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.

Arvin Vohra

• Arvin Vohra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are several incomplete or out of context quotes on this page, which is the page for the potential Libertarian Party presidential nominee in 2020. Examples:

1. Rather that quoting the original person, quotes are coming from people quoting the person. The original quotes are easily accessible in the articles referenced on the page. I have fixed one of these, but there seem to be quite a few. 2. Opening sentences of satirical articles are placed as if serious, without including relevent information of the rest of the article. 3. Relevant information missing, literally including political views! Why are a candidate's political positions missing? These are easily available through project votesmart and other sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.195.214 (talk) 02:29, March 17, 2019 (UTC)

Fraser Anning again

More eyes on the article and input on the article talkpage regarding the sourcing and wording of this edit (which I have reverted for now per WP:BLPREMOVE), would be useful. See current discussion. Abecedare (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, please help! We are starting to go in circles, I think. Part of the issue is whether we can source a statement solely to a primary source. StAnselm (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Shazia Mirza

Shazia Mirza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ms Mirza has asked me to alert editors that several key pieces of information on her page are being repeatedly altered incorrectly. I'm not a Wikipedia expert, and if I need to do something specific, please let me know. I am not paid by Ms Mirza, we have simply met a few times and I offered to help. Please be advised that 3rd October 1982 is Ms Mirza's DOB. I have a copy of her redacted passport if required. You will note that there are repeated edits to this information after it is corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cllp1975 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

As editors will see there's been an awful lot of unedifying back and forth at the article, but I note that the current date of birth has only a primary source, which seems to run contrary to WP:BLPPRIMARY. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

It's now been removed -- I think it should stay that way, but there has been substantial discussion about it on the article talk page. I have left a template there, so many some of those involved may offer alternative views here. MPS1992 (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The source was used purely because a COI editor, Mirza’s publicist Martin Twomey, (who now has I believe 7 sock accounts removed here and here) over several years has repeatedly changed her date of birth without sources and complained on talk pages, each year removing one or two years from her age despite several warnings to stop and several accounts and IP addresses blocked. It was offered to remove her date of birth in compliance with BLP policy which I did temporarily while waiting for a response, but he refused, stating he wanted 1982 as d.o.b. which was clearly impossible from her biographical information and in direct contradiction with other statements he made in past years to @Ron Stowmarket:. For a start this would make her two years younger than the pupils she taught while she was teacher at a secondary school! This seems to be a case of massaging the facts to make her appear younger and has apparently been happening over a number of years, as admitted by her own publicist. A number of her previous citations put her year of birth at 1976 and there was a sort of consensus for using that in lieu of concrete factual evidence but the publicist in question was having none of it. At this point another admin suggested the source, and it took a couple of minutes to find her actual date of birth which appeared to resolve the question. I’m not in the slightest bit surprised to find this brought here (presumably by someone connected with Twomey, if not himself) as 7 sock accounts doesn’t seem to have deterred him. Wikipedia is supposed to be a factual resource and not a PR service for celebrities. Mramoeba (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the long discussion at the talk page. But while it's absolutely clear that she wasn't born in 1982 there doesn't seem to be a reliable secondary source for any other date. So I agree with MPS1992 that it should simply stay off the page for now. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually the most reliable uk broadsheet sources, i.e. the Times, the Guardian the Telegraph and Independent all give 1976 (allowing for one interview that could have fallen either side of her birthday), which was what the page largely says when Twomey isn't involved. As does the New York Times. Mramoeba (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I would be happy with using 1976 based on those four sources. Much better than using a primary source. If people think these dates are themselves based on massaging of the facts then just leave the date out entirely. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The "years active" has also been massaged by Twomey from 2000 to 2003 which is inconsistent with the claim "About a year into her stand-up comedy career, after the September 11, 2001 attacks" and the Awards and recognition section. Perhaps a section on her various (and varying) dates of birth would be more appropriate? Cabayi (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Atik, Nilufer (2018-09-02). "Comedian Shazia Mirza shares the biggest lessons she's learned in life". Daily Mirror. Retrieved 2019-04-05. : "When I was growing up in Birmingham in the 1970 and 80s". So 1982 is obviously false. Cabayi (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• BBC Radio4 Woman's Hour "Comedian Shazia Mirza tells us what it was like being raised in an Asian Muslim household in Birmingham in the 1970s." Cabayi (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Freebmd is not a case of WP:BLPPRIMARY. It's a transcription of a primary source. It's also double transcribed & the two transcriptions are checked against each other for verification. Cabayi (talk) 06:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Sterling Van Wagenen

• Sterling Van Wagenen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Child molesting claims and potential libel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.209.86 (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The claim is sourced to a reliable source.--Auric talk 15:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Texe Marrs

Somebody is always changing the page about Texe Marrs. A long-time co-worker with Texe Marrs tries to set the record straight, but a few hours later the lies are back. Why is this allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.42.87.207 (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Try to discuss it at the article's talkpage, but be more specific. If you are talking about edits like this [1], it does not seem that all of those points in the lead are adequatly sourced in the article text, so improvements should be made. Nothing about "end times conspiracy theory" for example, and "anti-Illuminati" is a little weird. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Shakti Mishra Indian Youtuber

Shakti mishra is a Indian youtuber & a business man. Was born in bihar region of India. https://youtube.com/smartideas is worlds largest business channel on youtube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4063:218A:14E1:0:0:27AD:30A1 (talk) 09:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

If you want to try to create a WP-article on this person, first read WP:Your first article carefully. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Zak Smith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geithner's payday loans

CBS News thought it was noteworthy to contrast Timothy Geithner's nominal stance against payday lending usury during his time at Treasury with Warburg Pincus's Mariner division's heavy involvement in it. I'd like to know whether other editors think it's noteworthy or not. EllenCT (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Doug Ericksen

This article has become a WP:COATRACK for controversies with editors (including some established users) placing WP:UNDUE emphasis on controversies (more specifically, recent events and controversies). There are some fundamental WP:NPOV issues with this article that need to be addressed. I tried making some changes yesterday, but was reverted within a few hours. For now, I am not singling out the conduct of any user in particular, but I would appreciate an extra set of eyeballs on this article going forward. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

My comments are at Talk:Doug_Ericksen#WP:BLPN_thread. State legislators, especially part-time ones, typically receive neither significant attention from WP editors nor continuous coverage in the media but you are welcome to add content from a wider period of time. Nothing that you removed was not in the sources that covered it, and your claims of "original synthesis" and "opinionated/author's description" is false. Reywas92^Talk 22:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Your BLP argument is specious; you have removed reliably-sourced and neutrally-worded material with just a handwave at BLP, so I've restored it. You have not explained why you claim the material violates any policy; it is well-supported by high-quality sources and does not appear to be worded in a biased manner. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Asssuming this diff encompasses the material in question, I would ask "... and?" Just because we have an RS stating something about how much a state legislator gets from lobbyists doesn't make it valid for inclusion; its begging a question that isn't there yet in the article. If there was more RSes talking about how Ericksen was seen as an easily-influenced legislator to a point where there was some controversy related to that, sure, then that's fine, but it's a data point without any other context (and we're talking of all of four months here too). (Contrast that to the thread of thought put to the connection to Cambodia, where there's clearly reasons to discuss some of those elements). It's not a 3RR-exemptable BLP issue, but it really doesn't need to be there as it has no context. --Masem (t) 14:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

One is welcome to make an argument that it lacks context, and should there be a consensus on the talk page that it doesn't belong, that consensus should, of course, win out. But there doesn't appear to be a "BLP" issue with the material, and thus unilaterally removing it on those purported grounds is not fair play. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree there: one gets a single BOLD edit but if that's reverted, its not that much a BLP issue to be exempt from edit warring; consensus needs to be built up on the talk page. --Masem (t) 15:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

BLP violations happen not only when unsourced or unreferenced material is added to a biography of a living person, but also when undue emphasis is placed on certain aspects of the individual's life, such as controversies and criticism, or when even reliable sources have been misrepresented. The onus of ensuring neutrality of an article is on those who continue to add material that is critical, rather than those who point out the issues to them. The Arbitration Committee has reiterated the "do no harm" principle in the Editing of Biographies of Living Persons case (originally stated in the badlydrawnjeff case):

Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached.

I am attempting to discuss these changes on the talk page of the article. Editors watching this page are requested to keep an eye on the discussion and intervene when necessary. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Christina Hoff Sommers

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

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

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

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

1. Her tweet, where she wrote "My Wikipedia profile now calls me an "opponent" of feminism. Not so. Strong proponent of equality feminism--always." [2]
2. Cathy Young in Commentary (1994) "Sommers repeatedly stresses that she herself is no anti-feminist. Rather, 'I am a feminist who does not like what feminism has become.'" [3]
3. Alision Jagger "Sommers maintains that she is a liberal feminist after the model of John Stuart Mill" [4]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In said "rebuttal", Hoff Sommers was either (A) misconstruing what the article said, or (B) contradicting her own published statements. Not to belabor the point, but she hasn't denied any specific claims that I've seen. The latest talk page proposal was to add, "Although Sommers views herself as a feminist ..." I would be more amenable to something like that, adding "liberal feminist" per Jaggar and other sources, e.g. [5]. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the record, I'd be fine with adding a statement such as Although Sommers describes herself as a liberal feminist, since we now have a couple of good sources for that: [6][7] —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC) {edited 21:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC))

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• What a long discussion. I agree with Bus Stop and Masem that we need to place her own statement that she considers herself a feminist (or not an anti-feminist) in the article. Whether or not being anti-feminist is derogatory is a matter of opinion, clearly CHS thinks it is, and wants to defend herself from it. Which source to use? Honestly, I think any would do, but if the issue is in this much doubt, all of them. --GRuban (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Except the sources all say different things. "Sommers repeatedly stresses that she herself is no anti-feminist" and "Sommers maintains that she is a liberal feminist" are not the same thing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• I agree also. Many of the arguments don't even make sense, such as "it would be highly intellectually misleading to put a one-off tweet about her Wikipedia page anywhere near the peer-reviewed academic sources...". What is that even supposed to mean? That intellectuals can't see what everyone else can? If peer-reviewed sources refer to Richard Nixon as a criminal, and Nixon defends himself saying, "I am not a criminal" whether we believe him or not his reaction to the accusations are indeed relevant to the article, not only for balance and weight but also because it gives the reader some insight into the person. Beyond that, categorization unwittingly leads to many syllogistic fallacies, as demonstrated above, which is why most psychologist seem to agree that it's the neurological root of prejudices and stereotyping. Labels like this are far too subjective, meaning different things to different people, but all meant to cover individuality with a vague title. In most cases like this, especially involving sexuality, there is rarely a "black and white", purely male or female view. (For instance, to the Navajo there are four sexes, while in modern psychology it is recognized that sexuality covers an entire spectrum.) If the subject of an article disagrees with a particular label, their disagreement most certainly should be included. Zaereth (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually, Hoff Sommers hasn't disagreed with any "label". Wikipedia never called her an "opponent of feminism". No one has shown her directly disputing the label "antifeminist". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
    • We shouldn't be getting into the details of what a "feminist" is on Sommers' page. We have to recognize there's a spectrum of definitions related to the term, and some of these are being brought up in term's of criticism about Sommers. Sommers hasn't necessary addressed any specify claim but has spoke of her position within that spectrum. As long as any of this criticism towards Sommers or Sommers' own statements are all fitting in this pool of ideas that "feminist" represents, it should be included. Let a reader figure out that (perhaps) Sommers' defense evades the criticism raised by others, we'll just put the evidence out there for the reader to decide. --Masem (t) 22:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
      • "We report, you decide" is manifestly the wrong approach. The whole point of an encyclopedia is to present a summary of accepted knowledge regarding the subject. Once again, I'd be fine with the statement (Although) Sommers describes herself as a liberal feminist... —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
        • But that's the essence of our WP:NOR policy. We know there's a lot of sources we can use to describe how Sommers and others see Sommers' stance about feminism. We are not here to clear that up since no singular RS tries to do that. So instead, lay it out with respect to UNDUE/WEIGHT, and let readers figure it out. The problem with trying to anything more is that then also puts WP voicing support or opposition to any of those points of view, which is against NPOV as well. --Masem (t) 22:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
          • I have no problem saying how Hoff Sommers describes her "stance about feminism" generally. The trouble is when we imply she's rebutted certain criticisms when that isn't supported by the sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Sangdeboeuf—you write "[t]he whole point of an encyclopedia is to present a summary of accepted knowledge regarding the subject." That Sommers is or isn't a feminist is not "accepted knowledge" because it isn't even "knowledge". There is enough fluidity in the term "feminism" for valid debate over the meaning of that term to take place within a community of people concerned with women's issues. Bus stop (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
          • The "knowledge" here is that "Persons X, Y, and Z describe Hoff Sommers as anti-feminist". We're not making any pronouncements in Wikipedia's voice. That doesn't mean both sides' opinions are equally valid, any more than my Aunt Fanny's opinions about interest rates are equally as valid as Ben Bernanke's. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
            • "that doesn't mean both sides' opinions are equally valid" No one has said "both sides' opinions are equally valid". You are arguing for omitting a tweet in which Sommers asserts "My Wikipedia profile now calls me an 'opponent' of feminism. Not so. Strong proponent of equality feminism--always." She is addressing a question as to whether she is a feminist or not. The inclusion of her assertion tells the reader that in her opinion she is a "Strong proponent of equality feminism--always." In my opinion, her opinion on whether she is a feminist is valid for inclusion in our article. No one said it was "equally valid". What would "equally valid" mean in reference to a term that is open to a variety of meanings? Also, you say above "Wikipedia never called her an 'opponent of feminism'." I don't think we mind if Sommers incorrectly states that "My Wikipedia profile now calls me an 'opponent' of feminism." The material should be included because it pertains to the claims made by some that she is not a feminist. Bus stop (talk) 04:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
              • ...it pertains to the claims made by some that she is not a feminist... Please provide a published, reliable source that says so; otherwise, to suggest this is so would be improper synthesis. We have better sources for the "liberal/equality feminist" label anyway, e.g. [8][9][10][11]. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
                • I don't think synthesis applies to reasoning presented on a Talk page or in this instance the WP:BLPN. Our article contained the line "Some authors have called her works and positions antifeminist." I responded to that claim or any related claim by saying on this Talk page that "The material should be included because it pertains to the claims made by some that she is not a feminist." I am presenting reasoning on a Talk page. This would not be an instance of synthesis. Bus stop (talk) 13:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed addition

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

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

Sources

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

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

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

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

The article already discusses equity feminism at some length. Sommers, in the tweet we've been arguing about this whole time, says "equality feminism", not "equity feminism". Other times she has used this wording: [12][13][14] Still, if anyone can provide a reliable, secondary source for Sommers calling herself an "equity feminist" (and contrasting it with criticism of her as anti-feminist), I'd be fine with including that. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

As you say, everything in the article describes her as an "equity feminist", including all of the sources we use, not as an "equality feminist". We could just use "feminist", as per her words "I have been moved to write this book because I am a feminist who does not like what feminism has become" from "Who Stole Feminism", but how about Rhonda Hammer "Sommers ... [situates] herself in the equity feminist team" [15], or simply "Sommers sees herself as an equity feminist" [16] in Gring-Pemble and Blair. - Bilby (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gemma O'Doherty

Gemma O'Doherty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The politics section - paragraph 3 states that views expressed by gemma o'doherty led to quote.. "the cancellation of bookings for her party's meetings" , there is absolutely no evidence in any of the referenced material that Gemma's views had anything to do with her party's meetings being cancelled , in fact the linked reference says that the hotels didn't give any reasons for the cancellations .

The author wrote this and then immediately protected the page from edits by new people , the author was clearly biased in making this unfound assumption and it damages the good name of Gemma O'Doherty

The Irish Examiner is a broadsheet source and generally considered accurate and neutral for political events. (Full disclosure, I'm friends with the jazz singer Sharon Crosbie who is part of the Thomas Crosbie Holdings family, former owners of the Irish Examiner, though that's got pretty much nothing to do with anything). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie333 , where exactly in the Irish Examiner article referenced does it say that the hotels cancelled bookings for Gemma o'doherty's party because of her views ? It doesn't say this anywhere . also is there going to be a seperate heading for each of her views .Irelandwatch (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

This I can confirm, the apparent cancellation of books has no mention at all of the tweets related to the Christchurch shooting. (The withdrawls of support statement, on the other hand, does have this and should be kept). It's very likely that the bookings were cancelled because of those statements but we need a source that says that specifically, which is not there. --Masem (t) 14:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

According to the source given, I can see "The Imperial Hotel in Cork insists it will not be hosting a public meeting next week organised by failed presidential candidate Gemma O’Doherty. The hotel broke its silence on the issue after days of pressure and a flood of complaints from people opposed to the ideology of Ms O’Doherty’s Anti-Corruption Ireland party." and "It was due to hold rallies in the Imperial Hotel in Cork on Monday and in the Maritime Hotel in Bantry the following day. The Maritime Hotel is said to have cancelled the Tuesday event." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

While cancellation of the bookings are verified, it has zero connection in that source to the tweets about Christchurch, which is what the disputed sentence is clearly implying. You cannot do that per NOR or BLP. --Masem (t) 14:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, well as this issue is under discussion, and since I prefer contentious claims like this to have two separate sources (standard journalism practice), I have removed the information per WP:BLP. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I've put the part back about the councillors withdrawing support - that part was reliably sourced. The rest is gone, and I've tidied up the big laundry list of quotes from the YouTube video. Black Kite (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

hi again , the disputed remark was replaced with this ... " although it is not known if these were directly related to her comments " ... If its not "known" , then WHY add this line in , Wikipedia is supposed to be about FACTS , if something is not known , dont make reference to it , this should be left out , please remove this sentence .. "although it is not known if these were directly related to her comments" , it suggests bias on behalf of the author . thanks Irelandwatch (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• I've removed it - it does appear a little pointless if we haven't got a reliable reason for the meeting being cancelled. Black Kite (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank You , and please remove this part of a section heading that reads "Controversial views on ..." , there is no source given that suggests her views are "controversial" .. I mean Who found them controversial ? when where they found controversial ? why are they controversial ? NO source , No heading , thanks Irelandwatch (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• You can remove "controversial" if you wish. But I'm pretty sure it's a reasonable descriptor for someone who claims that Cultural Marxism caused the abortion vote, communism caused the Catholic Church paedophilia scandal, the LGBT agenda is child abuse, and that Katherine Zappone is involved in witchcraft. Black Kite (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• In fact, I've removed it. It's fairly obvious they're controversial, so we don't need it. Black Kite (talk) 15:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

the problem with using the word controversial is that nearly every topic can be potentially controversial to some person or another .

In fact , according to wikipedia rules , these sections should be left out altogether in order to avoid bias .

Quote "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Articles should present the prevailing viewpoints from reliable sources fairly, proportionately, and without bias, whether positive or negative " - Wikipedia:Criticism

so can we remove this section completely

regards Irelandwatch (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Would you also like us to mention that she's on record as a practicing Catholic, is kind to animals, and can cure autism by sneezing in one's general direction? No, we can't remove the section completely, because WP:NOTCENSORED. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criticism is an essay by a contributor, not a guideline or policy. However, yes, in most cases you'd be correct in that we'd blend negative issues in with the prose. However, this is such a short article (and O'Donnell made the comments and founded her party so recently) that it doesn't really fit in anywhere else in her timeline. Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

hi Black Kite , Bastun has altered the paragraph again and added at the end .. "Venues in Cork and Sligo cancelled public meetings that had been booked by ACI" , putting this line here suggests to readers that they did this because of her views on the mosque shooting which we all agree there is no source to support . It is clear that Bastun has a clear agenda (look at his comment above to me) , can you please put this line in context or remove it completely and stop bastun from putting his own spin on the article . Thank You , Irelandwatch (talk) 06:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Candace Owens

Extremely defamatory content is being inserted at Candace Owens. Linking someone to a terrorist attack because she was mentioned in a despicable and unreliable manifesto of the shooter, goes completely against WP:BLPBALANCE. wumbolo ^^^ 22:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Dan Murphy, I'm with Wumbolo here. Please stop edit warring over that material in the lead: it's a BLP and we should err on the side of caution. I dropped a warning on your talk page to let you know I'm serious. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Wumbolo, let me reword this: I'm with you if you were to argue that this material in the lead is undue--I thought that's what you removed. I see now you removed everything, and that, I think goes way too far. That the manifesto was "unreliable" or "despicable" means nothing at all: he mentioned her, apparently, and if the sources find it significant enough to discuss we should at least consider its inclusion. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Alright. There is a discussion on the talk page about how to properly describe it in the body. There are several issues with the multiple wordings, ranging from SYNTH to context issues. I am most concerned with quoting the shooter verbatim; I do not have a problem with just saying that he mentioned her. I may have overreacted in my revert. wumbolo ^^^ 23:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Cool. Again, it seems UNDUE to me to put this in the lead (esp. since the lead right now is basically nothing), and I think Dan Murphy has agreed to not war over this; I hope that y'all can talk this out and find a way to have well-verified material in the article without skewing the lead. Maybe one of you will sit down with a cup of coffee and actually write a real lead--that would be best. Thank you, to both, Drmies (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Candace Owens did in fact make international headlines after the attack. She appears to have first become famous after Kanye West praised her, and now again she has made the news. Volunteer Marek, you may want to comment on this discussion. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

This, along with her remarks about Hitler, is basically what she's notable for. You court controversy by saying controversial stuff, then why are you surprised that you're known for being controversial? The lede reflects the article and the article reflects the content in reliable sources.

Additionally, any suggestions that the inclusion of Owens in the manifesto was a "joke" or "trolling" should be backed by reliable sources, not original research and speculation by Wikipedia editors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm unclear on why Dan Murphy is being referenced in this section.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek The Atlantic is a reliable source. And victim blaming goes against BLP. wumbolo ^^^ 08:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

It is, but does it make the connection explicit and is it representative of general sources out there? Also... "victim blaming"? What in the world are you going on about??? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The Atlantic quote in my opinion should be included in full. "Though the shooter could be a genuine fan of Owens, who has been known to espouse right-leaning views on immigration and gun control, this reference might be meant to incite Owens’s critics to blame her." Currently the second clause is cut out. See the talk page discussion:[17] --Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately (?) if somebody is famous for their bad opinions, we generally mention their bad opinions in lede. Similarly for serial killers, con artists, new york times opinion article writers, etc. What somebody is most notable for should be what we discuss in the lede, and in this case they're very notable in that the Christchurch shooter was a big fan. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I created a thread about this on the talk page, which I think could do with some more eyes. Overall I agree with Wumbolo; we just need to nail down the wording right, to ensure it's both balanced, accurate, and doesn't include so many lengthy quotes. :-) 84percent (talk) 09:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• This should only be mentioned briefly and only in the body of the article. Bus stop (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Section related to Christchurch shooter's manifesto definitely needs to be trimmed down. While BLP is true that it does not prevent inclusion of negative info or criticism published by RSes against a BLP, that does not mean that is the minimal bar for include. UNDUE must be respected in relationship to a BLP - BLPs should not be seen as a collection of every potential negative comment that can be sourced to the person. We need to consider how much of an impact it has, how "actionable" the criticism is, and other factors related to UNDUE before including these. In the case of her name being mentioned in the manifesto from Christchurch, it clearly has not amounted to anything yet, so a full paragraph (including the silly criticism that she used emojis in a reply tweet ...) is far too much at this point in time. I don't think it needs to be mentioned at all (her name is not mentioned on the Christchurch shooting page at all) so it seeming is just here because 1) RS has published negative criticism of her and 2) editors without much love of the alt or far-right seem to have little problem with rushing to include this information without being responsible to BLP's higher level of inclusion. --Masem (t) 17:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that putting this in the lead paragraph is excessive, the current wording is particularly problematic because it doesn't really reflect the fact that reliable sources generally questioned the seriousness of the Christchurch shooter's manifesto. The New York Times says this appeared to be a joke, and that needs to be mentioned. I don't think the body section in the current version is all that excessive, but I agree that the point about the emojis is a bit much. Nblund ^talk 18:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The current lead is less problematic than this version, which omitted the insincerity question, however I don't think the event belongs in the lead at all (even as it's worded now). On the point of the emoji criticism, I agree that it's probably unnecessary, and have been trying to come to a compromise on wording in the article's talk page. 84percent (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Her name being mentioned in the manifesto has amounted to something; it has amounted to her making international headlines. Other than her Hitler comments it sounds like this is what she is most known for around the world. The emojis point may be excessive, but it seems worth pointing out the falsehoods she stated in her response, which have been reported on. The Atlantic: "Though the shooter could be a genuine fan of Owens, who has been known to espouse right-leaning views on immigration and gun control, this reference might be meant to incite Owens’s critics to blame her." She tweeted that she never created any content espousing her views on the 2nd Amendment or Islam, but In fact, she has tweeted about the 2nd Amendment and Islam.[18] Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The Atlantic quote

I just mentioned this, but I would like to settle whether to include the full quote from The Atlantic story. Which version do folks support including in the article:

A:

Though the shooter could be a genuine fan of Owens, who has been known to espouse right-leaning views on immigration and gun control, this reference might be meant to incite Owens’s critics to blame her.

B:

"Though the shooter could be a genuine fan of Owens, [...] this reference might be meant to incite Owens’s critics to blame her."

Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

B. I prefer the latter, because, from my reading, "who has been known to espouse right-leaning views on immigration and gun control" is an introduction of Owens to the reader, and not necessary in the article. 84percent (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

A. I respectfully say that it is absurd to suggest that the line "who has been known to espouse right-leaning views on immigration and gun control" is merely an introduction of Owens to the reader. This line clearly relates Owens to the context of the shooting of Muslim immigrants. A Google search or a quick reading of Owens' Wikipedia article shows she is not particularly known for these topics. She even denies ever having created content on these topics. Although she has "tweeted about Islam, the 2nd Amendment, and gun rights multiple times."[19] I believe removing this line has the effect of pushing a POV. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Wrong venue. This should be moved to the article's talk page. wumbolo ^^^ 08:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Seeking input from uninvolved editors. This was already discussed at the talk page and went nowhere. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Please, somebody, vote. We just need somebody else to chime in and write A or B. It's been sitting on the talk page long enough. 84percent (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment Full disclosure: Kolya asked for my advice about this on my talk page and I'm the one who suggested raising the issue here. Because of canvassing concerns I'm not !voting. However, I notice that 84percent and Kolya are two of the top five contributors to this article. So, I'm pinging the other three (Snooganssnoogans, AHC300, and Patapsco913), in case they wish to chime in and "break the tie". Thanks all. Leviv ich 16:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

B. I would go with B as well. Her views on gun control and immigration (both legal and illegal) should go elsewhere.Patapsco913 (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Tarek Bouchamaoui

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cameron Merchant

Cameron Merchant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The subject is a minor cricket player who now has a degree of fame in Australia due to his appearance front-and-centre in a recent popular 'reality' TV series. I looked at his article on the weekend and there was some inexpertly-added and unreferenced information about a relationship that Merchant allegedly ended a week before the show began; I removed said unreferenced info. Since then a series of IPs (which I am willing to bet is the jilted ex or someone closely associated to her) and one account with no other edits have re-added the information back to the article a total of seven times (another good-faith edit was made, undoing an IP's removal of the information). It may well be the case that the information is true, but as there are no references presented to that effect, I believe the article should not include this information. I believe the article warrants semi-protection at the least. YSSYguy (talk) 06:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

There was an eighth re-addition of the information while I was typing the post above. YSSYguy (talk) 06:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I've protected the article for a week, and I'll keep an eye on it as well. - Bilby (talk) 10:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Ben Swann

Ben Swann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At Talk:Ben Swann#Synthesis, I've broken down several instances of WP:SYNTH which have been constructed on this article. Ben Swann was a reporter who did a series of news segments for his station. Some of these covered controversial subjects. Most instances of SYNTH here involve use of a single source which might say something like "Ben Swann hosted a segment about X" followed by extra sources about "X", but that do not mention Swann or his station. This seems to be done as a way for Wikipedia editors to construct a refutation of or vilify the news segment. I've created 8 sub-sections, each of which describes a particular topic and the SYNTH problems within. It seems obvious to me that adding additional sources which are irrelevant to the main article subject (Swann) in this way is "synthesis of sources" which must be removed per WP:BLPREMOVE - at least, out of caution, until the handling of them can be discussed and assessed. -- Netoholic @ 09:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Massie

Can someone keep an eye on this page? The subject made bizarre fringe comments about climate change, and the page is now experiencing lots of changes, including vandalism. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Sami Yusuf

Dear team,

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Yusuf

It is patently false to call Sami Yusuf "British-Iranian" as he does not hold Iranian citizenship/dual nationality and, for the purpose of clarification he is ethnically Azeri (not Iranian). He only holds British Citizenship. Here is the link confirming this in a 2018 Q&A session with Sami Yusuf: https://twitter.com/samiyusuf/status/960207745126453248 Also in all following important references:

References

I would like to make it absolutely clear that Sami Yusuf only has one name, that is ’Sami Yusuf’. I am astonished that Wikipedia would take a very dubious source so seriously. We can send you Sami Yusuf's passport copy in case the following link is not sufficient: https://twitter.com/samiyusuf/status/960210578043293696

I hope this precedes some random rumors - it would be quite tragic for Wikipedia’s credibility if it was otherwise. Logically, one would assume such claims would need to be backed with hard evidence (such as actual credible documents) and not just a tabloid-style article?

Best regards,

Mjahangir 16:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Mjahangir 05:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Breda Dennehy-Willis

Breda Dennehy-Willis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Her name is spelled "Breeda". See (among other sources): https://www.iaaf.org/athletes/ireland/breeda-dennehy-willis-70755

The misspelling seems to have been inherited from the primary (i.e., only) source for the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4C1:4180:10A0:643B:8405:C98F:4DBF (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

MC Pitman

Completely uncited biography, in contravention to BLP policy. As far as I can tell from a quick search on google the subject doesn't meet notability guidelines either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poetnerd (talk • contribs) 21:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Poetnerd: Not meeting notability guidelines is more of an issue for WP:AFD than here and is not really a BLP violation per se. I too was unable to come up with any reliable sources which provide him with the significant coverage needed for a stand-alone article; so, I've asked at some relevant WikiProjects just to see what others think per WP:BEFORE before taking it to AfD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Update: Another editor has nominated the file for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MC Pitman. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Guy Verhofstadt

Page has been edited on his most recent birthday (11 April 2019) with potentially libellous content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickpea57 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Chickpea57: Thank you for bring this to someone's attention. I've reverted the edit since it certainly doesn't comply with not only WP:BLP, but also with WP:NOTFORUM. For future reference, you can revert any similar edits yourself by being WP:BOLD per WP:BLPREMOVE. Just make sure you leave a clearly worded edit summary explaining why. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Ben Lee (Violinist)

Ben Lee (violinist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would you be able to help with reverting an edit on the above page that has been poorly sourced, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oleanda20 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Possible subtle lack of NPOV

Omarosa Manigault Newman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Does this line in the article not seem a bit libelous and containing adjectives relating to personality which are inappropriate for an encyclopedia: "Stemming from her controversial, blindsiding, alienating, dog-eat-dog, in-your-face and acrimonious tactics teamed with her eloquence and craftiness of game play on The Apprentice".

Came for an opinion before bold removal as I have never come across a subtle lack of WP:NPOV like this before. Thanks in advance, {{u|waddie96}} {talk} 20:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

At first glance, the terms aren't really describing her but her tactics, and are not always viewed as negative qualities, but more relating to aggressiveness and assertiveness. However, upon closer examination the source says nothing of the kind. It says she was described as being "aggressive" and "having a chip on her shoulder", but also that she said it is consistent with how black people were portrayed on TV in the past. What I'm realizing is that we're describing her TV persona rather than the real person, yet not making the distinction clear. I know people who've been on these so-called "reality TV" shows, from Deadliest Catch to Bering Sea Gold, and the producers try to hype up the drama with fake altercations and confrontations, while these guys are like "Man, we ain't got time for this crap. We got real work to do." Then they cut and edit to make it into a story that never actually happened.

I think the descriptions, while likely accurate, are a bit much like puffery and editorializing. It would probably be best to stick to the less colorful but just as accurate descriptions used by the source, even putting them in quotes like the source does, but make clear (as the source does) this is describing the character rather than the real person. (The source is available here.) Zaereth (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Vishwa Mohan Bhatt and sexual harassment allegations

• Vishwa Mohan Bhatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There was some slow-mo edit warring that had been going on for several days before I semi-protected the page – [20], [21]. There was another IP removing those remarks as "derogatory" and as amounting to "character assassination" — [22], [23], [24]. The edit-warring pertained to allegations of sexual harassment against the individual. After the semi-protection expired yesterday, User:Guptgandharva re-added the problematic content back into the article — [25]. You may see my post on the talk page as well as Guptagandharva's response to it. Can I invite someone else look into this and see if there are WP:BLPCRIME or WP:UNDUE issues? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Update: I have reverted an edit – [26] – by IP address who removed a denial issued by his son who was quoted by the media in the same sources and was probably acting as the subject's authorised representative – [27]. I have also activated pending changes for this page for a period of two weeks. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 10:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

"Probably" 199.247.45.10 (talk) 10:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

So? The media has reported his son, whom Bhatt works closely with, denying the allegations, and that has been faithfully reproduced in the biography as well. Moreover, WP:PUBLICFIGURE says: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. As of date, I have only found two sources confirming that these allegations have been made, so there is a broader question as to whether this article would fall in the exception provided under WP:BLPCRIME? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 10:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

One iffy source (Financial Express = Indian Express) has reported it. That said I'd lean toward just leaving it all out until some higher quality and greater quantity of coverage comes out. 199.247.45.10 (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

You are right, Financial Times and Indian Express are the same source as they are owned by the same publishing organization – Indian Express Limited – although articles in both publications have reported the denials — [28], [29]. I agree with taking out the entire controversy as well given the lack of wide coverage as is implied under "multitude of reliable published sources" (WP:PUBLICFIGURE). I will wait for 24 hours to hear from other contributors here prior to implementing the change on Vishwa Mohan Bhatt, Me Too movement#India, Me Too movement (India)#Vishwa Mohan Bhatt. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Right. Digging around myself it seems the only other sources that mention this (and there aren't a lot) cite The Express. Given that and the fact that these claims are 5 months old now, I have a feeling this isn't going anywhere coverage-wise. Anyway, no hard feelings I hope. 199.247.45.10 (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)