Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard

This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period.

  • This page is not for simple vandalism or material which can easily be removed without argument. If you can, simply remove the offending material.
  • Familiarize yourself with the biographies of living persons policy before reporting issues here.
  • Important: Do not copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard. Link to a diff showing the dispute, but do not paste the information here.

Sections older than 7 days archived by ClueBot III.

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

2022 pregnancy of a 10-year-old in Ohio[edit]

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.

Good morning. Due to the urgency, I am posting this link on this site, as posting sources and URLs at 2022 pregnancy of a 10-year-old in Ohio containing the name of the suspect, who has never been famous nor convicted, seems to defeat the purpose of WP:BLPN. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The suspects name is now in the wiki-code in two places, both being urls of sources used in the article. Readers who do not look at the source wikicode will not see the name. I think WP:BLPNAME has been met, as the suspects name has been "widely disseminated". I think continuing to exclude the name from the article is wise, but am not overly concerned about the urls. If someone wants to replace the sources with equally reliable or better ones that do not have the name in the url, go for it! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with FFF, given that a simple google turns up the name instantly we don't need to be policing URLs. BLPNAME here is satisfied by keeping the name out of the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have higher standards than the media here, since search engines will.pick up on WP info better than from media sources. Just because a name may be widely disseminated by some sources, we have to take steps to avoid things like names of non notable minors particularly around BLPCRIME aspects. There are ways to hide names in URL (like via link shortener or using sources that give the same information without including the name in the URL). Masem (t) 20:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do we have to take such steps? I don't think we do... For example we wouldn't not use an article as a source because it had the subject's name in the title, that would be absurd and wikipedia is not censored. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can "[redacted]" a name in an article title should that be necessary. Masem (t) 21:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Has it ever been necessary? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't seen "[redacted]", but I have certainly changed "[name of person] was also charged with [crime]" to "A third man was also charged with [crime]". Herostratus (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also this is not censoring. We strictly avoid mentioning non-notable, non public figures BLPs particularly when crimes are involved. Masem (t) 21:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Wikipedia is not censored" is a mere slogan, like "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit!" This is censorship; we censor BLPs and other things all the time, for legal and ethical reasons. We censor things that go against the best interest of Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BLPCRIME uses the language "editors must seriously consider not including", so we do have some leeway to use common sense. If a suspect has already been named by just about every reliable source covering the topic, I don't think that we're pushing them further into the spotlight or implying guilt by incidentally mentioning their name in a linked URL. –dlthewave 13:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I don't think BLPCRIME is the sole issue nor a barrier at this point. I'd only ask if the suspect's name make the victim easier to identify? And if so, is there harm to the victim that would be a reason to keep it out of an article that will exist for the rest of her life? Slywriter (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, I think it does make it easier to identify her. According to the tabloids the suspect is the live-in boyfriend of the victim's mother; I see no reason to suspect they don't have that fact straight. I don't know how we can prevent the name appearing completely, though. Even putting [redacted] into an article title just draws more attention to it. I dislike the idea of disingenuously rendering titles so the change won't be as visible. And once there's a conviction, is it even possible to keep the name out? Valereee (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think it's ultimately a losing battle, but I struggle with the fact that a 10 year old has an article that will follow them around forever when they did not seek attention. For them, this article is WP:BLP1E, but others have made it a noteworthy topic. For that and WP:DONOHARM, I'd lean toward never including the suspect's name in the article prose(even after conviction), but policing sources may be a bridge too far. Slywriter (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah. Also, arguments such as "simple google turns up the name instantly" and "If a suspect has already been named by just about every reliable source covering the topic, I don't think that we're pushing them further into the spotlight" and so on are bad, and of the order of "The other kids were beating that homeless beggar to death anyway, so what difference does it make if I joined in?". We can't control what other people do, only what we do. Introducing this kind of thinking into discussions is inimical to what we're trying to do here. Herostratus (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to agree. It's simply a matter of basic human decency. It's a 10 year old child! Just because the newspapers don't show any compassion doesn't mean we have to blindly follow their lead like a bunch of mindless automatons. Newspapers are foremost out to sell their product and make money, and if that means trampling over a small child then that's what they'll do, as disgusting as it is. We're not motivated by a system that puts financial gain over the well being of the victims, and especially children. As an encyclopedia, we're supposed to be better than the news outlets, not the same or worse. Zaereth (talk) 07:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All this is basically the same logic we used on Star Wars Kid until the person themselves opted to state in a very public statement he was SWK as part of his reason to start an anti-bullying group. Prior to that, there were a fair number of sources that gave his name but we kept it out of the article despite the "ease" that it could be found. Masem (t) 13:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah and it's people like the Star Wars Kid and Brian Peppers etc. where BLP is most important. "We are not here to make people feel sad" was one of the guiding reasons we have BLP. A BLP violation on the articles on Barack Obama or Kim Jong-un or Jeff Bezos etc etc is bad ofc, but really we can't harm those people on that level. We're not going to hurt their feelings or damage their reputation or invade their privacy. Bill Gates doesn't care if we slant a sentence against him without an AAA-level ref. Private marginally notable persons, where we usually form their public face to a degree? It's punching down, punching way down, to give them anything but bending-over-backwards extreme consideration for them as people. We are a very big, much read, much linked to, much quoted, and therefore powerful, publication. Marginally notable private persons are helpless against us. I hate punching down. You all should too. Herostratus (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to the tabloids the suspect is the live-in boyfriend of the victim's mother we don't mention this in the article? Anyone who's read the sources to the point that they've ascertained that fact, also has probably seen the person's name by that point. All that digging has to be done offwiki though.
I don't see how the suspect's name can tell you anything about the victim, based on the info in the article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't mention it because it's the tabloids, and even if it weren't the tabloids I'd argue against mentioning it for privacy reasons.
The problem isn't that people across the country avidly reading the tabloids will know the name of the accused and connect it to the kid. It's that in her neighborhood, at her school, in her church, everyone will know because the name of the accused has been made public and in every one of those groups, someone knows that person is a close associate of the family, which means they can guess who the victim is. And likely some will judge her for having the abortion, even if at this tender age she really wasn't even sure what an abortion is, and even if they don't judge her many will whisper about her. School life will be unbearable. Valereee (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Don't use the source because it's a junk source -- local news -- so we don't need to use it. I wouldn't say always exclude a source that has a problematic name in the URL, but if the source adds nothing of value to the article, which is the case here IMO, then there is no good reason to use it, and the inclusion of the name in the URL is a good reason not to use it. That they put the name in the URL demonstrates IMO the low quality of their newsroom editorial staff: it's in the URL because they put the name in the headline. Poor journalism ethics there. As far as a general rule about names in URLs go, I would say we should determine that on a case-by-case basis, but this is yet another example of why not to use local news as sources (as a general rule). Levivich (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I love local news for filling in early life details! The subject was a 2006 graduate of Perry High School, where they participated in 4 years of wrestling and musical theater. :D Valereee (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    local news is not a junk source... Buffs (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Seconded. Curbon7 (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] can be pretty junky. If we can find better sources for anything that isn't noncontroversial, it's better if we do. As I said above, it's great for a source for the fact the subject graduated in X year from Y high school and was a standout at Z activity. But in this case we're using a local source for information that can be easily found from a much better source who likely won't be putting the suspect's name into the headline and therefore URL. Valereee (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Anything notable is very going to likely have a local news source first. It is an opinion, not policy (and certainly not agreed upon by society at large) that local news sources are somehow inferior despite the fact that they follow the same journalistic standards as national publications. Either a source is reliable or it is not. Such editorial decisions (are we really being so picky as to be debating the choice of a URL?) have nothing to do with any of our pillars for inclusion.
    Now, I think including the victim's name is absurd and completely unnecessary (especially in the case of a minor), but it is widespread and in media worldwide. It is not a secret and is not something we can possibly exclude nor should we. It's best to give a neutral presentation of the facts. Buffs (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What news reports include the victim's name? I see plenty that include the doctor's name, but not the victim's. Lobster from Maine (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Let's just start with EVERY mass shooting... Buffs (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Lobster from Maine, I think Bluffs simply misspoke; as far as I know no news reports are including the victim's name. Valereee (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Valereee:, respectfully, please let me make my own points rather than assume my intent. My point is not whether names are included or not, but rather what reliable sources state. If they state the name of the victim, we should do so as well. Conversely, if they do not, we should not. It is truly that simple. The same should apply to URLs. While I feel for the girl in question, the responsibility lies with those who broadcast her name, not those who say "_____ broadcasted their name." Buffs (talk) 08:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Buffs, oh, my mistake, I'd made an assumption based on what was likely the policy-based opinion of an experienced editor who was saying something both incorrect and contrary to policy.
    Incorrect: AFAIK the media is not mentioning her name, which is why I figured you must have misspoken when you said I think including the victim's name is absurd and completely unnecessary (especially in the case of a minor), but it is widespread and in media worldwide. It is not a secret and is not something we can possibly exclude nor should we. It's best to give a neutral presentation of the facts.
    Contrary to policy: But even if it were appearing in RS, I would never in a million years think we should mention by name a 10-year-old rape victim. Our BLP policies would tell us to be extremely cautious with naming any non-notable living victim of any crime, much less a sex crime, much less a minor, much less one of tender years, much less one who has had an abortion as a result of that crime. I really am very surprised that an experienced editor like yourself would ever believe that was appropriate. Valereee (talk) 13:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If widespread articles are using either the name of the victim or the alleged perpetrator, it's very hard to see how either name is "non-notable". I stand by my statement. If either's name is NOT widespread in the media, then they should not be included. It's best to give a neutral presentation of the facts. Buffs (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No RS I know of is using the name of the victim. Even if they were, I would argue against repeating it here onwiki until I was blue in the face unless she herself came out in ten years. WTF are you even thinking here? This is a CHILD. Valereee (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've never seen us take extreme measures like link shortening to avoid a name in URL. In past cases I've seen avoidance of the name in article text, but it remaining in URLs, and sometimes the title of sources if applicable too. I think this adheres to the rule, as it's not overtly displaying the person's name. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Shortening a URL is weird. Readers don't go looking through urls in wikipedia articles so that they might find a secret encoded name in them. Why is this an issue? Lobster from Maine (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Lobster from Maine, the issue is that the suspect's name is in some headlines and therefore in some URLs, and it is likely people who know the girl will recognize the suspect as someone who lives with the family and therefore can identify the girl as the victim. Which could make her life pretty unbearable. Valereee (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Just noting that I've trimmed detail and swapped sources so that the suspect's name does not appear in the article wikitext. I wouldn't say this was necessary, but I get this itchy feeling all over whenever I disagree with Valereee. Those that care should probably keep a close eye as the trial starts (scheduled for next week, but may be delayed). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    hahaha Valereee (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Alleged" rape?[edit]

Another open question on this article entails whether the alleged rape is "alleged" or not alleged at all. It seems that editors are claiming that they can objectively say in wikivoice that the child was raped even without benefit of a trial or conviction. This seems to be WP:OR, and WP:POV. It seems we should extend "innocent until proven guilty" as the law of justice in these United States, to any incident, no matter how heinous or how "obvious" a crime may be. Elizium23 (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We're not stating that the suspect is guilty. We're following the sources, all of which label it a rape. 9 year olds can not legally consent to sex, so any such relationship is rape. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Until proven out by a court of law, we cannot make that assumption, per BLPCRIME. There's likely little wiggle room for anything but a rape charge, but until the court finds on this, we have to assume innocence. Masem (t) 03:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any sex with someone under 13 in Ohio is rape, so regardless of someone being found guilty, she was raped. If a politician was shot in the head in front of a crowd we wouldn't say "the alleged assassination." The suspect is alleged to have done something, but the rape itself is a fact. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Until the court makes the determination (which is very likely to be that way), we have to assume that events are only assumed to have happened, not that they have happened. Absolutely we can say that this woudl be assumed rape (we're not questioning the girl's age and thus how it falls under Ohio state law) but there's still validity in court that needs to be worked out. Masem (t) 03:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, in order to call someone a rapist there needs to be a court finding. In order to say someone was raped we do not. Just as we can say someone was murdered without a court finding. Nicole Brown Simpson was murdered, yet no one was ever convicted. Does that make it not a murder? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For Heavens' sake. Sex with a nine-year-old is not "alleged" rape. It is rape. Hell, I think it borders on a WP:CHILDPROTECT violation to suggest otherwise. In some states one could maybe get pedantic and say it's not, as a matter of law, automatically rape, because of one exemption or another, but it appears that the only exemption that applies in Ohio would be marriage, and there are no sources indicating that the victim was married to the alleged perpetrator or anyone else. BLPCRIME does not prevent us from calling a rape a rape, because BLPCRIME is only about how we describe people, not acts. How we describe acts is determined by WP:V and WP:NPOV. Are there any reliable sources that dispute that this was a rape? Any at all? The only original research happening here is the outrageous attempt to stick weasel words in front of what everyone on Earth, except a handful of Wikipedia editors apparently, agrees was a rape (whether it was perpetrated by the accused or someone else). This has to be the worst hill I've ever seen anyone choose to die on. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is alleged rape as what the actual events are yet to be confirmed by trial. it doesn't matter what RSes claim, we are following legal principles here to not make statements of facts that have yet to be determined by the court of law. Masem (t) 04:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Masem: What legal principle says that you can only call something a rape if it has resulted in a conviction? Could you please cite a textbook or journal article that explains this principle? I'm no lawyer, but in years of following legal matters and writing articles on the law, I've never heard of it. If such a principle does exist, my next question would be what Wikipedia policy or guideline says that we should defer to that legal principle? It's nowhere in BLPCRIME, which is about how we describe the accused. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BLPCRIME says "Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction." which is the base principle here. Maybe it is about the accused, but like in this case, if we state in wikivoice it was rape, you've already accused the suspect of your guilt here. And from the law/media standpoint, this is what is known as "prejudging" which is something that is seen as unethical and can result in libel suits. Masem (t) 05:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Us saying she was raped is not the same as us saying that the accused raped her. Like, obviously. The only way we would be libeling him is if there were some way to have sex with a nine-year-old without it being rape, which there isn't. It's not the same thing as, say, calling a homicide a murder, where there's any number of reasons it might not be ruled that. Since you've acknowledged that BLPCRIME is about the accused, not the crime, I'll return to my earlier question: Do any reliable sources dispute that this was a rape? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
She could have undergone artificial insemination, in or out of a clinical setting. It's telling that you are here assuming she had sex when you should know that is not necessary to become pregnant. So you're making several leaps of logic and you're assuming events you aren't privy to.
Now it's unfortunate that the evidence of the crime has been destroyed and left in another state. I hope law enforcement held on to some DNA samples; moreover, I hope her child's baby's remains get a dignified burial and some human respect. (BLP violation removed) Elizium23 (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Elizium23: I... You're joking, right? You're coming to BLPN, to a thread about BLPCRIME, to accuse a different living person (or people) of a crime? That's so outrageous that it almost makes me forget you started this comment by suggesting that a fucking nine-year-old underwent artificial insemination. Given your blatant political advocacy in this comment, and, again, outright BLP violation against one or more people involved, I think you may need to accept that you are not able to participate constructively on this topic. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What a truly bizarre argument, but oh well:
BLPCRIME keeps us from calling the accused a rapist until there's a conviction.
COMMONNAME is how we refer to the crime itself, absent consensus for something else. I don't believe I've seen any RS calling this anything but rape. So -- again absent consensus to call it something else -- we call it what RS call it: rape. Valereee (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I very much agree. The act leading to impregnation was a rape, and there is no source that suggests otherwise. BD2412 T 14:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(EC) Especially with the trial due to start soon according to comments below, I feel there's no point trying to get this changed this but I'd note there have been plenty of times when we ignore RS calling something a murder etc until a conviction has been secured when the alleged preparator is still alive and IMO there is a good reason it's something we nearly always do no matter how damning the facts of the case may seem. We've long debates about this e.g. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive318#Stoneman Douglas High School shooting but also the RfC Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 58#RfC: Shooting or Death or Killing or Murder? which resulted in this supplement Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths). Assassination given as an example is a fairly different case since it's not something that generally carrier a clear legal meaning. Indeed in the case of Talk:Assassination of Shinzo Abe/Archive 1#Requested move 8 July 2022 there seemed to be a clear albeit brief consensus that murder was not appropriate but assassination was fine. There are also cases where many sources may continue to call something a murder even though a conviction of the sole perpetrator has been secured for a lesser crime e.g. Killing of Rachel Nickell and Killing of Natalie Connolly (warning details may be distressing) and we have IMO correctly ignored these sources. While it may be true that the limited consideration of a perpetrator's state of mind means there's a difference between how rapes and murders are decided based on the facts of the case, IMO there's still enough doubt that we should take the same care. And actually I have vague memory we've done the same for rapes too where the facts seem fairly damning e.g. the victim suffered brutal injuries or it was recorded on camera although interesting enough with the case of Killing of Ee Lee we only dealt with the murder aspect and still simply say rape. I don't think Elizium23 is helping matters my giving unnecessarily complex scenarios although I'd note that it seems clear Elizium23 recognises artificial insemination of a 9 year old would almost definitely be at a minimum a form of sexual assault. The fact that a 9 year old cannot consent doesn't mean that any sexual intercourse is rape, for example for IMO good reason in many countries a 11 year old cannot be charged with rape. While the pregnancy makes this unlikely in this case, it's one of the reasons why we do not make assumptions based on flawed understandings of how the law operates and why. In many jurisdictions, again IMO for good reason, someone with a significant intellectual disability also cannot convicted of rape, even if physically they are capable of impregnating the victim. And I'd note that besides the weird artificial insemination scenario, it's possible even if very unlikely for pregnancy to result from sexual assault that doesn't fall into the definitions of rape that apply in jurisdictions a specific crime occurred in. Nil Einne (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
exactly, and as we cannot use our own expertise ("all situations under Ohio law would call this rape"), we can't state it as fact until the court agrees that the factual basis of a conviction. That's why it is important that until the court passes this decision, we have to assert that the rape is alledged. Masem (t) 16:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But we can use our own expertise to assert that the rape is alleged? Why would we ever be allowed to do that sort of WP:OR? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 Valereee (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Writing at a middle-ground/conservative stance (something was alleged to have happened) is absolutely should be our basis when including contentious or controversial information, as per WP:YESPOV. There's no OR involved in that, that's the writing style that a neutral encyclopedia must take, even if all the major sources - who are not legal experts here - claim must be true. Its the reason MEDRS (and to an extent, SCIRS) exist, to point out that there are only certain soruces that can make authorative claims. Of course, if the media was reporting on the findings that were given out of appropriate labs, and reiterating their statements, that would be different. Masem (t) 20:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Yes, ma'am, I understand you are saying you've been raped. We can't call it rape until someone has been convicted of rape. Oh, that 'rape kit'? Uh..." Valereee (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, if anyone wanted evidence that the judicial system indeed uses the word "rape" to describe incidents that did not result in a conviction, a lawyer friend pointed me to Wright v. City of Ozark, 715 F.2d 1513 (11th Cir. 1983) (plaintiff "was raped by an unknown assailant"), as an arbitrary example. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Was it uncontested by the city that she was raped? Maine 🦞 06:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Masem, can you explain to me the factual circumstances by which it would be inappropriate or false to say the child at issue had been raped? Dumuzid (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about "rape" violates WP:NPOV? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WTAF are you arguing Elizium23 ... ?!?! Nonconsensual insemination of a child is still rape! Children cannot enter contracts or consent. Parents can consent on behalf of children when it is in their best interest. (unnecessary and dangerous medical procedures???? not!!) Any sexual conduct (see: insertion without privilege) with a minor less than age 13 in Ohio is rape. Not even the doctor in that disgusting hypothetical has medical privilege of insertion!!!! 2600:387:15:1C11:0:0:0:B (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it contested, whatsoever, that some sort of sexual act by the specific person being tried for it actually occurred? Of course any sort of sexual relationship between a pedophile and a child is rape. Maine 🦞 05:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adult and child. Not just pedos. 2600:387:15:1C11:0:0:0:B (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with those editors above who are saying that, per WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP, we call it "rape" and not "alleged rape" because the WP:RSes call it "rape" and not "alleged rape". For example:
  • NYT a 10-year-old Ohio girl who was raped not "allegedly raped"
  • WaPo a pregnant 10-year-old Ohio rape victim and a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio not "alleged rape victim"
  • WaPo2 a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio not "alleged rape victim" and a man would be arraigned that morning for the rape of a 10-year-old not "for the alleged rape"
  • NPR A rape, an abortion, and a one-source story not "an alleged rape" and A raped 10-year-old Ohio girl's abortion not "an allegedly raped 10-year-old".
Aside from Wikipedia policy, this also comports with common sense: if a child is pregnant it's because she was raped, because she cannot consent and thus any pregnancy would be the result of statutory rape. The fact that a rape occurred is indisputable because a child is pregnant. It's just like if someone is stabbed many times, we (the world, the RSes, and thus Wikipedia) all call it a "murder" even if no one is ever convicted for the "murder", as has been pointed out above.
The bottom line is this: sometimes, a crime has occurred, and RS state that a crime has occurred, even if no one is convicted of that crime. In such cases, we can also state that a crime has occurred (although of course we cannot state that a particular person committed it). We do not have to state that a crime has allegedly occurred just because no one has been convicted of that crime. That's not what our policies, or common sense, require. Levivich (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That statement "that comports with common sense" is a legal analysis beyond the abilities of WP Editors to make, and thus not a valid step. And we have to stay away from saying things that maybe all RSes claim is true but do not have the authority to do so - here we need the legal evaluation from the court decision, the only agency that can make the evaluation. Even in the case of a person that appears to have died from multiple stab wounds, we cannot call that murder under a court of law makes that statement (that's why there's a specific set of rules of how we name "Killing of..."-type articles. Masem (t) 16:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We say JFK was assassinated even though no one was convicted of the assassination. And WP:DEATHS says that you follow the common name even if there is no conviction, which is why we say JFK was assassinated and Nicole Brown Simpson was murdered, even though there were no convictions. So no, saying that a rape occurred is not legal analysis any moreso than saying that a murder or assassination occurred... those may be crimes, but they're not legal concepts, they're words that describe actions, they're not legal terms-of-art. And our policies do not say that we can't call something <crime> unless there's been a conviction. This has been explained multiple times above, but you're still repeating the same talking points. Levivich (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those specific rules are for when there both
  1. Is no commonname
  2. Is no consensus for something else
In this case we have a commonname:rape is what RS are calling it. And we don't have consensus for calling it anything else, including "alleged rape". If you really believe you can get consensus for calling this an "alleged rape", start an RfC. Valereee (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Masem, you are dead wrong here, and youre missing the obvious. We cannot say an individual is guilty of a crime until that is adjudicated. We absolutely can, and should, say that a crime occured when sources report that as a fact. WP:BLPCRIME is about calling some LP something that has not been established. Ie a rapist. It is not about the existence of a crime itself. You are taking the naming on killing vs murder to extreme lengths here, and you are wrong in how you are doing so. We can say a robbery occurred. We can say a rape occurred. We can say all sorts of things because they arent labeling a living person as guilty of that crime. There is no requirement that somebody be found guilty of a crime to say that said crime even occurred. The requirement is that they be found guilty before we say they themselves committed said crime. There is an alleged rapist, not an alleged rape. nableezy - 17:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nope, this is a critical factor. The media themselves are not legal experts in any capacity so we can't their own conclusions as whether a specific crime occurred or not as fact. Further, let's take a less orenous example: Mrs. Smith is found dead from a stab wound; obviously we can state she was killed. The police likely will assume she was murdered after a preliminary investigation, and they may take in Mr. Smith as a suspect despite his pleas he didn't. In that scenario, even if the press asserted "Mrs. Smith was murdered" (prior to a conclusion from the courts) and "Mr. Smith is a suspect", that is implicitly says Mr Smith murdered her. It is why in those cases, the media actually very carefully says "Mr. Smith is a suspect in the alleged murder of Mrs. Smith", which is valid, and for us, why her page would remain at "Killing of Mrs. Smith" (if that iwas how it was to be handled) until the conviction happened. What if the real case was that Mrs. Smith committed suicide after all was said and done? That's why we need the careful language.
Same thing applies to other crimes - they all may be the named crimes, but they aren't actually those crimes until a conviction is secures against those that do it. It significantly affects any person that is tied as a possible suspect to the crime, and thus must be treated in an "innocent until proven guilty" manner. There are other things that are factual - "the victim was stabbed multiple times", "the store was overturned and the safe looted of all funds" that suggest a crime, but there are slim outside changes that there are other things going on that we should not take any absolutes of judicial truth until the actual courts make the assessment. Masem (t) 18:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Masem has apparently never heard of the concept of "unsolved crimes". In Masem's world, a crime without a conviction isn't a crime at all. In the preferred approach of overstretched police forces all over the world, the way to reduce the crime rate is then to make it difficult for people to report crimes.
In the real world, fortunately, we can simply rely on reliable sources to know (and report) what has happened in this instance. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This isn't WP:MEDRS, and you are seriously misinterpreting the difference between calling a person a rapist and calling a crime a rape. Someone ping me if there's an RfC. Until then, I do not think we have consensus for adding "alleged rape" to the article. Valereee (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In Ohio, state statute for 1st degree rape has strict liability for "sexual conduct" (defined here) with anyone "less than thirteen years of age". The girl is a victim of rape in the eyes of Ohio law. There does not need to be a trial and finding of guilty of a perpetrator for a victim to be victim of a crime. For example, the Uniform Crime Report (now NIBRS) does not even require an arrest for a crime to be labeled as such. Unlike homicide, we do not need a medicolegal ruling to determine that a pregnant 10-year-old had "sexual conduct" (WP:BLUE). EvergreenFir (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thats nonsense pure and simple. Theres a reason not to say murder over killing, because that is an issue of intent and you can kill somebody without having murdered them. That simply does not exist here or in most other crimes. And beyond that, the real reason we need such a guideline is that because Wikipedians as a body are incapable of exercising discretion and understanding nuance, and it leads to some very fucked up anomalies. Like, in a topic I edit in, an Israeli soldier is almost never going to be found guilty of murder, regardless of the circumstances. So an unarmed autistic man shot in the back of the head is killed and not murdered, because the local jurisdiction will never charge much less find the perpetrators guilty of murder. But fine, we as a body need bolded lines to deal with edge cases, so we end up making this convoluted flow diagram specifically for when to use the word murder. But that simply does not apply here. And, as per WP:WEIGHT, the balance of reliable sources are emphatic that a rape occurred. We couch our wording for the living person accused of a crime. A crime occurs even if nobody is ever charged, even if nobody is ever convicted. And it does not require a court of law to say that some specific person is guilty of a crime to say that a crime even occurred. nableezy - 18:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having a real hard time following your argument here Masem... It looks like you jumped the shark a long time ago and are now defending an undefendable position against overwhelming odds. You're wrong in both spirit and letter, drop the stick. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is just...a bad argument. A really dumb, bad argument. The fact that you can't understand how claiming a rape didn't occur until someone is found guilty for it is the most ridiculous BS reasoning ever is just...bizarre. And a real WP:COMPETENCE concern for this topic area. SilverserenC 20:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now now, Masem is undoubtedly giving his view in good faith, and I dont think dropping a competence link is appropriate. I do think he is taking WP:DEATHS to extreme, and absurd, lengths here, and there is literally nothing BLP related in saying a crime occurred absent a conviction. There is in saying somebody committed a crime prior to a conviction, but thats not whats at issue here. nableezy - 20:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
eh, not sure competence is an absurd question. This isn't a one-off, there's been doubling down. It's actually pretty puzzling. Valereee (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I meant the BLPCRIME claim is absurd, not the competence link. Though I do think it is misguided. Some people have very myopic views when the letters BLP come even on the fringes of the picture. I obviously disagree with Masem on this thread, but Ive also agreed with him plenty of othee times, so cmon lets accept that reasonable can disagree on what our articles should say without lacking the competence to edit. nableezy - 02:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Masem I don't think it's appropriate to apply the logic behind the WP:DEATHS guidance to a clear-cut case of statutory rape. When it comes to the killing of a person or persons there are considerations; was it a lawful or unlawful killing? Was it manslaughter or murder? Was it premeditated or a crime of passion? The answers to those questions have implications, not only on the potential sentencing of the perpetrator(s), but also how we describe both the perpetrator(s) and the victim(s). To use your Mr/Mrs Smith example, while in all cases Mrs Smith is dead, how we describe her death and anyone accused of it is variant on the circumstances that caused it.
However in the case of statutory rape, such as the one that lead to this discussion, we have only a single way to describe the victim; that they were raped. Whether or not there is a known perpetrator, and whether or not that perpetrator receives a conviction, it does not change the fact that this child was raped. However that only applies to the victim. When it comes to a known perpetrator, BLPCRIME would naturally apply to that person, such that we (and the media) would describe them as an "alleged rapist", "suspect", or other similar terms. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In America, this is not statutory rape. It's rape. U.S. Code Title 10 § 920b Ohio Revised Code Section 2907.02 2600:387:15:1C18:0:0:0:B (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Masem: to the contrary. A rape occured. Whether or not this person is found guilty or not of the alleged crime, it happened. If someone was shot down in a hail of indiscriminate gunfire, we would say the people killed were "murdered" regardless of whether a person is found guilty or not. Buffs (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absolutely fucking disgusting. Zaereth (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
disgusting or not, it happened. I see nothing furthering a political agenda's a matter of how it should be described Buffs (talk) 06:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh please. Have you read the article? The rape is disgusting, yes, but that's not what I'm talking about. The only thing more disgusting than raping a child is using it for political gain. Now don't get me worng, because I am 100% pro-choice, and think the supreme court ruling is utter garbage. But this? This is a horrible way to go about trying to make that point. Typical mob-mentality, where an entire group of people suddenly begin to behave as a single sociopath. "The news agencies did it, so why shouldn't we." Hey, tell yourself whatever helps you sleep at night. Zaereth (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Reply - "Why don't you renominate it for deletion"? --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is where my issue is. I am sure, buried within the sources, is confirmation from an appropriate police official or medical official with authority on this case that they are going to call it rape. That's fine if that source exists (and I'm sure it does) but the bulk of editors above are saying, instead, "all these RSes call it rape, so should we." We would never do that if someone made a claim of a cure for cancer without an authoratative source (MEDRS), or cold fusion (SCIRS), as this is 100% in the world of legal elements, which newspapers and other major media sources are not. Implicitly, there exists an equivalent "LAWRS" - that in terms of matters of legal aspects, there are only some bodies of authoritative nature (like police and courts) that would allow us to say "X is convicted of Y" or the like. Even in a case like this, where we know under OH law that young girls cannot consent and thus any sexual activity likely would be deemed rape, there are potential mitigating circumstances that may change that, and we should be working solely on what the police/medical examiner have determined, and not this non-authorative voice of the masses. (I don't believe there's anything else this specific case can be called, though, but it would be far better not to flat out say the girl was raped, but instead "According to officials for X, the girl was raped." or similar language)
Which goes back to Zaereth's point, is that this is another example of the media using accountability journalism to create empathic works that are designed to draw in readers and rile them up against abortion laws, rather than simply reporting what happened. Abortion laws like Ohio's are bad, but we have to write neutrally and dispassionately, regardless of how much attention that thet media may give this story, and my take (having written a considerable part of the Dobbs case article) is that the situation around this girl is something that is far more comprehensive within the context of the Ohio abortion law (to understand its timing and implications better) than as a separate article. But because editors want to create articles about every little news event which the media covers, we get situations like this. And that's why we have so much nonsense around BLP, because of the mob mentality "the RSes say this, it must be right!" We're an encyclopedia, we required to summarize RSes to build up articles, but we are not bound to mirror them exactly, particularly when other core content policies are at state. Masem (t) 13:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Masem, in general I would agree with you about coverage of news events, but I would respectfully suggest that whether there should be an article at all is something of a separate discussion. You say there are potential mitigating circumstances that may change a finding of rape. What are those? Dumuzid (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On "may be potential mitigating circumstances", i do not know the full extent if Ohio law or how it is prosecuted, so there may be, however exceptional and near impossible it may be, there may be a chance that an underage girl got pregnant may not be called a rape. I don't claim to be the expert here and thus I would expect to be told the answer by the police and other officials investigating the case, those that have the expertise and authority to.make that call. Definitely not the mass media in.isolation.
And it should be recognized that having the separate article is. As Zarathustra points out, harmful to the unnamed girl. Clearly the story around her cannot be avoided within the context of the OH state law, but the creation of a separate article while she is still an unnamed minor can be seen as degrading. Maybe once she reached adult age she will pound the ground as a pro choice activist and make sure her name is well known, ar which point we don't have to worry about her privacy. But until then the more we cover about the story, the more problematic this can become, and BLP's essence is to do no harm, hence why the separate article is a problem. Masem (t) 14:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, with due respect, your "potential mitigating circumstances" boil down to an argument from ignorance. As David Hume pointed out long ago, we could apply the same sort of skepticism to the proposition that the sun will rise tomorrow. What we are left with, by my lights, is a situation in which the reporting in reliable sources agrees with a seemingly conclusive logical predicate, and you are asking us to be cautious based on the fact that you can imagine an unarticulated chance that things may not be as they seem. I hope you can understand why that is unpersuasive. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well I suppose a mitigating circumstance could be that the accused was an unwilling participant in the rape, for example that he was forced to rape the girl at gunpoint. But mitigating doesn't mean absolving, and in the very, very unlikely event (it has not been mentioned in any RS as a possibility) that this was the case, it doesn't change the fact that under Ohio law a rape occurred (because any penetrative sexual act by an adult on a 10-year-old is rape in Ohio). But since we are not saying that the accused in this case is the guilty party in the rape that undoubtedly occurred, there are no WP:BLP violations - which after all is the point of this board. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a major difference between saying "all the RSes are reporting that the police have identified it as rape" and "all the RSes call it rape". Again, I would assume that in the early sourcing of this story in the Juke-ish time frame, we have reports from RSes that state the police or similar body of authority are treating this as rape, which is what should be used. If we only had the speculation of newspapers, even with the e Tremblay slim possibility of the situation being anything other than rape, we are still dealing with alegal and possible BLP situation if we jumped to the same conclusion that the media made. This slavish following of mass media in areas they are not authoritative is where problems can arise for BLP and other areas. Here, there's likely no other scenario possible, but it creates a slippery slope to other situations. We need to be more cautionary here. Masem (t) 15:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will just say in closing that this strikes me as stretching the principle to an inapposite degree, but reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The RS are reporting what the police and prosecuting authorities are saying, which is that a girl who was 9 at time got pregnant. Under Ohio law, that can only happen as a result of rape, because any penetrative sexual act by an adult on a minor under 13 is classified as rape in that State. Unless you are claiming immaculate conception, a rape occurred. It really is as simple as that. Who is responsible for that rape has not been determined, so we would call anyone charged "the alleged rapist" until there is a conviction (to satisfy WP:BLP); but it's not an alleged rape, because of the age of the victim. It really is that simple and you need to stop flogging this dead horse. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If Ohio state law says pregnancy can only happen as a result of penetrative sex that's against medical science since as I mentioned above it's possible even if incredibly unlikely for it to happen without. I don't think a flawed law, even a flawed law where the actions happened is particularly germane to anything especially since I'm not even sure why Ohio defines rape without considering perpetrator/s. Nil Einne (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A 9-y-o cannot consent to sex, ergo the victim in this case - described in multiple reliable sources as a rape case - was raped. WP:SKYISBLUE and WP:COMMONNAME.Elizium23's comments above are reprehensible. And this would not be the first time that Masem has got completely the wrong end of the stick about a legal case, yet has continued commenting. (Assuming somebody was being charged with being 'Soldier F' rather than grasping that Soldier F is undergoing trial for their actions). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment on the content, not the contributor. I asked a few questions and still didn't a full crystal clear answer for that Soldier F but still worked what I thought was how BLP should best be applied there. Masem (t) 13:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for clarifying (on your Talk page) that your questions were answered. I dispute that the situation was/is in any way complicated. Indeed, every other person who commented in the RFC was well able to grasp that Soldier F is being charged with murder; it was only you who persisted in stating that the upcoming trial is to determine if "Dave" is "Soldier F", as if there is a crime of being "Soldier F" that one can be charged with. I would respectfully suggest, given that issue and also your comments above, that you give consideration to staying out of discussions around legal areas. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not an "alleged rape", it is a rape by definition, so we should not mislead our readers that it is not a rape. Here, we most certainly do have a rape, but also an "alleged suspect" (not "alleged rape") to that rape. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not an "alleged suspect". There are not mere allegations that a particular person is a suspect. There is a person who is suspected of raping the girl. Maine 🦞 17:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The girl was raped. There is a suspect. The suspect is alleged to have committed the rape. Any use of "alleged" should be restricted to describing the charge against the suspect, not the fact of the rape itself. BD2412 T 18:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. Maine 🦞 19:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, to answer your prior comment, that's what I said, the person is alleged to have committed the rape, thus, in short, an alleged suspect. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Refusal at WP:CR to close this discussion[edit]

Someone at WP:CR has refused to close this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Generally we don't need a formal close unless a lengthy period has elapsed and the participants in the discussion can't agree what consensus is. For me it looks like there's consensus not to use the term "alleged rape". Very few participants in this discussion are arguing it should be called an alleged rape. It also looks to me like there is no consensus to include the name of the suspect, and no consensus against removing URLs/headlines that contain the suspect's name. Anyone disagree? Valereee (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd say there's weak consensus to keep the suspect's name out of URLs/headlines for now. I didn't get a chance to say it earlier, but use of url shorteners is a no go; they're blacklisted. As long as it's possible to sub in sources that do not use the name in those spots, or trim info and refs that are unneeded, I'm happy to keep juggling. It might get harder as the trial begins, and more eyes on the article would be nice. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FFF, so in addition to 'no consensus to include' you think we can go with 'weak consensus to exclude'?
Oh, itneresting on URL shorteners. I didn't know that, but obviously it makes sense. Valereee (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obviously I'm not wearing my "uninvolved consensus assessor" hat, and I'm heavily weighing the "very sensitive BLP" arguments. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's okay, we don't have to be completely uninvolved to close a discussion. We just have to do our best and not have anyone challenge the close. :D If someone believes a close has been affected by involvement of the closer, they'll challenge it. But if we try to be very fair, we may not need a formal uninvolved closer. Valereee (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:LPNAME & WP:CHILDPROTECT. To protect victim we should not include the suspect name. He can be used to identify victim. 2600:387:15:1C17:0:0:0:C (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't agree with that. We should use the best source possible, even if that source contains the name of the alleged rapist. Maine 🦞 19:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said earlier, "equally reliable or better". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Maine Lobster, when you find a better source that contains the name of the suspect in the headline/url, just bring it up, and we can discuss. Valereee (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(redacted until discussion closes)
But is there any information in either of those that isn't included in sources that don't use the suspect's name in the URL? Valereee (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. Maine 🦞 19:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you specify what information is included in those that isn't included in other sources? Valereee (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(redacted until discussion closes)
It doesn't look like confusion about the suspect's name is included in the article, though? Is this literally not covered anywhere else, in the nearly three months since? Valereee (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't claim to have perfect knowledge, but I don't see it anywhere else. Local reporters are often more detailed on local issues than national ones, such as here. Maine 🦞 19:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Maine Lobster, and if there's something here that should be included in the WP article, that's an argument for including that source. But if literally no one else is even mentioning it, maybe it's just trivia, or never panned out. If the only information in this source that isn't included in other sources also isn't in the WP article, why would we use this source when it provides information that could identify the victim within her local community and possibly put her at risk? Valereee (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The hypothetical concern that the community does not somehow know and cannot find the name of the alleged rapist, despite the name being reported by CNN and by a major newspaper in the state, is odd. It probably should not be included in the article because of the lack of a conviction, but I don't see why we should ban it from being discussed on talk pages or linking to sources that mention it. Those sources are no less reliable than sources that don't include (redacted) full name. Maine 🦞 03:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CR response[edit]

For the record; I declined to close this discussion (singular!) Noticeboard#2022_pregnancy_of_a_10-year-old_in_Ohio where the topic is about removing the URLs containing the subjects name and had concluded naturally. Quite honestly, I didn't realise that this entirely separate conversation was part of the same discussion you wanted closing. This new section about whether or not to use 'Alleged',in my opinion, should be happening on the article talk page, not here. But here it is, and it's ongoing so not appropriate to close anyway JeffUK 19:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is the name of the suspect listed in the discussion above?[edit]

If the goal is to remove the name of the suspect from Wikipedia, why is it listed on the discussion above at "19:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)"? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've redacted. Up to an admin to go further. But it was added by a new editor. Slywriter (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've undid your edit to my edit. I don't think there's anything like a consensus to ban mentioning the name of (redact) in internal discussions, even if we have good reasons not to include it in the article. Maine 🦞 03:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because in order to have legitimate discussions about the use of sources and content we have to provide and discuss sources. We're past the point where providing a link to a source containing the name in a url should be forbidden. It's commonly discussed in sources, and project discussions and talk page discussions have different thresholds for BLP than articles. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think BLP applies no matter where you are. From WP:BLP: "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." 2600:387:15:1C1B:0:0:0:9 (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BLP does not require that a suspect not be named, it requires serious consideration be given to not naming a suspect prior to a convention. That serious consideration is what is happening. And enforcing a blanket ban short-circuits that. nableezy - 03:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Name serves no purpose to discussion and I will redact again per BLP Policy. Anyone taking issue can head to ANI as the name is now being willfully and intentionally repeated. This is a high profile page. Anyone can provide the source if editors need it to assess. That does not mean the name needs to be on wiki until consensus is reached. Slywriter (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia:TALKO is also policy, and you know that. An amdin (@ScottishFinnishRadish) and others have said that this is not required. Please stop editing my comments for the sake of Censorship. Maine 🦞 03:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Slywriter, why did you delete my comment that WP:TALKO is a policy? How is that comment possibly a "BLP violation"? Maine 🦞 04:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Was wrong edit reverted. I have reinstated redact as the name is a BLP violation and this a 10 year old girls life that we are discussing, so let consensus decide if the name should be on wiki. Slywriter (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are deleting the name of an alleged rapist from a talk page discussing whether or not we should have that name in an article. Stop editing my comments in violation of policy. Maine 🦞 04:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Maine Lobster But you acknowledge that Slywriter can redact or, if necessary, remove outright your comments if the violate WP:BLP? This includes, but is not limited to, mentioning the name of the alleged rapist. —C.Fred (talk) 04:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The alleged rapist has been mentioned in major newspapers in connection with the assault. To choose to not include the name in the article itself is fine, but to censor it from discussion pages is absurd. To paraphrase Ian Hislop "If that's a BLP vio, then I'm a banana". Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, edits that violate the BLP policy can be redacted. But these edits don't, and multiple people (including an admin) have said this. Just because an editor claims something violates the BLP policy does not make it so, and there is nowhere near a consensus that the comments do. Maine 🦞 04:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No I will not. It's a BLP violation of the privacy of a 10 yo girl. If the community decides otherwise it can be written on-wiki but until then it serves no purpose in the discussion. As I've said in edit summary, any admin can directly and unequivocally tell me it is not a BLP violation. Slywriter (talk)
You need to read WP:BLPTALK. It's not a blank check to remove anything negative about anyone you want whenever you please. It's very narrowly-defined, stating that Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. Note that your removal here fails on almost every clause. First, the suspect's identity is not contentious, nor is it unsourced or poorly-sourced; it is widely-referenced and treated as uncontroversial in high-quality sources, eg. (redacted a whole big list of perfectly good sources - BK); likewise, discussing the name is clearly related to content choices (it is difficult to mention or search for sources without mentioning it.) The threshold for removing things from talk is higher than it is for removing them from articles, otherwise we wouldn't be able to meaningfully discuss whether to include things like this. --Aquillion (talk) 06:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ding. It is not potentially libelous to say that some named person has been charged with rape and is facing a trial for the rape of a minor. That is verifiable fact. And the argument that you are protecting the child by not naming her accused rapist is one that still does not register for me. Especially given how widely reported that name is already. nableezy - 16:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When did WP stop going by the sources? Selfstudier (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I was citing WP:BLPCRIME, your argument would be correct. I am not. I am operating under WP:DONOHARM and WP: BLPPRIVACY for the 10 year old victim who did not choose to be a public figure, who would fail WP:BLP1E, and the only reason she is stuck with an article about a deeply private matter is the poor choices of adult politicians, activists, and doctors to make her a political football in the US abortion debate.
The fact the issue does not register with you makes clear that a larger community discussion needs to occur about the privacy of minors especially victims as it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia to risk harm to a minor because editors feels well the newspapers and politicians are already doing harm so we can join in. Slywriter (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I completely agree with Slywriter on this point. Naming the suspect in the article or in discussions basically draws a map to the ten-year-old victim, and is of de minimus benefit to our mission as an encyclopedia. BD2412 T 16:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, too, of course, we can have a meaningful discussion: "name of suspect" and the like, is just as meaningful for our purposes. And BLPTALK says to be circumspect in what you write outside the article. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I cannot seriously believe that it is harmful to the victim to name the person who is publicly charged with the crime. The idea that we are risking harm to the child and basically drawing a map to them is asinine. Otherwise all the reliable sources that have already named the suspect would be doing just that. You think CNN is putting a 10 year old rape victim in harm here? Should let them know that. nableezy - 19:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't run CNN, or any of the other outlets, all of which operate on a for-profit basis and are trying to draw eyes to their articles so they can sell advertising. More pointedly, as a matter of policy, we are WP:NOTNEWS. BD2412 T 19:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, we are a tertiary source that summarizes reliable secondary sources, like CNN and every other outlet that this article is relying on already. This argument about protecting the child makes zero sense. And I dont even give a shit about naming the victim in the article, but this virtue signaling redacting all mention of what is widely reported is stupid. nableezy - 19:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nableezy, I do actually think it can harm the child further, even though media has already done that. A Wikipedia article follows someone around for a very long time. So I don't see this as an absurd discussion. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I think it's worth discussing. Valereee (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How? Every source of any repute will decline to name rape victims. But they will always name somebody when they are publicly charged for the crime. I am unaware of a single serious source that will decline to name somebody charged with a crime with the supposed justification that it somehow protects the victim. I dont even get the logical basis for the argument. The we are drawing a map to the child bit makes zero sense to me at all. Even Reuters has that he, by name, has been charged. USA Today, the Independent, ABC News, and on and on and on. I dont see how youre going to have an article on the crime and not cover the arrest, trial, and verdict and potential sentencing. And youre going to twist yourself in knots trying to redact any article with the name in the headline, much less not name him in our article. I would take the child protection angle more seriously if there was literally any support for such a stance in other sources. But none of them view that as a potential issue, and probably all of them have policies on protecting victims, especially rape victims, especially minor rape victims. But none of them see any issue at all with naming the person who has been publicly charged and will be publicly tried for the crime. nableezy - 19:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because a Wikipedia article lasts a really long time. The other stuff might be less easily searchable over time. Valereee (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Suspect name now listed in links above and at Edit Warring Noticeboard[edit]

The suspect name is now listed in the links above [19:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)], as well as here. I have added a request at WP:AN to permanently delete such edits. --Jax 0677 (talk) 08:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is absurd. This goes beyond anything we've ever done with regards to BLP before. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
HEB, I think it may not be absurd considering the specific circumstances. We have a child of tender years who has been raped and had an abortion, and she is quite likely identifiable within her own community because of the name of the accused. We can't put the lid back on the box, but I think it's worth at minimum discussing before we decide whether it's okay to have the suspect named in discussions. It doesn't really help anything, so why not just avoid using it at all? Valereee (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We are required to edit in a detached manner, if the specific circumstances are overwhelming for a given editor then they need to find a different topic space to edit. The key point is that if we can't use the URLs can we actually have a discussion? If I can't post a link to a CNN article because someone is going to come through and redact it how do we ever get to WP:NPOV? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not overwhelmed in the least. I'm just pointing out that this is an unusual case and it's not absurd to discuss before we decide whether it's okay to use the accused's name in discussions. I'm not saying your point isn't well taken, but the argument has been made (and I think it's reasonable) that unless a source that uses the accused's name in the headline (and therefore URL) is telling us something other RS aren't telling us, can't we just use a source that doesn't iclude the name? And if the source is saying something no other source is saying, maybe we don't need it? It's just a discussion, HEB. Valereee (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How can we evaluate whether or not that source is saying something different if evaluating the source is forbidden in the first place? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, if you've got a good enough reason, go for it. Like the NYT or WSJ is using a URL with the suspect's name, and literally NO OTHER RS is giving us the same information...
Is that what's happening that you're worried about? Because I haven't actually seen that happen very often. But if it does, yeah, I'd totally support you coming in here and giving us that URL that is so crucial. Valereee (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can't put the lid back on the box That's the crux, we go by sources. If the sources write things we don't like (irritating habit of theirs, I know), it's not up to WP editors to make moral judgements in compensation. Selfstudier (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We might come to consensus to avoid sources that use the accused's name in the URL, or at least as much as we can. That's what's being discussed. Valereee (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You mean a consensus to exclude entirely on pain of rev-del? "Avoid" is not what is being proposed or done. Lets talk about reality, and in reality people are redacting URLs. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reality is that people have presented good reasons for why we should omit this information. And since this is a BLP, until people can come up with better reasons (and consensus) as to why it should be included it stays out. Enforced by redaction if need be. BLP is built on the presumption of don't do unnecessary harm. If we can work around these URL's then we should. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is the proposed workaround? I must have missed it. It seems that the proposal is simply not to acknowledge their existence in any way, which clearly not a workaround. Also welcome back from wikibreak! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the name, the descrption "the accused" appears to be being used in this discussion without issue. For URL's it would depend on if the source is providing new content or not. And people could suggest content text and a note that the source includes the name of the accused in it's header. If a source isn't providing new content, why use the source, and if it is, is the content of sufficient encyclopedic value to include it. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But how can we know if the if the source is providing new content or not if we're prohibited from posting links to it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
People can propose content on the talk page. Note they have a source and the source has the accused's name in the link so they are not currently linking it. And editors can determine if the proposed content is worth including enough to actually post the link on the talk page or in the article. Heck we could even do a description of the link as in published by and date of publishing for people who may want to look it up themselves. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How can editors determine whether the proposed content actually reflects the source without reading the source itself? If they can't determine whether the proposed content accurately reflects the source its not possible for them to determine whether the proposed content is worth including. Also note that you can't just say you have a source if the discussion is BLP, you are required to provide a link to the source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If editors feel the content is worthy for inclusion if true, they could post the link to make sure that the content accurately represents the source. Note, content need only be sourced if it is actually challenged or likely to be challenged. So prior to challenging whether the content fairly represents the source you would have to see if the content itself is of sufficient encyclopedic value to include. So, as a process, first propose content and possibly some clues as to where it is sourced. If it's possibly acceptable to include, then post the link to verify that the content is an accurate representation. Assuming that meets scrutiny then the content can be added to the article. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BLP content always needs to be sourced, even just to discuss it on the talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Contentious material always needs to be sourced. And again, we can include description as to where the content is sourced to even without including a link. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BLP material always needs to be sourced, whether or not it is contentious. If it is both BLP and likely to be challenged then an inline citation is required. You are currently arguing that we are prohibited from using such an inline citation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BLP material always needs to be verifiable. Inline citation (aka sourcing) is only required if challenged or likely to be challenged. And again we can include a description of the source to see if it's good enough to use for a citation. Creating limits is not the same as prohibition. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How does one create an inline citation without the title or url of the source? As you said the inline citation is *required* in that context, so how can BLP both require the inline citation and limit the ability to create that citation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We already limit the ability to create citations. If sources aren't up to par we don't include content and thus don't include the citation. This can include talk page discussions. If you want to include something that is being limited you can provide a description of what you want, and a description of the source, and note it includes the name in the link as to why you aren't currently linking it. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the source is RS, it shouldn't be limited at all. Selfstudier (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is, and is not a RS is always contextual. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correct, and why deciding upfront that every RS is contextually inappropriate is complete bs. Selfstudier (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But it isn't deciding up front. If it were, no source would ever be appropriate period. It's only sourcing that names the accuser which has to go through this process. --Kyohyi (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) Google it. I see both sides of the argument on this. But fundamentally it's just not that important to an encyclopedia to name the suspect at this stage. This is all rather overblown. DeCausa (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think there is much support for naming the suspect in the article, the issue is more about not naming them in discussions, or using URLs that contain the name. I'm fairly certain that anyone interested enough in the case to read the Wikipedia BLPN thread about it doesn't need our help to find the name in the media. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The crime is not notable and would fail WP:BLP1E. The notability comes from the actions of third parties unrelated to the victim. This is not a biography about her. This is not an article about the crime. If those points were not true, I'd be far more sympathetic to the NPOV position being staked out here. The notability stems from the denial of an abortion in one state and the subsequent politicizing of events by others. Slywriter (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the crime is not notable then nominate the article about the crime for deletion. nableezy - 19:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The issue is the use of the child as a political pawn has made the initial denial of her abortion notable. Though I am looking at options within our policies to minimize mention and focus of the crime, which has been sort of coat-racked into the article and may be undue. Slywriter (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The use of the child as a pawn? Im sorry, what? nableezy - 22:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're going to need to supply a source for that claim. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is quite likely identifiable within her own community because of the name of the accused bit is what makes no sense to me. The local news has reported the name. The national news has reported the name. You think the Wikipedia article not including it somehow alleviates any potential harm that may come to the victim? You think that the multiple unsupported premises that underlines all of this argument actually holds water? That a. the local community does not know who the suspect is, b. the local community does not know who the victim is, c. the local community gets their local news from Wikipedia and not the local news media or the national news media, both of which have included the suspects name. The possibility that all three of those are true is astonishingly small. nableezy - 19:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think it alleviates it, no. It might make it slightly less searchable ten years from now. But I'm not actually arguing that we can never use any of these sources. I'm saying while we're discussing it, let's not. Valereee (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We're not talking about minor local news coverage here... we're not even talking about national coverage. The guy's name and photo is everywhere... This is an international event. I've seen his name in all the national newspapers here and I live 6,000 km away from Ohio... I'm talking about newspapers that are absolutely considered reliable sources, not tabloids.
This will absolutely be something that is talked about for decades to come, that books are written about, that TV documentaries are made about. The horse has long since bolted and the stable door is nowhere to be seen. By all means oversight the hell out of the article (I'd rather it didn't exist), but let's not pretend there is anything we can do for the benefit of the child and let's not pretend that mentioning the suspect's name in a talk page in any way violates BLP criteria. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP has much higher standards on the protection on BLP than the mass media. Just because they suspects name can be found "everywhere", we still must consider the BLP issues of the people involved who at the time are definitely non public figures. Masem (t) 20:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nobody is suggesting naming the victim, and BLP is satisfied with respect to the suspect with the high quality sources that can be cited listing him as being charged with rape. nableezy - 22:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would encourage editors to look at Category:Rapes_in_the_United_States and note there are only two pre-teen rapes listed(I skipped any murder of... article). One with suspect and victim named,Kidnapping of Jaycee Dugard, as they have gone public and one where none are named, 2010 gang rapes in Cleveland, Texas where neither the convicted or victim are named. News reports will fade with time, Wikipedia is forever and readily available. Slywriter (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a comment, in the Durand case, that started as a missing child case, and when she was found they identified her rape and other abuse she received. The child's name is nearly always given in abduction cases to help find them, and in such a situation, it.becomes hard to avoid naming. In this case and the Cleveland case, there was no apparent abduction, so there was no reason to broadcast the name far and wide. Masem (t) 22:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dont think anybody is suggesting we name the victim. nableezy - 22:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ummm... Its not our job to help find missing people. There is no reason to broadcast the name far and wide on wikipedia in either situation. The exact same protections apply. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chad Hower[edit]

The subject has been indicted but not convicted. WP:BLPCRIME/WP:CRIME? Perhaps it should be converted to an article about the case, but coverage appears to be limited: a couple stories in the Erie Times-News this year about extradition, and apparently an Associated Press story (via Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) from 2009 when the indictment was issued, all cited in the article. WP:NOTNEWS? I couldn't decide whether to move it, nominate it for AFD, leave it alone... so I'm posting here in the hopes someone else will do something if anything needs to be done. :-) Thanks, Levivich (talk) 04:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

it will remain forever because Wikipedia now exists to document everything ever written and anything less is decried as 'whitewashing' or 'memory-holing'. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the article is not quite a WP:G10, because even though most of the article appeared to contravene WP:BLPCRIME for this non-public figure (and also WP:BLPPRIVACY), there are a few primary sources and lines of content remaining for a neutral version of an article, so I have added a notability and primary sources tag. I also removed the content per WP:BLPCRIME from the Mary Beth Buchanan article [1]. Courtesy ping to Mattdaviesfsic, who accepted this at AfC. Beccaynr (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I've nominated the page for deletion. Levivich (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Levivich, Beccaynr, Mattdaviesfsic, I am the creator of the article. I do not know all of this wikipedia specific lingo you guys are referencing, but I am going to try and clean up the page to avoid deletion. What I don't understand is why I can't talk about his indictment. Nowhere was it stated that he was guilty or that I violated any presumption of innocense when writing the article. I'd appreciate it if you could explain how to fix the page as someone who isnt familiar with the BLP guidlines etc. Thanks. 21 January 2023 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpg123123 (talkcontribs)

Hi Cpg123123, WP:BLPCRIME should answer your question about why we wouldn't include information about an indictment for a low-profile figure. Levivich (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BLPvio against groups (soldiers)?[edit]

The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group.

Is this quote, in Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, a WP:BLP problem?

"When we surrendered Lyman, we slaughtered everyone out there, f**king khokhols [a derogatory Russian term for Ukrainians]... We raped them, slaughtered them, shot them. In Lyman and Torske, we just walked around shooting everyone. All the men who were younger were taken to us out there, and the women, young ones: they were all f**ked, slaughtered, shot."[1]


  1. ^ "Russians killed and raped civilians as they fled from Lyman, admits soldier in intercepted call". Ukrainska Pravda. 9 January 2023. Retrieved 10 January 2023 – via Yahoo News.

I don't know how big the group is that is referred to as "we". The quote is from a recording of a phone call released to the media by Ukrainian Security Services. Thanks, Levivich (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wait, so Levivich thinks that we cannot include info on Russian forces committing rape, despite the fact that this is covered in hundreds of reliable sources and in fact is the very topic of the relevant article because ... it's ... a ... BLPVIO ... against ... "Russian soldiers"? Wow. ... .... ... Wow. Volunteer Marek 21:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, Marek, I do not think we cannot include "info on Russian forces committing rape", obviously. I'm talking about this particular quote, which says a specific group of soldiers at a particular place and time committed specific war crimes. Levivich (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, you think that quoting Russian soldiers talking about raping Ukrainians, sourced reliably, is a "BLPVIO" against "Russian soldiers". This specific group, of these specific soldiers, whoever they may be, are reported to have committed rape. What in the world does this have to do with BLP? Volunteer Marek 21:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"John and I just walked around shooting everyone." Would including that quote in an article be a BLPvio? Yeah, probably, as to John. The question is whether "soldiers surrendering Lyman" is too large of a group to implicate BLP or not (and whether that is the relevant group). Levivich (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Who's "John"? Volunteer Marek 21:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's an example, like for any named person. "[Some living person] and I just walked around shooting everyone" would be a BLP issue if we included such a quote in an article, would it not? So replace "[some living person]" with "[some group of people]", and, per BLPGROUP, it might be a BLP vio or not depending on the size of the group and other circumstances... a case-by-case analysis, as quoted above. Levivich (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BLP says to 'Seriously consider not including allegations about people who are not in the public eye,' not that they must be excluded at all costs. I'm normally VERY conservative about this rule, but I would say that a published confession by the accused would convince me to include their name in an article. This being 'an anonymous soldier' makes it even less concerning for me. JeffUK 13:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't believe BLP would apply to "Russian forces", it's just to large a group. However I'm not impressed by the source, a Ukrainska Pravda article citing the Security Service of Ukraine telegram channel doesn't seem weighty enough for such a quote. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 21:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then Levivich can take this to NPOVN or RSN and raise it there and spare us all the embarrassment of having to take this query seriously. Volunteer Marek 21:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe Levivich is wrong on BLP here, but WP:AGF that it's a genuine question. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 21:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to be clear, I'm not saying this IS a BLPVIO, I'm asking the question. Levivich (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've already raised the WP:DUE issue at the article's talk page. Levivich (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll throw the question of the reliability (all the way down) of the quote as others have already raised, which should be decided first, but on the assumption that reliable sources validated the quote came from a Russian force, I think the size of the group there is far too large for this to be taken as a BLP violation. Masem (t) 21:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is the strangest BLP request I have ever seen. As about sourcing, yes, it never hurts to check. This is publication by the SBU, and here is a couple of additional publications in other news sources: [2],[3]. My very best wishes (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The second news source [4] is marked as opinion (Мнения) from a website called "" that is probably not an RS. Levivich (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Censor? It's been getting used as RS. I defer to MVBW though. Elinruby (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is "" (meaning "censor - no" in Russian or Ukrainian transliteration), a news website by well known Ukrainian journalist Butusov. But if you need more sources, yes, sure. Here is publication by Dmitry Gordon, certainly an RS. Here is publication by Ukrainian Independent Information Agency. There are dozens publications about this particular intercept. My very best wishes (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those look good. Levivich (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course I also listened the audio. You think this is terrible? The soldiers are having fun debating their entertainment, pretty much as in good old times [5]. My very best wishes (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia is not supposed to cover up groups' well-documented and widely reported atrocities. Our "BLP" policy does not require us to whitewash groups of soldiers when their wanton crimes are visible to the world. This should apply just as much to Russians in Ukraine as much as it does to the Brits in Derry whose butchering made Bloody Sunday (1972). Maine 🦞 19:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:BLPCRIME does require us to exercise caution for individuals who are accused, but have not yet been convicted of a crime, advising that editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured (emphasis from original text). Unless and until the Russian soldiers relevant to this discussion are convicted by a tribunal, it seems obvious to me that BLPCRIME would apply.
However I do recognise the point you have made elsewhere several times now with regards to how several points of WP:BLP interact with WP:NOTCENSORED. There is a balance somewhere to be struck between these two policy points. But for the sake of caution, I lean more towards the BLP policy having precedence in these sorts of issues. This is perhaps particularly true in the case of war reporting, where initial reporting can be unreliable and subject to propaganda points by all involved parties in a conflict.
That is not to say I disbelieve the accusations. These soldiers (both the Russian group, and Bloody Sunday's Soldier F) are accused of reprehensible and atrocious crimes. Because of where I live and grew up, I am probably more familiar than many editors with what it was like to live in Northern Ireland during the tail end of The Troubles, and that will colour my opinions with regards to actions taken by all involved parties. However none of those relevant to this discussion have yet been convicted of those crimes. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bloody Sunday's soldier F at least admitted that he shot and killed Michael Kelly (who was a 17-year-old child at the time) among four others. Whether that is murder remains a legal question: Soldier F claims that he only shot people with bombs or guns.
The Russians have not admitted their atrocities. Maine 🦞 20:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When people start throwing around emotionally charged buzzwords like "censor" and "whitewash" my eyes usually glaze over, and I tend to just ignore those comments. The dictionary definition of the word "censor" rarely matches how people use it on Wikipedia. That said, the BLP policy about groups is meant to protect individuals rights, as in cases where mentioning crimes committed by a group or organization can be easily traced to the individuals who take part in that group or organization. For example, if Joe Schmo's Corner Bistro is involved in criminal activity, it can easily be traced back to Joe Schmo and his staff of 5 1/2 people. If, on the other hand (hypothetically speaking), McDonalds was involved in some criminal activity, it would be a much bigger story and subsequently much harder to point the finger at any one person. Here, we're talking about the Russian Army --one of the largest armies in the world-- and I highly doubt the Russians are going around naming all the soldiers in their ranks so we can tell who's who. I appreciate Levivich coming here to ask the question, but I don't see anything per BLP policy that would require the omission of this information. Other policies, such as RECENTISM, sure, maybe there are some good arguments there. It's hard to trust anything coming out during wars, because both sides are always engaging in propaganda. It's in hindsight that the true nature of events become clear. But that's a discussion for a different noticeboard. As far as BLP policy goes, unless I'm missing something, it doesn't seem relevant in this case. Zaereth (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While you are correct that Soldier F has admitted to killing one of victims, UK law has the concept of lawful killing, so whether or not he is guilty of murder has yet to be decided and so he is afforded certain protections (ie presumption of innocence in the legal system, WP:BLPCRIME) due to being accused of a crime. It is after all, entirely within the realms of possibility that either the district court will find there not to be sufficient evidence for him to face a Crown Court trial, or that the Crown Court will find him not guilty.
As for the Russian soldiers, depending on many future circumstances, the ICC may hold war crimes tribunals, and during those proceedings many soldiers may face criminal charges. But for now, I think it probably is a BLP violation to say that a specific group of soldiers comprising of no more than a platoon (ie around 50 people), at a specific time, and in a specific place committed a crime. But because this quotation seems to be about a much larger group, it's probably not a BLP violation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FWIW of course it wasn't the whole Russian army that surrendered Lyman, but it was more than a platoon, I'm not sure what the figures are, but I think it's thousands. I think the point above about identifications of individuals in groups is a good one, and probably what tips me in this case: I'm not sure there is any way to identify any individual implicated by this quote, so it's probably not a BLPGROUP issue. That said, I agree with BD's comment about the intro, below. Levivich (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think the curative measure for such a statement is to change the introductory wording, "Ukrainska Pravda reported an intercepted telephone conversation" to something like "Ukrainska Pravda reported what was claimed to be an intercepted telephone conversation", or the like. The current wording is somewhat ambiguous (intercepted by who? by Ukrainska Pravda?) and appears to validate the accuracy of the interception in Wikipedia's voice. BD2412 T 21:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greg Rothman[edit]

Would some more editors mind taking a look at Greg Rothman? There's a discussion started at Talk:Greg Rothman#Political career, current first paragraph, but a user named William G Rotham starting showing up a few days ago and began removing content. Assuming that this is the subject of the article or someone connected to the subject, it would probably better if some non-involved editors experienced in BLP articles about politicians took a look at the relevant content and assess whether it complies with BLP. I've restored to the content since it seems (at least at first glance) to be reliably sourced, but feel free to remove it again if that's not the case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, here's my take. First, not really a BLP issue but rather an NPOV one. I think, given the size of the article, that we're likely giving this thing too much weight. Given the level of sourcing in the article (assuming that it's representative of the broader range of sources), I don' think we can simply get rid of it for reasons of undue weight, but I certainly think it should be trimmed down quite a bit under those criteria. There are a lot of unnecessary details there which are just filler. The current version reads:
"In 1991, Rothman was charged with conspiracy to commit forgery, a misdemeanor. He pleaded guilty in March 1994 and was sentenced to 5 months' probation, a $2,000 fine, and 160 hours' community service. Rothman was 27 years old at the time. The conspiracy charge arose from a campaign mailer attacking William F. Kane, a candidate for county commission; the mailer included a bogus return address and was falsely attributed to an organization. The conviction was later expunged, and Governor Ed Rendell issued Rothman a pardon in January 2011. Rothman said in 2015 that he had learned from the mistake and took responsibility for it."
We don't need to say things like "he was charged with..." when pleading guilty to it already implies that he was charged. I think that listing the sentence is superfluous, and so is listing his age at the time. (If people want to know how old he was, the dates are listed; they can do the math if they really care.) The details of the charge are really quite confusing. (I mean, what exactly did he do wrong? Is it that he made personal attacks, that the address was bogus (whose address?), and what does "falsely attributed to an organization mean? I read the source and it was just as ambiguous.) I think the details themselves are rather confusing and also superfluous. Lastly, "months" and "hours" are already plural, so no need to try to make them possessive by adding an apostrophe at the end. I would change it to read something like this:
"In 1991, Rothman pled guilty to the misdemeanor charge of conspiracy to commit forgery. The conviction was later expunged, and Governor Ed Rendell issued Rothman a pardon in January 2011. In 2015, Rothman said that he had learned from the mistake and took responsibility for it."
Newspapers like all that filler, because they literally have space to fill, but as an encyclopedia all we need is the nitty gritty. I think that keeps all of the important points and whittles out all the fluff, and reduced quite a bit of the weight to what may be a more acceptable volume. Zaereth (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sounds better to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
William G Rotham has been editing again and removed your suggested text claiming "bias". I reverted that edit but he has removed other text about the election.-- (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Andy Ogles[edit]

There is ongoing conversations about the Andy_Ogles article/editorializing an opinion of the Member of Congress by describing them as "far right." This is a subjective standard and is not applied unilaterally to other members of Congress, and is at best, editorializing. For example, if you go to Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez she is not described as "far left." If we want Wiki to be objective, you've got to apply an even standard across both sides of the aisle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Only Objective Truth (talkcontribs) 21:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Only Objective Truth, do reliable sources call Ogles "far right"? Do reliable sources call AOC "far left"? That's the even standard that should be followed. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia biographies should summarize what reliable sources say about the topic. The article currently includes references to four reliable sources that categorize Ogles as far right. A quick Google search shows that several other sources also call him far right. Cullen328 (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can have a "reliable source" that is right leaning that would call someone a Conservative while a "reliable source" that is left leaning might use another. Why choose one or the other when you can be objective? To say CBS et al doesn't have an inherent bias doesn't make sense. Only Objective Truth (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not every source uses "far-right", but this is Wikipedia, so of course shoehorners gonna shoehorn and cherrypickers gonna cherrypick. Gotta get the reader primed in that first sentence! --Animalparty! (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no requirement that every source call him far right. One of those sources calls him hard right, which is synonymous. Cullen328 (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AOC is, notably, not described by a large number of reliable sources as being on the far-left. We've had this discussion enough times as is. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 22:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait. There's a far-left? I thought all left was far-left, isn't it? Zaereth (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At least two of the currently referenced sources are passing mentions; which should be removed or replaced. Of those, one doesn't describe the article subject as far-right. - Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) talk 23:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nashville radio station WPLN calls him far right too. Cullen328 (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a much better source; in so far as it's primarily about the article subject. Potentially, hairs will be split as to whether "far-right conservative" is congruent to "far-right"; or whether there is a place where "conservative" ends & "far-right" (solo; not as a qualifier of conservative) begins. But substituting this source for the ABC News & NYT sources currently used, would be a good start. - Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) talk 23:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a difference between finding sources that say "far-right" and even mentioning far-right in the article, and shoehorning "far-right" into the very first sentence of the lead, before any other adjective besides nationality. Conservatives seem more likely to be 'marked' or 'othered' in the first sentence compared to more liberal or progressive counterparts who get neutral introductions (e.g. "Democrat X is an American politician..." vs. "Republican Y is a far-right conservative politician...", as if liberal is normal and conservative the aberrant condition). Note how none of the politicians in "The Squad", some of the most progressive and left-wing members of Congress, get "progressive" or "left-wing" shoehorned into their introductory sentences, Fuzzy political labels like far-left or far-right are often better contextualized, rather than shoehorned, such as "X is a politician from Ohio. She is among the most progressive members of their Congressional caucus." Note also Jim Jordan, founding chairman of the conservative Freedom Caucus, is not immediately and bluntly labeled. Similarly, we can say Chuck Schumer, Eric Cantor and Jon Ossoff are Jewish politicians in their articles,[6][7] but we need not introduce them first and foremost as "is a Jewish politician". --Animalparty! (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a big world of difference between describing a politician's political ideology in the lead sentence (exceptionally relevant) and describing a politician's Judaism in the lead (irrelevant and objectionable Jew tagging). I have no problem with adding more details to the Ogles biography to provide additional information about his ideology. Cullen328 (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I feel like a better alternative would be a follow up sentence that reads something like "his views have been widely characterized as far right or hard right" (if sources do indeed support the latter). Bneu2013 (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this is along the lines of a much better solution. People often have this misconception that every point needs to be made in the first sentence, but that's "flat-Earth" thinking, meaning that it only seems that way to the untrained eye.
Journalism 101: start with the most important info first and work your way to the broader explanations later. This is pretty standard for most expository writing, but how do we define "most important"? Since all info can be categorized by the questions they answer, the most important info is by far the what, followed by where, when, who, how, and why, in that order. In journalism, this really arose during the US Civil War, when telegraph lines were slow and unreliable, and constantly being cut or blown up, etc. Encyclopedic writing is not journalism by any means, but it is still important to define the what right off the bat --as quickly as possible-- even though that initial sentence will be rather vague on the details. It's just a point of context for further information. Details are what further sentences are for.
Writing 101: Nobody ever remembers the first sentence. It's a vague little starting point on a road to the main point of the paragraph or section, which is located at the end. People always remember the last sentence, because that's what the entire section or paragraph, or article, was leading up to. That's where the main point is located, and readers all understand this instinctively even if they don't realize it consciously. Not to mention, it's the last thing on their mind, which is what sticks, because working memory can only hold so much info at a time.
At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, look at the Adolph Hitler article. I'm not comparing anyone to Hitler here, so it's not a Godwinian reference, per se. I'm just saying this is a really good example of what an encyclopedic article should look like. We don't start off by saying what an evil person he was. We save that for the end. The beginning just tells us, plain and simply, what he was, factually. The point is, labels like "far right" have no clear definition; it varies considerably from person to person/region to region. It's subjective, like the term "evil" is, and in the first sentence these things look very out of place, and makes the article look amateurish. Whatever the goal, the first sentence is the worst possible place to put anything of that nature, contrary to popular belief. Zaereth (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why do only hot-button terms like "right-wing" merit shoehorning above and before anything else? Are the political ideologies of Mitch McConnell, Newt Gingrich, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren not worthy of mentioning in the very first sentence, such that the poor reader knows immediately how they should should frame the subject? (this is rhetorical: their current intros are neither whitewashed nor overstuffed). Note that even extreme-right, capital-F fascists like Mussolini and Francisco Franco manage to be adequately and fairly described without "far-right" being tacked into the first sentence. I agree with Zaereth's good comments above. Anything more I could say about this BLP I've probably already said, in greater detail, at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive341#Donald_C_Bolduc_BLP_issues_in_the_lead. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Animalparty, Journalism 101 is fine for entry level journalism students, but this is an encyclopaedia, not a journalistic venture like an endangered medium sized city daily paper largely supported by the advertising dollars of local department stores, plumbers, hairdressers, banks, insurance companies and major local employers. I am all in favor of better writing. I am not in favor of writing for the purpose of making extremists look mainstream. Cullen328 (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know you're responding to AnimalParty, Cullen. I just want to clarify that I agree with your point. It's just my observation that people usually go about doing it all bass-ackwards. Instead of getting the result they want, they ironically end up getting just the opposite of what they intended. In the Aristotelian world, things were just as they seemed. It turns out that Aristotle was wrong about most everything and the world is very different than it appears. Humans have a very funny way of looking at things completely backwards, and putting such major emphasis on this idea of the all-important first sentence is one of them. If you want the information to stick in the reader's mind, then the end is the best place for it. That's where the why goes, which is what the readers all want to know most, but to really understand the why, they first need all of the context so that it will have its full impact. Starting the story with the ending is not only anticlimactic, but it comes off as desperate and amateurish and gives the opposite effect that people usually intend. Zaereth (talk) 04:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:CONTENTIOUS is a relevant guideline here, which recommends for contentious labels the sourcing needs to be very strong, and then you typically want to attribute it in some manner.
I personally think a sentence like "Ogles has been widely characterized as far-right due to his views on X, Y, and Z" would both be more natural and more informative. The rest of the lede should follow WP:LEDE too, in that it should summarize the rest of the article in a balanced manner. Tristario (talk) 10:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are not “making extremists look mainstream”, you are alienating readers by making it appear that Wikipedia has an agenda. We should be doing our best to make such bios as neutral as possible in their lead to avoid this. Thriley (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only readers that we are alienating are those who have already rejected Wikipedia's core content policies, and have immersed themselves in the disinformation media economy. Folks like this have decided to refuse to accept the notion of well-referenced factual content. Yes, Wikipedia does have an agenda, which is legitimate and stated quite clearly: We strive to accurately summarize the significant coverage that independent, reliable sources devote to various topics. Discussing anything other than that in a discussion like this is a diversion from our core mission. Cullen328 (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cullen328, what is this "disinformation media economy" you refer to? Even those who have "immersed themselves" in something you find so clearly uh deplorable DO learn from neutral, factual content. Well, they might if (as Thriley suggested) they don't get blind-sided in the very first sentence of an article by a description like 'far-right' or 'far-left' as both imply that Wikipedia has an agenda. As Bneu2013 and Zaereth have suggested, that adjective can be in the second sentence of a BLP. Secondly, it doesn't matter who you personally consider to be an "extremist", when you say, "I am not in favor of making extremists look mainstream". Many western European and UK readers of Wikipedia would likely consider Joe Manchin and Chuck Schumer to be center right or even right-wing. This is English Wikipedia not American Wikipedia, so we write for them too, i.e. it is part of our core mission that you mentioned. I am in agreement with what most everyone else has stated, about how to approach this. P.S. I apologize if this went in the wrong place. I tried using that new "Reply" button, which I won't do again.-- FeralOink (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These sorts of labels self-evidently make Wikipedia appear like it has an agenda. But some editors seem very convinced that their concept of the political "extreme" is objective and empirical, and, for various reasons, some of which are in good faith, are very attached to the idea of using these labels in Wikivoice. Everyone here might be interested in this, which was an attempt on my part to delve deeper into this issue. aaPhilomathes2357 (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's where the irony comes in. It's all one-in-the-same goal! If we want people to believe our articles, then we have to start by writing good, professional articles from a totally objective point of view. We cannot possibly say --in the objective-- that so-and-so is evil or that someone-or-another is far-right. That's a judgment call or a conclusion. It requires an "operation of the mind". Now, there are certainly people who are actually extremists, and it would not be neutral to create some false balance by trying to give all viewpoints equal weight if clearly in the real world the sources do not weigh out so equally. Facts are inherently neutral, but we have to apportion all the viewpoints (judgments, conclusions, etc.) accordingly to remain in anyway neutral. But whatever the personal feelings or goals of the editors here, all of them benefit by making the best articles we can rather than trying to cram everything we think is important right in the front. As Einstein said, "Time exists because everything cannot all be read at once". (Or something like that.) Zaereth (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, we as Wikipedia editors are not some type of idealistic "objective journalists" from some mid 20th century Hollywood newsroom drama. That sentimental notion is the exact opposite of our role. We are writing a 21st century encyclopedia which also happens to be the greatest compendium of free educational content in human history. We accurately summarize what published reliable sources say. No more and no less. We can always do better, but at the fundamental level, we have nothing to apologize for. Our consistent approach is precisely what has made Wikipedia great and exceptionally widely read, and we should never waver from our exemplary goal. Cullen328 (talk) 07:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're still editorializing and cherry picking sources. Doesn't make sense to immediately frame someone because some random writer fits your exact narrative. Only Objective Truth (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For the record, I am generally not in favor of using "Example Example (born whatever) is a (nationality) far-right politician..." in the first sentence of the lede; I find it jarring and not inline with our other articles, as it is almost always used in reference to currently serving American politicians. I think a much more tact method is to mention it in its own sentence, usually the following or 3rd one, so it can be expanded upon in a way that isn't cheap (part of the issue also comes from the gray line between right-wing and far-right, whereas there are pretty clear lines on the left end). However, I think Ogles may be one of the exceptions, as he is covered in a plethora of RS as being not just a hard conservative but an actual active proponent of actual far-right politics. Curbon7 (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Do you have any links to these far-right policies he's a proponent of (as opposed to run of the mill Conservative policies)? If you go to his campaign site, none of the points on accountability, immigration, education, or any other issues seem outside the scope of what a normal "conservative" politician thinks/believes. Wouldn't that primary source being the issues he ran on give a better perspective than an opinion piece written by a journalist? Only Objective Truth (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, because we don't engage in analysis of primary sources to reach our own conclusions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, a reliable secondary source is better here. Please see WP:PST. Editors attempting to determine whether he's far-right based upon analysis of his policy positions would be WP:OR. JaggedHamster (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't think it makes sense to cherry pick two sources that fit a narrative if you want the article to be objective. I also don't understand why you'd instantly frame someone like that as fact instead of doing a separate section on "Accusations or categorization of far right" later on to imply it's an opinion. Only Objective Truth (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think the below summary of sources that are listed that refer to him just as a Conservative are indicative of cherry picking and agenda setting. I propose consensus around not shoehorning a title in, but allowing people to explain with other sources down below in a way that doesn't attempt to steer the lede off the bat. Only Objective Truth (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's much better to show than simply tell using imprecise labels. The mere fact that some sources use the term "far-right" does not mean that Wikipedia should unquestioningly regurgitate it (let alone shoehorn it into the lead). Labels without clarity do a disservice to readers. What exactly makes him "far-right" cf far-right politics? Is he a Fascist? A neo-Nazi? Is he radically conservative, ultra-nationalist, and/or authoritarian? If he is any of those things, it's better to be specific rather just boilerplate stamp "far-right". Or is he "far-right" because he is simply further right than some other members of his party, he opposes abortion and gay marriage, supports Trump, and suggested voter fraud took place in the presidential 2020 election? While of course some sources use "far-right" (some of which are reprints of AP reporting, e.g. [8] [9]), for the record, here's an incomplete short list of independent sources that do NOT describe Ogles as "far-right" (although the term may be found in some articles):[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animalparty (talkcontribs) 22:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ Ebert, Joel; Boucher, Dave (September 14, 2017). "Conservative activist Andy Ogles launches U.S. Senate bid for seat held by Bob Corker". The Tennessean.
  2. ^ Weigel, David (August 4, 2022). "Ogles wins closely watched GOP primary for U.S. House in Tennessee". Washington Post.
  3. ^ Mattise, Jonathan; Kruesi, Kimberlee (8 November 2022). "Conservative Republican Ogles wins Nashville US House seat". AP NEWS.
  4. ^ Tamburin, Adam (5 August 2022). "Andy Ogles wins GOP primary for Tennessee's 5th district". Axios.
  5. ^ Janfaza, Rachel (4 August 2022). "Andy Ogles will win GOP nomination in redrawn Tennessee 5th District, CNN projects". CNN.
  6. ^ Gainey, Blaise (10 October 2022). "Democrat Heidi Campbell faces Republican Andy Ogles for Tennessee's 5th District. Their opposing stances on abortion could shape the race". WPLN.
  7. ^ Aabram, Virginia (5 August 2022). "Andy Ogles wins Republican nod in redrawn Tennessee GOP pickup district". Washington Examiner.
  8. ^ McCarthy, Darby (3 January 2023). "Newly-elected Nashville Representative Andy Ogles among House Republicans refusing to vote for Kevin McCarthy". WTVF. Nashville.
  9. ^ Elliott, Stephen; Herner, Hannah (November 8, 2022). "Republican Andy Ogles wins redrawn 5th Congressional District". Nashville Post.
  10. ^ Powell, Jay (July 23, 2022). "Andy Ogles files lawsuit against PAC for claims regarding property taxes". The Daily Herald. Columbia, TN.
  11. ^ "Meet the 20 rebels bucking McCarthy's bid". Politico. January 3, 2023.
  12. ^ Arnsdorf, Isaac; Sotomayor, Marianna (November 2, 2022). "New class of combative MAGA candidates poised to roil House GOP". The Washington Post.
  13. ^ Mintzer, Adam (2 September 2022). "Andy Ogles talks abortion, Jan. 6, economy in 1-on-1 interview". WKRN. Nashville.
  14. ^ Christen, Mike (October 4, 2021). "'Finding the balance': Growth defines Ogles' role leading Maury County". The Daily Herald.
  15. ^ Elliott, Stephen (November 8, 2022). "Republican Andy Ogles Wins Redrawn 5th Congressional District". Nashville Scene.
  16. ^ Styf, Jon (September 27, 2022). "Tennessee's 5th Congressional District race between Ogles, Campbell will take spotlight on Nov. 8". The Center Square.
  17. ^ Rau, Nate (11 May 2022). "Maury County Mayor Andy Ogles announces early fundraising numbers". Axios.
I maintain that the first sentence is in this case not an appropriate place to shoehorn "far-right politician", even though some sources use this term, for the same reason we typically don't immediately tag people with verifiable labels like "female politician", "moderate politician", "experienced politician", "controversial politician", "Christian politician", "Asian-American politician", etc. Even though these may be verifiable, important traits, they can be typically be described in subsequent sentences (e.g. Barack Obama was importantly the first African-American president, but his intro sentence does not other him as "an African-American politician"). Treating a subset of politicians substantially differently in their first sentence creates an othering effect (see Wikipedia:Othering), implying that politicians come only in 2 classes: default and conservative, or default and female, or default and atheist, or default and non-white. Labels like "Far right" or "far left" are even more problematic to front-load into the introductory sentence, as they are often imprecise, ambiguous, and subjective terms that can differ regionally and over time. And, as I have demonstrated above, the term "far-right" is far from unanimous in describing this person, thus shoehorning it into the first sentence is cherry-picking, giving undue favoritism to a select subset of sources. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this makes the most sense @Animalparty and am fine with you going ahead and declaring consensus/making the edit. Only Objective Truth (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe the argument presented below by sums up how we should proceed on this matter.
"Lead sections, which are a summary of the body, do not usually need direct in-line citations, if the information the lead is summarizing is well cited in the body of the article. So, for example, if there is well-referenced text in the body of the article that establishes that Bundy has participated in anti-government activism (and even if the body doesn't use those exact words, if there are events which Bundy has participated in that could reasonably be called such), then it's fine to summarize that in the lead. The lead is a summary, and summaries don't need to exactly quote every word or sentence that they summaries (else they wouldn't be summaries). If there is clear, well-cited information in the rest of the article that makes it clear that Bundy has done something, then the lead can summarize that he has done that thing without needing a separate citation in the lead. This is fairly standard practice. Of course, if the body of the article does not contain any information about any such activities, then the lead shouldn't mention it. I don't know which situation applies here, but the basic principle is that the lead section should only summarize what the rest of the article says, no more and no less." - User:Jayron32
Since there are no reliable articles to support Andy Ogles being far-right, other than a label that is slapped on by MSM news outlets, there is no substantive reason why it should be included in the lede. It probably shouldn't even be included in the body until there are reliable secondary sources that explains how Andy Ogles and his policies are far-right. If the article needs citation in the lede, it probably shouldn't belong there. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia is mainstream. Mainstream means "reliable sources". I'm sorry that reality is not supportive of your ideology. Reality is not going to change.--Jayron32 11:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not a question of reliability but of weight and tone. Do an unbiased search for the subject. Currently only a minority of reliable sources (all rather recent) appear to use "far-right", and the term is not clearly defined, so why should we dismiss all the reliable sources who don't use it and apply a label that evokes fascism, authoritarianism and neonazism? Too often the existence of any reliable sources get cherrypicked and shoehorned into the lead (never to be mentioned in body), to massage a narrative. And even uncontentious adjectives like "woman" or "white" or "gay" generally don't belong in the first sentence. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur. You expressed that very well. I could probably dig around in WP:MOS to support your finessed point here. FeralOink (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree. Go ahead and make the edit! Only Objective Truth (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The protection should be removed, and the page restored without this lede. There is no consensus on the talk page for Mr. Ogles or here, and there are several Wiki policies that clearly state how a lede should be formed, and that is, without bias, without undo weight, and supported by the body. If the body of the article can't support a strong statement in the lede it doesn't belong. This issue has been discussed ad naseum on multiple right-wing politicians page, and the fact we have an extended lock on a freshman House members page just shows how desperate people are to falsely label and misrepresent this guy. Even Matt Gaetz doesn't have this false characterization in his lede, despite leading the caucus that kicked off this entire edit war. One has argued that even the characterization of him as far-right is cherry-picked, as most news outlets simply label politicians instead of explaining the nuance of their policies and how those are reflective of the socially stimatized labels. This goes for both the left and the right. Kcmastrpc (talk) Kcmastrpc (talk) 09:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not going to happen. Perfectly good sources identify him this way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So whats the next step here? Continue discussing this indefinitely? Will there ever be consensus? Kcmastrpc (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cliven Bundy[edit]

The Cliven Bundy page contained the following sentence:

"Bundy has participated in, and had links with various related movements, including anti-government activism, (which opposes federal government involvement in favor of state and local governments) and the sovereign citizen movement (which holds that people are answerable only to their particular interpretation of the common law and are not subject to any government statutes or proceedings)."

A pretty dubious sentence for a variety of reasons. Foremost amongst them the fact that the sentence is unsourced. But the reason I removed the sentence entirely is because:

"All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

I removed the unsourced sentence and have been persistently reverted by two editors accusing me of wiki-lawyering, trolling, being informed by "am radio", "whitewashing" Cliven Bundy, and being a "nazi". My view is that this is a clear and unambiguous violation of the letter of BLP, and that I thus have a responsibility to remove it. I invited both editors to either 1) open an RFC, or 2) provide a list of sources for the claims and labels in the quote so that we can attribute them, but they have declined, preferring to accuse me of bad faith.

Please discuss how to best address this. Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you joking or what? Bundy is anti government. - there are thousands of sources about Bundy being anti government. Vizorblaze (talk) 04:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vizorblaze, if you continue with your course of action, I do not think it will turn out well for you. I am urging you to express your concerns and ideas on the Cliven Bundy talk page. And please, for your own sake, read BLP, especially the portion I quote above. Adding BLP-violative content to the same article a half-dozen times, while accusing me of bad faith and calling me a troll and a nazi are not productive ways forward here, and that behavior reflects very negatively on your desire to contribute here in a serious, grown-up manner. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then get with the waiting for a third party and stop the idle banter. This isn't a forum. Oh, I guess since you are in an edit war with the third opinion... wait for a fourth opinion? Vizorblaze (talk) 06:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stop accusing other people of ignorance of a policy you don’t understand either. Dronebogus (talk) 07:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please stop forum shopping already. All I’ve seen is you arguing with Valjean, one of the longest active and most respected editors I know, about being ignorant of a policy they helped create. Dronebogus (talk) 07:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If this sentence were in the article body the lack of citations would be a serious concern. However as it's in the lead, so long as it's a fair and impartial summary of the body, it doesn't need sourcing per wp:citelead. While disputed BLP claims should normally stay out until consensus to include is found, in this case I would assume those citations are in the article body. This, so long as the body text sports these claims this is not a BLP concern. Springee (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Several editors have undone the deletes and restored the longstanding consensus version. It is minor and well-known information based on properly sourced content in the body of the article. It is not sensitive BLP information that comes anywhere close to a BLP exception to allow edit warring. See edit warring noticeboard thread. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because they immediately delete unfavorable content from their talk page, it looks fairly clean, but an examination of the actual talk page history tells a very different story, one of an edit warrior who is constantly being warned and getting in trouble. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Without making any firm statements about this article one way or the other, I will note that the statement appears in the lead section of the article in question. Lead sections, which are a summary of the body, do not usually need direct in-line citations, if the information the lead is summarizing is well cited in the body of the article. So, for example, if there is well-referenced text in the body of the article that establishes that Bundy has participated in anti-government activism (and even if the body doesn't use those exact words, if there are events which Bundy has participated in that could reasonably be called such), then it's fine to summarize that in the lead. The lead is a summary, and summaries don't need to exactly quote every word or sentence that they summaries (else they wouldn't be summaries). If there is clear, well-cited information in the rest of the article that makes it clear that Bundy has done something, then the lead can summarize that he has done that thing without needing a separate citation in the lead. This is fairly standard practice. Of course, if the body of the article does not contain any information about any such activities, then the lead shouldn't mention it. I don't know which situation applies here, but the basic principle is that the lead section should only summarize what the rest of the article says, no more and no less. --Jayron32 15:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

James Lee Purnell Jr.[edit]

This gentleman has died. Not sure how to edit wikipedia for this. 12/27/21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordplay7 (talkcontribs) 19:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've done a minor update to the article, noting the details nof his death. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 20:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My attention was drawn to this article because of the effort to delete it by some new editors on the article talk page (the article is currently protected). As I looked the article over, I was left with questions about whether or not it should be present on Wikipedia because of the allegations against the article subject which are pretty horrific. The article was only written when these charges went public so he was not considered notable enough to have a Wikipedia article before this scandal. I'm not sure about the quality of the sources which I think would have to be gold-plated to be in an article whose main feature is allegations of criminal and sexual misconduct. I just wanted to get opinions from editors more familiar with BLP articles to see what you all think. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 05:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will just comment that the article is at least very likely violating WP:BLPBALANCE in that it's giving a dispropportionate amount of weight to those allegations. A quick search finds that he's received coverage in sources for plenty of other things that aren't that Tristario (talk) 10:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the article should probably just be deleted but I'd question the claim "so he was not considered notable enough to have a Wikipedia article". Wikipedia is woefully incomplete especially when it comes to lowish notability subjects coming from developing places where English is not generally the native language. Sri Lanka being a former British colony and so with a reasonable level of English is better than most, still I wouldn't assume the absence of an article means the subject was not notable. This is important here since WP:POLITICIAN suggests the subject of that article is presumed notable. While a list MP is probably less likely to automatically have sources than an MP who had to directly fight and win an election themslves, and it's possible our notability guidelines don't account for this that well because very few major English speaking countries have such things. Still although I very rarely participate in AfD, I'd be very surprised if you can get a stub deleted of an MP for any major countries or even more minor developed ones with enough interest e.g. NZ even if the article has no sources to demonstrate meeting GNG unless you can demonstrate enough of a source search which might be difficult with a place like Sri Lanka if you aren't familiar with their sources and language. So IMO any attempts to be stricter with MPs from developing countries is very likely to re-enforce systemic bias unless you can demonstrate very good reasons to treat them differently. However I don't think the solution to this systemic bias is that we only add more minor MPs from developing countries when they get into a major scandal hence why I'm fine with deletion. (In other words, we recognise yes this person is presumed notable and it wouldn't be surprising or unusual to keep a stub on this person in ordinary circumstances so maybe if we had stubs and especially if we had okayish articles on a reasonable percentage of Sri Lankan MPs it would be okay to keep a slightly better article on this person. But since we don't better to just delete this even if we would keep it if Wikipedia was better. Rather than well we didn't have an article before so this person can't be notable.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

eloisa marchesoni[edit]

Eloisa Marchesoni page reports a self-referenced biography, lacking minimum requirements in terms of references; also, the activities of this person are unclear and in some cases also false (as discussed in the talks sessions); the page should be deleted because it is not in line with Wikipedia's policy and appears to be a self-marketing page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Already PRODed. Lard Almighty (talk) 11:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German[edit]

Several users have tried to add the name of a suspect arrested in October of last year to the article Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German, and all edits have been removed almost immediately and told to discuss it on the talk page since it involves a living person.

Several arguments have been made as to why the suspect name should be included, but it keeps being removed, without counter arguments other than it is about a living person and consensus needs to be met before it can be included, as well as how outside countries handle the privacy of their suspects or people arrested.

When a suspect is arrested in a high profile unsolved murder, can editors include their name if it is also noted that they have pled not guilty, and their trial is ongoing, thus stating a neutral point of view and trying to include all relevant facts regarding the article without implying guilt on the suspects part?

Awshort (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Awshort Quoting from WP:BLPCRIME: "For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." Quoting further from WP:BLPNAME: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." Combining those two portions of the BLP policy, the name should be left out, unless there is 1) a compelling reason to include it and 2) consensus among editors that it is necessary to include. —C.Fred (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am completely aware of BLPCRIME. The accused's name has been widely disseminated. On the talk page, I also made mention of only three examples where BLPCRIME was not followed - Nikolas Cruz, the Stoneman Douglas shooter, Killing of Walter Scott, & Charleston church shooting all of their names were added the day of the crimes occured. Grahaml35 (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I was involved on the original discussion on the talk page a couple months ago, I should not comment on it here and am rescinding my comment. Grahaml35 (talk) 04:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robert Raich[edit]

There's been a couple of questionable edits lately involving a court case and the most recent edit inserted primary sources to the court documents (I reverted it). Maybe more eyes on the article is all this needs, but maybe something more a la protection? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like there was an effort to add similar material when the article in question came out in late 2018, appears those edits were revdel'd. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The notability of this BLP should be critically assessed. While Raich's name often appears briefly in cannabis-related articles for quotes he's given, quotes aren't signifiant coverage, and he's most notable for his involvement in two court cases, and any salient biographical details could be provided in those (e.g. he was the husband of the defendant in Gonzales v. Raich). The books cited that mention Raich predominantly describe him in relation to these cases, and often very briefly. Merely being in the newspapers doesn't guarantee an encyclopedia article. The fact that a person is involved in more than 2 events does not mandate a separate biography: Wherever he is mentioned on Wikipedia, he could be simply identified in text as "prominent cannabis attorney Robert Raich" without the need to wikilink to a devoted permanent stub that says little more than "Robert Raich is a prominent cannabis attorney". We don't create articles on most firefighters or police detectives merely because they regularly comment on or are involved in notable events. I think Robert Raich should either be turned into a redirect to the article for which is most widely associated, or better yet simply deleted altogether, with little disruption to Wikipedia or the ability of readers to comprehend the subject. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The sources in the article appear to be mostly passing mentions, so he may not meet WP:GNG. I'll add a notability template to it Tristario (talk) 08:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are the following sources good for use in the article about this person, and also in 2022–2023 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh? I haven't used them in the article about the person so far, but some users objected to their inclusion into the article about the blockade, saying that they are libelous. However, this is the information that comes from international sources that are generally considered very reliable, such as The Financial Times, Time magazine, Der Spiegel, Eurasianet. The sources point to the fact that the arrival of this person to the region added to escalating tensions, or was one of the possible factors that led to the crisis. In addition, he is also widely viewed in Armenia, Azerbaijan and elswere as Russia's agent of influence sent to the region to advance Russia's interests, due to his close connections with Russia's elites. Please see below sources:

The Financial Times: The arrival of a Russian oligarch in the disputed enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh has added to escalating tensions in a volatile region where Moscow is struggling to maintain its influence. ... The oligarch was appointed as Nagorno-Karabakh's first minister by its president Arayik Harutyunyan last October. But analysts see his arrival as part of Moscow's attempt to reboot its regional leadership. ... Russian-Armenian Billionaire Ruben Vardanyan was appointed last autumn as first minister in the South Caucasus enclave, which is claimed by both Armenia and Azerbaijan, but his longstanding ties with the Moscow elite have aroused suspicions in both Yerevan and Baku.

Time magazine: Man from Moscow? But the standoff between the two sides has only worsened in recent weeks after an enigmatic Russian-Armenian oligarch, Ruben Vardanyan, announced he was moving to Nagorno-Karabakh in September. The Yerevan-born billionaire was initially coy about seeking political office but, two months later, was suddenly appointed State Minister of the unrecognized Republic of Artsakh, making him effectively the most powerful man in Stepanakert overnight. Since then, talks with Azerbaijan have broken down, with Aliyev accusing Vardanyan of having been “sent from Moscow with a very clear agenda.” Officials in Baku point to the fact that he has been sanctioned by Ukraine as proof of his close ties to the Russian state. Kyiv says his business interests “undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence of Ukraine.”

Laurence Broers, one of top experts on South Caucasus, for Der Spiegel: The fact that this blockade is taking place now might have to do with the leadership change in Nagorno-Karabakh itself, in particular with Ruben Vardanyan taking office as minister of state of the de-facto republic in November. This Russian-Armenian businessman appears to be close to the power elite in Russia. In the fall, Vardanjan made a surprise announcement that he was giving up his Russian citizenship and moving to Nagorno-Karabakh. Many in Azerbaijan see him as a Russian puppet, someone who intends to advance the transformation of Nagorno-Karabakh into a Russian protectorate along the lines of South Ossetia and, in the longer term, possibly also challenge the current leadership in Armenia.

Eurasianet, like the Financial Times, dedicated a whole article to Vardanyan and his appearance in Karabakh.

And suspicions about Vardanyan’s agenda are fueled by the fact that he doesn’t have a natural political constituency in Armenia or Karabakh, Giragosian said. “Vardanyan has been out of Armenia since 1985, with no local power base and marginal political standing or status,” he said. “Despite his impressive philanthropy in Armenia, Vardanyan is still a product of Moscow, as the source of his wealth and as the center of his influence. And even his record as a Russian businessman is seriously tainted by his involvement in a criminal money laundering enterprise on behalf of Putin-affiliated interests and individuals.”

I addition, he was questioned on BBC HARDtalk by Stephen Sackur about his connections to the Russian governments, etc. Here's transcript: [10], video: [11], BBC news report: [12]

I would like to ask the wider Wikipedia community for an advice if the above sources could be considered libelous, if they could be used in aforementioned Wikipedia articles, and in which form? Thanks. Grandmaster 20:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I feel like some context is missing here. This isn't about Vardanyan's wiki article, the discussion on 2022–2023 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh talk page happened after a particular edit. Point being, among majority RS, Vardanyan is not the reason for the blockade neither he's a significant contributing factor for the occurrence of the blockade (in fact, majority RS don't even mention Vardanyan in the context of blockade), and to add/edit/suggest that he is would be a violation WP:undue and WP:libel.
What overwhelming majority of RS report is Nagorno-Karabakh dispute and Azerbaijan's desire to speed up the resolution of the Karabakh conflict and other contentious issues in its favor as the reasons for 2022–2023 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh (just a couple of RS, more in the article: [97], [98], [99]). Additional details can be found on talk discussion. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This was removed on claims of libel: [13] Therefore I would like to ask the community to look into whether the sources that I cited above are libelous. Also, I would appreciate opinions on whether the information about Vardanyan's possible role in the crisis is undue. Grandmaster 23:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I believe that the larger issue of adding Vardanyan as a "reason/factor" in the blockade article when he isn't even mentioned in context of blockade among overwhelming majority RS would indeed be violations of WP:UNDUE and WP:LIBEL. Even the so-called "activists" claimed (and highly doubted) version is allegations of "illegal" gold mining [14]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @ZaniGiovanni This is a BLP discussion board, and the question for the larger Wikipedia community is whether information about Vardanyan supported by a number of credible sources is libelous or not. Please refrain from writing anything unrelated to the BLP here. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 04:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This issue is complex and requires some background, which I have provided in my comment below. You can't expect people to discuss this BLP issue without understanding what is actually happening here. @Grandmaster didn't even explain what the overarching article is about before writing his lengthy comments about the "Arrival of Ruben Vardanyan" subsection. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm stating the obvious here but providing context is important if not essential, and the article discussion revolved mostly around WP:UNDUE to begin with: I wrote what are the more precise issues firstly per article talk discussion, I (and others on talk) did state that violations of WP:UNDUE and WP:LIBEL are the larger concerns in this case. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Background information on the conflict
For those unacquainted, here is what is happening:
(1) In the South Caucasus region, part of the former USSR, there is a territorial conflict between two countries, Armenia and Azerbaijan, over a territory called "Nagorno-Karabakh" or "Artsakh". Artsakh is an ethnic Armenian enclave inside of Azerbaijan. In circa 1990, as the USSR was breaking apart, the Republic of Artsakh unilaterally declared independence and successfully broke away with Armenian support, taking not only the Nagorno-Karabakh region but also surrounding Azerbaijani districts. The conflict became frozen for the next ~30 years.
(2) In 2020, Azerbaijan successfully launched an invasion of Artsakh, taking back perhaps a third of Artsakh-controlled territory in the south, including a large portion of the Nagorno-Karabakh region itself. Following a Russian-brokered peace treaty, Artsakh ceded all of the remaining occupied Azerbaijani districts to Azerbaijan, leaving only the remainder of Nagorno-Karabakh under Artsakh's control. Russian-peacekeepers were deployed to the region.
(3) In the next two years, Azerbaijan economically developed the territories that it had recaptured, and it also formulated plans to take back the remainder of Artsakh. Additionally, Azerbaijan had demands from Armenia to allow a passage through the Syunik Province (which Azerbaijan calls "West Zangezur") in order to access the Azerbaijani exclave of Nakhchivan, which is geographically separated from Azerbaijan by Armenia. Azerbaijan launched attacks against Armenia at the internationally recognized border in order to put pressure on the Armenian government during this period.
(4) In December 2022, Azerbaijan launched a blockade of Artsakh, specifically by blocking off a single road that is critical to international travel/transport in and out of Artsakh called the "Lachin corridor" (which is patrolled by Russian peacekeepers), by employing the usage of fake "environmental eco-activists". The alleged environmentalists are apparently protesting the "illegal mining of gold" in the Artsakh region. For some reason, several days ago, the user @Grandmaster began writing a large subsection within the background section of the article about the blockade called "Arrival of Ruben Vardanyan" in which he accused this person of being the leading figure and the primary cause of the crisis, alleging that Vardanyan "might be a Russian puppet". Vardanyan currently serves as one of the highest-ranking politicians in Artsakh, having only acquired this job recently.
(5) Some editors initially opposed the subsection due to its UNDUE nature. Eventually, I decided to delete the entire section due to it being potentially libelous against Vardanyan. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a disclaimer, I myself am foreign to the region. I'm an Australian. Most of the other editors involved are either of Armenian origin or Azerbaijani origin, from what I can tell. (So, obviously, they will be editing in favour of their own side.) Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suspect's name in the URL of sources/references[edit]

I made a recent addition [15] to the Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German, but was reverted by Dumuzid [16] who said "apologies, but I think you should get consensus before naming the suspect, even in URLs" Note: I didn't name the suspect in the content I added, so the revert by the user is due to the suspect's name being in the URL.

Is there a policy/guideline prohibiting the use of sources that contain the suspect's name in URLs? Some1 (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See the section above re the 2022 pregnancy, where there was lengthy discussion of using URLs with the suspects name in them. Masem (t) 00:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The closure of that section says No consensus, but a proposal from me 5. URLs containing the suspect's name... JeffUK's proposal seems decent... should there be a community-wide RfC regarding this issue so that guidance could potentially be added to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons? Some1 (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just WP:BLPCRIME really, and please see the heading just three up from this one. Should consensus go against me on this, no worries, but since it is a BLP issue (even in URLs, by my lights), I think consensus should be demonstrated before inclusion. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given the number of articles that name the suspect on a Google search of the crime, I would say the url is not an issue as only WP:BLPCRIME applies, provided the source has usable information and isn't inckuded for the sake of the url. Inclusion in the article itself is more debatable as currently a search for only the suspect's name does not place the crime in the search results, which would likely change if they are named here especially if a redirect was also created. Slywriter (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just because the name may be widely disseminated across the news doesn't mean for our purpose of non-notable individuals that we necessarily should include the name, particularly if no arrest or charges filed against the person. We have a stronger standard for BLP aspects than the media. Masem (t) 01:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would not consider the 2022 pregnancy case a precedent to be generally cited when deciding on suspect names in urls. The specific factors in the (very rough) community consensus there included
  • concern that mention of the suspect's name would make it easier to identify the living child victim
  • the ease of finding sources that did not name the suspect but still supported the relevant info
It seems like the first factor is not at play here, and I'm not sure about the second. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia's core purpose is to enhance people's access to information/knowledge. Why are some editors intent on finding ways to work against that purpose? This business of worrying about what's in a url -- it's completely bizarre. The edit added content that did not name a suspect, and yet the edit was reverted because the name was in the url?? That's the problem, despite the name itself being included in the source article (but nonetheless omitted from our own content)? This is a sufficient reason to prevent someone from adding the content? @Some1: the answer to your question Is there a policy/guideline prohibiting the use of sources that contain the suspect's name in URLs? is: no, there's no such policy/guideline, and it would be absurd if we adopted one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with @Nomoskedasticity, as well as this quote by @LovelyLillith
"At this point, it is literally almost impossible to put current references into the article without the arrested suspect’s name being mentioned in the titles, as well as the fact that there is international attention on this case (The Sun and are two examples) using his name. We are not stating he is guilty, but what we ARE doing at this point is going to extremes in contorting ourselves to omit other pertinent information in order to hide his name, which makes (as stated by another) one of the most highly-read sites in the world look ridiculous now."
In an ongoing murder investigation, and subsequent court trial, there is a very strong chance that reliable sources will cover the trial and include the suspects name in their urls to help with the SEO rankings. Should those be left out because they mention a name within the url, or should the contributor have to search for a possibly non-reliable source in order to appease people regarding the name? This honestly makes no sense.
I'll use an example. The New York Times covers the trial, and has 'suspect-name-in-court.html'. It should be avoided because the suspects name is in it, even though it's a respected source? Wikipedia gives more weight to a reliable source than a podcast, so it should be linked to.
The only thing even remotely close to addressing this is this
"External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles". from Wikipedia:External links
@Masem you said the following
Just because the name may be widely disseminated across the news doesn't mean for our purpose of non-notable individuals that we necessarily should include the name, particularly if no arrest or charges filed against the person.
The person being discussed was arrested, and charges were filed at the end of October. If the link in question is regarding their court case/them appearing in court, it is nearly impossible to avoid their name being in the url, as stated above.
Awshort (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In response to the comment above that suggests coverage in The Sun should influence content here - WP:THESUN was deprecated in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that The Sun is generally unreliable. References from The Sun are actively discouraged from being used in any article and they should not be used for determining the notability of any subject. I have been thinking about how to approach this particular article, which does not appear to cover a notable WP:EVENT - Wikipedia is not a tabloid or a vehicle for sensationalism, and with the limited depth of RS coverage available, BLP policy compliance does not seem possible at this time.
It seems best to wait to publish anything about this nonpublic figure until a conviction is secured. Wikipedia is not everything, and it is not news.
In this article, it appears to be the headlines of the sources that introduce BLP violations into the article, and these should be removed for now, until a conviction is secured. A draft could be developed in the meantime that includes the 'breaking news' with urls/references that name this defendant. Beccaynr (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See the list of RS coverage below about the case:
Articles from The New York Times, CNN, Time, People, The Independent, ABC News, Rolling Stones, USA Today, Associated Press

- New York Times


- Time

  • 2017
  • 2022 "case that has captivated national attention for nearly six years."

- People

- The Independent (a UK site)

- ABC News

- Rolling Stones

- Washington Post

- USA Today

- Associated Press

From the answer I was given above, there's no policy or guideline prohibiting the use of sources/references that contains the suspect's name in the URL. Maybe editors should start a community-wide RfC about this topic in general to see if there should be a policy about this or not. Similar issues (suspect's name being in the URL) might come up in the future on different articles, so it would be nice if there's something 'official' that editors can point or refer to. Some1 (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For this article, the issue appears to be naming a nonpublic figure accused of crime in the source headlines, not the url. It is the headline that adds the nonpublic figure's name to the article, in the references section. In this article, there are sources that do not include the name in the headline, so there does not appear to be a compelling reason to use sources that add the nonpublic figure's name to the article via the headline in the citation. Beccaynr (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The name was both in the sources' headlines and URLs. If it weren't in the headlines, the user would've still reverted based on the URLs (since they said "even in URLs" in their edit summary). Anyway, after the revert, I've added what I wanted to add to that article using sources that do not include the suspect's name in the sources' headlines and/or URLs. Since we're on the topic of sources' headlines, is there a policy/guideline prohibiting the use of sources that contain the suspect's name in the sources' headlines/titles? If not, maybe that hypothetical RfC (not about this specific article, but in general) can cover both the issues of the suspect's name being in the sources' headlines and URLs. Some1 (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC) add a sentence, Some1 (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, in this day and age, I feel like having the name prominently included in a URL is about as bad as a headline, since one need not even click through to see it, and I still think Beccanyr's basic reasoning above is where I land -- when it's not necessary, it should be avoided. If there were no suitable replacements, I would think differently, but I believe here there are. All that said, happy to go with consensus, of course, and an overarching RfC might not be a bad idea. Happy Friday to one and all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should there be specific language about this (suspect's name being in the sources' headlines and/or URLs) in WP:BLPCRIME itself so that editors who encounter the same issues elsewhere on other articles have something to reference? Some1 (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I started a discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Clarification_on_'material' Some1 (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roger Chamberlain[edit]

Roger Chamberlain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The information in the article about Roger Chamberlain probably needs to be updated. An editor claiming to be the article subject has challenged material by removing it, and a part of the removal appears to be reasonable if, for example, is not a fake website. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

wow what a great and totally balanced encyclopedia article about i'm guessing a politician? Its probably crappy journalism when liking a tweet is newsworthy, and Wikipedia just loves amplifying crap. Am I to believe that there is no reliable coverage of his political career, just gossipy controversies? BLPs must not give disproportionatecoverage to scandals or recent events. WP:PROPORTION and WP:BLPBALANCE must be followed at all times for BLPs meaning Wikipedians need to actually do a goodfaith search for sources spanning the whole career of the subject, not just tack on the first juicy scandals on page 1 of Google. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]