Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Martin Lorentzon

Is The Volokh Conspiracy, founded in 2002 and hosted at Reason.com since 2017, a reliable source for Jankowicz losing her appeal of the dismissal of her libel suit against Fox News?

The author is Eugene Volokh, a fellow at the conservative think tank the Hoover Institution and former law professor (emeritus).

The authors state, "We are not Reason employees, and we have sole editorial control over the blog ... Each blogger speaks only for himself or herself."

To me this is the same as a self-published source and should not be used for claims about third parties. At the very least it's opinion commentary and should be treated as primary source. Thoughts?

I'd also add that WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies here, meaning we would need multiple reliable, independent sources for the incident in question. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:15, 25 September 2025 (UTC) edited 10:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's unusable. It would be fine when it's not something concerning a living person as a recognised expert self-published source but not when it concerns a living person. We don't even mention the appeal which since it was lost IMO isn't so important. I had a look and the only possibly usable source seems to be National Review [1] but they doesn't really mention the appeal just her comments that proceeded her loss of the appeal. (It does mention her criticising "judges of the Third Circuit" which hints there was an appeal but doesn't directly mention the appeal just that she lost her case.) Which IMO sort of shows the appeal doesn't matter much, even a source unlikely to be sympathetic to Jankowicz doesn't feel it was worth properly mentioning. Science-Based Medicine and ScienceBlogs are other examples where it's recognised a lot or all of their content is self-published. (We could have debates about whether content not written by Eugene Volokh is self published but that's irrelevant here.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Volokh Conspiracy is a group blog by lawyers, most of whom are law professors. Volokh is a well-respected legal scholar, and his columns are RSs per EXPERTSPS but cannot be used for BLP content per BLPSPS. However, a legal case involving someone is not the same as the person themself (see this related discussion at WT:BLP last month). Some of Volokh's columns are opinion columns; others are primarily excerpts from legal rulings highlighting key sections of the ruling. The column you linked to is an example of the latter. So I'd say that it's acceptable for a simple statement of fact that she lost the appeal. But there are better sources, such as this Law360 article (and that's not the only alternative source I found with a Google search on ["nina jankowicz" "third circuit" appeal] limited to the last month). FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first useer replying to you in that discussion opined that claims directly about a living person that are otherwise uncorrobated by fact-checked reliable sources are in fact covered under BLPSPS, which is exactly what the source in question contains. The subject of the biography herself is the subject of the disputed text. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A statement about a legal ruling (e.g., "the Third Circuit upheld the district court's ruling") is not a statement "directly about a living person." And as I noted above, there are reliable non-SPS for this content. Why persist in debating Volokh's column instead of just using a good non-SPS?

Also, re: your comment below, "related to" is broader than the actual BLPSPS policy. It cannot be used for material about a living person themself. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed that. Now please explain how she lost the appeal is not a statement about a living person. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't have to be worded to be about her, as I already noted. And again: Why persist in debating Volokh's column instead of just using a good non-SPS like Law360? If you really want to word it to be about her, you can word it to be about her using that as a source. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is the same no matter how you word it. It's still about the lawsuit brought by Jankowicz whether she is directly mentioned or not. This isn't peek-a-boo; the fact that this is a story about a living person doesn't magically vanish just because her name isn't mentioned. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, Jankowicz is not the subject of the sentence "the Third Circuit upheld the district court's ruling." This is straightforward English grammar.

And again: Why do you persist in debating Volokh's column instead of just using a good non-SPS like Law360? Seriously: you keep ignoring this question. Why? FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself summarized the statement as she lost the appeal. So how exactly is Jankowicz not the subject? This isn't a grammar lesson, we're talking about material being added to a biography of a living person. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot tell the difference between the subject of "she lost the appeal" and the subject of "the Third Circuit upheld the district court's ruling," that's a problem on your end.

And again: Why do you persist in debating Volokh's column instead of just using a good non-SPS like Law360? Seriously: you keep ignoring this question. Why? FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The statement about the Third Circuit only has meaning in the context of a lawsuit being brought by the subject of the article. No amount of word games is going to change that. Her name is literally in the title of the judgment, for crying out loud. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you persist in debating Volokh's column instead of just using a good non-SPS like Law360? FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is Law360 the only reliable, independent source for this material? If so, we should still leave it out per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a particularly contentious. She filed suit and lost. She appealed and lost again. The factual matter is not in debate and the article, as it currently sits, is incomplete without the conclusion. Absadah (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's doubtful whether any Wikipedia article is ever "complete", especially regarding a subject who is still alive. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Completeness is not the relevant issue for this noticeboard; following BLP policy is. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. You seem to be working incredibly hard at coming up with reasons to exclude totally straightforward relevant information, who knows why. I'm not going to put any more time into this. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is broadly true. Notably, nobody has made the claim that anything Volokh has said is incorrect, or even that he was biased in saying it. Just for the purpose of my own edification, this is the case, yes? The claims are true, the person who made them is credible, and the website he made them on is credible, but we are here discussing whether the part of the website he published this writing on is sufficiently rigorous to cite? jp×g🗯️ 06:07, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please read WP:BLPSPS. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:31, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The edit in question is not contentious or critical material on the subject [2]. Its a statement of fact documenting the outcome of a lawsuit Jankowicz filed and contains a primary and secondary source. Absadah (talk) 13:14, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Whether you are I think it's contentious is irrelevant; self-published sources cannot be used at all for claims about third parties. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Would you accept Law360 as an acceptable source for the statement of fact in question? Absadah (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No claim is being made about the person. They are reporting a judicary action (losing the appeal) which is not a claim about a living person. Masem (t) 19:29, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Who lost the appeal? It didn't occur spontaneously in a vacuum. If we replace the word appeal with an equivalent phrase such as appeal by Jankowicz, it's obvious that this relates to a living person. Per WP:CT/BLP, all claims relating to the subject of a BLP article are to be treated with the same consideration as claims about the subject themselves. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that the nominator removed, because it was "WP:UNDUE based on WP:NEWSOPED primary sources," because the author, Eugene Volokh, is a "random opinion commentator" in the sense of "not being a recognized expert or having any connection to the subject, just another blogger pushing an agenda and/or chasing clicks," because the claim is "exceptional," and because it is "unreferenced or poorly referenced information" and "controversial," said, verbatim, in its entirety:

"In September 2025, the Third Circuit Court affirmed the lower court's 2024 dismissal of the suit."

The deletion also disdained this accompanying item at Reclaim the Net as opinion journalism, though there seems to be no discussion of RTN in the RSN archives that would support that characterization. Because the nominator subsequently blanked the initial 2024 dismissal, presumably because it was also sourced to Volokh, the article merely said that Jankowicz had sued Fox in 2023, eliding that the suit had been dismissed and the appeal struck down. That does not look like an effort to improve the encyclopedia. When in a later edit he dismissed WP:WASHINGTONEXAMINER and WP:REASONNEWS as "libertarian/right wing propaganda peddlers," he rather told on himself.

I submit that the above criticisms are overblown and beside the point, given that this item is not about Jankowicz herself, it is purely matter-of-fact, and has been mentioned by enough sources in a sufficiently neutral manner to merit inclusion. This may be a rare case in which a WP:PRIMARY source is adequate to support the claim, though the presentations by Volokh and RTN are easier to comprehend. WP:REPUTABLE: "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." The nominator seems eager to apply every policy but that one. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the item is not about Jankowicz herself then why does it belong in her biography?

The page at Reclaim the Net literally has the words Fight censorship and surveillance. Reclaim your digital freedom at the top of the page. It's self-evidently an opinion source that exists to push an agenda.

BLP policy takes precedence, and WP:BLPSPS does not make an exception for recognized experts, whether you or I find them reputable or not. The qualification regarding newsblogs where the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control doesn't apply here. If you have concerns about my other edits you can take them to WP:AN/I. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That you believe BLP policy takes precedence over common sense and editorial judgment is the whole problem here. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, and you are not the only one with "common sense", whatever that means. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BLP policy definitely takes precedence over common sense and if you're unwilling to accept that please refrain from editing anywhere it applies Nil Einne (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that court documents can be used for judgments concerning living persons for simple matters was not accepted in the most recent discussion on the issue Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 58#Published judicial documents. So no it's not acceptable. Nil Einne (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. There's a huge difference between a court filing or a biased blog, which shouldn't used as BLP sources, and a story from a paper of record or the American Bar Association Journal that puts everything in context, which can be used. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to add that I wonder if there may be a mistaken belief by some editors here that BLP only concerns itself if something is factual and if it is then BLP is irrelevant. This isn't correct. Even if there's no doubt something is factual, it doesn't mean it merits inclusion in any article per WP:UNDUE, but especially in articles about living persons. This is why BLP mentions stuff like "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented" etc. Nil Einne (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not self published, it's published by Reason, a "generally reliable" source - see WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. And the claim here is hardly "exceptional", it says that a ruling dismissing a lawsuit was upheld, the most normal claim imaginable. Hi! (talk) 04:59, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No per the blog itself Reason have no editorial control. Reason are therefore just hosting it. This is no different from FORBESCON or any other news site which hosts blogs without editorial control. The blogs are correctly treated as self published because only the authors decide what is posted, how it is worded etc and not the hoster, no matter if the hoster itself is normally reliable. Nil Einne (talk) 07:39, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Volokh is EXPERTSPS, but EXPERTSPS can be used for non-BLP content (and "the Third Circuit upheld the district court's dismissal" is not a BLP claim). More to the point, the Volokh column isn't the only one that covered this routine content. There's more than one independent, non-SPS, non-primary, non-op ed RS that covered it. I mentioned one of them above: Law360. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not BLP content then it doesn't belong in a biography of a living person. And you keep saying there are multiple non SPS secondary sources but refuse to list them. Since this at least one editor has raised a good faith BLP objection this should stay out until there is consensus and there is no way consensus will be achieved when an editor keeps telling us sources exist but refuse to list them except perhaps consensus for exclusion. Nil Einne (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"If it's not BLP content then it doesn't belong in a biography of a living person" is your opinion, and it doesn't seem to be shared by most editors, as biographical articles regularly contain some information that is not about the subject themself as a person, but is instead about something related to that person. For example, the biographical article about Trump says "Judges found many of his administration's actions to be illegal, and several have been described as unconstitutional." That's not about Trump himself (a person); it's about actions by the Trump administration (not a person). In Jankowicz's own article, there are sentences that are not about her as a person (e.g., "The New Yorker Joshua Yaffa called it [i.e., the book How to Lose the Information War] 'a persuasive new book on disinformation as a geopolitical strategy,'" and similarly for her other book). Conversely, one can find BLP content in articles where the subject is not a living person.

"you keep saying there are multiple non SPS secondary sources but refuse to list them." I've never been asked to list any, so it's impossible for me to have refused. Sangdeboeuf asked "Is Law360 the only reliable, independent source for this material?," which is a yes or no question, and the answer is no, which I said. I also said "more than one." If you are now asking for another, here's another: The Washington Free Beacon (WP:FREEBEACON, biased but RS). Aside from the claim I made about independent, non-SPS, non-primary, non-op ed RSs, you can also find other RSs that fail one of the qualifiers, such as the BLPSELFPUB that she wrote about it, and this opinion piece in Bloomberg.

"at least one editor has raised a good faith BLP objection." Please articulate what that good faith objection is. This is totally routine information: she filed a suit (already in the article), the judge dismissed the case (not in the article, but easy to confirm with RSs, for example, here and here), and an appeals court upheld the dismissal. If the case is significant enough to include (and right now, it has a paragraph in the article), then the outcome should be included. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles by Andrew Stiles in the Free Beacon were named specifically in the 2025 RfC as a grab bag of undue BLP material, opinion pieces, joke articles, etc. This article by Stiles, which is chock full of hyperbole and opinion, is certainly not reliable for BLP content, which is exactly what the material in question is (sophistry notwithstanding). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And you've yet to explain why you won't use Law360. Or, for that matter, why you won't use Jankowicz's own BLPSELFPUB about it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been asked to use it, so it's impossible for me to have refused. These word games are getting tiresome. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check your so-called quote. Then link to the comment where you think I was asked for the alleged list. Also, paying attention to the actual meanings of words isn't a game. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't quoting, but paraphrasing (you) to highlight the absurdity of your replies. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And you've yet to explain why you won't use Law360. Or, for that matter, why you won't use Jankowicz's own BLPSELFPUB about it. You seem to look for deflections. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything stopping you from adding either of those two sources to the article yourself? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not appropriate to add contested content without consensus, per WP:ONUS. We cannot get closer to consensus if you won't explain. Please answer the following:

• Do you object to using Law360, and if so, why?
• Do you object to using Jankowicz's blog (per BLPSELFPUB), and if so, why?

FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have it backwards. If you want consensus to use a given source, then it's on you to explain why the source is relevant and supports the material in question, per WP:ONUS. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yours is a false dichotomy. Both of us should want consensus. That's one of WP's key policies, WP:CON. Both of us should be working towards consensus (either to add the material, or not to add the material). Therefore it's entirely appropriate for me to ask you questions that will help me understand your views, and it behooves you to answer them. Are you going to work towards consensus with the others of us here?

I think it's self-evident that they're relevant, given that there's already a paragraph about the case in the article. Both note that the Third Circuit upheld the district court's dismissal of the case, which provides a conclusion to the paragraph instead of leaving the reader guessing about how the case concluded. Law360 is an RS (not much discussed at the RSN, but here are a couple of mentions: this section, and two comments in this section). Using Jankowicz's blog to say something like "the Third Circuit upheld the district court's dismissal of the case" meets the five criteria for BLPSELFPUB. (If you disagree, just say which of the criteria you think isn't met.) If you're uncertainl about the reliability of one or both, we can go to the RSN and get others' opinions. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current revision of the article states, A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit in July 2024. There's no mention of an appeal, and no reason for anyone to think there was an appeal. So I don't see why anyone would be unsure as to how the case concluded. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be implying that your response to the two questions I asked is something like "yes, I object, because information about the appeal is UNDUE". Have I inferred correctly? FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:05, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPSELFPUB is about BLPs publishing about themselves. Material about a lawsuit a BLP is involved in clearly falls under the BLP umbrella, especially if it's being included in their article. Can't use self-published sources for that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As written, BLPSELFPUB also allows publishing about those with whom one's relationship is not third party (though that's contested by some), as is the case in a court case. But if you prefer, the text sourced to her blog could say something like "Jankowicz appealed the dismissal and lost her appeal." FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are treating this article like you own it. You aren't adequately explaining your mostly unilateral actions, aren't willing to make compromises to language/additions and are ignoring what seems to be a nearly overwhelming consensus. Per FactOrOpinion

• Do you object to using Law360, and if so, why?
• Do you object to using Jankowicz's blog (per BLPSELFPUB), and if so, why?

Absadah (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I started this thread to get input about the Volokh source. If anyone wants to use a different source, they can make a case for it themselves. How can I object to a source if no one has even bothered to explain what it says?

Also, following WP:OWN does not mean letting you do whatever you want in violation of BLP policy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No that's your incorrect interpretation. BLPs contain the information but it is implicitly about a living person and is covered by BLP. That's why it's included. Nil Einne (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely false. Giant amounts of non-BLP information belongs in BLPs (both information about persons other than the subject, and information about things that are not persons at all). This is obvious upon reading one (emphasis mine):

• Mark Twain grew up in Hannibal, Missouri, a port town on the Mississippi River [...]
• Prior to Edison, many inventors had devised incandescent lamps, including Alessandro Volta's demonstration of a glowing wire in 1800 and inventions by Henry Woodward and Mathew Evans. Others who developed early and commercially impractical incandescent electric lamps included [...]
• Salk's inactivated polio vaccine came into use in 1955. It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines.

The importance and impact of the polio vaccine is obviously necessary to write an article about Jonas Salk. jp×g🗯️ 06:03, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By including them in a BLP, they inherently become about a living person and are therefore covered by BLP. For example if Edison was a living person, then any coverage of inventors of incandescent lamps in his biography would need to take into account if there was any disputes over these inventions and how this affected Edison's portrayal in our article. The use of primary sources or expert SPS would need to be generally excluded for this although they would be fine in articles on incandescents lamps. The same with the timeframe of when the inactivated polio vaccine first came into use. Is there dispute over whether Hannibal was a port town? Does this dispute affect Twain in some way (e.g. he felt he didn't grow up in a port town and therefore his experience was different from those who did). We're presenting this person's and their work (or life or whatever) in a certain light in their biography and we need to great care to get this right. To be absolutely clear, the fact you're presenting this information in a biography of a living person means you are making this information as information about a living person and therefore covered by BLP. This means we need to follow strict sourcing standards, far stricter than we do in general articles because we're effectively making claims about a living person by presenting this information in our article on this person. This comes up a lot on subjects known for pseudoscience or fringe science where editors understandably opposed to pseudoscience and fringe science want to use expert SPS or similar to make claims about the fringe science or pseudoscience the person is involved in, which might be fine in an article on the pseudoscience (provided we don't relate it to a specific person) but is not okay in a biography about a living person. Nil Einne (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPSPS certainly applies: "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." That implies that if the blog is not subject to the newspaper's full editorial control, as in this case (see [3]), then it's considered a self-published source. I personally view Volokh as trustworthy, and he's clearly an expert in his field, but in this case he's just a guy writing on his blog. If this information is significant to Nina Jankowicz's life and career, then it will be widely reported enough that we don't have to rely on a blog as a source. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 07:50, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, "exceptional" means, among other things, apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources [or] challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources, all of which applies here. The source must be judged in the proper context – an op-ed published in The New York Times is still just someone's opinion, despite the NYT being considered generally reliable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:31, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The National Review piece is sufficient to establish that she lost the case in an appellate court, a fact which is a wholly uncontroversial and completely uncontested claim. From other sources we know that she intended to appeal the lower court's decision. On the strength of these alone we should be able to add one sentence to the effect that the 3rd Circuit upheld the lower court's decision to dismiss the case against Fox. The Law360 article is paywalled so I cannot confirm its exact text, but if someone can and it more explicitly supports the proposed content, it should also be cited. Whether Volokh can be used is a moot question and should be dropped. Xan747 (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I tried to add that National Review source but was reverted by Sangdeboeuf. jp×g🗯️ 21:09, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see why the Law360 article isn't sufficient. It's certainly an RS. I asked Sangdeboeuf "Do you object to using Law360, and if so, why?", but they wouldn't answer. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Law360 article seems to be behind a paywall. Can you quote the relevant portion that supports the proposed addition to Jankowicz's biography? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

N.B.: Once again, you refused to answer a relevant question posed to you, but want me to answer a question posed by you. You've done this more than once. It's counterproductive and demonstrates double standards.

Here's a relevant excerpt:

The Third Circuit on Friday [September 12] upheld a win for Fox News Network LLC and Fox Corp. in a defamation lawsuit from the onetime head of the Biden administration's disinformation watchdog, holding that the unflattering claims the network's hosts made about the agency were opinion or not proven to be untrue. … The panel held that the statements challenged in Delaware federal court by Nina Jankowicz, former executive director of the Disinformation Governance Board at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, either did not concern her, constituted nonactionable opinion or were substantially true. Writing for the appellate panel, U.S. Circuit Judge L. Felipe Restrepo said the claims fell short of the pleading standard for defamation under New York law, which the parties stipulated would apply.

FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another relevant clip:

The panel also found that the remaining statements, even if arguably factual, were substantially true. This included assertions that Jankowicz had been "fired" or "booted" from the department, language the court said captured the gist of her departure, considering that the board was suspended and her position eliminated.Fox's characterization of her public remarks about Twitter's Birdwatch program — where Jankowicz expressed interest in allowing verified users to add context to others' tweets — was held to be a fair interpretation of her statements. "Because Jankowicz expressed appreciation for the Birdwatch feature — even though she noted it was not a global solution to Twitter's problems — it was substantially true to say she had 'pitched' it," the court said. Absadah (talk) 14:13, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the National Review piece supports her losing the appeal. As I noted before, it mentions her comments on the Third Circuit ("She lambasted the judges of the Third Circuit for asserting that the audience would interpret Fox’s coverage as opinion about a politically charged topic.") but doesn't actually explain what this is about. It says she lost her case, but it doesn't mention this includes an appeal. Using this very limited mention to say she had an appeal which she lost is IMO clear WP:Synthesis. As I mentioned before, in fact to my mind what the National Review piece supports is that the appeal wasn't a particular important or significant part of he story since it doesn't bother to discuss it in any real way. If sufficient other sources mention her appeal, we could use them but so far everyone just keeps mentioning Law360 despite their supposedly being multiple other RS. If editors feel this single RS is enough to mention the appeal, I'm probably not going to fight it. But I can also see the point that it's questionable if this single mention complies with WP:PUBLICFIGURE or is WP:DUE if editors can only find a single reliable secondary source about this highly notable person which bothers to mention the appeal. What's even more mysterious is that editors keep saying there are multiple RS but it all keeps coming back to the Law360 source with any other sources presented so far AFAIK either not being RS for a BLP issue (The Volokh Conspiracy), or not actually mentioning the appeal (National Review). Nil Einne (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"It says she lost her case, but it doesn't mention this includes an appeal." The Third Circuit only makes statements in the context of an appeal. It's a US Court of Appeals. But the National Review is only a marginal source and must be evaluated on a case by case basis. There are also other sources of this sort (e.g., Townhall). "despite their supposedly being multiple other RS," per a request, I quoted relevant text from a paywalled Law360 article and I presented a second RS (The Washington Free Beacon, which is biased but RS per the RSN), which Sangdeboeuf rejected because because they objected to the bias and the specific author. Here are two more RSs (1, 2). WP:PUBLICFIGURE isn't in play, as that policy has to do with a Presumption in favor of privacy, and there is no privacy issue here: the court case and all filings are public, and Jankowicz has commented on it publicly here. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The Third Circuit only makes statements in the context of an appeal. It's a US Court of Appeals." - which is synthesis. Also there is no way to know from this whether these comments were made when denying to the appeal or during oral arguments or whatever (i.e. the appeal may be ongoing). Arguing that National Review saying she lost her case must also mean she lost her appeal is again synthesis. I'd argue it's not even very good synthesis since I can perfectly see the National Review saying that when the appeal is ongoing. The only thing perhaps they would have done different is to at least note there is an ongoing appeal although frankly some worse sources might not have mentioned that.

And PUBLICFIGURE applies to anything we want to include, any editor editing BLPs needs to know that. Many things are "public" and even received commentary from the subject but are excluded precisely because almost no one else cares about them. (While divorces judgments can be private, they can also be public. Notice that the commentary on this however simply talks about whether there is coverage in third party sources. Likewise if someone posts allegations on Twitter (not DMs but tweets), and the person these allegations are about responds on Twitter, these are public. Twitter is by definition an open public platform. However again what matters is whether anyone else cared about this public spat, not whether it's "public").

Washington Free Beacon and Wichita Eagle combined with Law360 may be enough to get around PUBLICFIGURE concerns, it's a pity it took so long to get here. Not convinced about Law.com though as it seems just routine summary of a case.

Nil Einne (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having now checked out the Washington Free Beacon article, IMO it's not suitable for a BLP. While it doesn't label itself as opinion it clearly is written like one. This means we're now IMO down to two RS Wichita Eagle and Law360. This isn't ideal for such a notable BLP, and I again have to ask why we need to scrape the bottom of the sourcing barrel for something which is allegedly important in the article on such a figure? It seems clear that for whatever reason reliable sources didn't care about this appeal. It's not like there are plenty of right-wing sources we could use but none of them thought this mattered. Even Reason which people keep bringing up didn't care. And as I noted, even The National Review didn't while talking about the case. Nil Einne (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not among the people who've been arguing in favor of using the National Review; I purposefully omitted it as an MREL source. I was simply noting a few facts relevant to the discussion here (where SYNTH is allowed). I don't see the point of continuing to discuss it.

You reject Law.com for no reason. We have 3 RSs, and neither Law360 nor Law.com are "the bottom of the barrel." They're both solid RSs for legal information (Law.com is used as a reference on over 1300 articles, so is Law360). That it's a routine summary with the update about the Third Circuit ruling is fine.

Your argument comes down to: is it DUE? Editors here clearly have different opinions about that. I think that if it's worth having a short paragraph about the case, it's worth adding a short sentence along the lines of "She appealed the case to the Third Circuit, which upheld the district court's ruling."

No, PUBLICFIGURE does not apply to anything we want to include. It's very explicitly about content that falls under "allegation or incident", where the info might be considered private (which is why it's a subsection of Presumption in favor of privacy). People distinguish between public figures and people who are relatively unknown in discussion, but not because PUBLICFIGURE applies to anything we want to include. That things might be excluded despite being public is a matter of judging whether it's DUE, not whether there are multiple sources. A variety of info in BLPs may have only one RS (e.g., Peter Person wishes Fiona Friend a happy birthday on Twitter, and Fiona confirms that it's her birthday; if we have no other source for the birth date, we'd very likely include it under BLPSELFPUB). If you think there's really a question about this, then that discussion should occur at WT:BLP, not here. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken. If you're going to question the interpretation it's on you to get consensus to support your view. BLP is clear on this. I had been planning to let this go but the ridiculous misapplication of BLP means I can no longer do so and have therefore removed the info based on a good faith BLP objection. Nil Einne (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The DOB thing is something explicitly covered in BLP in big part because it's a common area of dispute. Some people regard it as basic biographical information which should always be included even if the sourcing is very limited. This view has been consistent rejected especially given the risk of identity theft. In the end it was decided that if the information is widely covered or if the source themselves has publicised the information it's fine to include, but otherwise it isn't. Nil Einne (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presumption in favor of privacy
Public figures
In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article, even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. (emphasis added)

In no way does it apply to all BLP info about public figures. I already gave you a counterexample, and your admission that "if the source themselves has publicised the information it's fine to include" shows you acknowledging that a single source can be acceptable. Now your turn: quote the policy text that you believe supports your interpretation.

"the ridiculous misapplication of BLP"

But we have three RSs, so I don't see how you consider it a misapplication even according to your misinterpretation. "have therefore removed the info based on a good faith BLP objection" What is that good faith BLP objection? I asked you this earlier and you didn't respond. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I explained above that the Free Beacon source is not reliable here; it's basically an opinion essay. Jankowicz losing her appeal qualifies as an incident and is covered by WP:PUBLICFIGURE. The divorce example makes it clear that this extends to court proceedings. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:04, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you raising the Free Beacon in response to me yet again? (Please answer.) I altready pointed out to Nil Einne that you'd rejected it, and I two additional sources besides Law360: Law.com, and the Wichita Eagle.

I don't agree that "Jankowicz losing her appeal qualifies as an incident." The divorce example makes clear that it can extend to court proceedings, but in no way dos it imply that it always extends to court proceedings. Moreover, the proposed sentence is about the appeal as a case, not simply about her losing the appeal (the final ruling in that case): that she decided to appeal is half of the proposed sentence. FactOrOpinion (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought you were counting the Free Beacon as one of the three supposedly reliable sources.

Incident means "an occurrence of an action or situation". Jankowicz filing an appeal of her case was an incident. Jankowicz losing her appeal was another incident. Basically anything that happens is an incident and so is covered by WP:PUBLICFIGURE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:06, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to participate in WT:BLP § Does PUBLICFIGURE apply to all content in a BLP or only allegations/incidents where there might be public figure privacy concerns ― FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given what you said there, I want to point out that I was not ignoring WP:BLPPRIMARY. I was not saying that any court documents should be used; I'm well-aware that they should not be. I was only saying that there is no privacy issue because the court docket is public and Jankowicz has chosen to discuss it publicly in her Substack. As for "Basically anything that happens is an incident," no, it isn't. And you should stop cutting off quotes in ways that alter their meaning. That M-W definition was "an occurrence of an action or situation that is a separate unit of experience", and of course it's not the only relevant definition there, nor is M-W's the only definition one might use. For example, the OED: "Something that occurs casually in the course of, or in connection with, something else, of which it constitutes no essential part; an event of accessory or subordinate character," "An occurrence or event viewed as a separate circumstance." Lastly, given that we now have 3 RSs―Law360 (where you asked for a relevant quote, I provided it, and you did not respond further), Law.com, and the Wichita Eagle―are you satisfied that there's sufficient sourcing? FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we're cherry-picking definitions, we could go with 1.b.: ... a particular episode (air-raid, skirmish, etc.) in war; an unpleasant or violent argument, a fracas per the OED. However, 2.a. an occurrence or event viewed as a separate circumstance is closer to the Merriam-Webster definition as well as to how most users probably understand the meaning of incident in this context. Or are you trying to say that this particular court case is somehow not a separate unit of experience? Armchair philosophy is fun, but saying that an occurrence of someone losing a court case is not also an incident is silly. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that the 3rd Circuit dismissal is a "separate circumstance." It's part of the appeal, which is in turn part of the case. Your statement was "Basically anything that happens is an incident." According to you, what is the "incident" here: the ruling? the appeal? the entire case? something else?

And are you going to say whether you agree that the 3 RSs are now sufficient? FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any of the above can be described as incidents. The one we're discussing is the Third Circuit's ruling. It certainly is a separate circumstance, since there was a time after the appeal been filed when the ruling didn't yet exist. So they are not one and the same. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By saying there is no privacy issue because the court docket is public, you are in fact ignoring WP:BLPPRIMARY. Privacy concerns around a court case involving a living person don't magically vanish just because the part of BLP policy that says Do not use trial transcripts and other court records ... to support assertions about a living person is in a different section than the one with the word privacy in the heading. The fact that Jankowicz discussed the case in her Substack is a separate issue entirely. You could have made a convincing argument with that instead of muddying the waters with the court records stuff. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If no reliable source discussed any part of this lawsuit, then absolutely we should not use court documents to include it. But once it's clear the mention of the suit has been brought up by RSes already and considered DUE to imclude, we should absolutely document all final court proceedings of that suit, even if those aren't covered by RSes, because it can be a BLP to leave the situation unresolved and appear the case is still going. That coverage should be strictly limited to what the courted determined without analysis, absent any other discussion from RSes. Masem (t) 19:37, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current revision of the article says, A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit in July 2024, citing two third-party WP:GREL sources. There's no mention of an appeal and no appearance that the case is still ongoing or unresolved. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It can be generally assumed that a person losing case will try to appeal the result, so citing the court de vision or these "blog" sources to say "she lost her appeal at soandso court" is definitely not a "claim" that BLPSPS is meant to require caution against. Masem (t) 21:10, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly wouldn't assume that; otherwise no lawsuit would ever end until it reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which seems unlikely. What is the basis for this assumption? Saying she lost her appeal presumes there was an appeal to begin with, which is not stated in the article. So yes, it's a claim that needs reliable sourcing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you refuse to say whether you accept that we now have reliable sourcing.

Masem, according to the stats here, the vast majority of district court rulings are not appealed.

Sangdeboeuf, although most Court of Appeals cases are not appealed to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court also denies certiorari to the vast majority of cases that are appealed to it. They only grant cert to ~3% of the appeals. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't suggest that privacy concerns around a court case involving a living person magically vanish just because the part of BLP policy that says Do not use trial transcripts and other court records ... to support assertions about a living person is in a different section than the one with the word privacy in the heading. But BLPPRIMARY says not to use them as sources. It does not say that editors cannot consider them in reasoning about something in a talk page discussion, including reasoning about whether a policy applies.

But again, we now have 3 RSs (4 if you count Jankowicz's Substack statements). No one is suggesting that the either BLPPRIMARY or PUBLICFIGURE be ignored here. Instead of continuing to go down rabbit holes, how about focusing on the main issue: can/should the info about the appeal be added now? FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) To be clear, when I said we took ages to get here, let's not forget that this thread has included a bunch of junk arguments like claims something in an a BLP is not about a living person, or continual claims that the The Volokh Conspiracy is not self-published or that it's somehow okay to use despite being an SPS and other stuff. And even now we still have the silly claim that it isn't covered by PUBLICFIGURE. 21:50, 30 September 2025 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Perhaps I also shared a role in this, but OTOH, if someone brings up The National Reviewer, I think it's reasonable to point out that even if we accept that this is a source completely fine for a BLP, the actual article does not support any claim editors want to make about an appeal, even that it existed, except via WP:Synthesis. It's important editors recognise this if they want to edit not just BLPs, but any articles. Nil Einne (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A claim which relates to a notable event, which is objectively true, can be proven to be objectively true by the entities which adjudicate it, is agreed to be true by the article subject, and... what? What is the BLP issue? jp×g🗯️ 04:54, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything true is encyclopedic information. See your own comment below where you say it's obviously the case that this is a BLP issue. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest starting an RfC on the article's talk page. Some1 (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find it extraordinary that editors are debating whether a legal case involving a living person in a biography of that living person is a BLP issue. It is a textbook case of a BLP

issue. The only question for debate then is whether the sources mentioning it are solidly reliable. I suggest that dispute

mighy be best resolved on RSN rather than here or locally, especially given the war-like situation in the local forum. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:35, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely false. Nobody is debating "whether a legal case involving a living person in a biography of that living person is a BLP issue". This is obviously the case. The question is whether, given that the case is already attested to by reliable sources, what hurdles must be cleared by all citations to subsequent information about it (e.g. the success or failure of further appeals). Given, of course, that the claim in question is objectively true, and that nobody has ever doubted that it's true, and that the article's subject agrees that it is true. jp×g🗯️ 04:51, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the case is already attested to by reliable sources is exactly what we're discussing. For my part, I'm fine with the Law360 source along with Jankowicz's Substack. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recently removed an assertion that Nina Jankowicz resigned from the short-lived Disinformation Governance Board (DGB) following "widespread public criticism". This omits necessary context and is not directly supported by the majority of relevant sources, which say criticism of Jankowicz herself mostly came from right-wing media and politicians spreading falsehoods about her role in the government. Some examples:

[Jankowicz] became the target of a sustained disinformation campaign herself. Right-wing trolls on the internet waged continuous attacks ... Prominent Republicans and Fox News, mining conservative perceptions of leftist bias in tech, derisively dubbed the board a 'ministry of truth.'
— Time

The creation of a board, announced last week, has turned into a partisan fight over disinformation itself ... Within hours of the announcement, Republican lawmakers began railing against the board ...
— The New York Times

[Jankowicz] resigned Wednesday after the program was paused amid criticism from Republicans on Capitol Hill ... Jankowicz and the board faced backlash from congressional Republicans, who alleged it would be used as a tool by Democrats to stifle free speech.
— NBC News

Jankowicz's appointment quickly drew condemnation from GOP lawmakers and right-wing media ...
— CNN

Jankowicz, 33, is now finding that Republican lawmakers are scrutinizing her previous comments and social media posts for signs of partisanship.
— CBS News

Conservative pundits and social media users pushed conspiracy theories ... Others put out false claims that Jankowicz planned to edit the tweets of everyday Twitter users.
— Associated Press

A bevy of Republicans ... questioned the fitness of the board’s executive director, Nina Jankowicz ... Geraghty argued, along with others on the right, that Jankowicz’s inclusion in the effort was a red flag.
— The Washington Post (1)

[Jankowicz] became a primary target on the right-wing Internet. She has been subject to an unrelenting barrage of harassment and abuse while unchecked misrepresentations of her work continue to go viral.
— The Washington Post (2)

[Jankowicz's] stint heading the Biden administration’s Disinformation Governance Board lasted a few weeks last spring before the board itself was dissolved by the administration following an outcry by GOP lawmakers ...
— Politico

I had previously added a summary along these lines to the lead section, which was reverted by another user here.

Several sources acknowledge legitimate criticism of the DGB, which should not be conflated with criticism of Jankowicz herself.

Finally, while there was some criticism of Jankowicz from a few left-leaning outlets such as FAIR, these are primary opinion sources. Labeling this as "widespread" criticism is original research and enables an ongoing partisan smear campaign against a living person. Some additional eyeballs here would be appreciated. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A view among a group that includes "prominent Republicans," "Fox News," "congressional Republicans," "GOP lawmakers" more broadly, the "right-wing media," "conservative pundits and social media users," "a bevy of Republicans," "others on the right," and "the right-wing internet" can safely be described as widespread. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, then it should be easy to find several quality, mainstream sources calling it widespread. Anything less is original research. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CALC: "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources." The number of conservative social media users, considered alone, easily runs into millions of people. Calling this widespread is fine. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation of "widespread" requires the criticism to extend beyond a single group, even if that is a very large group. -- Reconrabbit 18:52, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A view held by a very large group is widespread. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How are you assessing what counts as a "single group"? For example, do you consider {right-wing trolls} U {conservative social media users} U {"others on the right"} to be three groups, or do you consider their union to be a subset of {the right-wing internet} and therefore a single group? Do you consider {right wing pundits} U {Fox News} to be two groups or a subset of {right-wing media} and therefore a single group? Do you {GOP lawmakers} U {prominent Republicans} to be two groups or a subset of {a bevy of Republicans} and therefore one group? One can always create one group that contains specific subsets. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was oversimplifying and I recognize my mistake here. As Sangdebouef is saying, and as I agree (if I am interpreting this right): "resigned due to widespread criticism", the removed assertion, is not equivalent to "resigned due to criticism from right-wing media, conservative pundits and social media users, a bevy of Republicans, others on the right, and the right-wing internet". -- Reconrabbit 19:31, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your use of set notation. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes so we mention a grouping which best encompasses what reliable sources have said. It's clear that this group is something akin to "widespread criticism from the right" or similar rather than point blank "widespread criticism" since sources talking about this criticism include various subgroups on the right but notable do not include those on the left or even in the middle. It would be misleading to summarise the criticism she received as simply widespread, since RS present a gaping chasm in who criticised her. Nil Einne (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Widespread criticism from the right" seems more accurate than "widespread criticism". Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CALC is about mathematical calculations, not characterizations of criticisms of living people. It is certainly not applicable here. Elestrophe (talk) 03:36, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CALC refers to "routine calculations." Unless you disagree that the persons under consideration are numerous, it applies. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase widespread public criticism is neither routine nor the result of a calculation. If you have somehow managed to mathematically calculate it, then please show your work. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The observation that the total number of persons whom you listed here is numerous is entirely routine. Unless you claim that they are not numerous, then the details of the calculation don't matter. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither I nor the quoted sources say anything about the actual number of persons. Numerous is your interpretation; it is not the result of any calculation. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That a group including the "right-wing media," "conservative pundits and social media users," "a bevy of Republicans," and "the right-wing internet" is numerous is not merely my interpretation. Bevy means "a large group of people or things of a particular kind." Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a large group of Republicans. Not the public at large. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

37% of Americans describe themselves as conservative, so roughly a hundred million people. Since 25% identify as liberal, conservatives more represent the public at large than the liberals. A lot of Republicans is a lot of people, and a view held among them is widespread. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, that is your interpretation. It is not a verifiable summary of the actual text of published, reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the fact that the persons described are numerous is not my interpretation and summarizing a view among them as widespread is acceptable per MOS:LEAD. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:LEAD does not outweigh policies like WP:NOR. Just repeating yourself that there were "numerous" persons is not enough. You have to verify each statement with a source that makes that statement explicitly. That applies to the lead as much as the rest of the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They're not numerous because I'm repeating that they're numerous; they're simply numerous, as per your sources. Ascertaining that number is not original research as per WP:CALC, and calling a view among them widespread is acceptable per MOS:LEAD. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote the published, reliable sources saying there were "numerous" critics of Jankowicz. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You already did it for me. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is original research, and even if it were supported by reliable sources, using it to support your characterization would be WP:SYNTH. Elestrophe (talk) 15:01, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Routine calculations do not count as original research and the characterization is an acceptable as a summary as per MOS:LEAD. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is all starting to get very silly. It's already been explained to you once that WP:CALC applies to articles about math, not to determining whether something couns as "numerous" per RS. This is also looking like a WP:1AM situation. Simonm223 (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't apply to "articles about math," it applies to "routine calculations." I won't discuss the behavior of other editors. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CALC is fairly narrow in scope, and applies mostly to numeric calculations. Policy concerning direct grammatical extrapolation (e.g. whether six instances of something can be described as "several") is more like, I suppose, WP:SKYBLUE in the cases where it is indeed direct. I don't know that this is necessarily one of those cases., jp×g🗯️ 12:53, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Widespread” is a claim about breadth as well as simple numerous-ness. If the criticism is concentrated in one political corner (as here), it’s not widespread, even if the critics in that corner are numerous. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:16, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Responsible critics had a substantive complaint about Jankowicz with respect to the Disinformation Governance Board: she had pushed the false narrative of the Hunter Biden laptop as Russian election interference, and as such was not qualified or sufficiently disinterested to decide what constituted "disinformation." "Jankowicz repeatedly made public statements indicating that she held this view, too. She shared national security officials' "high confidence" that the Hunter Biden story was part of a Russian influence campaign. She described the idea that the laptop had been left behind at a repair shop as "a fairy tale." This was a critical test of whether disinformation experts could check their innate tendency to ascribe everything unfavorable to the Democratic Party as Russian nefariousness, and they utterly failed. Jankowicz failed as well."--Reason That they were "spreading falsehoods about her role in the government" elides the problem that bears mentioning in the article. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The groups described are a fairly limited subset of 'widespread'. The Reason article linked is pretty speculative and connects the resignation to specifically these criticisms (from "right-wing "coordinated online attacks""), which I would say disproves this being widespread criticism. -- Reconrabbit 18:15, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed the "widespread" objection above. This point was regarding the notion that various conservatives were "spreading falsehoods about her role in the government." That fails to deal with the substantiative criticism that bears on the article. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If sources criticising her are all coming from one direction and this is something many RS summarising the situation have mentioned, our article should mention this whatever that direction is rather than just summarising it as widespread. Nil Einne (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As noted here, the criticism was not all coming from one direction. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That says it was. What am I missing? Nil Einne (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Finally, while there was some criticism of Jankowicz from a few left-leaning outlets such as FAIR, these are primary opinion sources." Which it to say that it exists, but the nominator has found a reason to discount it. Reason is a libertarian publication, not a conservative one. The Nation is partisan left, and they criticized the Jankowicz appointment as well. The correct descriptor for the view that the Jankowicz appointment was concerning is widespread. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was widespread on the right. It was not widespread on the left. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It also was not widespread among Kurdish separatists, guqin players, or Maasai cattle ranchers. But in the context of American politics, it included vast swaths of the right and civil libertarians across partisan divides, handily millions of people. In other words, widespread, tendentious contextualization notwithstanding. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an RS that supports "it included vast swaths of ... civil libertarians across partisan divides," please present it. Otherwise it's WP:OR, which you can discuss here, but cannot be added to the article. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:27, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to be read: civil libertarians across partisan divides, and vast swaths of the right. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 02:22, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're still arguing that there are two sets where there is widespread criticism of her: (1) those on the right (for which we have RSs), and (2) civil libertarians across partisan divides (for which you have not presented RSs). (2) may be true, but being true isn't sufficient for adding content to an article. Unless you can present RSs saying so, it's OR. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have already presented RSs in the form of Reason and The Nation elsewhere in this discussion. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where either of those sources comments on "civil libertarians across partisan divides" as a group. Please quote what you're referring to. FactOrOpinion (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Under discussion is the wording of a lead. Summaries are acceptable in leads as per MOS:LEAD. Inclusion of those items in the article would make widespread a reasonable summary of the criticism. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That can be arranged. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reason is not a particularly reliable source for discussing the actions of civil libertarians "across partisan divides" as Reason rather exclusively speaks with the voice of hard-right "libertarians". Simonm223 (talk) 12:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't correct, see WP:REASONMAGAZINE and About Reason.Tioaeu8943 (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The linked entry states that "Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight". The partiality of the article would make it at least partially the opinion of Robby Soave. -- Reconrabbit 13:27, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles in the news cycle are at least partially the opinions of their authors. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between news outlets with strong editorial oversight and opinion pieces where the author is free to sound off. The Reason piece by Robby Soave is one of the latter. Any published piece of media saying things like they utterly failed is essentially an opinion piece. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would frankly like to reopen WP:REASONNEWS - they blend news and opinion far too much for WP:GREL status. Simonm223 (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The same could be said of the sources cited by the nominator. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really love it when arguments are such vague innuendo that I don't even know what sources they're referring to. Simonm223 (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I second the concerns about WP:REASONNEWS and would like to see a new discussion about it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those distinctions have no bearing on the wording of the lead of this article. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to your comment about most articles in the news cycle. If journalist's opinions have no bearing here, then why are we talking about them? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You tell me. What about Soave's reporting is unreliable, and how does it bear on the lead of the article? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in his reporting. I was disputing your characterization of WP:GREL news sources like the ones I quoted above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then you're off-topic with respect to this discussion and there's no need to consider that dispute any further. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal definition of "hard-right" seems to include basically everybody, so I hope you can forgive me for taking this claim with a grain of salt. jp×g🗯️ 12:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a reliable source saying Jankowicz was criticized by millions of people or even vast swaths of the right, please present it here. Otherwise this is an interpretive statement not supported by sources.

The Nation is a primary source for its own criticism of Jankowicz. Wikipedia articles rely instead on reliable, secondary sources. This is essential regarding criticism of living people. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already pointed out that your sources describe millions of people and counting is not WP:OR. All sources are primary with respect to their own reporting. If The Nation is not usable for the reason you cite, then we should throw away the whole encyclopedia. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Millions of people is your own interpretation. Even if it were true, we would need a published RS that explicitly supports this interpretation per WP:V and WP:NOR.

We are talking specifically about criticism by left-leaning outlets such as The Nation, not just reporting. If we are going to label something as "criticism", we need a reliable, secondary source documenting said criticism. Otherwise BLPs would just become an indiscriminate collection of hot takes, which is definitely not good encyclopedia writing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:02, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Even if it were true, we would need a published RS that explicitly supports this interpretation per WP:V and WP:NOR." That's not correct. We're discussing the wording of a lead. Summaries are expected in leads as per MOS:LEAD. Reporting can be critical, as is evidenced by your original examples. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:LEAD, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. I would say that an allegation of "widespread criticism" is certainly significant.

MOS:LEAD does not justify ignoring core content policies. Original research means to state or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by reliable sources, end of story. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Widespread criticism is an acceptable summary for the criticism covered in the remainder of the article as per MOS:LEAD. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, for the reasons already stated by others and myself. Unless published, reliable sources explicitly say criticism was widespread (using that or equivalent phrasing), such an allegation would be an WP:ATTACK, i.e. biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced, and therefore prohibited by policy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have referred to a policy summarized as, "Do not create pages which serve no purpose beyond disparaging or threatening their subjects, or biographical articles which are unsourced and entirely negative in tone." It does not apply to the wording of this lead. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted the policy directly. It definitely applies. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one is creating a page which serves no purpose beyond disparaging or threatening its subject in this instance. It does not apply here. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that was the purpose. You are ignoring the actual text of WP:ATTACK which I quoted above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The actual text is a neutral observation and WP:ATTACK does not apply to it in any fashion. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous hairsplitting to justify a political agenda: "the thing was only criticized by right-wingers, except all of those people who weren't right-wingers, but they don't count, due to using an arbitrarily different standard to decide whether they count as critics"? Come on. jp×g🗯️ 08:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is expressed at WP:PUBLICFIGURE: If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. We have multiple reliable third-party sources describing criticism from right-wingers. we don't have equivalent sources describing criticism from leftists or centrists. That's not arbitrary. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of items on that page that have only one source attached to it. @JPxG is right. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCONTENT exists, big deal. We are specifically talking about allegations or incidents that might paint the subject in a bad light. The policy says we need multiple reliable sources for such claims. Do I need to quote it again? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:15, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources themselves need sources saying that they're notable? Do you actually believe the thing you have just said? jp×g🗯️ 06:05, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I said. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:12, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(COI: I know Jankowicz personally)

The Reason article does not constitute a substantive complaint about Jankowicz:

1. Its basis is claims about her past statements about the Hunter Biden laptop, but these claims are largely inaccurate and have been disputed by her (see bottom)
2. The Disinformation Governance Board's purview did not involve deciding what constituted "disinformation"

Tentchair (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was gracious of Reason to print her contentions, but her remarks on the record contradict them. Per the document linked in your second point, the first stated purpose of the DGB was "Identifying MDM," the board's shorthand for mis-, dis-, and malinformation. Since the definition of disinformation is "false information that is intended to mislead," its identification would have hinged on scrutiny of intentions and thus consist of value judgments, hence decisions. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That 2025 remark of hers is a factual observation about the intelligence officials' letter, not an endorsement of it. It doesn't retroactively support faulty claims by Reason or others that she labeled the laptop as Russian disinformation, which she never did.

While DHS' work "already underway" prior to the Disinformation Governance Board did include "identifying MDM", the next paragraph of the charter lays out that the Board's role was merely to "develop and support the implementation of governance policies and protocols" for that work. As the document makes clear, Jankowicz and the Board were not adjudicating truth or labeling speech as disinformation.

Bringing it back to the context of this discussion, while it is certainly true that many have criticized Jankowicz personally, criticism based on false and misleading coverage of a few statements she made about a news story in 2020 amount to more of an "ongoing partisan smear campaign against a living person" than "substantive complaint" or "legitimate criticism". Tentchair (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Factual" is a not a convincing way to describe her concurrence with the former intelligence officials' specious analysis, particularly given that said analysis was falsified and she further characterized the laptop as a Trump campaign product. To "develop and support the implementation of governance policies and protocols" could have easily empowered Jankowicz to help set up a censorship regime. Unlike the speculation about the laptop, suspicions about the burgeoning censorship regime turned out to be true. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very fascinating, but we are not here to decide whether intelligence officials' analysis was specious, whether Jankowicz could have easily set up a censorship regime, or even whether critics had a substantive complaint about Jankowicz. That is for published, reliable sources to determine; we merely summarize what reliable sources say. (Mark Zuckerberg is not a reliable source either.) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:14, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, this is not an appropriate discussion for someone who knows Jankowicz personally to make claims about her supposed blamelessness. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 12:55, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying Jankowicz is blameless. However, using Wikipedia to "set the record straight" about someone you apparently see as a villain is not appropriate either. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the case here. The purpose of the discussion is to address the wording of the lead. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not your noticeboard. jp×g🗯️ 08:16, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was. It's also not a discussion forum or platform for free speech. If you disagree, take it up at the relevant policy page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any contradiction. Please quote two statements from her that you believe are contradictory (full quotes please, not just phrases, along with an identification of the source of the quote, so I can look it up and see it in fuller context if I want). Also, the Daily Caller is not a reliable source (see WP:DAILYCALLER).

I disagree that scrutiny of intentions necessarily involves value judgments (judgments, yes, but not all judgments are value judgments). There are only a few categories of false statements: purposefully false (most often as a lie: a knowingly false statement said with intent to deceive; sometimes in some other category, such as a joke or the initial false statement in a proof by contradiction, where it's knowingly false but there is no intent to deceive), mistakes (false, but not with an intent to decieve), delusions (the person can't distinguish between actual and imagined), disinterest in the truth (the person doesn't care whether something is true or false and sometimes says things that are false). Maybe there are some other categories, but those are the ones that come to mind. There are also true statements that are misleading, as with half-truths, where the person knowingly omits key info. For me, distinguishing among these things relies on factual info (e.g., is the person known to make a lot of false statements? is the person in a good position to know the truth if they want to know it? how does the person act when they learn it's false: do they apologize or thank the person for the correction? do they keep it in mind in the future? etc.). FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be getting off-topic. It's not up to us to decide whether Jankowicz's statements were contradictory nor whether there were value judgments inherent in the DGB's purpose. We're simply here to document what reliable secondary sources have said about Jankowicz and here role in the DGB. So far, what we see to have from sources is that she resigned following criticism (or widespread criticism) of her role from those on the right. So that's what we can say. We lack sources supporting widespread criticism point blank. Whether this criticism was fair, the left and middle were wrong to not also criticise her etc is not for us to decide. Nil Einne (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can also say that she resigned after the DGB was paused, despite an offer of another government position of unknown length (I'm relying on memory of what I've read, I don't have RSs at hand for it). We have sources to support that there was widespread criticism on the right. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I don't see a problem with mentioning there was widespread criticism on the right. The problem is with presenting it as widespread criticism point blank since that doesn't seem to be supported by the sources (or at least the quotes) presented thus far. Nil Einne (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Widespread criticism on the right seems like a bit of a garden path phrase; starting off with "widespread criticism" plants an idea in the reader's mind of, well, widespread criticism, before they get to the qualifier "on the right". I prefer my original wording "criticism from conservative politicians and media outlets" (which Jankowicz said had led to online harassment and threats to her personal safety). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC) edited 13:37, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think "Widespread criticism on the right" is better than "widespread criticism" with no qualifiers but I think "criticism from the right" would be better still. Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources seems to emphasize the idea that it was criticism from the right; nothing seems to really describe or characterize it as widespread in any context. So "criticism from the right" is probably the best way to approach it. --Aquillion (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. jp×g🗯️ 08:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it? Another response above (unless I'm misintepreting what you aim to imply with "This is ridiculous") suggests that "due to criticism from right wingers" is an apt description. What other description works from your perspective? -- Reconrabbit 11:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all the criticism came from right-wingers, so long as we disregard the criticism that came from anybody else, since this doesn't count. Furthermore, the entire population of the planet Earth lives in Belgium, if we simply disregard the people who live elsewhere. jp×g🗯️ 12:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying all the criticism came from right-wingers. This is about following BLP policy, specifically in regard to supporting claims with multiple independent reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's about bringing you a rock. jp×g🗯️ 06:42, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Kindly WP:AGF. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:58, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did assume good faith -- the policy does not require editors to continue assuming it for all eternity regardless of reality. jp×g🗯️ 04:35, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I misinterpreted what you were saying the first time, sorry. -- Reconrabbit 13:20, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly can be made to look that way. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 13:07, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those claims were not supported by multiple reliable third-party sources. Instead of griping about it, why don't you join the the discussion on the talk page? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve read this whole discussion carefully and looked at the sources. Based on the evidence and arguments presented, I concur that "Widespread criticism on the right" is fine, "criticism from the right" is better, and "widespread criticism" with no qualifiers is unacceptable as misleading. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:28, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't. jp×g🗯️ 04:55, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you. But this is not a straw poll, and simple contradiction is not an argument. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve read this whole discussion carefully and looked at the sources. Based on the evidence and arguments presented, I don't concur. jp×g🗯️ 04:53, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Using twenty words instead of three to say the exact same thing is not an improvement. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Saavedra Gutiérrez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• While I usually use this noticeboard to report BLP-violating concerns requiring extra eyes, my concerns in this case are related to some apparently blatant whitewashing in this article on a Puerto Rican politician dating back to 2020. There are two brief comments on the corresponding talk page about maintaining neutrality in the article, but the reality is that an editor, AviendhaGarret, who is an WP:SPA, completely stripped the article from significant criticism. These edits took the article from this version to this sanitized version that removes all of the seemingly well-sourced criticism. Prior to AviendhaGarret, an IP geolocating to Puerto Roco also repeatedly removed the sourced criticism as "vandalism". This whitewashed version remains as the current version, with some bot-type maintenance and further minor edits from Puerto Rican IPs. Is there someone (preferably someone with the language skills to evaluate the sources which at first glance appear to be major news sources meeting WP:RS) who could take a look at restoring at least some of the criticism with an eye to WP:BLP and WP:DUE?--AlsoPonyo (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't speak Spanish, the earlier version definitely seems to have had problems. For example, the earlier version said "To date, Saavedra’s tenure as Secretary of Labor is one of the most controversial in Puerto Rican history". I question whether we should ever call someone's tenure the most controversial in history based on one media source especially when the tenure only ended 6 years ago, but in any case I'm not convinced the source even supports the claim as it seems to be mostly about a petition and is from before the tenure even ended..... Nil Einne (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There were certainly POV issues with the criticism as it was presented, which is why it shouldn't be restored as is. That said, there should be some middle ground between including the non-neutral POV version and removing all criticism entirely.--AlsoPonyo (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have begun an RfC on the above subject at Talk:Political views of J. K. Rowling#RfC about holocaust denial and would value community input. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:18, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen evidence of JK Rowling denying the Holocaust and an secondary source search brings up nothing of note. Reddit and Substack pages are the only things I can find pushing this narrative. Agnieszka653 (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Raul Gainetdinov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is basically a monograph by a WP:SPA. It reads like a PR biography and lacks sources that are actually about the subject, relying instead on references to his own publications. I am aware that the notability guideline for academics is routinely interpreted as mandating inclusion based on h-index, but this article definitely needs some work, preferably form someone experienced int he field. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:38, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Matt Kibbe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This seems to me to stretch the limits of WP:ABOUTSELF. Virtually all the content is from affiliated sources (e.g. his bio at a speakers' bureau). It is unclear to me if there is any merit in having two articles, one on him and one on his libertarian "education nonprofit" Free the People Foundation, which article also reads as breathless PR but does have a few actually independent sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:59, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ricardo Duchesne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

After lengthy discussions on the article talk page, we've not made much progress on what we can say about Duchesne's grandfather, unable to get beyond reliability and verifiability concerns. Here's the latest proposal, containing material about other relatives as well:

Among his siblings his older brother, Juan Ramón Duchesne Winter, has become a professor of Latin American Literature at the University of Pittsburgh with a special interest in indigenous cultures.^[1][2][3] and his sister, Rossana Duchesne Winter, is an archival researcher who investigates little-known aspects of Puerto Rican history.^[4][5] She has reported that their grandfather was Rafael Duchesne Mondriguez, a significant jazz clarinetist and composer who played as a soloist with the Harlem Hellfighters, the American regimental band that introduced jazz music to Europe, as part of his military service during the First World War.^[6][7] After the war Mondriguez returned to live in Puerto Rico where he taught music and continued to perform and compose.^[8]

Are the sources reliable, is all information verified, and does all this information belong in this article?

I don't think the self-published obituary is reliable, the actual verification of the relationships to Duchesne isn't in these sources but rather relies on OR/SYN to make the connection. --Hipal (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The obituary, written by the family, is reliable for the limited purpose of naming the family members, and is confirmed by one of the family members, Juan, writing a biographical essay about his mother confirming the relationship. (Two of the family members, Juan and Rossana, have also written about their relationship to their mother in the Mexican literary magazine Taller Igitur, but those articles are temporarily off line because the magazine has migrated to a new web-host and only the most recent issue is available on line) Bob Gollum (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If a source previously existed but changed hosts, it might be archived. Have you checked the Wayback Machine or similar? JFHJr (㊟) 17:42, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the obituary, WP:OBITUARIES.

If someone believes that the family relationships are verified, please indicate which sources do so, and any chain of relationships identified in each that connect these family members directly to Richard so it's clear WP:V and WP:OR are not being violated. --Hipal (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on the wayback machine. The review's facebook page, youtube channel and blogposts all announce an article by Rossana and Juan Roman Duchesne about their mother Coralie, but the article itself exists only in a print version now.

https://www.tumblr.com/viecome/654700577460224000/carta-in%C3%A9dita-de-dylan-thomas-a-coralie-winter

https://loscuadernosdevieco.blog/2021/06/22/carta-inedita-de-dylan-thomas-a-coralie-winter/ Bob Gollum (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability issues aside, if the only source we have is an obit written by the family I question whether these comply with WP:BLPNAME. It seems clear no other secondary source particularly cares about the connection between these non-notable family members and the subject so nor should we. The grandfather is I assume deceased so BLP doesn't apply but stuff like "has" and "is" suggest the siblings might still be living so it does. Nil Einne (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the above before having read the article and either never having heard of the subject or if I did I'd forgotten. Now that I have, I have even more reasons to question mentioning these living non-notable family members. There's absolutely no reason why these family member should have the probably only mention of their names on Wikipedia be in an article on someone with highly controversial views, views which they might not share. Again this technically doesn't apply to the grandfather but I'd also question why we're including mention of him if no reliable secondary source felt it worth mentioning. It doesn't seem anyone else really cares who this guy's family is, so nor should we. Nil Einne (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The obitby the family is not the only source.

WP:BLPNAME provides that inclusion of family members is "subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject". Editorial discretion does not mean you need a reliable secondary source to say it is relevant. It means exactly the opposite. Bob Gollum (talk) 05:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to what I said above, I have zero idea what on earth "have also written about their relationship to their mother in the Mexican literary magazine Taller Igitur" has to do with anything. The article is on "Ricardo Duchesne". It's not on his sisters, his mother or anything else. There might be limited merit to mention his family if reliable secondary sources have made some mention of Ricardo Duchesne's family in relation to him. But stuff about connections between other family members and their shared family members, has almost definitely nothing to do with Ricardo Duchesne and do not belong in an article on Ricardo Duchesne. Nil Einne (talk) 23:35, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have the notability all backwards! Duchesne is notable only for being a racist. None of his writing has been at all influential or notable outside of the white nationalist microcosm, where academics are otherwise few and far between. On the other hand, his grandfather is a jazz musician who has left an imprint on history and been influential in spreading jazz music to Europe, his siblings are accomplished academics, his mother was a writer and playwright and performer, active on the literary scene in Canada. He is the least notable of the group. And it is common on wikipedia pages to situate the subject among his family members. Barack Obama's page mentions his great-great-grandfather.

More to the point though - we have a white nationalist with race-based ideas about Western superiority who is not only of mixed race, but whose afro-puerto-rican ancestor and relatives were significant historical figures. One cannot say that contradiction is irrelevant to an understanding of his life and ideas.

Perhaps the best solution is to do a wikipedia page on the grandfather and then link to that. Certainly he merits one. Bob Gollum (talk) 04:34, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Similar to what I said above, I have zero idea what on earth "have also written about their relationship to their mother in the Mexican literary magazine Taller Igitur" has to do with anything."

Nothing to do with nothing, other than that hipal was speculating that they might be related to some different Afro-Puerto-Rican academic from Montreal named Duchesne. It was included for his benefit, to confirm the family connection. Bob Gollum (talk) 05:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One cannot say that contradiction is irrelevant to an understanding of his life and ideas. That's OR to present a POV not in BLP-quality sources. --Hipal (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not OR; the idea is to present the information from reliable BLP sources so as to allow the reader to have the facts to come to their own conclusions. Bob Gollum (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "idea" isn't in any sources. Please drop it. --Hipal (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m raising a concern regarding the lead and content of the Jimmy Keene article, specifically the terminology used and the structure of the introduction. First, the use of the word “informant” to describe Keene’s role in the FBI’s operation is inaccurate and potentially misleading under Wikipedia’s Biographies of Living Persons policy (WP:BLP) and Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV). Under U.S. law (e.g., 50 U.S.C. § 3126(6)), informant refers to someone who passively furnishes information under a confidential relationship. It does not cover individuals formally recruited, embedded, and tasked with gathering evidence as part of a federal operation. In contrast, operative—and more specifically, “FBI operative”—is the correct term for Keene's role, as he: Was actively recruited by federal law enforcement, trained and hired

- Was transferred to a high-security facility - Operated under FBI direction to elicit a confession from a suspected serial killer - Undertook a covert, intelligence-gathering mission consistent with undercover field operations

This distinction is legally and factually significant. U.S. Supreme Court cases including: United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264 (1980), and Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (1990) make clear that undercover operatives embedded in custodial environments are distinct from informants, especially in terms of legal status and the protections involved. Using “informant” in the article downplays the seriousness and formal nature of Keene’s mission and risks violating WP:BLP by presenting an imprecise and potentially damaging characterization. Second, the lead sentence should reflect proper biographical structure. Jimmy Keene is a current author, which is his ongoing public identity, and a former FBI operative, which is a notable historical role.

The lead should follow Wikipedia’s biographical standards and present his primary, current role first: Jimmy Keene is an American author and former FBI operative. The order of these descriptors matters for clarity, neutrality, and accuracy — and aligns with the Wikipedia Manual of Style for biographies (MOS:LEADBIO), which recommends listing current roles before past ones unless the past role is the subject’s main notability (which it is not, in this case — his writing career is ongoing and independently notable).

Third, the inclusion of the term “jailhouse” in the lead is problematic. Using “jailhouse operative” or similar phrasing can be misleading or pejorative and risks casting the subject in a negative light beyond what reliable sources support. Such wording could be interpreted as sensational or defamatory and may violate WP:BLP by introducing undue negative connotations that are not neutral or well-sourced.

Finally, I respectfully request that all instances of the term “informant” throughout the article be reviewed and replaced with “operative” or “FBI operative” where accurate. This change is necessary to maintain factual accuracy and neutrality in describing Mr. Keene’s role. Anyone reviewing the edit history can clearly see that the repeated reintroduction of “informant” and “jailhouse” phrasing appears to be done solely to defame and focus on negative language, which goes against Wikipedia’s biography guidelines and policies on neutrality and biographies of living persons.

For context, most reliable sources and articles available publicly present Jimmy Keene in a positive or neutral light, consistent with the factual record and his career as an author and former FBI operative. For these reasons, I request review and guidance to bring the article into compliance with WP:BLP and Wikipedia’s biography style policies. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandyn987 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Jimmy Keene Knitsey (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong opinion over the informant/operative question (other than to note that words not infrequently have specific definitions in particular laws which are not the same as how they are used everyday, and as a general-audience encyclopedia rather than a resource for American lawyers Wikipedia should use words which are most helpful to a lay audience even if those words have a different meaning in specific legal contexts.

As for recommends listing current roles before past ones unless the past role is the subject’s main notability (which it is not, in this case — his writing career is ongoing and independently notable) – it looks to me as though insofar as Keene is notable as an author, it is for writing his memoirs about his criminal past and time in prison; his role as an informant/operative/whatever else you want to call it absolutely looks to be Keene's primary source of notability. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Just to clarify a few points:

If Keene’s primary notability comes from his work with the FBI—particularly in the Larry Hall case—then that should be reflected clearly in the lead. Something along the lines of: "James Keene is a former FBI operative and currently an American author." That would accurately reflect both the basis of his public recognition and his ongoing career.

Also, while I understand that legal terminology can differ from everyday usage, there’s a meaningful distinction between an informant and an operative, especially in Keene’s case. He wasn’t simply passing along information. He was actively recruited by the FBI, agreed to transfer from a low-security prison to a high-security facility, and was placed undercover to elicit a confession from a suspected serial killer. That level of planning, risk, and involvement goes well beyond what most people would associate with the term “informant.”

So, even if "operative" has a more specific meaning in some legal contexts, it more accurately conveys the nature of Keene’s role to a general audience. "Informant" risks oversimplifying or mischaracterizing what he actually did. Sandyn987 (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Caeciliusinhorto that Keene's primary notability seems to come from his time in prison or in particular what he did there and even his notability as an author derives from his work about this. He might have continued to write on other stuff, but so far those writings don't seem to have gained much coverage. I don't know what the right word to use here is, but I think it is important that we reflect somehow in the lead that he wasn't just some random person who agreed to go into prison be an operative for the FBI but instead someone already in prison who agreed to be transferred & work for them putting themselves at risk etc in exchange for a greatly reduced time in prison and mostly an end to the consequences after they were released. Nil Einne (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear and well-recognized distinction in U.S. law enforcement terminology—and in legal cases—between an informant and an undercover operative, and Wikipedia’s guidelines support using terminology that is accurate, neutral, and helpful to a general audience.

An informant (often referred to as a Confidential Informant or CI) is typically someone who provides information to law enforcement, often in exchange for leniency or other benefits, but who does not usually undergo training or embed in long-term operations. See U.S. v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331 (9th Cir. 1993), which discusses the reliability and role of confidential informants, typically involving limited cooperation.

In contrast, an undercover operative is someone who is actively recruited, trained, and assigned to carry out covert work on behalf of law enforcement, often involving significant planning and personal risk. This aligns with law enforcement usage (e.g., DOJ and FBI manuals differentiate between CIs and undercover agents/operatives).

In Keene’s case, he was recruited by the FBI, agreed to transfer from a low-security to a high-security prison, and was embedded undercover to obtain a confession from a suspected serial killer. That level of involvement fits the role of an operative, not simply an informant.

Per Wikipedia’s guidelines on identifying reliable sources and writing for a general audience, we should use terminology that is both accurate and comprehensible. "Operative" more accurately conveys the nature of Keene’s involvement and avoids misleading readers into thinking he played a passive or minor role.

Therefore, it’s appropriate and well within Wikipedia policy to describe James Keene in the lead as a former FBI operative and current American author, especially given that this operation is the basis of his public notability. Sandyn987 (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also add that the use of LLM to generate comments is highly problematic, see WP:AITALK and Wikipedia:Large language models#Communicating. While technically editors are allowed to use LLMs to refine comments, it's almost always a bad idea. Editors should just write entirely in their own words even if their English is not perfect. At a minimum, the use of LLMs to write comments generally means whoever wrote that is often ignored whereas if they wrote entirely with their own words, editors may pay more attention to them even if their English is not perfect. Nil Einne (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to explain why I think “operative” is the better word here.

An informant is usually someone who gives information to the police, often to get a lighter sentence or stay out of trouble. They’re not trained or sent into a situation by law enforcement — they just pass on tips.

What James Keene did was very different. The FBI asked him to help with an undercover operation. He agreed to leave a low-security prison and go into a high-security one, where he was supposed to get close to a suspected serial killer and try to get a confession. That’s not something a typical informant does — that’s someone working directly with the FBI in a risky, undercover role. That’s what the word operative means.

Wikipedia is meant for general readers, not legal experts, so we should use the word that best explains what happened. Calling Keene an operative is clearer and more accurate than informant, which sounds like he just passed along info.

So I think the lead should say: “James Keene is a former FBI operative and currently an American author.” That covers both what made him known to the public and what he does now. Sandyn987 (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Couple things: books written by Keene are probably not reliable sources in this context. Second, your push for inclusion of "operative" makes me think that is not the most neutral way to explain the notability of his life. I proposed a lead sentence on the talk page. Also, he did pass along information to the FBI, just like anyone who is considered an informant. Jumplike23 (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your perspective, but I still believe "operative" is the more accurate term here.

Media outlets like CNN often use phrases such as "undercover operative" or "undercover operation" when describing missions where individuals are embedded to gather information, rather than just passing along tips. For example, CNN's coverage of the Larry Hall case refers to the operation as an "undercover mission" involving Keene. https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/se/date/2011-07-09/segment/01

In Keene's case, he was recruited by U.S. Attorney Larry Beaumont, trained for the mission, and transferred from a low-security to a high-security prison to befriend Larry Hall and extract a confession. This level of involvement goes beyond what is typically associated with an informant. Independent reporting confirms that Assistant U.S. Attorney Larry Beaumont recruited him and coordinated with FBI resources to carry out the plan.

Using "operative" helps convey the nature of Keene's role more accurately to a general audience. It reflects the planning, risk, and direction from law enforcement involved in the operation. "Informant" might imply a more passive role, which doesn't fully capture the extent of Keene's involvement.

Defining Keene’s role as an “operative” is better because it cuts down on misleading or defamatory claims, and fits with Wikipedia’s rules about being accurate and neutral. An operative is someone who is recruited, trained, and sent into an undercover operation, which matches what Keene accepted. According to Cornell Law, an “informant” is someone who furnishes information to an intelligence agency under a confidential relationship. Legal Information Institute Informants often have existing personal connections or relationships, and their role usually doesn’t include being formally trained, recruited for a mission, or embedded undercover in a high‑security setting. Sandyn987 (talk) 02:17, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I truly believe AND think “operative” is the best word here because it’s simple and accurate. An operative is someone who’s recruited, trained, and sent into an undercover mission—and that matches what Jimmy agreed to do. Using “operative” instead of “informant” helps avoid misleading people and follows Wikipedia’s rules about accuracy and fairness.

Also, U.S. law, like 50 U.S.C. § 3126(6), defines “informant” as someone who provides information under a confidential relationship. law.cornell.edu Unlike that, an operative is more active in doing the mission. I am citing the law because it only supports the usage of the word operative.

Thanks for reading and your patience. Sandyn987 (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I didn’t know there was a discussion going on here. Hi, it’s me, the guy who originally edited Keene’s page to strike “operative” and write “informant.” I did so because when I read the first line of the article, it wasn’t clear to me that Keene was actually an inmate. I thought he might have been an employee. The US Justice Department in press releases only uses the term “undercover operative” to refer to FBI special agents, not people like Keene who are trying to elicit information about others that can be used as a bargaining chip with prosecutors.

The dizzying array of cases and authorities Sandyn cited here and on the Talk page of the Keene article actually undermine her argument:

1) Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 is a case about a *police officer* who went undercover as a fellow inmate to elicit information from a jailed person, not an “undercover” informant. Sandyn cited this on the Keene talk page, and it militates against using terms like “undercover operative” and supports use of the term “informant.”

2) United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264: This case repeatedly refers to the fellow inmate who testified against Henry as an “informant” and distinguishes that from “agent.” It never uses “operative” at all.

3) US v Bernal-Obeso isn’t relevant at all. In that case, the defendant beefed with prosecutors’ misstatements about a paid informant. Just because the informant in that case was paid and at liberty doesn’t mean that an informant cannot be unpaid and incarcerated, as Keene was. Otherwise there would be no such thing as a “jailhouse informant.”

4) Lastly, regarding Sandyn’s reference to “DOJ and FBI manuals” - the only one I could find was this one; it doesn’t use the term “operative” at all and the only people it refers to as being “undercover” are FBI employees.

I’d be happy to continue the discussion here or on the Talk page for Keene. Just wanted you all to have all the facts and not be intimidated by walls of text. I’d be happy to pursue an off-ramp that doesn’t use either term; the main issue is that “operative” creates the false sense that Keene was an FBI employee. Thanks! SharkJumperNYC (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne

Thanks for the reminder! I’ll make sure my comments are clear and to the point, and I want to make sure I’m paying attention to what others are saying by keeping my points concise and responding respectfully with other editors. I am new to Wikipedia and I am learning. I really appreciate the guidance on Wikipedia’s best practices. Thanks for your patience! Sandyn987 (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a content dispute at Talk:Christopher Luxon that partially involves the BLP policy, specifically opinion pieces being unattributed to make a claim about a BLP's professional career and WP:SYNTH concerns. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The editor concerned is now engaging here but needs someone to explain WP:BLP to them. Daveosaurus (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that a small number of contributors are repeatedly changing part of the intro to state he is currently the third youngest head of state, despite explanation as to why he is the second youngest in both page reverts and the talk page. I change it back to second youngest when I see it, but unfortunately this seems to be happening nearly every day. 2A02:8012:B642:0:FE30:57DF:991D:EA4A (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reference in the Ibrahim Traoré article is this report from The Hindu[4](archive), which states that at the time of writing he was the world's youngest leader. Unless a new source can be found I would suggest changing the wording to something like "He was the world youngest leader when he came to power in 2022". Note that the Lists of state leaders by age article is not a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:52, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Krauss has allegations of sexual abuse in his BLP sourced to a university newspaper and a science journal. He does not strike me as a well known individual. Ok to remove? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everythingisbiggerindallas (talk • contribs) 02:20, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For a physicist he is very well known and that section also cites The New York Times and The Chronicle of Higher Education (and the journal you mentioned is Science). Maybe you could say a bit more about what you want to remove and why. —Rutebega (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I just did some searches--these allegations also impacted his career and were covered by plenty of mainstream news sources. Considering he was a prominent scientist who had to have rewards rescinded and also leave a position because of these allegations I think it's an important section to maintain. Agnieszka653 (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSSM like The State Press is not good enough for serious BLP-stuff. Science journals otoh are among our favorite sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That genie is not going back into the bottle. People were harassed when they complained. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:30, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Krauss is featured in the 2013 documentary The Unbelievers, in which he and Richard Dawkins travel across the globe speaking publicly about the importance of science and reason as opposed to religion and superstition. Well-known or not, Krauss has deliberately sought the limelight, making him a limited purpose public figure. Any controversies should be handled according to the relevant policy. In addition to the sources named above, the sexual misconduct allegations against Krauss have been mentioned in several scholarly books.^[1][2][3] —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just spoke with a NASA physicist and asked if they had heard of Kraus, and they mentioned something about an interesting method Kraus had for depicting information in a cloud-like formation. I'm not a physicist so the terminology escapes me. I then asked if they were aware that Kraus had allegations of sexual impropriety brought up against him. The physicist I asked said no. I asked if he would consider Kraus well known in the field and their response was "I would call him well known the same as a well known architect. He's no Frank Lloyd Wright. Now, name another architect." Adding this because even colleagues in his field who have heard of him and know his work, don't really consider him well known. Hate to stir the pot, but it may be worth discussing. Everythingisbiggerindallas (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Krauss handily passes the WP:GNG, which is what matters. Wikipedia article subjects do not need to be Michael Jackson or Albert Einstein-level well known in order for reliably sourced allegations of misconduct that have been reported in major newspapers to be included in their articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually dissagree. What makes me hesitate is if those in his field aren't familiar with the allegations we will then be responsible for providing the news. Everythingisbiggerindallas (talk) 00:28, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The allegations against Krauss are well known and widely publicised in the astrophysics community, he's basically a pariah there. This is old news to them, given the allegations came out 7 years ago. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it may be old news, but the astro-physicist I spoke with knew the work but not the allegations. I'm not aruguing that their knowledge base, or lack thereof, is indicative of an entire community, however it is a data point. Nor should be assume that old news is well known news, because it obviously isn't. How do we deal with those contridictions as a community? Everythingisbiggerindallas (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article, even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If Krauss's colleagues have been living under a rock for the past seven years, that's really not our problem. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:45, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know the person who created this page and know that it was created vindictively. It is obviously, intentionally embarrassing and is clearly not impartial. The tone of the language is not balanced or a NPOV (Neutral Point of View). If you look in the edits, Sean's ex wife pleads for the removal of information to protect her privacy and that of her two sons. She is scolded that she isn't impartial and her edits are removed. However you feel about Sean Ludwick, this is clearly an attack page, with too many unnecessary details about his family, property and obviously inflammatory quotes. I think this is malicious and upsetting to his family and therefore wrong.

I would encourage you to regard Wikipedia's own guidelines on Biographies of Living Persons: Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainscarbo (talk • contribs) 14:48, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Sean_Ludwick#Legal_matters section is HUGE, indicating there might be a NPOV problem, and at a glance there may be some not BLP-good sources in there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also find the very detailed emphasis on the location, price and size of homes he has bought and sold oddly personal, detailed and inflammatory given that his crimes were not financial or related to real estate. It seems to be an effort emphasize his wealth only to personify him as the "hamptons menace" and identify his location to increase his notoriety where he lives. Captainscarbo (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have evidence that someone had malice when creating this article, do not post your evidence here(to avoid WP:OUTING), but you may contact the volunteer response team. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The person who initially wrote it started it at 8 at night and worked on it until 5:30 in the morning, three years after Sean Ludwick's release. I cannot prove that it was done vindictively, because I cannot prove motive, but the tone of this very detailed page should be obvious. Captainscarbo (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some WP:BLPPRIMARY, but there's more, "State of New York Board of Parole". WP:DAILYBEAST isn't the best of sources. How BLP-good something called Behind the Hedges is is harder to say. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an article titled "The Most Violent Man in the Hamptons?" with the words "HAMPTONS MENACE" stamped in red underneath it doesn't strike me as unbiased journalism Captainscarbo (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even for BLPs RS aren't required to be unbiased per WP:RSBIAS however we do have to take greater care and this source sounds like a step too far entering into the realms of tabloid journalism which is something we can't generally use. Nil Einne (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever heard of serious journalism from "Patch", "Behind The Hedges", "The Daily Beast" "New York Daily News" "The Real Deal" or "Dan's Papers"? These weren't intelligent opinion pieces with editorial bias and they certainly weren't original sources. At least half of the cited references are gossip rags repeating salacious details from other sources. This might not matter if the subject weren't living and his family wasn't directly affected by the malicious aggregation of published gossip in one place. This is an attack page. Captainscarbo (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do more than skim it, but Sean Ludwick seems like it's all about the vehicular homicide. If that didn't happen, would there be an article about this guy? Isn't this a case of BLP1E? Or was this particular incident somehow historically noteworthy? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has come up before although only in context of his wife's name. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive362#Sean Ludwick (see also Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2024 August 29#I am seeing inaccurate information..

That did lead me down an interesting rabbit hole though. The creator Special:Contributions/2603:7000:2101:AA00:64D0:32F6:2257:9BF8/64 seems to have been User:Epeefleche per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Epeefleche/Archive who seems to have started WP:LOUTSOCKING back in 2015 due to a final warning of copyright violations. Epeefleche seems to have had a fascination with Israeli and Jewish athletes including adding Jewish ethnicity to athletes whenever they could but it's not clear this was malicious, the people they were adding it to seem to have sometimes been fairly minor figures with no controversy. Epeefleche had I think a fascination with non athlete Jewish figures too but none of that seems to apply there.

However at least one of their IPs geolocates to New York and even under their account they also seems to have an interest in New York. So that aspect does match. Not surprisingly, the history does show similar copyvio problems which was the reason why Epeefleche got into trouble [5].

Importantly, I cannot see any evidence Epeefleche tended to create stuff vindictively. All the evidence seems to be just someone with an interested in certain things including stuff related to what might be where they live or at least is somewhere they seem interested in. It sounds like the subject of the article is someone who received quite a bit of attention in New York (tabloid?) media over the years. This doesn't mean we should have an article on him, but it does mean it's not surprising that Epeefleche created an article full of copyvio and there's no particular reason to think it's vindictive.

If you have solely on wiki evidence of that please present it somewhere appropriate since it would be something quite important if Epeefleche was not only creating copyvios but doing so vindictively at times. If you have off wiki evidence then please present that privately to VTRS as suggested by 331dot. Either way until there is either presented evidence on wiki or there is public confirmation that this was a problem based on the private investigation please stop making the claim as it's an WP:Aspersion i.e. a personal attack which will lead to a block if it keeps getting repeated.

And this isn't just some random IP but we have strong evidence that there's a named editor behind that random IP. A highly problematic one sure but while it's fine to acknowledge the problems with their editing, that doesn't mean it's okay to claim they did things they may not have done or for which there is at least no good evidence.

I'd note editing times and length mean little. There are plenty of editors who edit for long periods of time and plenty of editors (including myself) who for a variety of reasons edit at odd times for their locale. Likewise tone etc don't mean much, again plenty of editors have that problem without being vindictive and furthermore since this particular editor had a tendency to closely paraphrase sources a bit chunk of that probably just came from how the sources wrote about the subject.

Note that we are perfectly capable of dealing with whatever problems this article may have including WP:AFD if the situation calls for it, without needing to proscribe motives to the creator which probably didn't exist. In fact such things are a distraction since I've spent nearly an hour investigation the claims and writing this rather than investigating actual problems with the article.

Nil Einne (talk) 22:00, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone does not stay up all night, from 8 pm to 5:30 in the evening, nearly ten hours, to write an article about a private individual who lives in proximity to them out of casual interest. (Redacted)

It is not necessary to prove the intent of this article, because it is clear that is an attack page by the tone and lack of neutrality. No one reading that article could have any doubt of the feelings of the author.

I do question your own objectivity or potential relationship to the author if you are this concerned with researching and defending an anonymous source, much less threatening me with removal for potentially maligning them. The author is not the point, but the ethics of the fact that this attack page exists.

Whatever service aggregating embarrassing details and inflammatory quotes from ten year old tabloid sources could possibly provide the public is far outweighed by the embarrassment it has already clearly caused the family, as expressed by Sean Ludwick's ex wife, who is explicitly trying to protect her sons. If you google either of them, this will come up first for the rest of their lives, an aggregation of salacious tabloid articles written about their father, long ago. And why? This is not what wikipedia exists to do.

This person has also faded into obscurity completely since completing his time in prison. He was very briefly of interest to the New York Post, over ten years ago, and committed and served time for one crime. BLP1E clearly also applies.

Wikipedia is clear on the ethical standard. "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment"

This article was obviously not written conservatively or with this caution in mind. Captainscarbo (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your personal attack which also comes very close to WP:OUTING. If you are not willing to provide evidence for your claims, then don't make them or you will be blocked.

As for your comment about no one does that, utter nonsense. Anyone with any experience of Wikipedia knows that editors do that all the time. And again the hours thing is even more nonsense. I live in NZ. I regular edit in the very early morning (e.g. 0300) because I keep odd hours. On this very page you will see a comment I left at #c-Nil_Einne-20251011131700-AlsoPonyo-20251010175900 0217 and #c-Nil_Einne-20250926155400-FactOrOpinion-20250926131600 0354 my local time and a whole host of other more "normal" times for someone editing from NZ e.g. 08xx, 10xx, 11xx, 12xx, 13xx, 14xx, 15xx, 16xx, 18xx, 19xx, 21xx. Time of edits proves almost nothing about an editor's motivations. Perhaps if there was some evidence that the time was unusual for that particular editor you might have some evidence worth considering but you haven't presented that.

As I said in my first reply, I really have no idea why you want us focused on this distraction from the real issue namely the article you're supposedly concerned about by making wild and unsupported claims of editors. Just because an editor is in bad standing doesn't mean it's acceptable to make personal attacks on them.

In fact, I'd argue it's even more important that editors who cannot defend themselves and who we definitely don't want coming back to defend themselves, are protected against such personal attacks and suggestions of outing. It's fine to fault an editor for their faults, in this case their extensive copyvio history and LOUTsocking, with perhaps a terrible attitude to BLP thrown in to that; without accusing them of stuff for which you yourself say you're not going to provide evidence for. (And for why from your own statement, is likely to be private evidence anyway.) I'd note that BLPN isn't really the place for discussions of an editor's behaviour either.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:57, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I ask you to stop misdirecting the issue from the writer of the page to the obvious fact that it is an attack page. The privacy issue should focus on the family of this living person and the page speaks for itself. Half of the sources are tabloids or obscure publications. The tone is obviously not neutral, and far too detailed for a relatively obscure figure. This page is about a living person, and contains many irrelevant and potentially embarrassing and villainizing personal details. His family has been actively begging for privacy and removal of their own names and personal details. Their privacy should be the primary concern, not an anonymous editor who has since been banned.

"If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists primarily of attacks against the subject or a living person, and there is no neutral version in the history to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place. This is especially important if the page contains biographical material about a living person."

There is clearly no original "neutral" source to draw from, so I ask that this article is deleted. It has been biased and excessive since it was created, regardless of why they did. Captainscarbo (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is you who are distracting from the issue by continually casting aspersions without evidence, and by making dumb nonsense claims like suggesting how long someone spent editing or the time of edits somehow proves an editor had a connection to the subject because no one does that when in reality editors do that all the time for people they have zero connection to, and editors edit at all times of the day. If you don't want us to be distracted by such nonsense then don't bring it up in the first place. Nil Einne (talk) 06:30, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a circular argument. We can go back and forth asking each other to focus on the privacy issue at hand, or we can actually do it. How do I prove malicious intent? How do I prove the IP address of an anonymous user is the person I strongly believe it to be? I cannot. That is why I cannot make a claim, and the original author was banned from wikipedia, regardless. The proof of the malicious intention of this article is solely in the obvious tone of the actual article itself. That is all I have been saying. Let's please focus on the article and the people harmed by it and not the editor. Captainscarbo (talk) 06:36, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No the editor was not banned from Wikipedia for malicious intent. They were banned from Wikipedia for continued copyright violations and WP:LOUTsocking. This seems to be an editor who genuinely thought they were improving Wikipedia, but unfortunately was unable or unwilling to learn how to properly summarise sources so instead kept making copyright violations by closely paraphrasing the sources. When they we caught enough times that they came close to a block, rather than either stopping or finally learning, they just continued to edit without logging in while continuing their poor editing leading to many more copyright violations. So a very poor editor, but unfortunately one of the many who incorrectly thinks they helping and as far as we know, wasn't being vindictive or trying to harm Wikipedia or subjects via their editing.

If there is any evidence they're engaged in vindictive editing about people they have a personal connection to, that is something completely new. To be clear, if there is any actual evidence for it, then it is actually quite important since it means we should be looking at this editor's edits for something new i.e. such vindictive editing about people they have a personal connection to. But again, we will need actual evidence for this not your say so based on vague assertions and evidence which shows nothing.

And yes it is going in circles because you refuse to accept that you cannot make such claims unless you can provide evidence (not I didn't say prove) intent. You have provided no such evidence and seem unwilling to do so, but keep making the claim when it serves zero purpose as we should be focused on problems with the article not imagined motives of the editors behind it. As I said, if you have any real evidence this is indeed something serious which should be looked at but so far there is nothing.

Editors write poor articles all the time, including articles which might be attack pages not because of malicious intent but because they simply don't know how to write pages or in this case, as I said in my first reply, perhaps because they are closely paraphasing the poor quality sources.

Even when editor intentionally write attack pages, probably 99.9% it is not because of some vindictiveness about someone they know but instead simply because it is someone who they've read about who they've come to dislike. And realistically there are a lot of people who do not know the subject of this article who are going to hate them because they seem to be a rich person who got away with a lot probably in part because of their wealth. We as a community have to ensure we don't let such editors harm the subject because of such hate, but we also should not falsely accuse such editors of having some connection or vindictiveness they do not have.

The moment you stop making claims about the editor for which you are unable or unwilling to provide evidence is the moment we can stop talking about them and instead focus on problems of the article. If however you keep making unsupported and frankly nonsense claims about the editor involved we're going to keep talking about it until you are blocked for it.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:53, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article has passed through many hands, and the point of this discussion is whether this is an attack page. I beg you to stop talking about the original author and let us out of this circular conversation. Let us please discuss the many ethical issues I have tried to draw attention to. The fact that this is an attack page should be obvious by simply reading it, seeing the wealth of unrelated and obviously embarrassing detail, the poorly sourced tabloids and obscure publications, and the obviously negative point of view. A biography of a living person requires a neutral point of view. Listen to the family that is obviously upset and active in the edits. Look at how little respect that his ex wife has been shown in her efforts to protect her children. Look at the actual people who have been harmed by this page, and the precious little benefit it actually serves. Regard BLP1E, the idea that a living person should not be written about if they have only done one notable thing and moved on with their lives. Wikipedia should not serve as an aggregator of tabloid gossip, simply to create an embarrassing google search for all family members who share that name in perpetuity. That is exactly what this article has done. Captainscarbo (talk) 07:16, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will also add that she is not his wife, but his ex wife, as she has repeatedly informed editors in her attempts to remove herself and protect the privacy of her children. She could not name a published source to prove her divorce, which prompted a debate over whether they were still married, or if she was who she said she was. The very fact that she was questioned for proof of the private details of her life by strangers is an ironic twist that should illustrate this privacy issue perfectly. This is the difficulty in trying to tell a story about the personal lives of living individuals. Private lives should not be published in this salacious way on wikipedia, and it shouldn't the role of an editor to decide what to reveal about Pamela Ludwick, even if her ex husband committed a humiliating felony ten years ago. When the sources are tabloids and obscure publications, this is where we wind up. Wikipedia's ethical guidelines are absolutely clear on this. This is an attack page and should be removed. Captainscarbo (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'd note her name was removed from the article when it came up last time, the correct decision IMO. While it is in the edit history and will remain in previous discussions, it's unclear to me what benefit there is to mentioning her name again if you're genuinely concerned about her. Nil Einne (talk) 07:17, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You called her his wife. She is his ex wife. Please watch your tone if you would like to be an authority on tone, which is the central point of the discussion of whether this is an attack page. Captainscarbo (talk) 07:40, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting here that almost 70% of the content in that article is devoted to his legal issues, and after reading it, it does appear to me that there has been a concerted effort to emphasize that part of his life. It needs to be summarized to the salient points using mainstream sources. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Ludwick faced 32 years and plea bargained down to a maximum of 5 years. Since the case never went to trial and his civil suit was settled, there is no press for a legal defense that might have countered the negativity of the tabloid sources and neutralized the point of view of this article. It is odd that this much detail was devoted to legal issues for a single felony vehicular manslaughter that never went to trial or prepared a defense. Particularly since it was only covered in local news and in tabloids. 71.249.150.247 (talk) 05:21, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the legal issues are the salient point? It looks as if that is pretty much why he is "famous". Without them, all we have are press releases, which leads me to wonder if we should have an article at all. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:29, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Guy here and raised this point very early on. The probable solution here is IMO simply to AfD. The reason the article is devoted to his legal issues seems to be because that's the only reason he received any real attention. This is a very common issue, and indeed while this didn't happen here, there are many of those ironic cases where an article seems to have been created by someone with a CoI trying to promote the subject with very little suitable source and then a lot of sourcing arrives sometime in the future covering some legal problem or other controversy the subject was involved in which well it's likely whoever CoI the initial article probably doesn't make them happy. Still as much as it we might feel reduced sympathy with such a history while noting we never can be sure if the subject themselves was actually involved, we still need to properly deal with the problem & not let people suffer just because someone made a foolish decision in the past. And yeah in a lot of such cases, the solution is to AfD. Unfortunately sometimes there is so much coverage over an extended period of time that this doesn't work. In that case we really have no solution but ensure our article is as balanced as possible but it's likely it will end up seeming quite negative because that's the only reason they received attention which is unfortunate but is what it is. I'm not convinced that applies here, but I think we do have to remember per WP:RGW there is sometimes not a lot we can do when most coverage of a person is negative and focuses on their legal disputes or other controversies. I'd add that while there's no evidence as I mentioned this was created with the claimed vindictiveness, the fact that the creator has a history of copyvios is IMO an additional consideration. Some have been cleaned up but has the rest been properly check? If not, IMO even if this person is notable WP:TNT might be a better bet than trying to recover something from an article written by a recidivist loutsocking copyright violator, on someone who even if he is notable, is surely barely so . Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the legal issues are the salient point, we don't write articles in this style:

In July 2017, The Daily Beast published an article about Ludwick entitled: "The Most Violent Man in the Hamptons?; Hamptons Menace; Before leaving a friend for dead in his Porsche, real estate mogul Sean Ludwick was arrested for drunk driving and allegedly beat his girlfriend."

Headlines of articles are not reliable sources, and it's stupid to include it. The rest of the sections devoted to his legal issues were obviously written with an objective of being sensationalist, and including as much detail that can possibly be crammed into an article. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for using the wrong word, but it seems to me it's not a big deal compared to including her name which seemed to be the biggest concern. I never said I was an authority on tone. Instead, I asked you to stop making accusations of another editor you were not willing to back up with evidence, and also pointed out there was great irony in saying you were concerned about her then unnecessarily bringing up her name when having her name removed seemed to be one of her key concerns which we rightfully followed. Nil Einne (talk) 10:35, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am tempted to respond to this but I think it is a diversion from the salient issue and I do not want to get in another senseless circular debate. It is not that I can’t prove the context in which this article was created, it is that the article is problematic enough that I don’t need to and it would be of little benefit. It has also passed through many hands since then. This has already been an enormous distraction. Please stay focused, please stop making this personal and let’s please not discuss that author again. Captainscarbo (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how to redact the comments of others, but I see that you do, so please redact her name. It is obviously better not to name her, especially since it is my hope that this attack page is entirely removed for the variety of issues stated. Once the tabloid and obscure sources are removed, there isn't much left to this article, since it wasn't otherwise notable in respectable press. Captainscarbo (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See the recent history of Magomed Zaynukov. There has been a fair amount of back-and-forth reverting at the article, which led to one long-term editor receiving a short block. #there has been some attempt to start a discussion on the article talk page by one of the editors involved, but nobody else has engaged, just a lot of reverting. The disagreement is over whether or not our article's infobox ought to give two nicknames for the subject. Two nicknames are currently listed - "Wild Chanco" and "John Pork". There are reports on Reddit, X/Twitter and the like about the subject of the article disliking that nickname and asking people not to use it (which has probably prompted people to come here and remove it). I have just done a review of the first few pages of a Google search for his name (until I decided I didn't want to keep clicking on the links...), and I found the following sources: Sherdog supports both Wild Chanco and John Pork; UFC Stats, ESPN, Rotowire, Sofascore, MMA Town, Tapology, UFC FR and MMA Core all support only Wild Chanco; UAE Warriors and Fight Matrix do not list any nicknames.

In a situation where it seems likely that the subject of a BLP objects to a particular nickname, and when that nickname is supported only by a single source while a host of other sources do not mention it, is it compliant with the spirit of our BLP guidance that we include it prominently in our article? Girth Summit _(blether) 18:06, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames should be something mentioned but only if covered in multiple sources particularly if the name seems contentious. Seems clear the John Pork name can only be backed to one source while Wild Chanco is by multiple, so the former one should not be included. Masem (t) 18:17, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per a consensus reached at the MMA Project, we use Sherdog for everything from height, weight, athletes records, nicknames, etc, for precisely the reason of not having to go in an revert every edit when people can't agree what their nickname is, or whether they should be listed as 5'10" or 5'11", etc. Nswix (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If local consensus says that a negative nickname mentioned in passing by a single source should be placed on a BLP's infobox, then so much the worse for that consensus. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I entirely unsurprised that WikiProject Mixed martial arts thinks it has the authority to override core BLP policy? Utterly clueless, as usual... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's been pointed out to editors many times before that they don't get to decide that Sherdog (or any source) is the be an end all source for MMA e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1058#A few editors have been reverting all edits which replaced a questionable source with other reliable sources such as espn.com., Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1117#Justinw303 changing sourced information based on own interpretation Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1071#Jacee215 (Volk Han dispute), Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive347#BLP:DOB and especially Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 318#Sherdog.com. (Unfortunately missed here Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive291#Robert Whittaker but that was before the other discussions which said told editors it isn't acceptable to treat Sherdog as the one true source for MMA.) It's highly disappointing if it's still happening I think editors in this area have gotten "lucky" because most of the community are sick to death of MMA articles and the fights that keep happening over them and also many editors in the area pushing back against Sherdog seem to have been socks or otherwise behaved worse for some weird reason. But editors are warned that eventually if they keep at it the community is going to decide enough is enough and it's likely many of them may face a topic ban if they keep trying to force Sherdog as the be and end all source for everything MMA, contradicting well established site wide policy and guidelines. Nil Einne (talk) 05:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nswix - notifications will not have been sent to the editors you pinged in this comment, because you didn't sign your post with four tildes - that is needed to trigger the notification system. However, I'm not sure that selecting specific people to notify is entirely appropriate, per WP:CANVAS. I have already posted a comment on the relevant article's talk page pointing towards this discussion, which I would have thought ought to be enough notification for anyone interested in the article. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not canvasing anyone. As everyone, in seemingly every one of these is so quick to point out, this "isn't a vote". I'm just notifying people who may like to know... Nswix (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding your signature after the fact will not trigger the notification system either. You need to sign the message in the same edit in which you add the username to trigger the notification. This is described at Help:Talk_pages#Notifications. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cassiopeia:@Marty2Hotty:@NEDOCHAN:@GOAT Bones231012: Maybe this is something other MMA editors have an opinion on, or would at least like to read through. Nswix (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We frequently edit the "list of current UFC fighters" page and for years, whether people disagree with the names, height, nicknames, country of the fighters, it was agreed upon long before I started editing MMA articles to follow the "Sherdog" page for the use of nicknames. For Magomed Zaynukov, https://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Magomed-Zaynukov-383513, the link includes both "Wild Chanco / John Pork". I do not know this fighter, but if these two are the names listed, we would typically include it on both the list page and the fighter's page. What exactly is the problem here. I couldn't read through this entire thread. I think we should use both. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_UFC_fighters you can see the fighter "Chris Barnett" who has two nicknames.

Anyone disagree with this? If so, take it up with Sherdog and have them correct it. Both names suffice. Marty2Hotty (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I have submitted a ticket to Sherdog to have them remove "John Pork". I have contacted an editor too. Once this is done, we can remove it based on their analysis. Good? Marty2Hotty (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, not good. Why should the negative nickname remain in the infobox until then? jlwoodwa (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If your logic is we use Sherdog for everything, then why are you ignoring your preferred source, that says — If possible, please don’t call me that. I don’t like it. Seems like to me that it is possible to not include that nickname, and not including it, is also compliant with our policies and guidelines, rather than your uncompromising stance of he has no say in whats on his page, or wikipedias policies. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think if the guy hates the nickname, there is no reason for us to insist on putting the damn thing in his article, especially if there is another one. Have we no decency? jp×g🗯️ 09:29, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am contacting sherdog to have the name updated on their website. Please be patient. We will remove John Pork when it's done. I dont even know the origin but obviously the fighter does not wish to be called that. Marty2Hotty (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Marty. Btw if you go on google and just search John Pork, the following is stated by their AI: John Pork is an AI-generated virtual influencer and meme figure who has a pig's head on a human body. He became famous through his presence on social media platforms like Instagram, X, and Facebook, and through internet memes, often characterized by a bizarre and surreal aesthetic. The "John Pork is calling" meme became particularly notorious. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what is said here with everyone and exceptions can be made. I don't agree that all Sherdog information should be used here, like Ilia Topuria being only "Spanish" because it is on Sherdog. Both nationalities can be included. We are told sometimes that ESPN/UFC's websites are not "third party" websites so we cannot use them as sources, but in this case, we can refer to the fighter's page to see that "John Pork" is not on his ESPN profile page. We also use the UFC.com/Events page for official announcements. , it's kind of weird.

Anyways, I apologize for changing the fighter's page back to John Pork (because it was on Sherdog) - but I did reach out to them, and am not sure they will change it. Marty2Hotty (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marty2Hotty - No, we do not have to wait until Sherdog updates their website. Our editorial guidelines are our own, and consensus is policy, and it looks like to me the consensus is to remove it right now. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this nickname should be removed. Take them both off in fact. Simonm223 (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I will stay out of this. I don't agree with using Sherdog for everything either. Like Ilia Topuria being Spanish only vs. Georgian/Spanish, but there are some stubborn editors who do not like to discuss and have a consensus. Marty2Hotty (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to what Isaidnoway said. We do not wait for Sherdog to do anything before we amend our content to comply with core policies like WP:BLP, just as we do not rely on Sherdog for the content of infoboxes of MMA fighters (or anybody else). At this point, anybody insisting that that MMA fighters' infoboxes have to match what Sherdog says is not hearing what they are being very clearly told, and is likely to end up blocked as a result. The material has already been removed from the article, and it will stay removed regardless of what Sherdog does until consensus here dictates otherwise. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:31, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t have a personal stake in what he’s called, my concern is consistency across articles. For MMA bios, we’ve long used Sherdog as the standard reference for things like nicknames and records to avoid re-litigating details on a thousand pages. If the community feels that Sherdog is no longer the right yardstick, that’s fine, but let’s have that discussion and update the approach. If the consensus is that WikiProject MMA’s approach is outdated or incorrect, that’s totally fine too, just let us know so it can be addressed across the board. I’m not trying to make policy, I have no interest in policy... I’m just following the framework that’s been reinforced many times for the sake of consistency. If the expectation going forward is to verify every statistic individually and rely solely on BLP principles rather than a central source, that’s fine too, but a clear, consistent framework would make things much easier for everyone involved. Nswix (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through the previous discussions linked above, it seems that it has already been established that a 'Sherdog only' approach is wrong. The last discussion at WP:RSN established that In the 2020 RfC, Sherdog was determined to be not self-published and can be used for basic information on MMA fighters and matches. However, it is considered less reliable than ESPN and other generally reliable sources, so use with caution, and that consensus is recorded at WP:RSP. We really shouldn't need to go around reminding Wikiprojects that they can't make up their own rules regarding sources. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:42, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I’m not here to write policy, so either it gets brought up and enforced at the project level, or we’ll have another "local consensus” that quietly gets buried in an archive and ignored everywhere else. Either way, I’d just like clarity on what standard I’m meant to apply, because I get reverted either way. Nswix (talk) 10:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Use the standards set out at WP:RS. If in doubt, consult WP:RSP to see whether a source has been discussed before and, if it hasn't, ask at WP:RSN. Wikiproject MMA has no business determining what sources should and should not be used at any group of articles. From WP:WIKIPROJECTS: WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations, nor can they assert ownership of articles within a specific topic area. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles. Wikiprojects are there to help share expertise, coordinate activity etc. They have no oversight as to which sources are to be used to support content in a topic area. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:09, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We've had to step in as a community before to break up the walled garden that the MMA project was building around itself based on notability (eg ignoring global standards in favor of project-level, see past WP:AN archives circa late 2012, around archive numbers 750-790 roughly), this seems like a similar situation. If the MMA project seems insistent on using a source that the rest of WP identifies as a poor source, particularly for BLP, the project absolutely needs to change its approach, we're not going to meet their determination. Masem (t) 12:04, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a procedure for closing down a Wikiproject for consistently encouraging behaviour contrary to policy? If not, maybe we could do with one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think shutting down the mma project is reasonable but I do think that we as the larger community should audit their project level guidance to make sure it is compliant and if they do want to change that, they must seek community input via an RFC. Masem (t) 19:15, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that RSN and BLPN are "local consensus", and that policy is enforced differently between WikiProjects, I encourage you to reread WP:LOCALCON. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to go so far as questioning the source itself, just that this particular nickname is marginal and also disliked by the guy, so why bother? It's not like it is something of any great significance! jp×g🗯️ 09:31, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's clearly no acceptance of the JP nick among RS, so there can be no consensus on WP for the same. Whatever local consensus may argue. Closing down the entire MMA WikiProject would be neat, but possibly a bit baby/bathwater. Since adding this material is a clear and absolute BLPVIO—as well as flying on the face of WP:ONUS (which is also policy)—just block any editor, immediately, for a substantial period who restores it or anything like it. That will focus Project members' minds on core policy pretty quickly. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:43, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now we’re discussing closing down the entire WikiProject? This went from 0 to 100 real quick. Zaynukov himself doesn’t like the nickname, that much is clear. Let’s just add his ESPN bio (which just shows Wild Chanco as his nickname) as a reference and an invisible message following that stating not to add the nickname John Pork. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GOAT Bones231012: Feel free to discuss it; no one else is. ATG mentioned it—probably sardonically—above, and I commented on the comment in similar vein. It's actually gone from ~0–10 in the space of ~24 hours. Shame about Cassiopeia though. —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:26, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, I missed all of this. Nswix (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow same😳. Shocking to say the least. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Context for that discussion: back in the day, Cassiopeia and I pretty much ran CVUA between the two of us. I dropped out after a while, confident that it was in safe hands. I agree that that situation was shocking - I was shocked to see such an experienced editor and trained counter-vandalism patroller double down on a claim that reinstating that nickname was in some way covered by a vandalism WP:3RRNO exemption. I could understand getting carried away in the heat of the moment, but doubling down after a block, when you are so obviously in the wrong - that was a real surprise. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:21, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can kinda understand the sentiment behind those comments, based on a couple of comments here in this thread. Sherdog is listed at RSP as WP:MREL, and since a BLP issue has been raised, our policies BLP, ONUS, CONSENSUS, trump what Sherdog is reporting. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very well-written and agreed. Sorry for reverting. I agree with the majority of sources and Sherdog is not the be all end all for a clear and obvious situation like this. Wow to Cassiopeia being banned for a short time. The user still insists on being correct though, which is sad. Marty2Hotty (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, consensus is that "John Pork" should not be included in the article or infobox. It’s only supported by a single source, while multiple reliable outlets list only "Wild Chanco". Under WP:BLP and WP:V, single-source material about a living person, especially when it’s not echoed elsewhere, shouldn’t be used.

• John Pork removed from the article and infobox and Wild Chanco retained as the sole nickname.
• Sherdog remains fine for routine, non-contentious stats (fight results, records, height, weight, etc.), since without a single defined source it becomes nearly impossible to patrol the constant back-and-forth edits (i.e. people endlessly changing 5'10" to 5'11" or "punch" to "punches". Using one baseline source for this type of data keeps articles stable and consistent.)
• WikiProject MMA should update its guidance to make this clear and to stay aligned with WP:RS and WP:BLP.

We can all agree? Nswix (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is about right, but the caveat has to be that Sherdog enjoys no special status as any kind of 'standard' source. If Sherdog says what everything else says, then it's fine to use it. If Sherdog says one thing, and ESPN, or the New York Times, or the Guardian, or literally any other generally reliable source disagrees, then use the generally reliable source. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:56, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think this is the important point that MMA editors seems to keep missing. There's no policy basis for a wikiproject to decide one source takes priority over others to resolve disputes. While it's technically possible via a widely advertised RfC in practice it's very unlikely such a thing will ever happen.

Instead the standards which apply site wide for how we resolve disputes between sources apply. This includes looking at the number of sources which say A vs B but also the strength of the sources and there's agreement that Sherdog is generally less reliable than ESPN and I'd say also NYT and the Guardian. There may be specific cases where for some reason a case can be made that Sherdog is better than those sources but this would need to be argued in that specific case with evidence presented.

Importantly for low profile fighters and fights not covered in such sources, it's not even clear to me that Sherdog is always going to be the best source either. There are other specialised MMA sources and I don't think it's been clearly established Sherdog is always superior to other such specialised sources so it's reasonable that even without sources like ESPN, NYT, or the Guardian, articles may still not prefer Sherdog especially if multiple specialised sources which seem of equal reliability to Sherdog say one thing and Sherdog says another.

Since Sherdog seems to be an RS, while it's probably generally fine for a individual editors to prefer Sherdog and use Sherdog in their writing (although would be preferable for them to also check other sources), if some other editor does use another RS editors cannot change this because they or the MMA project prefers Sherdog. Instead they need to be able to articulate reasons for such a preference based on our policies and guidelines and if they can't let the other editor's preference be. Potentially they could add Sherdog additionally. But if Sherdog conflict with the other source this would need to be resolved based on discussion grounded in our policies and guidelines not based on a MMA project preference for Sherdog.

Likewise if someone does dispute something in an article and says we should go by source A or even more source A, B, C which say something other than Sherdog, editors need to engage with this editor in good faith and discuss how to resolve this dispute based on our core policies and guidelines not based on the mistaken believe that the MMA project gets to decide Sherdog takes precedence.

I'd note and this was raised in the RSN, in some cases e.g. height it's probably perfectly reasonable for our articles to say 5'10"-5'11" based on different heights given in different sources. Rather than only giving one value when sources give differing ones, and especially not not only ever listing what Sherdog does. Again this might need discussion in individual cases based on the strength of the sources, the number, maybe age and other things.

If editors don't like engaging in such discussions because they want to go the easy route of always using only one source, then frankly Wikipedia isn't for them. To be clear, it's perfectly fine and reasonable that different articles will use different sources and there's no requirement that we must consistently follow and use Sherdog. There's simply nothing in our policy or guidelines which would support such a consistency requirement. Editors are welcome to start their own Sherdogpedia if they want which always uses Sherdog but Wikipedia isn't that project.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on all points. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that the fact he doesn't like it is irrelevant. It does seem, however, that Sherdog is the only proper source that uses it, so if consensus is not to use it, that's fine.

More broadly, all the points raised by editors who don't do much MMA editing (ignoring the silliness from Andy) seem to be theoretical, while those from editors who do a lot of MMA editing seem to be more practical. I would suggest that that has something to do with the practical realities of editing MMA articles. To that end, the treatment of Cass has been appalling, and I really hope they don't leave on account of the dreadful treatment.NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, so far no one has ever been able to articulate what makes the MMA allegedly so unique that they need this special rule that no other area of the encyclopaedia needs of having a one true source that always takes precedence. In pretty much all other areas of the encyclopaedia, editors get by simply by following core policies and guidelines which means evaluating the best sources to use for each specific article on a case by case basis. And when there is dispute evaluating how to resolve this again on a case by case basis whether to choose what seems to be supported by the best sources, or to mention both details. Yes it makes more work, but that's what editors are here for. Chosing one source that is preferred because editors are unwilling to take part in these discussions where there is dispute to be blunt reeks of laziness and it does indeed suggest the Wikiproject has fundamental problems if instead of being there to collaborate and resolve disputes as they arise, it's just taking the easy way out by chosing one source and always following it. Nil Einne (talk) 09:43, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You won't find the practical realities by asking for more articulate theory. NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally if an experienced editor is going to make personal attacks when WP:BLPUNDEL applied then they should leave and there's no shame when it happens. Nil Einne (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the treatment of Cass was not appalling, they have been here long enough to know that edit-warring is against policy, and to also know that vandalism has a very specific meaning.

The content under discussion here was challenged as being contentious material about a living person, and our BLP policy says that if it is poorly sourced, which was the case here — it must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Be very firm about the use of high-quality, reliable sources. Sherdog is not a high-quality reliable source, it is only marginally reliable, and it appears to me that some MMA editors don't understand that. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't present opinion as fact. I think one thing, you think another.

Sherdog is by some distance the most reliable and comprehensive source for MMA, as it happens. ESPN is often cited as more reliable, which itself is pretty silly, as Sherdog supplied all their data when they got into MMA. Before that, Sherdog was the only place to find fight records and they remain the only independent compiler of fight records and in many cases the only one full stop.

I know that RSN came to a different conclusion, but that entire process was farcical, and was mainly conducted by socks with axes to grind. The consensus to use it for things like nicknames was reached for practical purposes, chief of which was to prevent situations like this, in which an editor who has propped up MMA content on this site for the best part of a decade gets a ban. Without Cass MMA pages would be a total shit show. That's why I consider their treatment appalling. NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If 'Sherdog was the only place to find fight records and they remain the only independent compiler of fight records and in many cases the only one full stop' then why are we including such records at all? Content only citable to a single source who's reliability has been questioned doesn't belong on Wikipedia. We require content to be reliably sourced, and the lack of such sources absolutely cannot be used to justify using unreliable ones. That is an unequivocal violation of core Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not unreliable and because the fights took place and were recorded by Sherdog. Hence why ESPN bought their data. NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you don't like the outcome of the RSN discussion about Sherdog, please feel free to start a new discussion. And Cass did not get banned, they got a 24 hour block for edit-warring, which is not appalling, it happens all the time, even for experienced editors, and it has already expired. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And furthermore, as pointed out above, a local consensus reached at a Wikiproject "for things like nicknames" does not override community consensus. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest, I find the tenor of this conversation somewhat alarming. In fact I've been alarmed ever since one editor said I am contacting sherdog to have the name updated on their website. Please be patient. We will remove John Pork when it's done. The idea that Wikipedia editors are affecting source content specifically to shape what Wikipedia shows, that a source that would potentially respond to such a request is reliable or that we must use a non-reliable source for certain information because it is otherwise unsourceable is all rather concerning. Frankly if the only place to get independent stats on MMA fights is an unreliable website then we should exclude that information. We certainly should not be pressuring sources to comply to what we want to see on Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the whole idea of contacting Sherdog makes no sense. But no one has agreed that Sherdog is unreliable, so I don't know where you get that from. The fact remains, however, that in the early days of MMA Sherdog were the only people recording what happened. That's the point I'm making regarding ESPN, which is a green RS. Their info came from Sherdog.https://www.sbnation.com/2010/3/22/2314450/ufc-revokes-espn-com-content-partner-sherdog-coms-credentials NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Things that were only recorded by a single source, reliable or not, don't belong on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the info recorded went on to be used by and published by 3PRS, they absolutely do. Otherwise you'd have to pretend that early MMA fights never took place. The point you're struggling with is that Sherdog is the reason why sources like ESPN have the data. Wikipedia should be a place where people can find out what happened in early MMA fights, and Sherdog made that possible.

I genuinely think that the reason people have an issue with the site relates to its stupid name. But that's my opinion and not relevant here.

I have no idea what gave you, Andy, such a negative view of WP:MMA. I have edited hundreds of fighter bios and I've never seen you on any of them.

Anyway it seems that this is going off topic, and that the purpose of this thread has been achieved. I'm out. NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:07, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia covers and summarizes what reliable sources have said about a topic, and if no sources covered early MMA fights, we should not be doing so either. Justifying incl dion because of one site with questionable reliability is a very dubious practice. Masem (t) 15:13, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Read again, Masem. The information was bought by and published by numerous 3PRS. NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if you acknowledged that the idea that 'all MMA fighters' infoboxes should be based on Sherdog' is incorrect. The current consensus is that Sherdog's reliability is limited, and that better sources are preferred. Anyone pretending to have the authority to say otherwise is wrong, and liable to be blocked if they edit war about it. I'm addressing you because you are one of the more prolific and experienced editors in the subject area, and less experienced editors are likely to look up to you, and to follow your lead. If you go around telling people that it's alright to revert edits that replace Sherdog as a source, or that do not align with what Sherdog says, then you are setting them up to get blocked, and they will be confused and disappointed as a result. Please take some responsibility and acknowledge the situation. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:02, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd note that additionally, even if it's true Sherdog data on early fights is reliable enough that other sources like ESPN bought their data, it doesn't mean this continues. In fact, even for early fights, it's possible ESPN and other sources have continued to curate and improve this data and done a better job than it because they have more resources and perhaps more importantly, journalists who are able to more readily get answers when they ask questions. And most importantly perhaps, it doesn't mean Sherdog's data on heights, nicknames and whatever else is equally reliable. In fact there's an obvious contradiction here. If ESPN or whatever else is only has Sherdog's data and perfectly mirrors it then there's no reason for the MMA wikiproject to worry about whether we use Sherdog or ESPN (or whatever else) because they're both exactly the same. If the data does vary, then it's fair to ask why it varies and who we expect to be better. The fact that Sherdog is the source for the early data doesn't mean that they're more likely to be correct, clearly someone has changed here for some reason so we have to ask why they changed and whether we expect them to be correct. Or in the case of new data, well again these two different sources have for some reason recorded different data means there's clearly some difference between them and we have to ask ourselves who is more likely to be correct, and the fact that Sherdog was a good enough source for the early data that someone bought it from them doesn't mean they're more likely to be correct now. Nil Einne (talk) 11:05, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to add that if it's true that Sherdog tends to be more accurate than ESPN for MMA fights, then it shouldn't even be that hard to obtain a new consensus at RSN. This is where a Wikiproject can shine.

If you're aware of all these many examples where ESPN is wrong and Sherdog is right, and I assume only belief that Sherdog is is right because you have very good evidence, then just present all these examples and evidence and you'd have something which while still not supporting a Sherdog only stance would at least be closer to what the MMA Wikiproject wants. Again there's no need to some special exemption from our norms here, just do what everyone else would do an since you're sure based on the evidence that source A is almost always better than source B, convince the community of that and obtain consensus for it.

And I've mentioned this in a previous discussion but I'll just re-emphasise here. There is zero evidence that the RSN discussion "was mainly conducted by socks with axes to grind" or anything of that sort despite similar claims continually being made. After all this time, there are only 2 socks that have been identified, User:Lordpermaximum and User:Magnus Dominus. There's one editor since community banned who was reasonably supportive of Sherdog and doesn't seem to have been a sock. Oh and there's one IP at the end.

Meanwhile, just counting those who !voted, that discussion including 12 edits who still edit to this month (i.e. are apparently in reasonably good standing). To be clear, I'm including myself & anyone here who participated in that. There are also 2 editors who stopped in 2021 and one in 2024 but I see no evidence either were socks and they are not blocked.

It's true that the sock did initiate then bludgeon the discussion a bit, but bludgeoning isn't supposed to influence the outcome, indeed it tends to harm your case. If anyone believe the closer was unduly influenced by the bludgeoning they should have challenged the close at the time since it doesn't matter if it's a sock. And as for initiating, yes it's never a great look but when there is enough participation it shouldn't matter.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are several sentences in Eric Baker (businessman) that seem to be coatracking and WP:OR/WP:SYNTH to make Baker look like he is guilty of breaking laws when those accusations were never made by the cited sources or simply to otherwise include content that makes the article less neutral in a way not supported by sourcing rules. I go into more depth in an edit request I made on the Talk page about the five specific sentences and why I don't think they follow Wikipedia's rules. I think these are enough of a problem that they rise to the level of BLP issue and should be removed under WP:BLPREMOVE #2 but cannot make the changes myself due a financial conflict of interest with Baker. I am happy to answer questions! Thanks for taking a look! Stephanie BINK (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am David Ron, the subject of the Wikipedia article David Ron. I’ve reviewed the page and believe the two BLP notices currently displayed are no longer justified. The article is well-sourced, neutral, and contains no contentious or unsourced material.

I kindly request that editors review the article and consider removing the BLP templates. I am happy to provide further clarification if needed.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

— David Ron --~~~~ Therondavid (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you are incorrect, the article is VERY poorly sourced. Theroadislong (talk) 11:02, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Therondavid, the notices will remain as we require citations of third party, reliable, and independent sources. This unfortunately preclude you as a source. If you have given any interviews or are aware of write-ups of you in newspapers, magazines or other published work, do share them instead. – robertsky (talk) 11:03, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello robertsky.

Thanks for responding.

The election to the Royal Society has a reference, so the existance of a person with that name etc is sourced, as are the links to the University of Cambridge webpages.

So I assume the BLP notice relates to biographical features that are not sourced.

The ORCID entry contains validated Biographical features: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3014-5636.

Furthermore the Oral History archive at UCLA has an interview with the subject of the page in question, that contains extensive biographical information. The pdf of the transcript is available here: https://oralhistory.library.ucla.edu/catalog/21198-zz0009htzv?counter=70&q=scholar.

Is that enough to go by, or is more needed to remove the BLP?

— David Ron --131.111.187.106 (talk) 12:10, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to have been improved by others. There are references now, but most are considered as primary sources. As there is a preference for third party, secondary sources here, the current maintenance notice is appropriate. Given that your notability is established, should not be any further issues with the article. Over time, when and if there are more secondary sources，the primary sources can be swapped out if appropriate. – robertsky (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did a cursory search for better sources, but as is often the case for relatively uncontroversial contemporary figures in science, the only works I could find that describe them in detail are award nominations and interviews. -- Reconrabbit 21:55, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a content dispute at Nigel Latta that relates to the application of WP:BLPNAME and a former spouse. Two subjects claim to be the article subject's first and second wife respectively as well. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:08, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This case is a little unusual since most commonly we have someone asking to have their name removed but in this case it's someone saying it should be included despite very limited sourcing. (The other party is saying it shouldn't be, but I'm not sure that's of much relevance.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• John Walker-Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is basically a WP:COATRACK, or, to be maximally charitable, it's written as a WP:BLP1E. We're going to see a lot more conspiracist bollocks abut vaccines and it seems to me to be a bit of a risk having an article like this, which is little-watched. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs) 08:20, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh SineBot, whither wander thou? jp×g🗯️ 09:03, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of the missing signature... This looks to be a somewhat unbalanced article. It doesn't even mention his "attacks of bilious vomiting" from the Lancet article about him! I can work on expanding this from that article alone, which should make it look a bit better. -- Reconrabbit 13:46, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the biographical article on Yves Engler an allegation of Rwandan genocide denial is made with the lobby group B'nai Brith Canada as the primary source. B'nai Brith and other Jewish groups have been highly critical of Engler for his anti-Zionist views (and for making statements that may be antisemitic) so that may be playing a role in their criticisms of Engler. The B'nai Brith allegations have not been picked up by any independent, secondary sources except for an article in the Toronto Sun, a conservative tabloid newspaper.[6] Without a more credible third party source, is it a violation of BLP for this allegation to be included in the Engler article? Wellington Bay (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "genocide denial claim" at least from I can find online may have come from the following essay (penned by Engler) I have pulled a quotes: "The complex interplay of ethnic, class and regional politics, as well as international pressures, which spurred the “Rwandan Genocide” has been decontextualized." and "While two decades old, the distortion of the Rwandan tragedy continues to have political impacts today." and here is a link: https://nbmediacoop.org/2016/01/12/the-fairy-tale-about-a-brave-canadian-general-in-rwanda/ Also this piece titled: Canadian liberal nationalists twist truth of Rwanda genocide also penned by Engler: https://rabble.ca/anti-racism/canadian-liberal-nationalists-twist-truth-rwanda-genocide/ However there are not a ton of secondary sources covering Engler's skepticism of the Rwandan genocide but it appears as if he has written lots of essays critiquing the event and questioning if it was a genocide. I don't know how to address this on his page though since I am assuming these links cannot be cited. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also this article (apologies went on a little google search: "The Rwandan genocide — think you know the story?" also penned by Engler: https://rabble.ca/general/rwandan-genocide-think-you-know-story/Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can't really use Engler's writing to call him a genocide denier unless he writes "I deny this genocide existed" pretty straightforwardly because it would run afoul of WP:SYNTH. The Toronto Sun is so bad as a publication that it should not be used anywhere in Wikipedia and certainly not in BLPs of any sort. If it's the only source then the article should exclude this information. Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be included without a more reliable secondary source. I would take out the whole section as it's full of PRIMARY and OR. —Rutebega (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Douglass (politician)

The way the sentence in the intro (the sentence starting with "In October 2025) is structured (deliberately) gives the appearance to the reader that Douglass was the person who specifically made these statements which makes this a likely BLP violation. The into also contains a link to this which implicitly carries the implication that Douglass either have this attraction or at the very least supports the practice.

The link is followed by the sentence "between fellow leading Young Republicans" which gives the impression that leading members of Young Republicans either have this attraction, supports this practice or are actively engaging in it

Would be easier if i could write the sentence i have an issue with here but such are the rules--Trade (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And are you contesting them being described as leading members of it (which sources do) or that they said in the groupchat that they support it... which they did (I couldn't find where the last part was, I don't exactly doubt it). Significant coverage of his involvement has been his presence in a chat which made those statements, not just the various statements he did. For instance, Phil Scott called for his resignation because of the contents of the groupchat, not because of Douglass' specific comments in the groupchat. 1brianm7 (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made some edits to the article yesterday (I edit pages about Vermont politicians frequently) and I do not see where the "adult sex with underage individuals" fact is in the Politico article. I saw the Hitler/rape stuff, but that seems to not be in that article and I suggest it be removed or cited accurately if it's in another article. Could be removed to the talk page? Jessamyn (my talk page) 03:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So far everything is sourced back to the original Politico article who published the leak. If it's not there i doubt there is evidence anywhere else Trade (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reference to "the president’s alleged work to suppress documents related to wealthy financier Jeffrey Epstein’s child sex crimes. 'Trumps too busy burning the Epstein files'” in the Politico article. But nothing in the Politico article suggested that chat members expressed support for Epstein or ephebophilia. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:48, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot contest it because i am unsure what being a leading member even means means in the context of a Telegram channel

Are you sure the article isnt referring to his role in the Young Republicans? Trade (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was my understanding that Douglass was a leading member of the Young Republicans and that the article was using it in that way, apologies if my grammar was unclear in that regard. I couldn't find a specific mention of the final bit, but your contest of its inclusion was not about its sourcing, to my understanding.

"gives the impression that leading members of Young Republicans either have this attraction, supports this practice or are actively engaging in it"

The groupchat's members have been widely described as leading members of the Young Republicans, if they did state their support for this practice, which I haven't found in a source but would be perfectly fine if a source said so. I read your original notice as being that the content should not be included even if it was sourced that the groupchat said it, which I strongly disagree with. 1brianm7 (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I opposed the content because the sentence appeared structured in such a way as to give the reader the impression of making claims not supported by the Politico article which would violate BLP

At that point was better to remove the sentence entirely until the community can agree on a way to avoid the issue Trade (talk) 03:45, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve started a discussion on the talk page for specific changes to the lede. 1brianm7 (talk) 04:40, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chantal Davidis a Canadian professor who is going viral for an alleged antisemitic comment she made. While I think what is currently on the article is perfect, I think its worth flagging the article as it may become the target of vandalism shortly.I know when a subject dies, we have the Recent death template and the current event template but do we have something for this situation. Is there a way to flag this so editors know to monitor the page or limit edits by new users temporarily?

I am a new user so apologies if this belongs somewhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnterusernamePLS (talk • contribs) 05:23, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The National Post opinion column[7] is an inappropriate source for the mention so I have removed it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:41, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muliple reverts R1 R2 of a BLPREMOVE edit without RS concerns being addressed on talk. Most recent by an editor engaged [8] by an IP editor currently blocked from editing the page for edit warring[9]. Patternbuffered (talk) 07:09, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate some input at Anita Anand. Anita.Anand.2025 removed the year of birth. I reverted this, as there are two sources in the article confirming the date. I also reported the account on the grounds of WP:IMPERSONATE, here, and the account is now blocked. An IP editor has now removed the year again, with an edit summary similar to the first one: Removed age as that is personal and I do not want that to be accessible by the public. I could of course revert again, but wondered if I was missing something and leaving out is the right thing to do. Thanks, Tacyarg (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DOB, I'd say that this applies, [i]f a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it. So, I'd support not including the year, because neither of the two sources cited seems to be reliable. Salvio ^giuliano 14:36, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the blocked editor may have evaded their block, via signed out. GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, thinking again about the sources. One is the Library of Congress - is that a primary source? And the other is a political newsletter, so I agree that's not great. There are other more RS, though: NDTV World; and Anand's website. I'd say there's no question about her notability, if that's a factor, she's not borderline. Tacyarg (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rumors are Jackson has died. There is no official announcement, only "RIP" posts on Facebook and Instagram from acquaintances, at this time. Editing his entry to past tense might be premature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:A61C:E900:84E6:517D:5E7B:1A1 (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's to being patient. We need to hear it from a reliable source. JFHJr (㊟) 03:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's https://rollingstonejapan.com/articles/detail/43775 and https://www.notreble.com/buzz/2025/10/19/farewell-to-anthony-jackson-one-of-the-most-influential-bassists-of-all-time-rip-aj. I don't think either of them are reliable, however. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:56, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, WP:BLPSPS and commercial. It just needs time to gain reliable coverage. I put in a request for a week of semi-protection at WP:RPP, so IPs can wait for said reliable coverage. Give our beloved jannies some time as well. JFHJr (㊟) 04:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On second look, the Rolling Stone ref looks fine. "伝説的ベーシストのアンソニー・ジャクソンが73歳で死去、矢野顕子や上原ひろみとも共演" [Legendary bassist Anthony Jackson, who also performed with Akiko Yano and Hiromi Uehara, dies at age 73] (in Japanese). Rolling Stone Japan. 2025-10-20.. This can be enough for now. Better will come later. JFHJr (㊟) 04:32, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that regional publications may not always inherit the parent's reliability, and the article doesn't have a proper byline. Still, better than nothing I suppose. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 04:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree an authorless piece by the likes of "staff" is less than optimal. I can read it without a translation, and it makes clear its sources are those close to the subject, including some we shouldn't cite to directly. But it's pretty much what we need. It appears reliable enough, facially. Some third-parties were already named in the article before the subject's passing. Let's just add better sources as they emerge. I've withdrawn my RPP request in this light. JFHJr (㊟) 04:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. I forgot to say thank you, @ChildrenWillListen, for the link. You did that. Thank you. JFHJr (㊟) 04:59, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This CFD [10] closed with the implication that 'male' and 'female' categories are BLP violations. I disagree and do not see this as being the case. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:19, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand this either and I'm not seeing consensus for a mass rename in that CFD. At the very least it should have been relisted as the nominator changed the proposed renaming halfway through. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While it's IMO fine to have a general discussion on whether it's BLP violation here, this isn't the place to challenge the close and so it's IMO not productive to discuss whether the close was correct. If editors disagree with the close, they should follow the normal process for challenging closes. Nil Einne (talk) 09:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging HouseBlaster, the closer of the CFD. Some1 (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The CFD closure aside, Habst raises an interesting point at the CFD: I'm not sure that Wikipedians should be in the business of categorizing tens of thousands of people, including many BLPs, by their biological sex based on implication alone. How would this affect other categories such as Category:Female foreign ministers, Category:Female United States senators, etc.? Should we not use those female/male categories for BLPs until the BLP subject themselves or reliable sources explicitly say they're female or male? Some1 (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what the CFD said at all. The argument made was that [f]or the vast majority of pages under these categories, we only know for sure what category they chose to compete under -- we don't know their biological details which is what "female" and "male" implies. That is a very particular concern regarding transgender people in sports, which falls squarely within BLP's requirement to have excellent sources for controversial statements; positive, negative, or neutral; and the even more stringent criteria for categories for BLPs. It is not a general argument that the words "male" or "female" are inherently BLP violations. If people want to dispute the argument made by Habst about competition categories, then please explain why; saying it is ridiculous or that you disagree is not sufficient.

(The discussion was open for c. 15 days without a relist, so I am not sure why a formal relist would be necessary. But if you want to challenge the close, WP:DRV is thataway.) Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please, read User talk:HouseBlaster#Category:Canadian female sprinters for a very relevant discussion on this.

As explained there, 'male' and 'female' categories are not inherently BLP violations and I don't think that CfD close implies that at all -- in fact, they are useful when the context is explicitly biological. The issue is only using these terms inaccurately in non-biological contexts. While it's true that there is a sense of 'male' and 'female' that refers to gender presentation, the most widely understood sense of these words is biological, so it's important to not give the wrong impression. --Habst (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no disagreement that as adjectives "male/female" are nearly always connected with the biological sense though both also allow for gender identity, but the question is, what could we replace something like "Female foreign ministers" with? "Women foreign ministers" might work but companion "Men foreign ministers" is extremely unclear and nonsensical. "Foreign ministers who are men/women" is clunky plus I can see those drawing complaints from anti-trans readers.

As long as categories like "Female foreign ministers" state in their description that this category includes people that identify as a woman, eliminating the biologic aspect, that's probably the cleanest solution. Masem (t) 00:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I agree the subject is somewhat interesting. Senators and foreign ministers generally speak on issues for a living, so I feel a little more comfortable that they would have a chance to speak on these matters using their own platforms if they choose.

For athletes, especially for ones long since dead, often times the only things we know about them are what other people have written about their performances. In many cases we as Wikipedians assume "Male" or "Female" for their categories based on which competitions they took part in -- that's a proxy for biological sex but not 100% determinative. Also, I think there is something a little unique about gender categories in sports that may not apply to other professions which tend not to be segmented by gender. --Habst (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Foreign ministers (women)" and "Foreign ministers (men)" could work for those cases (if there's any desire to rename) CambrianCrab (talk) please ping me in replies! 00:23, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But 'male' and 'female' do not imply biological sex and the OED defines male and female as referring to 'sex or gender'. Also if the people in question are long deceased BLP wouldn't apply regardless. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There's an ongoing discussion over at Talk:Emily Neves#Basic info: Middle name, date of birth, etc if you are interested in it. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:06, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]