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

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

Yes, this is a ridiculous accusation.LDW5432 (talk)16:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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 Considering he was a prominent scientist who had to have rewards rescinded and also leave a position because of these allegations I think it's an important section to maintain.Agnieszka653 (talk)14:44, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm more inclined based onthis andthis to judge that this discussion isn't actually about Lawrence Krauss, but a trojan horse attempt to create some kind of pseudo-precedent to use at the article that shall not be named.FDW777 (talk)17:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find those choices of words strange and signaling. We should absolutely include information sourced to solidly reliable mainstream sources. Is The State News a uni newspaper? I do not think we should source information to that. I think what ever information is sourced to that should be removed until a stronger more reliable source can be found. Perhaps you can explain how my thinking is incorrect here?Everythingisbiggerindallas (talk)15:30, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However at least one of their IPs geolocates to New York and even under their account they also seems to have an interest in New York. So that aspect does match. Not surprisingly, the history does show similar copyvio problems which was the reason why Epeefleche got into trouble[1].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's clearly no acceptance of the JP nick among RS, so there can be no consensus on WP for the same. Whateverlocal consensus may argue. Closing down the entire MMA WikiProject would be neat, but possibly a bit baby/bathwater. Since adding this material is a clear and absolute BLPVIO—as well as flying on the face of WP:ONUS (which is also policy)—just block any editor, immediately, for a substantial period who restores it or anything like it. That will focus Project members' minds on core policy pretty quickly.—Fortuna,imperatrix13:43, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

@GOAT Bones231012: Feel free to discuss it; no one else is. ATG mentioned it—probably sardonically—above, and I commented on the comment in similar vein. It's actually gone from ~0–10 in the space of ~24 hours. Shame about Cassiopeia though.—Fortuna,imperatrix16:26, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

There is poor sourcing that this is a widely used nickname.LDW5432 (talk)17:13, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the biographical article onYves Engler an allegation ofRwandan genocide denial is made with the lobby groupB'nai Brith Canada as the primary source. B'nai Brith and other Jewish groups have been highly critical of Engler for his anti-Zionist views (and for making statements that may beantisemitic) so that may be playing a role in their criticisms of Engler. The B'nai Brith allegations have not been picked up by any independent, secondary sources except for an article in theToronto Sun, a conservativetabloid newspaper.[2] Without a more credible third party source, is it a violation of BLP for this allegation to be included in the Engler article?Wellington Bay (talk)16:23, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Samuel Douglass (politician)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The National Post opinion column[3] is an inappropriate source for the mention so I have removed it.Morbidthoughts (talk)05:41, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muliple reverts R1 R2 of a BLPREMOVE edit without RS concerns being addressed ontalk. Most recent by an editor engaged[4] by an IP editor currently blocked from editing the page for edit warring[5].Patternbuffered (talk)07:09, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

PerWP:DOB, I'd say that this applies,[i]f a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it. So, I'd support not including the year, because neither of the two sources cited seems to be reliable.Salvio^giuliano14:36, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Rumors are Jackson has died. There is no official announcement, only "RIP" posts on Facebook and Instagram from acquaintances, at this time. Editing his entry to past tense might be premature.— Precedingunsigned comment added by2605:A601:A61C:E900:84E6:517D:5E7B:1A1 (talk)01:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This CFD[6] closed with the implication that 'male' and 'female' categories are BLP violations. I disagree and do not see this as being the case.Traumnovelle (talk)07:19, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, the categories are based on what the individual identifies as.Hunter Schafer is afemale andwomen model based on the categories. I have never seen female or male as indicative of biological sex. I don't think the categories should be deleted or renamed. It is also not a BLP violation.jolielover♥talk13:23, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed there is a tendency to think that, as long as one appends the word "biological" it's no longer misgendering to say that a trans woman isreally a man at the end of the day. So I can certainly understand wanting to avoid vague categories that could be implied to refer to "biological sex" rather than gender. I think a lot of people would do well to remember thatscience is socially constructed as is all knowledge more broadly. As such "biological sex" is a socially constructed locus of knowledge, just like gender, and is not any moreobjective than any other part of our (inter-subjective) language systems. Basicallybiological sex is, as I have said on other platforms, just gender in aSpirit Halloweenlab coat.Simonm223 (talk)13:29, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's entirely fair and I agree. One other point, not necessarily related to the above, is that perwiktionary:female#Usage notes the term "female" can be offensive in some contexts which is why I would like to be careful using it without discretion. In article prose, we can always explain what we mean with context; with category titles, we generally don't get the chance to elaborate which sense of the word we mean. --Habst (talk)13:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is referring to using female as a noun, not as an adjective. Category titles such as 'female runners' are clearly an adjective, whilst categories such as 'businesswomen' are nouns.Traumnovelle (talk)20:06, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. I see it is rarely used as a noun in categories, i.e.Category:Identical twin females orCategory:Fictional females, and I think the usage note can still apply to a lesser extent even when used as an adjective (although that isn't stated on Wiktionary). A main point in the athletes case was that we never use "females" in titles likeWomen's 100 metres world record progression orAthletics at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 100 metres, so I don't see why we would have a different naming custom when we can keep it consistent asWP:CATNAME seems to endorse. --Habst (talk)20:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no personal opinion at this time whether we should treat them as BLP violations. Personally I've always considered female to be as much about gender identity as women etc. But even without the sources, I think it's trivial to show this view isn't so widely shared otherwiseadult human female wouldn't be such a thing. I'm not convinced that noun vs adjective is enough to mean it's different. Also, while it's true that this wouldn't apply to categories only containing no living persons, I expect this would only apply to a small number of categories mostly ones with a time frame in them e.g.Category:19th-century English women writers or referring to a place long gone or a practice/whatever long ended or any death related cats we have which include female in them and even these will hit BDP complexities. If it is a BLP violation the fact that the cat also includes many or even nearly all people who are not living doesn't make it okay. There's nothing about BLP which says it's okay to violate it for some people if most of the people affected aren't living.Nil Einne (talk)05:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is consensus on talk this is not neutral (too negative, too much focus on criticisms/controversies). Tagged as not neutral for several years, but nobody seems to care to fix it. Maybe one of the regulars here could take a look?_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}11:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Silva didn't win the Copa del Rey with Real Sociedad. He was still at Manchester City in 2019-20.— Precedingunsigned comment added byNburnsgreen21 (talk •contribs)14:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, do you have a reliable source for it?sjones23 (talk -contributions)11:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're getting a whole lot of new accounts trying to override the RfC consensus not to discuss her voter registration. I've done a 3rd revert becauseWP:3RRNO generally allows that to protect a BLP page but Ireally don't like even the appearance of edit warring and would appreciate some other page watchers.Simonm223 (talk)19:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have done two actions:

1. Protected "Sydney Sweeney": Extending protection do to wholesale disregard forTalk:Sydney Sweeney/Archive 1#RfC: Sydney Sweeney's political party affiliation ([Edit=Require extended confirmed access] (expires 20:31, 22 January 2026 (UTC)) [Move=Require extended confirmed access] (expires 20:31, 22 January 2026 (UTC))
2. Configured pending changes settings for Sydney Sweeney: Extending protection do to wholesale disregard forTalk:Sydney Sweeney/Archive 1#RfC: Sydney Sweeney's political party affiliation [Auto-accept: require "autoconfirmed" permission] (expires 20:31, 22 April 2026 (UTC))

Peaceray (talk)20:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did I really spelldue asdo? Oh, well...Peaceray (talk)20:35, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sincerely.Simonm223 (talk)20:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The German Justine Electra wikipedia page appears to have vanished without a trace. The english and french versions are still there.2A02:8108:B40E:AE00:14D4:CE44:7DCD:B2C (talk)18:49, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to have to ask on the German Wikipedia why it was deleted. Just because an article exists in one language is no guarantee that another language version has to exist.Nthep (talk)21:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According tothis German Wikipedia log it was deleted becauseGerman:Kein ausreichender Artikel und/oder kein enzyklopädischer Inhal,lit. 'Insufficient article and/or no encyclopedic content'.

There are alsoArabic &Italian versions of the article.

I note thatJustine Electra currently has the{{External links}} maintenance template. It would be best for someone to attend to that so the English version does not suffer a similar fate to the German version.Peaceray (talk)16:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An article getting deleted on German Wikipedia is not an issue for this noticeboard.Isaidnoway(talk)17:13, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is presnently a dispute about whether the Fascism template is appropriate for theNick Fuentes page. This BLP is principally known for a far-right podcast that regularly engages in holocaust denial and he is regularly referred to in the press as a neo-nazi. Additional views at user talk appreciated.Simonm223 (talk)17:33, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article doesn't mention fascism, and he's already got a pretty hefty set of templates at the bottom there. There'sthis source in the article calling the group he quasi-leads fascist, and he's labeled as a neo-nazi. There's already templates for the Jan 6 attacks, alt-right, white nationalism, and manosphere, all of which seem a bit more on-point. Is the fascism template adding anything in this case? I don't think the question is "are neo-nazis close enough to nazis to fall under the fascist umbrella?", but rather "does adding another template at the bottom contribute much?" I don't think there's any argument to be made that the inclusion would make him look any worse than being called a neo-nazi white nationalist. Including it wouldn't be a BLP problem.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk)17:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that removing this template is a POV push.Simonm223 (talk)22:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI... as an aside, an interesting argument has emerged in recent years suggesting that "fascism" might not be the correct term for this phenomenon. I agree, however, that in the case of Fuentes and many others, fascism appears to be the right term. But there is an argument (that I've been meaning to address, but got too busy to do so) that other terms might be more appropriate and informative. And I say this as someone who has used the term in many new articles. Conversely, I've only recently discovered that the term was used similarly in the 1960s and 1970s to warn about the anti-democratic impulse brought on by emphasizing the value of individualism over and above community. In this inclusive critique, it was said that both the people on the left and the right (which I was surprised to find) were in danger of promoting fascism due to the decline of group-oriented thinking and political policies. I'm still pursuing this angle in two articles right now that I'm working on at the moment.Viriditas (talk)22:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While the article subject isn't living, the person in question is. Under the Substance and legal issues section of the article there is a rather sizeable portion devoted to a sexual molestation allegation from a then 11 year old actress while also naming her. The issue is whether it is DUE enough for inclusion and should stay as an EXCEPTIONAL claim.

Per the original 2017source -The young actress, now 26, was unidentified at her request; she told THR she didn't want to talk about the matter except to say that she's recently hired a lawyer to explore legal action against the actor as well as her parents.In 2018, peranother source -The Tribune generally does not identify victims of sexual abuse, but (redacted by me) agreed to the use of her name. while giving a press conference about her lawsuit.

Generally I would remove the name based on BLPNAME grounds for the accuser since as far as I can find she had a bit part in this film and never acted again and is (other than this) a non-public figure, but I wanted to get some outside opinions regarding the claim itself and how it should be presented.Awshort (talk)06:58, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are grounds for removal and have accordingly done so pending the outcome of this discussion - it can always be put back if consensus develops.

In my opinion the inclusion of the name adds nothing to the article; the living person is not a public figure and was a child at the time of the alleged incident. Her identity is frankly not relevant. Saying she was an 11-year-old actress gives an equal amount of context while protecting the living person.Meadowlark (talk)08:08, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The biography ofSunita Danuwar is wildly outdated as she died last year. as a family friend of hers, its sad to see her page still not being updated. evidence of her passing:^[1]

• Wikipedia noticeboards
• Wikipedia dispute resolution

• Noindexed pages
• Wikipedia move-protected project pages
• Non-talk pages that are automatically signed
• CS1 Japanese-language sources (ja)