Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard

This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period.

  • This page is not for simple vandalism or material which can easily be removed without argument. If you can, simply remove the offending material.
  • Familiarize yourself with the biographies of living persons policy before reporting issues here.
  • You can request a revision deletion on IRC using #wikipedia-en-revdel connect, where only administrators will be able to see your concerns.
  • Important: Do not copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard. Link to a diff showing the dispute, but do not paste the information here.

Sections older than 7 days archived by ClueBot III.

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:



Accuracy of claims made by climate change deniers[edit]

Discussion has petered out. Climate Feedback has been added to WP:RSP reflecting the consensus that it is a reliable source for commentary on climate change denialism and related topics. Guy (help!) 11:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The editor Peter Gulutzan has since at least November 2018 repeatedly removed reliably sourced content on climate change denial / fringe rhetoric on BLPs by claiming that there is a BLP violation in covering inaccuracies made by prominent climate change deniers:

There is a consensus on the reliability of Climate Feedback, which the RSP list[6] describes as "a fact-checking website that is considered generally reliable for topics related to climate change. It discloses its methodologies and has been endorsed by other reliable sources. Most editors do not consider Climate Feedback a self-published source due to its high reviewer requirements." It's starting to get tiresome to deal with these reverts of RS content, so I'd just like to get confirmation here that there is no BLP violation involved in adding reliably sourced content about the accuracy of claims made by climate change deniers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Have you discussed the issue with the editor on the various talk pages? I think we need to be very careful with a claim like that one removed from the Ebell article. The claim in question, "Ebell has falsely claimed that "the rate of warming according to the data is much slower than the models used by the IPCC."" is true so long as there is one example of it being true. Absent the context in which it was made we shouldn't include such statements in Wikipedia voice. Such a definitive statement should include a link to the original claim as well as an attributed explanation to why the claim is wrong. I didn't review the other examples but this first one certainly doesn't support the view that Peter Gulutzan's edits are problematic. Springee (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. In fact Snooganssnoogans did start a thread on the Myron Ebell talk page, I hope that editors will look at my reply there. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Taking the points in order:
(Ebell) On 30 November 2018 Snooganssnoogans started a thread on the Myron Ebell talk page beginning with the incorrect assertion that I had had said climatefeedback.org is not a Reliable Source. In fact I had said no such thing, I had said "Not compliant with WP:BLPSPS and WP:WELLKNOWN.", and on 30 November 2018 I replied on that thread with a full explanation about the cited author/editor, to which Snooganssnoogans did not reply. On 2 December 2018 -- without pinging me and without discussing my actual objections -- Snooganssnoogans started a thread on WP:RSN and got 2 editors to agree (one editor did not) that in general climatefeedback looked like an RS. On 3 December 2018 another editor re-inserted the contentious material in the BLP. I asked if others had opinions (nobody did), and I did nothing further. Would anyone like to finally address what I said?
(Berkhout) Once again, a WP:RSN thread Factcheck from climatefeedback.org as a source at Guus Berkhout. I participated, others disagreed, the material in question was re-inserted in the Guus Berkhout BLP, I did nothing further.
(Nova) Snooganssnoogans points to this edit by me on 12 September 2019 and claims it was about various wonderful publications -- which is false, as anyone who looks at the edit can see. The cited source was cup.columbia.edu, my edit summary was "Removed "Nova is known for promoting fringe views on climate science". Cited source refutes some statements in her guide, but does not say she is known for that. Poorly sourced material." Nobody disputed that (as far as I can tell), it was a fact that the cited source didn't say it, and the statement has not been re-inserted.
(Plimer) In this case my edit summary was "Additional source is not compliant with WP:BLPSPS, and also unnecessary, there is already a cite." i.e. I made no change to the content, so this doesn't fit with Snooganssnoogans's opening sentence that I "repeatedly removed sourced content". (In fact not only did I not remove sourced content in this case, I didn't "repeatedly" remove in other cases.) I believe it could be discussed on the appropriate talk page, and wonder what's wrong with that.
(consensus) I refer Snooganssnoogans to the essay don't quote essays or proposals as if they were policy. More seriously, the reference to WP:RSP (which most charitably can be described as having "limited status" the same as an essay) should not be brought into a discussion as if people who are referring to WP:BLPSPS (which is a part of a real policy) need to bow to it. In this case, I looked deeper at the claim that "most editors do not consider Climate Feedback a self-published source" and found that it was added by one of the 3 or 4 editors who thought it was not self-published, as opposed to 3 or 4 who thought it was. If someone wants to establish a consensus whether Climate Feedback meets WP:BLPSPS requirements, let's have a talk specifically about that (which as far as I know has never happened) and let's have it on the relevant page which is WP:BLPN (which as far as I know has never happened).
I would greatly appreciate a confirmation that Snooganssnoogans's points are without merit, because Snooganssnoogans has used the same points to accuse me of "tendentious editing". Regrettably an administrator (Bishonen) after 11 minutes agreed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Credit: The statement about "most editors" was made by Newslinger, here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
"The cited source was cup.columbia.edu". Just to be clear: this is a Columbia University Press book published by a recognized expert in the field of climate science. This kind of misrepresentation, one among many, amounts to WP:TE at this point. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Anyone who looks will see that I did not say there was anything wrong with Columbia, I said the cited source did not support the statement in the Wikipedia article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
(Question to all) Is Climatefeedback something should be treated like the Politifact? I don't recall the exact location but I think people recently concluded that Politifact should be treated as something similar to a think tank. Their opinions are often cited by others and often have WEIGHT. However, it was also felt that they aren't a source in and of themselves. Thus if Politifac says "Senator X was wrong..." that doesn't establish WEIGHT for inclusion. Weight would be established if CNN says, "According to Politifact, Senator X was wrong...". I think discussions around the SPLC have reached similar conclusions. If that same thinking applies to Climatefeedback then I think the Ebell content, as inserted way back in the day, didn't establish WEIGHT for inclusion. Stating a living person was "wrong" is something negative about them and thus the typical BLP concerns apply. That doesn't mean it shouldn't make it into the article but we really should be careful that we aren't over simplifying what might be a more complex claim. In general I would be uncomfortable with statements like the one in the Ebell article since it looks like a random sentence thrown in to discredit the person rather than true explanation of what is almost certainly a more complex position/claim by Ebell. - Disclaimer, prior to my responses here I was not familiar with Ebell. Springee (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


Describing WP:RS/P as some kind of WP:ESSAY doesn't match the effects of, e.g., "deprecated" on not logged-in users, for examples see WT:WHITELIST, WT:RSN, and WT:AFC. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
What I actually said was: most charitably can be described as having "limited status" the same as an essay. That charitable description is the WP:SUPPLEMENTAL guideline: "In comparison to policies and guidelines, information pages, like essay pages, have a limited status, as they have not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Springee, I don't think that's a good summary of the consensus on Politifact. Here's the recent RFC [7] and an earlier one [8]. The consensus to me reads that Politifact is a reliable source for factual claims, equivalent to a high quality news source. The only exception is that their specific truth ratings of a statement ("True", "Mostly False", "Pants on Fire", etc), and any kind of analysis of percentage of false statements should be attributed as an opinion. Just wanted to note that, I don't really have an opinion on Climate Feedback Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Nobody expects the spanish inquisition here: The Hill in a "Politifact fail" video on YouTube four days ago. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
RRC, you are correct. It was the opinion part that editors felt needed to be cited by others in order to establish WEIGHT. Do we think that is the same case here? If CF says Jane Doe made a false claim [here], should that statement have WEIGHT by itself or does that claim need other sources to establish weight? Also, should we just quote the high level claim or should the details be included. Again, I'm concerned about what look like random, negative statements without context. In general I think labeling people as climate deniers is problematic given the extremely political nature of the public debate. Springee (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Peter_Gulutzan here. As I understand, we are supposed to present all views of reliable sources in proportion... and for bios immediately remove poorly sourced contentious material.

  • ClimateFeedback should be treated as an opinion blog site with recognition that the opinions come from credentialed academics (if verified). It carries some weight, but it's not the "supreme court" of climate change sources.
  • My search for Myron Ebel at Duck Duck Go says most sources call him a director of a center at an institute, or head of the transition team, etc. Calling him a "denier" is a derogatory term, and cherry picking a particular source is not neutrally representing more than one source(s) available.
  • Even the particular cited source (6 above) does not call Ebel a "denier."
  • The source's opinions should be attributed as such, if you want to describe claims as "false" based on them.
  • Factual accuracy and editing of material on Climate Feedback site: I spot checked this article looking at links to bios. Martin Singh's bio link gives a 404. This is a negative indicator regarding editing and reliability.

-- Yae4 (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Yae4: but if you searched for "Martin Singh, Postdoctoral Research fellow, Harvard University:' you would have found this. He is now at Monash University[9] which is probably why the link no longer exists. So the fact that page was removed is not a comment on the Climate Feedback site. The site has been discussed at WP:RSN[10] - people can read the entire short discussion, but here's the first two comments:
"An editor[11] insists that Climatefeedback.org is a self-published source run by nobodies and that we can't use it as a source for statements such as "Myron Ebell has falsely claimed that "the rate of warming according to the data is much slower than the models used by the IPCC." Climate scientists note that past climate models have accurately predicted subsequent rates of global warming."[12] Climatefeedback.org has been cited favorably recently by sources such as Deutsche Welle,[13] Columbia Journalism Review[14], Axios[15], and the Guardian which referred to climatefeedback.org as "a highly respected and influential resource"[16]. It would be good if the RS noticeboard could clarify once and for all whether this source, which other RS cite and describe favorably and which rely on assessments by actual experts, can be used as a RS, so that editors who want to scrub this source and related content from the pages of prominent climate change deniers will stop doing so (or conversely, be allowed to do so). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
"Hard to argue against Deutsche Welle, Columbia Journalism Review, Axios, and the Guardian. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
"*Generally reliable. With published editorial and advisory teams, a clear methodology ([17] [18]), and multiple endorsements from established reliable sources, Climate Feedback appears to have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy required of a generally reliable source. — Newslinger talk 10:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)" Doug Weller talk
None of that is relevant to the specific objections I made about the Myron Ebell cite, and I never said that climatefeedback.org is run by nobodies. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@Peter Gulutzan: I have no idea why you are telling me this as I thought it was obviously a response to the post above mine by Yae4 Doug Weller talk 16:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: It was about me as well, you quoted from the WP:RSN thread that I'd mentioned, starring Snooganssnoogans's claim re what I'd said, and I have no idea why. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans, The fact that Singh's listing is out of date since around January 2017, or 3 years ago, and he reviewed 2 articles in 2019, including November, but they didn't update his info' is no reflection on their editorial performance or factual accuracy? With all due respect, I disagree. It's not a huge error, but it's an indicator; big errors start with small ones. His comments also struck me as being much too long, as compared with others, which is why I clicked. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
^This is a strange criticism of a RS. This well-regarded fact-checking website comprised entirely of recognized experts is unreliable because one author did not update his author bio on the website (moving from a postdoc to a tenure-track job) and because his comments are long. You do realize that author bios are usually written by the authors themselves? This applies to the author bios in peer-reviewed academic publications, as well as the folks who write op-eds for RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not here to exchange snarky insults. I stand by my original, concise list of comments above. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
To clarify my last comment ^, I did not see all your edits of your previous comment until after I replied.
So it might be good to review Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_own_comments: "even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes."
Also, referring to the heading here and at User_talk:Peter_Gulutzan#Tendentious_editing_on_climate_change_topics a review of Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#New_topics_and_headings_on_talk_pages: "Keep headings neutral" also seems appropriate. -- Yae4 (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans has accused me of tendentious editing at least four times (15:38 11 January, 16:00 11 January, 03:55 15 January, 14:19 15 January), and if that's accepted then Snooganssnoogans's request is taken care of. Incidentally Snooganssnoogans's claim "comprised entirely of recognized experts" is not an opinion I could agree with. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Reliable. We are in a situation analogous to that with alternative medicine: the specialists who critique climate change denial typically do so in venues dedicated to the subject of denialism, because denialism itself is not a live controversy within the field. You don't publish papers in professional climate literature saying that $RANDOMDENIALIST is wrong because (a) it's obvious and (b) it does not advance the field of climate science. So we have a number of venues, of which this is one, where specialists gather to critique a specific aspect of pseudoscience. Obviously that critique necessarily personalises things (X is wrong to say Y is hard to discuss without naming X as the source of Y). That means we have to be careful not to slip into hyperbole, but the content linked above, doesn't do that. The only thing I would do is WP:ATT everything. Guy (help!) 15:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Include. Climate Feedback (RSP entry) is not a self-published source, just as the similar Science-Based Medicine (RSP entry) was determined not to be self-published in a 2019 RfC. InsideClimate News won the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting in 2013, and is not self-published because it has a sizable editorial team. The guideline on fringe theories makes it clear that "When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views." Climate change denial is contrary to the scientific consensus on climate change, and is a fringe theory because it "departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field". In-text attribution is appropriate in some cases, and I would reword some of the text to focus the criticism on the people's claims, and not the people themselves. — Newslinger talk 01:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I made five points on a talk page post, one of which was about InsideClimate News, I've withdrawn it. It's disputed whether Snooganssnoogans's edits have always met WP:BLP requirements, and whether Snooganssnoogans's requests or accusations are laudable, but not (as far as I can tell) whether pseudoscientific views should be pushed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
You've made some reasonable points, so I've taken a closer look at each of the edits listed in Snooganssnoogans's first comment in this discussion:
  1. Myron Ebell (Special:Diff/871394198): The text in the article is consistent with the the Climate Feedback fact check, but in-text attribution of Climate Feedback would be appropriate, and the text should also state the year Ebell made the statement (2018). Something like 'In a 2018 Newsnight interview, Ebell stated that "the rate of warming according to the data is much slower than the models used by the IPCC", which was described as "factually inaccurate" by Climate Feedback.' would be fully BLP-compliant. It doesn't look like Ebell responded to the fact check.
  2. Guus Berkhout (Special:Diff/919740851): This looks fine to me, since I don't consider Climate Feedback self-published, as explained in my previous comment. The text includes Climate Feedback's negative evaluation of the letter, but doesn't describe Berkhout or the other signatories with negative terms. However, the text could use some copyediting, and there's a typo in "scienctists".
  3. Joanne Nova (Special:Diff/929091011, Special:Diff/915352813, Talk:Joanne Nova § A recent edit)
    • I agree that "known primarily for promoting pseudoscientific views on climate change and the harms of smoking" should not be used to describe the Heartland Institute, since Powell's book does not directly say that. The main article might have more supporting sources, but I'm not sure if they're relevant in the article on Nova. Alternative phrasing, such as "a think tank that opposed the Kyoto Protocol", would be better-supported and more relevant.
    • "The book argues that temperatures have not increased" is imprecise, as Nova's handbook states that "the world has not warmed since 2001". The text should add "since 2001".
    • National Geographic is one of the sources used for the text "The book promotes the myth that there is already so much CO2 in the atmosphere that adding more will not have an impact on temperatures." The magazine links to a UT News piece, which refers to a "myth" that consists of two claims: the CO
      2       saturation claim, and the water vapor claim. Nova made the first claim in her handbook, but was silent on the second claim. I'm undecided on whether this is a potent enough counterargument to justify excluding "myth" from the text. There is probably some way to rephrase this unambiguously.
    • 'Her blog is described as "skeptical" of climate science.' isn't well-supported, since the cited NPR opinion piece doesn't explicitly mention Nova, but "a number of active bloggers".
    • There were other changes in those edits. No comment on these changes, since I didn't examine them yet.
  4. Ian Plimer (Special:Diff/935260217): As I don't consider Climate Feedback self-published, I would keep the citation. The article text is unaffected.
— Newslinger talk 10:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
This thread isn't about whether to insert that material (it already is inserted). It's about Snooganssnoogans's request. (Update: I removed some unnecessary words in that last sentence before there was a reply.) I want to discuss the edits, but does anyone object if we do so on separate threads? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Seeing no objection, I added a thread related to the first accusation, my revert on Myron Ebell. I'd like to do one at a time. I think that "what should be in the Myron Ebell article" belongs better in that thread, and "should the Snooganssnoogans request be supported" belongs in this one. Some people have suggested that there should have been attribution (meaning there was an WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV violation too?), but I didn't bring that in because it is part of the WP:NPOV policy not the WP:BLP policy. And, as stated, I regard talk about WP:RS guideline as unnecessary. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Update: The Myron Ebell thread is now archived. The Joanne Nova thread is still live and I hope editors here will give it some attention. There doesn't seem to be much interest so I won't continue with my plan to add separate threads in WP:BLPN about each article.Newslinger: since you used the word "yet", I'm not sure whether you intended to add something, or whether we're done with this sub-conversation. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Newslinger: I guess you decided to not add something. The Joanne Nova thread is now archived. My other Joanne Nova revert has been discussed above. You have not tried to defend your claim about "most editors", which, as I indicated earlier, I believe is baseless. Re Ian Plimer, Snooganssnoogans re-inserted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Adding a couple more observations about Climate Feedback (aka Science Feedback and Health Feedback): It's a little early to claim good "reputation" for accuracy when they only had the notability tag removed last April related to Facebook, and a few months later were censured for a review of a video on Facebook: "The failure to declare to their readers that two individuals who assisted Science Feedback, not in writing the fact-check but in reviewing the evidence, had positions within advocacy organizations, and the failure to clarify their role to readers, fell short of the standards required of IFCN signatories."[19] -- Yae4 (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Today I made a request on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure for an uninvolved editor (I don't care if it's an administrator). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Beyond reproach. I reject the WP:CRYBLP campaign to remove reliable sources by the climate change deniers active here at Wikipedia. jps (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Guy closed this with the statement "Discussion has petered out. Climate Feedback has been added to WP:RSP reflecting the consensus that it is a reliable source for commentary on climate change denialism and related topics." Guy also removed one of my edits, and archived the discussion. I believe that is illegitimate because Guy is involved (notice his comment within this thread), and that Guy's statement misrepresents what the issue under discussion is. On that basis I object to the close, and have put the discussion back. Of course, if any uninvolved editor wishes to close, or if the OP withdraws the request and accusations which are the subject (see the initial posts), then I have no objection. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan, I did not deliberately remove any edit by you, apologies if that did happen. But this has been discussed and the source is now listed at WP:RSP. That makes the generic question posed here, moot, and leaves specific questions to be addressed on article talk pages, so I closed it on purely procedural grounds. If you think the issue is not resolved then you're free to reopen, or open a second request with more specific questions. Guy (help!) 22:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Of course I think the issue is not resolved but I am not free to reopen since like you I am involved -- but I believe that an uninvolved editor has a right to do so, and have re-requested that an uninvolved editor read the whole thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm coming to this discussion as an uninvolved editor based on the request for closure/review made by Peter Gulutzan. I also reviewed one of the other discussions here which contains sufficient input from the community. I've also reviewed comments made in the closing summary provided by Guy.
As a simplified general overview, it is apparent that the RfC came about because Peter Gulutzan, through his edits and edit summaries, suggested that certain content (such as that sourced to "Climate Feedback") must be removed under BLP policy as the content was poorly sourced or unreliable (#3 self-published). The essential question posed was whether this was incorrect.
Based on both discussions, the community concluded that rather than removing content as a BLP issue, the wording of the content was open to further editing for clarification and/or improved in-line text attribution. The community's attitude to the Climate Feedback source reflected the description written in WP:RSP.
In the circumstances, Peter can let Guy know whether he is happy with the closure as it is or if he would prefer for Guy to insert a copy of this closing summary I have made. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I see no reason to object to a close by Ncmvocalist who is an uninvolved editor. I see no reason to ask permission from Guy who is an involved editor. I have removed the "do-not-archive-until" note that I had placed at the start of this thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Alice S. Fisher[edit]

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

Shincheonji Church of Jesus: current alleged persecutions[edit]

Greetings

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

Self-paste follows:

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

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

the presumed danger here: https://en.shincheonji.kr/bv_covid19Response_9607 and my, maybe naive, public musings about it on its Talk page, diff: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shincheonji_Church_of_Jesus&diff=943849273&oldid=943847663 [This talk section updated since then]

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

Best regards

Zezen, far away from Korea and without any COI

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

Sincerely, Primefac The English Wikipedia Oversight team

Regarding the contest over infoboxes on notable biographical articles[edit]

Hello, I am Thatstinkyguy. I'm a simple editor here on Wikipedia. I wanted to discuss the glaring omissions of infoboxes on biographical articles of notable celebrities. Even though there are more, two that stood out to me in particular are Stanley Kubrick and Cary Grant. What I did was look the the archived talk pages of these two articles to see why there are no infoboxes. I tried to get in touch with one of the users who opposed the addition of infoboxes for both stated ones, Dr. Blofeld, via their talk page. Here was my message:

Your thing with infoboxes...

Hello, my name is Thatstinkyguy, an editor here. I wanted to reach out to you regarding your stance on infoboxes for the articles on celebrities such as Stanley Kubrick and Cary Grant. Let me state right now that I am not out to attack or bully you. I wanted to put in my two cents about all this.

I looked at the comments on the discussion section of the 4th archived talk page for Cary Grant called, "Why does Cary Grant not have an infobox when so many other actors do?" In this discussion, some of your comments stuck out to me, such as this one:

Because it is the minority of editors who do hard work on here writing the articles which would still be short or bloated unsourced crap if they weren't properly researched. The people who actually write and promote articles should have more say in the formatting of the articles than the people who don't and just drive by to cause trouble. I could for instance start a thread on the talk page of the Richard Nixon article arguing that it would look better with just a photograph. Why don't I? Because I respect that you've written it and that it was your editorial decision to include one in promoting it. Infoboxes, particularly in arts biographies are not compulsory, read the ruling.

- Dr. Blofeld @ 14:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I get it! As a major editor, you want Wikipedia to be a trustworthy resource with good sources, and you want articles to look professional as well. No infobox and simply a picture may look elegant in certain situations, but this is Wikipedia (a resource for EVERYONE), not a personal website. This kind of thing could be valid for other encyclopedic resources and (like I said) personal sites/blogs/etc, but not Wikipedia. I would also like to point out that people who don't edit Wikipedia and vandals aren't the ones who have or want any say in anything on Wikipedia, except for what casual readers without accounts may think or what vandals may do.

Articles which have been written without infoboxes have a nasty habit of attracting people who barely edit Wikipedia and often seem to have been put up to it by somebody. Not to mention the coaxing which goes on behind the scenes. That's nasty. People who turn up to cause a fuss about no infobox are often not very established editors and it's extremely irritating to keep having to discuss it every few weeks and be bullied into submission DuncanHill.

- Dr. Blofeld @ 15:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think people keep coming to those articles about this? Because these more than notable celebrity articles look unusual, incomplete, and not up to standard without an infobox.

OK, as this infobox is seen as something of vital value. Let's take a look at it. Largely dominated by a bloated list of wives? The relevance of Bristol and Davenport to Cary Grant's career? That and his wives are some of the most trivial things you can mention when it comes to summarising his article. Years active: 1920–1986. People will get the wrong impression that that was his film career so it's misleading if anything. In reality his film career was 1932-1966. Cary Grant was a film actor and the infobox doesn't even tell me he was a film star. Literally useless. If it actually conveyed important info about his career, his Academy Award wins or noms, Golden Globes, notable films etc then I'd see more point.

- Dr. Blofeld @ 21:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I think your infobox beside this point here gave some good info someone might need quickly. In regards to if someone wants to know more about him or details, they could read the article then.

Infoboxes should be added for the sake of most people who use Wikipedia, because they look incomplete next to most other articles for other celebrities, most people EXPECT to see infoboxes on people, and they hold basic info that people researching for example can get when they need. Not only this, when we publish articles onto Wikipedia, we should know off the bat that it's a public space where anyone can make edits to them. If it's vandalization, that's one of the things other editors and bots can easily undo. And an infobox doesn't deteriorate the quality of an article at all. If someone wants to read the whole article, they can go ahead and do that and can easily overlook the infobox. There's even apps and browser extensions that can let people view articles as normal pages with text. But if there is no infobox, it can be inconvenient for people that need summarized key points of someone's life, and like I said earlier, if they want to know more, they can read the article.

Thanks for the understanding!

Thatstinkyguy (talk) 01:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC) on Dr. Blofeld's talk page

This message from me was undone/deleted by Dr. Blofeld themselves, stating in their edit summary:

I don't have a "thing" about infoboxes and support them in most cases where there is data not easily presented in prose.

- Dr. Blofeld @ 07:08, 11 March 2020‎

Looking back, the title name of "Your thing with infoboxes..." probably wasn't the best name on my part looking back, but judging from the summary here, it seems as if Dr. Blofeld was not interested to hear what I had to say. So, I went to an administrator, DeltaQuad, with my concerns on the stance of the omission of infoboxes on articles of notable celebrities, the two I mentioned being Stanley Kubrick and Cary Grant. Here was my following message to DeltaQuad's talk page:

Why?

Hello DeltaQuad! I am Thatstinkyguy, an editor here. I wanted to contact you about not so much user Dr. Blofeld, but his thing against infoboxes on particular biographical articles. Maybe this isn't the place to do so, and if it's not, please tell me who I can forward this who (besides Dr. Blofeld).

Anyway, I wrote out the following message for over an hour on Dr. Blofeld's talk page before getting deleted. I archived it via my 3rd sandbox here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thatstinkyguy/sandbox_3.

But then when I went back to see if he had read, he reverted back to a previous version, and didn't seem to read more than the message name: Your thing with infoboxes... Looking back, that probably wasn't the best name. I say that because here was his summary for reverting:

I don't have a "thing" about infoboxes and support them in most cases where there is data not easily presented in prose.

- Dr. Blofeld @ 07:08, 11 March 2020‎

What kind of pisses me off is that he didn't seem to read it aside from the name, like I said. I wish he had taken the time to read it at the very least. I was reaching out to have a calm, civil discussion like two adults, but he obviously didn't want that. Quite childish really.

Basing on this comment and some of the archived discussion pages for Cary Grant and Stanley Kubrick, he does in fact seem to be against them if there's detailed enough information within the article on the subject. I find this whole ordeal with bowing down to these wishes unreasonable. Especially since Dr. Blofeld is not in a position of power on Wikipedia. There is no harm AT ALL with infoboxes on notable celebrities. In fact, most if not all have one. My stance: infoboxes should be added, because they can help provide basic info, it's up to standard with other notable celebrity articles, and they do not deteriorate the value of the article itself.

Thanks for your time.

- Thatstinkyguy (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC) on DeltaQuad's talk page

I got a response on the DeltaQuad talk page from user, Cassianto. They responded with the following:

(talk page stalker) Nobody is in a "position of power" here, we are all volunteers and although some may think they are the all singing and all dancing, they are not. What you find unreasonable, permit me to suggest, is that someone has displayed a differing opinion to you and you don't like it. May I politely suggest that if this is a report on someone's behaviour, then in the interests of transparency, you take it to ANI. But do expect the report to be expeditiously filed away. In the meantime, and away from fetishising over infoboxes, feel free to review any one of the many articles we currently have at WP:GAN. That would be a more sound use of your time.

CassiantoTalk 15:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC) on User:DeltaQuad's talk page

So I responded to Cassianto on their talk page. This was my response:

Re:Re:Why?
Nobody is in a "position of power" here, we are all volunteers and although some may think they are the all singing and all dancing, they are not. What you find unreasonable, permit me to suggest, is that someone has displayed a differing opinion to you and you don't like it. May I politely suggest that if this is a report on someone's behaviour, then in the interests of transparency, you take it to ANI. But do expect the report to be expeditiously filed away. In the meantime, and away from fetishising over infoboxes, feel free to review any one of the many articles we currently have at WP:GAN. That would be a more sound use of your time.

- Cassianto @ 15:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Let me preface by saying that I'm not here to attack you. I'm here to be serious.

So let me ask you something, if nobody's in a position of power here, why are there administrators and bureaucrats here[1]? I can answer that: to make sure Wikipedia is in tip-top shape. Let's pretend no one's in a position of power on Wikipedia for a second, why would you and others contest and fight tooth and nail with editors over adding infoboxes if no one's in a position of power? Anyhow, Wikipedia has and always will be an openly editable free encyclopedia[2], so why shouldn't others add infoboxes to these good and featured biographical articles. Do they REALLY diminish the quality of biographical articles that much? Do they hurt something or someone? Just look at COUNTLESS other biographical articles of notable people with infoboxes, and tell me they ruin the whole article. Please, for the sake of people who use Wikipedia as a resource and the site itself, give up this pointless (and rather petulant) fight. It's not needed and it's not helping anything.

- Thatstinkyguy (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Thatstinkyguy on Cassianto's talk page

My first response on this was from user User:SchroCat. Their response to me was:

Complaining in numerous locations that you don't like the fact people disagree with you isn't need or helping anything either. Perhaps you should think of that (and please don't reply to me here or elsewhere: I am not interested in a conversation with you, I'm just trying to point out that the world (and WP) is a big enough place for people with opposing views, and you don't have to keep berating them in numerous threads.

- SchroCat (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC) on User:Cassianto's talk page

Finally, I come here to express my concern. I think SchroCat got the wrong idea on what I was saying on these. I wasn't out to attack or berate anyone. I was doing my best to be firm and serious, not straight-up mean. If I was mean anywhere, I'm sorry. On their point of the world and Wikipedia being a big enough place for people with opposing views, I agree with this, but I'm talking about a biographical article standard (infoboxes for notable people/celebrities), not an opinion. And the fact that they didn't want me to respond to them is kind of unreasonable too.

Some time after this however, Cassianto responded to me with this:

"I can answer that: to make sure Wikipedia is in tip-top shape" Well they're doing a dreadful job, aren't they. This place has been broken for many years. To answer the hyperbole in your Oscar acceptance speech above, no. No, they do not hurt anyone. No, they do not hurt something. No, they do not diminish the quality in some biographical articles (sports, political, military). But they do on other biographical articles. Unfortunately, a few numpties stopped me from deleting infoboxes that had been forced on to articles without discussion. Otherwise, I would be deleting the whole lot of them and asking for a discussion to take place on the article's talk page on the merits of including an infobox - but like I say, this place is broken.

CassiantoTalk 19:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC) on their User talk:Cassianto

This response was quite revealing. Sure, Wikipedia has issues but this thing with celebrities having infoboxes is not and should not be one of them. I thought it was quite funny how he compared my reply to an Oscar acceptance speech. As you can see, with my questions, they answered (from purely their own opinion) that infoboxes diminish the quality of some biographical articles. This part is my favorite: "Unfortunately, a few numpties stopped me from deleting infoboxes that had been forced on to articles without discussion. Otherwise, I would be deleting the whole lot of them and asking for a discussion to take place on the article's talk page on the merits of including an infobox - but like I say, this place is broken." Yeah, he is not making a good case as to why celebrities biographical articles should not have infoboxes. There should not have to be a discussion over a biographical article standard such as an infobox for a celebrity.

Since it's a standard, can infoboxes now be added to Stanley Kubrick, Cary Grant, and others?

Thank you for your time!

- Thatstinkyguy (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Thatstinkyguy

"There should not have to be a discussion over a biographical article standard such as an infobox for a celebrity." That is not how WP works. This is controversial (addition/removal of infoboxes have resulted in two Arbitration cases), and cannot be done simply because you think it's a no-brainer. No, without consensus to do so, you may not add infoboxes to those articles. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Also, a couple more notes:
  • This is very wordy. You can just use diffs to show what people said, you don't need to copy/paste the whole conversation.
  • Per the instructions at the top of this page, this seems more appropriate for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies than this noticeboard. BLPN regulars will know better than me whether to close this discussion and send you to the article talk pages, or if I'm confused.
  • It's good manners to notify people if you're talking about them.
  • I'm concerned that you just happened to choose to talk about two of the most contentious arguments about infoboxes. How did you come to notice that these two articles did not have infoboxes? Hint: Do not say you came across them randomly, that would not be possible.
--Floquenbeam (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
@Thatstinkyguy: Please summarize why you think infoboxes belong, and what they should contain for the examples given.
Infoboxes highlight basic information and areas of notability. They tend to get bloated with information that detracts from notability. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi, Thatstinkyguy. Please read the note at the top of the yellow box at the top of Talk:Stanley Kubrick, the note that starts "The Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators" and you will see it says "You may not add an infobox to the article, as there is currently no consensus for one. Please see [20]. Everybody's all talked out about infoboxes, so no new infobox discussion or RfC may be started on this talkpage earlier than September 2021", among other things. That's what's known as a discretionary sanction. I added it myself, after a lot of bureaucracy and an elaborate discussion (which the footnote leads to). So, no, we can't add an infobox to Stanley Kubrick, not before September 2021, anyway. Pleaase note that I don't mean to scold you for not seeing this on the talkpage before. There is frankly a lot of crap in the yellow box at the top, and people can definitely be excused for not reading it all. However, in case somebody tries to edit the article in order to add an infobox, they will see a big, shouty so called "edit notice" with the same information, which is harder to miss. (Click "edit" and you will see it.) If you wish to appeal against that discretionary sanction of mine, that can be done at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. That is how WP works. Bishonen | tålk 22:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC).
@Bishonen: @Hipal:. I saw the notice on the Stanley Kubrick article. I'm just not gonna try arguing anymore. It just seems like I'm stoking flames. Thanks for the replys.
- Thatstinkyguy (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Thatstinkyguy
It's not so much that you're stoking the flames, per se, but that you've really offered no reason as to why it would be necessary, or even beneficial. In fact, in what little of I've just read of the entire debate on the talk page (which was a lot, but barely scratched the surface) I've really seen no real, logical statement either for or against them. It's mostly a case of "I like them", "I don't like them", or "this is the way we've always done it at this article".
The only real argument against them that I found was "we work hard writing these articles and want people to read the whole thing", which is more vanity than anything else, and is logically invalid because it assumes an either/or and negates a third or fourth probability, like that about 90% of people who view any particular article, on average, are not going to bother reading the whole thing. (The vast majority of viewers are just researching some particular question they want answered, and will only skim the article until they find it, followed by those only looking to find out what the heck this thing is, and the people who only came to look at the pictures, with the actual readers coming in far last.)
You see, Wikipedia works by consensus. This is not a counting or votes, but a weighing of arguments. If your argument for them is convincing enough to others, consensus may likely swing your way. If not, then consensus will likely not. And if your argument is simply "I like it" then it's not counted at all. As far as I can tell, consensus on this topic was never achieved because nobody really ever came forth with a real, logically valid argument either for or against them, so by default we simply leave the additions out. There really can be no more discussion on this matter until next year, because people are simply tired and getting very annoyed by it, but that's ok, because it gives you time to prepare a truly good argument. And then I suggest you simply make your case and step back and let the ball roll where it may, accepting whatever result comes from it. In most cases, the more you try to force it; the more resistance you'll encounter. (Keep in mind that this is a place where people can battle for years on whether or not the "the" in The Beatles should be capitalized. True story.) Zaereth (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Hitler as evil[edit]

He’s long dead, but this dispute has been going on a while and I can’t think of another noticeboard that’s as well watched by people familiar with biographical standards. Apologies for a bit of IAR here, but more people could comment at talk:Adolf_Hitler#Hitler's_evil_in_first_paragraph? to help reach a consensus, I think it’d be helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

While I don't really feel like rooting through that discussion at the moment, it would be helpful to know just how the word is being used in context. If it's simply "Hitler is evil." then no. That just looks ridiculous. Evil is one of those adjectives that gives the connotation of supernatural forces at play, and it really requires an intent to do malice for no other reason than malice's sake. There are very few people short of serial killers that truly fall into that category. However twisted his ideology may have been, most villains --in their own mind-- believe they are doing the right thing for some perceived greater good, and from what I've read about him, he falls into the latter group with people like Darth Vader (who wanted to bring order to the galaxy) or Mordred (who had serious abandonment issues due to his father trying to murder him at birth). It's far too easy to label any of these people as evil, but that really detracts from understand just why these people turned out like they did and what their true motives were. But mostly, it's just lazy writing. Show me that these people are evil and I feel like I've learned something, but tell me they're evil and I feel like I'm being condescended to, as if people think I'm too stupid to see it for myself. There's a danger in oversimplifying things. Zaereth (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
As phrased, the sentence in the lede is okay, but it seems wrong in the first paragraph, on the basis that we should be moving from the most factual facets of any person to the more subject as we move down a lede section. And while I'd not disagree that it is near-majority opinion that Hilter was consider "evil" it is still a subjective assessment and should not be ending the first paragraph. --Masem (t) 19:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_McIntyre&oldid=941504092[edit]

Hi, I'm a big fan of michael Mcintyre and someone has but a slang word in Michael's full name. I have tried to edit it and but I am getting Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism notice with a -6.

Please can you help?

His full name is Michael Hazen James McIntyre, not Michael Hazen Ackle James McIntyre

Ja'Net DuBois[edit]

She passed away a few weeks ago. Editors have been slowly removing qualifications and sources on information about her that's unclear (mostly her birth information: the year, her given name, place of birth, and father), and using Wikipedia's voice to present one-sided information based upon poor and primary sources. Most recently we have https://dam.tmz.com/document/c5/o/2020/03/11/c524058645cd44c19325454b899ffb73.pdf , that appears extremely dubious. The best sources have avoided giving birth information, and it's unclear where we should draw the line on which to use and with what qualifications. Help would be appreciated. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Liberal hawk[edit]

The article liberal hawk needs some more eyes, especially in the list ("Notable people associated") section. I have just done a huge trim to remove a variety of entries cited to blogs, opinion/commentary/op-ed pieces, fringe websites, etc., and have left an associated message on the article talk page, but this could benefit from further monitoring and trimming especially in light of the contentious labels involved. Neutralitytalk 19:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Peter Newsham[edit]

Persistent disruption, currently from a related government office. Needs more eyes to maintain npov, and perhaps page protection. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=946106045"