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.

Uebert Angel

Please take a look at this edit request, I have requested some edits to the article because it seems like there are no reliable sources that support the claims, on the contrary it's supported by an unreliable source, and the Gistmania one which appears as a spam source per this spam report. Editor ZionniThePeruser accepted the edit request but LocomotiveEngine reverted the edits more than one time without any valid reason. It seems like LocomotiveEngine did the same before with spam links, please take a look at his edit here and unexplained content removal like this edit.

So, can you please handle the edit request, stop the edit warring between ZionniThePeruser and LocomotiveEngine, and notify LocomotiveEngine not to revert it again if I'm not mistaken? -- Exposstage (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the gistmania citation, but not the content because it is still apparently supported by another citation. The next easiest answer: a reasonable editor could be satisfied that template removal was appropriate because the issues had apparently been addressed. Removing a ref to aircargonews implies the editor did not see it as a fit WP:RS for a BLP. But no edit summary means you can only ask the editor for clarification. Otherwise, LocomotiveEngine appears to be addressing WP:POV issues which appear in versions preferred by ZionniThePeruser. If more reliable source discussion might be the key here, a better forum might be WP:RSN. There may be folks there inclined to scrub the article to remove non-RS. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 01:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I reviewed and removed the remaining source as well, because it simply repeated the allegation without attribution (and without citation to the actual alleged list), and it was supposed to support wikivoice stating it as fact. Both editors are POVing. JFHJr (㊟) 02:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me, but I already reverted the edit before I read the message. But your edit summary is quite misleading as you stated that "rm supporting cite to gistmania: not WP:RS for a BLP". You stated that you were removing only the unreliable source without touching the controversial line but you removed the same controversial line along with the source. I invite other "reasonable" editors since I am unreasonable according to your words. The article has been under sustained attack to remove anything they perceive as negative in the page LocomotiveEngine (talk) 11:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I made two edits (with two different summaries) and left two different comments here. (See one, then two an hour later) Nothing I said was misleading. Nor did I leave you a contrary message on your talkpage, as your edit summary appears to falsely state. At no point did I imply you were not reasonable; I think you've misread several things. But I do agree input from more editors would be helpful. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 17:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

For everyone's reference, the two citations I removed were to Gistmania and Zimbo, which were being used to state the unattributed reports as facts in wikivoice. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 18:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you JFHJr for your comment and for your good efforts here!

There's another piece in the article that is related to the Fake Degrees part, i have included it on my edit request in the talk page earlier but likely got forgotten due to the multiple editing versions on the article, In 2013 his name was included on a list of people who bought fake degrees from an online degree mill. It's unsourced as well and included in the very end of the lead section. Could you please remove it as well? Best. Exposstage (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Done. JFHJr (㊟) 21:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Do you think the ZimEye.net will be considered a reliable source? ZimEye doesn't have its own Wikipedia page but noticed that it was used in several articles. I don't want to bother you and ask your help to edit the article again, and intend to submit an edit request on the TP but wanted to know your thoughts. Sincerely -- Exposstage (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSN might be a better place to ask reliable source questions. It's easier to apply BLP policies once a threshold determination can be made as to particular sources. To me, ZimEye looks like a political tabloid whose publications are probably unreliable as to BLP content. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 23:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

According to their 'about' page, "ZimEye is a spread out news network" and "the various journalists are the individual publishers". This makes me question their level of editorial control, and suspect that they are not appropriate for BLP content at least. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I've removed zimeye. I still hope OP reaches out to RSN. There's a lot of similar in this article to wade through. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

My BLP edits to the article are being characterized by LocomotiveEngine as vandalism in edit summaries. Any additional eyes and hands would be helpful. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 17:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@LocomotiveEngine: could you please explain here about why you think the sources you restored are WP:BLP and WP:RS compliant, and perhaps how my BLP edits constitute vandalism, as you claimed in your edit summary? Neither I nor Caeciliusinhorto find zimeye to be reliable enough for WP:BLP claims. Especially critical or controversial ones. Implied, Exposstage probably doesn't find them reliable either (hence all the BLPNing). This is a WP:CONSENSUS based process, so I'd like to get the rationale behind your edits and your edit summaries. Thanks! JFHJr (㊟) 00:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Eden Golan

Eden Golan became huge news while the Eurovision was happening, but now the party has moved on, leaving her article behind in its wake. Given what's happening in the world, that she's an Israeli with a Russian connection was too juicy to ignore and suddenly the Israeli was a Russian Israeli even though she identifies as 100% Israeli and 0% Russian. There are over 15 threads on her talk page devoted to this. Maybe coming here and then to the Admin board will make things worse, but I have faith in the processes. This needs cool heads to take a look at. Thanks. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

This crops up all the time with Palestinian Americans and Israeli Americans, I always thought that it meant dual citizenship, if that's right, then that should be straightforward to source? Or maybe not. Selfstudier (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

There is some disagreement on whether she has dual citizenship. There is currently a Hebrew source in the article which says she doesn't have Russian citizenship, however I cannot find that information in the source. (I have asked the editor who made the claim and sourced it for clarification. Meanwhile Makeandtoss has argued that RSs calling her "Russian-Israeli" is evidence that she does hold dual citizenship. (Which is in line with one other case I have seen.)

EDIT: I have confirmed that Eden Golan herself claims she has no Russian citizenship in this source. [1]

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk me) 15:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

She was born an Israeli in Israel. I'm not sure what weight parentage and passport status hold in this article's body, but only Israeli seems to belong in the lede. JFHJr (㊟) 02:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I thought it was not legally possible for people to have dual Russian and Israeli citizenship. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

From what I can see you can have dual citizenship if both your parents have Russian citizenship (if you are born outside Russia) (Relevant page) and you have another citizenship. Russia does not recognize the other citizenship if you have dual citizenship (with exceptions for some former soviet states), but you will still have it. So it comes down to the citizenship status of her parents at the time of her birth.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk me) 07:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The recently amended law apparently says "descendants of individuals permanently residing in the USSR or Russian Empire"[2]. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh thanks, I had missed the amendment.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk me) 08:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

How does any of this square with MOS:IDENTITY? JFHJr (㊟) 00:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Gregorian Bivolaru

I just had a look at Gregorian Bivolaru and it appears to be a painful combination of bad writing, WP:BLPCRIME possible violations and WP:BATTLEGROUND - extra eyes very much needed. Simonm223 (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I have only mentioned the name of another person, Bivolaru's French right-hand man. Anyone is free to delete his name from the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs a lot of work, especially after the recent somewhat conspiratorial issues. I did a little bit of trimming a few days ago, but it seems to me that part of the problem is that there is just too much information on the page - just look at the two paragraphs about his arrest and institutionalization in 1989. If we strip out some of the excessive detail, that may resolve some of the BLPCRIME problems. EasyAsPai (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The "Legal Problems" section is somewhat alarming from a WP:BLPCRIME perspective. Simonm223 (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Two women were mentioned by name as his victims. But it wasn't me who added their names to the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, and the controversies section is just like, here's all the lurid allegations that didn't make it into his actual legal trouble. A lot of them are really controversies about the overall MISA organization's beliefs, which makes me wonder if we should have a separate page for MISA - I know he's the main leader and all, but it feels like this is two articles in one. EasyAsPai (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I have attempted some clean-up by removing line items that were not supported by sources or by bad sources like WP:BLPPRIMARY or advocacy groups like Human Rights Without Frontiers International and Amnesty Inc. Another thing that hampers the article is that it thinks every sentence deserves its own paragraph and sometimes the seemingly unsourced assertion is supported by a later citation. The legal problems section reads like a WP:NOTNEWS blotter. Perhaps a complete rewrite based on the plentiful recent English reliable sources available that summarises his legal history is necessary. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Yup, there are not many high-quality sources about him in English. That's mostly because the events mainly concern Romania, Sweden, Finland and France. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Unsourced defamatory claim about Bret Weinstein

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please see Talk:Bret_Weinstein.

Is my assessment that the defamatory statement qualifies for immediate mandatory deletion correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealLRLee (talk • contribs) 22:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to the statement in the lede? This is covered in further detail in the article body, citing multiple sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Then, given WP:V, doesn't the "Weinstein has been criticized for making false statements about COVID-19 treatments and vaccines, and for spreading about HIV/AIDS" claim require footnoting the claim where the claim is first made?

Further, what is the appropriate BLP NPOV criteria for including "criticized" in the lede for a BLP article? RealLRLee (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The lede is a summary of the article body. It is normal practice to provide citations in the body, not the lede. As for NPOV, it is a simple, demonstrable fact that Weinstein has been criticised, and that per multiple reliable sources, the statements he made are false. As for NPOV policy, I suggest you read what it actually says, in particular in regard to WP:WEIGHT. Weinstein's views are far removed from scientific consensus, and we do not present fringe medical claims as having any credibility, per policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Guidance at WP:LEADREF. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at [[Talk:Bret Weinstein#A [citation needed] should be added for "Weinstein has been criticized for making false statements about ..."]]. Should this discussion be occurring here, at BLP/N? Or at the article's noticeboard? Clearly this discussion needs to occur in one location.

The assertion by User:AndyTheGrump that "It is normal practice to provide citations in the body, not the lede" is directly contradicted by MOS:CITELEAD as explained at the talk page link above. How should this direct contradiction of the MOS:CITELEAD be resolved? RealLRLee (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

No it's not. CITELEAD says exactly what Andy said. In most cases it's not necessary to provide a ref for the lede simply because it's already cited in the article. It's often best not to use refs any more than necessary to prevent WP:OVERKILL which disrupts readability. CITELEAD says we can use refs in the lede if someone thinks it will prevent unnecessary confusion, in which case all you need to do is take one from below and cite it up top.

On the other point, you brought the discussion here, and here is where it'll get more eyes and responses (like mine). Zaereth (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Per User:Zaereth's comment, I will copy the discussion from [[Talk:Bret Weinstein#A [citation needed] should be added for "Weinstein has been criticized for making false statements about ..."]] to this thread, just below ...

Copyied text starts ...

As "Controversial articles tend to have refs in the lead more often" and the article in question is clearly controversial and, per MOS:CITELEAD, "there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads" then the citations in the lead are clearly needed.

I have difficulty reconciling User:AndyTheGrump's "The lede is a summary of the article body. It is normal practice to provide citations in the body, not the lede" and User:Zaereth's "CITELEAD says exactly what Andy said" with the plain text of MOS:CITELEAD. RealLRLee (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

You reconcile everything by taking a bird's eye view of the article and ask yourself: is this lede wikivoice statement of controversy adequately referenced in the body? If not, add a ref citation to the lede. Even though articles containing controversy might have them more often, a threshold determination of adequacy-below should be made. Here, consensus so far does not support your proposal for a citation in the lede for that reason. I also disfavor lede refs except in articles which lack substantial ref-cited content below. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 23:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree. It's not like it's ambiguous or anything. I mean the information on this takes up nearly 1/4 of the body, so I don't see why it would be necessary to cite it in the lede, being as that it's plainly obvious. Still, I personally wouldn't quibble over it much if it ends this dispute either. Zaereth (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Zaereth! I would add that your rationale just above is also exactly why OP shouldn't push on this. And ao far, it looks to me like four uninvolved BLPN editors with their own differently-worded rationales have rejected OP's comment/complaint/request. Nobody but OP had chimed in to pick up and carry this torch. JFHJr (㊟) 00:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Yup, nothing to do here (though there would be no harm in duplicating the ample citations for this in the lede, other than creating a mess of blue). Contrary to what the OP asserts there is nothing 'defamatory' or even controversial about this: there is solid and copious sourcing saying that this guy does indeed spout crap about COVID and HIV/AIDS, as the article details. Wikipedia reflects that, to be neutral. There is zero RS saying otherwise. Bon courage (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bon courage: Thank you. Make that 1:5. For an obscure subject, this represents an overwhelming WP:CONSENSUS. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 02:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I note that much of the commentary, above, ignores the plain text of MOS:CITELEAD -- "there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads".  Would the parties refusing to add the needed "citation needed" (or actual citations) please explain their reasoning for ignoring the plain text of MOS:CITELEAD?

I note that much of the comment, above, ignores the plain text of MOS:LEAD -- "The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy states that all quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports it."

Again,  MOS:LEAD requires "... must include an inline citation to a reliable source ...".  MOS:LEAD does NOT read  "... must include a citation somewhere else in the article to a reliable source ...".

If someone would be so kind as to add the missing "citation needed" then further wasted time on this matter can be avoided. RealLRLee (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bon courage: Your assertion that "there is nothing 'defamatory' ... about this" suggests that you are unfamiliar with the definition of "defamatory". Might you be confusing the meaning of "defamatory" with the phrase "false and defamatory"? RealLRLee (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Christie Sides

The Indiana Fever section of the entry for their coach Christie Sides includes some obviously derogatory comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:8f80:bce0:f162:5101:24bf:e51f (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks like it was already removed. Thanks for your report. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Suicide of Sammy Teusch

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I feel like this needs more eyes. Are we sure we should even have this article? Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Just Step Sideways: You hereby owe me eight fluid ounces of un-see juice. There's a related meme on the interwebs that makes me feel like a parakeet at the moment. I hope AfD goes speedily. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 00:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC on BLPs at DYK

There is an RfC about Can DYK feature negative hooks on BLPs and remain in compliance with WP:BLP policy? that may be of interest. Valereee (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson: discussion of sourcing and tone of a disputed paragraph

More input is requested on the BLP-related discussion I started on the article Talk page.

As a related matter, I have also been asked on my Talk page[3] whether this removal under BLPRESTORE/3RRNO #7 was in process or not. I removed the material after multiple editors had objected on BLP grounds, for apparent NPOV violation and poor sourcing, pending affirmative consensus on Talk.

I'm uncertain whether this is the correct venue for the latter discussion, but additional input on this is also welcome. Newimpartial (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Based on comments on Talk, the question at issue about BLPRESTORE and 3RRNO seems to be whether 3RRNO #7 is limited to potentially harmful BLP material, or whether biased or poorly sourced material in general may be removed on these grounds. The relevant language of WP:3RRNO and WP:BLPRESTORE does not seem to be limited to harmful material, but there may be some context here that my neurodivergence has missed.

If the intention of these passages is that 3RRNO #7 only covers potentially harmful BLP material, then I think a centralized discussion is required to alter the policy language. Newimpartial (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be one of those things where a little common sense would need to come into play. There's an inherent danger in making a policy too specific because where such limitations can be helpful in one circumstance they can be a hinderance in another, and policy needs some room for flexibility to account for different situations. In general, not everything in a bio falls under BLP policy exclusively. Many things fall under NPOV, RS, OR, V, etc... The purpose of BLP policy is primarily to protect our subjects and their rights, so I'm not really seeing any kind of BLP policy issue at play here, and if this is something more related to NPOV or RS then it doesn't seem like 3RRNO or BLPRESTORE can readily be invoked in the name of BLP policy.

That said, the disputed paragraph is a nightmare to read due to WP:OVERKILL and reeks of synth and OR. It always raises a big red-flag when so many refs are used for a single sentence, especially when they're interstitially dispersed throughout the sentence like that. I mean, if you need to cite every single word, it starts to come off like a Jack van Impe sermon, but instead of using the Bible to predict the end of the world we're citing every primary source with his name on it as proof of his fields of expertise. In other words, as written it gives some huge cringe vibes. But is it a BLP policy issue? It doesn't appear so. Zaereth (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

You'd have thought this bio subject would have enough coverage in secondary sources not to need to synth stuff up from primaries; smells a bit POV-pushy. Bon courage (talk) 05:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

No comment on the details, but I would be wary of relying on BLPRESTORE unless you're absolutely certain it needs immediate removal from the article. If there is consensus that it isn't a BLP issue then you are just editor waring. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Irene Tracey

Irene Tracey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On 24 May, a new account User:Oxfordscholar334442 has added nearly ten thousand bytes of content to this biography – around a third of its present content – about an event that happened on 23 May. It's sourced, but some of the citations are to student newspapers, campaigning websites, and Twitter. It looks like a case of undue weight and, to some extent, original research. I'm not presently an employee of the University of Oxford but I have been, and occasionally do work for it. The edit could do with being reviewed by someone unconnected to the institution and these events. Grateful for any fresh eyes, MartinPoulter (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Simplest option is to revert the edit, as Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict only allows edits by extended-confirmed editors. Kathleen's bike (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Definitly came across as undue. there may be cause for some mention of the issue, but not to that extent, and not so badly sourced. I've removed it for now. - Bilby (talk) 08:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, many thanks for your feedback, I will provide an updated version with a more appropriate weight, as hearing your critque it does appear to be given undue weight as viewed in context of the whole article. A good point of comparison on the point of appropriate weight and neutrality is the Minouche Shafik article, which includes under "career" a section titled "Pro-Palestinian protests and controversy" which occupies approximately 20% of the page (460/2253 words). On the other hand the controversy with Shafik was larger than with Tracey, but also Tracey's other career sections are less lengthy given her dedication to a career path in academia. Removing one of the most covered incidents of Tracey's career would violate Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines.

With regards to sourcing, you have concerns with some citations linking to student newspaper, campaigning websites, and twitter. Firstly, the student newspapers' reports were assessed as being reliable on this issue, given corroborating mainstream sources referenced, and were engaged in on-the-ground factual reporting. Notwithstanding, I will do a better job by providing multiple references to different sources to assuage these concerns. Secondly, the use of campaigning website of Oxford Act for Palestine and twitter was solely used to quote the official responses of Oxford Act for Palestine, which was on their website, and the University and Colleges Union, which was on their verified twitter account. Equally, the University of Oxford's statement, signed by tracey, was also directly referenced. My attempt was to ensure objectivity and draw no conclusions, simply providing the reader with the different positions of the key parties involved in the controversy. Notwithstanding, the block quote for Oxford Act's response was undue, but that was because their response to the allegation of assault was itself longer than the allegation itself, by word count. Many thanks for the comments and I hope we can address them as a community without removing an objective account crucial controversy regarding this public figure.

However, I do disagree with the allegation that this qualifies as original research, as every point was sourced and vetted by reliable sources - there was nothing different or new to the edit which was not already published by news media (secondary sources) and the parties themselves (primary sources). The parties accounts were qualified and in quotations, in line with wikipedia guidelines. There was no analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources.

Furthermore, the guidleine of Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict which only allows edits by extended-confirmed editors for related content to the arab israeli conflict does not extend to this issue. The controversy regards handling of protests as a question of proportionality and freedom of expression rather than motivation and connections to the Israel-Palestine conflict. So long as the focus is on the incident and handeling of protests it should remain open to all to discuss. Happy to hear different viewpoints on this.

As for conflicts, I am not a member of OA4P, or the University College Union, or any of the cited organizations. I am a scholar within the Oxford University community, but am only interested in seeing a neutral and objective account of Irene Tracey, which must necessarily include the incidents of March 23. Moreover, please note that Mr Martin Poulter does bear a considerable conflict of interest as he worked particularly in the capacity of "Wikimedian in Reseidence" at the University of Oxford. Ultimately, we must work together to arrive at a neutral and objective account of Tracey.

To conclude the March 23 incident should be included as "a controversy" which Tracey was involved, given the sea of differing opinions. We must abide by Wikipedia's neutral point of view when covering this issue, not drawing conclusions, citing the positions of the parties, the reported facts, and leaving the reader to their own devices.

I will provide an update soon for you all to review. Oxfordscholar334442 (talk) 11:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

No, edits about opinions about the conflict, including protests and how they are handled, all fall under the Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict restriction. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Please be careful with insinuations. Unlike you, I haven't edited the article or its Talk page, so bringing up a supposed conflict of interest (other than repeating what I've already declared) is pointless. And for that matter, I'm not "Mr". MartinPoulter (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to emphasise, if this is really so important to add, someone who is extended confirmed can do it. Not you. Oxford is an extremely well known university, so it implausible that something really so important will not get the attention of extended confirmed editors so there is absolution no reason why ARBECR needs to be violated. Nil Einne (talk) 03:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Also while this doesn't matter in the particular case since you should not be touching this, I'll mention it in case you are involved in future BLPs which could even include this one in areas which don't relate to her handling of the protestors etc. WP:BLPSPS clearly disallows self-published sources for material about living persons unless the material is published by the living person themselves and does not involve third parties. Clearly tweets or other official statements by other organisations are not published by Tracey so cannot be used in an article about her. The university's statement is a bit more iffy, however generally speaking in such cases, there is zero reason for us to rely on the official statement directly for anything. If it's not covered in reliable secondary sources, then it's undoubtedly WP:undue to include. Anything which is covered in reliable secondary sources should be using those as the main sources with the official statement at most added as an additional source rather than intended to support anything said in our article. Nil Einne (talk) 03:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

As of note, another non-ECP made edits to the article that I reverted. More concerning is that they created 2024 Oxford Action for Palestine Encampment, which has now been edited by ECP accounts that disputed some assertions in the original draft. Not sure if an AfD is appropriate here so I PRODed it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Peter Cain (politician)

Could someone take a look at Peter Cain (politician)? In the last few months, there has been substantial edit warring among mostly new editors and sockpuppets (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Samreeveparl) regarding a "Controversy" section, which was added by the relatively new editor LocalCbrHero1988 (talk · contribs). Giving the article a cursory read, this does smell like it could be an WP:NPOV WP:BLP violation, placing undue weight on the controversies, but I am not knowledgeable enough about the subject area to have an informed opinion here. I am particularly curious if the sources cited in the Controversy section meet Wikipedia's WP:RS guideline. The Canberra Times seems to meet the bar, but unsure about the-riotact.com. Mz7 (talk) 07:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

A politician accused another politician of not being a school principal and then walked back on it by conceding he was a principal of a de-registered school? Is the news that slow in Canberra? There should be multiple reliable sources about this if this is to be included. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Heh. This is where I am at as well. I am not against removing the controversy section in the absence of more substantial coverage, particularly from national-level news sources. Mz7 (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I have indeffed LocalCbrHero1988 per User talk:LocalCbrHero1988#May 2024. Johnuniq (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Good block especially given the absolute nonsense they posted in the past. On the general issue, as I mentioned last time, it's likely no coincidence that the 2024 Australian Capital Territory general election is coming in the next few months. Probably a matter of throwing whatever sticks as much as anything. It does seem that particular editor has focused on a limited number of politicians which also help explain why they're adding such weird stuff. Nil Einne (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Graham Lineham

It has a heading "anti transgender activism" Graham is a supporter of women's rights and children's safety from a medical pathway of drugs and surgery. The CASS report shares those same concerns. As do 1000s of women who are fighting for their single sex spaces & sports. This is not anti trans. It also says he doxxed Mridul Wadhwa a transwoman who is the ceo of rape crisis edinburgh. This is lies. Be careful these are libellous allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silkworm2024 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I will spell out at User talk:Silkworm2024 the procedures regarding WP:NLT. Johnuniq (talk) 08:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

This concerns Graham Linehan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) where "anti-transgender activist" is in the lead with a lot more in the article. I'm just reporting the situation and have no idea about the merits. Johnuniq (talk) 09:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Silkworm2024, have you read the FAQ on the article talkpage? While it deals with the description rather than the heading it deals with basically the same issue. Nil Einne (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Killing of Laken Riley

Killing of Laken Riley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I opened up a case about this over at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (see here), and a volunteer suggested that I post here instead. Since multiple people have been involved in this discussion and I don't want to copy-paste massive amounts of text, I will simply advise that whoever is considering this read the discussion on the DRN, and possibly the article's Talk page as well (see here). We are seeking a decision on the language to be used in the body of the article ("murder" vs. "killing"/"homicide"), except for instances where we are describing specific charges filed or quotes from sources. Gottagotospace (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

(Note: I copied this from over there in case it is closed)

Here is my view: Wikipedia is not a court of law. We do have to assume innocence until guilt is proved, but we can also use some measure of common sense. Murder is the illegal, unjustifiable killing of another person. I actually don't agree with a previous editor's suggestion that "murder" is synonymous with "killing." Saying "I killed a mosquito," sounds normal. Saying "I murdered a mosquito," will get some strange reactions. Now, the death wasn't a suicide, manslaughter or accident. There is absolutely no hint of justification, such as self-defense. The party who killed her (whether its the suspect or not) committed murder. We don't know if the suspect did it because there's an assumption of innocence until any conviction. So if he's innocent, someone else still murdered her. But even if, for example, he did kill her and argues that he has a legal excuse (such as an insanity defense) the murder still occurred even if that argument is accepted and he isn't personally culpable for the crime. The murder happened regardless of the suspect's involvement or culpability. The death was due to blunt force trauma and asphyxiation, followed by multiple strikes to the head with a rock. There is no reasonable situation that this case could be self-defense. Now a court would at least have to entertain that possibility, but we do not (at least until that is actually claimed by the defense during the trial). Also, while we certainly can't assume that the suspect is guilty, I think we can take the polices' word that he didn't know her to be true (once again until such time as the defense says otherwise) therefore negating a crime of passion. The circumstances of the death also render this idea absurd. I think it is reasonable to assume the murder was a "crime of opportunity" as has been reported (regardless of who committed it), unless this is later contradicted. Unlike other cases mentioned on the "Talk" page, the circumstances and motivation are not controversial, only what the crime signifies and that isn't relevant here. The key point is this: I have wondered under what circumstances the "ignore rules" idea is to be utilized. I think this is one such place. After all, the phrasing suggestions are guidelines, not iron-clad rules. We should use reason in certain instances instead of always following a guideline that can't account for every circumstance. I think this is an exception that proves the rule. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Once again I changed the edit back to how it was. Someone tried changing it again. Until we reach a conclusion that shouldn't be done. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 20:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@TanRabbitry: Let's all note: at DNR, WP:CONSENSUS was developing against your position: OP Gottagotospace, Objective3000, Cakelot1 were against; on the article, FMSky and I have both taken corrective measures. 5:1 means you shouldn't be editing the article without a firmer consensus in your favor as the proponent of "murder" at this time. JFHJr (㊟) 00:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

An admin also was against this on the article TP[4] and reverted the mentions of "murder".[5] TanRabbitry reverted the admin. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Inquiry for second opinion. At what point does BLPN forward all this to WP:ANI? It's only been a second, and it would be the fourth venue counting talkpage, but ANI looks close already to me. JFHJr (㊟) 01:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

...might as well make that 6:1. (Thank you, C.Fred!) TanRabbitry, what are your thoughts on the consensus that's apparent? Will you drop the stick until and unless a "murder" conviction is reported by a reliable source? Or would it be easier to explain at WP:ANI why your refusal to accept a consensus poses no risk to the project? JFHJr (㊟) 01:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Why is it that we set out to discuss this wording on the talk page and now we have rapidly moved over to two new locations without really saying anything new? I do not believe that it is correct to say that consensus has been reached here. One editor mentioned in the last place has not even reported his perspective yet. Additionally there were other editors on the "Talk" page were not contacted as to this. One for example was @SmashingThreePlates. What is their opinion? I do not understand why after we came here to discuss this, two editors (that one happened to be an administrator is irrelevant) edited the article without us reaching a conclusion. What is the rush to say consensus is reached? I thought that was the purpose of this. Now you want to move the discussion a third time? Why not wait and hear several other opinions from disinterested editors, as well as the involved ones who haven't stated their opinion? Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 01:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Porting my DRN comment: Well, not every homicide is a murder. The term homicide is rather technical and unwieldy, and only means "killing of another human being," meaning some second human is responsible. So for title purposes, "killing" is sufficient. If we suspected a bear could have done it, we'd be left with "death." And if you're drawing rational conclusions not based on a legal determination per a reliable source, you've WP:NORed and WP:POVed a "murder." Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 21:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The legal determination is the coroner's report. The conclusions are based on that. I feel like you're intentionally being a bit obtuse. Under what reasonable circumstances could someone be killed by strangulation and blunt trauma in a public place in broad daylight and it not be murder? All of tthose are established facts. TanRabbitry (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Murder is a legal term. Death certificates don't say "murder"; they say "homicide". And I don't see anything about strangulation/asphyxiation in the sources about Laken's death. Gottagotospace (talk) 02:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, strictly speaking I should have written "asphyxiated," rather than "strangled."

As to a source, here you go: "Ms (sic) Riley died from blunt force trauma and asphyxiation." TanRabbitry (talk) 03:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC) TanRabbitry (talk) 03:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

That's the only source I've seen say that. None of the other sources I've seen have said that. Besides, it doesn't matter for the point we're talking about regarding the "murder" vs. "killing" language. We can't decide if it's murder or not, for the reasons that have been explained multiple times now. Gottagotospace (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Other sources:

This a bit off topic, but some of these also mention attempted rape being a charge that was added to the indictment. I remember seeing some dispute over adding that. Is that currently in the article? What was the argument against its addition? I haven't read enough about it to have an opinion, but it seems important.

TanRabbitry (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC) TanRabbitry (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

That is definitely off topic. I suggest bringing that up on the article's Talk page in a new section of the discussion. It's not related to the "murder" vs. "killing" question that we're talking about here, and we shouldn't clog the BLP noticeboard with that unrelated discussion. Gottagotospace (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. That is in truth basically unrelated. I just noticed it while adding the additional sources. It should be brought up on the "Talk" page though, as I remember seeing an argument about it. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Gottagotospace

Do you think this additional evidence pointing to what could (in my opinion) only have been a murder (though by whom we do not know) would change your mind, or any other editor's mind with an opposing opinion in this regard? Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 03:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Nope! As I've said multiple times, murder is a legal term and it is NOT up to us to decide whether it was murder or not. The specific homicide method determined by the coroner doesn't make a difference. It's NOT for us to come to conclusions on whether or not it counts as "murder". It doesn't matter what your view on the term "murder" means. Gottagotospace (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

O.K., fair enough.

I think we all fully agree murder is a legal term. It isn't my view of the word's definition (that's irrelevant), but the question of if this is a case where it is more accurate than an alternative. I believe that in this particular case, it is. TanRabbitry (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Here is a further point I would like to see commented on: the opening sentence of the article says that she "was abducted and killed." If that is stated in the body of the text as a matter of fact, why not that she was murdered? What is the difference? What evidence is the abduction based on other than the indictment? A coroner's report can't tell if someone was abducted. It seems inconsistent to say "abducted" and not "murdered." Would those who are against my position agree "allegedly" should proceed "abducted" based on their perspective? Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Excellent point! Perhaps we should take out "abducted" too! I'm in favor of that, unless multiple people give me a good reason based in sources and/or policy why we should not. And no, none of this is sarcasm. Gottagotospace (talk) 02:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

A coroner's report is a primary source. We care mostly about how reliable secondary (third-party) sources characterize this event. JFHJr (㊟) 02:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

A primary source may be used more than is typically allowed provided any rational person could not come to any other conclusion than the atatment that summarizes said source. Besides, that comes through news articles, not the coroner's report directly. The main point is that we shouldn't be totally bound to certain suggested guidelines. I am not directly arguing against those guidelines, that is another debate. I am not speaking of other cases either, only that this particular example is different for all the reasons I have stated. Lastly, I think the fact that it has taken several days for us to notice the abduction point it is a testament to my suggestion that we shouldn't rush. TanRabbitry (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the "abducted" language as unsupported, but anyone can replace it with a solid ref. I suggest placing it within the relevant section or the infobox. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 02:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

This might be a stupid question, and I haven't read through all the discussions (sorry), but I wondered, given a global readership, whether variations in the meaning of the word 'murder' in English around the world (with dependencies on other factors like planning) should be a consideration, perhaps making simple words like killed a better choice? Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't considered that, but I believe in some other English-speaking countries: "Wilful murder is an unlawful killing with an intention to kill and murder is an unlawful killing with an intention to do grievous bodily harm." TanRabbitry (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually we go on what reliable sources say, and abide by WP:BLPCRIME and the rest of WP:BLP as to the accused. We don't decide something is "murder" because that's the only reasonable verdict, and yes "murder" requires a verdict in a WP:BLP context. JFHJr (㊟) 03:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

TanRabbitry, some countries use compound terms that include the word murder to convey information about intent etc., some countries don't, they use different words entirely in the absence of intent, like manslaughter. So, there is a bit of complexity associated with that word. Also, I guess there is added complexity because of US state law variations. JFHJr, I assume TanRabbitry knows what policy says, and yet they still like the word. A different kind of argument might do something different. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

"I assume TanRabbitry knows what policy says, and yet they still like the word." That is correct, although it is less "like," and more "views it as more accurate." I understand what the guidelines say. But even the most thorough suggestion, rule, guideline, law, manual, idea, theory, et cetera, cannot describe every circumstance. It is a general policy that is usually correct and should be considered first. I think that in this case we can use our liberty to "be bold" and carefully use the more accurate term. I have no idea if this should apply to any other similar article. I just think it does to this one. TanRabbitry (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

"Be bold" when describing a serious crime that occurred just a few months ago and the suspect is still alive? Doesn't sound like a great idea. Gottagotospace (talk) 03:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

O.K. How about: "I think that in this case we can use our liberty to utilize Wikipedia:5P5" and carefully use the more accurate term." I'm not sure what the suspect being alive has to with it? In my mind he has nothing to do with this since there hasn't been a conviction yet, let alone a trial. TanRabbitry (talk) 03:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@JFHJr

But you are talking about a person accused committing a crime. You make it sound as if I am saying the only reasonable JURY VERDICT is guilty. This has nothing at all to do with the suspect and everything to do with the victim. My argument is that the only reasonable CAUSE OF DEATH was murder. The suspect has absolutely nothing to do with this. Who knows if he did it or not? Not us or anyone else until the trial is over. TanRabbitry (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually I am starting to wonder if any of us actually understand the policy. Where exactly does it say anything about people who are victims of crimes? The guideline that keeps being mentioned refers exclusively to those accused of crimes. It is not controversial or disputed that the subject of this article was murdered. The dispute is over language describing said murder. The policy referenced is presumption of innocence. @JFHJr You seem concerned I am not assuming innocence to the suspect. In fact, I have had to correct other editors who were presuming guilt on the part of the suspect. Here I am concerned over the language speaking of the victim. How is describing the murder as a murder implying that the suspect did it? Someone did it, but neither you, nor I have seen any evidence of his guilt. I have no idea as to his guilt, only that someone is guilty. TanRabbitry (talk) 04:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

This is the guideline I am arguing against here: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths). Not the Biographies of Living People. I consider this as negating any idea that consensus has been reached, since we weren't even arguing about the same guidelines.

TanRabbitry (talk) 04:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Final note (for now): Perhaps there is something that is against my position somewhere else, but I would add that the referenced article on naming, explicitly states it is neither a policy nor guideline. Until such time as a policy or guideline affirming it is found, this seems like it is a dispute between the language and about a "vetted guideline." Apologies for not noticing this sooner. Maybe the last place was a better location for this discussion. It doesn't have to do the Biographies of Living People. TanRabbitry (talk) 04:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

My argument is that the only reasonable CAUSE OF DEATH was murder. This claim you repeatedly insist upon is the problem. There were no witnesses to the death. We do not know if the perpetrator possessed the mens rea to commit murder. In fact, we really have no idea what occurred. A determination of murder would require knowing exactly what happened, the state of mind of a perpetrator, and knowing the detailed definition of murder in the jurisdiction of the event. WP:OR To top this off, there was intense political pressure. The ex-president two weeks later posting "Border INVASION is destroying our country and killing our citizens!" The victims name yelled out in the State of the Union address two weeks later. The Laken Riley Act passed by Congress two weeks later. This puts enormous pressure on the state to prosecute and is the political environment under which the grand jury deliberated. This is why we have trials instead of lynchings. It's also why we avoid inflammatory words and conclusions in WP:BLPs, waiting for adjudication first. We can state that one of the charges is murder. We should not call it murder in WikiVoice. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Objective3000 Your comment mirrors a lot of my sentiments, although I hadn't thought about the political pressure stuff before. Thank you for phrasing it so well. Gottagotospace (talk) 11:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@TanRabbitry Consider the following possibilities that could theoretically be revealed as supported during the trial:

• The police's conclusion that the suspect did not know the victim was incorrect, and it turns out the suspect and victim had a huge argument and the killing was a "crime of passion" that might count as a type of manslaughter.
• The suspect did not mean to kill the victim, but merely tried to knock her out, and accidentally killed her.
• The suspect was having a psychotic episode (from a psychotic disorder, drugs, or something else) that caused him to kill her for some reason, like auditory hallucinations commanding him to kill her, visual hallucinations of her turning into a demon, etc.
• The suspect is found to have diminished mental capacity for some reason, like an intellectual disability, that renders him unable to understand the consequences of his actions.

Now these are all things I pulled out of thin air and there's no evidence to support them at this time, but something like that could potentially be revealed during the trial. And if this guy's found to be completely uninvolved and they eventually catch the real killer and put that person on trial, one of those possibilities could potentially apply to their trial too. Those sorts of possibilities could result in different outcomes rather than a murder conviction, like maybe manslaughter, or "not guilty by reason of insanity". Gottagotospace (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Gottagotospace

I've addressed a couple of these, but it's been a bit, so here you go: for the first instance, a crime of passion requires a greater personal history or circumstance (like catching someone in the act of adultery) than an argument that took place in a public place. For the second, the perpetrator also asphyxiated her and struck her with a rock so many times as to disfigure the face. The third does not change the status as murder, but is instead a legal excuse. The fourth is a mitigating factor that likewise speaks on the perpetrator's level of guilt, not the murder itself. In both these cases, a murder may become legally excusable, but it is still a murder.

I saw someone has recently discussed this again on the article's "Talk" page. You may want to look at it. It refers to the "Naming conventions" page. TanRabbitry (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Although I *could* respond to all of those with counterarguments, I am going to just focus on the most important one to save everyone time here. As I've said a bunch already and you seemed to at least somewhat agree with, murder is a legal term. As far as I know, at least in the US, unless some state has some really wacky laws, there is no such thing as a "legally excusable murder". That's an oxymoron. Murder, by definition, is not legally excusable. For example, take a look at Georgia's definition of murder: https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2022/title-16/chapter-5/article-1/section-16-5-1/ This is especially applicable in the Laken Riley case, because she was killed in Georgia. If a homicide is "legally excusable" (whatever that means - I'm not a lawyer and don't know what a lawyer would think of that term), then it is ruled as something besides murder, depending on the circumstance.

Also yes, I did indeed see that thing about the flowchart and the fact that the editor changed it without talking to anyone about it ahead of time. You probably saw my comment on that page. I was out of the house for like 10ish hours until I just got home like 20 minutes ago, and editing the BLP noticeboard is way more annoying on mobile than my computer (Talk pages aren't super annoying as though?), so my comments have been sparse. Gottagotospace (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Gottagotospace

A crime may be defended by excuse, which is distinct from justification. An example would be irresistible impulse. So in certain instances, murder may be excusable. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Gottagotospace

I have a new suggestion for the "Naming convention," on said page. I think it's a fair compromise that allows rational thinking on our part, based on clear reporting. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Objective3000

It is strange to say that we should avoid "inflammatory" words when you repeatedly bring up "lynchings." As said before, nothing I am saying assumes that the suspect committed the crime, therefore the Biographies of Living People does not apply.

TanRabbitry (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I specifically said avoid inflammatory words in articles. Where have I suggested lynching be used in an article? Of course WP:BLP applies. It applies when there are articles discussing living and recently deceased people. It is a very broad policy. This is not about who did something. It is about the use of the word murder. We do not know it was a murder, as pointed out above. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Objective3000

You're twisting my words. You have brought up "lynchings" three different times in discussions. The BLP crime section would only apply to the suspect and he is already presumed innocent, as required. It does not apply to the victim. The "Naming conventions" essay does and it is being discussed. TanRabbitry (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I am doing no such thing. I directly and correctly responded to your claims and stand by every word of my post. I have told you before, do not ping me. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

If you're going to attack (not personally, but in opposition to my suggestion) and then retreat without answering and demand I not say anything to you, there's really no point in responding to you at all, is there? TanRabbitry (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I answered you completely and did not say don't respond. JUST STOP THE FUCKING PINGS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I anticipate this is this the last time I will respond to you. @Gottagotospace and really every other editor here has, despite our often strong disagreement, been polite, clear and civil. You have seemingly implied bad motives on others and now resorted to a childish and obscene fit of anger. I don't see how you add anything to this discussion beyond diminishing the credibility of the opposing argument. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Objective3000

I believe it comes from a commendable place of commitment to innocence until guilt is proved, but you don't seem to realize my argument. Under what reasonable circumstances could the victim's death not be a murder? That doesn't imply about against the suspect. TanRabbitry (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

This has been explained again and again. Third time, do not ping me. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Same as above. TanRabbitry (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I just had another thought. This article is not the only article on Wikipedia that has used the term "murder" to describe a homicide that lacks a murder conviction. Take a look at Lists of unsolved murders, its subpages, and many of the articles linked to from those subpages. I think that, in order to prevent hundreds of discussions like this one in the future, we should strongly consider requesting that the language in the body of an article become an explicit part of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths). In order to go about that, we would need to do a Wikipedia:Requests for comment, right? Gottagotospace (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For examples of how cases can be complex consider Killing of Rachel Nickell. In that case someone was tried for murder but acquitted. For a long time, it was considered an unsolved murder and one of the people involved in the original case continued to suggest the earlier suspect was a murderer. Eventually someone else "pleaded guilty to Nickell's manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility". It's been discussed before you could likely still find sources which call it a murder but the verdict against the only person believed responsible is manslaughter.

I'm sure you can likewise find many people who call the Killing of Natalie Connolly (warning graphic content in that article) a murder and do so while identifiable and in the UK without fear despite their stricter defamation standards. Murders of Harry and Megan Tooze, Murder of Marie Wilks, Murder of Billie-Jo Jenkins are other interesting examples. All of them once had recorded convictions for murder, but all of these are now overturned so they're considered unsolved murders. In all of them, some people continue to allege (as documented in our articles) that the earlier people convicted were the perpetrators. And it's reasonably still possible we could get a Nickell type situation where someone believed to be the sole perpetrator ends up being convicted for manslaughter.

Anyway my ultimate point is while I support the guideline and keeping the title as killing, I do think it's complicated and acknowledge strictly speaking that probably means we should move cases like Harry and Megan, Wilks and Billie-Jo Jenkins to killing but I'm not sure there is much appetite for that. Definitely there is no way you'd ever be able to move Whitechapel murders. Which leads to the question should we move article like the earlier three, if someone is charged with the killing or do we wait for a verdict? Also while I think from a BLP standpoint most would support keeping a case like Nickel as "killing', there are a lot of cases which fall through the cracks. E.g. Connolly was only fixed after I brought it up here (thanks to those involved); Murder of Ee Lee still uses murder even after conviction, not for murder. The lead even says "was an American woman who was raped and murdered by two black teenagers in a racially-motivated[3] daylight attack in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The two perpetrators, <snipped for BLP reasons>, pleaded guilty to first-degree reckless homicide". If you get to cases without a verdict and in countries where there is less attention, I suspect our record is even worse e.g. should Murder of Moïse Mugenyi Kabagambe be at that title since I think there's still no conviction (but the killers don't seem to be in doubt).

And I wonder if this is one of those cases where as alluded to above, differing standards can confuse matters. Although I'd first note that while there are many differences, I think the problem is somewhat reduced for most places where English is common since since most of them also use a common law system significantly influenced by the law in either the UK or US. Within most of the English speaking world, I wonder if felony murder is the biggest source of divergence since it means in a lot of the US, stuff might be called murder which would never be in other jurisdictions now that felony murder has either been eliminated or seriously reduced. E.g. at the extreme end, if a bank robber dies during the robbery from cardiac arrest, this could be murder for other major participants in parts of the US but AFAIK not in most other jurisdictions.

Anyway back to the Brazilian example, I'm not sure how these things are handled in Brazilian law or in Portuguese. But I think generally systems in other countries can be more problematic especially since the terms used in their jurisdictions may not have perfect translations. IIRC it's been claimed before that Greece is one such place where IIRC people have claimed distinction between murder and manslaughter isn't as clear cut and there's a lack of a simple difference in terminology. (I never investigated this and could be remember wrong.)

Nil Einne (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

You make some excellent points! I think one thing to consider is WP:COMMONNAME, so some homicides (like the Whitechapel murders maybe?) would be called "murders" under that, depending on the media coverage. Also, in the case of a clear murder-suicide where the investigators/police/whoever ruled it that way and closed the case (e.g., Chris Benoit double-murder and suicide), that makes sense to call murder even though the likely perpetrator didn't go to trial due to their suicide. But there are some other complexities as well that you mentioned, which is another great reason why I think doing an RfC could be helpful. I don't know if I want to be the one to file the RfC though, since it seems like a huge ordeal and I'm new to all of this dispute/arbitration stuff. Gottagotospace (talk) 23:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Anthony J. Resta

Anthony J. Resta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have concerns about this article. I deleted a huge amount of puffery and promotional language from it in February, most of which was sourced to Resta's own website, Youtube videos of performances and similar unreliable sources not suitable for any article much less a BLP. Later, I noticed Doc54625 (talk · contribs) reinserted some of the promotional language [6]. Having looked at Doc54625's edits, it seems 99% of them have been to this article, many of them edits covering very obscure music industry people [7] cited to unreliable sources like Discogs and Imdb, or simply adding puffery to the article about various awards. I suspect Doc54625 is actually Resta himself and this BLP has become an autobiography. I also note that the smilarly-named Doc2234 (talk · contribs) created the related Resta article Anthony J. Resta discography, which is currently full of all the refbombing puffery removed from the main article. Sockpuppetry? Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your BLP-related concerns, and since you've remedied the worst of them, I'm happy to watch the page for developments. If you think there's an SPI case, you'd need a pair of editors active within a shorter time of each other than 2018/2024. I recommend waiting to see if the older account resurrects. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 22:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Patricia Marroquin Norby

Patricia Marroquin Norby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is an attempt to state that Norby is a pretender or self-identified indigenous person. The information is based upon a [[8]New York Post] article and Tribal Alliance Against Frauds non-profit press release. It is a continuing trend to out people they claim are not Native Americans because they are not citizens of reservations.[9][10] See the talk page: Talk:Patricia Marroquin Norby, most specifically #Indigenous woman and #Reverted edits, where I have made the same points in this next article.

I just went through a long bout on the Lillie Rosa Minoka Hill (talk) article where the two editors claimed that she was not of Mohawk heritage, even though there were sources. And, that she wasn't the second Native American woman physician, although there were lots of sources, no one who claimed to have that accomplishment in 150 years, and recent identification of the accomplishment.

I believe this ties back to whether there is a complete Draft:Native American definition, so I drafted one. The big stumbling block is whether only people who are citizens of reservations can call themselves Native Americans.

Other articles have been updated with the "self-identified" tag - without sources - and making it sound like the person it trying to scam someone. Maybe that's so. If it is, then it would be great to get everyone on the same page. I fear, though, that people are being victimized.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I removed the piped label above.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• MOS:CITIZEN states "Native American and Indigenous Canadian status is based on citizenship, not ethnicity. Indigenous persons' citizenship can be listed parenthetically, or as a clause after their names". She has no proof of citizenship and when that happens, their claims are stated as self-identifying, it's not defaming or anything negative, just stating the facts since she isn't enrolled or claimed by a tribal nation. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Determining Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 03:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson In the reading comprehension department, I actually never claimed that Hill was not of Mohawk descent nor did I insert such a claim into the article. I clarified that she was not a St. Regis Mohawk citizen and that she self-identified as a Mohawk descendant without proof. Because that is what available sources indicate. She may very well have Mohawk ancestry. There's simply no verification. You keep asserting without evidence that the term "self-identified" is meant to defame or to insinuate that a person doesn't have Native heritage. That's false. It certainly does not imply that someone is a scammer; that is an imagined insinuation. That is not what self-identified means. By reading the Indigenous WikiProject guidance on these matters and through the numerous conversations you have participated in, you should know that at this point. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I am here to help the noticeboard anyway that I can and to explain anything that is unclear to them.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Great. You can explain to them that you were mistaken and that I never claimed that Minoka Hill doesn't have Mohawk ancestry. I claimed it was uncertain. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 06:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Neither WP:NYPOST nor Tribal Alliance against Frauds are considered RS. How do reliable sources actually describe Norby's heritage or ancestry. Do they qualify it as self-identification or do they actually state that is what her heritage is. This is not the first rodeo for the noticeboard in editors arguing to prove or disqualify whether people are described as from some particular tribe while being challenged as not being a member of the tribe. Keep in mind WP:RGW. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

According to Norby herself, many prominent Native women (America Meredith, Suzan Harjo, Nancy Mithlo, Tahnee Ahtoneharjo-Growingthunder, Jacqueline Keeler) have been speaking out about her claims, so I can only imagine more reliable sources will be published soon. Wikipedia can accurately write about these kinds of claims if you see Buffy Sainte-Marie#Claim of Indigenous identity as an example. Wikipedia isn't censored and no one is attempting to use NYP or the TAAF website to edit her article.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 08:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Oncamera: when such sources are published we definitely should add them but until they do it is too soon to try and change the article just because sources may eventually be published. An absence of sources is no better than using NYPOST or TAAF. I had a look and AFAICT, none of the sources say anything about identifying or self-identifying. Therefore such a wording is in clear violation of BLP, and editors need to cut that shit out lest they are blocked. The sources say "Patricia Marroquin Norby (Purépecha)", "Patricia Marroquin Norby, of the Purépecha people" and "suppressed her Purepeche (sic) and Apache ancestry". I have not looked at any of the guidelines but Wikipedia guidelines cannot override BLP (or any policy). If there is some guideline which tries to override BLP, editors need to fix it right now. If editors do not do so and it's a Wikiproject guideline I'll probably just take it to WP:MFD since I'm not interested in dealing with a Wikiproject which thinks it acceptable to violate BLP. I can completely understand why this is a sensitive issue and we definitely do need to look at ways we can handle it better. But this cannot be by sacrificing BLP and allow unsourced claims to be added. Instead, solutions might include relying only on top-notch sources before we add claims of indigenous identity, perhaps even excluding sources normally considered excellent if they persistently to a bad job on reporting on such issues. But ultimately Morbidthoughts, is right that WP:RGW has to come into play. There is a limit to what we can do, and it's likely in the near future we will continue to report on claims which might be inaccurate as if they are correct simply because it's what all RS say. People who are concerned about such issues need to take it up outside Wikipedia e.g. by trying to convince RS to do a better job, convince them to publish articles questioning unsupported claims etc. That is how you correct such problems not by trying to change Wikipedia to allow poorly sourced or unsourced claims to be made. Nil Einne (talk) 11:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Nil Einne Regarding I have not looked at any of the guidelines but Wikipedia guidelines cannot override BLP (or any policy). I have not seen a policy or guideline about Native or Indigenous people that goes against BLP. There's an essay WP:NDNID, but I don't think that's totally accurate and when it discusses people, it goes into self-identification. That has been the source used to convince me that we can use self-identification.

I am understanding from this post that the key point is what reliable sources say and I am inferring that we don't necessarily need guidelines created (Discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America#Written guidelines and I could have probably handled it better), like the definition of Native American/Indigenous person, or the MOS:CITIZEN updated, I think the verbiage needs to be reviewed for Canada. Even though this seems to be an ongoing battle, there seems to be resistance in creating guidelines. But perhaps that's not needed if we rely on the content coming from reliable sources. Is that right? (made an edit about written guidelines in parenthesis and signed again).–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Please quote which language within BLP backs up your claim. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

You start with the very beginning that "Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies" and read the part about "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." One of the core content policies, WP:OR prohibits "any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources". Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts If someone self-identifies as being of Native American descent and you mention that they self-identify as being of Native American descent in the article based on reliable sources, that isn't Original Research. It is sourced material. Saying that someone self-identifies as being of Native American descent is not an "allegation", it is a statement of fact. Self-identification doesn't imply anything other than that they self-identify as being of Native American descent. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

No, if reliable sources do not explicitly mention self-identification, then it is original research to presume self-identification and present it as such. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The self-identification is person X saying they have Y descent. The are enacting self-identification by identifying as Y or Y descent. Yuchitown (talk) 03:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts No, it isn't original research. If someone says "I'm Apache", then they self-identify as Apache, by definition. Self-identification is one of the components of an Indigenous identity. If someone identifies as Indigenous without any proof of citizenship or tribal affiliation or descent, that's self-identification. We can note that self-identification. We cannot claim that it is verified if it has not been. We cannot include the claim that they are Apache or that they are an Apache descendant, because we have no source for it. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 03:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Inserting a premise that is not mentioned in the source is original research. WP:WABBITSEASON Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts The premise is mentioned in the source: their identity as Native or as a Native descendant. If they claim Native ancestry, that is their identity. The exact word "identify" doesn't need to be used. Wikipedia:PEDANTRY: "there is no need to verify statements that are obvious." Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

If the RSes like the New York Times[11] are stating that she is of Purépecha heritage, then that's how it should be presented in the wikipedia article without any additional qualifiers. WP:DEADHORSE Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts The New York Times is not actually a reliable source for determining Indigenous identity: "Unfortunately, sources that Wikipedians usually regard as reliable, such as mainstream newspapers "of record", may also fail to fact check on Native identity, especially if it is not an in-depth profile on the individual themselves. Even The New York Times has interviewed people for articles on Native topics and falsely reported, multiple times, that non-Native people are Native — simply taking the subject at their word with no fact-checking." Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

You can argue that until the cow comes home. That Wikiproject does not set policy nor guidelines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts What evidence do you have that a publication riddled with inaccuracies like the New York Times is a reliable source on determining Indigenous identity? The NYT's routine promotion of Indigenous-related falsehoods says the opposite. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 05:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I trust The New York Times on its reliability over anything you have to say, especially when it's clear from these edit summaries[12][13] what you are intending to express with edits to BLP articles on self-identification.[14][15] These are obvious edits to WP:RGW. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts Civility, please. Assume good faith, please. Please stick to the substance of my questions rather than insulting me or making accusations against me. The general reliability of NYT does not make it reliable on Native issues specifically, as demonstrated by NYT's repeated publishing of falsehoods without any attempt at verification. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

People are vastly overthinking this. Citizenship is based on legality. If there are no reliable sources we dont state as a fact they are a citizen of X polity. Re ethnicity/cultural heritage, if there are reliable sources that state they are of X, we state with fact they are of X. If there are no reliable sources that state it as fact, we use what they do say, or finally absent any reliable sources, we use what the subject themselves says attributed to them in a neutral fashion. "Subject claims descent of X" "Subject states they are descended from X". We do not use words like "Subject self-identifies as X" unless a reliable source explicitly does because that is a wording that says "subject says they are X and nothing else backs it up" which relies on facts not known. It is not difficult to phrase how someone describes their heritage without falling into judgemental value language, its done elsewhere all the time. If necessary quote the source directly and make it clear its a quote. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, great, that certainly makes life a lot easier.

And, I am assuming that I can use the information from this post to make edits to remove the self-identification language from the essay WP:NDNID, except where reliable sources explicitly say that they self-identify?–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC) There's a link from MOS:CITIZEN to the essay.–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Only in death, I've always saw this as a potential path forward. But what is considered a reliable source on Indigenous identity. Most of these so called reliable sources are just accepting primary evidence (the subjects own described identity) without giving it another thought (i.e. self-identification). Self-identification is a real term used by many organizations such as the UN. What do we call it when one identifies as being something but only their voice, whether through interviews, non-Native media or self-published sources is the only source for such a claim? They could use what is posted on Wikipedia as some legitimacy to point to in order to profit off Indigenous communities. I don't think Wikipedia should be legitimizing unverified claims from sources that have no way or desire to investigate such claims. The stealing of Indigenous identity to profit is not a new concept and is not one I can say I would be proud to be a part of enabling here or anywhere. In my view point it would not be honouring to myself or my heritage. That is just one aspect that makes defining identity complex. The ramifications are potentially huge and far more damaging to Indigenous cultures than for other cultures. I am open to discussion and further thought on this. I don't have the answers. I know what I believe and it doesn't always line up with Wikipedia but I will always follow consensus when it is gained through policy or discussion absent policy. Even if I don't like it. --ARoseWolf 12:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Not our job to worry about it as wikipedia editors beyond 'is the source reliable'. If thats a genuine concern, then there should be a discussion about that source on that topic. But thats not what is happening across the articles here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with Only in death here; it's not our job to police sources or put scare quotes on BLP's statements in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we just report what they say. If reliable sources cast doubt on the heritage claims of Norby, then we make the article reflect it. Otherwise this is all bog-standard BLP violations for axe-grinding purposes, and misapplication of WP:CITIZEN. And WP:NATIVE-IDENTITY is obviously an essay that has not undergone wider scrutiny and really shouldn't be used to justify anything here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

We police sources all the time. I'm sure we all have seen arguments on talk pages discussing the quality of sources and determining WP:DUE based on the credibility of sourcing. Who is axe-grinding? --ARoseWolf 15:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

We determine if sources are reliable or if they're due weight, but that's not what's being discussed here; it's whether if, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we can decide to use Wikipedia's voice to intimate a source is lying in an interview, because of ideological considerations. Oncamera and Bohemian Baltimore certainly seem to have sharp implements out, if they're trying to put into wiki voice statements that are not in text. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

So back to this article. "Subject claims descent of X" was actually proposed by Only in death as neutral. "Subject identifies as being of X decent" is what is was reverted by Morbidthoughts. To write "claims" is more neutral than "identifies"?

So Artnews and uwalumni.com (first two sources) are now reliable sources for Indigenous identity? The third source, a newspaper article from 2006, doesn't really say Patricia is a member and citizen of the Purépecha people, only that it is her heritage and she is descended from, which the article states now. It isn't a matter of lying, please don't conflate what I am saying. What I am saying is a tribal source connected with the Purépecha and Apache people should be the ones determining whether she is one of them definitively. Not an art website or an university alumni website. I have no issue with using "claims" as proposed above or even stating she is "descended from", with the usual proper attribution, as is currently in the article. I also don't see how "identifies" is less neutral than "claims".

The article also states her citizenship is American because she was born in Chicago to two American citizens. This seems appropriate to law which defines citizenship. --ARoseWolf 18:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

They're reliable sources for what the person says per WP:ABOUTSELF. No one, especially Norby in those sources, is claiming they are enrolled in a tribe or a citizen thereof. The issue is trying to add "self-identifies" in a way that is clearly designed to waggle suggestively that what the source says about themselves (I'd argue "claims" can also run into that issue too, depending on the context.) You would see the potential issue with saying "Eliot Page self-identifies as a trans man", right? It's up to Oncamera and Bohemian to defend their interpretation that someone without official membership in a tribe has no right to claim heritage or identify ancestry, and must be treated as suspect by default. If that's a mainstream interpretation of reliable sources, it should be easy to demonstrate. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@David Fuchs That's not the case. As said numerous times by numerous editors, self-identified does not mean or imply Pretendian. One example would be adopted people who self-identify as being of Native American heritage but where there is simply no verification of this. I have never claimed that people without recognition of citizenship or community belonging have no right to self-identify as descendants. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

So then you understand MOS:CLAIM and realize that your choice of words shouldn't be used, right? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned below MOS:CLAIM offers many alternatives. "Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate." Regarding the Eliot Page example, being transgender is completely different than being a member of an Indigenous nation, the latter being a collective, political identity. "Self-identify" and "self-identification" are used freely in discussions of Indigenous identity (examples) without the negative connections implied by "Eliot Page self-identifies as a trans man." In contemporary society, if a personal failed to self-identify as being Indigenous — not matter what their background was — they would just assimilate into mainstream society, possibly as a mestizo. Yuchitown (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@David Fuchs I see no reference to the terms "identify" or "self-identify" in MOS:CLAIM. And if you want to argue that "self-identification" is some sort of euphemism for Pretendian, it isn't. The US census uses the term self-identification. The UN uses the term "self-identification". Self-identification is one of the three defining elements of Indigenous identity in Australia. This is not terminology that Wikipedia editors fabricated. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

First off, there are no "citizens of reservations." Agree that "subject claims descent from x" is neutral. In Mexico, US, and across the Americas, Indigenous identity is a group identity: "It doesn't matter who you claim, it matters who claims you." When someone self-identifies/makes a claim/states (whatever term people like; I repeatedly ask for suggestions across this platform) that is all that you have evidence of until the claim is substantiated. If no groups being claimed reciprocate by claiming the person, then you need a way to express that they have made a statement about their identity. Exact quotes are best. Saying that they self-identify / claim / whatever word you like the best is not the same as saying that they are not Indigenous or lack whatever claimed ancestry. User:ARoseWolf has pointed out that it makes a difference whether something is placed in wikivoice, so exact quotes from the individual seems like the best, most accurate, verifiable course of action. Yuchitown (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

If "self-identify" was the same as "said", you wouldn't be militantly trying to make sure everyone's page says self-identify. Your pattern of editing makes your goals incredibly clear, and you'd think almost everyone outside your little sphere disagreeing with you here would prompt some self introspection, but apparently not. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 10:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Very uncivil response and does not help the discussion at all.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 10:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The "discussion" here is you and Bohemian refusing to accept the opposing viewpoint. There's no discussion to be had here, other than to make it clear if you're edit-warring about this you have no actual guidelines or policies on your side. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Saying that they self-identify / claim / whatever word you like the best is not the same as saying that they are not Indigenous or lack whatever claimed ancestry: Is it not? MOS:CLAIM reminds that To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying disregard for evidence (italics in original) and instructs to consider rewriting the prose to remove the need for such verbs in the first place. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, ”Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate.” X person stated they are of Y descent. Neutral as per MOS:CLAIM. Yuchitown (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

All of these are a problem if they are not what the source has said. As I mentioned above, I have no problem with us being strict with sources, including rejecting some sources normally considered reliable. I think it's accepted that even quality RS should be used with care in certain situations, especially science and even more medicine, so it may be reasonable for us to do the same for indigenous identity. To be clear, the implication of this is the statement may be unsourced so that we can remove it, not that we can qualify it in some way that doesn't come from the source.

However I do think there's a limit on how far we could go with this e.g. I find it unlikely we would have excluded mention of Buffy Sainte-Marie's claimed identity. The same with Sacheen Littlefeather for that matter. Again RGW etc.

But I would strongly oppose the addition of any wording which does come directly from the source or at least so clearly implied that the cannot be no doubt. And I consider it disingenuous to say that such additions are not intended to express doubt of the claims when the reason editors want to add such claims is because they feel the original statements are too strong and so misleading and we therefore need to water them down. I mean this is one example of a statement on the talk page

Because we don't actually know that she is a Purépecha descendant or an Apache descendant. All we know is that she self-identifies as having Purépecha and Apache descent.

Or to put it a different way, why are editors insisting on adding such wording if not to qualify the claims our article make? Which would be fine if the sources support such a thing, but not when they don't.

To be clear, if the source does use a wording like "self-identifies" or is of X heritage then it's fine for us to use these wordings. And for clarity I mean the individual wordings. We can re-word them in ways where there no disagreement they mean the same thing. But if a source says heritage we cannot say self-identity or vice versa. (Some sources could do both.)

Nil Einne (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

For further clarity on the re-wording point, if a source says "she told us she is of X" or "according to A, she is X" then it would IMO be fine to say "self-identifies" or something similar like "she says she is of X". But if a source simply says "A is X" or A is of X heritage" then we cannot go around adding self-identifies or "said" or anything like that, since it's no reasonable to interpret these as the same statements. And I forgot to mention now, but WP:BLPSPS seems to IMO be clearly unsuitable as sources since such statement would IMO run afoul of the unduly self-serving restriction. Nil Einne (talk) 00:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nil Einne Claiming that editors are disingenuous in intention is tantamount to calling them liars. Please assume good faith. It is false that describing someone as "self-identified" is simply a tactic to discredit them. EG, there are people who are adopted and are direct descendants but who simply don't have documentation of their self-identified heritage. Describing someone as self-identified is a factual description of their legal status, not a value judgement or an accusation. The only time an accusation of Pretendianism is acceptable on an article is when RS's mention a Pretendian allegation. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 06:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

almost always, but not universally. "Abraham Lincoln said 'No one has needed favours more than I'." is one thing; "Abraham Lincoln said he was the duly elected president of the United States" or "Abraham Lincoln stated he was a natural born American citizen" is another. The latter examples read unnaturally; a reader of Wikipedia would expect them to be expressed in plain text if they weren't subjective or contested. Was Lincoln perhaps not the duly elected president? Did Stephen Douglas really win?

This insistence that "X self-identifies" or "according to X" is completely and always neutral also elides the broader context of the particular example in this thread in which the situation isn't that only Patricia Marroquin states she's Purépacha; other people and periodicals say she is too. At what point does this mean we write a sentence that says, "Patricia Marroquin, ARTnews, and the Wisconsin Alumni Association state that Marroquin is Purépacha" (to use the sources currently in the article)? Or "Patricia Marroquin said she is Purépacha in the presence of NPR journalist Jennifer Vanasco, who didn't correct or qualify her statement and followed it up by saying Marroquin 'is indigenous'." (to use this NPR source)? To editors who don't see how the phrasing of "self-identifies" or "X says they are Y", whatever the intent, reads as casting doubt on the claims, I would ask for some trust in the feedback of editors and readers.

Think of it this way. "X said Y" is the kind of couching we apply to events like reported miracles or subjective assessments. Joseph Smith said he received golden plates from the angel Moroni at the Hill Cumorah; and According to Mariette, she first saw the Blessed Virgin on the evening of Sunday 16 January 1933; and Sunday Times said: "comparisons (of Harry Potter) to (Roald) Dahl are, this time, justified"—and, apparently, also, "According to X person, she is Y heritage"? One of these things is not like the other. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Tribal citizenship is not like those examples.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 01:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually I think it is, but it's also besides the point since we're mostly not discussing tribal citizenship. I mean if sources said person A is a member or citizen of the Kiowa Tribe or Cherokee Nation then yeah we would either need to report this as or not report it. We could not say in our articles that they self-identify as a member or citizen of the Kiowa Tribe or Cherokee Nation, or that they "say" they are a member or citizen; since that's not what the sources support. However that's not what we're discussing here.

As acknowledged by several participants we largely aren't discussing cases where someone has stated that they are a member of some specific tribe or nation or otherwise claimed to have some specific tribal citizenship but instead cases when sources simply say someone is Cherokee, or Kiowa or they have heritage/ancestry from those or whatever else. So tribal citizenship doesn't come in to it. I expect this is not an accident, making such specific claims are easier to fact check, so it's far less likely RS will inaccurately report on such things.

Still, and this gets back to my earlier point, if RS have shown repeated poor fact checking in verifying such specific and easier to verify claims and keep getting it wrong, it's likely fine to exclude such RS as evidence.

In fact, for such specific claims, IMO it's even acceptable to allow limited OR or non RS to exclude the claims when they are in doubt. To be clear, I still don't mean adding any qualifying statements, those still aren't acceptable. However if we have good reason to think the source is wrong and a limited number of RS, IMO it's fine to remove the claim even in the absence of a RS which challenges the claim. Although we'd still get into limits, if we have a large number of good RS making the claim, I'd be very reluctant to even remove the claim. We'd need to wait for sources to correct themselves or for RS challenging the earlier one to emerge. If they don't, so be it.

Again I understand why this might not be satisfactory to many, but it's what our policy requires for good reason. The solution is to fix the sources, not try and unilaterally change wikipedia.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by "solution is to fix the sources?"  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 04:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I said this way above but I understand it's easy to miss or forget but anyone concerned "need to take it up outside Wikipedia e.g. by trying to convince RS to do a better job, convince them to publish articles questioning unsupported claims etc". While it's not mentioned in RGW, since we follow and don't lead, it's ultimately the only way editors can correct great wrongs which truly exist. Note that this is not exclusively protective of living persons. In fact, I'd say it's more common at BLPN that a living person comes to complain about how all the sources are wrong on them, and there's often little we can do to help them depending on the quality and number of the sources, the existing of sources which might contradict these etc. Nil Einne (talk) 04:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's a "correct" solution. Seems like if someone asked a tribe if someone is enrolled and their enrollment office says no, that would not work as a source on Wikipedia.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 05:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

That's actually how things work on Wikipedia. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

"need to take it up outside Wikipedia e.g. by trying to convince RS to do a better job, convince them to publish articles questioning unsupported claims etc": It sounds like their advice to me is to either do original research or go down the path of COI by telling journalists to change their articles so I can use it in a Wikipedia article. Are other editors doing that?  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 08:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I remember reading in The Signpost about something like this. There were several popular myths about Grand Central Terminal that circulated even in generally reliable sources. Wikipedia editors collaborated with a secondary source periodical to research and publish a debunking of one of the biggest myths, about the value of the central clock, so as to put correct information out there in reliable sources: Bill Burns was the first one to act against this myth, emailing research to the news site Untapped Cities. He emailed me as well, and working with User:Epicgenius, we found enough reliable sources to dispel the myth.

But probably what is meant isn't so much 'go email some newspapers' but something more organic like waiting for reliable sources to match your preferred premise. Or if that's too slow for an editor, perhaps for editors dissatisfied with the state of reliable sources can choose to go and become reliable source writers, like journalists or academics. Some members of WikiProject Women in Religion did that, participating in getting a book published, Claiming Notability for Women Activists in Religion (Atla, 2020), that could be cited in biographical articles about key women in the history of religion.

Or become an advocate 'in the real world,' directly engaging media organizations and persuading them about how to report on something rather than hairsplitting and reformulating the information they report to formulate new premises they didn't themselves espouse. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 09:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

not like those examples: That seems to point up exactly why it's weird to write about such as if it is like those examples. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Niall Boylan

Niall Boylan

when you check the view history of this article, there are an extreme amount of defamatory claims that show people are using it as a hit piece. i am asking that this article be put under protection.