Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Killing of Austin Metcalf

Use of arrest report in Killing of Austin Metcalf

Surely we don't use these? Lots of use of Fox News, and one source to Newsweek. Doug Weller talk 10:37, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bar is set too low in our notability guidelines. For me, if this wouldn't be allowed because of WP:BLP1E, it shouldn't be allowed as an WP:EVENT article either. TarnishedPath^talk 10:51, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's all events... so I don't think it would be a good idea. Literally every event article onwiki would fail BLP1E, because they are all "one events". Don't think deleting the Kennedy assassination would be a great idea.

If I had my way we would ban all coverage of anything that happened in the past ten years. This would solve the news issue but will never happen. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with changing the guidelines so that anything recent doesn't cut it. Prolonged and ongoing coverage should be the minimum, not merely international or national coverage. TarnishedPath^talk 14:13, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the standards at NEVENT are fine. At least, I can't think of anything that would be better - it is already required that sourcing be sustained. People are just very heated about this one so the sourcing debates tend to be worse than usual. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In theory you are never supposed to use legal documents of any kind to support any material about a living person whatsoever, however this rule is constantly flouted. I wouldn't do it! PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the arrest report. The other sources from Fox News and Newsweek should be evaluated for reliability, and replaced with better sources. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Killing of Austin Metcalf

There's been quite a bit of trolling by IPs posing sarcastic comments at length that have no productive value. See 1 & 2. These were created as new sections after the same trolling was mostly ignored at the ongoing RfC further up the talkpage. More eyes here would be appreciated. These kinds of comments don't belong on the talkpage. JFHJr (㊟) 03:41, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also to @NatGertler for this revert. And to WP:TALKNO and WP:SOAPBOX. JFHJr (㊟) 03:46, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More of the same today. JFHJr (㊟) 16:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they have been active on my talk page as well, implying that I am a liar, and flat out stating I am biased and being a troll, and accused me of being a censor on the article talk page. Thank you for keeping an eye on the article talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article talkpage might be ripe for WP:RPP as to trolling. I also got two usertalk posts from the same anon under different IPs, but they weren't particularly negative, just playing dumb. JFHJr (㊟) 18:19, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RPP request is in. JFHJr (㊟) 18:36, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP 107.222.64.119 (talk) got blocked for this for one week. If other IPs crop up, either repost at WP:RPP, contact blocking admin Daniel Case, or find your forum at WP:ANI, WP:SPI etc. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 02:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC ongoing at talk

The RfC is ongoing regarding whether to include the name of the accused. More BLPN volunteers with experience are encouraged to participate. JFHJr (㊟) 00:42, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC is still open. I'm posting here to keep this thread alive. It would still benefit from more input by experienced BLPN volunteers. JFHJr (㊟) 19:07, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Werner

He has recently appeared on the Tucker Carlson podcast. The Wikipedia articles on him and his book seem entirely WP:PROMOTIONAL with almost zero references and crazy statements (one article states his book sold more than Harry Potter!). I've tagged the articles and cleaned some of the most egregious stuff but I don't have a lot of experience on this. Someone should probably look into deleting those articles entirely. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 07:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone escalates to AfD, please leave a link here. JFHJr (㊟) 23:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Koushik Kar

Report about line no. 8 of the article Koushik Kar referenced below under quotation-

'In March 2021, after joining the Bharatiya Janata Party, Kar was removed from the cast of a play about the 2015 Dadri lynching.[6][7]'

1. The play name is not specifically mentioned in the above piece of information, which creates it a contentious material.

2.poor quality source cited to establish link between 2015 dadri lynching and the play from which subject was removed.

3. The context of the information is not nutral, wrt biographical article about a living subject.

The play from which the subject was removed has no connection with 2015 dadri lynching incident - is based on Late utpal dutt's age old drama "Ghum Nei" written way in the 1970s ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40E0:103B:2C68:985A:86FF:FE36:9849 (talk) 09:55, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://kolkatatheatre.com/reviews/ghum-nei-titumir/

Research about verifiability in biographies

I realize this may be a bit out of the realm of what is usually posted here but I think talk page watchers may be interested in what this article has to say. I would say its main limitation is that it only relies on what can be verified in "publically accessible sources". While they elaborate on this distinction and say that paywalled sources are legitimate, it makes it a bit difficult to trust the overall statistics without knowing what's entirely unsupported/what's just cited to a paywalled source. I'd assume the former is more common than the latter but actual numbers would be helpful. If 20% of 100,000 claims in articles about people aren't supported by their citations, that's a pretty dire situation. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The use of LLMs in producing the dataset and analyzing the claims is also a limitation. The research is also limited to biographies but not specifically living persons. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:47, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that but it sounds like each of the claims were also verified by humans (e.g. the one table?) so I was less concerned about that aspect than I otherwise would be.... and I'm starting to think I was wrong about that now that I'm looking a bit more closely. My concentration is less great with wisdom teeth pain. Apologies if this was much ado about nothing. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This also looks like a preprint, so WP wouldn't treat it as an RS, though we don't have to keep to that for purposes of discussion. With respect to WP's internal expectations, we don't actually require that all statements be sourced. The requirements are a bit more lenient: content has to be verifiable, sourced content has to be sourced to an RS, unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed, challenged material must be sourced to an RS or removed, ...

Re: verified by humans, most weren't: "we conduct a pilot human annotation on a set of 160 body claims obtained from 10 entities" (an entity = an article on a notable person), out of all the possible claims in such an article and 1500 articles total for their LLM assessment. They also noted "Our principle transformation of the original Wikipedia articles consists in the decomposition of claims, which is performed by an LLM (GPT-4o-mini), and which can result in subclaims that misrepresent the article’s original content and thus (potentially) facts about the subject" (emphasis added). I don't trust LLM assessments.

I'll add that it doesn't surprise me that a fair number of body claims aren't supported by publicly accessible sources, and a fair number of lead claims not supported by the body. Not only is there the issue of sources that aren't publicly accessible, and the WP P&Gs I noted above, but the sheer act of repeated editing can decrease sourcing (as well as increasing it, of course). For example, someone adds lead statement L, which is supported by body statement B, which is sourced to source S. But then someone comes along as decides to remove B and S, but they don't notice that L is still in the lead, so it stays there without support. Or body claims B1 and B2 are in the same paragraph, sourced to S at the end of the paragraph. Someone edits the article so that B1 and B2 are now in separate paragraphs, but neglects to make sure that each is sourced to S (that is, they just leave S where it was originally). Or body claim B is sourced to S, and someone edits B, thinking that the wording is better, but actually shifting the meaning sufficiently that S no longer actually serves as a source, even though it still appears in the article as the source. Or body claim B is sourced to S, and S did support B, but S is now a dead link. Etc. Most of us aim to do good work, but it's still a flawed system. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two other points, now that I've skimmed the entire article:

They say that they limited their sources search to "publicly accessible sources"/"publicly available sources"/"publicly accessible cited sources". Their meaning of "publicly accessible" seems to be "available online", which to my eyes is a strange interpretation of "publicly available" (e.g., I'd say that a book at a library or a paywalled article are publicly available). It's certainly different than WP's definition of "published": "made available to the public in some form." They should also make it clear that they're always referring only to cited sources, not any sources available online.
I only took a look at the first example they gave, and their assessment is clearly wrong. The current WP text is "In 2017, Methane Momma, a short film directed by Alain Rimbert, featured Van Peebles and his narration of poetic work with accompaniment of music by The Heliocentrics.[47][48][49]". (I'm omitting the references. The third link was currently dead, but I found an Internet Archive copy and have just replaced it. It looks like the statement and three sources have been there since 2018, and the only editing change since then was a shift in where "Methane Momma" appeared in the sentence.) The LLM excerpted the claim "Methane Momma is a short film directed by Alain Rimbert." So far, so good. But either a human or the LLM scored this as -0.7, meaning "partly refuted" (scores range from -1=fully refuted to 1=fully supported). I'm guessing that it was an LLM. In assessing it, the LLM appears to have attended only to the second of the three sources. The claim is wholly supported by the third source, and "Methane Momma is a ~~short~~ film directed by Alain Rimbert" is also supported by the first source, where even the first source can show that it's a short=40 min. film, if you click through to a second page. So this claim is accurate, was totally confirmed by the third source when written, and even before I updated the dead link, it was partially supported by the first source. It should at least have gotten a positive score even if less than 1, and a human checking this could have been able to find the IA copy and tell that the claim was fully supported. I have to admit, it surprises me that in their very first example, there's a flaw. Never mind, I think I misinterpreted the purpose of the examples, though I still have questions about how they were generated. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

To Whom It May Concern,

I am contacting you as the subject of a Wikipedia article currently titled Jon R. Marietta Jr. The page in question is being used in a malicious and defamatory manner and has become a tool for political attacks during an active election cycle.

The article violates multiple key policies:

It relies on unreliable and politically biased sources.

It lacks meaningful, independent, and secondary sourcing to establish notability.

It includes defamatory framing designed to cause reputational harm.

The page is maintained by anonymous editors with clear bias, and its creation appears timed to inflict political damage.

As such, I am formally requesting a review and deletion of the article under Wikipedia’s Biographies of Living Persons and Harassment guidelines.

Please let me know what steps are required on my end to move this request forward. I am happy to provide documentation or additional context as needed.

Sincerely, Jon R. Marietta Jr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonmarietta (talk • contribs) 17:58, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it has been moved to drafts and most of the information removed. See Draft:Jon Marietta. Pinging @ChildrenWillListen: as they removed most of the information and may want to add something. Knitsey (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should have pinged you @Jonmarietta. Knitsey (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never realized this reached the BLP noticeboard, but while we're here, I recommend taking a look at Drbsinclair (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has added similar controversies to other articles, with most of them being hallucinated or supported by non-RS. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:07, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is another draft in their sandbox, that without proper referencing, looks close to, if not an attack page. Draft:Theodore Kosin (remove link if it isn't acceptable to post here) Knitsey (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to G10 it before it was draftified by another editor. It might still be eligible. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:18, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Walt accusations are referenced by a blog. The last reference gives me 404 but that might be because I'm in the UK? Knitsey (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. That bit and more been deleted. Knitsey (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The last reference is hallucinated. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:27, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking CWL. Knitsey (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous offender

Would i be justified in deleting Dangerous_offender#Known_criminals_designated_as_dangerous_offenders since the section is unsourced? I feel it makes sense to bring up here since some of the subjects are still alive--Trade (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, that was an egregious violation of WP:BLPSOURCE. I went ahead and deleted it. Generalrelative (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the list was accurate, it shouldn't take much work find sources if anyone wants to reintroduce them (e.g., by checking their articles and/or doing an internet search on "firstname lastname" "dangerous offender", filling in the actual name). I took at look at the first two, and it was easy to find an RS; here's a citation for the first, and here's a citation for the second. I'll leave it to someone else to reintroduce them. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found at least one case where the designation was supported by RS (Stanley James Tippett), but regardless, the first response when dealing with BLPs is to remove potentially contentious unsourced content, and only then to look for sources and consider re-adding. Generalrelative (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, though if their wiki articles are correct, three are no longer alive. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:53, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Party (Ireland)

Bringing this issue here because looking to get some clarity on WP:BLP, in particular the text here: The Socialist Party, along with other branches of ISA, formed the faction to Defend Safeguarding, Socialist Feminism and Internal Democracy (SSFID). This faction later disaffiliated from ISA due to allegations of abuse by ISA leadership.[1] The text is sourced primarily to two self-published press releases by the Trotskyist groups making the allegations of abuse having taken place[2][3], but the IP user adding this has since added further self-published articles from other Trotskyist groups.

I had been removing these claims on sight because as far as I've always understood our WP:BLP policy, and seen it used in practice, is that such a statement to make allegations of abuse having taking place by ISA's leadership (who would be living individuals) requires strong third-party reliable sources and that such contentious material around allegations of criminality must be removed immediately and without discussion (WP:BLPSOURCE, WP:BLPCRIME) and that self-published content must not be used if it's involving claims about a third party (WP:BLPSELFPUB). However an admin has now suggested that in fact this isn't a BLP breach, which is a stance that seems antithetical to the entire point of BLP from my point of view.

Would like to get some wider guidance and perspectives on the situation. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Links please. I can't see anything on Talk:Socialist Party (Ireland) that looks like a discussion on this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Link to majority of discussion here, which also involved ChildrenWillListen.[4].

Relevant comments by Asilvering, which took place regarding a second article the same material was being introduced to:

"what is the BLP violation? Is it This faction later disaffiliated from ISA due to allegations of abuse made against ISA leadership.? That is a statement that can either be true or false, but it is in no way a BLP violation" [5]

"But if that is why the Socialist Party disaffiliated from the ISA, that's a perfectly valid use of self-published material. The statement in the article is "due to allegations of abuse made", not something like "because ISA covered up sexual misconduct""[6]

"A statement by the organization itself, describing why it left another organization, is a perfectly acceptable use of a self-published source. It is completely immaterial whether there was any actual abuse. The statement does not say whether there was or wasn't. It just says that's why the organization said they left."[7] Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLPGROUP, how large a group are you talking about, and how personally identifiable are the members of this group? Asilvering is correct that WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:ABOUTSELF are is allowed, though this might be a borderline case of whether the ISA is a third party in relation to the faction: initially it wasn't, and now it is. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FactOrOpinion I'd say it's clearly third-party as it's a constituent group/faction that was openly announcing their departure accusing the leadership of the wider International of covering up abuse, so there is inherently an allegation of criminality being made about a different body of people. The larger point though is that given there's no RS about there even being allegations, the only source we have to there being allegations are one-side of an obvious dispute.

As to WP:BLPGROUP, while it doesn't specifically identify people by name, the identifying of those in charge via "ISA Leadership" would no doubt make it easy to identify who they were accusing if you were to be involved in the organisation or that political trend. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the point that the faction left, the ISA was not a third party to the faction, as the faction was a subset of the ISA. Re: BLPGROUP, how large a group is the "ISA leadership"? FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FactOrOpinion But the statement wasn't issued while they were associated to the ISA, it was after the fact claiming why they had left. So it was past the point of being a constituent section (and even then there's a debate about the "third-party" line between national sections and an international body they subscribe to). As to the size of the group, the full articles cited leave it deliberately vague but refer to an "International Committee", so likely a handful of people in total. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"We are leaving WASP and the International Socialist Alternative" is present tense, not past tense. I have no familiarity with this topic, and I'm not willing to invest a lot of time familiarizing myself with it, so it may be time for me to bow out of this conversation. It sounds like some subset of members from the South African section of the ISA (South African section = WASP) decided to break away from the WASP and the ISA due to what the breakaway group considered an inappropriate/inadequate response on the part of the ISA's leadership to alleged sexual abuse by one person in the leadership of an unspecified national section, out of what looks like 19 sections total. I don't see how one would identify the alleged perpetrator from the information on that page, and I'd say that the rest falls under ~~BLPSELFPUB~~ WP:ABOUTSELF, so I don't see a BLP violation here. I would change the text to something like "This faction later disaffiliated from the ISA due to what it considered an inadequate response by the ISA leadership to allegations of abuse by a member of the leadership of one of ISA's national sections." Or, you could say "This faction later disaffiliated from the ISA." FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FactOrOpinion thinking about it, couldn't we simply cite snapshots of that sections page and say "at some point in 2024, several member sections of the ISA disaffiliated from the international"?

It would avoid all the issues around the allegations and sourcing there of, while still establishing that they were no longer affiliated with an appropriate ABOUTSELF source? Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FactOrOpinion to the nature of the organization they do not disclose that information. Presumably leaders from all branches are considered leadership as it's a collective organization. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rambling Rambler Who is the admin who 'suggested that in fact this isn't a BLP breach'? I can't see anyone with admin status involved in this discussion (which should probably have been taking place on the article talk page, rather than on the IPs talk page, where nobody will know about it). AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump the quotes are from Asilvering (who has admin status) and were regarding identical edits on a separate article. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I'd misread your earlier post. Though if this involves multiple articles, we clearly need to discuss them all. And you should probably notify the other participants in this dispute that this discussion is taking place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

some thoughts. Firstly, 'abuse' need not necessarily imply a criminal offence. Having said that though, I can see merit in the argument that we shouldn't be citing involved sources for this. As is so often the case, we very likely won't see coverage of this in better sources. My immediate instinct is to agree with Rambling Rambler's proposition that this shouldn't be included in the article (or at least, we shouldn't include the 'abuse' bit), not so much because it may possibly involve WP:BLP concerns, but because it lacks independent sourcing at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump My issue in part here though is that the "abuse" outlined in what is cited looks to be an allegation of ISA leadership covering up sexual abuse (Their callous approach both towards the complainant in this case and all survivors of sexual abuse[8]), which is already being alluded to in the documented faction name of "defend safeguarding". Given the severity of the allegation, I don't think we can use these sources at all even if we were to surmise them without saying exactly what the allegation were. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://internationalsocialist.net/2024/04/isa-

(Primary source)

https://www.socialistparty.ie/2024/04/a-crisis-in-international-socialist-alternative-isa/

(Primary source as SP(I) WAS considered leadership in ISA)

https://socialistpartyscotland.org.uk/international-socialist-alternative-in-serious-crisis-the-political-roots-of-an-impending-split/

https://iclfi.org/pubs/wh/252/isa

(Secondary sources addressing the allegations) 188.65.190.67 (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those secondary sources are going to be considered acceptable. They're self-published websites of other Trotskyist groups making claims regarding the allegations so would certainly fail as third-parties.

The issue is there is a lack of reliable sources on this, i.e. a well-regarded established credible newspaper or news organisations such as RTE, The Independent etc. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As to the other two, whether they fail BLP or not, they're both certainly involved in the issue and are not independent of the subject nor reliable publications and we tend to avoid those in almost all cases. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rambling Rambler That's your opinion. Stop presenting opinions as fact.

Rambling Rambler instigated an edit war on ROSA (organisation) which is an affiliate of Socialist Party by making the page a redirect to International Socialist Alternative which it is no longer even affiliated to.

The necessity of the inclusion of the context for Socialist Party disaffiliation stems from Rambling Ramblers actions in this regard.

@Asilvering locked ROSA for Rambling Ramblers actions. See ROSA under Asilvering.

Additionally Rambling Rambler engaged in threats by sending me misleading messages on my talk page accusing me of vandalism. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP, I strongly suggest that you focus on content, not contributors. The behaviour has been addressed; you can now let it go. If you continue to be accused of vandalism, I will block for personal attacks. But the same goes for you, if you continue to hound RR over this. Please work together with each other to write the encyclopedia. -- asilvering (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering Understood. I felt the need to highlight their actions as they are relevant to their conduct here. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The claims are exactly what they're disputing, the "characterisations" are Socialist Party (Ireland) and others claims it was mishandled. The continued inability to grasp this and instead insert your own meaning onto the dispute is kind of baffling.

Now unless you actually start presenting some reliable, independent sources to support including the material then I suggest you move on to something else."

Do not make personal attacks. I have been respectful. 217.75.5.71 (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz

see == Edit warring on Socialist Party (Ireland) and related pages ==

Please see my talk page from August 2025 through August 2025 for more context on this discussion.

Tagging other users involved in discussion on other talk pages or edits.

188.65.190.67 (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC) 188.65.190.67 (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum for user conduct-related matters. Take it to WP:ANI if you want to discuss conduct. JFHJr (㊟) 20:15, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion. Stop presenting opinions as fact.

It's a noticeboard for discussions, that's exactly the purpose for this noticeboard which is to give views on the suitability of material in regards to BLP policy of which people have different interpretations of it. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rambling Rambler, could you please use {{tq}} or some similar template when quoting other editors? It's quite hard to follow all the italics. -- asilvering (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The grounds for the expulsion & removal https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:BLPREMOVE&redirect=no of the factual statements - "The Socialist Party, along with other branches of ISA, formed the faction to Defend Safeguarding, Socialist Feminism and Internal Democracy (SSFID). This faction later disaffiliated from ISA due to allegations of abuse made against ISA leadership."

made in regards to Socialist Party (Ireland) are primarily based on claims it violates https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:BLP&redirect=no. This claim is refuted by https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:BLPGROUP&redirect=no

"This policy (BLP) does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must be written in accordance with other content policies."

The organization is international and collectivist, and it's leadership is intentionally obscured. No individuals are named. Only references to an individual within a leadership role. Which could have been (they were removed) anyone from any of the current or former international branches. Socialist Party (Ireland) was an international branch and therefore would have been a primary source on the matter up until their disaffiliation.

The main cited sources on the matter are primary, both from ISA and SP(I), and no direct accusation of a crime is made; abuse is abuse whether it is criminal or not. Also, different jurisdictions have different criminal interpretations of abuse in regards to the accusations made; and as far as is known, no criminal accusations were made.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:PRIMARYCARE&redirect=no, and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:PRIMARYUSE&redirect=no

If there is dispute over the veracity or authenticity of the primary source see https://w.wiki/FVY https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SOURCE&redirect=no ,

and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF&redirect=no .

In summary, primary about-self sources are valid sources in regards to their own actions and conduct.

Closing remarks- if no refutation of this response is provided, I will be restoring the deleted content to Socialist Party (Ireland) after 24 hours. Any continued deletion or reverting of the disputed content will be reported for "The malicious removal of encyclopedic content." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:VANDAL&redirect=no

If you do refute this response, be mindful to remain civil and respectful, or this matter will be escalated to the relevant noticeboards.

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers , but also https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:IPHUMAN&redirect=no .

Thank you for your attention on this matter,

217.75.5.71 (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, nobody is required to 'refute' arguments of any one specific contributor. Instead, disputes are settled through arrived at through policy-based discussion, with the aim of arriving at a consensus (which need not be unanimous) over appropriate content. Secondly, you would be most ill-advised to report any revert of your edit as "malicious removal of encyclopedic content", given that there is an ongoing discussion of this, and you clearly don't have consensus. I suggest you drop the belligerent attitude and the threats, and instead focus on working towards finding a compromise solution. There may well be some merit in your arguments, but presenting them in such a manner is more or less guaranteed to get everyone's backs up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In order to come to consensus it's necessary to refute arguments made for or against a topic. If no refutation is made within a reasonable time frame then it stands to reason there is none to be made.

My argument is policy based.

The tone in your response is incredibly belligerent without need.

Maybe you misread my response based on presumptions about being an IP editor? 217.75.5.71 (talk) 12:03, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the previous IP user made reference to how user accounts are bigoted towards IP addresses[9], I'm going to presume you are indeed the same person as that one. Given that you were blocked for your attitude towards other users I highly suggest you take a step back from this topic if you're going to accuse everyone else of being "belligerent" when you stated you'd restore disputed content within 24 hours despite it being clear no consensus has been achieved.

Similar to what @AndyTheGrump, your frankly combative attitude (while posting how others should be "civil and respectful") isn't likely to help resolve this issue. The fact is BLP issues is one of the several reasons multiple people have expressed an issue with this material (and no-one person gets to decide what is or isn't suitable material).

You mention that the main cited sources on the matter are primary, both from ISA and SP(I), and no direct accusation of a crime is made; abuse is abuse whether it is criminal or not. but all sources do make reference to criminal allegations. The source from Socialist Party (Ireland) also makes unsubstantiated claims of cover-ups regarding sexual abuse, so I am in no way comfortable using such material as the source for disaffiliation.

If we had reliable, independent sources to support the wider reasons for disaffiliation this would face no issues, but the fact is the only sources that you have provided are self-published sites of various Trotskyist groups who frankly all hate each other so are not sources we tend to want to use.

Finally, I suggest you read WP:ONUS, which sets out you must gain consensus to restore disputed material. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:09, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand where these claims are coming from or their relevance to the topic.

"I suggest you drop the belligerent attitude"

I merely asked everyone involved to be respectful given the previous discussion. If that's belligerent then there is a serious problem here. 217.75.5.71 (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ONUS is set upon the one making the claims of violation of policy. You can't censor information based on policy when the policy used does not support the claims of violation.

My contribution addressed that. 217.75.5.71 (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Setting unnecessary deadlines (WP:NODEADLINE), announcing you'll re-insert disputed content even though it's clear it's disputed, and saying anyone who removes content will be reported as "malicious" is certainly going to be regarded as belligerent.

And no, that isn't what ONUS says. ONUS specifically says "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content", which means you. So I suggest you work on building consensus. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:20, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The edits in question were reverted, and the definition of vandalism is "The malicious removal of encyclopedic content"

My argument was refuting the policy based for the claims made for it's removal. If there was no refutation and it was still removed then I felt it would qualify. Please https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:PRESERVE&redirect=no 217.75.5.71 (talk) 12:32, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons for removal and why it's still under dispute are clearly not malicious or vandalism. I'm going to be very brief about this, given you're clearly the same person given the fact you're editing on the same niche articles, you have been warned and blocked for this issue regarding making claims about other people's behaviour rather than content. If you do this again I will just take this to the relevant admin. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My argument refuted claims made for removal of encyclopedic content to a page. Please focus on refuting my argument instead of discussing off topic matters.

"if no refutation of this response is provided, I will be restoring the deleted content to Socialist Party (Ireland) after 24 hours. Any continued deletion or reverting of the disputed content will be reported for "The malicious removal of encyclopedic content." Emphasis on if. 217.75.5.71 (talk) 12:41, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to explain this to you one last time. Where there is a content dispute, no single contributor has right of veto. No single contributor can impose content. Removal of content where there is no consensus for its inclusion isn't 'malicious', it is an entirely normal occurrence, and an expected part of editing behaviour. Either work towards compromise, or accept that the article isn't going to include your preferred content. Your choice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:41, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was my view that removal of encyclopedic content without attempting to fix it violated Wikipedia's core tenants.

So far my actual argument hasnt even been addressed, and this conversation is continually being driven off topic.

If my closing remark was inappropriate fine, I apologize. But please refute the actual substance of my argument instead of personal attacks. 217.75.5.71 (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But please refute the actual substance of my argument instead of personal attacks.

That's what myself and Andy have been doing, telling you why your argument to just re-insert material isn't acceptable. You're the one choosing to view that as a "personal attack". I suggest you drop it and any plan to restore disputed content unilaterally. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread the "IF" part of my closing statement. I have no intention of unilaterally restoring the content. I thought if not refutation was made then it would be appropriate to restore the content. Refutation has been made. 217.75.5.71 (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're the same person who edited under the previous IPs so were already clearly aware that the material was disputed last week. You don't get to simply wait a few days for a post to go inactive, and say that unless anyone opposes in the next 24 hours I'll re-insert, oh and if they do oppose it I'll report them... Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump @FactOrOpinion in an attempt to resolve this issue, how would you two consider having a comment that said.

"At some point in 2024, several groups including Socialist Party (Ireland), no longer affiliated with International Socialist Alternative," cited by two references to web archive snapshots of the ISA affiliations page[10][11].

It would be an appropriate use of WP:ABOUTSELF as it's the ISA saying groups are no longer part of them, and would involve sources that make no comment further as to the alleged reasons why (which is the central issue under dispute here). Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:41, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally that feels unnecessarily vague. If the sources are deemed questionable, then only include snapshots that support the reverted statement. 217.75.5.71 (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unnecessarily vague. It captures the core fact at hand, that the Socialist Party (Ireland) are no longer affiliated to ISA. How or why that is is a secondary aspect to it that isn't necessary for the article. When we don't have reliable, independent sources to support inclusion for wider material, the bare minimum should be included and that's it. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't think that's an appropriate use of a source. It shows "Links to official ISA sections, sympathizing organizations, campaigning and other relevant websites". It isn't solely a list of affiliates, and requires WP:OR to read it that way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump that's what an "affiliate" is in this case, a national section. If it instead used the same language, saying that "Socialist Party (Ireland) were no longer considered an ISA section" would that resolve the issue? We do have a snapshot describing themselves as the Irish Section of ISA on the same site, so it does fill the gap.[12] Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:00, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. We can show Socialist Party (Ireland) was their national section for Ireland, and that they stopped appearing on their list of national sections at some point in 2024. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source doesn't say that. It cannot be used to support such a claim. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump you'll need to expand on that to be honest, because I'm struggling to understand why a source first showing them on a list of National Sections and then later showing them absent of that list isn't able to be used to show they were no longer on the list of National Sections. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:15, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't solely a list of 'national sections'. It includes "sympathizing organizations, campaigning and other relevant websites" too. And for that matter, there is nothing to say it is even a complete list: it's a collection of links. Reading it as a statement regarding who is or isn't a part of the organisation is WP:OR plain and simple. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump I don't agree with the first sentence (because I don't think the specificity of which it fell under of those categories of is all that relevant) but I'll concede on the second. With so many of these Trotskyite groups where we keep having this issue I'm of half a mind to just email and go "can you publish somewhere on your website just a one line page about who you are affiliated or not affiliated to without it being preceded or followed by 500 words about your thoughts on those people or what you believe them to may or may not have done. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But the reasons for them leaving are facts and their inclusion would be encyclopedic. It's If not infactual, but the sources to support the fact are questionable then only included relevant bits to support the fact being presented. 217.75.5.71 (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons around why they left are clearly disputed and only sourced via self-published pieces, so therefore shouldn't be used. Again, the "relevant bit" is that they've disaffiliated, inclusion of which would be supported by the proposed edit. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:55, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How are they disputed? Please provided sources to back that statement. 217.75.5.71 (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No party involved in the event of disaffiliation disputes that abuse took place. The only dispute is the response to the abuse, but the disaffiliation in regards to abuse is factual. 217.75.5.71 (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They both clearly dispute the facts quite clearly, with the source being used to support it from the Socialist Party (Ireland) making further allegations on top about coverups. It's not a source we should really be using at all. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide actual citations. 217.75.5.71 (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the response you keep wanting to cite. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're making claims that it's disputed and a cover up. Please provide citations from either sources referenced that support your claim. Because I fail to see that in either source. 217.75.5.71 (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"When a national section of ISA was made aware of serious allegations against a former member, they were immediately suspended from membership and an investigation was conducted. Following this, a mistaken conclusion — to retain the respondent in membership, albeit with restrictions — was reached in the initial investigation. The respondent has since resigned their membership." "Over the last year, a crisis has erupted in the ISA over the failure of a national section to take action in response to very serious abuse allegations against a then-member, which was compounded when parts of our international leadership acted to endorse this mishandling." 217.75.5.71 (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"This further and unacceptable delay was due to the persistent defence of the original decision by the leadership of the section involved and by part of the international leadership, despite opposition from a majority of the IE members not involved in the original mishandling. This opposition, however, failed to constitute a formal majority due to the leading members directly involved in the original decision in the section refusing to recuse themselves in relevant votes pertaining to the case’s handling"

"And it includes the vital necessity to remove from the leadership all those directly responsible for the mishandling and the cover up." (https://www.socialistparty.ie/2024/04/a-crisis-in-international-socialist-alternative-isa/)

"Regrettably, a long statement by a minority faction in our organization has appeared on a section’s website that focuses on their views of how this case was handled. We completely reject the characterizations in this statement of the process in our international for reviewing this case and its lessons. We reserve the right to respond in a more detailed and thorough manner at a later date." (your ISA source, https://internationalsocialist.net/2024/04/isa-3/)

So yes, the reasons why they left are clearly disputed. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a dispute over the accusations of abuse or a dispute over the fact that they left though. Both parties agree on the fact that the Socialist Party left, and that it was on regards to the abuse and how it was handled. 217.75.5.71 (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Socialist Party (Ireland) claim to have left over the way the case was handled, alleging that the way the ISA leadership handled it was improper.

The ISA have explicitly rejected those "characterisations".

It's a disputed issue, and should therefore use reliable, independent sources if we wish to include material related to it. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the inclusion of both contrasting sources not be valid to support the statement that they left over the abuse? When they both agree on it having happened. They only disagree on how the abuse was handled. Which is not part of the Wikipedia inclusion. 217.75.5.71 (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion of the reasons for disagreement I mean, the disagreement is referred to. But both sides are presented as sources. 217.75.5.71 (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are not in the business of presenting self-published sources from each side and going "make up your own mind". This is why we have policies regarding the use of reliable sources. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are not disputing the fact there is a dispute. They both agree on it as a fact that happened. There is dispute. if the inclusion of handling is inappropriate then remove that word. It's appropriate to say there was dispute over the handling over a case of abuse. Would you rather the article say they left due to abuse by leadership? As it's factual and both sources support the fact. 217.75.5.71 (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you rather the article say they left due to abuse by leadership? As it's factual and both sources support the fact.

No, because what Socialist Party claim as their reason to leave was the alleged mishandling, which is disputed.

We don't get to change the reasons for their departure to something else. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because the statement issued by the Socialist Party (Ireland) saying "why we have left", the one you keep wanting to base the included information on, states it was because of the mishandling of the case, not simply there was an allegation of abuse, and accuses others of a cover-up.

"This grotesque mishandling of a safeguarding case has been damaging to all survivors of abuse inside ISA, and has rendered ISA an organisation that cannot be deemed a safe place for comrades from marginalised genders and comrades who suffer multiple oppressions"

"The lack of political agreement on the significance of this political deficit, and the struggle needed to truly overcome it, is evidenced by the mishandled case, the subsequent cover up, and the multiplicity of arguments made by those in the Majority that amounted to victim-blaming and trivialising of gender violence and sexual abuse." (https://www.socialistparty.ie/2024/07/a-marxist-international-must-be-socialist-feminist/)

It's an inappropriate source to utilise for what you want to use it for. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is relevant to the fact over why they left. Or the fact that they left over a dispute. Both sources acknowledge a dispute happened. 217.75.5.71 (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is relevant to the fact over why they left.

They literally say they left because of the "grotesque mishandling" of the case. The description of what happened as such has been disputed by the other party. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The individual claims made by each party do not discredit the substantive facts of the disaffiliation and the reasons for it. 217.75.5.71 (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The individual claims made by each party do not discredit the substantive facts of the disaffiliation and the reasons for it

They're literally disputing why Socialist Party left. Socialist Party (Ireland) claims to have left because an allegation of abuse was "grotesquely mishandled". ISA have disputed the idea that this was the case in how it was handled.

You don't get to go "well they both agree an allegation was made" and insert your own version of why they left, that's WP:OR. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please use direct citations from the ISA source that supports the claimc they are disputing that Socialist Party left over mishandling. Your claim is a broad generalization in regards to what ISA stated. They disagree with the "character" of the claims. Not the veracity that claims were made. 217.75.5.71 (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Regrettably, a long statement by a minority faction in our organization has appeared on a section’s website that focuses on their views of how this case was handled. We completely reject the characterizations in this statement of the process in our international for reviewing this case and its lessons."

This is plainly saying they dispute the claims made by Socialist Party (Ireland) around how the case was handled. The handling is disputed.

Unless you actually have anything new to add I suggest you just drop this because it's now circular. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"the characterizations in this statement" they are not disputing tHe fact that claims were made. Only the "characterization" of the claim. They're disputing the the way the claim was presented by Socialist Party. Not that that the claims do not exist. 217.75.5.71 (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can no longer read this conversation on mobile. Please move it to a new reply due to formatting issues on mobile. 217.75.5.71 (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The claims are exactly what they're disputing, the "characterisations" are Socialist Party (Ireland) and others claims it was mishandled. The continued inability to grasp this and instead insert your own meaning onto the dispute is kind of baffling.

Now unless you actually start presenting some reliable, independent sources to support including the material then I suggest you move on to something else. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to include affiliations at all?

Wikipedia is (or is intended to be) an encyclopaedia - a tertiary source. Which is to say, a repository for content summarising what secondary reliable sources have to say on the subject. And while there may occasionally be grounds to include primary-sourced material where it is simple statement of fact, this is contingent on secondary sources providing the background to demonstrate that such content is necessary.

As of now, the Socialist Party (Ireland) provides no secondary sourcing whatsoever for 'affiliations', which rather suggests to me that regardless of how important the party thinks this is, there is little outside interest in the matter. It doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest then that a tertiary summary article need not discuss such affiliations at all. Not without secondary sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump that's probably the way it's going to resolve to, which isn't a terrible outcome but it would be preferable to avoid it if possible. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every other political entity includes information over their affiliation. This question is irrelevant to the the individual page. It's too broad a question and would require a Wikipedia wide revision. 217.75.5.71 (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No it wouldn't. What @AndyTheGrump's proposing is simply given we can't reliable source it for this group we don't mention it at all (basically the Wikipedia default). There's no wider revision needed because it's mentioned on other articles when there's suitable sources. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are valid sources on matters they'd be most informed on. Please review the validity section of Wikipedia's core tenants. 217.75.5.71 (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources can be used but under extremely tight circumstances. There is clearly no consensus around using them in this instance due to the material in question. As a result the material simply doesn't get included. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"As a result the material simply doesn't get included" is against Wikipedia's policy on removal and frankly not your decision to make. 217.75.5.71 (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop claiming to be the sole arbiter of what is or isn't Wikipedia policy. You are clearly in no position to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm citing Wikipedia policy, same as the original poster did when they removed content from a Wikipedia pages. 217.75.5.71 (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.... Facts or claims without an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports them may be removed. They should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.... Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page.

These are quotes of the section WP:BURDEN in the article on the policy of verifiability.

So yes, not including material that isn't adequately supported is in fact one of our main policies and doesn't go against them as you incorrectly assert. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as: The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; It does not involve claims about third parties; It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and The article is not based primarily on such sources. This policy also applies to material made public by the source on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, LinkedIn, Reddit, Instagram and Facebook."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF&redirect=no 217.75.5.71 (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument seems to have switched to being based around the validity of the provided sources as valid sources for their own actions. Such argument seems to be answered in the ABOUTSELF section of validity under the Burden section you just cited. 217.75.5.71 (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and several people have expressed concerns over the sources being valid under that criteria due to the nature of the claims and the fact they're disputed between parties involved.

As much as you claim to be "citing" Wikipedia policy, all it seems to amount to is finding any section you think supports you and therefore it "wins" the issue, when the reality is policy is interpreted by users in an attempt to build consensus. And consensus is clearly lacking. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is fact. Supported by inline citations, even if they are aboutself, sources were provided. I struggle to see how there is any argument to be made against this inclusion.

The only dispute in the sources are the "characterisations" of claims made. Not the substantive fact that claims were made.

Consensus doesn't overrule factual events. 217.75.5.71 (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The Socialist Party, along with other branches of ISA, formed the faction to Defend Safeguarding, Socialist Feminism and Internal Democracy (SSFID). This faction later disaffiliated from ISA due to allegations of abuse by ISA leadership." 217.75.5.71 (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus doesn't overrule factual events.

It quite explicitly can, as per WP:VNOT. You really need to try and understand that several people have questioned the material you want to include. It has been disputed on various grounds including possible BLP concerns, ABOUTSELF concerns, a lack of reliable sources, and whether it is even necessary for the article regardless.

You don't seem to be wanting to understand this or compromise, instead just insisting you are right, everyone else is wrong. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, again. Stop making personal attacks based on assumptions. 217.75.5.71 (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't a personal attack. You keep seeing people disagreeing with you and explaining why as a personal attack, which isn't helping matters. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"As much as you claim to be "citing" Wikipedia policy, all it seems to amount to is finding any section you think supports you and therefore it "wins" the issue"

Off topic, assumption based, and a personal attack. 217.75.5.71 (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not any of those things. You claimed you were right because you were "citing Wikipedia policy", I rebutted that it comes across as though you're misunderstanding the purpose of how policy is used here.

If you want to see that as a personal attack, that's your business but it isn't helpful. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did I claim I was right? Please provide an inline citation to support that claim. 217.75.5.71 (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're driving the conversation off topic by engaging in personal attacks. Stop. 217.75.5.71 (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"As a result the material simply doesn't get included" is against Wikipedia's policy on removal and frankly not your decision to make.

I'm citing Wikipedia policy, same as the original poster did when they removed content from a Wikipedia pages.

Yes, you were suggesting you were right. And none of this is a personal attack. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop going off topic. This isn't about me or what I think is right. Nor is it about you or what you think is right.

Your assumption that I think I'm right precludes any ability to enable in discussion with you.

This is a discussion on substantive facts. 217.75.5.71 (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should of course be noted that a statement from organisation X that is affiliated to organisation Y is a claim about a third party - namely organisation Y. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump yep. This is one of the main issues I've had with trying to slowly clear-up Trotskyist pages the last few years. It's full of sources that are self-published by one group making claims about another group.

At this point, it's started highlighting a general notability concern for me when so much coverage of these groups is solely from other groups of the same strand of politics. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"slowly clear-up Trotskyist pages the last few years." This statement expresses clear bias against the topic which is why I view your removal of information on the subject malicious. 217.75.5.71 (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clearing up article so that they adhere to policy isn't "clear bias against the topic" at all, and you're really close to the line once more of admin intervention given you're seemingly making an inferred allegation of vandalism once more. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is bias because it is not a uniformly applied policy to every political party page. You're inherently targeting "Trotskyist" pages.217.75.5.71 (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editors having an interest in a particular area is perfectly normal behaviour and not "targeting" in the slightest. By that same logic, my recent clearing up of articles related to King of the Hill is "targeted" and "malicious" because I didn't also choose to edit at The Simpsons or Family Guy.

Given that I have made you aware that I'm not appreciating your repeated attempts to once again immediately suggest malicious conduct on my part I'm now going to seek admin involvement on the issue. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your warning about ROSA - "AfD but before I had a chance I got distracted by trying to deal with the BLP violations getting put on multiple articles regarding sexual misconduct allegations (including ROSA) and then it was locked. Once the page protection is over the plan is to put it to AfD and try to work out how best to deal with ROSA as a subject given it's got relevancy to multiple articles."

You want to delete an entire page you dont like, because it's "Trotskyists reforming their image" That's bias. 217.75.5.71 (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You want to delete an entire page you dont like, because it's "Trotskyists reforming their image" That's bias.

Article merging is not deletion and is in fact a completely normal process.

I genuinely wish you had used your period while blocked to understand how Wikipedia worked and why you received one, but instead this just seems to reveal you're never going to let what you see as my "malicious" behaviour drop or understand how consensus works. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You keep assuming me and the other IP address are the same person. Take the personal discussion to relevant boards. 217.75.5.71 (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also you explicitly said you want to mark it for AfD. That's deletion. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:AFD&redirect=no 217.75.5.71 (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Common outcomes are that the article is kept, merged, redirected, incubated, renamed/moved to another title, userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy.

It's the second sentence of the page you just linked. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How many non Trotskyist pages do you AfD? 188.65.190.67 (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant, the reality is you're making remarks about the intentions of my conduct and that it's of a malicious nature specifically after being told not to. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I counted four AdD targeting Socialist/Trotskyist pages since 2024 alone. As well as intentions to mark ROSA as AdD. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Putting articles forwards for discussion at AfD in not a nefarious activity. Drop the insinuation. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it's actually extremely relevant because your bias against Trotskyist pages shapes your argument made here.

Targeting certain political affiliations for AfD is malicious. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Organization X would be part of organization Y. Would a member of a group not be a primary source on the actions of the group? 217.75.5.71 (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We clearly aren't going to consider such statements as inherently reliable. People claim all sorts of things about organisations they belong to, or claim to belong to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But both parties, the members, and organization they're a member of, agree on a topic. Are both sources unreliable? 217.75.5.71 (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They don't agree on the topic, one is saying the other "grotesquely mishandled" an allegation of abuse, the other explicitly rejects that viewpoint.

They are not independent of the issue, so we seek not to use them. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They're not disagreeing that the allegation of abuse was made. They were. The characterization is "grotesquely mishandled" which is not mentioned on the page or relevant to the validity of either source. They disagree on the way it was handled. Not that there is a disagree on the existence of a disagreement. 217.75.5.71 (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They explicitly cite the mishandling as the reason they left, while making a series of allegatory remarks about ISA in the process. This is disputed by the ISA, and is therefore a problem.

Please try to accept this. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They explicitly cite the mishandling as the reason they left.

ISA acknowledges the disagreement happened. The contents of their disagreement are insubstantial to the existence of the disagreement. 217.75.5.71 (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't allow material involving self-published sources of person/organisation X making allegations about person/organisation Y simply because Y has "acknowledged" the allegations existing by refuting them.

It's still inappropriate. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We? Do you mean you? 188.65.190.67 (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be 'we', the Wikipedia community, that has over many years ironed out policies concerning (amongst many other things), the appropriate use of primary sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't get to speak as "the Wikipedia community" as a whole anymore than I do. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He does however get to explain (yet again) what we, the community, have collectively decided is policy. And you really aren't doing yourself any favours with this line of argument. So far, you have convinced nobody of anything, and achieved nothing but a block. Maybe a change of tactics (one preferably involving looking for a compromise solution) is on the cards? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no further discussion to be had. An ANI has been opened up in regards to this user's conduct. 188.65.190.67 (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And as was entirely predictable the WP:BOOMERANG has struck - IP blocked for 2 weeks. If anyone uninvolved reading through this mess has useful suggestions on how to proceed, please chip in... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump thinking I might put much of this stuff from today in a collapse template given the largely off-topic nature of it, and how it devolved into claims of malicious conduct. Your thoughts? Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd leave it. There are possibly some genuine points worth discussion in there amongst the drek, if anyone new does want to chip in. Barring that, I think it might be wise to leave this thread to die a natural death, and continue discussion on the article talk page, where it probably should have been in the first place. It seems clear enough that BLP policy doesn't permit the use of primary sources in the way the IP proposes, and once that is accepted, it ceases to be an issue for this noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At least that's some utility out of this for when this issue no doubt raises its head at another fringe political organisation page. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coldplay jumbotron controversy

WP:NAC: the forum has moved to WP:Articles for deletion/Coldplay jumbotron controversy. Please leave your insights there. JFHJr (㊟) 19:02, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Shortly after Andy Byron was deleted at AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Byron) a new article was created entitled Coldplay jumbotron controversy covering essentially the same topic. I have similar BLP concerns to the previous article, so I would appreciate BLPN regulars having a look at the article, and possibly redirecting/PRODding/AFDing it as necessary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing quite like recreating a deleted article complete with obvious WP:BLP violation in the lede, is there? (I've removed it, but it is in the history.) Anyway, clearly needs deletion as the vacuous tabloid gossip nonsense it clearly is, same as last time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now at AfD:, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coldplay jumbotron controversy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

List of Democratic Socialists of America public officeholders

I've been worried the list of DSA officeholders is violating our BLP policy. Currently the list includes not just DSA public officeholders like the list title describes, but any officeholder endorsed by any local DSA branch anywhere in the country. Some of the sourcing is fine, but it contains a lot of self sourcing and subpar sourcing to label folks as members of the org without requiring the person to be a member of the org and only requiring a local endorsement by a DSA chapter for inclusion. Do other editors think there are BLP issues here? TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this issue has been discussed on the talk page before, Endorsement ≠ Membership, and some of these people are being added because of the very loose inclusion criteria; "national endorsees, local endorsees", seen in the last para in the lead. I agree with this comment made in that talk page discussion - Unless a reliable source states the elected official or candidate is a member of the DSA, then that particular person should not be identified as being a member. If you believe content is unsourced or poorly sourced, then you can remove it per BLP, without waiting for further discussion. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to remove one listing (Mauree Turner) at least four times ( 1, 2, 3, 4) and have been reverted each time by other users and discussion attempts on the talk page went unanswered. Other users have attempted to fix BLP problems in the article as well and been reverted, which is why I wanted to raise it here. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps SocDoneLeft (who reverted you repeatedly) can explain themselves better here? Because yeah, a list that claims candidates endorsed by the DSA are in fact DSA officeholders is blatantly erroneous structure for a list. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That entry includes a quote from Mauree Turner (WP:SELF) telling people to join DSA, in direct reply to her endorsement by DSA. IE: Turner accepts the endorsement:

SocDoneLeft (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While that technically doesn't prove she's a member, it does sort of make me wonder if strict evidence of membership is too high a bar. The DSA isn't like the Democratic Party. Nobody will ever have a (DSA) next to their name on the ballot, and it's not a legislative caucus either, which means the "canonical" proof of membership is private until someone wants to reveal it.

Maybe what we should actually do is rename the list to "List of politicians associated with the Democratic Socialists of America" and then have a subsection of that list for confirmed members, and another section for endorsees. Loki (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current title is fine, but the tables should be expanded to note whether references support endorsement, membership, or both. (I've tried to add these for federal endorsements, where more refs are available.)

Also, to clear up some confusion: DSA chapters vote on endorsement, which (since 2016) almost always first requires a questionnaire submitted by the candidate requesting said endorsement. There are some exceptions (like Bernie Sanders in 2016 and 2020, though he's long been close to DSA), but since Bernie 2016 it's very uncommon for a candidate to get a DSA endorsement who doesn't want it. SocDoneLeft (talk) 01:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support removal of anyone in that article that doesn't have a reliable source explicitly stating they are a member of the DSA. Simply being endorsed by the DSA doesn't qualify them to be on the list. At one time, the inclusion criteria was members of the Democratic Socialists of America, and the criteria has now been manipulated to include endorsees, so either the title should be changed to reflect the actual inclusion criteria, or the endorsees should be removed, because they are not really members of the DSA.

For instance, looking at Mauree Turners profile page, it doesn't even mention the DSA, and this in depth article from The Washington Post about them, doesn't mention the DSA either, and that tweet from them does not say they are a member of the DSA, so they along with the other non-members should be removed from the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that officeholders should only be on the list if there is a reliable source identifying them as a member of the DSA. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Sydney Sweeney § political party

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sydney Sweeney § political party. It would be helpful if someone could come chime in with whether or not it's safe, from a BLP-standpoint, to report whether a BLP subject is affiliated with a specific political party solely based on their voter registration records as reported by WP:RS. My gut says, at best, we can mention in Wiki-voice that reliable sources confirmed she was registered for a specific party, but we cannot say she is, especially as she has not publicly stated one way or the other what her stance is. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the article has been fully protected for a week.[13] There's now an RfC on the article's talk page: Talk:Sydney Sweeney#RfC: Sydney Sweeney's political party affiliation. Some1 (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caesar DePaço has been edited per court-order/WP:OA

This article is currently getting a bit of attention:

It never hurts if articles like this are as good as possible per WP:BLP, WP:PROPORTION etc. So, if you feel like improving it, please do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Koushik Kar

Report about line no. 8 of the article Koushik Kar referenced below under quotation-

'In March 2021, after joining the Bharatiya Janata Party, Kar was removed from the cast of a play about the 2015 Dadri lynching.[6][7]'

1. The play name is not specifically mentioned in the above piece of information, which creates it a contentious material.

2.poor quality source cited to establish link between 2015 dadri lynching and the play from which subject was removed.

3. The context of the information is not nutral, wrt biographical article about a living subject.

The play from which the subject was removed has no connection with 2015 dadri lynching incident - is based on Late utpal dutt's age old drama "Ghum Nei" written way in the 1970s ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujjwalbag (talk • contribs) 18:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://kolkatatheatre.com/reviews/ghum-nei-titumir/

Big Brother 26 voting table dispute

CLOSED

We don't need three separate discussions opened on three different boards about this. The ANI thread was closed, and so is this one now, while the thread at AN remains open. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

There is an on going dispute about changing the voting table on the Big Brother 26 page particularly regarding the HoH during week four. Angela Murray won Head of Household that week and Quinn Martin a DeepFake Head of Household power. This topic has been voted and debated before in the past. I'm not sure why we are bringing this up again. It was clearly voted on back in August 2024. We are going to bring another full discussion until the matter is resolved. I suggest we protect the Big Brother 26 page from further vandalism. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Liu Haocun

Could do with more eyes on this one. There's an age controversy and a couple of sources have been used for the DoB, IMDB and a source called iNews, URL starts inf.news. The latter source has also been used to reference the age controversy. I asked about iNews on RSN and editors there said it isn't an RS, so I removed both DoBs and both sources. Posted on the article's Talk page about it. Another editor has reverted my changes to the article a couple of times, and says on the talk page that they have a reliable source, Douban. This doesn't look like an RS to me, but I don't have expertise in Chinese sources and don't want to edit war, so if anyone else can have a look, that would be great. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was a previous discussion on RSN about Douban, see here, which suggested it's usergenerated. Looking at the link you provided it appears to be a usergenerated post that includes a primary document, so unusable per WP:UGC and WP:BLPPRIMARY. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:12, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lola Kirke's nationality

Hi, a consensus is needed on how to format Lola Kirke's nationality in the lead sentence. Could you guys please comment at Talk:Lola Kirke#Nationality in lead? Thanks in advance! Thedarkknightli (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Crary

Seeking input on how to deal with a pattern of self-promotional & CoI edits to Alice Crary, beginning with the article creator. Despite trimming back, the article continues to re-grow resumé-like appendages with occasional non-NPOV puffery. I tagged the article to call attention to these issues in Feb 2025. Most recently, a self-declared associate of the article's subject posted to the talk page, requesting an 'impartial' editor to fix the article and remove the tags. Within 2 hours, 6,023 bytes of new resumé-like content was added, much of it literally copy-pasted from the subject's online resumé. I wanted to flag here for visibility and input before attempting a major clean-up. — Goffman82 (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joss Sackler

This article has been brought up for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joss Sackler) with the nomination statement expressing a concern that material in the article is defamatory. The !votes so far have been uniformly keep, but the nominator's concerns may have some validity (the article probably contains too much description of oxycontin, Purdue Pharma, and the opioid epidemic); both the article and AFD could probably benefit from attention from editors familiar with BLP policy. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 03:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I scraped out a few problematic things (claims not matching reference, for example), but the biggest problem is that this is one of weight; as an example, her fashion line isn't even named in this article. I encourage others to take a hand in this. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iqbal Survé

I came across the Iqbal Survé article after seeing a news story about him threatening legal action for claims in the article being allegedly defamatory [14]. It's worth noting that the article is in the Independent Online, which is owned by Iqbal Survé himself, which is curiously not disclosed anywhere in the article. While these claims could just be sour grapes, I think it behooves us to make sure his article is actually BLP compliant (I haven't scrutinized the sources carefully enough to be sure). The article history is dominated by SPAs like Joker1Joker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Wololo1111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whos additions should be carefully scrutinised. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adriana Salerno

After an anonymous editor repeatedly added content about someone else's inflammatory blog post on a blog once edited by Adriana Salerno, worded as an attack against Salerno and based only on primary and non-reliably-published sources, I reverted the edits and semiprotected the article. But now long-term editor User:Scribe252 has reinstated the same unreliable-primary-sourced attack content. I reverted again but more eyes on this article would be welcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The blog post was done at the time when Salerno was the chief editor of the blog, not to mention that subsequently she defended the post as it is all revealed clearly in the reference to the actual website provided.

You wrote on the history page after you undid my edits that "all this was done by other people". What "other people" are you talking about? Now, unfortunately, you are saying things which directly contradict the facts.

If a living person engages in activity which might be deemed controversial by some people, then is that information forbidden to be mentioned, despite the fact that the primary source is very clear?

I am not the one who wrote on the Salerno page that she edited the blog. But now that it has been mentioned, then is it not warranted to add some detail in that regard?

Yes, the source is primary, but it seems to me that it supports very well the edits that I had made. If you can improve my edits then please go ahead, but to completely delete them calls into question your neutrality. Scribe252 (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is undue without any newspaper coverage or similar to indicate its significance. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. We don't base biographical content on material trawled from blogs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this case the content is concerned with the actual blog itself, which had already been mentioned in the page prior to my edits. It seems odd that it is permitted to say that she was the editor of the blog, but at the same time no info about the blog may be included. Scribe252 (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing odd about it at all. We have secondary sources discussing the blog. We don't have any discussing the blog post in question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because there's no actual indication that the blog post or Salerno's response to it was significant. If it caused wider media controversy, maybe it would be due, but you've presented literally no evidence of this. I did some google searching and found nothing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There may not be an explicit reference in the media for this specific post, but there is an article in Inside Higher Education which details that the blog was controversial and was eventually terminated by AMS. Scribe252 (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what the article says. It describes one particular blog post that one might infer was "controversial" in some circles, but describes no actual controversy about it. Nor does it say anything about why AMS stopped sponsoring that blog. (They stopped sponsoring it over a year later, when they retired all their blogs.) Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction I have already reverted twice over this and do not want to enter an edit war about it, but as I detailed at perhaps excessive length at Talk:Adriana Salerno, this is just misrepresenting the given source. (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to WP:UNDUE, it's in WP:PRIMARY-WP:SPS-WP:BLPSPS-land. We don't cite to blogs unless they are themselves WP:RS. It's rare, but when it's RS, it's usually quite technical stuff, with living humans less involved. JFHJr (㊟) 22:18, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The number of blog drama kerfuffles that actually deserve to be covered in an encyclopedia is very small, and there is no indication that this is one of them. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it allowed at least to include a reference to the blog under the external sources, since the article mentions that she edited the blog? Scribe252 (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The" blog? And "edited"? The article and its source state "co-founded". The blog you are focusing on has an "about" page that lists someone else as the editor-in-chief. And there were two blogs. I see no WP:BLP-specific issues with linking to the main landing pages of these blogs, but neutrality would suggest treating both of them equally, and WP:EL cautions to keep links to a minimum. For this reason, if we have a home page for the subject of a BLP, we generally link only to that page, trusting in it to provide appropriate links to other homes on social media. And in fact in this case her home page does link to both of the two blogs, under "writing". —David Eppstein (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The EL section is also subject to WP:UNDUE like the rest of the article's content. A link to a blog that does not touch on a subject's notability may be undue for relevance. JFHJr (㊟) 00:46, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And it looks like one link to her homepage would suffice, then. JFHJr (㊟) 00:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly see the need to include them. It's not the worst link-farm that I've ever found at the bottom of a Wikipedia article, but they don't provide much value beyond what the homepage link does, either. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coming here late to support the consensus: of course we should not include vague waves that the blog was "controversial", especially not on the basis of sources that do not even mention Salerno. Remark that the Inside Higher Ed article does not seem to be highest quality: the AMS stopped sponsoring blogs in 2021 [15], but did not single out inclusion / exclusion; this part of the IHE article seemed a little misleading to me. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:06, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let us not confuse two distinct things: (1) Was the blog actually controversial, and (2) Is there an acceptable source which says that explicitly, so that it would be warranted for Wikipedia to echo that. I think the answer to (1) is obvious to anyone who examines the blog. See for instance this well-known post, and reactions to it.

Item (2) on the other hand is a technical issue. In my opinion the article in Inside Higher Ed is a reliable source which makes it clear that the blog was controversial, as it was related to all the "tension" which the article reports about the Math community at the time. To infer from the entirety of the article that the blog was controversial does not really constitute "original research" in my opinion, in the sense of Wikipedia regulations.

At any rate, please let us not say that there was consensus, because I do not agree with others (although I respect their opinion). Scribe252 (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is consensus, and there is no requirement that you have to agree with it, but simply abide by it. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. I'm not Bruce Lee. Cannot fight so many people at the same time. Scribe252 (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Scribe252: If you're deciding not to see a WP:CONSENSUS, when it's just you and policy/guideline-free arguments, versus seven experienced BLPN editors repeatedly explaining policy/guideline application to you, both here and on the article talkpage, you might be WP:NOTHERE (WP:CANTHEARYOU). Providing you any more feedback appears futile. So please drop the WP:STICK. JFHJr (㊟) 16:25, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gee whiz, you keep piling up technicalities. I was using "consensus" in its normal every day sense. If all people in a room do not agree then it is usually not called a consensus. If Wikipedia's definition of consensus is different, then so be it. Scribe252 (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Means and the Chargers

Means played for the San Diego Chargers, not the Los Angeles Chargers. Los Angeles Charges did not exist while Means was an active player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.44.210.87 (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that this is a complaint that the article Natrone Means contains a link marked Chargers Hall of Fame which is piped to Los Angeles Chargers Hall of Fame ... which appears to be the same institution as it was before the team relocated. But I may be misinterpreting it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EC. Thanks for porting this post. Indeed, Natrone Means appears to be the topic of the post. And we landed at the same conclusion otherwise. That's all I got. JFHJr (㊟) 22:39, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the pipe: San Diego Hall of Champions seems to have been the probable spot. Otherwise, maybe just eliminate the wl and pipe altogether? JFHJr (㊟) 22:46, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the source says Chargers Hall of Fame.... which was the same institution when the Chargers were in SD, and is covered in that article. I just eliminated the pipe, which seems seems to have been a WP:REDIRECTSAREOK matter. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ossum, possum! JFHJr (㊟) 22:54, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Keller (playwright) and Andrea Anders

I just removed some of what I thought were pretty serious BLP violations from Jason Keller (playwright) (here) and Andrea Anders (here ). I don't edit very often so it would be great if other people could keep an eye on this. The existence of the baby is mentioned here, but the last paragraph in the Keller article seemed to go beyond that, even if by implication, in a way that was pretty clearly unacceptable. Thanks. blameless 01:02, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talia Lavin

Bringing this here for an outside opinion. At the Talia Lavin article a user continues to remove reliably sourced material about the subject. The material in question (two sentences) relates to Lavin accusing a wheelchair bound Marine veteran and ICE employee for being a Nazi for what she mistakenly believed was an Iron Cross tattoo on his arm. Its notable because it cost her her job as a factchecker at the New Yorker (she resigned) and caused ICE to issue her a formal rebuke for the allegation.

Is this material notable enough for the article? MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I'm very surprised that Talia Lavin meets our notability standards. As for notability it's quite difficult to know without you referring to sources. But this edit [16] seems grossly undue for a BLP since it is also like... about a third of the entire article now. Simonm223 (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was other material in the edit not associated with the locus of the debate that was removed by you. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MasterBlasterofBarterTown you've again re-added contested material before a consensus has formed [17], WP:ONUS states "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Please discuss and reach consensus before adding the disputed material, continually reinserting [18][19][20] contested material without consensus is edit warring, and is not allowed.

I would point out that you have directly insulted the article's subject in this talk page message [21], and I have concerns that you are unable to edit this topic in a neutral manner. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rev-del'ed. User:MasterBlasterofBarterTown, consider this a formal warning that any further such comments will result in your being blocked from editing. DMacks (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The claim by MasterBlasterofBarterTown that they accused someone of being a nazi is both untrue and a BLP violation. She made a post on social media, which didn't accuse anyone of anything, and didn't "cost her her job". Polygnotus (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From the sources:

* New York University has hired Talia Lavin to teach an undergraduate course on “Reporting on the Far Right” at its journalism school in the fall, in a move that drew blowback from some conservatives on social media. The hiring of Lavin, first reported by The Wrap, comes about nine months after the former fact-checker for the New Yorker mistakenly accused an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent of having a Nazi iron cross tattoo. Lavin apologized for the mistake and resigned from her position at the New Yorker.[22]

A staffer for the esteemed New Yorker magazine sparked outrage when she falsely tweeted that the tattoo of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent looked like the Iron Cross, a symbol of Nazi Germany and other white supremacist groups.[23]
Talia Lavin, whose tweet about a veteran’s tattoo implied he was a Nazi, has apologized to him and resigned from her position as a fact-checker at the New Yorker magazine. But in another tweet, Thursday evening, Lavin also lashed out at the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, saying it unfairly targeted her in its own tweet about combat-wounded veteran Justin Gaertner. [
With a single tweet, the New Yorker‘s professional fact-checker smeared Justin Gaertner, a combat-wounded war veteran and computer forensic analyst for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. Lavin, the professional fact-checker, rushed to judgment. She abused her platform. Amid the national media hysteria over President Donald Trump’s border-enforcement policies, Lavin derided a photo of Gaertner shared by ICE, which had spotlighted his work rescuing abused children. Scrutinizing his tattoos, she claimed an image on his left elbow was an Iron Cross — a symbol of valor commonly and erroneously linked to Nazis.[24]
Talia Lavin, whose tweet about a Pasco veteran's tattoo implied he was a Nazi, has apologized to him and resigned from her position as a fact-checker at the New Yorker magazine. But in another tweet, Thursday evening, Lavin also lashed out at the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, saying it unfairly targeted her in its own tweet about combat-wounded veteran Justin Gaertner.[25]
This past week, Immigration and Customs Enforcement demanded apologies after New Yorker fact-checker Talia Lavin mistakenly accused their computer forensics analyst Justin Gaertner of having a Nazi tattoo. They recently got more than that. Lavin resigned from her employer, and apologized for the botch. Even so, she called out ICE for the terms under which this happened.[26]

MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MasterBlasterofBarterTown This has all been debated, as you are already aware. Some of the sources did not report the situation accurately (they didn't have access to the actual tweet which was long deleted), especially those with an axe to grind or those who were really early. In the end it was decided that giving this storm in a teacup attention made little sense since it was a non-event. No matter what the far right wants people to believe. Every once in a while another Wikipedia account pop up to start the discussion all over again. Weird how that happens. Polygnotus (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just look at which of the sources can't even get the basic facts correct. She didn't claim that it was an iron cross. And not all people who use an iron cross are nazis (The Iron Cross is now the emblem of the Bundeswehr, the modern German armed forces...).

The Hill: falsely tweeted that the tattoo of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent looked like the Iron Cross

Haaretz: Wrongly Claims ICE Worker Has Nazi Tattoo

Instapundit is literally some blog, and they have a clear POV. Something went wrong when you linked to it.

nationalreview: she claimed an image on his left elbow was an Iron Cross

tampabay actually explains how it is all nonsense.

lawandcrime: Mistakenly Claiming ICE Employee Had Nazi Tattoo

So we can't really use sources that clearly misrepresent what happened, based on misinformation spread by someone with an axe to grind... Polygnotus (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not commenting on the dispute/subject of the article, but on a statement.

(The Iron Cross is now the emblem of the Bundeswehr, the modern German armed forces...)

Germany has been using the Iron Cross since the empire days, but in each period it has had a distinctive design. In Nazi Germany they used the Balkenkreuz. While the Iron Cross is not a Nazi symbol in and of itself, the Balkenkreuz and the Iron Cross with swastika/Reichsadler are. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 06:31, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://kolkatatheatre.com/reviews/ghum-nei-titumir/

[2] ttps://kolkatatheatre.com/reviews/ghum-nei-titumir/

[1]

[1]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Large language models (LLMs) Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards