This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

I'm asking for any comments on Zak Smith#Personal life which has been controversial. There is a strong consensus on the talk page to include this paragraph. Thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I've recently been INVOLVED in my capacity as an admin with issues relating to this, including issuing a WP:NLT block. So I'm not going to edit the article. But I will say that I am not comfortable with the sourcing for these allegations. I do not think they pass the standard set in BLP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I have added sources directly from GenCon and Wizards backing up assertions the Polygon story makes. BusterD (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Those are not reliable secondary sources and cannot be used to support highly prejudicial claims about someone covered by BLP. We are straying into potentially serious BLP vio territory here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Neither source was inserted for the purpose of supporting prejudicial claims. Both primary sources confirm the fact of their institutions' stance on excluding the article subject from continued participation with those institutions. Perfectly acceptable use of primary sources. BusterD (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Both sources are de-facto being used to support unproven allegations that have not been widely reported on in independent reliable secondary sources, which is a BLP vio. Only one secondary source has reported this at all. I am not certain as to whether or not it passes RS for something this controversial. But even if it does, it's only one source. This is seriously UNDUE and the addition of non-RS primary or third party sources is inappropriate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I have no dog in this hunt; I'll remove them. BusterD (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

In context: Smith's page has been subject to vandalism and disruptive edits for years, and the insertion of the paragraph referencing the allegations came after attempts to simply have the page deleted after the allegations (clearly not the appropriate response) and removal of pretty much everything about the subject except these gamer-world accusations and the gaming work that spawned it, despite that not being the subject's main occupation or claim to relevance. There are reliable third-party sources (a Matter article, an article on Bleeding Cool) pointing out that he has been a gamer harassment target before and the actual reactions from Gen Con et al to the allegations were not to launch investigations but to simply bow to pressure to ban or censure him. With all this context: even if the responses of Gen Con et al to the allegations are relevant (and more relevant than all of the information about the subject's primary occupation that've been erased) these responses have to be written about as companies bowing to pressure from a harassment campaign (i.e. angry fans demand their view be reified), not a response to the allegations themselves (that is: not an investigation of the allegations). Arguments that the allegations are not relevant or that if they are they need to be seen as the result of a harassment campaign are consistently met with flat dismissal or no response at all on the Talk page. The Talk page comments supporting inclusion include several personal attacks on the subject and editors supporting the paragraph's exclusion. In addition, the Polygon article doesn't report having asked Smith for comment, suggesting a much lower-quality reporting--Polygon may be reliable on video games but this isn't about video games.FixerFixerFixer (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)FixerFixerFixer

Polygon is a reasonable source for most things, but I would really like to see some higher-quality sources here, particularly before giving these allegations so much space. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Below are my points. It's long I know, I believe there is a lot of necessary context behind this. Acidbleu (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• The allegations are probably the most significant thing about Zak Smith. It's significant that abuse against women is being talked about in such a public space and that big companies like Wizards have made a stand against it. I believe the visit counts of his page since Mandy Morbid broke her silence are proof of that. He is a relatively insignificant figure otherwise. This is a major reason that there are not many other secondary sources about this topic. Entertainment Weekly might write about actor's histories of abuse, and so Polygon writes about a figure in the gaming scene's history of abuse. Honestly, I think the major reason Zak Smith has a Wikipedia page at all is because his primary talent is as a publicist. Reiterating the importance of the allegations and the aftermath: the article Zak Smith was a candidate for deletion on March 1st 2019 and many people agreed that the primary reason it should remain un-deleted is because of the allegations and the unprecedented aftermath. When Mandy posted her statement, it started a conversation that became a truly significant cultural moment in the RPG scene. As many people have said before in the talk page, regardless of of the truth of the allegations, the response to them has been culturally significant to gaming communities.
• The accusations against Zak are widespread and regarded as true by many communities as well as many people that used to have a positive relationship with Zak. It is my belief that he tries to push the conversation into the legal arena (by using words like "evidence," "witness" or "allegations" ) rather than a cultural, social arena because he knows that he would have an advantage in a court system that continues to consistently favor abusive men over their victims. Zak (As FixerFixerFixer) repeatedly claims that the statements against him are not "valid evidence" and he's relying on the fact that a culture of abuse sees a woman being silenced as less of a crime than a man's reputation being tarnished. The allegations against him are primary source statements in the #MeToo tradition made by four separate women that had previously had personal, sexual and/or romantic relationships with him. Of course his first move is to attack their credibility, call them crazy and vindictive and try to suggest reliable witnesses that just happen to agree with him. Again, the man is an excellent publicist. The allegations rang true to countless people that had known or encountered Zak. Dozens of people that had previously had a professional or friendly relationship of supporting Zak came out with heartfelt apologies and nuanced blog posts about how they believed Mandy and how all the things she said rang true with their experiences of Zak. But again, I'm sure that if any of these personal accounts were used as evidence, Zak would discredit them all the same.
• Finally, I just have to wonder: Why has no one questioned the legitimacy of Zak's own rambling blogspot post as a source? Isn't it as biased as the four personal accounts of the women that said he hurt them? Why doesn't even his economic stake make him a biased invalid source? Remember, Zak is functioning as a publicist, not an encyclopedia editor. Zak has always defended his often criticized argument style by the fact it gets him "favorable outcomes." I know that the well-intentioned people in the talk section just added that last sentence in an act of good faith towards the dissenting opinion, but still I find the fact that no one has questioned it indicative of cultural bias. Acidbleu (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I had no idea about any of this a week ago but I was shocked by the state of the page. I knew of Zak Smith as an artist and to see the article pruned down to just a reference to some allegations and some gaming awards and then locked that way was strange to me and I was suspicious of what was going on. The justifications given on the Talk page are consistent with Ad Orientem and FixerFixerFixer's interpretation that the references are being "used to support highly prejudicial claims about someone covered by BLP". You see: Claims the accusations are the most significant thing about the subject (who is in the Museum of Modern Art and has several significant publications and had a page with dozens of contributions for a decade), unsourced insults like the claim above "his primary talent is as a publicist", claims that gamers who never saw Zak and his alleged victim in the same room "regard this as true" while multiple eyewitnesses have signed documents claiming otherwise, editors making dismissive comments toward other editors arguing for exclusion, repeated attempts to include self-published sources that obviously violate BLP, threats against editors for pointing out there is a genuine history of harassment and disruptive editing here, bad faith assumptions like "the person behind it isn't here to discuss this in a productive manner in order to reach a consensus (they appear to be here to 'win')" and "He is known for being bullheaded and refusing to consider an argument over until he wins", and inaccurate descriptions of the contents of linked articles ("The Bleeding Cool article details claims of abuse from Zak Smith"). There haven't been any real arguments against the idea this is simply a more-sophisticated version of the vandalism the page has been undergoing throughout its history.ArmieHarker (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)ArmieHarker

Even the strongest critic of Zak Smith in this thread, Acidbleu, says "Why has no one questioned the legitimacy of Zak's own rambling blogspot post as a source? Isn't it as biased as the four personal accounts of the women that said he hurt them?" Exactly! Personal accounts are not a reliable source, especially for allegations as serious as these, which is exactly what BLP is meant to regulate. All sources cited for these unsubstantiated allegations are based only on such personal accounts by people intimately linked to the story (Smith's ex-wife and her friends). If they are "as biased" as Smith's own personal account, the personal accounts from the women in question cannot be cited as a reliable source. Wikipedia is not an appropriate battleground for interpersonal spats, and BLP is meant to protect against exactly this kind of situation. The Polygon article merely passes on highly prejudicial, unsubstantiated allegations. No actual journalistic or legal investigation has been done by any party, much less reported on in a secondary source. As Ad Orientem said, "[These] sources are de-facto being used to support unproven allegations that have not been widely reported on in independent reliable secondary sources, which is a BLP vio..... This is seriously UNDUE and the addition of non-RS primary or third party sources is inappropriate." If, as Acidbleu claims "regardless of of the truth of the allegations, the response to them has been culturally significant to gaming communities", then such discussion belongs on the general page about RPG gaming, not on the page of a particular individual under BLP. Any objective observer can see how badly Smith's page has been inappropriately warped by these recent allegations, which now dominate the content, when Smith is primarily known as a visual artist, with works in important institutions such as MoMa, as well as authoring numerous publications that meet the notability standard. Precious Island (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

There's been a ton of new accounts created solely to barrack for Smith here and at the page - I'll create a sock puppet investigation request or whatever it's called shortly. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I've opened a sockpuppet investigation here. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support - I support the investigation into sock puppet accounts. The presence of fake or supporter accounts trying to advocate on behalf of the subject is an issue that is making discussion of this topic difficult. Merxa (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Now that it turns out the conversation was being steered by someone with at least one sock puppet, and possibly several others (not to mention someone making legal threats), what does this mean for the inclusion of the paragraph, considering the consensus that was found in the previous discussion of the article? It looks like now that FFF is banned and not speaking, no one really has much to say on it? - Ishmayl (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

None of the socking has any bearing on the concerns I raised above. And FTR, I am not a sockpuppet. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

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

The article on "Frankie Beverly" states that he and his group left Philadelphia, Pa, relocating to San Francisco, as "Frankie Beverly and the Butlers". I am from Philadelphia and came out of high school in 1969. At that time Frankie Beverly toured locally as "Frankie Beverly and Raw Soul". They sang regularly at local cabarets and venues. About that time, we were all confused when we found out that the group had abandoned Philly and gone West to reinvent themselves as "Maze". They did not leave Philadelphia as The Butlers, as the article espouses. I believe that a conversation with Mr. Beverly will reveal that he and his group left as "Ra13:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)65.33.151.224 (talk)J65.33.151.224 (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)w Soul". Insignificant, some would say, but you seek the truth.

I removed the claim/counterclaim about "The Silhouettes" as neither meeting WP:RS nor WP:NPOV. The rest is simply incredibly under sourced entirely. Collect (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello.

In the article Sarah Sanders, in the second paragraph, it is said that "it was shown that Sanders had admitted to investigators that

she had regularly made false statements to the public as press secretary".

Reading the provided references (all of which are from New York Times), it is clear that this is not true, because there were only two occasions where she provided incorrect information to the public, one of which innocently (having been provided incorrect information herself), and one a slip-up (perhaps intending to be cynical and being taken literally).

Therefore the claim "regularly made false statements" is slanderous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiwardDeGroot (talk • contribs) 13:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Read this part of the article carefully, and look up the definition of slander. Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I have deleted that recently-added paragraph, on the basis that he sources didn't say that she admitted to making such misrepresentations regularly, which was the central claim. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Ranjan Gogoi, the Chief Justice of India, has been in the news recently regarding allegations of sexual harassment against him by a former employee. Therefore, I would like to request the regulars on this page to keep an eye on the biography as there may be further additions of unsourced content. I have also initiated a discussion on WP:NPOVN regarding existing WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM concerns — WP:NPOVN#Ranjan Gogoi and sexual harassment allegations; WP:UNDUE concerns. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 09:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: I have activated pending changes on the said page after two edits including allegations of sexual harassment and other details (one of which was unsourced). At that time I thought this was necessary as the subject received significant coverage in the news due to this, and that there was potential for further addition of unsourced content, with not enough editors watching the page. If any administrator believes that this was unsuitable, please feel free to deactivate the pending changes page protection. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 09:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I sought deletion of this redirect at RfD and then again at User talk:RHaworth#Janice Griffith, to no avail. I am only persisting because I believe the existence of the redirect raises BLP concerns which the restoring administrator, RHaworth, did not acknowledge. As I wrote to the admin, "If the subject is a non-notable living person, her name should not be redirected to a section [of a basically unrelated article] about her being a victim of domestic violence, cited to a blog post. I think that this is callous and contrary to BLP." I am seeking attention to this issue to see if others agree that this redirect is inappropriate given Wikipedia's BLP policy. 24.185.5.61 (talk) 03:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the target text per WP:BLP. The redirect should also be deleted. – bradv🍁 12:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes redirects where there's no obvious reason in the article for the existence of the redirect clearly need to go. And I think this also illustrates the point we're missing the forest from the trees if we concentrated on the existence of the redirect. The key question is whether the info should be covered in the article at all, and if it is, should the person's name be mentioned. If we're concerned by the harm to Janice Griffith, having the info and her name seems way more harmful than just having a redirect. Nil Einne (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Where a redirect does not even mention a person at this point, use of that redirect is not rational. And use of any name en passant of any person is not, in general, a reason for use of that name as a redirect where no article about that person exists. Not even a close call. The material was added by a rangeblocked editor in October 2018, and uses a cite which might not even be RS for use of a non-notable person's name in a controversial claim. Collect (talk) 12:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Daniel Holtzclaw was convicted of multiple sex crimes and has consistently insisted he didn't commit them. Editors are repeatedly removing [1] that information from the lead of the article. This is grossly unfair to the subject and a frankly disgusting violation of WP:BLPBALANCE, in particular the requirement that biographies be fair to their subjects at all times. This is particularly true in light of the strength of the evidence[2][3][4][5] -- and that's just warming up -- that the subject is in fact correct in his insistence.Adoring nanny (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The lede seems to end with the line that Holtzclaw defends his innocence. The rest that was removed doesn't feel like it has the right WP:WEIGHT to be lede material given tht he was convicted and there's presently no appeal action going that I see. --Masem (t) 21:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

All four of those links are to columns by Michelle Malkin, whose advocacy on behalf of Holtzclaw is already mentioned in the article. Independent coverage of her position has been pretty thin, however, which is why I've supported it being removed from the lede. If there are sources on the appeal, that section should be expanded, but that has little to do with Malkin's columns. Grayfell (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

First of all, my apologies, I didn't notice that the one brief sentence had been left in place, while the supporting material was removed. It's worth noting how Malkin came to her conclusions: For the past several months, I’ve reviewed extensive court records, accuser testimony, and discovery documents, video and audio. I visited the alleged crime scenes. I interviewed the two lead detectives who constructed the case against him, along with local community activists, a top DNA expert, Holtzclaw’s family and friends, and Holtzclaw himself. Highly detail-oriented investigative work, regularly featured by NR, which is why it is unfair to Holtzclaw to leave it out of the lead.Adoring nanny (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

"Because Michelle Malkin said so" is not a particularly strong bit of weight, especially given her reputation and that she is NOT known for journalism, investigative or otherwise. --Calton | Talk 23:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we should hold off until Malkin wins her Pulitzer or - at a minimum - until her viewpoint receives significant coverage in other reliable sources. Nblund ^talk 22:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

So, if we don't like the person who does some work, we don't use it, even if it is detail-oriented, really gets down to the brass tacks of evidence, is featured in reliable sources, and so forth. Our political biases are more important to us than either accuracy or fundamental fairness to the person whose bio we are doing. Awesome.Adoring nanny (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Your personal approval of a source doesn't make it reliable. Where is Malkin's work featured in reliable sources? The Enid newspaper? Is that it? Malkin doesn't have a positive reputation for accuracy and fact-checking (quite the opposite), and she is not widely seen as a journalist by other, recognized professional journalists. A willingness to compile 'evidence' and then form an interpretation of that evidence should not be confused with reliable journalism. This doesn't mean she is incorrect, and it doesn't mean she is correct, it just means you will need to find better coverage of this. Grayfell (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

This is clearly a controversial incident. A lot of controversy surrounds the guilt or innocence of Holtzclaw. Why wouldn't our article say in the lede "Holtzclaw has maintained his innocence. He has found support from conservative columnist Michelle Malkin and from people who have been wrongfully convicted"? I don't agree with this edit. Yes, "Holtzclaw has maintained his innocence", but we are not permitted to say anything more about that? The cliché is that every criminal proclaims his innocence. Is that what we are saying? Is the subtext of "Holtzclaw has maintained his innocence" that of course we all know he is guilty? Why would a brief sentence in the lede such as "He has found support from conservative columnist Michelle Malkin and from people who have been wrongfully convicted" be removed? This is what I'm having difficulty understanding. We would not be asserting Holtzclaw's innocence by including that "He has found support from conservative columnist Michelle Malkin and from people who have been wrongfully convicted". We are substantiating that this view enjoys a modicum of support, as indeed we should be doing in a case that is as undeniably controversial as this case. Bus stop (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

No, it is not "clearly controversial". Not every high-profile trial for a serious crime is a "controversy", and that term says nothing of value in this situation anyway. The only sources supporting the "controversy" are routine local news blurbs and borderline fringe opinion columnists with documented histories of actively manufacturing controversy. Claiming subtext might be present, because you've explicitly fabricated it for us, is completely unpersuasive. The courts found him guilty. Very few sources mention Malkin's position, and she isn't reliable. Pending an appeal or substantial/reliable coverage, this is a settled matter. Grayfell (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think Michelle Malkin has to meet exceptionally high standards in order to be mentioned in the lede of the Holtzclaw article. She believes Holtzclaw is innocent. I think a controversy of this magnitude of importance warrants placement in the lede. Simply saying that "Holtzclaw has maintained his innocence" is somewhat meaningless as that is what we would expect a person to say. But the support of an unrelated columnist adds heft to his own claims in this regard. I think that should be stated in the lede rather than only in the body of the article as is the case now. Bus stop (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

"controversy of this magnitude"? Sez who? Other than sounding grandiose, what does that actually mean? Holtzclaw's claims of innocence are already stated in both the lede and body. Malkin's columns do not add heft to her own position, and a local news blurb doesn't suggest that this is a defining trait. Grayfell (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Swapnil Deshmukh could use a few more eyes. Its author is edit-warring to remove valid cleanup tags. It's not clear to me that we should have an article on this subject at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

He created the first Isomorphic Computer Program by Use of Quantum Data Transference — wasn't that the plot of TRON: Legacy? (In other words, I'd probably !vote "delete" if this went to AfD.) XOR'easter (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a candidate for AFD. The article only has three sources. The first is just some economic stats on his business. The second is a broken link, but appears to have been a personal website. The last is a company that gives statistics on businesses (doesn't even link to a page about the business, but to a main page where you must search from there). None of the info in the article can be found in these sources --not a single bit-- which makes me think the author is also the subject, or else how would they know any of these details. And the article itself is mostly about his business and his theories. (I especially like the line that says "...his theory proves..." By their very nature theories don't prove anything. Facts prove; theories try to make sense of facts.) Seems way too promotional. It should be sent to AFD in my opinion, citing a total lack of sources. Zaereth (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a candidate for speedy deletion per WP:G12 [6]. XOR'easter (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this. I'll try a speedy tag, followed by AfD if that doesn't work. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Just FYI, since copyright is suspected, per WP:COPYVIO (and advice once given to me by Moonriddengirl) I would remove the article's content and leave only the tag, at least until the investigation is complete. No sense leaving it out there any longer than necessary. Zaereth (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

And it's speedied. XOR'easter (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swapnil Deshmukh. XOR'easter (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

We have a problem here--a BLP on a person with a somewhat troubled past, with two editors fighting over content. I've warned Hannah Hakodesh and Wyatt Tyrone Smith about various things, including DS for BLPs; if they don't stop fighting I will topic ban or block them both. It seems to me that the one editor is a representative for the subject and is trying to turn the article into a puff piece; the other appears to make the article into a research project, complete with editorial commentary--not neutral. Neither of these editors should be editing the article, but the version I restored is of course lousy. Note though that the non-neutral version I just linked probably has enough sources for an experienced editor to make something out of nothing--and I would appreciate it if you do. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I have no axe to grind with Aaron Cohen or Hannah Hakodesh. I stumbled across the page and thought I could improve the content through the what I found. In all honesty, I thought Hannah Hakodesh was trying to vandalise the page by making claims without any citations. As I have only been editing Wikipedia for 3 months and I am still learning a lot, I will back off and not edit this page again. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Owen lives in Washington State. Apollo829 (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source to support this, feel free to add it to the article. Neiltonks (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

If anyone has time, I just removed a deprecated source from this BLP, but I am heading out for the day, and I am pretty sure there are other sources in the article that are not apt for a BLP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Tarek Bouchamaoui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

False claims about past involvement of Mr Bouchamaoui with the Ben Ali regime and unfounded tax evasion accusation. This has been repeatedly posted on the platform and is simply slander and defamation. Whoever is repeating these accusation should disclose their identity or stop spreading false news and false accusations. The history trail of edits clearly shows that Mr Bouchamaoui is targeted and accused without any evidence of formal ties with criminal Ben Ali family. Accusation of tax evasion are slander and reference #2 does not demonstrate any involvement of Mr Bouchamaoui in such activities. Mr Bouchamaoui is clearly subject of false accusations and multiple tentatives to correct these false informations in his biography have been removed or reverted by users who are hijacking the personal biography page of Mr. Bouchamaoui.

This is impacting his personal life in negative ways and the page should be corrected and locked away from further random editing to avoid slander and further defamation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:100E:214:A4A6:9A6E:599B:D7FF (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The claims are backed up by a story in The Independent. I see nothing on the surface to disqualify the source. —C.Fred (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no evidence of former ties with the Ben Ali Regime other than a random mention in the article which is debatable. Mr Bouchamaoui has not faced any tax evasion charges and AFAIK it is not a crime to have a bank account with USBC...?! I am kindly requesting the removal of these defamation claims or otherwise specify the lack of any evidence or proof to back these allegations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:100E:214:A4A6:9A6E:599B:D7FF (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The USA Today source is an op/ed column. The Independent is a good news article, but says almost exactly, word for word, what our article says, and that is all. The entire article is really about another person. An accusation of tax fraud is a very serious charge, and per WP:BLPCRIME I think it should probably be removed unless/until a conviction is reported. So far, he wasn't even charged. Zaereth (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Accusation of ties with the former Ben Ali regime is also a very serious charge and the news article does not present any reference or any evidence of such. The article could be quoted or referred to but this should not be included as a fact (which is what is eluded to when we read the bio) in the biography of Mr. Bouchamaoui — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:100E:214:A4A6:9A6E:599B:D7FF (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• I am all about the BLP but the association was noteworthy enough to be mentioned in a highly respected worldwide newspaper. Maybe C.Fred has some ideas about maybe rephrasing, but I think that we agree that we are not going to sweep this under the rug. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• Found a bit more material, enough to warrant reverting the most recent removal of the information. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• the tax evasion accusations are pure defamation. Mr Bouchamaoui has not been charged or found guilty during the investigation. the additional material posted is purely feeding into the defamation as no charges were held. This is pretty serious and has nothing to do with Mr Bouchamaoui Bio. Stating teh number of accounts or holding is not part of a bio. There is nothing to be put under the rug and your comment is already biased if you assume so Drmies
• We are trying to come to a resolution here but you are editing and adding material to the contested version of the bio which is not very constructive attitude TMHO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:100E:214:A4A6:9A6E:599B:D7FF (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• I read the added material and the is no mention or account of any charges against Mr. Bouchamaoui. Additionally there is evidence in "le Monde" article that Mr. Bouchamaoui is accounted and considered as not being part of the Ban Ali Clan. Quoting in french "Les membres du clan Trabelsi-Ben Ali ne sont pas les seuls présents dans la liste des comptes de la HSBC Private Bank. L’homme d’affaires Tarek Bouchamaoui, ancien président de la commission d’arbitrage de la Confédération africaine de football (CAF) arrive en tête de liste." which means in english "The members of the Ben Al-Trabelsi clan are NOT THE ONLY ones that couldbe found in teh list of HSBC.....". This confirms my first point that Mr. Bouchamaoui has never been in any sort of alliance with the Ben Ali family or clan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:100E:214:A4A6:9A6E:599B:D7FF (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Referring fake news or non accurate media articles does not make it a true statement. Mr Bouchamaoui himself in the comment history stated that the referred articles are fake news about his persona. Edwardx can you please discuss resolution of the bio here instead of editing the Wiki Bio of Mr Bouchamaoui? you keep reverting the bio back to a biased version and removing any addition that is not in line with your personal opinion and that does sound and come across as very defamatory. WE will have to contact the relevant authorities if this keeps going on — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:100E:214:A4A6:9A6E:599B:D7FF (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

A couple of important things here. First, WP:NLT. Also, per WP:COI you should really clarify what you mean by "we". If you're an associate or legal representation for Bouchamaoui you need to explicitly say so. (disclaimer: I'm the IP who trimmed the article recently.) 199.247.45.74 (talk) 05:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

By "we" it is meant that those who are of the opinion that Mr Bouchamaoui is not describer in a fair and honest way. This is no legal representation. There is no legal threat here. All what I m seeking is to remove biased, defamatory and fake news in this biography and I am very puzzled by the difficulty of such an obvious request. The real subject here is the accuracy of the bio so let s focus on that and stop diverting to distractions and side points. I would love to see the rationale about trimming the artickle. The two last points that were added and referenced were pretty objective and I do not see a rationale or poit behind trimming those... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:100E:214:A4A6:9A6E:599B:D7FF (talk) 08:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The first point about no charges was redundant as it was already said in the above paragraph. It even cites the exact same source. The second point about "no close ties with Ben Ali family" was not supported by the source cited. I speak French and nowhere in the article does it suggest this either explicitly or implicitly. The third point was just your personal opinion. None of these are acceptable additions. 199.247.45.138 (talk) 06:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

If you really read french you will notice and actually read quite clearly that Mr Bouchamaoui has not been tied with the Ben Ali family and has been categorized apart from that family. Your point is quite hypocritical in trying to interpret it differently. We can keep this game going or we can opt to stop defaming living persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:100E:3010:700C:6988:21E6:A3B1 (talk) 07:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Please quote which part of the article in question clearly states that "Bouchamaoui has not been tied with the Ben Ali family". I'm just not seeing it, and it seems to be an interpretation on your part. Meanwhile, we have two reliable English-language sources that DO state that he DOES have said ties. Therefore, in order to argue against the inclusion of this material in the article you're going to have to produce quality sources that explicitly refute the claim that there are ties. 199.247.45.10 (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

To the IPv6 IP/OP, I would post this on your talk page but as an IPv6 IP it's difficult to be sure you'll receive it. You said: "so let s focus on that and stop diverting to distractions and side points". Well we can do that, but do remember the reason why we "diverted"/"distractions"/"side points" is because you said "WE will have to contact the relevant authorities if this keeps going on". While you are entitled to do so, if you threaten to do so here, you are likely to be blocked for it per WP:NLT. Don't say such things and there won't be "diverted"/"distractions"/"side points". Nil Einne (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

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

The article has been vandalized quite significantly - it includes claims that:

• Juster's mother is Minnie Mouse
• Potentially libelous claims that have since been reverted

In addition, the entire article suffers from poor sourcing - all but one of the sources are from the same book. I can't verify the claims from this book myself, as I don't have access to a copy, some of them seem potentially false. At one point, a source was being used that did not support the claim. Stellarnebula (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted back to the last good version and then restored your sourcing tag. I see that the most recent IP vandal has been blocked so it may quiet down; if not we can request semi protection. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Anyone know what gives here? Is it likely just some random person who dislikes the guy? Normally when we get a lot of vandalism it's either because the person is very notable so an obvious target (e.g. Justin Bieber), or there's some controversy or other reason for dislike about the person which has attracted the attention of trolls (Kenny G, as are a lot of people who Tweeted stuff come to mind). I'm not seeing any real reason why his page would be targeted other than that he has some Jewish background. Nil Einne (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, as we've been here before, but there's a relatively minor but ongoing dispute that could do with some other opinions to resolve. For some time the Christina Hoff Sommers article has had a section describing her as an antifeminist. Specifically:

Some authors have called her works and positions antifeminist. The feminist philosopher Alison Jaggar writes that in rejecting the theoretical distinction between sex and gender, "Sommers rejected one of the distinctive conceptual innovations of second wave Western feminism" and that as the concept of gender is relied on by "virtually all" modern feminists, "the conclusion that Sommers is an anti-feminist instead of a feminist is difficult to avoid".

There's no problem with this per se - she is often described as anti-feminist and it is a valid view. However, Sommers disagreed with the characterization, so based on a Tweet she posted stating that the claim in the Wikipedia article was wrong, we included her denial on the end saying simply "Sommers rejects such claim" since 2016. That was recently removed by an editor.

Currently we say that she is characterized as an antifeminist, but don't say that she denies this. We have three suggested sources we can use:

1. Her tweet, where she wrote "My Wikipedia profile now calls me an "opponent" of feminism. Not so. Strong proponent of equality feminism--always." [7]
2. Cathy Young in Commentary (1994) "Sommers repeatedly stresses that she herself is no anti-feminist. Rather, 'I am a feminist who does not like what feminism has become.'" [8]
3. Alision Jagger "Sommers maintains that she is a liberal feminist after the model of John Stuart Mill" [9]

All three have been opposed as additions, #1 because it is a primary source, #2 because it was published in 1994 and the claims we are using are from 2001+ so it is argued that using it would be WP:SYNTH; and #3 because it is undue and that saying "Sommers views herself as a feminist" is misrepresenting the source material.

Given that this is a BLP, is it undue to briefly include her denial of the characterization, even though many sources describe her as antifeminist? If so, are any of the three sources usable for this? - Bilby (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

A very important point that you are missing in this summary is that the article goes into great detail about the brand of feminism that Sommers is known for, the sort of feminism she espouses. So it's not critically important to say that she disagrees with contrary opinions, like it would be if her views were not given a nice, big platform. Second, a tweet is not a much of a source for this sort of thing. In effect, we would be telling the reader that 20+ scholars describing Sommers as working against feminism, published by very reliable sources, are equal in importance to one brief denial tweet from Sommers. Binksternet (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

It is 100% required to include any self-denial claims in response to criticizism to a person as long as it can be reliably sourced to that person. The two book references are better sources, but the tweet from her verified account is just as good for this purpose. To not include this criticism is us saying in WP's voice that she's "guilty until proven innocent" to speak. Obviously, her statements only need a sentence or two, per UNDUE, but they cannot be ignored under BLP Requirements. --Masem (t) 02:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's required. WP:PUBLICFIGURE says we should include denials of "allegations". The examples given are "John Doe had a messy divorce" and "A politician is alleged to have had an affair". That isn't on the same level as multiple peer-reviewed academic sources critiquing someone's self-created public image as a woman's-rights advocate (which is what a feminist is). Besides the scholarly sources in the article saying Hoff Sommers is an antifeminist, there are many more in the archives. Hoff Sommers wasn't even responding to these scholars; she was criticizing her Wikipedia bio for calling her an "opponent of feminism". Well, it didn't exactly say that, and certainly doesn't say so now. We're not required to catalogue people's complaints about our work, certainly not in mainspace. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Being called any sort of label against a public figure is an accusation. Labels like "anti-feminist" are derogatory, so the public figure being labeled should have their statement why they deny that allegation. UNDUE still applies, and the weight of the scholars calling her stance get the attention, just can't eliminate hers. --Masem (t) 03:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Fine, except that Hoff Sommers didn't deny any specific allegation; or rather, the allegation doesn't seem to exist. The closest thing would be where her Wikipedia page said she was "known for her opposition to late 20th-century feminism in contemporary American culture". That text is long gone, so why are we entertaining her response to it? Her tweet has nothing to do with any of the academic sources in the article or on the talk page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that a specific response to a claim made that we don't include, we should not include the response either. Its basicly that from a BLP standpoint, if we have appropriate coverage to include criticism of that person, then we should strive to find and include any statement by that person if they have denied such claims. --Masem (t) 04:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

And to quickly add: UNDUE still fully applies. We have to add at least reasonable statement or brief quote from the BLP in such cases, but we do not at all have to give the false balance to weight. 20 scholars vs 1 BLP means that the criticism is going to likely have a good chunk of material over a sentence or less from the BLP. --Masem (t) 04:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree, as long as someone can show where Hoff Sommers responds specifically to any of her academic critics. I've asked repeatedly on the talk page for such a source, but none have been provided so far. Incidentally, "opposition to late 20th-century feminism" is her actual stance, as quoted by Young ("I am a feminist who does not like what feminism has become".) In the book she goes on: "The new gender feminism is badly in need of scrutiny. Only forthright appraisals can diminish its inordinate and divisive influence." (Here "gender feminism" is Hoff Sommers' own term for "the prevailing ideology among contemporary feminist philosophers and leaders".) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I think there is something to be said that if there are claims that can be taken as negative or derogatory in a specific topic area, and that BLP responds not directly to that but still self-stating her view to clarify her stance to no specific complaint, that's still valid for a sentence within UNDUE. I can't say too much for Summers here, but say we have a person who everyone else calls pro-gun rights which is commented with scorn or the like, and that BLP comes out to say 'I'm more about rights for self-defense to justify gun ownership", that would be reasonable to include as a sentence. But that's drifting off topic. There's at least two sources with Summer's own words that should support a sentence in her article after outlining how academia talks about her stance on feminism. Clearly few others support her stance, so BLP demands some inclusion but UNDUE is the driving force for how much to include. --Masem (t) 05:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

That's fair, but I definitely would not count the 2014 tweet as a usable source per WP:BLPSELFPUB. Besides the questionable accuracy, I think it counts as "unduly self-serving" given that Hoff Sommers' reputation – and income – rest on the idea that she's a contrarian feminist sticking it to the feminist "establishment". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

There is a distinction that should be noted between a brief and pointed rebuttal and a press release or personal website. Bus stop (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

There is a distinction, yes, but in terms of UNDUE, a singular brief rebuttal, and a singular 20-page rant would carry the same WEIGHT in term of adding roughly a sentence that says "BLP denies these claims" or "BLP calls themselves (this instead)." Its necessary to include that sentence but we're not going to artificially allow more to be said because it's coming from a 20-page rant. --Masem (t) 14:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

In said "rebuttal", Hoff Sommers was either (A) misconstruing what the article said, or (B) contradicting her own published statements. Not to belabor the point, but she hasn't denied any specific claims that I've seen. The latest talk page proposal was to add, "Although Sommers views herself as a feminist ..." I would be more amenable to something like that, adding "liberal feminist" per Jaggar and other sources, e.g. [10]. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

She would be an authority on whether she is a feminist or not. I don't think the term "feminist" has as strict a definition as our dispute might suggest. Sommers asserts that she is a feminist. Certain sources assert that Sommers is a feminist. The reader is apprised of this seeming contradiction by including assertions from both sides of the question as to whether Sommers is or is not a feminist. We should not be smoothing over the dispute, rather we should be highlighting it. The dispute is important. It involves both Sommers and the definition of feminism. Bus stop (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I think reputable scholars in the area of sociology and gender studies would be the real authorities on who is and who isn't a feminist. And we have many to quote from. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I take issue with Masem's characterization of the antifeminist label as an "accusation" or "allegation" or a "derogatory" term. Rather, it is an accurate scholarly evaluation based on research and analysis. Binksternet (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Binksternet—the single word "antifeminist" is not an "accurate scholarly evaluation". The "antifeminist label" is merely one word in length, making it an unlikely candidate for "accurate scholarly evaluation" status. Bus stop (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I'm now inclined to disagree with that. It is a viable view, but there is a case for saying that equity feminism is feminist - certainly it is taken as such in much of the literature. It is arguably not a good feminist stance, or incompatible with other feminist stances, but the strong emphasis on providing equal rights to women in countries where the legal system discriminates is arguably a feminist stance. If there's a chance of that, describing a person who argues for women's rights as anti-feminist is something that they might see as derogatory. - Bilby (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

That begs the question of whether Hoff Sommers actually argues for women's rights, whether in theory or in practice. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

As I've said on the article talk page, I think Bilby has the right of this question in that CHS's denial of being antifeminist (or, alternatively, claim to be a feminist) deserves more than zero space in the article text. Also if I'm keeping score correctly, those in favor of leaving that information out are contending or have contended that being called an antifeminist is not an "accusation," "allegation," or "derogatory," but denying that one is an antifeminist is "unduly self-serving." Cute. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, if you think you're a feminist, it is an offense for someone to say that you are not a feminist. The refutation of that offensive characterization warrants space in the article. Christina Hoff Sommers is defending herself against the claim that she is not a feminist and that defense should be noted in the article. Bus stop (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

If you believe you are Queen of Sheba, is it "offensive" for me to say that you're not? It's not about whether anyone takes offense at the characterization, but about sticking to the most reliable sources. I've asked this before, but since it keeps coming up, where exactly did Hoff Sommers "defend" herself against any claims by her critics? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

You know the answer to that. The one we've focused on is her statement to Young that she is "no antifeminist". She also did the same in her tweet, and she does so whenever she states that she is an equity feminist. Even Jagger acknowledges that Sommers views herself as a feminist, albeit a "liberal feminist". It is not a mystery that Sommers views herself as a feminist, not as an antifeminist. - Bilby (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Those are actually two separate things. It would be original research to interpret someone saying "I'm an equity feminist" to mean "I'm not an antifeminist". I don't know why you keep saying that the statement quoted by Young is a response to critics (it appears to be Young's paraphrase, not a statement by Hoff Sommers; Young's piece was a book review, not an interview). That piece was published in 1994, so which critics exactly was Hoff Sommers responding to? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

You can disagree with the specific person, or you can disagree with the claim being made. Sommers has long disagreed with the claim that she is an antifeminist - at least since 1994. It is not WP:OP to draw a parallel between Sommers saying "I am not a antifeminist" and someone else saying "Sommers is an antifeminist", even if Sommers is not specifically referencing the second person. - Bilby (talk) 07:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Original research means any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources. That definitely includes drawing any parallels between what Hoff Sommers said in 1994 and what someone else said 20 years later. Young writes, "Sommers repeatedly stresses that she herself is no anti-feminist." Well, why do we care? Who was calling her that in 1994, and did Hoff Sommers even say that, or is it just Young's interpretation? If she did say it, there ought to be better sources for it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Source 1 states that Sommers "stresses that she ... is no antifeminist". Source 2 states that in the opinion of the author "Sommers is an antifeminist". It is sky-is-blue stuff to say that Sommers disagrees with the antifeminist label. - Bilby (talk) 08:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

That's a bit of a paradox. If O.J. Simpson had said in in 1979, "When I'm charged with murder someday, I didn't do it, ha ha", we wouldn't need to put that in his biography. If it's such "sky-is-blue stuff", it should be easy to find notable people using that label before 1994. There's apparently a passing use of the term to refer to Hoff Sommers in 1993 here, but I doubt this one use would spur Hoff Sommers to "repeatedly" contradict it.

On that note, Young is not even the best source for a biography; she's summarizing the book, not describing Hoff Sommers as a person. How do we know she's paraphrasing accurately? if Hoff Sommers repeatedly said that in her book, it should be easy to find. Can anyone find it? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it, we can't use Sommers' own words, because there needs to be a secondary source. But we can't use Young (a secondary source for Sommers' stance) because we don't know if it is accurate in saying that Sommers denies being an antifeminist, as we need Sommers' own words. - Bilby (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I take that to mean we don't know she actually said it or where. Good to know. I've already stated my misgivings about Young as a secondary source on the talk page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it, we can't use Sommers' own words, because there needs to be a secondary source. Not correct: in the context of a self-statement to counter what others have said about her, an SPS from Sommers is perfectly fine to use, just that we treat it with the appropriate UNDUE concern, in that her sole opinion should not outweight what several RSes have otherwise said about her. See WP:BLPSPS. --Masem (t) 20:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

...a self-statement to counter what others have said about her... That's the whole point; which "others" are we talking about exactly? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I'd be fine with adding a statement such as Although Sommers describes herself as a liberal feminist, since we now have a couple of good sources for that: [11][12] —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC) {edited 21:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC))

As an aside, there's nothing in BLP policy about "offending" people. We are free to include well-sourced material "even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

That statement in BOP has to be considered in context of UNDUE and context. Bringing up a sourced criticism with no other context to the person is probably not important or appropriate to include. Here for Sommers she is tied to fix missions around feminism so it is reasonable to include sourced criticism of her views on it. --Masem (t) 08:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Starke Hathaway: if I went around writing books and giving lectures saying I was the original Bozo the Clown and that all the other Bozos were frauds, despite expert consensus to the contrary, being paid handsomely for it all the while, and then tweeted out that all the people saying I wasn't are a bunch of haters, 'cause I'm the REAL Bozo the Clown, would that not be self-serving? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Nice analogy, but unrelated to Sommers. The situation with Sommers' stance is much more complex and nuanced. - Bilby (talk) 07:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

More easily, whether someone is Bozo is an objective statement with no alternative meanings. Whereas if someone is a feminist is subjective, depending on what definitions you use. --Masem (t) 08:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, well, the point of the analogy is to highlight the inherent conflict of interest, not to literally equate feminism with being a famous TV clown. Substitute "discoverer of cold fusion" or "inventor of Coca-Cola", it doesn't matter. The fact is, Hoff Sommers being seen as a feminist is central to her personal brand; her YouTube series is called "Factual Feminist", for crying out loud. She absolutely has a financial and reputational stake in maintaining that image. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Substitute "discoverer of cold fusion" or "inventor of Coca-Cola", it doesn't matter. Well, it does matter, because both of those would still be completely missing the point. A closer analogy would be someone calling themselves a fan of Bozo the Clown despite a chorus of people insisting she wasn't a REAL fan. 199.247.46.74 (talk) 10:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

if I went around writing books and giving lectures saying I was the original Bozo the Clown and that all the other Bozos were frauds, despite expert consensus to the contrary, being paid handsomely for it all the while, and then tweeted out that all the people saying I wasn't are a bunch of haters, 'cause I'm the REAL Bozo the Clown, would that not be self-serving? Well, no. For one, the standard is for exclusion is something being not just self-serving but unduly self-serving. But also, if doing this was something you were notable for, it would be downright bizarre to detail all of the opinions of non-Bozosity and not to include your claim to being Bozo in your wikipedia article no matter how many disagreed. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 10:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Fine, as long as we're talking about Hoff Sommers' claim to being a "liberal" or "equity" feminist, and not the implicit rebuttal of criticism (e.g. "denies" or "rejects"). We have better sources for the former claim than a tweet anyway. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

"The fact is, Hoff Sommers being seen as a feminist is central to her personal brand; her YouTube series is called "Factual Feminist", for crying out loud. She absolutely has a financial and reputational stake in maintaining that image." I don't think we are concerned with personal brands or financial interests. I think we are discussing the ill-defined ideology called "feminism". The defining of the term is where the various participants are finding contention. Calling someone anti-feminist or not-a-feminist involves positing a definition of the term feminism.

It so happens that in a biography of Christina Hoff Sommers a definition of feminism is an important point. A policy rule such as "is not unduly self-serving" should be ignored because despite for instance financial interests there is a topic of fundamental intellectual interest—that concerns the shifting definition of feminism.

The subject of the biography is an important participant in a societal discussion. It would be cynical of us to omit material pertaining to attempts to define feminism based on the idea that the subject of the biography has for instance financial interests or that their assertions are "self-serving". Bus stop (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The issue is not whose definition of feminism is more abstractly correct; that belongs in an article such as Equity feminism. The issue is where Hoff Sommers herself fits into the academic and media debate. Regarding "fundamental intellectual interest", it would be highly intellectually misleading to put a one-off tweet about her Wikipedia page anywhere near the peer-reviewed academic sources evaluating her contributions. If anyone could find similarly reliable sources discussing Hoff Sommers' self-description and treating her as an "important participant" in the societal debate, this discussion could end now. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The "the peer-reviewed academic sources" have as much vested interest in the ever-shifting definition of "feminism" as does Christina Hoff Sommers. We find this at Camille Paglia: "Christina Hoff Sommers relates that when Paglia appeared at a Brown University forum, feminists signed a petition censuring her and demanding an investigation into procedures for inviting speakers to the campus." Bus stop (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

This isn't about feminists signing a petition. This is about the views of the most reliable sources. The idea that they have a "vested interest" is like saying climate scientists are just in it for the money. It's anti-intellectualist claptrap. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

"The idea that they have a 'vested interest' is like saying climate scientists are just in it for the money." But I haven't said that "the peer-reviewed academic sources" are "in it" for the money whereas you have said "She absolutely has a financial and reputational stake in maintaining that image" and you have said "Besides the questionable accuracy, I think it counts as 'unduly self-serving' given that Hoff Sommers' reputation – and income – rest on the idea that she's a contrarian feminist sticking it to the feminist 'establishment'." You are using terms like "financial" and "income" in reference to Hoff Sommers. I think it is the ever-shifting definition of "feminism" that is up for grabs. I don't think there is a monetary factor. Bus stop (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

You're free to disagree with my assessment. But unlike her scholarly critics, Hoff Sommers gets her views out though the mass media rather than academic publishers. She hasn't held a university post in over 20 years. Even before that, she was described as the "most well-funded critic of women's studies in the popular press", presenting herself as an authentic feminist while receiving grant money from several right-wing foundations for her "attack on academic feminism". So let's please not imply any false equivalences here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

She "puts her views out though the mass media rather than academic publishers precisely because "[s]he hasn't held a university post in over 20 years". And it would be incorrect to say that she puts her views out though only through mass media. She writes, she speaks, and yes—she uses Twitter. Don't we see a situation that is similar concerning Camille Paglia? I think it is ludicrous to tell someone they are not a feminist. Yet we find "Some feminist critics have characterized Paglia as an 'anti-feminist feminist', critical of central features of much contemporary feminism but holding out 'her own special variety of feminist affirmation'." Is it not obvious that there are definitions of "feminism" out there at variance with one another? Sommers and Paglia are feminists rejected by a current group issuing edicts on who is and isn't a feminist. For the purposes of a Wiki biography of Sommers we don't have to get bogged down in internecine squabbling. The question here is whether we can include a tweet. She asserts what her position is on feminism: "My Wikipedia profile now calls me an 'opponent' of feminism. Not so. Strong proponent of equality feminism--always." I think that tweet is valid for inclusion.

A pronouncement that someone is not a feminist is totally stupid. Do we find Sommers and Paglia saying that someone is not a feminist? It is stupid. An intelligent person takes issue with specific points of disagreement. Our article should be noting that there is dialogue among members of a community concerned with feminism in which it has been claimed by some that Sommers is not a feminist. The article should be noting that Sommers responded to such claims by saying that indeed she is a feminist. Most other details about this squabbling are extraneous. A tweet is simply a means expression. It is succinct and it squarely addresses the question. I will note that Sommers is entirely an authority on whether she is a feminist or not. This is a term from the humanities and social sciences. This is not a term from hard science. We aren't debating whether the requirements of feminism are fulfilled by a given person's activities and statements. In the final analysis this is all opinion. Bus stop (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Sommers responded to such claims... There's no proof of that in the sources available. Her tweet was about Wikipedia, not some academics. The idea that there's a feminist cabal issuing "edicts" is completely unfounded; there are simply many feminist ideologies that often conflict with one another. Nor are we saying anything about what Hoff Sommers is or isn't. We're talking about due weight, conflicts of interest, and reliable sources. Regardless of any meta-issues about feminism (or Camille Paglia – what does she have to do with anything?), we stick to the most reliable sources when describing subjects.

Hoff Sommers' first book, while she was still a professor, was put out by Simon & Schuster, who have published everyone from P.G. Wodehouse to Donald Trump. Discussing Hoff Sommers and her cohorts, Patrice McDermott writes, "It is significant, then, that even though they critique an academic field, these new critics of feminism chose to have their work published and reviewed by popular media that, for the most part, uncritically share their ... assumptions." Hoff Sommers later left academia for a conservative think thank. Whatever her reasons, I don't think we want to ignore RS criteria just to give her a break, and Wikipedia never called her an "opponent of feminism", so I don't know why we're even discussing that issue. (See my latest reply below on the idea of balancing the various "opinions".) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Do we find Sommers and Paglia saying that someone is not a feminist? Not that it matters, but Hoff Sommers' first book is called Who Stole Feminism? I think that says quite a lot about who she does and doesn't consider a "real" feminist. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

There can be antagonism on both sides. But a book about the current state of feminism is not necessarily a personal attack on one person. Arguments can be couched in general discussions that can have intellectual underpinnings. On the other hand arguments can consist of telling someone they are an "anti-feminist". I find one argument constructive and the other destructive.

"Camille Paglia – what does she have to do with anything?" I think it is stupid for one person to tell another person that they are not a feminist. Articles on Paglia and on Sommers are stating that others say that they are not feminists. That is a minor point and even a stupid point. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that Paglia and Sommers are feminists. The level of discourse is a problem which should be taken into account. You suggest below in "Proposed addition" that our article go on at length on a stupid point: that Sommers may not be a feminist. Bus stop (talk) 04:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

So you have said ad nauseam. But whether anyone here thinks it's "destructive", "stupid", or whatever is irrelevant. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bus stop: Please remain respectful and civil. 84percent (talk) 02:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• What a long discussion. I agree with Bus Stop and Masem that we need to place her own statement that she considers herself a feminist (or not an anti-feminist) in the article. Whether or not being anti-feminist is derogatory is a matter of opinion, clearly CHS thinks it is, and wants to defend herself from it. Which source to use? Honestly, I think any would do, but if the issue is in this much doubt, all of them. --GRuban (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Except the sources all say different things. "Sommers repeatedly stresses that she herself is no anti-feminist" and "Sommers maintains that she is a liberal feminist" are not the same thing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• I agree also. Many of the arguments don't even make sense, such as "it would be highly intellectually misleading to put a one-off tweet about her Wikipedia page anywhere near the peer-reviewed academic sources...". What is that even supposed to mean? That intellectuals can't see what everyone else can? If peer-reviewed sources refer to Richard Nixon as a criminal, and Nixon defends himself saying, "I am not a criminal" whether we believe him or not his reaction to the accusations are indeed relevant to the article, not only for balance and weight but also because it gives the reader some insight into the person. Beyond that, categorization unwittingly leads to many syllogistic fallacies, as demonstrated above, which is why most psychologist seem to agree that it's the neurological root of prejudices and stereotyping. Labels like this are far too subjective, meaning different things to different people, but all meant to cover individuality with a vague title. In most cases like this, especially involving sexuality, there is rarely a "black and white", purely male or female view. (For instance, to the Navajo there are four sexes, while in modern psychology it is recognized that sexuality covers an entire spectrum.) If the subject of an article disagrees with a particular label, their disagreement most certainly should be included. Zaereth (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually, Hoff Sommers hasn't disagreed with any "label". Wikipedia never called her an "opponent of feminism". No one has shown her directly disputing the label "antifeminist". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
    • We shouldn't be getting into the details of what a "feminist" is on Sommers' page. We have to recognize there's a spectrum of definitions related to the term, and some of these are being brought up in term's of criticism about Sommers. Sommers hasn't necessary addressed any specify claim but has spoke of her position within that spectrum. As long as any of this criticism towards Sommers or Sommers' own statements are all fitting in this pool of ideas that "feminist" represents, it should be included. Let a reader figure out that (perhaps) Sommers' defense evades the criticism raised by others, we'll just put the evidence out there for the reader to decide. --Masem (t) 22:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
      • "We report, you decide" is manifestly the wrong approach. The whole point of an encyclopedia is to present a summary of accepted knowledge regarding the subject. Once again, I'd be fine with the statement (Although) Sommers describes herself as a liberal feminist... —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
        • But that's the essence of our WP:NOR policy. We know there's a lot of sources we can use to describe how Sommers and others see Sommers' stance about feminism. We are not here to clear that up since no singular RS tries to do that. So instead, lay it out with respect to UNDUE/WEIGHT, and let readers figure it out. The problem with trying to anything more is that then also puts WP voicing support or opposition to any of those points of view, which is against NPOV as well. --Masem (t) 22:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
          • I have no problem saying how Hoff Sommers describes her "stance about feminism" generally. The trouble is when we imply she's rebutted certain criticisms when that isn't supported by the sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Sangdeboeuf—you write "[t]he whole point of an encyclopedia is to present a summary of accepted knowledge regarding the subject." That Sommers is or isn't a feminist is not "accepted knowledge" because it isn't even "knowledge". There is enough fluidity in the term "feminism" for valid debate over the meaning of that term to take place within a community of people concerned with women's issues. Bus stop (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
          • The "knowledge" here is that "Persons X, Y, and Z describe Hoff Sommers as anti-feminist". We're not making any pronouncements in Wikipedia's voice. That doesn't mean both sides' opinions are equally valid, any more than my Aunt Fanny's opinions about interest rates are equally as valid as Ben Bernanke's. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
            • "that doesn't mean both sides' opinions are equally valid" No one has said "both sides' opinions are equally valid". You are arguing for omitting a tweet in which Sommers asserts "My Wikipedia profile now calls me an 'opponent' of feminism. Not so. Strong proponent of equality feminism--always." She is addressing a question as to whether she is a feminist or not. The inclusion of her assertion tells the reader that in her opinion she is a "Strong proponent of equality feminism--always." In my opinion, her opinion on whether she is a feminist is valid for inclusion in our article. No one said it was "equally valid". What would "equally valid" mean in reference to a term that is open to a variety of meanings? Also, you say above "Wikipedia never called her an 'opponent of feminism'." I don't think we mind if Sommers incorrectly states that "My Wikipedia profile now calls me an 'opponent' of feminism." The material should be included because it pertains to the claims made by some that she is not a feminist. Bus stop (talk) 04:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
              • ...it pertains to the claims made by some that she is not a feminist... Please provide a published, reliable source that says so; otherwise, to suggest this is so would be improper synthesis. We have better sources for the "liberal/equality feminist" label anyway, e.g. [13][14][15][16]. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
                • I don't think synthesis applies to reasoning presented on a Talk page or in this instance the WP:BLPN. Our article contained the line "Some authors have called her works and positions antifeminist." I responded to that claim or any related claim by saying on this Talk page that "The material should be included because it pertains to the claims made by some that she is not a feminist." I am presenting reasoning on a Talk page. This would not be an instance of synthesis. Bus stop (talk) 13:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
                  • It becomes improper synthesis when it's added to the article with the intention of making that connection. Is that not what you are proposing? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed addition

Here's my suggestion for how to improve the paragraph discussed above (proposed addition in bold):

Sommers has described herself as an equity feminist,^[1] equality feminist,^[2][3] and liberal feminist.^[4][5] However, some authors have called her works and positions antifeminist.^[6][7][8] The feminist philosopher Alison Jaggar writes that in rejecting the theoretical distinction between sex as a set of physiological traits and gender as a set of social identities, "Sommers rejected one of the distinctive conceptual innovations of second wave Western feminism" and that as the concept of gender is relied on by "virtually all" modern feminists, "the conclusion that Sommers is an anti-feminist instead of a feminist is difficult to avoid".^[5]

Sources

^ Gring‐Pemble, Lisa M.; Blair, Diane M. (1 September 2000). "Best‐selling feminisms: The rhetorical production of popular press feminists' romantic quest". Communication Quarterly. 48 (4): 360–379. doi:10.1080/01463370009385604. ISSN 0146-3373. ^ McKenna, Erin; Pratt, Scott L. (2015). American Philosophy: From Wounded Knee to the Present. London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 308. ISBN 978-1-44-118375-0. ^ Meloy, Michelle L.; Miller, Susan L. (2010). The Victimization of Women: Law, Policies, and Politics. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press. p. 32. ISBN 978-0-19-976510-2. ^ Loptson, Peter (2006). Theories of Human Nature (3rd ed.). Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview Press. p. 221. ISBN 978-1-46-040203-0. ^ a b Jaggar, Alison M. (2006). "Whose Politics? Who's Correct?". In Burns, Lynda (ed.). Feminist Alliances. Amsterdam: Rodopi. p. 20. ISBN 978-9-04-201728-3. ^ Vint, Sherryl (March 1, 2010). "6: Joanna Russ's The Two of Them in an Age of Third-wave Feminism". In Mendlesohn, Farah (ed.). on Joanna Russ. Wesleyan University Press. pp. 142–. ISBN 9780819569684. Retrieved June 1, 2015. some third-wave concerns can be translated into a distinctly antifeminist agenda such as that put forward by Roiphe or by Hoff Sommers ^ Projansky, Sarah (August 1, 2001). "2: The Postfeminist Context: Popular Redefinitions of Feminism, 1980-Present". Watching Rape: Film and Television in Postfeminist Culture. NYU Press. pp. 71–. ISBN 9780814766903. Retrieved June 1, 2015. antifeminist (self-defined) feminists such as Shahrazad Ali, Sylvia Ann Hewlett, Wendy Kaminer, Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, Katie Roiphe, Christina Hoff Sommers, and Naomi Wolf ^ Anderson, Kristin J. (September 23, 2014). "4: The End of Men and the Boy Crisis". Modern Misogyny: Anti-Feminism in a Post-Feminist Era. Oxford University Press. pp. 74–. ISBN 9780199328178. Retrieved June 1, 2015. Anti-feminist boy-crisis trailblazer Christina Hoff Sommers

Thoughts? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC) (updated 04:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

My thoughts are that this is virtually identical in form and content to the edit you reverted four days ago, thereby prompting this whole BLPN rigmarole. Thanks for that, chief. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 10:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any time when Sommers has referred to herself as an "equality feminist". The term she uses - which is quite different - is "equity feminist". - Bilby (talk) 11:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd be fine with this, assuming we take account Bilby's caveat about spelling. --GRuban (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The article already discusses equity feminism at some length. Sommers, in the tweet we've been arguing about this whole time, says "equality feminism", not "equity feminism". Other times she has used this wording: [17][18][19] Still, if anyone can provide a reliable, secondary source for Sommers calling herself an "equity feminist" (and contrasting it with criticism of her as anti-feminist), I'd be fine with including that. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

As you say, everything in the article describes her as an "equity feminist", including all of the sources we use, not as an "equality feminist". We could just use "feminist", as per her words "I have been moved to write this book because I am a feminist who does not like what feminism has become" from "Who Stole Feminism", but how about Rhonda Hammer "Sommers ... [situates] herself in the equity feminist team" [20], or simply "Sommers sees herself as an equity feminist" [21] in Gring-Pemble and Blair. - Bilby (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I think both of the latter sources are usable. In the Dartmouth interview, Sommers calls herself both an "equity" and "equality" feminist, so apparently she can't make up her mind which it is. Since the terms have different meanings, I think we should indicate whichever ones reliable sources use, and secondary sources are generally better. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

In which case, let's just go with equity feminist as the term we use in the article, as that is consistent with the rest of what we write as well as more generally in the literature. - Bilby (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Why would we want to omit the other terms just for the sake of consistency with our own article? I would think that such well-sourced information would be a welcome improvement. Can you prove that equity feminist is predominant in the literature? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you prove that equality feminism is the main way of defining Sommers? We've been using equity feminism as the proper term for her position everywhere else, why suddenly change it in one place in an article? For example, the articles on Christina Hoff Sommers, Equity feminism, Gender feminism and Liberal feminism. If there is really a dispute, how about we just go with "feminist" and leave out the equity/equality issue? - Bilby (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

We're not "defining Sommers"; we're telling the reader what others call her and what she calls herself. This is in a section titled § Ideas and views, where we should accurately represent her significant views and what others think of them. All the existing labels are well-sourced, so I don't see a reason to omit any. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I see. I missed the edit you just made where you added equity feminist to the list, but opted not to mention this. Well played. I'm a bit surprised that we want to use lots of different terms, but can't just say "feminist", but so be it. - Bilby (talk) 04:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

When one has just read in the lead section that Sommers' positions and writing have been characterized by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as 'equity feminism', a classical-liberal or libertarian feminist perspective, I don't think it's terribly informative to then say, Sommers calls herself a feminist, full stop. At that point, it's kind of stating the obvious, and if anything raises even more questions.

Depending on context, Sommers might be referred to as an "equity feminist", "liberal feminist", "equality feminist", "classical liberal feminist", "conservative feminist", "post-feminist", "freedom feminist" (there seems to be no end), and yes, "anti-feminist". We don't take a stand on which is the correct or proper label; we just reflect what sources say. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Based on the lead, then, equity feminist is a more specific type of liberty feminist, so the liberty feminist label is redundant. But I don;t care - in order to avoid saying that she simply disagrees with the characterisation as we had before, now we're spending far more time on the issue, using multiple terms and refraining from simply saying that she views herself as a feminist. But I guess after all the mess this has been turned into, at least we're saying something about the label. - Bilby (talk) 06:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

"I have been moved to write this book because I am a feminist who does not like what feminism has become" is a quote from "Who Stole Feminism?" by Christina Hoff Sommers. Why would we look any further for a relevant comment made by Sommers? Why should we particularly care, in this context, if Sommers is an equity feminist, equality feminist, or liberal feminist? She is a feminist, according to herself, and that is the point that we should be trying to make in this context.

In contrast to the assertions of some—that she is an "antifeminist—she asserts that she is a feminist. Let us try to keep this a little simple. This is not rocket science. And there is certainly no need to assert twice that she is an "antifeminist". Once will suffice. In my opinion that claim amounts to little more than name-calling. But it is made by multiple reliable sources so we have to include it.

The important sentence from the above proposed language is The feminist philosopher Alison Jaggar writes that in rejecting the theoretical distinction between sex as a set of physiological traits and gender as a set of social identities, "Sommers rejected one of the distinctive conceptual innovations of second wave Western feminism". This is substantive. It explains the significant split between Sommers and those calling her an "antifeminist". I am not arguing that the claim of antifeminist cannot be made once. But it should not be made twice. Bus stop (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Why would we look any further for a relevant comment made by Sommers? That's because we rely on secondary sources for important material. Why should we particularly care, in this context, if Sommers is an equity feminist, equality feminist, or liberal feminist? Because those are different things, so the distinction is important. I've replied to your other points below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Why are you so insistent on accentuating the minor point that some say Sommers is not a feminist? This is what I find incomprehensible. "However, some authors have called her works and positions antifeminist." Is that a point worth noting? "the conclusion that Sommers is an anti-feminist instead of a feminist is difficult to avoid"—not worthy of inclusion on the basis that it is patently stupid. I recognize the value of your proposed language "The feminist philosopher Alison Jaggar writes that in rejecting the theoretical distinction between sex as a set of physiological traits and gender as a set of social identities, 'Sommers rejected one of the distinctive conceptual innovations of second wave Western feminism'." This is substantive, unlike claims that Sommers is not a feminist, claims that are basically just laughable. All material that is supported by reliable sources does not warrant inclusion in an article. Bus stop (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If a large numberof scholars of the movement you have chosen to criticize in the popular press describe you as working against that movement, you don't think that's important to tell the reader? Whether anyone finds it "stupid" or "laughable", BLPs should still respect due weight and include reliably-sourced criticism. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

"working against that movement" A biography isn't about hyperbole. Calling Paglia or Sommers anti-feminist is not to be taken seriously. Yet you are suggesting that we say this not just one, but twice. It is mere hyperbole. It shouldn't be said at all. Our purpose at a biography is not the airing out of dirty laundry. We include material that sheds light on the area in which a person works. Concerning a point of contention we need not include the hyperbolic names that her opponents call her. Bus stop (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Where do you see that any of these authors are Sommers' "opponents"? Even if they were, what does that have to do with anything? If a viewpoint is noteworthy, relevant, and supported by reliable sources, then it should be given due weight. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

The proposed wording seems like it addresses the issue. Bus stop: lots of reliable sources discuss it because she has prominently positioned herself feminist critic of feminism - it seems very unlikely that we could justify simply ignoring that debate. Nblund ^talk 18:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nblund. You say "it seems very unlikely that we could justify simply ignoring that debate". What "debate"? What debate are you referring to? He said, she said is not a debate. "He said, she said" is merely contradiction. It fails to illuminate and in this instance it is mere hyperbole.

I am accepting of some of the proposed wording but not all of the proposed wording. We should not be saying "However, some authors have called her works and positions antifeminist". Who cares? That is mere hyperbole, only said for dramatic effect, and it illuminates nothing.

Similarly we should not be saying "the conclusion that Sommers is an anti-feminist instead of a feminist is difficult to avoid". Who cares? What does that say about Sommers? That someone has venom for Sommers? What does it illuminate for the reader?

But I am accepting of the sentence which reads "The feminist philosopher Alison Jaggar writes that in rejecting the theoretical distinction between sex as a set of physiological traits and gender as a set of social identities, 'Sommers rejected one of the distinctive conceptual innovations of second wave Western feminism'." That sheds light on an ideological rift in feminism and it explains why Sommers is at odds with "second wave Western feminism".

We don't need to expand on the names people call one another. Is Sommers really an "anti-feminist"? Bus stop (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Sommers is clearly involved in the area of "feminist", but her views of what a "feminist" is is clearly different from what other academics and activists consider. As such the phrasing on the proposed addition is absolutely fine to make it clear that others criticism her own self-description of feminism. Maybe the quote is a bit too much if we're not otherwise directly quoting Sommers, but generally the language is fine. --Masem (t) 20:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

"Maybe the quote is a bit too much if we're not otherwise directly quoting Sommers, but generally the language is fine." Do I need to remind you that for some inexplicable reason we are not supposed to include Sommers' tweet asserting that in fact she is a feminist? And why, in the proposed wording, are we told twice that she is an "anti-feminist"? Wouldn't once be ridiculous enough? Bus stop (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

We can't ignore prominent arguments simply because we personally find them inadequate. The central thesis of her most well-known work is that someone has "stolen" feminism, so it's not surprising that Sommers' feminist bona-fides are a perennial topic of discussion in academic and non-academic circles, continuing all the way up to the present day. This may have already been cited, but Sommers' responds to the claim about being an anti-feminist in this AEI interview. Which demonstrates the existence of a debate and may be worth citing here. Nblund ^talk 20:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I accept wording which contains reasoning. "The feminist philosopher Alison Jaggar writes that in rejecting the theoretical distinction between sex as a set of physiological traits and gender as a set of social identities, 'Sommers rejected one of the distinctive conceptual innovations of second wave Western feminism'." That explains that Sommers refuses to accept a distinction between sex and gender that is posited by second wave Western feminism. The reader can follow links to Sex and gender distinction and Second-wave feminism. The mere claim that someone is antifeminist doesn't say anything. It contains no reasoning and nothing can be derived from it. Is misleading and doesn't warrant inclusion. Bus stop (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, Sommers' most prominent work accuses "gender feminists" of having betrayed women and "stolen" feminism. It hardly seems neutral to cover her views and then turn around and decry the unfairness of citing authors who question Sommers' own claim to being a "real" feminist. Maybe you could find an argument you like better: Tom Digby explains his skepticism at length here by noting that "she sees no need for feminist change and is opposed to everyone who is advocating for feminist causes". This view is also echoed by Encyclopedia of Women in Today's World entry on anti-feminism, which calls Sommers an antifeminist because she believes that "the goals of feminism have been met", and that the movement now victimizes boys and men. Both are pretty specific. In any case: I don't think that you're going to convince editors that we should censor the term antifeminist. Nblund ^talk 23:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

"I don't think that you're going to convince editors that we should censor the term antifeminist." We should not be using over-the-top language. And yet the language that is proposed for inclusion is twice calling Sommers an "antifeminist". Is there any justification for this? Did the reader not hear it the first time? First we are treated to "However, some authors have called her works and positions antifeminist". And then we are treated to "the conclusion that Sommers is an anti-feminist instead of a feminist is difficult to avoid". Huh? Why would it be necessary to tell the reader twice that Sommers is an "antifeminist"?

Nblund—both of these women are called antifeminists. At Camille Paglia we find "Some feminist critics have characterized Paglia as an 'anti-feminist feminist'". Fortunately for that WP:BLP the reader is only treated to that name-calling once. Bus stop (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Why are you stating the same thing in multiple places? Do you think other users will miss your arguments unless stated in three or four separate walls of text?

We're not saying Sommers is an "anti-feminist"; that view is attributed to others. Antifeminist just means "opposed to femimism"; how is that over the top or hyperbole? [S]ome authors have called her works and positions antifeminist is an evaluation of her work; it's not calling Sommers any names. The reasoning is given by Jaggar, who specifies how and why Sommers and/or her work are seen as anti-feminist, including by contrasting Sommers with "virtually all contemporary feminists".

Some other references that could also be used: Sommers and her cohorts "call for the 'death' of (another version of) feminism in the process of articulating their own feminism"; her brand of equity feminism "repudiates feminism's vision of a larger social transformation"; individualists like Sommers "take aim at the feminist emphasis on gender as a socially constructed category"; she argues that feminists are "only trying to surpass men"; her arguments align with "'men's rights'/recuperative masculinity theorists which has a particular anti-feminist stance"; she is considered "a conservative whose views undermine feminist struggles against male violence"; her work is meant "as an antidote to feminist emancipatory influences". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Sangdeboeuf—why are you are you removing that "Sommers describes herself as a feminist" in this edit? And why are you adding a second assertion in this edit that Sommers is an "antifeminist"? Does the reader need to be informed of that twice? In my opinion "antifeminist" amounts to little more than name-calling. But one such assertion should be sufficient in this article. And of course in your above proposed wording you also repeat the assertion that Sommers is an "antifeminist". Bus stop (talk) 13:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you could throw out an alternative synonym? I don't think this is mere name-calling - "antifeminist" is probably not a flattering term but it also describes a specific ideology that multiple prominent sources have ascribed to Sommers. The difference between saying it once vs. twice seems pretty inconsequential. Nblund ^talk 17:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we just throw out "alternative synonyms". Why would we twice say that she is an "antifeminist"? Is there an argument for saying that twice? Bus stop (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear. I was asking you to offer another wording that would allow us to get the same point across with just one use of the term. Nblund ^talk 21:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I would change it from this:

Sommers has described herself as an equity feminist, equality feminist, and liberal feminist. However, some authors have called her works and positions antifeminist. The feminist philosopher Alison Jaggar writes that in rejecting the theoretical distinction between sex as a set of physiological traits and gender as a set of social identities, "Sommers rejected one of the distinctive conceptual innovations of second wave Western feminism" and that as the concept of gender is relied on by "virtually all" modern feminists, "the conclusion that Sommers is an anti-feminist instead of a feminist is difficult to avoid".

To this:

Sommers has described herself as a feminist. However, some authors have called her works and positions "antifeminist". The feminist philosopher Alison Jaggar writes that in rejecting the theoretical distinction between sex as a set of physiological traits and gender as a set of social identities, "Sommers rejected one of the distinctive conceptual innovations of second wave Western feminism". Bus stop (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that fundamentally changes Jaggar's point: it makes it sound like Sommers has some minor doctrinal gripe that is limited to a specific wave of feminism, but Jaggar's point is that the gender/sex distinction is now so fundamental to contemporary feminism that she's actually at odds with basically all present-day feminist thinkers. Nblund ^talk 23:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why would we omit the terms equity feminist, equality feminist, and liberal feminist? They tell us a lot more about Sommers than the vague feminist. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

You say "They tell us a lot more about Sommers than the vague feminist." Wouldn't "feminist" be no more "vague" than "antifeminist"? Bus stop (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

The "antifeminist" label is supported by multiple reliable sources that also explain in detail why it's used. Sommers herself has never been consistent in how she describes her own brand of feminism. Your comment is conflating two separate issues. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I accept that this is a very good sentence: The feminist philosopher Alison Jaggar writes that in rejecting the theoretical distinction between sex as a set of physiological traits and gender as a set of social identities, "Sommers rejected one of the distinctive conceptual innovations of second wave Western feminism". I certainly don't reject your entire proposal. After your "proposal" you wrote "Thoughts?" I'm responding to what I agree with and what I disagree with. I am not as knowledgeable of the subject as you may be. I'll tone down my means of expressing any disagreement I might have. I apologize if I was over the top. Bus stop (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion seems to have tapered off, and I don't see any objections to the wording in bold that I proposed to add, so I'll add it now. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf—you twice remove "Melanie Kirkpatrick, writing for The Wall Street Journal, praised the book for its 'lack of a political agenda', and said 'Sommers simply lines up her facts and shoots one bull's-eye after another'."[22][23] In my opinion we should want to point out that according to a good quality source (The Wall Street Journal) Sommers can be characterized as being without a political agenda. I think this is an important point. In my opinion the characterization of the subject of the biography as "antifeminist" is loaded with "political agenda".

And you have inserted into the article Sommers has described herself as an 'equity feminist', 'equality feminist', and 'liberal feminist'.[24] Would any sources support Sommers as simply a "feminist"? Many do and that is all that is called for. This is a paragraph characterizing Sommers as an "antifeminist". The paragraph is not characterizing her as an "anti-equity feminist" or an "anti-equality feminist" or an "anti-liberal feminist". All we are trying to say is that not all agree that Sommers is an "antifeminist". Bus stop (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Came here because of the same question on a different article. Obviously the article should say what Sommers thinks, and it should give her opinion similar prominence to that of others.Adoring nanny (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: why is that? @Bus stop: There was an RfC last year on the Kirkpatrick quote that found no consensus either way. Hence, we leave it out per WP:ONUS. There is an apparent rough consensus here that the bold wording is good. Anyone is free to revert, in which case a different RfC may be called for. But I disagree that all we are trying to say is that not all agree that Sommers is an 'antifeminist'. If we had high-quality sources for that, then maybe. But we've been discussing that for the last ten days or so, and the sources so far are weak. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf—our aim is not to cobble together a paragraph of tangentially related information. The distinctions between "equity feminist", "equality feminist", and "liberal feminist" are uncalled for in this context. The primary assertion of the paragraph is that Sommers is an antifeminist. Your sentence very nicely does that: The feminist philosopher Alison Jaggar writes that in rejecting the theoretical distinction between sex as a set of physiological traits and gender as a set of social identities, "Sommers rejected one of the distinctive conceptual innovations of second wave Western feminism". All that is left is a simple sentence countering that such as "Sommers contends she is a feminist." The entire paragraph should read: The feminist philosopher Alison Jaggar writes that in rejecting the theoretical distinction between sex as a set of physiological traits and gender as a set of social identities, "Sommers rejected one of the distinctive conceptual innovations of second wave Western feminism". Sommers contends she is a feminist. It should only be made longer if relevant information can be added. Relevant information should mean relevant to the assertion that Sommers is an antifeminist. And there is no need to repeat that Sommers is an antifeminist or to claim that virtually all modern feminists are in agreement on these points. I have lopped off and that as the concept of gender is relied on by "virtually all" modern feminists, "the conclusion that Sommers is an anti-feminist instead of a feminist is difficult to avoid". Bus stop (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Wait, how are those portions of the quote not relevant? As I said above: the point that virtually all contemporary feminists rely on the gender sex distinction is kind of fundamental to Jaggar's argument here. Removing it makes it sound like Jaggar believes that disagreeing with any conceptual innovation of "second wave Western feminism" is tantamount to being an anti-feminist, but that's absolutely not her argument. Her argument is that this specific innovation has been adopted by virtually all contemporary feminists, and so CHS holds a stance that is at odds with basically every living feminist thinker. Nblund ^talk 19:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, "those portions of the quote not relevant". "Antifeminist" is an absurd claim applied to Sommers and we should be using it with restraint. Just because it has been said is not a reason we should take it seriously. I hope you will understand. Ideological firebrands in academia characterize Sommers as an "antifeminist" but would others characterize her that way? Would Camille Paglia characterize Sommers as an "antifeminist"? Some feminist critics have characterized Paglia as an "anti-feminist feminist", critical of central features of much contemporary feminism but holding out "her own special variety of feminist affirmation". This is name-calling. A difference of opinion does not make one an "antifeminist". I am arguing that you should not be insisting on the inclusion in the article of certain farfetched claims, or at least if you are doing so you should do so with appropriate restraint. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In common parlance Sommers would not be called an "antifeminist". Bus stop (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

So, they're not relevant to the assertion that Sommers is an antifeminist because "anti-feminist" is name-calling? I'm afraid I don't follow your logic there. The question of whether you personally agree with the claim doesn't have any bearing on the question of whether or not it relevant to the argument. This is a prominent viewpoint. We need to cite notable advocates and accurately reflect what they say. Your suggested edit doesn't appear to accurately reflect Jaggar's point because it doesn't explain her reasoning. Nblund ^talk 22:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Nblund—in the midst of disputes people engage in name-calling. We don't take that literally. We don't try to get maximum mileage out of an offhand comment. The wording that is explanatory warrants a place in the article. The elaboration for maximum duration warrants cutting back. I don't know why you are saying "it doesn't explain her reasoning." It most certainly explains her reasoning. It explains her reasoning to an extent that communicates the differences of opinion between the disputants. Isn't that what we should be trying to so? This is the operative sentence: The feminist philosopher Alison Jaggar writes that in rejecting the theoretical distinction between sex as a set of physiological traits and gender as a set of social identities, "Sommers rejected one of the distinctive conceptual innovations of second wave Western feminism". I lopped off and that as the concept of gender is relied on by "virtually all" modern feminists, "the conclusion that Sommers is an anti-feminist instead of a feminist is difficult to avoid". Is it difficult to avoid? I would say it is about as difficult to avoid as it is to avoid that Camille Paglia is also an "antifeminist". That article also claims that Paglia is an "antifeminist". A brief mention is constructive and illuminating but extensive elaboration is counterproductive and creates a false representation of the subject of the biography. Bus stop (talk) 01:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The distinctions between 'equity feminist', 'equality feminist', and 'liberal feminist' are uncalled for in this context ... All that is left is a simple sentence countering that such as 'Sommers contends she is a feminist.' Then please provide an independent, reliable source that uses that or similar wording in this context. We don't try to get maximum mileage out of an offhand comment ... extensive elaboration ... creates a false representation of the subject. This is far more than an offhand comment; "extraordinary evidence" for that fact has been provided already. Please provide published sources to substantiate the view that it's a "false representation" created by "ideological firebrands". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: Because it's her bio. Only fair that she should have just as much say about her own beliefs as anyone else does.Adoring nanny (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Fine, as long as we're talking about Sommers' beliefs about herself, and not about third parties. We still rely on independent sources, because Wikipedia is not for promoting the subject's POV over that of more reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

We are not interested in name-calling. We only note name-calling in passing. Let me suggest this wording:

Some authors have called her works and positions antifeminist. The feminist philosopher Alison Jaggar writes that in rejecting the theoretical distinction between sex as a set of physiological traits and gender as a set of social identities, "Sommers rejected one of the distinctive conceptual innovations of second wave Western feminism". Sommers contends she is a feminist.

Wouldn't a source such as "I have been moved to write this book because I am a feminist…" support the wording "Sommers contends she is a feminist"? Bus stop (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a separate issue from the question of covering Sommers' response to that criticism, but you keep returning to this "name calling" claim that has absolutely no basis in any policy. You said: Relevant information should mean relevant to the assertion that Sommers is an antifeminist - how is the remaining portion Jaggars' quote not relevant to that assertion? Nblund ^talk 15:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Nblund—I will concede that there is probably a lot more that can be piled onto this article about the opinions of academics on Sommers. But we have to draw the line somewhere on how much we should add. When we start getting repetitive and adding material that arguably belongs in the Second-wave feminism article, or the Antifeminism article, or the Alison Jaggar article, we have an indication that we have crossed a line pertaining to what should be in this article. Bus stop (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I've made this edit. I've decided to allow the language and that as the concept of gender is relied on by "virtually all" modern feminists, "the conclusion that Sommers is an anti-feminist instead of a feminist is difficult to avoid" but I have added "Sommers maintains that she is a feminist". Bus stop (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

How gracious of you for deciding to allow it. Should we run all future changes by you just in case? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Note "Contends" is not a particularly neutral word. "Says" is generally considered a tad more neutral in any Wikipedia usage. Collect (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• FreeKnowledgeCreator—you revert saying "more informative in the other version". But I don't think we scatter information willy-nilly. The paragraph has a subject. That is the charge of antifeminism. The question is not what shade of feminist Sommers might be. I think the distinctions between equality feminism, equity feminism, and liberal feminism are merely bloat within this paragraph. And in reverting you removed her statement that she is a feminist. She has written "I have been moved to write this book because I am a feminist who does not like what feminism has become". Bus stop (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The discussion of what kind of feminist Sommers might be is obviously relevant to the question of whether she is a feminist. How tedious to even have to point this out. I am not really interested in discussing this here. Take it to the article's talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

How should we deal with a situation like this[25]? This account is claiming that he is Matthew Rose and that he is divorced from Kim Strassel, while also saying that there is no digital record of the divorce. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

While my first reaction is to revert and give a long-winded speech to the editor about COI, in looking at his article it appears it doesn't even pass GNG. There is only one source, which is about the wedding to his wife (or ex-wife, as the case may or may not be). Even the other source that was just cut also is about her. It seems she is the one who is notable, and his claim to any notability is that he married her. Thus, the article basically reads like a really short resume, just talking about his job as a journalist, which in itself doesn't confer notability. Due to a total lack of sources to demonstrate notability of his own right, I would recommend taking his article to AFD, and removing his name from her article, but leaving the wedding info. If the divorce is reported in a reliable, secondary source, we can add that to her article, but no need to name him unless his own notability can be demonstrated. Zaereth (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

No need for COI - the BLP needed actual editing to begin with, and the uncited claims simply do not belong as a result. Collect (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I've taken it to afd - I really can't see anything that makes him more notable than numerous other journalists. Neiltonks (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Rabbi Eliezer Berland is a polarising figure who has been at the heart of a hotly contested claim over wrongdoing in Israel. A small group of people based in the Breslov Meah Shearim community have worked overtime to create allegations out of thin air as part of a slanderous campaign against the Rabbi, aided and abetted by 'anti chareidi' journalists in Israel, and a corrupt judiciary and police service that are also highly politicised and 'anti' religious.

A new biography has come out putting the other side of the story involving Rabbi Berland, meticulously detailing how the Rabbi's persecutors operated, and what their aims were. Yet, the details of this other side of the story are repeatedly being removed and deleted from the Wikipedia entry for Rabbi Berland. A user called Nomoskedasticity has repeatedly culled any information that would present a different opinion, including instantly removing a reference to this new biography.

Nomoskedasticity has already been told off by 'edit warring' on Wikipedia, and I would like an impartial editor to please double-check his deletion of the insertion re: the new biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RLJerusalem (talk • contribs) 12:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

On the order of 90% of the entire BLP is devoted to negative statements about the person. https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4834011,00.html is used for the claim " where he confessed to having committed rape." The remaining issue is the issue of undue weight to that charge - and it is apparent to the most casual observer that the weight given is exceedingly high in this BLP. The second issue is whether an editor has tried to make the weight even higher with https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eliezer_Berland&diff=893902739&oldid=893897861 clearly removing a source giving a different point of view. That editor also removed an edit by a respected editor at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eliezer_Berland&diff=891242423&oldid=891241659 five times in under 48 hours. I fear that the best course would likely be for a disinterested administrator to examine the behaviors de novo rather than disentangle the rather poor history of this BLP. As a WP:BLP issue, moreover, the weights assigned appear contrary to policy. Collect (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I recently rewrote the article on Anand Teltumbde because I noticed several BLP and copyright issues. I explained these issues and my changes on the talk page. The problematic text was restored by two editors (pinging Salithak1 and Shashank5988), and I have reverted back to my rewrite for the reasons I gave on the talk page. I am posting about the article here to make sure that I did the right thing. I am also not sure if the plagiarized text should be deleted from the revision histories. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

On the user page, in the section "Death", a user is spreading a conspiracy theory by naming a person he believes ordered the death of Xxxtentacion. He says "it makes sense" to blame this man. This is not corroborated by any source, this man is innocent. Please can an admin delete this section Unknown Temptation (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Anyone can delete the section if there is a sufficient policy reason to do so. Frankly I don't think the section [26] was really that bad from a BLP standpoint since although it seems unlikely the claim could be sourced, it's also not a claim that's rare and the person mentioned is notable so a single talk page comment is really nothing. But I removed it anyway since as I don't think we are ever going to find a RS to include the claim, so it's also pointless. Nil Einne (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, thanks for removing that, I think your action is 100% correct there. I would disagree, however, with "the person mentioned is notable so a single talk page comment is really nothing". Notable target of allegation or not, talk page or not, BLP still stands, so I wouldn't want anyone to think it should be viewed that way. MPS1992 (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

There's a discussion at Talk:Toby Young#Quotes. Almost no one cares now about these old quotes, hence why they are not present in any recent reliable sources, only old ones (WP:NOTNEWS). The controversy had died down quickly. The past two BLPN threads (first and second) were started by Fæ who has basically been ignoring WP:BLP on the talk page and these previous BLP discussions and elsewhere, most recently e.g. "Wikipedia policies do not support creating a fake neutrality where on one side is the subject of the article saying how saintly he is, and on the other is literally every other writer in the world saying the opposite." (among insulting the BLP subject on talk). Yet another editor Cleisthenes2 who was following BLP got an indefinite article ban (for edit warring, even though multiple editors EW'd just as much). Even though the BLP subject has said that he can't cloth his children because of the controversy which was improperly covered on Wikipedia in his opinion, Fæ argues that WP:AVOIDVICTIM does not apply. There is precedent for caution in these situations, as seen in many BLPN, NORN and VP discussions, but is embedded in WP:BLPBALANCE and WP:BLPSOURCES most importantly. wumbolo ^^^ 17:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

This is the third time at BLP/N. I object to the bizarre spin in this third BLP/N request for the same issue.

No, I have never ignored BLP, this is a rather silly and inflammatory claim that does not help anyone.

No, the multiple newspapers covering the Toby Young resignation are clearly reliable sources which made it extremely clear that it was all around his tweets. As for the tweets being "old" or sources being "old", Wikipedia is here for the long term view, we do not blank or censor the details of case histories that are critical to give encyclopaedic value and meaning to an article just because they happened a few months ago.

The particular much requoted tweets are especially notable as they support the widely reported fact that they were misogynistic and homophobic. This is not an opinion, the wording of the tweets make that a precise descriptive fact, and it would be more than slightly ridiculous if the Wikipedia article failed to quote the evidence because of a squeamish censorship of Young's own words and his own publication of them. The Young resignation from his government appointment and later his charity director ship due to those tweets and the reputational impact they caused to the organizations he represented, is still a key reference mentioned by journalists responding to Young's defence of himself and right wing attacks on others in his self publications and his own recent editorials. The tweets clearly have both encyclopaedic value and are of long term relevant to understanding who Young is, what he stands for and the reasons that other politicians, charities and others have formed their opinions about his values and competence.

Lastly, I object to this forum shopping. A third try at BLP/N for the same quotes? At a minimum this should be moved to the article talk page as a RFC. Using a third go at BLP/N to overturn two other archived BLP/N threads would be weird and an inappropriate way to define "consensus". --Fæ (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to start with, I didn't really dig that deep into this for lack of time. Too many things going on in real life. In general, I'd say that if the tweets are reliably sourced (not taken directly from twitter) and the source discusses them and discusses authority criticism of them --and it has a significant impact on his life or notability-- (which it obviously did) then they should probably be summarized in the article, and any rebuttal he gives included as well. It isn't much different from the person who commits a crime and is dumb enough to post it on facebook; once it's out there reliable sources have the right to show and discuss it, and we to relay what the RSs say.

However, I believe "censor" is a poor choice of wording here. There is a difference between censoring something and putting it into balance with the rest of the article. The word has a very specific definition which doesn't seem to apply in this case, thus seems a bit overdramatic.

Likewise, AVOIDVICTIM also doesn't seem to come close to applying in this case. That policy is meant to protect victims of another (ie: rape victims, incest, beatings, muggings, children, etc...) not victims of their own stupidity. Honestly, I think this is a case of a guy trying to be funny and failing miserably at it, and much ado being made by the people who make being offended a way of life, but the article doesn't seem to be violating BLP in any blatant way that couldn't be worked out on the talk page. A wise person once said, "Say it, forget it. Write it, regret it." --Marilyn Milian. Zaereth (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Not to try to say there's a solution, but on Young's talk page, I think I have gotten in agreement with Fae that:

• Tweets specifically mentioned in incident to his resigning from the Board should be mentioned in that context.
• A general comment on the nature of Young's twitter history and impressions of the content is fair to include.
• Specific twitter incidents that have not led to any long-term concerns, on the other hand, are probably not appropriate to include. A section devoted to Twitter/social media is going to draw editors adding every little spat over Twitter that can be documented, which BLP does imply we should avoid (just not as AVOIDVICTIM as the reason, just.. what's the long-term importance here? A twitter comment that caused a blip over a few days? Nope.) We can document negative controversies about a person, but we are not required to document every such one, and we should focus on those with life-changing impacts. --Masem (t) 00:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Were that section being used this way, it would be a good point. However, the section is clearly not being used as a catch all to list the latest controversial tweets from Young, for which there are many, because Young uses twitter to enhance his self-inflated reputation as a "controversialist". I agree, improving layout can be a matter of continued discussion on the article talk page, it's not specifically a BLP issue so much, neither would it be significant enough for a new RfC. --Fæ (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I am Wondertech007 user and behalf of Vijay Eswaran I want to remove the wikipedia page about my self as soon as possible. And so many peoples are playing vandalism about me. If wikipedia refuses this request wikimedia will face legal issue/Problems further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wondertech007 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Wondertech007: if you make legal threats on Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing here. However, you're a new user and probably didn't know that. If you post again to tell us exactly what you think is wrong with the article, and undertake not to take legal action, someone may be prepared to help you. Neiltonks (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The article Vijay Eswaran is a real mess. However a quick look at the info and sources suggests to me the subject is probably WP:notable so the article is likewise probably not going to be deleted. Nil Einne (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

There has been an uncited addition to Hetty Johnston article made here[27] and here.[28] The reason in the edit summary says "Recent conference in Brisbane has explained she will support Safe Schools Program, applauded by many" It looks like WP:PROMOTE, which is against BLP policy WP:V and fails NPOV. They have been previously been advised of possible COIN issues with other BLP articles here.[29] and this is concerning[30]. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the material from the Hetty Johnston article as unsourced, as I was unable to locate a source for it online. Neiltonks (talk) 07:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Nor I. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Please review article, and my recent edits:

Is this person actually notable? Besides own website there are the two fluff pieces in tabloids referred to in article, plus a few fringe site references in google results.

Prior to edits, article read like a promotion.

Majority of article was based solely on subject's own website.

One of two remaining refs is from tabloid event calendar - not sure how to handle this. Ref is not written as factual reporting, it's a fluff piece about attending an event, and includes uncritically repeated claims of miracle healing from believers at event. If better source I would have edited to something like "Some adherents claim...", but went with flagging source instead.

I went ahead and trimmed some more as well as outright chucking the flagged source. Metro.co.uk has been consistently considered unreliable, especially (as seemed to be the case here) the user submissions, and especially especially in the context of BLPs. With a short single-sourced paragraph remaining, yeah, this is a pretty clear case for deletion. 199.247.46.42 (talk) 07:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Would some experienced editors improve the article and check if the tags can be removed? Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.152.244.194 (talk) 09:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Experienced Wikipedia editors sometimes place tags but they take too long to address the issues in order to improve an article and then remove these tags. This freezes at times an article since any less experienced editors usually sanctioned or reprimanded rather than helped. Regrettably, you have to do it yourself and see what happens or wait for someone to address this matter. Until then the article is left with tags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.140.138.212 (talk) 08:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

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

There has been some recent edit warring on this page over how to describe the circumstances that led to the subject leaving Penn, where he had been a professor of psychology, in the wake of allegations of inappropriate relationships with students that were reported primarily by The Daily Pennsylvanian, the university's student newspaper (which, as such, is considered a reliable source).

The first report, about a year ago, alleges the relationship based on the word of 10 unnamed fellow students, but the student alleged to have had the relationship did not respond to repeated efforts to contact her about it, and Kurzban denied it on the record.

The second article, two weeks later, was based on the word of an unnamed student, and three of her likewise unnamed friends, who said she had had an affair with Kurzban in 2016.

Shortly afterwards, a third article reported that the university had effectively suspended him pending an investigation (school policy forbids teacher-student relationships while they exist). Two months later, Kurzban resigned and the university dropped the investigation.

This had been in the article, in considerable detail but last December Wilipino removed it entirely, arguing that none of the source articles made the case credibly enough (due to none of the sources going on the record, and one key one not talking to the DP at all) to have any mention of exactly why Kurzban resigned in the article.

What's the consensus here on what we should or shouldn't say? Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Student newspapers are not a good source for BLP things like this. But we can't pretend it didn't happen. The resignation was reported on by The Chronicle of Higher Education, which would have checked the facts. Use just the information reported there or by another external reliable source.

• Piper, Julia (26 July 2018). "Transitions: U. of Maryland-Eastern Shore Names New President, Leaders of U. of Colorado and Nebraska Wesleyan U. Will Retire". The Chronicle of Higher Education.

StarryGrandma (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma: The consensus at RSN has been that, depending on what's being reported and what the student newspaper is, they are reliable sources. I tend to think that an Ivy League university's student newspaper, especially one that counts a few notable journalists, including at least one Pulitzer winner, among its alumni, is probably going to be nearer the reliability end of the spectrum. It's not like it's an unofficial newsletter-type thing at some obscure community college.

In this instance, I can't imagine that the DP doesn't have access to some pretty good legal counsel to review stories like this before publication. Daniel Case (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Daniel. I think it is important for those discussing this to keep in mind that:

1. this is a private individual, not a public figure, and WP:NPF states that Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability;
2. The sources used by the publisher (The DP) are neither primary or definitive (as can be inferred by your summary);
3. all other media outlets reporting on this (c.f. Philly Voice) cite the Daily Pennsylvanian and did not conduct their own reportage, so really The DP is the sole source we should be focusing on;
4. The only established facts are that he was removed from teaching duties pending an investigation that was dropped when he resigned (we don't know why he resigned: if he had to leave because he couldn't afford to not work, for example). I personally don't think such facts belong in the biography of a private citizen who is notable for his work and not for this incident. As Wikipedia has a presumption of innocence for people accused of crimes which they are not convicted of, so too should it have a presumption of innocence for people alleged to have committed less serious infractions, without any sort of confirmation. If he were charged with murder, resigned during an investigation, and then the investigation was dropped, Wikipedia would only mention that he resigned and not the circumstances surrounding it. What then for this?
5. Beyond Wikipedia's specific guidelines, rumors like this should not follow a person the rest of their lives, intruding on their ability to work, form new relationships and friendships, etc., especially when the truth of the matter is unknown. A Wikipedia article should not be a scarlet letter, and there's really no other reason to include the information than that. Wilipino (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma: Media outlets often don't verify facts when citing other media outlets, because they are reporting what another media outlet reported. Its not like the Chronicle got the DP to provide them the names of sources so it could fact-check. Providing a link to the original articleis the same as writing "The DP reports..." which reduce's the Chronicle's liability. The Chronicle provided a link to the story they based their announcement on, and were still careful to cite undisputed facts, not rumors or allegations: Robert Kurzban, professor and former chair of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, resigned in early July. Kurzban was the subject of a university investigation into allegations that he had inappropriate romantic relationships with students he was overseeing. He has denied allegations that he engaged in behavior that violated university policy. It is important to note that they didn't speculate on why he resigned, and that they included his denial. However Wikipedia has a higher standard for inclusion of information (according to guidelines I cited above). Wilipino (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why some variation on the Chronicle's phrasing wouldn't be just fine for us. Daniel Case (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that would be "exercising restraint," for one. It is the opposite of restraint: it is the most Wikipedia can say without running afoul of libel or liability for defamation. I also don't think it is "material relevant to the person's notability." He's not notable for his job, or everyone with his job would be eligible for an article. He's notable for his research and writing. If he was charged with a crime and the charges were dropped, that wouldn't be mentionable (as per current BLP guidelines), so this shouldn't be either, for the same reasons. It doesn't belong in his article at all. Wikipedia is going to be near the top of Google search results on him for the rest of his life and it is irresponsible of Wikipedia to brand him with something unrelated to why he is notable. Wilipino (talk) 04:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

So you're saying we shouldn't say anything at all about what the allegations were about? I can understand your point about how the allegations were initially framed as more or less proven by his subsequent suspension and resignation; we shouldn't say that. But I think if we say that someone was investigated at work, and the reason for that investigation has been reported in a reliable source, then we should say what the basis of the investigation was. Daniel Case (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm saying. The source's source is not reliable, which means the source--which may be reliable in other reportage--is not reliable in this case, and Wikipedia is supposed to exercise restraint, which means subjects deserve the benefit of the doubt/uncertainty/ambiguity. I keep citing the fact that under current guidelines investigation for a crime would not be includable if charges were dropped. The same ethical principle applies here. Please tell me why that principle applies for a criminal charge but not for an unsubstantiated allegation. This is a private citizen with a real life and private citizens deserve the most conservative interpretation of policies and guidelines possible with regard to privacy and defamation. Wilipino (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

In regards to "But I think if we say that someone was investigated at work, and the reason for that investigation has been reported in a reliable source, then we should say what the basis of the investigation was." Organizations have a duty to investigate allegations of misconduct and if they don't, they may assume legal liability. That means someone could call up anybody's employer, make an unsubstantiated allegation, call a newspaper who calls the employer for comment and is told "We are investigating," and an article could appear stating that this person is being investigated for the allegation. I think saying that's fair game for inclusion is a dangerous guideline for Wikipedia. Wilipino (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Then either we say only that he has left Penn without saying anything about why, or say what the context was. Which would you prefer? I feel that if we do not say there was a fire, then we should not say there was smoke, either. Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I think saying he resigned in July of 2018 (full stop) is fine, and I'd support that. Wilipino (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, if that's what you want, we'll do it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Jim Jefferies (comedian) Jim Jefferies (comedian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There has been a recent ongoing effort to discredit Jim Jefferies after an extreme right-wing anti-Islamic figure named Avi Yemeni appeared on his episode concerning religious issues and extremist behaviour after Avi Yemeni purports that there was a smear campaign and concerted efforts by the Jim Jefferies Show and the person himself to portray him as a divisive extremist figure and uploaded several videos, with secretly recorded footage showcasing how the footage was supposedly edited to alter his responses to be taken out of context and show that Jim Jefferies mentioned several Islamophobic messages not under comedic context. There has been the addition of a Controversy section under the wikipedia page which purports to a source that I will show is not of a reliable nature and whose claims are dubious and therefore should be remedied. The page is currently protected from editing This is a violation of the BLP policies because it attributes false claims under a clearly biased viewpoint of those who support Avi Yemeni's political and cultural agenda, reference a link to a video[31] which has been shown to be duplicitous and unverifiable unless true raw footage of said incident was given to the person as well as possibly endangering said person, when mentioning about depicting Muhammad in a cartoon, as from past events- it is quite clear that similar incidents have resulted in tragedy and therefore needs to be reviewed and controlled to prevent possible extremist action. This is the central point of concern.

Avi Yemeni has also uploaded the raw footage of the recording on Patreon and a youtube uploader [32] showed that the claims made by Avi are falsified in that Avi himself cut off particular segments of his footage (even though he calls it the unedited footage) to pose that Jim Jefferies has Islamophobic tendencies, made anti-Muslim statements such as 'dingo eating a Muslim baby' which under the unedited footage was shown to be a much less inflammatory nature and clearly under a comedic context. Whilst I do not currently have access to the raw footage referencing the following point or access to Avi Yemeni's Patreon, there was a statement that Jim Jefferies, when claiming he was drawing Muhammad, immediately followed up by saying 'That's not Muhammad, that's Mike', indicating to a possible staff member offscreen. At the least, the source above shows that the claims made in the Avi Yemeni expose are dubious and contradict the footage showed in the source. Since the sources referred in the Controversy section either directly link to the video or link to an article which cites the video, the sources are clearly unreliable- therefore the statements made are redundant.

This wouldn't be a matter of great concern if not for the Muhammad drawing segment. Under the BLP policies, I make a plea for moderators to remove the Controversy section or replace it with details that are at least verifiable and linked to a reliable source or make no strong claims and then return the page to its protected status.

Mnmh, well, the Jerusalem Post is a large and well-known paper with, presumably, a fact-checking procedure. According to AllSides (whoever they are) says its a centrist paper; so does [Media Bias / Fact Check (again, whoever they are; they seem to be OK). On the other hand, there's been a change in ownership, so I dunno. Some of their op-eds are pretty fringe right-wing, but that's just op-eds...

BUT. Even if the Jerusalem Post is a good source, it's the only source I can find. YouTube videos are very poor sources for various reasons, or else they are primary sources, I'm very reluctant to allow them for fraught BLP material. And I can't find any other sources that are usable. (There's lots of chatter about this event, but it's all on platforms that are polemical and/or obscure.)

It's one single source. It's not an AAA-level source I don't think. I'm skeptical that this incident is important enough to write several sentences about (if it was, there'd be sources in respectable Australian or American or British papers one would think), even if we had a sufficient level of confidence that the one source was accurate.

One source, BLP fraught material which is highly defamatory if false == no siree Bob. I've removed the material pending further discussion (I'm not a moderator, so a moderator my roll that back tho). Herostratus (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I have been wrestling with this issue at both Jim Jefferies (comedian) and The Jim Jefferies Show. The article about the show included an additional source from the Daily Telegraph blog (which now appears to have been removed?). All the sources seem to be more akin to opinion pieces than properly vetted journalism, and are primarily based on Yemeni's own video - which also may or may not have been edited. So, it has certainly raised my BLP hackles. I agree with either removing the controversies sections, or very blandly acknowledging the controversy.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

If the information is included in the page, I think it should go in the "Jim Jeffries Show" section rather than a "controversies" section as per WP:CSECTION. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Here are the mainstream sources that I could find regarding the subject: [33], [34], [35]

As I mentioned in the talk page for the articles, as far as I remember, the videos in question explicitly show Jim Jefferies drawing and mocking the prophet Muhammad, and making disparaging comments about Muslims, and that Avi Yemini explicitly told him to stop. Then the published Comedy Central version of the interview cut together different segments of questions with different answers than the ones Yemini actually gave to each question, and tried to tie him, a Jew, to neo-Nazi groups. That the mainstream media has mostly tried to cover up this very notable incident, does not mean that Wikipedia should do so as well. Then again, it has been a while, so I may remember parts of this incorrectly. David A (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

There appear to be 4 relevant videos with clips from the Jim Jefferies interview and another from his standup routine comments about Muslims in Avi Yemini's Youtube channel. They definitely did not seem edited to me, and I strongly doubt that Avi Yemini has the skill to perform extremely convincing video editing. You can verify for yourselves if you wish. I tried to include the links, but was stopped by a blacklist filter. David A (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Never mind. I figured out a solution: https://pastebin.com/RtEfnrpm David A (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

You can link to Youtube videos. Just make sure you link to the www.youtube.com site not the URL shorterner youtu.be site. I can't see your pastebin as the site is too busy. But as a generally comment, we can't compare videos and make claims in articles point blank, and especially not in BLPs. That's a WP:Syn violation. We could cover claims made in videos but especially for BLPs, these would need to be reliable secondary sources e.g. news sources. In limited circumstances we may be able to include self published claims made by an individual about themselves which don't affect other people. We can't include self published information about about a third party. See WP:BLPSPS. So if these videos are videos from Avi Yemini, they are probably of little use to us in an article on Jim Jefferies. Nil Einne (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Pastebin started working for me. These seem to be your videos. [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]. All of them seem to be self published videos from Avi Yemini so are unlikely to be useful in the article on Jim Jefferies. Nil Einne (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

If mainstream media has mostly decided not to cover this story, then, almost by definition, it is not very notable for Wikipedia purposes. It is also a huge red flag under the BLP policy. Mainstream media also have BLP concerns, and they generally do not report on stories they are unable to corroborate. Wikipedia is not here to right wrongs or uncovering important stories that the mainstream media is not covering.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

User:David A's third source is no good. It's from the Post-Millenial, of whom Media Bias/Fact Check says "Overall, we rate The Post Millennial Right Biased based on story selection that favors the right and High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record". But more importantly, it's not really a news article, as it mixes in facts with statements from the writer including "Turns out no one really trusts anyone anymore" and "Perhaps Jefferies should take Keanu’s words to heart, and be excellent, even to those with whom he does not agree, or maybe especially to his ideological opposites" and "It’s a little surprising how myopic Jefferies is" and so forth. It's an opinion piece from (what I think is a) small right-wing operation and I have no confidence that they're not cherry picking all of their facts. Herostratus (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, I just wanted to show evidence that Yemini's anger over the way he was treated seems legitimate, by allowing you to verify the videos. Anyway, what about the other two sources? David A (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. It's fine, no problem. I mean to demonstrate something here for us in this discussion. It's just not usable in the article, is all, I would say. The Telegraph story won't load for me, but Media Bias/Fact Check says "Overall, we rate the The Telegraph Right Biased based on story selection that strongly favors the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to poor sourcing of information and some failed fact checks". In our article, I see that The Daily Telegraph (Sydney)#Controversies is quite a long section, and the article also says "A 2013 poll conducted by Essential Research found that the Telegraph was Australia's least-trusted major newspaper, with 41% of respondents citing trust in the paper." I can't load their stories (subscription issue?) but if the story title is "Jim Jefferies Busted" or "Jim Jefferies' Idea of Comedy is No Laughing Matter", well... none of this is giving me much confidence that they're not maybe cherry-picking their facts.

As I said, Media Bias/Fact Check gives the Jerusalem Post an excellent rating, tho. OK, the Post is good AFAIK. Still it's still just one ref. They didn't interview either of the principals, which kind of means they "gave Yemani's side" (since they described the contents of his video extensively) without seeing what Jefferies' had to say.

Ugh. It's hard to give the reader a correct, true presentation of divisive and edgy and fringe characters. Staying away from this incident might be a disservice to the reader. If it is true, and if it is indicative of some aspect of the entity "Jim Jefferies" which is worthwhile for the reader to know... it's a disservice to the reader. But... what're you gonna do? Where is Time? Where is the Los Angeles Times? I want to hear what they have to say. I want to hear what they have to say because if they do have something to say, that signifies that the incident has importance, but also because I trust what they'd have to say more the sources I've seen so far... even the Post. Herostratus (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

One thing to remember is we're talking about an article on Jim Jefferies. So Avi Yemini's anger over how he was treated, legitimate or not, may not be of great relevance. If there was an article on Avi Yemini then things may be different. If you find any sufficiently well known person, especially someone involved in something controversial (politics, comedy based in part on making fun of people, etc) I'm sure you'll find plenty of people angry over how they are treated, which people may feel is legitimate, but we probably aren't going to cover all of them only those which are considered significant as established by reliable secondary sources. Jim Jefferies isn't extremely notable like say Jon Stewart but still it's not likely this is the only thing which someone was unhappy about. IIRC Jefferies also did a segment which in part included Jordan Peterson. I know some of Peterson's fans, and I think Peterson himself were also unhappy with that segment although I believe in that case the complaint was a long interview almost none of it which was actually included. (Most of them didn't seem to care about Jefferies not bothering to include any real responses from the lady who supported the use of noise to block speakers.) Making it like responses were for different questions does seem more extreme but it's possible that in the context of the comedy segment it wasn't particularly unexpected, I don't know. Maybe sources just don't really care because Avi Yemini views sound like they are extreme and/or they just didn't notice. One obvious point is that from what I understand, Avi Yemini's recording is secret and he's making it sound like it's a major expose and he caught Jim Jefferies doing something no one knew because of his secret recording. But I would hardly be surprised if Jim Jefferies would have done exactly the same if the recording had been obvious. In fact, even if Avi Yemini genuinely believes no one knew, it seems reasonably possible they did, we're talking about professional camera crews etc here. And no one in the field, whatever their politics leanings is particularly surprised at how the comedy segment was presented. Remember Jim Jefferies show is a comedy show which deals with topical issues, and it leans extremely heavily towards the comedy element, it's not like John Oliver, or even the Daily Show. Nil Einne (talk) 06:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, the problem as I see it is that, much like other similar infotainment, the people who watch the Jim Jefferies show generally think that they are viewing an unedited version of the truth with some comedy thrown in to make it more palatable, and Jefferies' collaborators edited the questions and answers order so the Jewish Yemini, who apparently held the considerably less extreme sentiments during the interview, was somehow supposed to be tied to the Christchurch shooter and similar genocidal extremists, an incident that happened long after the interview took place. That is extremely dirty and dishonest behaviour from Comedy Central. I am not at all a fan of deliberate fake news. David A (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Here is a Google search for all the news articles that mention the incident. I am not sure if something else is useful there: [41] David A (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Me neither, but its not our job to correct TV viewers of false impressions of what they see on TV. It is our job to fairly describe the entity "Jim Jefferies" to an encyclopedic level, but that usually includes "He was on this show and that show etc." and not get into stuff which might imply to the reader that subject is a blackguard and montebank, unless absolutely necessary for understanding the subject. It might be necessary to do so, tho. I'm not sure.

But, whatever the purlose, it's still not clear that this incident is sufficiently notable.

FWIW to some degree this incident is apparently a right-wing hobbyhorse, extensively described in Breitbart and so forth. That's not automatically a deal-killer, but it's a red flag.

Insufficient notable and fair-minded sources known for good fact-checking. For negative material in a BLP we want AAA-level sources.

Regarding the above new refs... I went thru three pages worth, the rest I suppose get less and less relevant... anyone who wants to can dig up more. The ones I found were mostly unreliable (blogs etc.) or else heavily partisan. The ones where the publication are presumably OK for statements of fact were:

• Sydney Morning Herald. But title of the piece is "Jim Jefferies enjoys giving his guests just enough rope" (an opinion right there), it's somewhere between human-interest and hard news, and the string "Yemeni" does not appear in the article, because the incident in question is not mentioned in any way whatsoever.
• Salon. Title of piece is "Jim Jefferies nails what's wrong with preserving Confederate monuments", and the string "Yemeni" does not appear in the article, because the incident in question is not mentioned in any way whatsoever.
• The Australian. Cannot view, subscription required. But I noted above how IMO The Australian is a poor source.
• There's a few more on page 3 of the Google News result, I didn't even check because the exerpts make it clear that they're not about the incident in question, at least not primarily.

So, I'm not seeing any progress on an argument to include this material. My opinion is that we might as well put this one to bed. Herostratus (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, I personally don't consider Salon to be reliable, and think that conservative or right-wing voices have just as much right to be heard as the opposite, but I don't decide the rules around here. Anyway, what about the Jerusalem Post? David A (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

There are multiple problems with this article. I would attempt to fix them but I’ll readily admit that I’m a lazy SOB. The first problem is the tone of the article is quite opinionated, and since every paragraph seems to be pointed, a rewrite might be in order. The other problem is this article leans heavily on court documents. That’s a no-no. In fact the entire “Arrest and detention” section relies on this and only one secondary source. --That man from Nantucket (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Even the secondary source on that section is an AJ opinion piece. This article needs a major rewrite and probably could be significantly shortened. I wonder if it would also be worth merging into 2004 Madrid train bombings, as the Mayfield bio is a textbook WP:BLP1E. If we choose to keep the article as a standalone, the NYT has a nice archive of good articles about the subject. SWL36 (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I am an attorney in Virginia Beach, Virginia. My client Imam Mohamad Tawhidi is the subject of a full character assassination on the Wikipedia page that has been created by purely self-serving critics. The references to information are to 100 percent biased publications and paid journalists writing these articles on behalf of my clients critics seeking to destroy the reputation of my client. This page needs to be taken down and we will start a page with accurate information and dispute individually an editor who seeks to post untrue quotes and occurrences. There is no need for a page to be full of lies and distortions. My clients safety, livelihood, and reputation is being destroyed by this smear campaign. This is not what Wikipedia is about. I ask for everyone's help with this matter and my client is suffering tremendous emotional distress as a result. Thank you for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toughest (talk • contribs)

• Can you be more specific about what "quotes and occurrences" you believe to be untrue, and what sources are "biased" and "seeking to destroy the reputation of my client?" BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Your WP:COI with regard to Tawhidi means that you should not edit the article, but instead use the Talk page of the article to request an edit. Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The bio on this person, who is actually me, may be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Coburn

The information is out of date (over 10 years in most cases; nearly 20 in some) and is proving an obstacle to me generating work and business in my current profession, creating a hardship for me and my family. While I'm flattered to have had a Wikipedia page about me, I need to have my page removed and ask that it please be done. (It's proven tricky for me to delete info or the page about myself.) If you want to verify this is me, email me at iancoburnAThotmail.com or on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/iandcoburn/

Thank you; much appreciated! (I don't know how to navigate or message on Wikipedia and can't edit under the username I created because I've been blocked for using a username that might be the bio of Ian Coburn... who I actually am.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:502:560b:3c87:13ff:9459:423a (talk) 17:12, May 1, 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Coburn --GRuban (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• M. K. Stalin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Poorly sourced 'Controversy' section--how much, if any, needs to stay. More eyes appreciated. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• I think we can file this one for now, with thanks to the IP editor. Drmies (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I think we need some opinions here. This is the biography of an apparently notable journalist, which had a "Controversy" section--one controversy was basically nothing (someone disagreed with something the man said), the other is hugely overblown, certainly in comparison with the rest of the article. In addition, User:Vancouveriensis is simply reverting without even bothering to explain or to take seriously the requirements of the BLP. That conduct is not cool, IMO, and it's happening as I'm typing this up--but first of all I'm interested in whether seasoned BLP editors agree that a. we shouldn't be doing "Controversy" sections and b. this content is UNDUE. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Vancouveriensis did it again. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Fully agree the comments related to the Westminster attack /diversity is wholly inappropriate for the article. It's one person that seemed to criticize Eaton's comment, which is nowhere close to the BLP level we set. The other part could be its own section (it is critical to his career, but it has a few extranous bits in it) but I agree if a new section is used, calling it "controversy" is not really correct. --Masem (t) 20:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks Masem. I cut a few words out of it, and the edit warring editor added a note that I restored, on the ongoing investigation (well, I haven't read the source but I assume it's correct). I'd appreciate it if you or someone else could try to shorten it a bit. Still waiting on that editor to actually communicate. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Given the news today, I created this as a redirect. It's a very valid search term by now, though I wonder if article creation is actually warranted; her name is all over the news, but it has a BLP1 whiff about it. Anyway, that's maybe for others to decide, but I wanted to post here to say that I semi-protected the redirect because I don't want to leave it open to drive-by editors motivated only by politics. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia simply have to stop political bullshit artists from burying every article about "controversial" figures in disputable facts and misleading citations.

Wikipedia needs to communicate broadly how it intends to accomplish this.

In the mean time, I'm stopping my small but frequent donations. My donations were intended for fact sharing. Lies can literally ruin Wikipedia.

Sincerely, Dag Bjørndal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.23.129.35 (talk) 12:59, May 4, 2019 (UTC)

If this is Saturday for you, I would hate to see Monday! Have a nice weekend. Dumuzid (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I think the WMF will survive this. It's Yiannopoulos, by the way. Black Kite (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Lies can ruin Wikipedia. Multicolored cannibal robot dogs from beyond Jupiter can destroy the downtown area of Altoona, Pennsylvania. The question is are these things happening.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs)

I think Dag's intended meaning was that lies are ruining it for him -- from his point of view anyway. Thank you, Dag, for your past donations to the Wikimedia Foundation. You can be assured that none of your donations are received by us volunteer editors, nor indeed, I hope by either political bullshit artists nor by ultra-Jovian canines with a dislike of urban development in Blair County. MPS1992 (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Complaining of the existence of lies without actually specifying what those lies might be is not a truly effective means of voicing your complaint. -Nunh-huh 18:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Concern from article subject:

Altucher is an author in finance, most recently a cryptocurrency promoter. His article has been a magnet for grossly promotional editing. I've been one of the editors periodically clearing out the rubbish. He's very upset by this, and has been emailing me repeatedly today to protest.

As such - if someone has time, could you please glance through the history, and the removals of promotional content by myself and other editors, and see if there's content that's actually suitable that should go back in?

I must note I also went looking for RS coverage from the past few years and found very little. He's particularly concerned about removal of material about his podcast, but I can't find evidence it's notable per Wikipedia terms - but perhaps I missed something - David Gerard (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Some of the removals look like they could be kept as long as the sourcing is non-primary. For example, this edit removes info about his podcast, but it does include an RS link to CNBC that mentions the podcast, so it can be included - but the rest of that paragraph that are sourced to non-RSes should be removed. Other things like being a recognized chess master is fine but that's more a personal life thing. Basically it looks like too much of it added was without the necessary indepedent, RS sourcing to justify inclusion in a BLP but some of those can be included. --Masem (t) 18:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

cheers :-) Also, if regular BLP editors can add it to their watchlists, that would be most helpful for both Wikipedia and the subject - David Gerard (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Charlamagne tha God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"McKelvey was born to Larry Thomas McKelvey and his wife on June 29, 1980,[1] . . . . His father refused to pay his bail money, and McKelvey remained in jail for 41 days. Eventually, he called his mother, who paid for his bail and McKelvey was released."

WIKIPEDIA PLS INCLUDE THE MOTHER'S NAME IN THIS AND ALL BIOGRAPHIES FOR OBVIOUS REASONS.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:d7cc:d200:a84f:ab2d:334b:bf3b (talk) 19:32, May 5, 2019 (UTC)

If you know a RS that has his mothers name, please add it. We have no way to know it otherwise.--Auric talk 23:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Michael S. Rogers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There has been a persistent adding of poorly sourced information, with major concerns about the misrepresentation of WP:PRIMARY sources and WP:SYNTHESIS. Other than continuing to revert, as is permitted per WP:3RR, I am in over my head and could use a hand dealing with the situation. Garuda28 (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• UPDATE: They have been reported at [[42]]. Garuda28 (talk) 03:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

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

libelous and false information is constantly applied to the page to hurt my reputation and destroy my business. this information is done in a destructive manner and violates the wikipedia policies. this has been occurring for over one year and the author should be banned from wikepedia and the page protected against these assaults — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcg2000 (talk • contribs)

• Pinging @WikiDan61:, given their involvement with this issue earlier. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

This issue has already been adjudicated: see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive267. The offending material (information about Abrams' early life legal issue) was removed as a result of that discussion. I see nothing new that would argue to change that outcome. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. If this keeps popping up, then semi-protection might be appropriate, but don't think it's justified now. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Coming to this as a fresh pair of eyes I see no reason not to include at least a brief mention of the arson. Multiple RS reported on it (I see at least 4 other than WaPo from a quick google right away), he was in fact convicted (a misdemeanor isn't as serious as a felony but it's still a criminal act) and as far as I'm aware there is nothing in policy that obligates us to ignore a criminal conviction just because it was expunged from someone's record after the fact. WP records what is said by RS, not what is said in court records.199.247.46.170 (talk) 06:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_E._Hatley

There are several problems with this page; I hope this is the right place to report them. First, it is certainly not written in as unbiased a way as possible. Much of the evidence, moreover, seems to be taken from a source called freejohnhatley.com - hardly fair. The sourcing in general is poor and another is from Kim Hatley, entitled 'Defend John Hatley'. Sources need to be more carefully picked.

However, I'm not an experienced editor, and I don't trust myself to undertake this job. I thought it would be good to bring it to the attention of someone who has the necessary abilities.

Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.137.38.104 (talk) 17:35, May 5, 2019 (UTC)

Also both the above mentioned sources are dead.--Auric talk 20:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Most of that material from Defend John Hately seems to have been dumped in by a SPA account on 31 March, so I took the page back to that date. The article looks to be pretty neutral before it went in, although it does still use Defend John Hatley (which is still hanging around in the wayback machine). I agree sourcing could be improved though. Curdle (talk) 07:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

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

I have nothing against this particular football player, but it seems to me that this article is an example of wikipedia containing articles on too many undistinguished sports figures. The bar for sports figures seems extremely low in comparison to the bar for, say, scientists and academics. TundraGreen (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you that the bar for sports figures seems extremely low, and I believe that this contributes to BLP problems. However, the bar for this individual seems to be decided at WP:NFOOTBALL -- which he seems easily to meet -- and therefore is pretty much off topic for this noticeboard. The general problem might be more on topic at WT:NOTABILITY or somewhere like that. MPS1992 (talk) 11:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)