article says "They have a daughter, who they sent to Brookhaven Academy, a school that was established to enable white children to attend a school without blacks." I believe this is a WP:BLP violation, and an especially pernicious one as it implicates a non-public figure minor child. The given source says "U.S. Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith attended and graduated from a segregation academy (Lawrence County Academy) that was set up so that white parents could avoid having to send their children to schools with black students" and later says "Years later, Hyde-Smith would send her daughter, Anna-Michael, to Brookhaven Academy." It says nothing about any racial motivation for Hyde-Smith's choice in where to send her daughter to school. In fact, the issue of Hyde-Smith's alma mater being a segregation academy is covered in Hyde-Smith's article in the section about her education. I get that everyone has their undies in a bundle about the Missisippi Senate election, but putting this content in the article about a minor child who likely had no choice about where she attended school (it's quite unlikely that Hyde-Smith herself had any choice about where she attended school either, FWIW) doesn't exactly seem above board. Marquardtika (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not about the daughter, except to mention that she exists. It is phrased clearly as this is a choice that the parents made, and reflects on the parents, including the subject of the article. We are not making a claim about the motivation for the choice. If reliable sources cover that aspect in discussing the school in relationship to Cindy Hyde-Smith (I've not checked), then that is within reason. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

There is a family of articles, two of which are new Lawrence County Academy and Brookhaven Academy, and one Cindy Hyde-Smith which was recently updated with an article from the Jackson Free Press based on the discovery of Hyde-Smith's high school yearbook. The changes are coming fast and furious, but the Misplaced Pages process is being followed. The POV problems and factual inaccuracies (and English errors) are being ironed out. None of this is worth getting one's knickers in a twist about. My two cents. Rhadow (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Nothing close to a BLP here. It is certainly sourced, it is certainly about the Cindy Hyde-Smith's choice to send their daughter to a segregation academy, the child has graduated from high school and is therefore unlikely to be a minor. This appears to be a censorship attempt thinly disguised as a blp discussion.Jacona (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Additional source involved. Jacona (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I just started looking at this and agree that it is a BLP violation in the form of coatracking. Unless either 1) Hyde-Smith herself stated that their choice to send their daughter to that school was purposely for the benefit related to segeration or 2) her choice was criticized by a wide number of sources (one source is not sufficient), then including the factoid about the school being white segregated is a coatrack BLP violation. There's also a second coatrack coming from the same Jackson FP article about her own schooling: The school's team nickname was Rebels; the mascot was a confederate general who carried a confederate flag ... and the point about that is? That's two major BLP violations. --Masem (t) 18:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Masem, I gently disagree on the topic of coatracking. There is a long and consistent history of segregation in Cindy Hyde-Smith's life and hometown. From public school segregation sixteen years after Brown v Board of Education, to the establishment of a school whose mascot is Rebels and whose students carry confederate flags, to the new incarnation of these schools as "Christian" but with one black student in three hundred, it all goes to support a single narrative. I suggest you read the article Segregation academy. Rhadow (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Masem, I disagree about the coatracking argument, I agree that it is a point worthy for discussion in terms of article content, but not in terms of BLP. In any case, I agree with Rhadow that the content is very appropriate to the article which discusses (reliably sourced) the senator's confederate and segregationist views. Jacona (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't disagree that there's the potential for understanding her schooling and her daughter's schooling in a larger picture to explain her political position, if that was reasonably documented by multiple sources. It can't be made without sources (that's OR), and right now there's only one source which begs if the matter is UNDUE or not, which makes it a coatrack issue and thus violating BLP. --Masem (t) 19:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I would agree on it being too speculative (not that the school was segregated which is a fact, but that of casting bad light on Cindy Hyde Smith as a result - which seems to be goal of many of the editors above; the Jackson Free Press does not actually explicitly state any sort of criticism for it) for a BLP; this is discussed in personal life too.Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Jacona, there is a complaint that the Jackson Free Press is an insufficient source to support an assertion that Cindy Hyde-Smith holds an old Mississippi worldview and that it is criticized. Here is a second citation from the Washington Post. Rhadow (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

References

1. Viser, Matt (November 22, 2018). "Cindy Hyde-Smith has embraced Confederate history more than once in her political career". Washington Post. Retrieved 2018-11-24. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Thanks. Jacona (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Here is another source that shows that this is a relevant topic for this discussion. Jacona (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

References

1. Bunch, Will (18 November 2018). "Why the blood of a 1955 Mississippi murder drenches today's U.S. Senate race". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved 19 November 2018.

Hello Jacona, now that Galobtter put a sanctions warning tag on us, we can expect a visit from John from Idegon. Rhadow (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The Philadelphia Inquirer opinion piece is clearly not a reliable source for the claim it makes that Hyde-Smith is a racist from a racist town, and it cannot be used to support making that claim (or anything remotely related) in Misplaced Pages's voice. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

At least two sources mention that a relative (Noah Smith) of Cindy Hyde-Smith's husband Michael murdered a black man to keep him from voting in 1955. While in light of her "public hanging" statement and statements that it would be good to make it harder for liberal people to vote makes it relevant, I think placing this in the Cindy Hyde-Smith article would be coatracking, even though it is mentioned by more than one reliable source. But sending her daughter to a segregation academy. That's something she personally did and that is covered in reliable sources. And as of the assertion that Anna-Michael Smith is a minor non-public figure, It appears that she is not a minor, and she is mentioned by Hyde-Smith on her senatorial website and numerous other places.Jacona (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is a BLP violation against the daughter, but it's problematic nonetheless. The phrasing there implies a criticism of Hyde-Smith, but it does so by saying something in Misplaced Pages's voice rather than citing and attributing these criticisms to other people. If there are notable opinion pieces that criticize Hyde-Smith for her ties to this school, then those opinion piece could be mentioned and attributed in text. But we shouldn't imply those opinions using innuendo. Nblund 20:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I personally would want several more sources, but Nblund hits a core factor here, in that it is phrased in a way to make it sound like WP is accusing her. One can say "Critics of Hyde-Smith point to her schooling at a segregated whites-only school that they state has influenced her political position" (or something like that). --Masem (t) 20:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

power~enwiki, I don't see why you say the Inquirer piece is not a reliable source. I don't often get involved in these current-events discussions, what is the issue? Even if it is an "opinion piece", doesn't WP:PARTISAN state these are acceptable? Jacona (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello power~enwiki, just so I know -- the opinions of the writer of an op-ed are off limits. What about the assertions of fact in an op-ed in a publication like the Philadelphia Enquirer, or the Washington Post, or every single article in Foreign Affairs?

Arguing over strength of sources, or presentation, etc. is one thing but coatracking? Where she went to school and sent her daughter is biography not coatracking. It is also news that these assertions came up, so we have to decide how to handle that in a NOTNEWS fashion, one way may be to discuss just noting the issue about her life came up depending on sourcing. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Identify where she went to school is fine (and usually expected). Purposely identifying that school as white-segregated without explaining why that fact is important or relevant, or the same with her daughter, is coatracking. To explain why that's important requires sources to avoid the OR aspect. If there are sources, then its just a matter of stating that outside of WP's voice, but again, UNDUE is a question to be asked. --Masem (t) 20:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The sources listed above say "another segregation academy" and "an all-white school".Jacona (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

But those sources also explain why it that fact is important and how it fits in to a broader debate about Hyde-Smith's relationship with Mississippi's past. The WP:COATRACK problem comes in, in part, because the mention of the school is being tossed out off-handedly in a seemingly innocuous section of her biography without making the subtext explicit. This is problematic from a neutrality perspective, and it also is not especially informative for readers who will think this is a non-sequitur unless they already know the background. Passive aggression works great for in-laws, but it's not a good look for an encyclopedia. Nblund 21:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, just one other thing to add, as I'm seeing this report is now being spread across news sources (in that I didn't realize this was news "today"), keep in mind both the number of sources simply repeating the school info details without additional commentary/analysis, as well as RECENTISM. We should wait to see if this information "sticks" after a few days or a week. If people are still talking about this next week, then adding it makes sense. --Masem (t) 21:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Masem for your fulsome criticism. You have found many reasons why these articles are substandard. These reasons change by the hour as you read the articles and their sources. You personally wanted more sources, they were provided, then you criticized them as being too recent. What I don't see is any attempt to make the articles better. You have not added so much as a character to any one of them, yet you have time to describe the many failings of the people who have added to them. It is your right this Thanksgiving weekend to be an armchair quarterback. I'm sorry that I will not have time to response to your next disapproval. Rhadow (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

This is a board for opinions, to come to consensus. It would disruptive to edit to what I consider proper (in which case I would have outright removed the information). Add that the whole school thing is a developing story - sources have come around in the last few hours changing how to consider the information. --Masem (t) 22:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The original discussion started claiming this was a BLP for hyde-smiths daughter who was a non-public minor, which is totally false as she graduated in 2017. It's then devolved into accusations about unreliable sources (false), lack of sources (false). It's hard to discuss simultaneously against UNDUE and "passive-aggressive" which are opposites. The article content is sourced and accurate, this quote "Cindy Hyde-Smith sent her daughter to a private school created to help white kids bypass integration" from this source? seems much like the article content. It really seems to be a case of let's censor this because I don't like it!Jacona (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

No, we'd be "censoring" it because this is a fairly blatant attempt to add negative content to a biography THREE DAYS before the subject is in a high-profile election. I'd be shocked if you or anyone else beating on this drum particularly cares after Wednesday. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@ν, feel free to stalk my edits to see if you can find any evidence to back up your accusation. I rarely bother with current politics - I became involved in this article because I was working on the article of an individual who was murdered by a relative of Hyde-Smith's in 1955 in order to suppress the (presumably republican) black vote. They never were tried, in spite of the murder being in broad daylight in front of the courthouse and scads of eyewitnesses. They are buried in the cemetery of the same church Hyde-Smith now attends. I think these edits are very mild in the light of her family history. Jacona (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jacona, accusations like that don't help your case. It looks like more notable national outlets are picking this up, so I think there's a reasonable case for including a brief mention of this. Even if that happens, however, we would still need to cover it in the context of the campaign and the accusations of racism rather than slipping it in to the biography section without offering any meaningful context. Even if you don't accept the NPOV argument, it's just a weird place to discuss it given its obvious relevance to the campaign. Nblund 22:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

It confuses me that editors who never had interest in the 140 substantially similar articles on segregation academies would take interest in them today, THREE DAYS before an election. On weekdays, there is a rush to create articles on the latest shooting or semi-notorious public figure within minutes of a headline. This IS news. Someone gave a yearbook that makes a very ugly case against Cindy Hyde-Smith. It sounds as if there is a request on the table to embargo changes to the article until Wednesday. We are no longer living in the 1940s, when it was impolite to take a picture of FDR using crutches or in a wheelchair. That changed forever with Gary Hart. Rhadow (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

There is a vast difference between a shooting (which is principally made up of objective facts and details), and claims and accusations against a BLP (whether this was just before an election or not) which are subjective factors. BLP supercedes nearly all other policies so we are required to be more careful with it, particularly with brand new accusations that haven't had the test of time to be vetted across the board. --Masem (t) 01:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Another thing here; all of this is really related to the campaign - or at least there's no indication of importance beyond being a campaign controversy. Meaning any criticism/controversy over these things should be contained in Cindy Hyde-Smith#Special election campaign, 2018. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

But it is not only related to the campaign it is also details of her biography. But yes to the extent it is also campaign related it should also be detailed in the campaign section. There appear to be at least three poor assumptions that have been made in this discussion: 1) that this will hurt her campaign, an assumption made by editors, here, who are not experts in Mississippi politics, (perhaps it help her candidacy, if you know Mississippi) -- eg., it is a fact that people in Mississippi have some connection to these schools, have supported, and support these schools and a fact that the schools were set up for segregation; 2) that somehow where one went to school and the details of that school is not valid biography; and 3) that somehow the details of her biography won't matter after Tuesday. Whether she is elected on Tuesday or not, and perhaps even more so if she is elected a US Senator, the details of her biography will always matter to her biography. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

On point #1, given the number of national articles that exploded once the JFP released their article, its clearly a net negative, but even if one considers that it could be taken as a positive, it's still needs to be sourced (as I will explain), and evaluated within the context of UNDUE and RECENTISM. On #2, it is not where she went to school but the insinuations that that grounded her political position. We should absolutely document a notable public figure's education, but the question of it being white-segregated is something that WP editors cannot raise on their own, we need proper sourcing on that (otherwise, its OR and POV). On #3, this is where some caution until the election is completed is necessary. The whole reveal of this school issue is political mud-slinging, and why the core fact (where she and her daughter were/are being schooled) is there, the assertions of what going to white-segregated schools means is unclear if it has any long term effects; it's akin to the cause we use for BLPCRIME, and don't report on every accusation made against a person unless that proved to be true (or at least by a court), or had a significant effect on one's life. Again: objective facts are fine to include, like where she went to school, but nearly everything else at this point is opinion and analysis which should only be added if that has some significance in the long-term. --Masem (t) 15:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

"WP editors cannot raise on their own?" These sources are not written by Misplaced Pages editors, they did not raise them on their own. So, your claim has to be false. She is not being elected by the national media, she is to be elected by Mississippians, that the national media notices just means it is a matter of national notice. You also have no sourced basis for your denial of facts that are established in sources. Your reference to some unknown and unstated crime is unfounded, and unsourced, and has no place here. Also, you are the only one responsible for whatever insinuations you wish to draw, no one else is responsible for your insinuations, and certainly not other Misplaced Pages editors.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

My point is that without sources, WP editors cannot make a statement of why the relevance of the white-segregated school matters. We needed sources to exist, otherwise it is a classic coatrack and a reason to keep the info about the schools out of the article (outside of naming them). Originally, the only source that existed initially was a local one (Jackson FP) but now there's a whole lot of national sources on that, and those are generally the RSes we are going to pull from, and because it is a Senate seat on the line, we have to be aware of political mud-slinging. Its clear that some of these media sources do not want someone with white nationalist views as a Senator, and thus are calling out the white-segregated school that she and her daughter went to as a skeleton in her closet. WP doesn't engage in mudslinging unless it turns out to have long-term impact. --Masem (t) 16:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Your POV-pushing on the national media's alleged motivations also has no place, here. In addition, use of 'mud-slinging' is just your personal view for facts that you do not like. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I see no other way to read the original JFP story as an attempt to cast doubt on Hyde-Smith in light of her recent statement related to her "public hanging" comment and the special election in a few days. This is media acting as usual to pull out all the skeletons from a candidate's closet; they've done this for decades. Misplaced Pages needs to be more cautious on what accusations and implications there may be raised to see if they have sufficient long-lasting implications. --Masem (t) 17:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

You already told us your personal view, which does not matter (no matter what emotive words you use to denigrate journalists). I take it there is consensus there is no libel, here. There is nothing untrue. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Who said anything about libel? It's coatracking, see WP:BITR, and we should take such caution when dealing with BLPs until we know its long-term significance. --Masem (t) 18:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

It is total nonsense to claim that in a biography what school a person went to and what kind of school is coatracking -- your claim is nothing but your POV-pushing - personally not approving of what sources cover and say. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Is it coatracking to say that she has a daughter? Is it coatracking to say her daughter attended a particular school? Is it coatracking to say what kind of school that is? I can't imagine that being the case in any biographical article. Isn't removing because it might reflect poorly on the person whitewashing or outright censorship? And why would we consider the Jackson Free Press to be a "local source"? The Brookhaven Daily Leader is a local source, but the Jackson Free Press is a "black newspaper", widely distributed throughout Mississippi and beyond. Would you call the Jackson Clarion-Ledger a local source when it covers a woman from Brookhaven? Jacona (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The coatrack is specifically calling out on the schools as white-segregated without assigning any importance to that fact. I fully understand the logical concerns of a potential Congressperson, who has also established a platform that seems to tend towards white nationalist views, having had gone to a white-segregated school and sending her daughter to another one, but it outside any WP's editor ability under NOR/BLP/NPOV. We need sources for that, and while there are sources that try to draw a connection, I would also point to RECENTISM that we don't know if this has any long-term importance, hence we should be careful until we know this is a significant factor. (Eg we don't rush to include yet-proven accusations against persons until we have a better idea how they will affect that person).

To be clear: Naming her school, or naming her daughter's school (assuming the daughter is not a minor) is fine. It's specifically calling out the nature of the school, which we do not routinely do for any other person on WP. --Masem (t) 21:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I would venture that it's more because other people on WP don't routinely send their children to these type schools, so it's not worth a mention, wouldn't you say? It's what the sources say that matter, and they all use some variation of avoiding black children, segregation, etc., because that's what it is. It's not a coatrack when it's front and center in the lede of these many, many, national souurces.Jacona (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

This story has received some additional coverage since yesterday - with mentions on USA Today, CNN, the Washington Post (editorial), and the AP, as well as a response from the Hyde-Smith campaign itself. I think we can make a case for expanding some of the discussion of the controversies in this campaign. Here's what I would suggest:

On November 24, the Jackson Free Press reported that Hyde-Smith had attended Brookhaven Academy, a school that was founded in 1970 by parents who wanted to avoid sending their children to integrated public schools. The paper wrote that Hyde-Smith's education "adds historic context" to her earlier remarks about a "public hanging".cite1, cite2 Hyde-Smith's campaign criticized the report, calling it a personal attack the drew attention from real issues. cite3, cite 4

I would suggest placing this here, right after the paragraph discussing the public hanging remarks. Nblund 22:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

!Support Very logical. Jacona (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Given the widespread coverage of the issue, and the fact that Hyde has responded to the claim but hasn't denied it, there is no longer any BLP issue here, IMO. Black Kite (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

My comments here are strictly about the two secondary schools that are part of this discussion. I couldn't give two hoots in a henhouse about the bio.

1. On Lawrence, clearly we need to mention Hyde-Smith as a notable alumni, which we have. The current kerfuffle is quite off-topic, as it post-dates the school's closure by many years. We are already using sources from the current thing to support the description of the school as a seg academy. I think the status quo there is just about where we should be at for any content pertaining to her.
2. On Brookhaven, it's already well-established that this is a seg academy. The daughter is not and will likely not ever be notable, so we really have no reason to discuss her, especially considering the long standing convention documented in the school article guidelines against discussing non-notable students. Mention of the controversy regarding her mother's choice for her daughter's education does not add any more information to help a reader understand that this is a seg academy; that's already quite well established. In my view, that makes any mention of Hyde-Smith COATRACK, in that anything added is much more about her than about the school.

As someone mentioned earlier in this discussion, politics are now about everything (a state I do not disagree with). But please remember that just because politics are about everything, that does not make everything about politics. John from Idegon (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The coverage is there (with Nblund's wording appropriate), but I still concern myself with the RECENTISM fact. If after today, this was never at all mentioned again by any RSes, then it would not be reasonable to include per UNDUE/BLP. I have no idea if that will be the case, but we should use caution. I don't expect the story to go away but the direction it will take will likely depend on the results of the election. --Masem (t) 23:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

!Support Nblund's text.

A couple of other things to note: (1) there is only one source for CHS schooling - JFP. The rest are all copies. (2) "calling out the nature of the school, which we do not routinely do for any other person on WP" is not true. Britney Spears went to a school formed as a segregation academy when it was still all-white. As of 2005, it had never had a black student.

Hyde-Smith was never "a alumni." She was an alumna or one of the alumni.

Cries of WP:RECENTISM ring hollow when Hyde-Smith attended a school forty-five years ago.Rhadow (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It's the fact that this information was just recently discovered and how it affects her politics is the "new" story, hence RECENTISM. Again: it is not that she went there that is a problematic addition, but instead the connection that the press make between her going there and her white nationalistic views in the days prior to a runoff election. --Masem (t) 14:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

This is indeed "recent" from a news standpoint, but ancient from a fact story, but this has lasting importance. As the story develops and more is learned, Misplaced Pages:Recentism#Recentism_as_a_positive will be the portion of RECENTISM we will be looking at, because this is not something that will go away; it's something we will be finding more about. Jacona (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It is a story that is barely 48hr old. There is no way at this point to just how important it will be, that's the whole point of RECENTISM. A mass blip of coverage doesn't mean much without knowing the long-tail of this. Next week this time it could be a non-issue, or it could be a major issue. We cannot predict that, that's the whole point and per BLP policy we should be careful about what is included. --Masem (t) 15:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Today and in 100 years from now, the historical details of a subjects schooling are and will be part of their bio. This is especially so, because it makes no sense to expect encyclopedic readers to intuit information on it (today, or in 100 years - we write bios for readers around the world with multiple different ideas and knowledge of schooling contexts). It is without logic and not in the service of any policy/guideline/essay/explanatory supplement to claim you can name and link their school which contains this information in her bio, but are somehow totally prohibited from saying even one more word or phrase about it in the bio. And inventing a requirement that schooling context be a so-called "important", "major issue" for a single subject is bizarre and insensible for a biography -- it already belongs as part of biography. Nothing that has been written or proposed by Wikipedians has the bio anywhere near the realm of being "majorly" about schooling, and it's most doubtful it ever will, as it will always try to be a full biography (and if it ever becomes a "major issue" we will summarize then split it from the bio into Schooling of . . .). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It is the presumption that "She went to a whites-only school and sent her daughter to one, thus she must be a white nationalist" angle that the press are pushing that is the issue. It's trying to establish a "guilt by association" and can easily be seen as an attack on her character. As Nblund points out aboard, discussing the press's angle related to her schooling in discussing her politic views could be reasonable, but to tie it with the naming of the school is coatracking the issue out of place. And we still don't know if her past schooling and daughter's current schooling is going to be a long-term issue. (And this keeps getting lost but there is no issue in naming the schools, and even considering below, simply identifying their type as segregation academy. It's any additional comments about the school or type of school in the section about her early life that makes it a coatrack problem, as it makes WP looking like we are judging her - which we can't) --Masem (t) 17:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

So Misplaced Pages articles are based on independent, reliable sources except when Masem determines that the sources' motivations are unsatisfactory? Is this written in policy somewhere? Right now, it looks like numerous reliable sources cover Hyde-Smith's schooling, specifically in the context that she attended a segregation academy - that is, an all-white private school founded to circumvent integration. Some sources also mention that she sent her daughter to former segregation academy. Hyde-Smith's schooling raises absolutely no BLP concern, so we can stop discussing it here. Her daughter's schooling is more of a gray area; while there is no BLP concern per se, its suitability for inclusion would turn on how extensively sources cover it. MastCell  20:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

"White nationalism"? Are you misrepresenting the sources? I do not recall seeing "white nationalism" used in any of them. What sources are you talking about? Nor have editors used, "white nationalism" to my recollection. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

There have been no edits that mention white nationalism in the article at any time, and I haven't seen it mentioned by any sources, just Masem, repeatedly, in this discussion. Masem, why have you kept bringing white nationalism up when it's not at issue in any way? I can't find any reason for it, maybe I'm missing something. Is it some sort of code?Jacona (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It's to describe the stance what the press that are pushing the school angle story seem to want to call it eg , that (to these sources) her views are racially-charged. I can't figure out any other short-cut term to best describe the picture that the sources seem to want to give Hyde-Smith.

I will say at this point, that the approach that Nblund suggested, in the context of the election, that mentioning the issues brought up by the press with the white-segregated schools is likely unavoidable (eg today still discussing it as a challenge what was likely to have been an easy victory). But again, it needs to be in context of the election, not scattered in other parts of the bio outside of naming the school there. --Masem (t) 15:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

No. That you turn to a single opinion writer to blanket every source and you do not like is just wrong-headed on many levels of policy and common sense. As for the rest, it's not a matter for this board, anymore. BLP is fine with something like what multiple editors have been saying for a long-time now. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

BLP still matters because 1) the solution proposed by Nbland still hasn't been implemented yet so the problems still exist, and 2) there's still coatrack language in the article (a description of the school's mascot which has zero relevance to her bio outside the context of the special election) --Masem (t) 16:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

No. That's not a BLP issue. Your coatrack claims are nonsense. And anyone can go put something like what Nblund wrote in right now and could for a long time. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The white nationalism assertions aren't coming from the article, they're not coming from the sources. They're coming only from Masem. Masem also stated the type of school could not be mentioned, only to pretend that wasn't the point later. Red herrings (perhaps dog whistles?) keep being brought up, then ignored when called out. This is gamesmanship.Jacona (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment on content, not the contributor. And while not all sources on her use "white nationalist", I felt it reasonable to use that as a shortcut NOT to describe her, but to describe the pigeonhole that I felt the press was trying to funnel her into with the focus on her racially-insensitive language and her schooling, and hence why I see there's still a BLP problem with the state of the article. I certainly would not suggest using the "white nationalist" label on her bio at this point. And yes, I did change my mind on the mention of the type of school after ASW posted the comment below that it appears on other BIOs (though its not as universal), but I still stress that means one can mention a "segregation academy" as describing her school, but we do not need to go into any other details about that, like the Confederate mascot which has no place on her bio. The issues I bring up are not red herrings, they are the types of long-running BLP issues that are difficult to come to comprise about. (But again, I support Nblund's wording within the "Special Election" section as these are issues relevant to the controversy over the election.) --Masem (t) 16:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the problem is that your arguments, perhaps because of your pre-conceived notions or otherwise, seemingly misrepresented sources, and in so doing, seemingly, other editors. As for being a cheerleader in HS for the Rebels (part of her biography, naturally) take that to the talk page, if you really think it matters. But don't raise bogus policy (or essay) arguments. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

As to the content, making a straw man argument, putting controversial words into the mouths of both contributors and sources, is inappropriate.Jacona (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It is false Misplaced Pages does not describe the nature schools in bios: Donald Trump, "At age 13, he was enrolled in the New York Military Academy, a private boarding school"; Barack Obama, "He attended Punahou School— a private college preparatory school"; Amy Klobuchar, "Klobuchar attended public schools in Plymouth and was valedictorian at Wayzata High School." All in Misplaced Pages, describing schools in bios. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

This seems a pretty reasonable addition to the campaign section. Like I said above, I don't think there are any issues if we cover it appropriately in the campaign section. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I think this is thoroughly reprehensible thing to put in the article. It's badly sourced, completely POV and UNDUE and editorialization, and the daughter is an innocent bystander. It goes without saying that Cindy Hyde-Smith is disgustingly racist, but to drag her daughter in there too without cause, and to impute intentions to why her parents enrolled her in the school is against Misplaced Pages policy. There are plenty of noteworthy events to include in the article to demonstrate Cindy Hyde-Smith's racist beliefs, actions, and ideology, but there's no reason to add this POV undue assertion. Now if Cindy Hyde-Smith herself had founded the school, and she explicitly stated it was to keep whites segregated, that would be one thing. But that is not the case, and we don't actually know why any specific parent enrolls their child in Brookhaven Academy.

  By the way, I grew up in the South, and my parents were racist, and when desegregation was mandated in 1970, my parents switched their three youngest children to the local private day school (my older brother finished at the public high school; he had only one year to go); they explained that we would get a better education. The private school was excellent, and I blossomed there and had a great education, regardless of my parents' mixed motivations for sending us there. Later, my college best friend teased me that I went to a segregation academy. Maybe it was one -- it was founded in 1957 -- but it was an excellent school and I'm glad I attended it. Many if not most of my teachers were Northerners, and very liberal, and apparently corrupted us, in the eyes of my father LOL. Point is, not every private school in the South is a sinister white-supremacist stronghold, and not every motivation for sending Southern children to private schools is 100% race-based. Softlavender (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Fortunately, whatever personal issues or memories you have do not matter, here. Everything you have said policy-wise though is based on nothing except your personal POV-pushing, and therefore does not belong. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, policy is policy. And your claiming that everyone who disagrees with you is POV-pushing is text-book POV-pushing. Softlavender (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

No, You are clearly, blatantly, POV-pushing. You based your whole comment on the POV of your personal history. Your comment showed no interest in what the facts are. The sources say she sent her daughter to a school started as a segeregation academy that still today is virtually all white in a town that is mostly not white - those are just facts. Whether you like those facts or not does not matter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I based my position on policies, which I cited. Meanwhile, you have accused people on this thread who disagree with your position of POV-pushing four times so far: , , , . -- Softlavender (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I commented that you and one other editor are POV-pushing when you are POV-pushing. I said you cited policy, your argument was a personal POV-push. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

And I corrected you. Softlavender (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Your comment based your entire argument after you cited policy on your personal POV, and at length. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Softlavender. Why do you say it's badly sourced, POV, etc.? The information is not from the editors but from reliable secondary sources. The bios of other children of politicians, e.g. the Obama childrens includes reliably sourced information about the schools they went to etc. She isn't even named in the article. What we have is multiple reliable sources that say it, and say it as an issue, so while it may be POV, it's the POV of all the major news outlets, not editorialization by[REDACTED] editors. These sources have deemed that Hyde-Smith's choice to send her children to Brookhaven Academy is noteworthy, what difference does it make if we like it?Jacona (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Compare Cindy Hyde-Smith's parents' choice of schools for her and CHS's choice for her daughter with the choice to join a segregated golf club. The choice may have been based on the challenge of the course and the smoothness of the greens, but the fact that the club excluded Blacks at the time of enrollment IS a relevant topic in today's politics. Rhadow (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It's cited to a single article in the Jackson Free Press, a free alternative-press weekly. That's not "all the major news outlets"; it's not even one major news outlet, or even one paid local or regional outlet. And the article is about Cindy Hyde-Smith, not her daughter. It barely mentions her daughter; she is just a passing mention. It doesn't matter that the daughter is not named, it's still a BLP issue. Softlavender (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Softlavender, why do you describe it as badly sourced? In addition to multiple national news sources covering it, when questioned, Cindy Hyde-Smith tacitly acknowledged it. No sources have questioned the accuracy that Hyde-Smith's daughter attended BA, nor that BA was founded as a seg academy.Jacona (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It's cited to a single article in the Jackson Free Press, a free alternative-press weekly. That's not " multiple national news sources"; it's not even one major news outlet, or even one paid local or regional outlet. And the article is about Cindy Hyde-Smith, not her daughter. It barely mentions her daughter; she is just a passing mention. It doesn't matter that the daughter is not named, it's still a BLP issue. Softlavender (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Per the sources multiple publishers find the Jackson Free Press credible, so your personal ideas on being "free" or alternative" do not matter, here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It's cited to only one single source, not "multiple publishers". And the cited article is about Cindy Hyde-Smith, not her daughter. It barely mentions her daughter; she is just a passing mention. Softlavender (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Per multiple reliable sources the Jackson Free Press is a credible source. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

While the Jackson Free Press is a black newspaper, it has won numerous writing awards. The information has been picked up by all the national news sites, and I haven't seen the information refuted, even by right-wing outlets. I do not see any reason to doubt the Washington Post, New York Times, Fox News, etc. They fact check before they republish a story like this. And when Hyde-Smith was asked, she did not deny, but acted mortified. This is tremendously well reliably sourced.Jacona (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Jacona, please learn to indent properly (I've fixed your indentation several times by now), and please do not duplicate your posts. The information has only one single citation, which is a free alternative weekly. It is not cited to "the Washington Post, New York Times, Fox News, etc." And by the way, if you think Fox News is a WP:RS, then you need to learn more about RS. Softlavender (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Softlavender, other sources are discussed in this discussion, we are not discussing only what is in the article, but the information available. I mentioned Fox News because it is an example of a source that would be oppositional to information that might be detrimental to Hyde-Smith's campaign, and they accept it as true. Thanks for fixing the indentation.Jacona (talk) 18:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

In the Misplaced Pages article, the claim is cited only to the Jackson Free Press. If people wish to provide major independent RS, then they should add major major independent RSes as citations to the claim in the Misplaced Pages article. Right now the claim is badly cited from an alternative free weekly publication and to an article that mentions the daughter only as an aside. Softlavender (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Softlavender, this is a discussion about what should be in the article. What is currently cited is irrelevant; what is relevant is what can be cited.Jacona (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Even though JFP is not as great an RS as the NYTimes or the like, I don't think there's a doubt regarding that Cindy Hyde-Smith went to Lawrence County Academy, or that that school was white-segregated, or that Hyde-Smith sent her daughter to Brookhaven, or that Brookhaven is similarly set up aiming to be white-segregated. It is important to note that while JFP could have faked the yearbook, Hyde-Smith has affirmed she went there, which corroborates the yearbook. And the state of Brookhaven is easy to determine today since the school still exists. These facts are all relatively objective, and thus by themselves are not BLP issues. It's the implications these facts supposedly mean to Hyde-Smith that remain a subject of discussion --Masem (t) 19:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Focus

This has drifted pretty far afield. The specific issue is whether it is BLP-compliant to note that Cindy Hyde-Smith attended a segregation academy (that is, an all-white private school founded to defy integration), and later sent her daughter to a similar school. A non-exhaustive list of sources includes the following:

• Jackson Free Press: notes that Hyde-Smith attended a segregation academy and later sent her daughter to one.
• Washington Post (1): notes that Hyde-Smith "graduated from one segregation academy while sending her daughter to another."
• Washington Post (2): describes Hyde-SMith "attending and enrolling her daughter in a so-called segregation academy, a private school intended to skirt around integration by enrolling all or overwhelmingly white students."
• NBC News (1): describes "her attendance, and that of her daughter, at private white 'segregation academies'".
• Washington Post again: mentions reports that Hyde-Smith "attended an all-white segregation academy in the 1970s
• Politico: covers Hyde-Smith's attendance at an all-white segregation academy, mentions that "Hyde-Smith would go on to enroll her daughter at Brookhaven Academy, another Mississippi segregation school"
• NBC News (2): "Smith graduated from a so-called 'segregation academy,' one of hundreds of private schools founded by white parents in the 1960s and 70s after courts ordered public schools to desegregate."
• NBC News (3): mentions that Hyde-Smith "has come under fire again over segregation academies — this time for enrolling her daughter at Brookhaven Academy, also considered a segregation academy."

So there are multiple high-quality reliable sources attesting to the fact that Hyde-Smith attended a segregation academy. Some, but not all, of these sources also mention that she sent her daughter to such a school. These sources satisfy the requirements set forth in WP:BLP, so there is no BLP concern with including this information. That Hyde-Smith attended such a school is a fact, and one that reliable sources deem relevant to her biography. It's our job to present relevant, well-sourced facts, and if we can't do that job, for whatever reason, then we need to take a step back. The reader can determine what they think of the fact that Hyde-Smith attended an all-white segregation academy, but we don't get to decide for them by suppressing that relevant, well-sourced fact (and here I'm looking at you, Masem). I don't see the point in continued discussion here, especially since this thread seems to have degenerated into a platform for increasingly bizarre and policy-ignorant claims about the press, white nationalism, and so on. MastCell  19:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Support I agree 100%. Jacona (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

This part might be an interesting analysis elsewhere, but we need to recognize how the media works here. There is technically only one source here: a yearbook given to the JFP by an anonymous reader, which they then reported on. Every other source is piggy-backing off the JFP's news story (or those that followed off the JFP) of this. Hypothetically, what if that was a faked yearbook to include her name? I doubt it was, and as she's acknowledged she went there, that's no longer a question, but again, what if it was? Just because multiple media sources jump on a story does not make it true if they are piggy-backing off a source of unclear reliability. (At least most of these sources acknowledge JFP was the original source, showing their trust in the source. It is completely fair to discuss how a fact propigates through the media. And I've said repeatedly at this point that naming the schools and their type is not an issue.

What is the issue I see goes beyond the original question, which is that current language in the article leaves implied criticism in WP's voice. The article still has a massive coatrack, in, alongside naming of her school, that the school's mascot was a Confederate icon, without making any statement why that's important. As Nblund wrote above, describing the controversy raised over her education as part of a section related to the special election on her bio page is fully appropriate, and their language is 100% suitable to describe that. It's the attempt to ascribe this points elsewhere that create a problem with neutrality and tone, both treading into BLP. We should not at all be engaging in mud-slinging, and instead only to document that it happened when it creates a significant issue (as it has now). --Masem (t) 20:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Masem, you've made these points repetitively. Some are irrelevant, and some actually betray a fundamental misunderstanding of basic site policy. For Misplaced Pages's purpose, the source is not the yearbook; the sources are the reputable journalistic outlets I've listed above. More to the point, you don't get to suppress and ignore reliable sources simply because you personally question their motivations, or because you have a set of beliefs about how the media operate. You cannot simply characterize any potentially unflattering material as "mudslinging" and seek to suppress it on that basis. You cannot suppress relevant context found in numerous reliable sources simply because of your personal ideas about white nationalism, or whatever. In any case, since you've said your piece (and, frankly, bludgeoned this discussion to death), maybe give it a rest and see what other people have to say? MastCell  20:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the fact that she was sent to the segregationist school be mentioned, as well as the fact that it's a segregationist school, but the additional language basically gave away that we have a normative judgement against that. Ideally readers will not know the ideological biases (anti-racist) of the editors.Happy monsoon day 00:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Betsy DeVos

The article: On November 23, 2016, then-President-elect Donald Trump announced that he would nominate DeVos to serve as Secretary of Education in his administration, after his initial pick, Jerry Falwell Jr., rejected the offer.

The citation is a link to a Washington Post article that in no way mentions Jerry Falwell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.18.228 (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Not necessarily an egregious BLP violation; I can easily find articles that have Falwell claiming Trump asked him first. . Just needs to be added. --Masem (t) 15:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not prone to consider Jerry Falwell a reliable source on this. Or much else, for that matter. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with NatGertler. We only have Falwell's word on this, and he is not a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 12:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I should have been clear that we have RSes that are reporting that Falwell said this, they call it a "claim" but don't seem to doubt it. --Masem (t) 14:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I have deleted the claim that Falwell was offered the spot from the lead of the Betsy DeVos article. I have not yet deleted the statement in the body of the article that Falwell has claimed to have been offered the spot, although I am tempted. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Orly Lobel

• Orly Lobel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I pruned this article of some very florid language. Turns out that most of the editors are WP:SPAs and one admitted being asked to add Lobel's work to Misplaced Pages. Guy (Help!) 12:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The offenses seem not to be recent - nice to prune the BLP but the templates only will confuse readers at this point, no? Collect (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Fadlo Khuri again

As discussed here, an IP has been adding info regarding a court case involving Fadlo R. Khuri, sourced only to the description of said court case on Justia, to the article on Khuri. It has been repeatedly removed because the article on Khuri is a BLP, and Justia is the kind of primary source that won't cut it for such controversial claims on BLPs. Yet the IP has re-added it many times, including just now in this edit (which I have reverted). Eyes requested on the article in the likely event that this happens again. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

This should not be iin sourced to a court document (with a possible dash of OR). I have this watchlisted and requested protection at RfPP.Icewhiz (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Bernard Cornwell

I believe this is fake. quote: "He was married with a daughter, but the marriage ended in divorce." source: Harnden, Toby (15 September 2011). "A Page in the Life: Bernard Cornwell". The Telegraph. Retrieved 28 November 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:71:27FA:5D65:8A25:D7C4:6BA8 (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Fixed for now. Qualitist (talk) 10:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Matthew Gordon-Banks

Matthew Gordon-Banks -- the details of whose name haven't been stable -- is a politician whose article has been contentious for some time, as seen in Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive220#Matthew Banks (2015), Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive256#Matthew Gordon Banks (2017), to a minor degree in Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles (2018; related: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive299#Philip Cross, Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 130#User:Philip Cross, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive983#User:Philip Cross has COI), and again in the forefront in Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive276#Matthew Gordon Banks (2018), its talk page (as recently as this month), and its very recent edit history. As recently as two weeks ago, I'd never heard of the man. (I stepped in when I read of the article at WP:BLPN/Archive276.) It might help if I returned, but right now I lack the time. In view of the recent edit history and recent comments on the talk page, could some disinterested, level-headed people willing to digest the talk page and familiar with BLP-related policy please tackle this? -- Hoary (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I participated in the initial discussion, and my position then, and still is, that Banks falls under WP:BLP - WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which states - If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out (emphasis per BLP). At the time of the original discussion, there was only one article in a local source that documented the incident, so it was removed. Now the argument is that a local source has published two articles, so therefore, it meets the definition of multiple third-party sources. I disagree with that conclusion, my belief is that multiple third-party sources means sources independent of one another. I'm staying out of it, Banks himself, at one time has edited the article I believe as an IP, had others edit on his behalf, he has left a message on my talk page, and there are several others who insist that the incident remain in the article at all costs. Banks also regularly posts on the talk page as well. Good luck, I'm done with that mess. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Clearly "multiple third-party sources" does mean "sources independent of one another." It doesn't mean if the same outlet publishes the same idea twice. That ought to be obvious to all of us.Happy monsoon day 00:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm still busy, but I budgeted 20 minutes for a return. I've removed the material, and explained this on the talk page. Isaidnoway, please stick around. Continue to cite policies and guidelines. If these are flouted, then say so here, at WP:ANI, or on my talk page. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Greg Goff

A user is deleting a sourced statement regarding the end of Greg Goff's tenure as head baseball coach at Alabama, stating it is inaccurate and libelous. Other users (including me) have restored it, stating that it is properly sourced, and requesting a source to contradict the information. We've tried taking it to talk pages, but still seem to be at loggerheads. Can some uninvolved editors take a look and weigh in? Billcasey905 (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Raël

Marriages section says he married Sophie de Niverville in 2003, and subsequently suggests he spoke of their divorce "a year earlier" in 2001. Someone with proper information should update this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.236.217 (talk) 09:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I removed 2003. Palmer isn't explicit on the marriage date, but it seems like it was about 1993. She was fifteen at some point between 1990 and 1992; they married when she was 16. Larry Hockett (Talk) 09:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Having found some big problems in that article, I have nominated it for WP:GAR. It would seem that 11 years of decay have likely affected its "Good Article" status. (Hint: CNSNews is not a reliable source.) Elizium23 (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Hell's Kitchen (U.S. season 18)

At Hell's Kitchen (U.S. season 18) there have been several unsourced claims about contestants regarding ages and names/nicknames. Several editors are supporting claims with dubious references and even resorting to WP:SYNTH, which seems to be a BLP violation. One editor involved in this has used a YouTube source (see here) but when I try to view it I get a mesage that the content is blocked because I am in Australia, not the U.S. Could someone in the U.S. please verify that this source is valid? There was another source added in this edit for "Roe DiLeo" but that times out for me. I'd like to ensure that all of these edits are valid. Thanks. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I just checked the first ep of the season, and when each roookie chef/contestant is introduced, their chevron gives their "name" (nickname that is), age (at the time of filming, most likely), and hometown. The vets have only their name and hometown and original season they were on. The first ep has each rookie introduce their position verbally as well. So everything in the Rookie table - outside full names - can be validated by the primary source (first ep of the season). Full names can be found in the season's presser (eg ). This only leaves the ages and positions of the veterans. I am 99% confident that ages can be estimated +/- one year by the same fact that on their original season the introduction chevrons would have given their ages then too. (The video in your first link appears to be an copyvio to a recording of the first episode) --Masem (t) 16:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Perpetrators of riot in Infobox

• 1984 anti-Sikh riots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The infobox of this controversial article says "Perpetrators: Congress Party members". I raised a concern about it on the Talk Page thread stating that although there are several reports alleging members of the Congress party as perpetrators, no court of law has convicted The Congress Party for this riot. In fact the legal Enquiry commission has exonerated Congress leaders. Accordingly User:Britmax who agreed with the concern, removed the defamatory piece of information from the infobox.

An editor promptly reverted it and added these 2 sources Book 1 and Book 2. Quote from book 1 says ..assassination, was followed by pogroms against Sikhs organized by elements within the Congress Party.. The book 2 notes that few arrested were quickly released on the behest of Congress leaders...Official inquiry known as the Mishra Commission gave a blanket exoneration to Congress (I) leaders... Congress Party leaders have repeatedly and vehemently denied any involvement in the rioting. I note that these sources are only accusatory neither of these sources claim a conviction. The second source in fact notes that Congress members were exonerated. hence our article infobox should not include this parameter since it is not established. WP:BLPCRIME states that A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. This defamatory and accusatory content in infobox is now being fiercely supported on the talk page by some editors.

I am posting here for the opinion of neutral editors at BLPN about the content in question and the source. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

This content dispute is not relevant to BLP or this noticeboard, IMHO, as no individual is identified or named. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLPGROUP makes clear that BLP policy can be applied to named groups rather than just named individuals. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

It can if the group is particularly small and identifiable, but this was the ruling party of India. I don't think BLP applies here, but I also don't think it's a great idea to have a "perpetrators" section in articles on mass violence unless an identifiable group is described in reliable sources as participating directly in the riots - e.g.: the Interahamwe militias were among the perpetrators in the Rwandan Genocide, or the Klan's participation in the Tulsa race riots. It's true that some have accused the Congress party of fanning the flames of the riots, but that's contested and it's not really the same as describing them as the perpetrators. Nblund 18:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Folks, I believe whoever has added this in infobox is trying to suggest that "some" of the Congress party members who are mentioned in the article as accused Hence WP:BLPGROUP clearly applies here IMHO. Instead of trying to argue if this is relevant to BLPN or not, per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY we should rather focus on improving the article at Misplaced Pages, if an editor believes it is applicable there is no harm in discussing the matter at hand.

• Nat Gertler and User:Nblund Thank you for commenting on the actual issue. And I agree with your opinions that this is not a black and white case where controversial and contested claims can be put in the infobox. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution