Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Thomas D. Brock

 Resolved

An editor has just noted that the subject has died. However, I have not been able to confirm or verify this information anywhere. If I am charitable, then it's likely the user found news of this death in a government index of some kind. Can anyone verify that the subject has died? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I added a source. Fences&Windows 01:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not sure it adds much to substantiate his death, but it's better than nothing. It's odd how there isn't anything about his death anywhere. Wouldn't it show up in the SSDI, or does that take time? Viriditas (talk) 08:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

New York Times has finally covered his death: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_D._Brock&diff=prev&oldid=1019385143. Fences&Windows 20:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping at this. I appreciate it. Viriditas (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Phillip Adams (American football)

Phillip Adams (American football) last week shot and killed six people before killing himself after a later police standoff; the story is well established, investigators have tracked the events and know it was him that shot the victims, etc. There's no question that a murder-killing happened with Adams at the trigger.

However, the problem is that we have editors that are rushing to add in "Adams was a football player and mass murderer..." as part of the lede sentence. The lede overall already covers that he shot and killed people, as there's no way to ignore that, but it seems extreme UNDUE and POV-ish to rush to call him a mass murderer. You cannot deny that the sourcing talks about Adams in context of the murder, and by definition "mass murderer" applies, but there are no sources that actually call him a "murderer"; there are no significant signs (yet) that this was a premeditated or provoked attack and while there's still investigation and a coroner's evaluation going on, the current theory ties to to complications of his mental health state from his football career, so the media are treating him more of a victim of circumstance and not calling him, outright, a murderer, though obviously they do not deny his crime. So it seems wholly inappropriate for us to rush to call him a criminal or a murderer in the lede like that, given that is not reflective of the sourcing.

If the attack was determined to be premediated or something that Adams had full control of, then it may be more appropriate to include it, but at this point, we just simply don't know enough, and given the state of the media, we should be as conservative or more so in our reporting rather than rush to use blaming language. --Masem (t) 00:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

He chose to go to a house with a loaded gun & kill 6 people. No-one made him do it. Jim Michael (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not a BLP so this seems moot. Athene cunicularia (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

BLP absolutely applies to the recently deceased per WP:BDP. --Masem (t) 00:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

There's no good reason it should - that guideline/policy/rule needs to be changed. Jim Michael (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Being a murderer is a legal conclusion. Labeling him as such would be unacceptable under WP:BLPCRIME if he was sitting in jail awaiting trial. Should the tenets of BLPCRIME extend under WP:BDP? Do current reliable sources (not WP:RSOPINION) label the act as a murder? Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

There's certainly no shortage of RS which clearly describe the mass shooting as murder. Jim Michael (talk) 10:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Do any directly label him a murderer? The categories that are in the article labeling him as a criminal and murderer are problematic without a conviction. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I think there's a point where we have to use some editorial judgment. First, the opening sentence: Unless a persons sole or main source of notability is being a murderer, then having an opening sentence like that reads as amateurish. When defining any subject, there are a certain set of questions you have to answer to build a context for the reader, so the following info will make sense. There is an order of importance to these question that is intrinsic to the questions, and there is a chronological order to factor in as well. The opening sentence does not need to cover every aspect of the person's notability. It simply needs to define the subject in the broadest terms possible. Then, once you have some context to build from, you can start describing different aspects.

As an example, the article on nitroglycerin would sound pretty funny if it began, "Nitroglycerin is an explosive and responsible for the deaths of millions of people." True as that may be, it sounds ridiculous. We need to build some sort of context first, and describe exactly what nitroglycerin is before we get into details of what nitroglycerin did.

People are no different. We need to begin first with defining what exactly a Phillip Adams is, and then go into different aspects of what he did. Unless he's like Charles Manson, whose only claim to fame is being a murderer, or his friend Bobby Beausoleil, whose primary claim to fame is still being a murderer, then it sounds silly to put that in the very first sentence, sort of like the way a child would tell a story.

I don't see how we can avoid having info about this in the lede. I would avoid using labels like "murderer" at all, and simply describe what he allegedly did. The way the article looked when I checked it, oh ... about 15 minutes ago, looked pretty good, and is just how I would state it. I'd keep in mind recentism, and how bad early news reports can be from the way they will be a few days/weeks from now. News outlets deal with events in real time, and that inevitable leads to mistakes, especially early on, so it's best not to be hasty in jumping to conclusions. Zaereth (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not childish at all. Try having a conversation about Adams - see how few seconds (not minutes) it takes for it to be mentioned that he killed people.

To use your example of Manson, your argument about Adams could be used to say that the first para of the lead of Manson's article should be limited to his 'work' as a cult leader. Or should it say new/fringe religious movement in order to avoid being negative towards him? Jim Michael (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

What I've stated is that it is too soon to be using that language. If down the road months after these events (likely after the investigation has closed) and that becomes the common way of thinking of about him , then yes, but right now, adding it is putting undue weight on the recent events and without giving the time needed to let the immediate emotional impact of the events simmer down. --Masem (t) 01:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I understand and agree, but I still stay that months/years after this event, an opening sentence that says "...football player and mass murderer..." will sound ridiculous. That's just bad writing, that's all. Months/years from now, onc the emotion of it winds down and people can look at it objectively, we likely won't have this problem. At the risk of invoking Godwin's law (yet I can't think of a better example of a mass murderer), even the article on Adolph Hitler doesn't read like that, and has a very professional opening-paragraph. Rather than trying to cram it all in the very first sentence, it's better to think about the reader, and what do they need to know first. Zaereth (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

It won't ever sound ridiculous. If he'd only committed a minor crime it would be. Readers need to know about the mass shooting well before the list of teams he played for. He was an ordinary player who committed an extremely serious crime. He wasn't an outstanding, world-famous player who committed a minor crime. Jim Michael (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

That's funny, because, no offense, but your first sentence sounds, well, ridiculous, so I couldn't help but laugh at the irony. It's not an insult to you, but please take it as a bit of constructive criticism, because, while I understand what you're trying to say, it's just poorly written. That's all. Zinsser's law states, "Easy writing makes for hard reading. Hard writing makes for easy reading." I tried above to briefly explain why it sounds "ridiculous", meaning "unprofessional", but it is difficult to do without writing an entire book. I'd suggest clicking on the link I provided above if you want more info, or I'd highly recommend the book On Writing Well: The Classical Guide to Writing Nonfiction by William Zinsser, to name but one. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

If it helps, though, I'll break it down like this: Anytime people write more than a text, they have info they want to convey, typically in the form of a relationship between info that leads them to a point. We always have to start with an introduction, and end with a point, or a summary sentence. In between is the content, which show how the two relate. When this end point is reached, then it's time to begin a new paragraph, or else people may miss it. The goes for anything we write, really, be it a single sentence, a paragraph, section, or an entire article. As much as people feel the need to make the point first, that's a mistake, because that's not where people look for it, and it becomes circular reasoning.

Look again at the article on Hitler. That is a very well-written lede there. It introduces the subject, and then leads to the main point. This really goes for all articles, even those like phosphorescence or mirror, and really any informative writing, not just bios. Introduce, relate, and lead to the point. Don't start with it. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Many notable people are known for 2 different things. In those cases, it's normal and commonplace for both to be in the first sentence. There are 3 mentioned in the first sentence of Donald Trump, 5 in the first sentence of Arnold Schwarzenegger & 6 in the first sentence of Jerry Springer. Even when one thing is criminal & the other is not, it's still normal & commonplace - for example Bill Cosby & Harvey Weinstein. If many WP editors shared your view that it's ridiculous, we wouldn't have a large number of articles which mention multiple things in their first sentences. Jim Michael (talk) 07:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The first examples are cases where those are multiple professions or careers, and thus listing them all in the first sentence is logic. Adding in the criminal or characterization facet that is not a career thing is what makes the sentence completely awkward and appear as immature writing, becuase that is putting that as equal weight as the career parts, which is usually not appropriate. There's a TV Tropes trope called "Murder, arson, and jaywalking" that is sorta the reverse of this but is the same idea: a lede sentence that includes professional/career descriptors and then adds on a criminal facet is mixing terms and phrases inappropriately to create poorly written sentences. Just because you can probably find hundreds of others BLPs with similar first sentences doesn't make it right: as I mention in the above section, this is a long-standing problem due to human nature of wanting to call out negative behavior, and we should really codify that the lede sentence should not be going to to call out criminal or other characterizations unless that is the only thing they were noted for. The whole of the lede can get to any critical criminal facets (as we clearly have with Adams). --Masem (t) 13:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion that it's awkward & immature. I agree that in most cases criminality shouldn't be in the first sentence & that it would in most cases be undue weight to do so. However, in this case it's entirely justified. He's best-known for committing a mass shooting - it's not a side issue & wasn't a minor event in his life. He was an ordinary player who committed an extremely serious crime, not a world-famous player with millions of fans who committed a minor crime. Criminality is not mentioned until late in the articles of many sportspeople who've committed serious crimes, which I suspect is in many cases due to fans not wanting it to be prominently mentioned. Jim Michael (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Only over the course of the last few days has he been considered as a murderer over his football career; prioritizing that now is a problem per WP:RECENTISM. If months down the road - after the investigation and analysis has been completed - that sources still readily considering him a murdered over a football player, then maybe there is something to include in the first sentence. But in the days and weeks after his death? It's very much inappropriate to include - this is exactly why BRCP exists. --Masem (t) 16:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

What's BRCP? Jim Michael (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I totally agree about that. Unless a person is solely known for a criminal act, pushing the criminality into that first sentence seems very immature; someone gave the example that we do this on Harvey Weinstein where it is Harvey Weinstein is an American former film producer and convicted sex offender. which seems extremely awkward. --Masem (t) 02:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Should Weinstein's article list many of his films first? Try having a conversation about him & see how many seconds it takes for his sex offending to be mentioned. Even if you try hard to keep the conversation to his film career, the other person will definitely repeatedly bring up the fact that he's a convicted sex offender. Jim Michael (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no requirement at all that a person's criminal history has to be made in the first sentence of an article, unless they are solely known for that (eg Lee Harvey Oswald). If their criminal history is a clear notable facet, it must be described in the lede, but the lede still must be written to present the topic neutrally, impartially, and dispassionately, and the rush to include the criminality as early as the first sentence completely demolishes that neutrality (particularly the dispassionate side - it makes us look like we're focusing on calling out the negative). We will cover the criminal facet, but we shouldn't be putting it top shelf, and by placing it last - usually what ends most people's careers and/or lives - it is in appropriate order as well, and that makes us dispassionate to the topic. Keep in mind that we expect that if a reader visits an article they will read at minimum the whole lede, hence the importance of the lede to include this, but not required to be in the lede statement. --Masem (t) 13:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the act is clearly label as a murder, he is clearly named as the suspect/culprit. But they don't attach "murderer" or "killer" to him. --Masem (t) 01:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Mass shooter, mass killer or who shot six people and himself dead could be put in place of mass murderer. Jim Michael (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

It currently says "Adams shot and killed himself following a standoff with police in Rock Hill, South Carolina, after being identified by investigators as the gunman responsible for killing six people the day before." which seems reasonable to me. He's not solely notable for the killing; he already had an article here. Black Kite (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The reader only finds that out after reading a list of the teams he played for. He's by far best known for the mass shooting he committed. The large majority of the people who've heard of him now have only known of his existence since then. Most couldn't name any of the teams he played for. Had he not done the shooting (even if he'd died), most of them still wouldn't have heard of him. He was an ordinary player who committed a massive crime, not a star who committed a minor crime. That's why a mention in the first sentence is due weight. O.J. Simpson's career was much longer, varied & successful - but his criminality is mentioned in the first sentence of his article. Jim Michael (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The probem is that you end up tying yourself in knots trying to phrase it in a single sentence without it sounding terrible. I would possibly swap the second and third sentences around so that the sentence about the shooting follows directly on from the first one which says basically who he was, with the list of teams following separately. Black Kite (talk) 10:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

That would be better than how it currently is.

Talk:Phillip Adams (American football) is a more appropriate place for this discussion. Jim Michael (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll respond down here, since it's time to undent but doing so would break up the continuity of the threads. I really don't know how to explain this all in a few, simple paragraphs. I can recommend a lot of good books on the subject, but that only works if people decide to look them up and read them. I think if people just understood how written communication works most effectively, then they wouldn't get so focused on the opening sentence as being this all-important thing. Don't get me wrong, because it's very important, but not for the reasons people seem to think.

I've tried one analogy, so I'll try another. This is also a big problem in scientific and technical articles. Math is a completely different language than English, and those proficient in it are quite often not very good in the other. The problem that arises is that scientists and mathematicians tend to want to start off by tossing people right into the deep end, without giving any of the background or basic, general definitions a person needs to follow along. It's really a common problem, in that people tend to assume the reader has all of the necessary background info to be able to follow along.

As an example, I'll use the mirror article. The natural tendency of anyone who is well versed in the science of mirrors is to begin by stating that a mirror is an object that produces specular reflection. That is entirely correct, simple, and precise. But what the hell does it mean?

Now, you can go on to explain what it means, and eventually people might start to comprehend the concept of specular reflection, but that is really doing it backwards. Instead, it's important to think about the reader. What does the reader need to know first about mirrors? What is the one thing that everybody recognizes when they see a mirror? What are the uses of a mirror? How did they come to exist? What are they made of? It's questions like these that need to be answered before we ever need to get into how a mirror works. That's what I mean when I say there is an order of importance to questions. There are certain things a person needs to know first or else the following info will not make sense, and it has nothing to do with people's personal feeling about what is most important.

It's really not so different for bios. There are different ways information needs to be organized in order to make it understandable. In a sense, we're writing a story, so chronological order is a prime concern, but there are also orders of what, where, when, who, how, and why, and orders of other things we can categorize, but ordering things by notability makes the least amount of sense. That first sentence is more like a gateway; a place to get us started on the pathway. The first sentence should be a short, simple equation: "Subject is(=)...". The sentence should be the single, broadest, simplest, most all-encompassing definition possible of what the subject physically is, given in the fewest words possible. As a fictional example, here is an article on John Doe: "John Doe is a politician. John Doe was born on January 1, 1900, in Barf City, USA. Doe worked at a local law firm for two years, until being elected city council member in 1925, where he did this, that, and the other thing. In 1929, Doe was arrested for the murder of his wife and two children..."

In that example, it makes no sense to start with, "Doe is a murderer". First, that's just name calling, which is what makes it look childish. Technically, Doe is a politician who became a murderer, and there is a story in that, so we need to show how it gets from there to here. When he goes on trial, he will be a politician on trial, and when he goes to jail, he'll be a politician in jail. Now he might become far more infamous for these murders, but a politician will still be the primary thing that he is. Second, it's like premature ejaculation to put the climax of the story first. That's what I mean when I say the summary is where the important points go. Putting them first is backwards, and is like trying to explain how a mirror works before first explaining what the damn thing is. While I totally agree with the comments on RECENTISM (this is too recent to tell), regardless of what he's done, a football player is what he is.

To Jim, the one question I would ask myself if I were you is: "Why is this so important to me?" I mean, why do you think the opening sentence is so all fired important? Isn't it better to have a well-written article? Wouldn't that get the message across more effectively? Wikipedia has a lot of rules people can use to micromanage with, but once in a while we should step back and look at the bigger picture, and see the forest rather than just the trees. In all these rules, we sadly have little beyond MOS in the way of good writing guides. Zaereth (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and at the risk of making this even longer, I think another important concept that people often misunderstand is "Show, don't tell". There's some basic psychology there. People tend to go in the opposite direction of where they're told. In theory, the seemingly obvious way to get kids not to smoke is to tell them not to. In practice, telling a kid not to do anything is the best way to ensure they will. In Aristotelian view, the universe was just like it seems, but since then we have learned things are rarely like they seem. This is really no different for names like "murderer". If you tell me Darth Vader is a murderer, I'm like "Yeah, right. Whatever." If you show me he blew up the entire planet of Alderaan, then I'm apt to believe you. It's always more believable to lead people to a conclusion and let them come to it themselves than to give it to them and then expect them to buy it. Zaereth (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Several people made the same edit to this article as I did - but none of them have entered this discussion.

Your hypothetical example of a politician-turned murderer wouldn't be a politician in jail - he'd be a prisoner who used to be a politician.

I strongly disagree that it's bad writing to include a profession & serious criminality in the first sentence - it's just as good writing as including multiple professions in the first sentence. Our readers don't need to read a list of teams that Adams played for before he chose to become a mass murderer. The team names are trivia in comparison to what he chose to do at the end of his life.

Another example of someone who used to have a successful legitimate career but who now is known for something else which gives him a bad reputation is David Icke. He's not a criminal, but it's a valid comparison in that it includes very different things in its first sentence. On top of that, it puts conspiracy theorist first. The lead doesn't go into details about his sports career before much later saying that years later he became a conspiracy theorist. The lead doesn't include any sports details; well over 90% of it is about him being a conspiracy theorist. Jim Michael (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Fortunately, the concept of what is well written and poorly written is based in science and not people's personal beliefs, and really goes back as far as Pliny with roots in ancient Greek and Babylonian. In the modern age, there is a very good understanding of the neuroscience and neuropsychology developing that helps explain why. I can recommend some more good book on the subject, but I'd start with the first one I already recommended, because that's one of the best. It's universal, meaning it doesn't matter what language it's in, and is a great factor in determining a sources reliability.

Of course, I don't expect to convince you. There is little point in giving advice to people who have already made up their minds. Like Masem said, this is a problem that transcends this article and is really Wikipedia wide. In any discussion like this, the people you really need to convince is everyone else. Zaereth (talk) 02:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Several editors whom I don't know were convinced enough to alter the first sentence in the same way as I did, without any prompting from me. Jim Michael (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of argumentum ad populum? It's what I call the lemming fallacy. If everyone jumps off a cliff does that mean I should do it too? See, this all has to do with basic logic, as all communication does. There is a premise, basis, and conclusion. If any of these don't hold water, then the whole thing is invalid, and it doesn't make sense. It's always a bad idea to make the conclusion the premise, because that becomes circular logic. You start with a premise, and end with a conclusion different from the premise. I don't know how to explain it any clearer than that ... at least, not without charging you. People make good money teaching what I'm giving you for free, so I hope it helps. Have a good day. Zaereth (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The page views of the Phillip Adams article rose from 12 on April 7 to 530,481 on April 8 - a factor of over 44,000. As of now, it has stabilized at around 4,000 per day.

Phillip Adams killing six people is far more notable than any aspect of his football career, including the teams he played for. That Adams was the gunman is now undisputed. His short description says "American football player and killer." I don't see any valid argument for how the list of NFL teams he played for is more notable than the fact that he murdered six people. Plenty of reliable sources describe his killings as murder. There is precedent for including his crimes in the first sentence: see Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and Javaris Crittenton. - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 21:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Just because the event was called a murder does not mean that sources describe him as a killer or murderer, nor does that give us allowance to call him a killer or murderer (outside of saying that he shot and killed 6 people). It is because they have yet to figure out how much intent there was to this, if he was impacted by his mental health or if he purposely chose to do that. And OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to include this; the fact we include those mentions in those other articles is just as bad form. Again, the lede sentence is not required to identify why a person is notable, but it is required to neutrally introduce the topic. --Masem (t) 21:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

That Phillip Adams was a murderer is not an opinion; it is a fact, so WP:NPOV doesn't apply. Whether mental illness was a factor does not obscure the fact that six people died due to his actions. Harvey Weinstein had a much more notable career in the film industry, yet his sexual misconduct is mentioned in the first sentence of his article. Consider WP:10YT: in 10 years, it is likely that Phillip Adams will be remembered as a murderer who happened to play football, not a football player who happened to murder six people. He wasn't a star football player who ran a red light, or even robbed a bank. He was a mediocre player who murdered six people, and no aspect of his career on the field comes close to what happened on April 7, 2021. - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 21:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

That's ascribing WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS attitude ("he killed people so that's all he'll be known for, and we must stress that"). We aren't hiding that he shot and killed people and then himself in the lede, but until it is crystal clear in the sources that he is considered a murderer more than a football player, we cannot give that term weight in the first sentence. It's speculation to assume that in 10 years he'll only be known for this act. Perhaps it will be the case that his football injuries led to these actions, and subsequent caused changes in how the NFL handled head injuries. While he still will be documented for killing six people, it likely will not be that he will be framed as a "murderer" in this context. But we don't know that yet, and as media sources now do not name him a murderer or killer, we can't either. --Masem (t) 21:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Masem, Morbidthoughts, AllegedlyHuman, Koridas, and Jim Michael:
Saying "Phillip Adams was an American football player and mass murderer" is not stressing his mass murder above his football career - it puts the two in equal standing. A murderer is defined as "one who murders," therefore saying that Adams murdered people is the same as calling him a murderer. Adams was not a player who received an ephemeral burst of attention in the news (say, for appearing on a TV show, or saying something controversial on Twitter). Six people (seven, including himself) died due to his actions. O. J. Simpson had a far more notable football career but his criminality is mentioned in the first sentence of his article. In the Phillip Adams article half the sources cited are about the massacre he perpetrated. The fact that he was a mass murderer is far more important to his legacy than the fact that he was drafted in the 7th round of the 2010 NFL draft by the 49ers, or the list of teams he played for.
Jim Michael stated in an edit summary: Easily important enough for the first sentence. The large majority of people reading this have only heard of him because he's a mass murderer. Prior to him shooting several people, the vast majority of people outside the US had never heard of him. It's not trivial, a side issue or undue weight - he was a mass murderer, not a one-time shoplifter. I would go even further and say that the vast majority of people inside the US had never heard of him before the attack - only those who follow the NFL extremely closely, or who live in Rock Hill, South Carolina. He wasn't anywhere close to a star player. He was a nobody, whose Wikipedia page had an average of 7 views per day from 1/1/2020 to the day before the shooting. - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 22:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Some of the arguments advanced above by Crossover1370 make sense to me but I still find the use of the phrase "mass murderer" in the opening sentence premature at this stage. We are supposed to follow WP:RS coverage in deciding how to characterize someone. Looking at the rather massive news coverage of Adams in the last two weeks I see that most sources covering 2021 Rock Hill shooting don't actually refer to him as "murderer" or "mass murderer". They use various other type of language to describe what happened. The term murder generally assumes intent and culpability, and it is not used if the perpetrator is mentally incapacitated and is not in command in their faculties. Here we still don't know whether or not that was the case (see, e.g. today's ESPN story Two weeks later there are still more questions than answers about former NFL player Phillip Adams). I believe that's why the sources are being more careful and generally are not describing the event as "murders", despite its horrific nature , and are not calling Adams "murderer" right now. We should follow what the sources do and hold off on using the "murderer" language, especially in the opening sentence of the article. Nsk92 (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Just because most sources do not use the word "murder" does not mean it was not murder. I examined several of the sources in the article on the Saugus High School shooting and not a single one used the word "murder." That does not mean that it was not a mass murder. It is appropriately categorized under Category:2019 murders in the United States, Category:Murder in Los Angeles County, and Category:Murder–suicides in California. The 2021 Rock Hill shooting was no different (in fact, the death toll was higher). - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 00:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Just because most sources do not use the word "murder" does not mean it was not murder. Correct, but it does not mean that it was murder either. And what it does mean is that we should not characterize the act as "murder" until the sources start doing so. I have not looked at the sources for Saugus High School shooting in detail, but note that the word "murder" is not mentioned in the text of the article itself (particularly not in the lede and not in the opening sentence), and appears only once in the infobox, in the term "murder-suicide". Our standards for category listings are less strict than for the article text; that's probably not a good thing. Nsk92 (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

This isn't a WP:SKYISBLUE situation, Crossover1370. You need to get consensus to readd those label and categories into the article. If reliable sources are not directly labeling him a murderer, wikipedia should not be doing so either. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

There is this source (from the website lawandcrime.com started by Dan Abrams), and this source (U.S. edition of The Sun). - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 01:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The Sun is not a reliable source per WP:RS/P. The first source is an RS, but the only place "murder" appears in the headlines, and we do not consider headlines as part of a reliable source. --Masem (t) 02:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

There's this from Yahoo Sports. In the 24th paragraph: Until he became a mass murderer, a child killer, a sweeping force of evil.
And there's this: The police report, according to ESPN, listed six counts of murder, possession of a weapon during a violent crime and first degree burglary. The police report itself describes it as murder. - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 02:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

That the police record is naming the events as "murder" is one thing, but that's more a technical aspect of how they had to report it (the legal language of the law), but we're still talking about how we describe Adams here. And while that Yahoo source does use it, 1) it looks more like an op-ed column rather than a factual news report (the reason its byline is "columnist" gives that impression, in addition to its tone) and 2) that's one source out of dozens, so it would be improper to use that to name him "murderer" per UNDUE. Again, it is far better to ask the question in 2-3 or so months after they have looking into the state of his mental health and determined if he was fully cognizant of his actions or not, and see where the media places him then. Trying to push the "murderer" label now is not at all appropriate. --Masem (t) 13:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Now that the police report has listed six counts of murder, it is indisputable that Adams was a mass murderer. That fact alone is far more important, and covered far more in reliable sources, than any aspect of his football career, such as the round or year he was drafted, or the list of teams he played for.
Imagine if the Donald Trump article said that he was a businessman and reality TV star, and mentioned every property he owned and the TV show he hosted, and in the next paragraph mentioned that he was president of the United States for 4 years. This is what the Phillip Adams article looks like right now. - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 17:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, there's no question that the police are reporting six murders happened, and while by definition, Adams would be listed as a murderer, we still have to go by what sources say rather than our original research which is what you are asking us to do. And to compare to Trump there's no question that POTUS is a more significant position than being a businessman or reality TV star, and we have four years of sources to evaluate that. You're asking us to take less than two weeks of sourcing to make the same assumption here, which is fully against NPOV and RECENTISM. This is not the place where we are going to call out people's criminality just because a crime happened, that is against WP:BLPCRIME. --Masem (t) 17:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

It is not "calling out" a criminal act, it is documenting a criminal act - mentioning that it is already a key part of Adams's notability - and that is documented by numerous reliable sources. - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 17:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

We already document the criminal act in the lede in neutral terms (that he shot and killed six people before killing himself). But until more about his motives or state of health, to ascribe the use of the word "murderer" as a primary descriptor is both inappropriate per our BLP policy as well as per the lack of wide use of that term in reliable sources per NPOV. It is not required to include why someone is notable in the lede statement, only that it is included somewhere within the entire lede. Trying to force the word "murderer" is calling out the criminal act in a way not reflected by sources. --Masem (t) 17:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

And as for the categories that User:Morbidthoughts removed (here & here) they are all valid categories. Mass murderer? The police report documented six counts of murder. Criminal? Murder is a crime. 21st century criminal? 2021 is in the 21st century. Murderer of children? Among his victims were a 5-year-old and a 9-year-old. Criminal from South Carolina? He was born and raised in South Carolina (SC), went to college in SC, and committed his crime in SC. - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 19:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

They are not verifiable categories. The article you linked to describes Adams as the suspect. Not a murderer. Not a criminal. WP:BURDEN demands that the "cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article". This requirement extends to categories. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The ESPN article I linked to clearly mentions that Adams perpetrated the shooting, and is not merely "suspected" of doing so (see the 1st paragraph). Countless reliable sources corroborate this. So all the categories apply. (Right now, someone could read the 1st paragraph and the categories and conclude that he was just another cornerback in the NFL.) - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 06:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Naw, this is WP:Original Research. "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Check all the sources in the 2021 Rock Hill shooting article. It is clear that Adams isn't just suspected of perpetrating the shooting. We are now certain that Adams was the killer. Also check the categories in that article: Category:2021 murders in the United States, Category:Murder–suicides in South Carolina, Category:Murdered American children. If the Rock Hill shooting was mass murder, then Adams is by definition a murderer. If it's not murder (an assertion which is debunked by numerous reliable sources), you might as well remove the aforementioned categories from the article on the shooting. - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 20:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Let me put it in a different frame: let's say a person was attacked by a thief in their own home, and shot and killed the thief in self-defense (and determined that way from followup police investigation). For all purposes, the the thief was murdered, but you will never find a source that would call that person a murderer because they were acting in self-defense. There is a similar vein of thought you need to consider here. While there is no question that six people were murdered, the question of whether Adams was acting with malice on his own volition is unanswered, and questions were raised that prior to the incident he may not have been in total control of his mental well-being. As such, few sources are calling him a "murderer" because the question of malice/intent is unknown. You cannot just say "X committed murder, so X must be labeled a murderer." That is not how WP works particularly around living and recently-deceased persons. The crime can still be called a murder if that is how police have cataloged it, but that doesn't mean the suspect must be a murderer. --Masem (t) 20:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia's definition of murder. The first element of common law murder is: Unlawful – This distinguishes murder from killings that are done within the boundaries of law, such as capital punishment, justified self-defense, or the killing of enemy combatants by lawful combatants as well as causing collateral damage to non-combatants during a war. Killing someone in self-defense is not considered murder. By contrast, in the Phillip Adams case, several reliable sources including the police report describe his actions as murder. - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 00:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

See, this is where we need lawyers, judges, and courts to make these determinations for us. Law is confusing, which is why you need a lawyer if you ever find yourself in court.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but nevertheless, common law hasn't been practiced in the US since the 18th century. The US is a civil-law country, as is much of the world. Back in the days of common law, there weren't many thing you could call felonies, and anything that was typically came with a hanging.

In civil law, although the definitions vary from state to state, there needs to be intent and a legal thing called "malice aforethought". This means the person needs to be aware of their actions, of the difference between right and wrong, and a whole host of other things. That's why an insane person can't be convicted of murder, regardless of how many people they kill. We don't know yet any of this information, and we won't until a trial concludes. We shouldn't be trying to play lawyer like this, and this is exactly why things like BLPCRIME exist. He's a murderer when he is convicted of murder, and not a moment before. Zaereth 00:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Just to correct Zaereth, Adams is dead (killed himself after killing six others). However, there is an open medical investigation looking into his health just before the event to determine if long-term injuries from his NFL career were at play. But this still is pointing to the same point; whether Adams acted with "malice aforethought" which no RS current really lists out. --Masem (t) 01:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew that, but forgot to slip in "or deemed so by the authorities". I was about to do that, but you beat me to the punch. Zaereth (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the shooting I have found an additional source which states that Adams may have followed a new religion/ideology before his massacre. - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 19:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

And if after all is said and done in the investigation, that his involvement with that religion directly led him to this action on his own volition, and sources thus follow on that thread to call him "murderer" we can talk to that then. But we're not there yet. We're not saying it can't ever be added just not right now. --Masem (t) 20:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Seldom do news stories use the word "murderer" to describe those who kill. The typical language in news stories is: "The suspect was identified as...", "The perpetrator was identified as...", "<perpetrator's name> killed <# of victims> people", etc. But that does not mean that the killings are not murder. If reliable sources describe a killing as murder, Wikipedia can say that the killings were murder, and by extension, the perpetrator is a murderer. - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 20:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

If reliable sources describe a killing as murder, Wikipedia can say that the killings were murder, and by extension, the perpetrator is a murderer. As pointed out by multiple others, no we can't; if RSes are not using the word "murderer" when the crime is a murder, then we can't do that without violating BLP/BIO and NOR/SYNTH. --Masem (t) 20:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Then is there any other way to clarify that he committed mass murder? Right now, someone can read the first paragraph and the categories in the Phillip Adams article and conclude that he was just another cornerback in the NFL. - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 20:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The totality of the lede clearly indicates he shot and killed six people. There's no need for any more clarification given the sourcing present without being non-neutral. --Masem (t) 20:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

What about the categories? Should those searching for American mass murderers, or criminals from South Carolina, or American murderers of children, see Phillip Adams's name? - Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 20:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is MOS:ROLEBIO: The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described in reliable sources. Do most sources refer to him a football player who committed murder, a murderer who played football, or ...?—Bagumba (talk) 01:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Adams, "murderer" and categories

Splitting this part out from above as I think it requires a separate discussion: What about the categories? Should those searching for American mass murderers, or criminals from South Carolina, or American murderers of children, see Phillip Adams's name?

• This is actually a fair question. WP:BLPCAT is the advise we have for when to apply terms of criminality in categories to BLP (including recently deceased) and that text implies that as long as the matter is factually shown (which I do agree is the case for Adams being a murderer and criminal) and true, and is unquestionably part of his notability, even though RSes are not calling him that. BLPCAT remains silent on the issue related to where categories should be based on absolute fact for non-label terms but where those terms are potentially contentious if they were used in prose as we've identified above. My view : we should follow what we do in prose and that would be not to include said categories, yet, but BLPCAT is vague enough that I can't see removal being demanded at this time. --Masem (t) 17:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Sai Paranjpye

The 1998 film Saaz attributed as being inspired by "the lives of Indian playback singing sisters, Lata Mangeshkar and Asha Bhosle" is debatable - It uses the following article as reference [[1]] (Note the word used in the article is "Speculated"). Asha Bosle is quoted, "Its not true at all. To have two women in long plaits, take a couple of incidents and exaggerate them into a 3-hour film is such a waste of time." in the wikipedia page of the Film itself. [[2]]). Interview link - [[3]]

Aleesha Young

Please clean up this article as soon as possible.

Please add reliable sources for her contest history as soon as possible, thank you.

Laurence Galian

I Laurence Galian am the subject of this article.

Please tell me how I can substantiate claims through printed documents, certificates, awards, etc., i.e. do you accept JPEGs, GIFs, PDFs, etc., of these written, printed, and photographed matter that provide information or evidence or that serves as an official record?

If so, where do I send them, so they may serve to support and prove statements in my article?

Thank you.

DazanMushin (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• Do not publish stuff yourself. Show where stuff has already been published by other people with known good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Uncle G (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Here is some guidance:

• WP:BLP
• WP:AUTO
• WP:COI
• WP:EDITREQ
• WP:ABOUTSELF
• WP:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Baek Jong-won

• Baek Jong-won (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lack of citations included in particular to biographical data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newb787 (talk • contribs) 2021-04-23T20:11:44 (UTC)

Jeffrey Tucker

• Jeffrey Tucker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article fragment cites two sources, one from Reason magazine and one from the Economist. Diff here: [4] Am I right in thinking that they both are not RS? (1) The Reason article names a source, Timothy Virkkala, who tells about office gossip that he heard. (2) The Economist piece -- actually a blog in that magazine's website -- cites a blog by political writer Wendy McElroy; and she cites an anonymous blog. This sourcing dispute ran off and on [5] and returned with recent attempts to restore content removed three years ago. Bistropha (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Tomislav Vlašić

This page is of a living person and an editor is using primary sources on controversial posts. See the talk page. I removed the posts explaining the problem but the editor reverted my edits. I don't want to get into an edit war so I need help here. Mr. Vlašić was a Catholic Priest and still living. Ratko Peric was the current Bishop who just recently retired, Nikola Bulat a priest was a member of the commission that examined the Our Lady of Medjugorjeapparitions. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Thank you!@Governor Sheng: Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Julius R. Nasso

A user User:El C continually reuploads defamatory and false information about Julius R. Nasso in his "Personal Life" section regarding law suites he was formerly engaged in. The sources cited for the statements made do not support the statements, the statements are factually false, defamatory, and damaging to Mr. Nasso's reputation. User:El C has now placed a protection on the page and it cannot be edited.

El C is an experienced user with extensive knowledge and understanding of our sourcing policies for biographies of living people. A cursory glance at the section in question finds multiple references to highly-reliable sources such as the Los Angeles Times. Can you be more specific as to your proposed issues? If the Los Angeles Times published something and did not retract it, it is highly unlikely to be a violation of any policy to include it. Your claim that material sourced to an indisputable reliable source is factually false, defamatory, and damaging would need to be supported by a successful libel lawsuit filed against the sources in question, leading to a court decision that the statements were indeed libelous. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

That's about what I saw looking at the sources. Also that was one of the wildest stories I've read. Someone should make a movie out of it. I have an actor in mind for the lead role. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

IP editor, the article is temporarily semi-protected and can be edited by any autoconfirmed editor. The proper place for you discuss any changes you want to make is Talk:Julius R. Nasso, using a formal edit request. You will need to provide reliable sources that provide a different account of the events. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I made a single edit to the page (ever), so there's no continually whatsoever (i.e. is just plain false). Oh well. Article talk page still blank at the time I am writing this. Requested conflict of interest disclosure from this individual, claiming to be the subject's attorney, yet to be provided, as well. So, all of that speaks to itself, I think. But one could always opt to start doing things the right way, the proper way, at any time. Here's hoping. El_C 11:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Bjorn Fortuin

Hi. Looking for some help with Bjorn Fortuin's article with the reports of converting to Islam. My first question - is convert or revert the correct term here? Each have been used in the article in the past 24hrs. I simply have no idea when it comes to this area. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Update/shameless plug of WP:UPSD, a script to detect unreliable sources

It's been about 14 months since this script was created, and since its inception it became one of the most imported scripts (currently #54, with 286+ adopters).

Since last year, it's been significantly expanded to cover more bad sources, and is more useful than ever, so I figured it would be a good time to bring up the script up again. This way others who might not know about it can take a look and try it for themselves. I would highly recommend that anyone doing citation work, who writes/expands articles, or does bad-sourcing/BLP cleanup work installs the script.

The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Kerem Bürsin

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

A handful of IP editors have been changing the "partner" field in the Infobox without a reliable source to back their claims up, therefore violating the BLP policy (NOR). Here are some diffs: [6][7][8][9]. As you can see from page history, this has been going on for two months. Some other editors and I constantly revert them, which is totally fine per 3RRBLP, but 3RRBLP also says to make a report here at BLPN just in case, so that's what I'm doing. The page has been under pending changes protection since December 2020, and it is set to expire December 2021. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 13:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

I sort of feel with the recent upsurge in edits, it's probably worth just moving to semi for a time although since you're one of the main ones reverting if you feel it's unnecessary it's probably better to defer to you. If you do want to move to semi, make a request at WP:RFPP if you get nothing from here. Nil Einne (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Thank you for the advice. I was also thinking a move to semi would be a good idea, so I'll make a request at RFPP now. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 15:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Chloe Smith (musician) birth based on age as of date

The article, Chloe Smith (musician), references Freeman, Scott (October 11, 2013). "30 Under 30: Rising Appalachia's Chloe Smith stands on the beautiful edge of a creative cliff". ArtsATL.com.; which states "Chloe, 29, is the younger of the sisters". Based on this reference, I propose to add to the lede, (born c. {{birth based on age as of date|29|2013|October|11|noage=1}}) (which yields "(born c. 1983 or 1984)".

User:Skyerise opposes this addition, asserting that WP:DOB prohibits extrapolations of birth dates, including those of the sort that this template is designed to generate. I believe that this is a misreading of WP:DOB, as there is neither a conflict between sources nor reference to a primary source document. Per their suggestion, I raise this issue here to determine whether WP:BLP prohibits the use of {{birth based on age as of date}} in this article. BD2412 T 19:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

A precise date of birth is PII, which is what WP:DOB addresses; age isn't, and estimated year of birth is merely a programmatic way of providing age without requiring constant manual update of the article. As long as we have a reliable source for age-as-of-date, it should be included in an article. I don't see it violating WP:DOB at all. (Note that even WP:DOB says If 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, clearly differentiating between the privacy implications of date of birth and year of birth.) Schazjmd (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

As the original author of the articles on Chloe and her sister, Leah Song, I noticed that they never give their birth date or even year in any interview or biographical summary. From this I think that we can conclude that they would prefer not to reveal such details. Since as individuals they are much less notable than their band, Rising Appalachia, both WP:BLP and WP:DOB suggest that we be sensitive to the privacy of living persons. To add with a template c. 1983/1984 in lieu of a sourced birth date seems to be forcing the issue when the subject has consistently chosen not to disclose her birth date to interviewers. Skyerise (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

However, the subject does appear to have disclosed their age to the interviewer in this case. BD2412 T 20:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

artsatl.org [10] is possibly an ok-ish source in this context. The c. year can be added based on it. If it should be, that's editorial discretion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Its a reliable source for this, there is no reason to hide the date of birth on Wikipedia.VikingDrummer (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

YOB, not DOB. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Matthew Garrett

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

Page is repeated getting defaced with a baseless accusation surrounding the movement to remove RMS from his leadership positions.

This violates the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.

Violating edits:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matthew_Garrett&type=revision&diff=1016973205&oldid=1015081824
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matthew_Garrett&type=revision&diff=1016973587&oldid=1016973205
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matthew_Garrett&type=revision&diff=1018382981&oldid=1017318653
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matthew_Garrett&type=revision&diff=1019771672&oldid=1019403622

George Pell

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

Article faces persistent IP vandalism introducing negative content into the lede. Could and admin please consider introducing short term pending review or semi-protection? Melmann 20:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Done. Please write a far better introduction than that. That one is truly terrible.

  Mr Wibble held all of these offices and did all of these important and worthwhile things; receiving recognition and awards that we are going to detail for two paragraphs.

  After his conviction was overturned …

  What? asks the surprised reader. What conviction? For getting medals? What?

  Uncle G (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Jun Hong Lu, a Chinese-Australian religious figure

Jun Hong Lu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This caught my eye as this person is the subject of a website article published on facts.org.cn There have been repeated attempts of citing Chinese-sourced 'news' or news articles that cited Chinese-sourced materials in this person's BLP. In fact, I looked up this notice board and found similar situation happened in 2017

The most recent attempts are carried out by:

• WezSchultz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
  • Jun Hong Lu: Special:Diff/1020168563

• GSS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
  • Jun Hong Lu: Special:Diff/1019653514

To be fair, this BLP has many other issues, such as lack of proper citations in other parts, which should also be tidied up.

But that doesn't change the fact that any treatment to a religious figure, especially someone is subject to negative campaign by the Chinese authorities, should be handled in a very careful manner. It's not something a unsophisticated rollbacker can manage and simply label any attempt to improve the article as 'whitewashing'.

Unfortunately, my attempts of removing unreliable sources and their citations have been reverted.

For the lead part of the BLP, I also have concern that the current version has given too much weight on the criticism.

Few religious figures originate from mainland China can have the luxury of being treated fairly, much less likely in today's situation.

I humbly seek advice here.AutoPrime (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Birth dates: Tony Curran, Brian George, and maybe more

I'd like to draw attention to cases of ill-founded removal of birth dates from several articles and ask for help of the community. Quite by chance I came across two instances of such deletion in articles Brian George and Tony Curran. In both cases it was User:Homechallenge55 who deleted the dates that had been there for years. I didn't bother tracking other instances but I believe there are plenty. The edits adding birth dates are rapidly reverted by User:Homechallenge55 and User:NinjaRobotPirate (and maybe somebody else, I didn't check). The reasons are absolutely obscure for me. Those birthdates, as far as I know, are not in any way controversial or contentious. Moreover, they have verifiable references on Wikidata ([11] and [12]) and other sources are easily googleable. Why on Earth could the dates be considered "likely to be challenged" and "removed immediately and without discussion"? In my opinion, it is a clear misuse of BLPRS rules. Aren't there any other options to contest information some users (who?) believe to be unreferenced? What references are good enough (if not IMDB or Filmportal)? Does anyone check Wikidata before removing information? Thank you in advance. — 2dk (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)2021 (UTC)

See WP:DOB, WP:BURDEN, and WP:USERG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Basically, birthdates of living people should not be added without a WP:BLP-good source. Removing uncited birthdates of living people is recommended by the WP:BLP policy. They can be re-added with a good ref, a WP:BLPSELFPUB source, like a check-marked Twitter, can work, assuming it clearly states the year/date of birth. Like NRP says, Wikidata is WP:USERG, not good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Jeffrey Goldberg

I thought you guys would like to know that someone edited the wiki article for Jeffrey Goldberg has been updated to include a blurb from Greenwald's latest substack piece.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeffrey_Goldberg&diff=cur&oldid=1020188263

I'm not sure if this violates the site's policy, but I thought I'd give you guys a heads up, especially since the blurb is essentially making the claim that Goldberg's New Yorker piece is one of the main reasons why the invasion of Iraq happened to begin with, which I believe is a great exaggeration and grossly unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hooded-wanderer (talk • contribs) 00:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Blog platforms (Substack, Medium, etc.) that publish user-generated content should be assumed self-published, unless there is evidence that the source has a publisher who is not the author. Self-published sources should never be cited for BLP material about any third party. Politrukki (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Grover Furr

BasedMises changed the lead to state,[13] "Furr is a historical negationist and Soviet war crimes denier who holds fringe views regarding the Soviet Union". The only source is two articles published in Russian in New Poland magazine. It's unclear if that's a reliable source or if the articles even support the claims, as the editor refuses to provide quotes that would back up the content. I am hoping that this can be confirmed as it is unacceptable to have unverified information or original research prominently displayed on a BLP. (t · c) buidhe 03:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, Based on that one diff I concur this is too problematic for the lead. Although the subject is controversial enough some sort of mention of this should be present there, but backed by reliable sources and worded more carefully. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

chuck clements

2nd ref article is not about Chuck Clements. It is about "Ryan Clement" a different person. Please remove, as I was not able. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasper0901 (talk • contribs)

The cited article specifically mentions Chuck Clements, and is being used on Wikipedia as a reference to him being on the Broncos: After joining the Outlaws, he [Ryan Clement] beat out Chuck Clements, the sixth quarterback selected in the 1997 draft, for the starting job. Clements made the New York Jets' roster that year and later was signed to the Philadelphia Eagles' practice squad. His last NFL stop was Greeley, where he was in the Denver Broncos' training camp last summer. - DoubleCross (‡) 14:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Jan Żaryn

Jan Żaryn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is a discussion at Talk:Jan Żaryn concerning the newly added sentence "Numerous statements by Jan Żaryn have been recognized by journalists of [snip - several Polish newspapers] as nationalist, anti-Semitic, chauvinistic and historically false". Snip is mine, of course. There is probably some relevant criticism here (although UNDUE is also a potential issue), but the current sentence may indeed be problemsatic. It would be good to see some neutral parties comment on the talk there, as the discussion there - in which I only suggested asking for 3O here yesterday - is already escalating and not in a good way. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Why is this problematic?VikingDrummer (talk) 06:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

VikingDrummer, Welcome to Wikipedia. You've been here for barely four months so you may not be familiar with policies like WP:BLP. Check it out and then you'll see. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Piotrus, the talk page is impossible to navigate with that long discussion. What is the problem here? Did the "journalists of [snip - several Polish newspapers]" not write these things?VikingDrummer (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence, as originally written by me, is too harsh. However, there are several data reported in those articles, and also in the discussion[14] that ensued, which deserve consideration, above all because they are arguments that are connected with the accusations of politicization of the Institute.[15]--Mhorg (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

VikingDrummer, Per WP:SYNTH/WP:OR, it is not our place to claim there have been "numerous" statements. As for whether they wrote this or not - I haven't seen any quotes supporting such exact claims being made. And even if they were, we need to consider WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. Please read all mentioned policies, btw. I suggested you read BLP above - have you done so? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I have done so. The dispute between you and User:Mhorg was unclear in scope. But apparently you both agree that the sentence was inaccurate so there is no current dispute? You could just place what the individual newspapers write.VikingDrummer (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Charles Hoskinson

Given that Hoskinson is announcing 'the world’s biggest blockchain deployment to date' this week, the change of Hoskinson's nationality from American to South African may be malicious:

18:16, 27 April 2021‎ 2a02:a420:68:17ce:b463:3ac6:fab3:b8ee talk‎  13,508 bytes −1‎  Fixed his nationality undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit

He is 'US citizen, Hawaiian born', according to Rod Alexander, IOHK's media director. rod.alexander@iohk.io

Please change it back to American IOHKwriter (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

removed by User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång.VikingDrummer (talk) 06:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Sources for Hawaii: [16][17].VikingDrummer (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

David B. Wake

David died today, aged 82 - see https://www.facebook.com/AmphibiaWeb/photos/a.217344781393/10157654735471394 Can someone with appropriate knowledge please update his page. Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 05:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Aloysius the Gaul A dead Facebook link as a source for someones Dead is by far inappropriate, no one will update his DOD with such a source. Google does not know nothing about his death. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford The link is to his obituary on Amphiaweb - which was updated and live when I linked it, and strill is - dunno what you are looking at :( I see teh page has been updated already so no longer an issue.Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Jovan Hutton Pulitzer

• Draft:J Hutton Pulitzer
• J. Hutton Pulitzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jovan Hutton Pulitzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As far as I recall, most of the previous versions of the article on the CueCat guy were self-promotion. However, he is now involved in the Arizona GOP's efforts to invent election fraud - he has been covered on and off for over twenty years, but there are significant new mentions today. Does this draft pass muster? Guy (help! - typo?) 20:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Edward Applebaum

Someone added a date of death for Edward Applebaum, but I am unable find any information to verify it. Maybe the date should be removed until verified? Hrdinský ^〒 18:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

It was put in [18] by User:Pasquale. Is there a source for his death? I found [19], but I don't think that's reliable.VikingDrummer (talk) 07:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I did. It was actually based on a private communication from a close family member of the deceased composer. If that does not meet Wikipedia standards, feel free to remove it. Unfortunately, I was not able to find an obituary I could cite either. Nonetheless, the date of death is absolutely correct. Pasquale (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Mark Siddall

Now that the article is semi-protected and a recent sock blocked, this article is ready for improvement. I took an ax to it since it was a pretty egregious example of resume building, and I would like one or more of you all to turn it into decent shape--there are sources. Two things are the main concern here: can a decent biography be written with these sources (I'm aware that the "career" section is terrible, and that's partly my fault, haha); and are the allegations and their aftermath properly represented based on the sources? I could do it myself, but I've already done too much, and after having blocked four accounts in that history I want to stay away from its content. Thank you very much, Drmies (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Chuck Collins

RE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Collins For over a decade, I have lived with this annoying and inaccurate wikipedia page. Some right-wing Venezuelan troll did an initial hit job, trying to make me appear more of a radical than I really am. it was a deliberate attempt to "red bait" me --posting a defunct link to "Democratic Socialists of America." I've tried to complain, I've tried to edit it --only to have information restored. What can someone do when they have a troll trying to undermine them? Wikipedia has so much power --and it is harmful when you let trolls with political agendas to define other people's lives. I'm about to write an oped for a major newspaper called "Living with My Wikipedia Troll." I don't know what to do.