Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive354

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

I was reading this blog post which discusses a Reddit thread on how the article for Paulina Alexis is overly detailed, to an obsessive degree. User:Colin.r.neary is the primary contributor of this content. From reading the article in its current state, I think it needs attention for source quality, coherence, and topic relevance. It is also 11,640 words (not characters, words). I wanted to bring this up to actual editors who are familiar with BLP policies, not just Redditors. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I second this. Huge sections of this article are, to be frank, very creepy, and written less like an encyclopedia and more like a fan blog including unnecessarily intimate details about her personal life (including her skin/hair care and her shoe preferences!). This needs immediate attention by editors with experience writing BLPs. Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The article is absurdly over-detailed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Colin.r.neary is an SPA who has solely contributed to that article. Would it be worthwhile just reverting to the stub that was there before they began editing [1] or is that overkill? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that would be overkill; there are the bones of something in there, we just need to trim the excess. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

And check for copyvio at the same time. Some of it looks like very close paraphrasing, even if being charitable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: respectfully disagree. This needs a deep, deep scrub. If that leaves something behind that's more than a stub, fine; but it really needs to be scoured before we can see what's left. The SPA refers to themself as the subject's "biggest fan"; bigger-picture there's something very unhealthy-feeling about all of this. VQuakr (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the best way to do this is to create a sandbox draft? We can start with the basics (the lead, infobox, and commented-out categories) and then slowly port over and rewrite worthy pieces of the existing article. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with drafting, but scrub in place is fine. Content exists in the history if there's something we want to restore. VQuakr (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes to be clear I'm not remotely opposed to a deep scrub, but reverting to a stub isn't the best option here IMO. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• There has also been now reversion of edits to remediate addressed concerns. In order to force the user to engage the issue, I have opened an ANI section. See Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#User:Colin.r.neary, Paulina Alexis. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
• Partial blocked by Ingenuity. Also note this was heavily discussed on the Discord server. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 22:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 21:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
• The overuse of quotes is a copyvio problem. Quite a few of the sources are also either unreliable, primary, or used in a WP:SYNTH way (that don't mention Alexis at all). 17 references out of 51 are marked red by Headbomb's script. DFlhb (talk) 00:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  A handful of those look like YouTube uploads from credible media (including Gizmodo and specialist Native media like Aboriginal Peoples Television Network and Indian Country Today). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  Those are fine but still primary if they're interviews; they can fill in gaps, not support entire paragraphs of quotes. It may be easier to stubify and reinsert selectively than the other way around. DFlhb (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Jung Myung-seok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The biography is extremely biased as it only focuses on negativity and overly reports accusations of crimes. The person was not convicted yet and yet the article claims it was. Also, a description that he is a rapist, is absolutely obnoxious as no person can be determined as a rapist as long as it's not proven otherwise. So far, no evidence of DNA has been found in the juridical process. The article mentioned someone supposedly said something, that is absolutely not a neutral stand point and can't be taken as a fact or a proof. I petition to change the article in a lawful, fair way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.123.247.228 (talk) 08:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The article cites multiple credible sources stating that Jeong Myeong Seok has been convicted of rape etc. See e.g. [2][3] to pick a couple at random. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

This was reverted as alleged WP:LIBEL. However, Rodney Dixon is described in Jurist as an expert in international criminal law with particular expertise in cases involving alleged genocide and crimes against humanity, having acted in cases before the ICTY, ICTR and the ICC. His several third-party sources cited here and here do support his statements.

Later, third-party sources have not corroborated Ocampo's similar weird claim of genocide during flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians, most notably UNHCR, UN fact-finding mission on the ground or Russian peacekeepers in the region. Yet, there are strange regular attempts to promote Ocampo's opinion, while UN assessment gets marginalized: [4], [5]. As such, I think this could be reinstated in the article. Brandmeister^talk 12:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The source being used for Ocampo's claim is Ocampo's own webpage. In other words the report is self-published. I can't see how the the material you have added could be considered libellous. In particular, the statement "It was concluded that information that clearly undermines Ocampo's conclusions is simply left out" is not libellous afaict. Regarding the sources you have used, they are at least as suitable as the source for Ocampo's claim. Burrobert (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll start by saying that some context is missing from OP's thread here: as I stated in ANI, Brandmeister has cited an opinion piece by Rodney Dixon, a lawyer that Azerbaijan directly hired to help rejecting the Ocampo report,[6] to attack Ocampo's views.[7] This seems to be a WP:LIBEL violation. Ocampo was also cited in other publications [8], [9], so it's not just his webpage and I'm sure there are more.

Regarding the UN report, as it was noted by me in ANI and BilledMammal, it was misinterpreted by the OP and isn't widely covered in RS even when compared to USAID. UN delegation was also criticized directly for coming to the region only after 99% of population had fled already [10], [11]. But regardless, UN report is being discussed on the article talk and I'm not sure why the OP thought to bring it up here of all places to draw some strange parallels with Ocampo while omitting details from the article discussion. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

- If Ocampo's report is cited in reliable sources, use them rather than his own website.

- The Politico article says Azerbaijan "has hired London lawyer Rodney Dixon to write a rejection of the Moreno Ocampo report". What is the relevance of WP:libel? Dixon's statements are not invalidated by his connection to the Azerbaijan government. Include his statements and inform readers that he was hired to write a rejection of Ocampo's report.

- Presumably the reason this issue was raised here was the accusation that libel was involved. Burrobert (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Ocampo is the inaugural prosecutor of ICC, there needs to be a more WP:DUE criticism of him to be included in his article, not from a lawyer hired directly by the country Ocampo was criticizing.

Also I have no problem for libel being brought up here, my concerns are why the UN report was brought up by OP in a BLPN discussion to draw strange parallels with Ocampo while omitting important details from the article discussion about said report. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Just a note on the source used. The Jurist is likely better than most sources that get used on Wikipedia, but as a student journal a better source is probably a good idea when it comes to discussions of genocide. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

There were a number of controversies concerning this person, and I'm not sure whether these were adequately covered in the article. In particular, there were reports in Der Spiegel: [12], The Financial Times: [13], The Times: [14], The Telegraph: [15], World Affairs [16], etc. Grandmaster 14:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

It's OR to dig for past controversies to question the inclusion a present attributed statement from who is still the inaugural prosecutor, is it not? JM2023 (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Not libel, but not WP:DUE either. The only reliable and independent source I could find covering Dixon in this context was this CNN article, and even that doesn't discuss the report, just the preliminary opinion letter. Further, it focuses more on Ocampo's allegations than it does on Dixon's rebuttal, and it makes it explicitly clear that Dixon was hired by Azerbaijan. BilledMammal (talk) 09:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, none of the WP:UNDUE concerns were addressed here and I don't see any consensus for OP to restore their undue edit. Also WP:ONUS applies. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 10:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• Simon Ekpa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Apparently this person has claims a nationality of a "government in exile" ([17], [18]) and a lot of users are commenting on the article's talk page asking for it to be changed. I am uncertain how to proceed. Do we allow self-identification of nationality or do we adhere to government documents! EvergreenFir (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

TBH I'm not sure his G in E is more than a website (it may be). But according to WP, a G in E is "a political group that claims to be a..." so it's not a high bar. I don't think nationality is something we generally do self-identification on. Also, not sure it's a lot of users, as in several people. The article has had some socking issues. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

My general view is that people there are conflating two different things. Nationality simply refers to what nation a person is from, that is, where they are native to. "Nation" is more related to a specific land and its people than any government, per the definition. "Nation - (n.) a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory." It comes from the Latin nat, meaning "born", combined with the Latin suffix -tion, which alters it to mean the place or state where someone comes from. It let's the reader pinpoint the land on a map, but it's not an indication of any particular governmental affiliation. (This may be one of those things where the subtleties of the English language are being lost in translation. Non-native speakers of a language typical interpret things very literally, so maybe explaining it clearer will help.) Zaereth (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

MOS:NATIONALITY says that "in controversial or unclear cases, nationality is sometimes omitted", so an editorial decision could be made to omit Ekpa's nationality given that he apparently rejects it. I have no opinion on whether it should be omitted. I'm pretty sure that his nationality shouldn't be listed as Biafran given that Biafra ceased to exist 15 years before he was born. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. I see no reason why it has to be included, except it gives the readers more insight into a person if they can look up the land and culture they come from. I guess it's a matter of weighing the pros and cons at that point, which is best done by involved editors. I was just thinking that if people on the talk page were to think of it in terms of the land and people that he is native to (nation/native both come from the same meaning), then they may not object as much. It just sounds silly to say he's a native of a government. For example, I am a native Alaskan (not to be confused with an Alaska Native), which by definition makes me an American native (not to be confused with Native American, although in fact my grandma was Native American). The U.S. of America is simply the land and people I come from, so American is my nationality. Doesn't mean I support Biden or Trump, or even statehood for that matter. (Puerto Rico and Guam were probably smart to have stayed territories, but what is, is.) Zaereth (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Dear extinguished editors,

It has become an established concept right from historical facts that a government-in-exile exercises full legal rights as a country but then, in Exile and shall one day return to their native country regaining full formal power. I implore everyone of us to make a little research here: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_in_exile) Now, in the case of Biafra, it existed during 1967-70 civil war but aftermath, formed a government-in-exile called "Biafra Republic Government in Exile" as clearly stated on Wikipedia's definition of G-I-N

To explain further, Simon Ekpa have long denounced Nigeria as his Nationality. See one of the sources back in 2021: (https://punchng.com/ipob-ex-nigerian-athlete-simon-ekpa-to-return-medal-gives-reasons/) This declaration of his automatically cleared every doubt on his nationality issue that we're currently solving here. He doesn't pledge allegiance to Nigeria nor does he hold Nigerian passport. Saying Simon Ekpa is a Nigerian by Nationality is more of violation of his legal rights if l may say. He denounced Nigeria openly. Check out the source above please.

Simon Ekpa have identified with Biafra Republic Government in Exile of which he's now the Prime Minister of the political organization representing Biafra as a country in Exile. I will keep saying, everyone should kindly read the definition of government-in-exile which l dropped the article link above.

I wish to clear the doubt of editors who may have the doubt that BRGIE is only on website. Check link: https://dailypost.ng/2023/07/22/ekpa-announces-biafra-self-referendum-convention/

The convention is physical and l believe it has cleared every doubt that BRGIE is only on website. They are on ground. The convention will take place in Finland on 20th-21st of October 2023. On the website also, they stated their head office located in Maryland US. The full address is there. Verify!

Sorry to have digressed a little bit. In view of the definition of government-in-exile, l hereby state unequivocally that "Biafran" can be said to be Nationality. This is to say that you don't be a national of a country you don't recognize or hold it's passport. Simon Ekpa doesn't identify as a Nigerian legally, verbally or otherwise so why put Nigerian as his Nationality? Let's consider it!

Now, to cap it all, Simon Ekpa is a Finnish Citizen. (Indisputable) He's neither a Nigerian citizen nor national. He's a Biafran by Nationality, legally, technically logically, historically and otherwise. (Indisputable) In my own honest opinion, I strongly suggest that "Nationality" parameter should be removed entirely from the article infobox if my clarifications can't convince you every editor enough that Simon Ekpa is not "Nigerian" but a "Biafran" by Nationality.

Thanks everyone. Fugabus (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Your legal theories are irrelevant here. Unless you can cite reliable sources which describe Ekpa as a Biafran national, Wikipedia is not going to describe Ekpa as a Biafran national. You may be able to convince editors that Ekpa's nationality should be omitted from the article altogether, but I'd be very surprised if you persuade anyone of anything with comments like the above. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

My impression was that we're speaking specifically of the infobox here, since it's the only use of the word "nationality" in the article. I don't see us removing "born in Nigeria" etc. I'm not against removing it from the infobox, since it's a bit complicated in this case, and infoboxes suck at complicated. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

My emphasis lie on the fact that Ekpa and his runs a government-in-exile which claims control of Biafra that existed between 1967-70 as a country. We can't dispute that history of Biafra being a country, though formerly defunct but now officially in Exile.

I keep referencing to Wikipedia's standard definition of a government in Exile and what it means practically.

His physical presence can be seen (https://sunnewsonline.com/ekpa-declares-self-prime-minister-of-biafra/)

I also wish to opine with other editors that the Nationality parameter be removed entirely from the infobox if Biafra can't be added as his Nationality. Fugabus (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

If we go by place of birth, then if he was born in Biafra while Biafra was independent then he is Biafran; if he was born in Biafra while Biafra was dependent then he is Nigerian. If we go by citizenship or residency, then he cannot be Biafran, because Biafra does not meet the declarative theory of statehood. So once you have sourced his place and date of birth, decide whether to go by birth or by citizenship or residency according to standard practices. JM2023 (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

My name is Kevin Scott Frakes. PalmStar Media is a business I started in college. I am the sole owner, operator, employee, etc. I believe the page falls under WP:BLPGROUP, as a page about a "small group or organization." The company is just me. I would like to raise the following issues for impartial editors to consider:

• The Alchemist: Wikipedia says production of the movie is "no longer happening". However, this is contradicted by the cited source, where the producers said "The issue is anticipated to be resolved in the coming days and the project back on track within weeks, potentially." There was a recent announcement about a new studio taking over the rights to get production started again and Palmstar Media will be producing it.[19]
• Legal Issues: The casual reader would see this section title and think my company is in legal trouble. However, I am the Plaintiff in both mentioned lawsuits. I think this section violates WP:CRITS, because it is dedicated to those collaboration deals where controversies arose and should be merged with the Collaboration Deals section.
• National Lampoon lawsuit specifically: This violates WP:UNDUE, because it is cited to a niche trade publication for legal issues that churns out large volumes of blurbs, announcements, and re-written press releases. It's the equivalent of citing daily stock tips from investor publications.

Pinging @Drmies: and @Graywalls:, who have both shown an interest in the page/situation. Ksf207 (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• @Graywalls:, your opinion is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

This might be a topic for NPOV/N than BLP. Something like Johnson Brothers (hypothetical) in whicvh they're notable as a group and when one of the brothers is accused of infidelity as an example an example where case-by-case application of BLP. The lawsuit is not of personal nature, but a business dispute, and appropriately sourced. Law360 is a reliable source and it has writing by its reporter Lauren Berg rather than it being a more-or-less a copy and paste of a press release. The argument that it's only an industry magazine is sound if we're talking about its use in evaluating if the article subject meets WP:NCORP to exist on Wikipedia, which I might add, PalmStar Media may not. Graywalls (talk) 00:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with Graywalls here on the BLP suggestion. I don't feel BLP really applies to major businesses, even major business which are basically the vehicle for one person. And I would consider any business making million dollar deals major. Although frankly for any business I would say BLP rarely applies in relation to the business. I mean I could imagine considering BLP for a sole trader business for a plumber or contractor or something (but it's going to be very rare this comes up in practice). I'd note that while I don't doubt the OP's claims about the nature of the PalmStar Media business, the sources I looked at just call him the CEO. Perhaps within the industry it's known that PalmStar Media is just the OP, but I think most people are just going to think of PalmStar Media as a major business without realising it's only the OP involved. Note that this doesn't mean we can ignore any possible issues simply that dealing with them from a BLP lens is not the right solution. BLP would still apply in any case where our article makes an accusation against the OP (e.g. as the CEO). Nil Einne (talk) 13:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:, I mean, if a business satisfies NCORP as a business, I don't see BLP applying on matters concerning business regardless of the size of business. A band involved in a lawsuit over contractual disputes as a band with the venue or the recording industry that is deemed significant enough by the media to have an article is not BLP. A band member who got into a barfight facing allegation of assault is BLP even if the news coverage identifies the accused as a member of the particular band that was touring. Graywalls (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi All. Part of the reason I think the issue is personal in nature is because the negative content started on a page about me at: Draft:Kevin Frakes, then got posted on the company page after a personal one didn't succeed.

In any case, I'll use the other noticeboard if that is the more appropriate place, but I'll drop the complaint about Law360 per Graywall's feedback and wait to see if anything happens here. Ksf207 (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

This Azerbaijani diplomat is quoted in the article Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians as saying:

Elchin Amirbeyov, the representative of the Azerbaijani president, said that "a genocide may happen" if the Republic of Artsakh did not capitulate, with the reference to an article in The Christian Post [20] However the original interview of Amirbeyov to DW is available online, and this is not what he said. He actually said:

"First of all you have to approach this issue from purely legal point of view, from the point of international law. There is no evidence which was provided by those who suggest that there is genocide in the making, that these people are exterminated because of their ethnic origin. As I said, a genocide may happen only if this clique of separatists will continue to hold hostage their own population in order to get to their political goals. We must be very attentive and careful with using this very hard accusation".

He was actually rejecting the accusations of ethnic cleansing. The Christian Post conveyed this part as:

"Elchin Amirbayov, a senior spokesman for Azerbaijan's president, had earlier predicted that "a genocide may happen" if Nagorno Karabakh's elected leaders do not submit."

This is an inaccurate quote of what exactly was said. But the Wikipedia article in question distorts even the inaccurate The Christian Post article, because neither source used the words such as "Republic of Artsakh", or "capitulate". Since it is a BLP issue, we must be careful with ascribing to living persons things that they did not say. If we are to quote this diplomat, his speech should be quoted directly from the original source, using the exact same wording that this person himself used, and not via an obscure newspaper article. Grandmaster 09:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

As I said, a genocide may happen only if this clique of separatists will continue to hold hostage their own population in order to get to their political goals.

This is like a mob boss saying "If you don't pay for protection a fire may happen." The secondary source has recognized that; there is no BLP problem here. BilledMammal (talk) 09:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Context is important here. The phrase should be quoted within the whole context. Grandmaster 10:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

We prefer secondary sources on Wikipedia, we're not going to use a YouTube video for "context", this is bizarre. And the "context" isn't much better to begin with. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 10:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

A not so well-known religious newspaper is not a good source on what the Azerbaijani diplomat said. Grandmaster 13:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

YouTube video is a worse source than a secondary source. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it's necessary to question the competence of an editor who thinks if [the Republic of Artsakh] will continue to hold hostage their own population in order to get to their political goals cannot be accurately paraphrased as if the Republic of Artsakh does not capitulate. Explain to us why continue to hold hostage their own population in order to get to their political goals does not mean does not capitulate. And there is also a POV in the quote because Amirbeyov frames the blockade as somehow being Artsakhi hostage-holding of Artsakh's population to reach political goals instead of Azerbaijani hostage-holding of Artsakh's population to reach political goals despite Azerbaijan being the blockader according to the consensus of reliable sources. JM2023 (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

At this point it would be useful to get the opinions of uninvolved users. Any third party opinions would be highly appreciated. Thank you. Grandmaster 18:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

At this point it would also be useful if you could explain to us why continue to hold hostage their own population in order to get to their political goals does not mean does not capitulate, so that uninvolved users can get an idea of what your problem is here. JM2023 (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Weird situation where western media claims a picture of two Chinese athletes hugging each other was sensored, but users in talk have provided sources to Chinese websites ^[1][2] that show images are still available on Chinese websites. Not too sure how to approach this situation.

Also, edit on Wu Yanni's page here seems to be WP:COATRACK. the results of other athletes is off tangent. edit keeps getting returned.

I haven't looked into this deeply, but e.g. this BBC article claims that the images have been removed from Weibo but that some Chinese news articles still [show] a photo of the two athletes. This seems to agree with the talkpage comments.

As for the content about the 2022 Asian Games, the relevance to Wu Yanni's career seems clear to me; exactly what text should be included can be discussed on Talk:Wu Yanni but I don't see it as coatracking or a BLP concern. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

i found a video on Weibo that shows them hugging each other at the 1:05-1:07 mark of the video (first posted by the Chinese track and field team). the reportedly sensored image of them hugging with the numbers 6 and 4 can be clearly seen. Prior to them hugging, you can see them stand next to each other with the numbes 6 and 4. if a user decides to scroll through the media feed on weibo, they'll find the image on different media posts.

https://m.weibo.cn/search?containerid=100103type%3D1%26q%3D%E5%90%B4%E8%89%B3%E5%A6%AE%20%E6%9E%97%E9%9B%A8%E8%96%87#&video LilAhok (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I still have yet to figure out how to "twinkle back" or revert past one history summary. I cannot find anywhere online to back the claim that this BLP Lois Wright is deceased. Could someone restore to the original version? unless I'm missing something like an Obit. The editor is not registered so either it is just an innocent edit or they know the BLP and wanted to update the page. Regardless, there is no source to back the claim given. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 13:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, AndyTheGrump. Maineartists (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Maineartists and AndyTheGrump: It's not a sterling source, but I have no reason to doubt the announcement of her death on Facebook (archived link). Perhaps that can be used until better RSes appear. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 22:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that citing Facebook in such circumstances would fall afoul of WP:BLPSPS. We should probably wait for an obituary or other WP:RS source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, facebook isn't good enough. There's no editorial oversight and just no way of knowing if it's true, a bad joke, a hoax, or even someone trying to fake their own death. Declaring someone dead is a huge deal, and we would much rather have an article that simply hasn't reported someone's death than to report it and end up being wrong. An obituary from a local newspaper is usually good for that, if you can find one. If the family is complaining that we haven't reported it ourselves, then I would suggest to them to write an obituary and submit it to their local newspaper. Newspapers won't print one automatically, so someone has to submit it, but then we would have a reliable source we could easily use. Zaereth (talk)

• Narumon Pinyosinwat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

For the past few days a team of new and unregistered editors have been fluffing this biography of a Thai politician. A short section in the bio describes her being ousted from Cabinet and her government portfolios, cited to two articles in the Bangkok Post. I don't know about reliability of this source, but the first citation supports the article content while the second only really does tangentially and possibly should be removed. The new editors have been removing this section and replacing it with a narrative that she resigned and was then appointed to a different position, but this narrative has no sources at all. They have also been peppering the bio with honorifics counter to MOS:HONORIFIC.

I would appreciate more eyes on this. I have warned one of the editors, but each time one is reverted a new one shows up a day or two later. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that Toni Storaro was born in Kardzhali and his sons too please don't post fake information and where is the proove that he was from turkish descent?

I though he was from pomak origin since him and his sons don't speak turkish

1. toofake — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.237.42.162 (talk) 22:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The one cited source in the article says that he was born in Shumen and is of Turkish ethnicity, at least according to Google translate. Do you have any source for the claim that he is Pomak or that he was born in Kardzhali? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 06:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Lauren Williams (journalist) This article has a picture of the wrong person. The Lauren Williams in the picture is a faculty member at UC Berkley and teaches math. There is at least one picture of the Journalist Lauren Jones in the cited sources, and the two are clearly different people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thmsgrdn (talk • contribs) 17:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the incorrect photo, @Thmsgrdn, thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Beno Axionov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Materialscientist. Please do not remove content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Beno Axionov.

Content removal does not appear constructive.

You have removed the story of Beno Axionov from reliable sources -Theater Beno Axionov / Contributor Valentina Skliarova / Chişinău F.E.P. "Tipografia Centrală" 2006 160 p.: foto ISBN 978-9975-78-480-1 Library of Congress https://id.loc.gov/resources/works/15083722.html https://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n2007089732.html and Larisa Shorina The World Through the Eyes of Theater: history of the State Russian Drama Theater named after A.P. Chekhov - Chișinău F.E.P. "Tipografia Centrală" — 192 p. ISBN 9975-9634-3-9 Russian State Library https://search.rsl.ru/ru/record/01002417614 The data you deleted exists from many sources. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IonCon2 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

You should first discuss your concerns at the article's talk page, rather than coming straight here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The correct place to discuss this would be the articles talk page. I would also suggest reading WP:BRD which discusses how best to deal with such situations. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a disagreement with another editor regarding the employment history of Sun Yafang. A report by Open Source Enterprise quotes other media sources in China that Sun had worked for the country's intelligence agency. Those sources have not been verified yet by the other editor, and I am not familiar with them, but I believe the claim needs additional verification. Initially I added a template to the Huawei article.[21] It was removed by the other editor, who also restored the information after I removed it.[22] Is request for comments a good way to handle this? It affects at least two articles simultaneously. Discussion sections are here and here. CurryCity (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

RFCs are generally a last resort, not the first. First, you need to have discussions that better explain to outsiders what this is all about. The place to begin is to have a discussion on the article's talk page. If that fails to reach a consensus, then WP:DRN is a good place to go for some helpful mediation. If that fails, then it's time to start thinking about an RFC. This noticeboard is more for reporting violations of BLP policy in specific.

I did look at the article's history, which gave me a better idea of the dispute (but don't count on everyone to do that). Anyhow, the CIA is a primary source and therefore should not really be used for this type of info. In addition to being like using a police report or other government documents, it requires too much interpretation by the reader --and a lot of background information to be interpreted properly-- which is why we rely on secondary sources. For example, the CIA is far different than they're portrayed in the movies. Unlike the FBI or the police, the CIA is not a law enforcement agency. They usually don't go around shooting people, and mostly have rather boring jobs of gathering information. Reading newspapers. Gathering an unconsolidated mixture of facts, rumors, and stuff they heard through the grapevine. They gather all they can get and then spend the rest of their lives trying to separate out the wheat from the chaff. They're dealing with real intel, misinformation, disinformation, and other methods of counterintelligence based upon mistrust and suspicion. Not the type of thing a mere Wikipedian would be expected to interpret properly.

That said, the Washington Post article is a good one. It's a secondary source and we can rely on their interpretations of the CIA report. However, it's not neutral to give only one side of the story without noting where the CIA reportedly got this info, which allegedly was from a Chinese newspaper article, or giving the other side where the company spokesperson denied these allegations. Does that make sense? In other words, based on the Wa Post article, it seems like info that belongs in the article but, as written in our article, it also seems far too one-sided to be neutral when compared to what Wa Post says. Whether it's undue or balanced is another thing to consider altogether, since we only have the one secondary source thus far, but that's best discussed by involved editors who are very familiar with the subject and the sources. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 00:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Not the Post but the Washington Times which is not considered as reliable as the Post.[23] I'm thinking there may be an UNDUE issue here. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Another editor has indeed added a Washington Post citation in addition to CBC News[24][25] so that addresses my concern. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It should still say reported, not as a fact, because Washington Post quotes a 2017 Chinese magazine essay "under her name", CBC quotes James Andrew Lewis from CSIS, the CIA piece quotes a 2010 Chinese media article, and Washington Times quotes the CIA piece. CurryCity (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced claims of death. I can't find any mention on Google so far. More eyes, please. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• Semi-protected (thanks for your reversions). Will keep an eye on it. On a separate issue, is this person actually notable? Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
  • That's a good question. Thank you, Black Kite. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  I just removed it again, sourced fomr a distinctly unreliable forum. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• Robert B. Spencer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I feel that there is potential borderline libel labeling him as anti-muslim rather than anti-islam, all of the sources I've read really seem like smear pieces based on everything I have read and heard and from his own website and his books. This paints him as a racist when he only condemns islamic extremism and the religion of islam. I'm arguing from the same ground that transgender women identify as women, adherents of islam identify as muslim. The closest thing he has made to anything even remotely anti-muslim is the title of a book "Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West" where he is clearly referring to the religion islam and not the actual muslim people, he only cites islamic sources and scholars to back up his claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.131.151 (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, several things. I'll start by saying that using "So-and-so is an anti-muslim." is extremely poor writing, especially as the opening sentence. It sounds childish and completely unprofessional. Above all else, he's a blogger, and the reader needs to know this first before telling us what he is known for blogging about. Name calling in an obvious attempt to illicit an emotional response from the reader is... childish.

That said, I think you may be drawing a distinction without a difference. There is no muslim race, so arguments of racism are moot. People of all races are in fact muslim. Also, your argument about transgender is flawed. Napoleon self-identified as a great leader, yet the people of France disagreed, and my brother identifies as a nice guy when in fact he's kind of an a-hole. The subject may say he's not anti-muslim, but his actions may tell a different story, and that's the thing we're interested in. Muslims don't "identify" as muslims, that's just what they are. People only have to identify as something when they are not that thing, and usually it's a case of trying to unconsciously convince themselves rather than others. If you truly believe, then no one needs convincing. (The person we know least is almost always ourselves, so humans spend a lot of times trying to convince themselves otherwise. The whole field of psychiatry is built on that foundation.) So we don't always take people's word for it when they self identify as something, except in certain cases where it's morally or socially right to do so, such as gender or sexual orientation, but for most things it's far better to let the actions of the subject do the talking.

Which brings this full circle. It's going to be difficult to achieve any kind of consensus with the arguments you're using, but that doesn't mean you're wrong. The sources do use the phrase "anti-muslim", and for many that's going to be a difficult hurdle to get past. Of course, the sources are the bottom of the barrel as the hierarchy of sources go, being news outlets, and the articles themselves are poorly written. Good writing doesn't use name calling. Name calling is just a way of invoking emotions and the part of the brain that categorizes and stereotypes, rather than than the part that works things out logically and rationally, which is a great propaganda tactic but also incredibly obvious to anyone with half a wit, which is why it comes off as child-like. Better would be to let the actions do all the talking and let the reader come to their conclusions on their own. It's not only better writing, but is far more believable that way. Zaereth (talk) 03:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Spencer is well known as a prominent figurehead of the "counter-jihad" movement, which is widely described as islamophobic by reliable sources. The IP just seems to be unhappy with the way RS describe Spencer. I wouldn't oppose a change to "anti-Islam" though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe so, I've never heard of him before. Doesn't change the fact that it's poor writing. That's the way people speak in the here and now, and it's expected from a newspaper because they report in the present tense and the first person, plus they make more money when they can stir up emotions. Encyclopedias aren't written that way. For an example, just check any really good article. Now I'm not drawing any parallels here whatsoever, but just as an example, check out the article on Adolph Hitler. We don't start off by saying he was an anti-semite. In fact, we don't say it at all. No need to, his actions speak too loudly to hear it anyhow. We say he promoted anti-semitism. We explain all the anti-semitic things he did and said. At best it would come off as unprofessional and childish, and at worst it would insult the reader's intelligence by pointing out the obvious. As I said, it's far more convincing that way. Zaereth (talk) 03:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for my poorly written arguments, but I just feel that there are several logical fallacies within the arguments for painting him as anti-muslim, what I am getting at is that muslim is an identity and islam is a religion and the tenants of that religion identify as muslim, but spencer does not attack muslims as people he attacks their viewpoints using their own scholar's sources and religious texts. Possibly a "Courtier's reply" or some sort of appeal to authority fallacy in which the writers of the articles are not subject matter experts on the topic. Virtually all of his work covers jihad and islamic extremism so I feel it is unfair to state him as categorically anti-muslim and feel that anti-islam matches the broader context that his works cover. 69.154.131.151 (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

No insult intended. Please take it as constructive criticism in order to help you. I understand your point. It just seems like a distinction without a difference. I could say, as a Viking, I'm anti-catholic. (Not that I am, just an example.) Does that mean I dislike catholics, or catholicism? Since a religion is made up of the people who believe in it, not the other way around, then does it really make a difference?

See, this sort of thing comes up here a lot, whether it's anti-muslim, anti-vaccines, or moon-landing deniers, there's this natural tendency of people to want to simply slap an emotional label on it that will invoke people's prejudices. It's a tactic as old as time itself. The Romans did it. The Nazis did it. The Allies did it. The KKK did it. We're still doing it today. Small children do it. It's far easier to slap a label on something because then you can define that subject simply by the connotations that label invokes. It goes to the very strengths and weaknesses of how the vertebrate mind operates. (For more, see User:Zaereth#Little boxes.) It relies on people's stereotypes and prejudices without all those actual facts that get in the way of achieving the goal intended by the author, which is why it's such a good propaganda tool. People can try to rationalize it in a million different ways, but the simple fact is that people use these labels because their emotions tell them to, not their brains.

But it's poor writing. We shouldn't insult the reader's intelligence by telling them he's anti-muslim or anti-islam, regardless if either or both of those is true. Look at it from the reader's point of view. It's would be like saying "Darth Vader is evil." That would make me think, "He blew up an entire planet, you moron. Don't you think I can see that for myself?" In writing there's an old saying: "Show. Don't tell." The best thing to do is to rewrite it to show me the subject is anti-whatever. Don't come right out and tell me it. Give me some credit for having a brain. It's more difficult to do that way, but that's what makes it good writing. Zaereth (talk) 04:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

We tell the reader his source of notability. In this case, being anti-Muslim. Without "JihadWatch", we would likely not have an article on him. It's what he is: an Islamophobic troll. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe the article for Shani Louk is a violation of privacy and Wikipedia guidelines and policies. It should be either deleted or redirected fully to Re'im music festival massacre.

WP:AVOIDVICTIM WP:BLP1E — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:598:89F9:DCA2:1:2:6241:F50B (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

This matter is now pending at articles for deletion. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• Eammon Fingleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

From Blindside1995:

This article has been tagged as an “autobiography”. I am the subject of the article and would like this tag to be removed, as it is not true.

Up to a few weeks ago I had not looked at the page in nearly three years and I was unaware of the tag.

It would appear that I -- or someone close to me -- did do some significant editing at the time the entry was launched more than fifteen years ago (I actually have no memory of this but Wikipedia's record seems clear). Regardless, as per the article's edit history, those initial contributions now constitute less than 10 percent of the article's length. The vast bulk of the article has been created and edited by neutral parties with no connection to me. I therefore submit that the tag should be deleted. Blindside1995 (talk) 08:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@WhinyTheYounger: for their opinion since they added the tag. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the tag given that a bulk of the article as it stands now was written by Hubbert545. Outstanding issues remain — primarily the very heavy reliance on primary sources — but I don't feel those warrant another tag, personally. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 12:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Hubbert545 appears to be a paid editor, and 100% of their contributions are about this person and their book. That does not resolve the issue. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

So:

• Efingleton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created the article
• Blindside1995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) essentially admits to being the subject.

Of those making non-trivial contributions (rather than the numerous well-intentioned efforts to clean up the PR),

• Zclex30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a WP:SPA
• Inrake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a WP:SPA
• Rogerferris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has no history other than this and creating two other articles with indicia of paid editing
• Hubbert545 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a WP:SPA
• Blakedylan2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has no other edits other than creating an article on the subject's brother, also with indicia of paid editing
• Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) banned from BLPs and since banned as a sockpuppeteer
• Riteboke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) banned as a sock of what looks to me like a WP:UPE farmer

This is about as inauspicious as it gets. I removed the huge swathes of self-sourced puffery ($SUBJECT has a hugely important opinion on X, source, $SUBJECT's Forbes Contributor article laying out his opinion on X) and... there's virtually nothing left. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Some time ago this news anchor was accused by a tabloid newspaper of paying for pictures from an underage person. The underage person themself denied this and the police said there was no crime. The WP page however continues to state information that is defamatory and whenever I try to remove it editor(s) bring it back. Some of the 2023 Suspension section is defamatory but because these allegations were widely reproduced it is very easy to find reputable sources.

1) The WP page says "The Sun's subsequent reporting said the contact began when the teenager was 17, without specifying when explicit photos were first exchanged." This statement should be removed because its WP:TABLOID, and implies he's committed a crime.

2) The following passage should be removed "A timeline was established that the initial complaint about Edwards's behaviour had been made to the BBC by a family member of the young person on 18 May, with a phone conversation taking place the following day." This statement should be removed because we are not a tabloid investigation team.

3) The following passage should be removed "A second person accused Edwards of sending "abusive, expletive-filled messages" and a third accused Edwards of breaking COVID-19 lockdown rules in February 2021" because its trying to build a case for his criminality from minor stuff. Desertarun (talk) 10:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Re 1, there is no such implication because it is not written in WP:WIKIVOICE.

Re 2, there's no original research or investigation going on here, merely a reflection of what reliable sources have said about the BBC's investigation into the reports; the reliable source in this case ironically being BBC News's report on BBC management's investigation.

RE 3, again the article is not trying to "build a case" but merely reflect on what was reported about the investigations into Edwards in the aftermath of The Sun's reporting.

The article makes no assertion regarding the truthfulness or otherwise of The Sun's reporting. None of the sources used are The Sun itself because that is not a reliable source; instead all the references are to solid, reliable secondary sources. This was(/is) a major episode in Edwards' life and any biographical article on him would be remiss not to include a section on it. I don't see any policy-based reason for removing the sections mentioned above, they are all well sourced and don't add undue weight. WaggersTALK 10:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

WP has its own very strict rules on defamation and all of this isn't passing those rules. Using reliable sources to verify what a tabloid newspaper says is highly problematic and editors are re-adding highly contentious material on that basis. Desertarun (talk) 11:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The onus is on you to specify precisely which rules you think are being broken here. Again, nobody is "using reliable sources to verify what a tabloid newspaper says" in this article. WaggersTALK 11:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Does the section need to exist? Well, yes. But I'm pretty sure that (a) the section doesn't need to be that long or detailed to say that "no evidence of criminality was found", yet it feels the need to say that four times (b) the section doesn't need to open with an unreliable tabloid rag's quote about Edwards ("sordid" - really?), and (c) it doesn't need to end with a sentence from various randoms accusing him of things with no evidence. And if you'd like a policy, WP:UNDUE. Black Kite (talk) 11:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

It could definitely be pared back per WP:DUE and doesn't need its own section header. But as long as The Sun's claims are attributed to The Sun and not presented as fact, there's no defamation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm unable to trim it because, it all gets undone immediately. I'm unable to mark the section as UNDUE because that gets removed immediately. Desertarun (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you should try discussing proposed changes and getting consensus for them on the talk page instead of just making them on the article. WaggersTALK 12:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

By the way I agree the section needs trimming down a bit but the assertion that there's some kind of defamation is ridiculous. I'm not sure how much belongs in the BBC section and how much (if any) should go under Personal Life as there's clearly a bit of overlap. WaggersTALK 12:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

If it was only a tabloid such as The Sun (United Kingdom) making these allegations, there would be a problem with BLP. However, by now The Sun allegations against Edwards have been reported in just about every reliable source as the reason for his suspension in July 2023. There were also other allegations afterwards, and these were also reported in reliable sources. It is not the job of Wikipedia to police what reliable sources say. Even the BBC website explains why Edwards was suspended. Maybe we should accuse the BBC of defamation of Edwards if this sort of logic is going to be used.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree - and I also agree that this is something that should have been discussed on the article talk page first. The OP has posted precisely one edit there ...and it's notice of this thread. I'm sure that there's trimming that could be agreed (on the talk page) but fundamentally the article needs to explain why one of the most prominent and ubiquitous people in UK television has suddenly disappeared from on British TV screens - something which, as IanMacM points out, the BBC's own website does. DeCausa (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Its been done. Regards for WP:BOLD to ♦IanMacM♦. Desertarun (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Apparently, Mika Tosca posted some offensive and unwise remarks about the Israel-Palestine conflict to Instagram. Her remarks have been picked up by unreliable sources like the Daily Mail, NYPost and Washington Times, also by some not-blacklisted but also lower-quality sources like the local Sinclair outlets. Tosca is transgender, and there may be some anti-trans or culture war issues underlying. It may be that a brief mention is eventually due, but I am not seeing it yet. The situation could use more eyes from BLP experts. (The article is semi-protected already.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

These types of edits fall under WP:PIA and the article may be eligible for WP:ECP if this continues. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I feel it important to add a Controversy section to the bio of living person, because its important that people are aware of her antisemitism. This is fair, as such a section exists for e.g. David Duke, using the ADL profile to highlight his antisemitism. The ADL have also referenced Jasbir Puar's antisemitism here: https://nynj.adl.org/news/vassarcollege/

Here is the diff showing the section I added on the right. It has been removed for apparently using partisan sources.

Can I get consensus for adding this section? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jasbir_Puar&diff=prev&oldid=1180938005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacker1968 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

You should find stronger sources that are not WP:RSOPINION to discuss these points. Also keep in mind about WP:RGW. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm the editor who removed the content for multiple reasons. The overriding reason is that WP:BLP applies; adding a "controversies" section header, followed by two allegations/quotes sourced from partisan sources, does not meet the requirements of BLP or WP:NPOV. If there are reliable NPOV sources regarding antisemitism by Jasbir Puar, the such material can be added to the article in a manner that meets our policies regarding living persons, neutrality and WP:DUE. Jacker1968 has recieved two WP:PIA notifications on their talk page, but judging by their recent edits I don't think they understand the requirements for editing in this topic area.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Several of the remarks under the "Controversies" are contentious and could possibly be seen as defamatory. Keep in mind all of these sentences have exactly 0 sources, let alone reliable ones

(Redacted)

I suggest we remove the entire "Controversy" section until the POV gets removed and proper sources is added--Trade (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Since I was asked to comment here, I will agree that the controversies section should be removed in its entirety, since it's unsourced and as such violates WP:BLP. As I've marked the article for deletion per WP:G10, I also believe we should go further and delete the article as almost entirely negative and completely unsourced. Considering this thread at AN, the draft should also be salted. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 22:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you think we should salt the title of the draft? This is the sixth time it's getting re-created Trade (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

According to the logs, administrator Ponyo has already done so. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 22:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Yup, I protected it to match the main space protection. No need to let the disruption slide into draft space as BLP applies project wide (including this page, so I've redacted the BLP violations from above as well).-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the redaction, I overlooked that factor. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 22:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• User:CoronaEditor/sandbox/SSSniperWolf
• User:Hahahahalalalala/sandbox
• User:Gameramy121amygamer121/sandbox
• User:Mason Morris/sandbox

Should these user pages be deleted under the Sssniperwolf draft ban? One of the pages even have a draft template --Trade (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Meh. They're all long abandoned. I zapped two of them as they contained a bunch of unsourced personal info, but the other two aren't that concerning.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The "Controversy" section is potentially defamatory and does not contain any sources Trade (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted that per BLPCRIME for the most part, and the fact that it was unsourced. When you see something like that please feel free to delete it on sight. Zaereth (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Do i have to report it here each time or is there just a template i can use instead? Trade (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Not necessarily, unless they start restoring it. However, in cases like this it wouldn't hurt to ask an admin for revision deletion to eradicate it from the history. Zaereth (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Several editors have made POV edits[26][27][28][29] in the Mia Khalifa article over the last week about her comments over the Israel - Gaza conflicts which has had some impact on her career. Since I believe these edits fall under WP:PIA and subject to 1RR, I need additional eyes on this article. Most of the edits are from newer accounts so I have also requested ECP as an arbitration sanction. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The article is now ECP'd.[30] Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Vice.com_and_transphobia_description, but that discussion should have been put here, rather than there. I am notifying BLP/N follows to comment there as the discussion was already started. Graywalls (talk) 06:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

And in schadenfreude news, Sidney Powell has pled guilty to six counts in Georgia.

However, there are multiple sections about this case in Sidney Powell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and we are essentially saying the same thing in the first para (because it's kind of important to an article on a lawyer), the end of the lede, the section on Georgia, and the section on criminal indictments. There must be a way of streamlining this? Guy (help! - typo?) 15:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. This is an important story and will have more information to come as time goes by. For now, it should be simply stating the facts of the plea deal, which are clear and without ambiguity. This section should be narrowed and streamlined. Go4thProsper (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The "controversy" section contains allegations of criminal conduct and suffers from a serious lack of sources, sources being unreliable (Proving Pyrocynical's Guilt - Turkey) and sentences that comes off as original research and the authors own personal opinion rather verified factsTrade (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The OS team declined to delete revisions so i am bringing it up here--Trade (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, that page is a big "nope". BLP violations, unsourced allegations, copyright issues, etc. WP:TNT most definitely applies here, so I've deleted it. Black Kite (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Might wanna keep an eye out for Pyrocynical and Draft:Pyrocynical in case of recreation.--Trade (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Welp, looks both of those were salted. Guess we are never getting an article about him now. Could you salt Draft:Pyrocynical (YouTuber) as well?-Trade (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I've just watchlisted it instead. If someone is that desperate to recreate it, they'll simply use a slightly different title. Black Kite (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I want to mention who he is married to in the page. While it's Facebook, given the context, I believe it passes the reliability requirement for this purpose. Any objections? https://www.facebook.com/mikeschmidt4da/videos/a-message-from-clare-schmidt/233708147896350/ https://www.mikeschmidtforda.com/ is his official campaign page which is of no concerns about authenticity and that Facebook account mikeschmidt4da is the same account that is linked from there, and the video was posted by the campaign page administrator, not a commentator. Graywalls (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

No. Please review the policies about this with WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:BLPNAME. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Found this article at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Muhammad_Sawalha. Huge sections of quite serious allegations made against this individual are unsourced. Really needs thorough trimming/sourcing. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up as much as I could.[31] There was a lot of allegations based on WP:BLPPRIMARY material that was removed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts -- But you removed sourced references to his controversial purchases of council housing in London at a discount of more than ₤100,000 in a Jewish neighborhood near two synagogues and also left undisturbed THIS in the lede: "to help the besieged Palestinian people", which violates POV and SYNTHESIS.

Sawalha helped found the Muslim Association of Britain and was also requested by the London's Metropolitan Police to become a trustee of the Finsbury Park Mosque. In addition, he signed the 2009 Istanbul Declaration, which reaffirms resistance as a valid means to oppose Israeli state terrorism, illegal occupation and war crimes against the civilian Palestinian population" -- violates POV and SYNTHESIS, among other sections, for those of us who haven't memorized the entire ever-expanding WP canon.

And "was also requested by the London's Metropolitan Police to become a trustee of the Finsbury Park Mosque" is unsourced and not found anywhere in BLP article.

He also holds British citizenship which is easily confirmed by RS. 50.75.202.186 (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I did not even see any mention of his purchases off the version of the article I worked off of. So no, that was not me. Further, I did not review the lead; hence my lack of edits there. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The fact that his house is near two Jewish synagogues is sensationalist and not encyclopedic. I'm unclear as to the relevance of the £100,000 discount. I've removed several of your other complaints from the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I noticed Hist9600 added this content here which claims: "In the 1990s, Zucker's clinic continued to view being transgender primarily as a mental disorder, while other clinics began to view being transgender as a type of normal human variation". It cites this book by transgender activist Florence Ashley (page 4). I have never seen Zucker say being transgender is a mental disorder, although he thinks gender dysphoria (previously gender identity disorder) is one (the feeling of discomfort or distress that might occur in people whose gender identity differs from their sex assigned at birth)

To back up this claim, Ashley cites "Zinck & Pignatiello, supra Note 7 at 1: Diana Kohl, Death of the Clinic: Trans Informing the Clinical Gaze to Counter Epistemic Violence (PhD Dissertation, University of Western Ontario, 2019) at 25 [UNPUBLISHED]"

So, Florence used an unpublished source for this claim. Surely this fails WP:VER and WP:BURDEN. She makes no reference to any of Zucker's writing in which he states "being transgender is a mental disorder". She is potentially misrepresenting 'gender dysphoria as a mental disorder' to construct the claim that Zucker thinks 'being transgender is a mental disorder'? I wonder if Florence's book would be considered WP:QUESTIONABLE or WP:BIASED (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Flaws) and should therefore be avoided? It is well known that clinicians distinguish between being transgender, and gender dysphoria (as a condition), as shown here on the APA. Kenneth Zucker is certainly a controversial figure, but this seems like a misrepresentation. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I would say that the disputed edit does not appropriately restate what the book actually says about the clinic: that its practice was outdated even though contemporary understanding views being transgender as normal human variation rather than a mental disorder. Given WP:REDFLAG, it shouldn't be included unless there are multiple RS about this, preferably peer-reviewed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Zenomonoz, reliable sources are not required to cite their sources, or to use only published sources. Our requirement for Wikipedia:Published sources only applies to Wikipedia editors, not to reliable sources.

The publisher is good, so perhaps you would like to read the opening chapter and see what statements you could (accurately) use it to support. A source's reliability depends on what it's being cited for, and I'm sure this book could be cited for something appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Morbidthoughts, that does seem to be the case. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

There has been a long-term campaign by an IP user in Austalia to accuse Dave Plummer of a crime based upon a settlement he made in 2006 with the Washington State Attorney General's Office. See [32], [33] and [34].

This resulted in a previous page protection [35] and there are a number of hidden revisions that are not visible to me that I presume contain similar accusations.

The IP accuses Plummer of editing his his own page, which is certainly possible, but on the other hand his YouTube channel has half a million subscribers, many of whom no doubt geolocate to Redmond, Washington.

In my opinion, the 12:45, 18 October 2023 version[36] was in compliance with WP:BLPCRIME. I also question the edit to the Scareware page, [37] but I may be biased, so I ask someone else to please evaluate it. Do we really want to base accusations on press releases from prosecutors instead of third party reliable sources? --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 14:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

In the lead of the article of former basketball player Yolanda Griffith, there is a claim that states that she is considered one of the greatest rebounders and defensive players in the history of Women's Basketball. The only source in the article stating so comes from a quote from the head coach of the team that had just signed her[38]. While the subject was most certainly an accomplished player, I have been unable to find any reliable and independent sources that confirm the above claim so I took it out only for it to be repeatedly reverted by an ip user (see article history). I've attempted to leave a talk page message with the IP user in question as well as at the article talk page and WikiProject Basketball but received no responses. I would think that such lofted claims would have to be backed up by reliable and independent sources. Alvaldi (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, her employer's statement announcing her joining them is clearly not a reliable source for this claim. I see the claim has been reinstated with a video from the NBA as a second source. That video may be a better source, though if I were being picky I might query whether "most dominant" (what the video describes her as) is the same as "greatest"; a sportsperson can be dominant in comparison to their cohort without being objectively one of the greatest ever. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

There is the question of whether NBA sources can be considered independent of WNBA players since the NBA owns a big part of it and has financial incentives in promoting its current and former players. There are however some independent sources that describe Griffith as a dominant player, so there shouldn't really be a problem with describing her along the lines of a dominant player in her prime, but I've yet to encounter one that states she is one of the greatest of all time in those categories. Alvaldi (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

In article Indian espionage case in Qatar -

• 8 living persons have been labeled charges of spying on Qatar even before their conviction.

I raise objection this nomenclature based on following-

1. There is no Primary Source indicating charges levied on them(Espionage) == Wikipedia:Libel is attracted here

2.Source(Middle east monitor) in India–Qatar relations's conflict section in not RS see [1] discussion.

3. Sources in Indian espionage case in Qatar are poorly sourced and do not confirm espionage being charges. In fact Jerusalem Post source was just discussing the charges and here it was provided as a RS [39]. WOW!!

3. WP:BLPCRIME says :

editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured

Editors ignored this and used Espionage without a conviction

4. Though conviction is Reported to have been taken place there is no confirmation of it from Qatari government on Charges

Therefore I suggest no mention of Espionage as charges in the title. Also to bring to your attention talk page [40]. here, I supported the move stating same facts. But i am not sure though if suggested page will solve concerns regarding BLP. I seek guidance and remedy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankraj giri (talk • contribs) 19:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Possibly the article wording could do with improvements but I think we clearly have to include media speculation they were possibly convicted of espionage offences while making clear the precise details have not been publicly revealed. This isn't a BLPCRIME case without convictions or charges. In fact it seems clear from RS that the people involved have been sentenced to death, it's just that precisely what they've been accused and convicted of has been kept fairly secret. Nil Einne (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

NO nil einne.. There is no RS yet on neither conviction nor charges. Ministry of External Affairs (India) just said it has learned that they have been convicted with death penalty, but they are awaiting detailed judgement. Earlier that day one of the relative took to twitter to explain her anguish on this whole secrecy and confusions. Wikipedia:Libel and Wikipedia:BLPCRIME were made for the simple reasons that those facing trials have relative and therefore should be considered innocent until proven guilty. I don't think Wikipedia is news reporting website which discusses speculations. I propose we have in lead no mention of charges, then as you said we can have speculations in the article somewhere making it clear that there is public document by Qatari authorities indicating the same.

It is too late for these changes though. I am surprised that it all went unnoticed for so long.

`~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 14:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Of course we include well sourced speculation. Why wouldn't we? You would appear to want to do OR via primary documents, that you can't do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ankraj giri: not sure what nonsense you're talking about but this BBC source [41] clearly says 'India has said it is exploring all legal options after a court in Qatar sentenced eight former Indian naval officers to death on unspecified charges.' and 'On Thursday, the Indian government said it was "deeply shocked" and would take up the verdict with Qatari authorities.' It leaves no doubt that these people were convicted and sentenced to death. This isn't presented as speculation but as undisputed fact, by the BBC a highly reputable source. It also makes clear that precisely what they were convicted of is unclear, but that doesn't mean they weren't convicted. As I said, there may be legitimate issues surrounding the wording given the lack of clarity on what they were convicted of, but as long as you talk nonsense like 'There is no RS yet on neither conviction' don't expect to get anywhere. RS make it clear they not only have been convicted of something but have even been sentenced to death, it doesn't seem to be in any dispute. It is of course to possible for RS to be certain that there has been a conviction and certain of the initial sentence, but to be uncertain of what the conviction and sentence is for. It's quite likely a reason for their relatives anguish is precisely because they know their relatives could be executed at any time because they have been convicted. They are also likely unsure why etc give the secrecy, which undoubtedly adds to the anguish but I quite doubt their relatives are under any illusion that these people have been convicted and so may be executed at any time. (Qatar isn't exactly known for their human rights record, so it would hardly be surprising if they execute these people without ever informing anyone beforehand or giving relatives a chance for a final goodbye, nor making clear why they are executing them. I mean heck, I expect few people with knowledge of the country would be surprised if Qatar has executed them before even informing anyone else that they were convicted although that wasn't what happened here.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I focused on this statement by MEA- We have initial information that the Court of First Instance of Qatar has today passed a judgement in the case involving 8 Indian employees of Al Dahra company. specifically on word initial information. Anyway, this all secrecy and diplomatic language, I may have confused myself, so I apologize. Also please see my edit in -Indian espionage case in Qatar- I changed the lead and content as much as I can to my capability. Main problem remaining is the title of article, hoping we reach consensus on it soon. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 11:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a deletion/redirect discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political views of Javier Milei that may be interesting to readers of this noticeboard. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Adam B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

IP editor repeatedly adding wholly undue poorly sourced negative section. Kathleen's bike (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I have semi-protected Adam B for ten days, in the hope that the IPs indignation will fade by then. Cullen328 (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

David Ho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There were persistent edits about alleged new partner and a new child from Wc2713, Daviddaiho, Tangledfruit32. The very 1st edit, 2nd edit, and thereafter subsequent edits and also abusing minor edits. All these didn't provide verified source on these allegations.

And there's an apparent imposter Daviddaiho edits (which misuse minor edits) and an apparent sockpuppet Tangledfruit32 edits, also another edits, (that only so far edits on these allegations)

and finally Wc2713 cite a source, however it's unverified source, from google drive.

Meanwhile, I tried to look about David's family on offical websites. I also tried to find these allegations, even on news media, so far none too.

Cat12zu3 (talk) 05:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I was just about to add a report about this as it didn't show up in my search.

It seems Mr Ho might have a new partner/wife but so far I can't find a reliable source.

I've tried explaining to Mr Hos' assistant(see admission here [42]) that they need to provide a ref and add to the article, not just delete his first wife [43] and I left them a COI notice.

I have left a COI notice on the account Daviddaiho (talk · contribs) who also posted a question at the help desk, [44].

I'm struggling to find a suitable reference for his new partner.

There isn't a problem with adding a new partner if we can find a new reference and without removing his first wife unless she requests her removal via the correct channels.

This isn't a controversial edit but it needs referencing. Knitsey (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Alas! I was busy and took long time to compose it in the Talk:David Ho#Marital & personal status and remove family and children info in the article then I tried to update the status here and saw your reply.... Cat12zu3 (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, so total removal of any family/cnildren info is drastic? I going to revert myself back.... Cat12zu3 (talk) 12:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Thought that would be neutral...slient about family Cat12zu3 (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I had seen [Columbia Univ ADARC staff] [(archived)] about Wendy Chen.

Becuase of misusing minor edits, I still wary and can't be sure that both Wc2713 and Daviddaiho accounts indeed belong to [Wendy Chen] [(archived)] and David Ho. Can't be sure.

Because of lack of info publicly, including ADARC official website, or even reliable news sources, and both wiki accounts lack of verified sources...I'm not sure if that alleged David Ho personal/family status is true. Any changes has to come from David Ho himself.

Cat12zu3 (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Wc2713 (talk · contribs) who says they are David Hos' assistant has posted this PDF [45] which has Tera Wong as his spouse but I would like to hear from other editors as to whether this is enough for referencing? Knitsey (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I've also added the BLP noticeboard tag to the talk page Talk:David Ho. I will remove it when this is resolved. Knitsey (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I noted that PDF resume has been linked thru David Ho's official lab page. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I've posted that link @Hyphenation Expert: so that someone can assess if it's OK to use. I think this could be easily resolved if either the PDF or another reference is provided if the PDF isn't sufficient.

I think the two accounts I've interacted with are probably genuine and this may be a misunderstanding about deleting content when adding his new partner? Knitsey (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

So when Wc2713 comes back and mention new spouse and new child, but no publicly source, what is the next step? I couldn't tag as <<unverified source>>? Knowing it was apparently from an ADARC staff, but with no public website, no public source, what should I do? Cat12zu3 (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry my bad I just saw PDF linked to David Ho official page mentioned buy @Hyphenation Expert.

But that public link to PDF....that PDF metadata just recently created, as in few hours ago today. I see. Thanks. Cat12zu3 (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cat12zu3: it would really be helpful if you stopped deleting some of your comments as it can get quite confusing. You could maybe use strikethrough instead? Knitsey (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry my bad Cat12zu3 (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Now you've added the unreferenced information back in @Cat12zu3:.

The whole point of this is to resolve the problem with unreferenced edits.

I give up. I'm sure someone else will sort this out. Knitsey (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry my bad I should had said can close case immediately.

In the Talk:David Ho#Marital & personal status I saw <<@Cat12zu3: The resume is provided on the official lab website [46] Hyphenation Expert>>

Which happened just few hours ago today in their own ADARC official website, as per PDF resume metadata linked to that official website. (And I reply him back about how recent that is and thanked him)

(Earlier that Special:Diff/1182200425 was in google drive and not in lab official website, at that time I tried to find it on offical or reliable source so far none)

Can close the case. Thank you very much.

Cat12zu3 (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Hold up. No, this is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Per WP:BLPSELFPUB, self-published sources (like a person's resume/CV or staff page) can be used for basic, non-controversial claims about that person, but never for third parties. We need to wait for reliable, secondary sources to report this claim. Woodroar (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  I initially report these persistent edits, all these are actually about change of partner (2020 edits), then spouse and a new child (this week edits), statments that if is not true are damaging, libelous, defamatory.

  At that time until just few hours ago when ADARC official website publicly named new spouse and a new child, I tried to search from any reliable source, and since it is about family/relationship matters, also official source. Cat12zu3 (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  I Referenced that official website only on statements about new spouse and new child.

  Once again, can close the case & thank you very much.

  Cat12zu3 (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  There is no reference to a possible new partner. The link you added doesn't mention his personal life and as stated, the PDF isn't a reliable source.

  Also, you removed his previous partner/wife. Why? Knitsey (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry my bad. I going to undo my edit. Cat12zu3 (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  So here's the thing: we need to balance what we can say, as in, what our BLP policy allows us to write about, based on reliable sources and what we know is probably correct. It's unfortunate that a source from 1996 listed a spouse and that reliable sources haven't published any updates since then. In my opinion, the best thing to do would be to remove information about the spouse and children, because the named spouse and number of children are no longer correct. Neither our BLP policies nor any of our other polices require us to name a spouse or children, they only allow it in certain circumstances. It's better for our readers if we simply leave this information out rather than deceive them based on outdated information. Woodroar (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  Which at my earlier edit Special:Diff/1182294885 I thought is OK, is neutral, to remove all family info, and later I thought I could be wrong to be so drastic....

  ((Oh, so total removal of any family/cnildren info is drastic? I going to revert myself back.... Cat12zu3 (talk) 12:01, 28 October 2023))

  Any thoughts? Cat12zu3 (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'll let others chime in, but my personal preference is to remove the spouse/child details until a current reliable, secondary source reports on them. Woodroar (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  I've removed the mention of spouse and children entirely. Hopefully that solves the issue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  The first wife was referenced. But I think that for now, you're right to bin the lot. Knitsey (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  I understood. Remove family info to make it neutral like earlier Special:Diff/1182294885 and now Special:Diff/1182342303. Thank you very much. Cat12zu3 (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Is a generic "He is married with four children." considered omitting 'claims about third parties', as they're unidentified? Hyphenation Expert (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it's still just better to omit the lot. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Pure distortion: [47], [48], [49], [50]. 76.89.194.44 (talk) 05:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

See article at adoption for what it means to a family and relationships. Classifying an adopted person as unrelated is defamatory to that person as well as being false per what adoption means legally. My reverts back to the correct status quo on those articles reflect the fact that adoption created a real relationship equivalent in all aspects to that of a biological one. Classifying an adopted child as a step-child is factually wrong and degrading. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there a BLP issue here[51] or is this more likely to be coming from offwiki? It was originally removed by User:CourseCorrection (who also made this related edit[52] which User:Lemonaka reverted. and just added by - someone from Philadelphia (residental IP). Both IPs are almost certainly the same person. Doug Weller talk 12:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The material from Debbie Reese seems to fail WP:BLPSPS; while the American Indians In Children's Literature blog does have a "co-editor" (and did at the time the relevant page was posted), it looks to be a group blog for two people. However, there are also questions about his heritage sourced to Times Union (Albany), a Hearst paper which at least passes the sniff test for being a reliable source. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The author of the Times Union opinion piece (not a research article) is Chris Churchill, and he is not a "reliable source," given the many errors, misquotes, innuendos and hateful opinions from others quoted in the piece. Debbie Reesee is also unreliable, since she is currently engaged in a concerted campaign to defame and discredit Joe Bruchac, through her blog, through social media, and through letters written to his publishers. So she should not be salting his Wiki subject page with her biased opinions. 96.227.68.25 (talk) 12:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Quoting BLP policy (borrowed from comments to a similar issue with James Veitch's bio): "Biographies of living persons 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...Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.” 96.227.68.25 (talk) 12:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The Times-Union piece is by a columnist, but it does indeed seem to be a researched piece. The claim of "many errors" in the piece would require more evidence than your say-so. And if you check how that Veitch discussion is going above, you'll see that it is not coming out the way the commenter you're quoting would wish, in large part because Veitch is a public figure... a similar descriptor that could be put on a poet laureate. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia should always exercise caution but is not responsible for what reliable sources say about a subject or our articles. I learned a valuable lesson about that recently and I'm putting that lesson into practice here. Simply because you do not like what they say is not a reason to remove it from Wikipedia. Our BLP policies is not justification for removing valid allegations about a subjects life choices and decisions which has caused valid scrutiny of their conduct in sources whether COI SPA's and IP editors believe it should be otherwise or not. Wikipedia is not a court so claims of libelous material are moot. If the IP believes a source contains libelous material then I would encourage them to test that theory in a court of law where such terms may be valid (not legal advice). Throwing that term around on here is just going to get sanctions and the only reason to do so is to stymie productive discussion and collaboration or win an argument. The allegations as written currently are not sensational and we do not add value laden words you would typically see if POV puffery. They are sourced allegations. They are legit and valid and we can not dismiss them. They are properly attributed to who made the claims. They are WP:DUE. --ARoseWolf 13:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I will add this too. Biased sources are perfectly fine for Wikipedia and do not contribute or take away from their reliability. If it was based on that criteria then Wikipedia would be significantly smaller (closer to zero articles) than what it is. We get a lot of valuable and due content from biased sources because biased, either for or against, sources tend to investigate more. We are to edit in a neutral way making sure to attribute claims so they are not being made in Wiki-voice and make sure all content is DUE through collaboration. --ARoseWolf 13:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I"ve asked for semi-protection as the IP is editwarring (with the two addresses, University one first). One more revert and I'll ask for a block. Or on the other hand, I haven't edited the article, just alerted people and a project, so... Doug Weller talk 13:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I've refrained from reverting the removals pending this discussion. CourseCorrecton is still making edits to the article. I haven't evaluated all the edits but it appears on the surface to run afoul of WP:PUFF. --ARoseWolf 14:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

CourseCorrection says he is Bruchac's brother. Doug Weller talk 14:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

With that COI, they should be blocked from editing the page, especially when they have no consensus or other editors speaking in their favor.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 15:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Whatever the issue with the IP, Nat Gertler is correct that the blogspot references need to go. WP:SPS is quite clear in that Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer (bolding in the original). This doesn't depend on the reliability of the author. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Nat Gertler didn't say the blogspot reference needed to go. He said it seems to fail. In fact the times union piece, a well researched piece by an independent columnist, verifies the claims made by the blogspot source. And all our article, or all that is attributed in our article to the blogspot, says is the Abenaki First Nation contests the subjects claims of Abenaki identity. It's even properly attributed to the ones contesting the claims. So we have a reliable times union source written by a columnist and a blogspot source made by a subject matter expert in which the Abenaki First Nation, the governing body of the federally recognized Abenaki Nation, and other Indigenous scholars contest the subjects claims to be Abenaki versus the subject own claims which his economic situation has depended on and does depend on. Which is more reliable? Why is his Abenaki identity sourced to a website that makes no such claim in the first place. To get that claim from that source you must go to vermonthumanities.org then to josephbruchac.com, which is listed on the site as the subjects own personal website. That's a more reliable source than the www.timesunion.com by an independent journalist and the blogspot.com piece by a subject matter expert? --ARoseWolf 10:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

"Fails WP:BLPSPS" means it needs to go, it is not to be used as a reference for material about a living person. That applies to the reference and to any material that was sourced solely to it. His heritage is not the only thing that that blog is used for the in the article; the blog's review of one of his books is included in the Writing section. And it looks like you're reading into both my and User:ActivelyDisinterested's comments more than we're saying; neither of us has said that the heritage question needs to be eliminated from the article. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with all Nat Gertler's point. I have not made any comment on the content of the article, but SPS's cannot be used as references in any BLPs. It's a matter of policy, find other sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Another source was found and included for the challenge to his self-proclaimed identity. --ARoseWolf 18:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

If we remove that book review reference that eliminates the issue of content sole sourced to this SPS discussed here. --ARoseWolf 18:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, once both references behave been removed there won't be any SPS issue. addendum Sorry just reread your comment, it doesn't matter if it's solely references to a SPS or not. Neither reference can be used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed the two Reese references and the material sourced to it (the review and a non-primary portion of the heritage statement not supported by the remaining source.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't like giving these people another platform to promote an unsupported identity, especially one in which they make a living off the backs of a marginalized group but that's how it goes, policy and all that. I won't accept it but I will live with it. --ARoseWolf 08:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I found out about this piece of policy in a similar manner. It can be annoying, but as I've thought about it I've come to accept it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, ARoseWolf, Wiki editing is not an appropriate way to exert your personal opinion and biases about any living person. Joe is NOT engaging in cultural theft, and his identity is NOT the primary source of his success. Also, you clearly do not understand that the Canadian Abenaki First Nation is NOT the "governing body" of ALL other Abenaki (despite what a few activists are shouting). The Canadian Abenaki First Nations are NOT "federally recognized" in the US and have NO legal power over ANY Native people in the US (or over any other Native Nation in Canada, or any State legislature in the US). Joe is not a citizen of a Canadian tribe; he is a citizen of the state-recognized Nulhegan Abenaki in Vermont. So, to resolve the question of source (since you are insinuating that this is a problem), it would make the most sense to add a link to the Vermont State Legislation, rather than to Joe Bruchac's website. Here is the link: https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/chapter/01/023 CourseCorrection (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

PS: To add some factual data to the charge that Joe Bruchac is somehow making "a living off the backs of a marginalized group," it's important to note that, out of his over 180 published books, only 30 make any mention of Abenaki people, and over 50 have nothing to do at all with Native Americans. CourseCorrection (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I know this particular editor is currently blocked but I hope they will still read this. I do have an opinion on things. I am a biased individual, However, I am not edit war my biases into Wikipedia. Part of the very essence of Wikipedia, a most important part, is collaboration. I respect ActivelyDisinterested and Nat Gertler. We might have a difference of opinion but they have been through the process of editing multiple articles and content creation. They have been through many policy discussions and collaborated with countless other editors from this community, my community. We all have biases. Being human is having biases. But I know how to collaborate and I know consensus is supreme. Despite that my opinions have not changed. As stated we learn to accept. I think the subject of the article has been discussed thoroughly here and any BLP issues addressed. I refuse to promote the subject by continuing this conversation any more than needed to accomplish those goals. --ARoseWolf 11:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf@ActivelyDisinterested@CourseCorrection@NatGertler@Oncamera Bruchac's brother CourseCorrection is still editing the article including adding unsourced information. [Here he edits the article to say that Bruchac is a member of a state tribe without a source for that. Should we be going to WP:COIN? Doug Weller talk 15:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't realised there was a COI issue, unless they will stop editing the article I don't see there's much choice. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I was going to try and drop them a note to try and get them back ontrack, but I see they have taken disruptive behaviour to another article and been blocked. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I have been monitoring this "article" and been trying to bring some sanity to it. I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor so I would appreciate a mentor in following correct procedures and shallowing my learning curve. Specifically:

1. Chris Bart either is or has hired User:Stopthepresses2023 to "curate" his page. These edits largely consist of inserting weasel words to hype or downplay facts. These revisions consistently get reversed and this user does not participate in other pages. I don't think that confronting this user would yield a good-faith negotiation, so I would appreciate guidance on the correct escalation procedure.

2. I requested a page deletion which failed on the sole basis that Chris Bart had 600+ academic citations. Other editors and reviewers conceded that there is nothing - other than the his dismissal from McMaster University - to make him notable. I think the basis for keeping his page on the volume of his citations is a flawed one. Reviewers only paid brief attention to the quantity of citations and not the quality. I suspect that the bulk majority of citations were purely for introductory context and the academic was thinking "I need a quote that board diversity is a good thing. Ah, this comes up at the top of my results." I would like direction in mounting an appeal to the Keep decision that won't have me reading through scores of background information and picking through hundreds of citations. Can someone help me demonstrate that Bart's citations do not prove that he has academic notability?

3. Bart's other accomplishments are not notable in aggragate or in and of themselves. As a Diamond Jubilee medal recipient and student at CPA Ontario, I can attest that his awards are largely political and given to anyone who sufficiently self-promotes, leverages favours or kisses up to the right people. His publications have not gained any popularity (notwithstanding providing superficial background information). I need my argument in 2 to reflect this.

I am vaguely aware that there are better places to post this request. Gentle nudging in the right direction is what I'm looking for. With thanks AgarWhisper (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

You may also want to create a post at WP:COIN. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

AgarWhisper, I have indefinitely pageblocked Stopthepresses2023 from the Chris Bart article. The editor can make edit requests at Talk: Chris Bart. Cullen328 (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm much obliged for your intervention.

For the other matter of building a fresh case for deletion that specifically addresses the quality of the citations, is there advice on how to proceed short of WP:OR on the 600 citations? I attended three business schools in the same region as Prof. Bart and never heard of him. That's pretty telling if he's as significant as 600 citations imply. AgarWhisper (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

See talk page Parham wiki (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how this is a BLP issue? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Seeking input here. Many users on the talk page seem to suggest this page places undue focus on Hanania's old racist blog posts written under a pseudonym between 2008-2012, which he has since disavowed. Other editors have recently expanded the focus on this controversy in the last day.

The page failed a "did you know?" nomination, partly because "the article appears largely based on a quite negative profile of Hanania in the Huffington Post. It reads like an article that unduly focuses on negative aspects of a living person, which should largely be avoided.... the Huffington Post article quotes the original Hanania essay inaccurately and out of context." and "there are serious BLP issues here... coverage of the subject is overwhelmingly focused on something other than what the deprod claimed is his case for notability (NAUTHOR)".

Another user argued "Over half of the "career" section is devoted to a summary of... a bunch of blog comments he wrote pseudonymously fifteen years ago? This seems undue, seeing as virtually nobody saw or cared about his dumb blog posts from 2008, versus his writing as a pundit in recent years, where he's appeared on national networks and had millions of readers, et cetera. Again, his opinions are loathsome, but this seems rather out of line and potentially a walking BLP violation"

Seeking some input from less invested editors. In the last day the page was swarmed by editors who think it necessary to include every last detail of these blog posts in the lead (e.g. see the potentially overly detailed lead in this version), and editors who appear to be "Hanania fans" who want to hide criticism of him. Any thoughts on the neutrality and balance of the article? I am not sure. Thanks. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

If you go back to the beginning. This was the lead on the 23 October [53], this lead had been on the article for a while with no dispute. Then on 28 October 2023 a user claiming to be Hanania put a complaint on the talk-page. A few hours after this a user who is not very active on Wikipedia white-washes the article lead completely [54], the same user did the same thing again several times. It's obvious that there are white-washing attempts here. As documented at WP:FTN [55] many sources describe Hanania (as of 2023) still making racist comments but this information has been omitted from the lead. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

This is now a case of meat-puppetry as advertised by Hanania [56] (also see the comments on Twitter), users have said they have edited the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

untrue. the article had an extensive talk discussion about it being unbalanced before recent days. there was no consensus resolution to this argument in the talk page, and the main entry was de facto left as the anti Hanania editors preferred. not via consensus Jazi Zilber (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

There is obvious meat-puppetry. Before 28 October (when Hanania advertised his complaint on the talk-page and Twitter), no user had edited his Wikipedia article for 5 days and no user was trying to remove those sources from the lead. There were discussions on the talk-page about the article being unbalanced you are correct but no user was disputing the sources in the lead. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I intentionally highlighted quotes from longstanding editors who had nothing to do with the topic. e.g. the reviewer for "Did You Know?" nomination, which long predated any alleged meat puppetry (the article was not radically changed either). I appreciate that you've been vocal on your thoughts on this article, but we should be seeking input from other editors here. Zenomonoz (talk) Zenomonoz (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

User Generalrelative has added to the lead: others have cast doubt on whether Hanania has in fact disavowed racism, pointing to a 2023 social-media post that referred to Black people as animals. The tweet in question doesn't say black people are animals, it says Daniel Penny getting charged. These people are animals, whether they’re harassing people in subways or walking around in suits. Hanania could mean black people, or he could mean that violent criminals are "animals" no matter how they dress. The phrasing also seems wrong as Hanania did not appear to "disavow racism", he disavowed his previous writing... so WP:STICKTOSOURCE. What do people think? Zenomonoz (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

It strains credulity to interpret that as being a comment on 'violent criminals'. And the cited secondary source (which is the Atlantic) clearly does not interpret it that way. There's no BLP problem or sourcing problem with that edit. MrOllie (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure it "strains credulity" when the tweet doesn't mention black people. It's bordering on libel, at least it should have attribution to The Atlantic. And from WP:RS/QUOTE: The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

There is an exception to the WP:3RR for BLP issues: Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. So you can remove it without violating the 3RR. Unsure if this would qualify. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

It does not because it is well sourced. Generalrelative (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

He didn't say it strained credulity that it didn't mean black people; he said it strained credulity to suggest he meant "violent criminals", and it does. It wasn't just clothes that he was addressing it was actions; it was whether they were harrassing (often a crime), or just walking around and wearing suits, neither of which is a crime. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. The author of the secondary source makes clear that this is a statement about Black people being "animals" regardless of their social class. Generalrelative (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I took Hanania's tweet to mean that a person who has dozens of violent convictions (in this case, the victim, Neely) is an "animal" whether or not they are dressed up nicely. The statement is reprehensible, but whether or not this refers to black people as a whole seems contentious. But, if a writer for The Atlantic interpreting the tweet as such is reliable enough for Wikipedia, then I am happy to leave it. I just wanted to make sure this isn't going to cause an issue. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Update: I see that the The Atlantic source did not actually say what Generalrelative put in the article. The Atlantic quoted the tweet, but did not explicitly say that Hanania "referred to Black people as animals", so this seems a stretch WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Hemiauchenia has since removed it from the opening. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

It is a reasonable paraphrase of what is in the Atlantic. WP:STICKTOSOURCE does not mean 'copy and paste from the source'. MrOllie (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure about that. Atlantic says the tweet was "about the Black district attorney of Manhattan indicting a white man who strangled a homeless Black man on the subway", not black people as a whole (although still racist). Given something as contentious as this in a BLP, it probably should be framed in context as The Atlantic has done so. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

That's awfully cherry picked. Here's the full context:

Two days after Mathias’s story, Hanania responded, stating, “Over a decade ago I held many beliefs that, as my current writing makes clear, I now find repulsive.” He rejected Mathias’s characterization of his “creepy obsession with so-called race science” as “dishonest,” insisting that he does not believe that Black people are “inherently more prone to violent crime” than white people. People can and do change, even those with extreme views like these, but there’s not much evidence that happened here. As the writer Jonathan Katz notes, Hanania recently wrote, “These people are animals, whether they’re harassing people in subways or walking around in suits,” in an angry tweet about the Black district attorney of Manhattan indicting a white man who strangled a homeless Black man on the subway.

MrOllie (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Hanania recently wrote, “These people are animals, whether they’re harassing people in subways or walking around in suits,” in an angry tweet about the Black district attorney of Manhattan indicting a white man who strangled a homeless Black man on the subway. There are two people who are "these people" being referred to, and it's not people with convictions for violent crime. I think most people here know I'm pretty hard line when it comes to BLP, and I think the addition to the lead is a reasonable summation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the context (and MrOllie). Best to frame all this in full context in the article to avoid looking like selective quote mining (as it appeared to me). Full context it makes it clearer Hanania was being racist. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

We're suppose to summarize and paraphrase, not paste large unwieldly hunks of sources into the article. It is best to be succinct. MrOllie (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The context here requires at most a few sentences, and is reported on in reliable sources. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I've re-added the disputed text to the article because it seems like we've got consensus over here that it's appropriate. I think there might be a clearer wording, but I usually consider myself pretty good at finding clearer summaries of controversial text and I can't find it. Loki (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the current sentence in the article is problematic in the lead of a BLP (current lead[57]). The problem is that the sentence may be racist and clearly some sources view it as racist. However, because the tweet at least has plausible deniability we should treat it as sources are interpreting his tweet to mean (some?) black people are animals. As such it may be better to have this explained in the article body and while the lead should reference it as an allegation. The lead could be changed to something like "He disavowed his writing under the pseudonym. Sources accuse Hanania of continuing to make racist statements [refs]." Per IMPARTIAL we shouldn't treat the claims as true since there is at least some plausible deniability but they are clearly relevant when placed against his own claims. Springee (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I think the quote in the body gives the important context necessary to interpret the quote, and I disagree with the way it is summarised in the lead, which is why I removed it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with removal too, actually, though not with the rationale. I'm totally on board with removing the clause from the lead despite my objection to the claims made by Zenomonoz above (and now apparently Hemiauchenia, whose opinion I respect) that it wasn't an accurate summary of the source. Frankly it just doesn't seem necessary, and may unduly highlight that one racist statement where other secondary sources emphasize others. I'd therefore suggest that this version is probably best, i.e.

He later disavowed his writing under the pseudonym,^[1][2] though others have cast doubt on whether Hanania has in fact disavowed racism.^[3][4][5]

Generalrelative (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think that the summarisation is inaccurate per se, I just think that it's best to let the reader interpret the meaning of the quote when given the surrounding context in the body, which I think makes the intent of the quote unambiguous. I also agree that there's no reason to highlight it in the lead when he's made plenty of other questionable statements. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough! Generalrelative (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Just noting that this thread appears to have been opened as an attempt to forum shop after a discussion was already underway at FTN. Also, Zenomonoz, if you want to discuss my edits (and mention me by name) as you did above, you're supposed to ping me. Taking a look at the amount of reverting that this user has been doing –– well over 4RR for today –– I'm seeing a trip to a disciplinary board as a possible solution if things don't improve. Generalrelative (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

This is completely off topic here

1. I reverted my revert after you left a message on my talk page. This is user behavior, and unrelated to the BLP noticeboard.

2. This isn't "forum shopping". I have raised issues on one noticeboard because it is related to the editing style of a BLP, and this was justified thanks to unresolved disputes on the talk page. The issues raised by another user on FTN concern other issues. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Too late, the most fervent chest-thumpers have thpoken. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a bunch of discussion at Talk:Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician) about a comment Johnson made in 2019, described as He went on to say that he and his wife early in their married life took in a 14-year-old African American boy, now an adult, and consider him a part of their family.

In my opinion, the commentary is devolving into BLP violations. Walt Yoder (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

What exactly is the BLP violation in your opinion? AncientWalrus (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any obvious BLP-problems there atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Echoing others I can understand why getting into how long ago the boy was adopted (and so suggestions he and his wife lived together before marriage) might cause BLP concerns but it's not clear to me what the concerns are with that specific text which doesn't get in to that. (Well technically it does suggest they were already married which technically could be a BLP concern but I'm not convinced it is here.) Likewise if we were naming the other person or giving details on what lead up to them being taken in by Mike Johnson or giving a birthdate or something I could understand concerns about giving too much info on a private person. But I don't think simply giving an age, ethnic identity, gender identity and stating that they (note this doesn't comment on how the man feels about Johnson or his wife) consider him part of the family are enough to raise concerns since it sounds like these came from reliable secondary sources (rather than primary ones). P.S. If editors are concerns about that saying they were married is a problem, how about changing early in the married life to 'early in their life together' or 'early in their life as a couple'? Nil Einne (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s hardly the first time that a politician who portrays themself as some kind of plaster saint, turns out to be… not that. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't know that I'd want to say "early in their life together" unless the sources explicitly support that: Johnson was 27 when they married, so it's entirely concievable that they had been together for quite some time before that point. As far as I can tell the current text is 100% true: Johnson has said that early in his married life he and his wife took in this boy. If reliable sources start to care about how this works chronologically and start to report on it, we can comment, but as it is I don't see an issue with the current text. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Reading the OP's comment again, I think I misunderstood, it seems they're complaining about the discussion on the talk page rather than the highlighted sentence. If so, I can understand their concerns better but in such a high profile case like this, I don't think it's worth worrying about. I think it's fair to mention on the talk page there seems to be a contradiction and discuss openly how to handle it with worrying too much that mentioning what the contradiction is, violates BLP itself. In other words, it's fine for the current discussion where editors have just mentioned that the dates given are contradictory and one of the possible reasons might be that Johnson lived together with his wife before marriage but since we have no sources that say anything like that we should take care not say or imply it. Of course if editors keep bringing up gratuitously this possibility or in contexts that don't relate to how can improve the article, then we may have a problem but that's not something that's happened. Nil Einne (talk) 07:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Ujaama's claim to fame is that he was convicted for terrorism-related crimes (ref, ref). A SPA (@Nadya Hasan) and an IP, which I believe are the same person, recently started edit-warring in an attempt to white-wash the article and paint Ujaama as a civil rights activist (which he sort of is, but that is not by any means the main reason why he is notable). Any thoughts? SparklyNights 21:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, according to the talk page, this article has been edited by two other COI SPA accounts: @Semaj247 (about 150 Ujaama-related edits) and @Aq247. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but there might be some sockpuppetry going on around here. This page seems to have been plagued with SPAs trying to white-wash Ujaama's image over the years, maybe some protection would be nice around here. SparklyNights 22:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, these two images ([58], [59]) belong to CBS News (they are from here) and their use in the article is probably COPYVIO. Can someone request their deletion on commons? I don't know that place well. SparklyNights 22:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

SparkyNights, there is no attempt to white-wash but to prevent a larger harm. There was a single event that occurred in a single, very problematic and troubling period of American history. And it occurred in 1999 and 2000, while this is not clear in the article. The subject was much younger and admittedly under the influence of a man whom he had respected. However, the article about the subject in the form that both SparkyNights and melcous are attempting to retain, paints the picture of a man who is known for petty crimes which is consistent with the Intercept article written by Trevor Aaronson who once asked the subject in an email if he was the one editing the subjects page. The subject was noteworthy before 9-11, and was well respected and known as a civil rights activist in the Black community. The subject extends from a family of community and civil rights activists. nd while the media got some things right, there was inaccuracies littered throughout the reporting. Those innacuracies are coming to light now because the war on terror is over. But there were many victims in the war on terror, and the government engaged in dishonesty and secrecy during that period. For example, Abu Hamza's main charge in relationship to the subjecct was a Title 18 USC 956 and related to two conspiracy charges, and it was dropped. However, not for the subject. In addition, the subject never took Feroz Abassi to a training camp, nor was there ever a jihad training camp in Oregon. With regard to the photos, the subject's father was the owner of those photos. And because it is a photo of the subject, there is not a copyright violation. All of the details about this person can be best described by the court documents which is where most of the citations originate from, except that they cherry pick what they want. I have followed WIkipedia's strict adherence to the BLPs guidelines and attempted to be fair and balanced. We are talking about a person who is Black American and Muslim in a time where there is a lot anger and hate in the US. We should be more than fair, but most of all we should understand that his livelihood and safety depends on a fair and balanced record that contextualizes the entire story. Again, his charges were for 1999, 2000, and 2006 (Flight to Avoid Testimony) which is a contradiction to the labeling of snitch by Trevor Aaronson in his article at the Intercept. The subject was not the main witness nor was the only witness, but should we be writing about a person simply because he cooperated with government authorities? Or simply because he testified? Trevor Aaronson is an informant, and so were the other eight witnesses who testified against Abu Hamza. Why should we single out this subject for his cooperation, which it was obvious he had no other choice. If he were in another country, we would have accused that country of torture. Nadya Hasan (talk) 03:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, the fact that this guy's life has been cursed because of his past deeds is probably one of the saddest things I've seen today. But Wikipedia's policies are uncaring about that, we don't remove relevant information about people around here just because it made their lives harder (see James Gordon Meek and the Richard Hanania discussion above, for example). It's alright if you want to disagree with the sources we call "reliable" here, but we still have to give more WP:WEIGHT to them because and not doing so is often called WP:POVPUSHING. I also disagree with a lot of stuff I see on Wikipedia every day, but a lot of the times there is nothing I can do about it because the WP:RELIABLESOURCES are not on my side. SparklyNights 04:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

This is such a callous statement. To refer to the subject as having a cursed life because of his past deeds. Wikipedia's policy toward BLPs suggests otherwise in regards to deference to balance. But I have mentioned that this is part of a larger picture taking place. It is one where harm is being caused by the wizardry and mastery, as well as power, of a few who can "as you described" care less. I have offered a balanced version filled with references and very reliable sources. But these are ignored letting me know that there is a deliberate attempt to mischaracterize and dehumanize Earnest James Ujaama. Therefore, I have asked for some higher ups to respond and possibly discuss deleting the page so that it is not used as an attack on the subject who is Black American and Muslim, and a member of a protected minority class deserving of all the rights of any other person with former criminal justice contact. Nadya Hasan (talk) 04:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

There is an effort to dehumanize the character of this living person. I have made the article more balanced and have attempted to humanize him. I have poured over thousands of documents, and so, therefore, I believe that I have a better contextual understanding of Earnest James Ujaama than "melcous" who I believe is Trevor Aaronson, a self-described terror journalist who writes for The Intercept. The subject has written lengthy and detailed responses to that article, which refers to him as a "snitch" and portrays him to be a very bad person for testifying against two other terrorists and cooperating with the government. Anyone who follows the subject on Twitter (X), his LinkedIn page, or reviews his doctoral dissertation can see he is passionate about human rights, social justice, and anti-racism. The subject is Black American and Muslim, making him a vulnerable minority, which means that someone reading his Wikipedia page may assume that he is truly nothing more than a government informant and terrorist supporter when in fact, he was never convicted of terrorism. These documents are all published on the Internet Archive. I added much more context, attempted to be balanced and discussed his life in context to the "why?" while maintaining balance. I am asking that this person's biography be restored to the edits that I made and locked with me being the editor for the page, strictly following and maintaining the integrity behind Wikipedia's BLPs guidelines. Thank you.

Signed Nadya Hasan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadya Hasan (talk • contribs) 03:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have replaced an article full of inline sources with one bereft of them so I doubt it's an improvement. It does seem correct that the earlier version of the article [60] looks to rely very heavily on a single source so possibly should be pared down but replacing it with info lacking inline sources or otherwise poorly sourced is not the way to go. Nil Einne (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed you started a second thread on this right below the other one which is already discussing the subject. Please do not do that again. I have merged the threads. If you have something to add on the issue, then please add it to this existing thread rather than starting a new one. Nil Einne (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I followed the link on the subject page. Nadya Hasan (talk) 03:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I am requesting either help to improve the following version or remove the article all together due to it was a single event. And I see no one is addressing or responding to my comments about the harm to this subject. There are plenty of references. When I view other pages such as Mark Wahlberg or Malcolm X, I see no difference in citations. But I am asking that this page be protected from further edits or removed until this can be done. This subject is a member of a protected minority class and he has a right to a balanced presentation of all of the facts. Nadya Hasan (talk) 04:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I am not generally a BLP editor, but came across Ajit Kushwaha by chance. I think the article is conflating two different people, Ajit Kushwaha and Ajit Kumar Singh, who I don't think are the same person. I edited the lead but I think the confusion runs deeper than than that. Could do with an expert (or an Indian, which I am not) view. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Both are same person. Actually there can be different politician with same name. I have chosed this name as he is also known by this name and many sources refer to him by this name. I have listed some of the sources there, they are in Hindi language. Admantine123 (talk) 04:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I have created over hundred articles for Indian politicians and i am aware about many of them. The source you inadvertently removed was also related to this politician only. That was from a website tracking elections in india. You can see the mention of constituency Dumraon Assembly constituency there and the second Bhaskar source also say Dumraon Legislator. Moreover I track this legislator regularly and had watched many of his interviews. So i am hundred percent confident for the intro. Admantine123 (talk) 04:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

[61], this source say that he is known as Ajit Singh and many other say that he is known by name of Ajit Kushwaha. That's why it is important to include both name. In India many politicians change their name after getting elected by choosing a name which represents their caste affiliation. As for example the official name of Pappu Yadav is Rajesh Ranjan and Gopal Mandal is Narendra Kumar Neeraj. Similarly Upendra Kushwaha is Upendra Kumar Singh. But we chose to create the article by others name as they are commonly known by these names and most of the source mention them so. Admantine123 (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Admantine123: I was confused because my translation of the www.bhaskar.com article is "The march was presided over by Dumraon MLA of CPI(ML) Dr. Ajit Kumar Singh. Dumraon MLA Dr. Ajit Kushwaha, CPI(ML) District Secretary Naveen, Neeraj Kumar, Rajesh Sharma, Ganesh Singh, Ankit, Siddharth and all the present youth garlanded the statue of Shaheed Bhagat Singh at the Martyr Memorial. A third opinion might be helpful. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Ajit Kumar Singh is Ajit Kushwaha. I am well read about politicians of Bihar. So i can guarantee that. Admantine123 (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

At the time of this incident, some students other than the shooter were charged with being involved, but the charges against them were ultimately dropped. One of them, Justin Sledge, is now a moderately prominent academic YouTuber. Since 2021, the article has periodically been edited by Special:Contributions/68.188.68.66, who habitually tries to emphasize Sledge's actions and insert mention of Sledge's unrelated subsequent criminal charge and his present career. Other editors have reduced this emphasis, though some seem to think these edits were promotional, when it looks much more likely that the anonymous editor is trying to portray Sledge in a negative light. I wrote on the talk page that the current version of the article has at least one possible inaccuracy. It seems like more experienced Wikipedian eyes may be needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:1B80:820:ED10:C60B:A451:65DF (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I've had my concerns about this too for a while, as somebody who found out about this incident watching Sledge's youtube content. Sledge was only minorly involved in the incident, and I agree that there's no reason to mention his later gun charge conviction when it has nothing to do with the incident. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Given that both our article and the source cited specifically said that the later gun charge against Sledge had nothing to do with the Pearl High shooting, I have removed it as irrelevant. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Would appreciate some more eyes at Mosab Hassan Yousef. There seems to be quite a lot of WP:OR and improper use of sources. DFlhb (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I want to start off by acknowledging the fact that I have a real-life connection to the individual this page James Veitch (comedian) is written about. This is why I am stating my concerns here rather than editing the page directly. My relationship to the subject (friend) does not invalidate my interpretation of the issues I see within this page. I would like to get a consensus view here on some of the page edits that I believe violate Wikipedia rules and have a negative impact on the subject of this page.

There are a number of concerns about the contents of this page and its compliance with the Biographies of Living Persons policy. In particular, there is a concern about the harm being caused to the subject’s life and whether the content of the biography is fair. The following is a quote from the BLP policy (emphasis added):

"Biographies of living persons 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. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[b] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material. […] Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.”

At present, both the introductory and concluding paragraphs of the biography contain serious allegations about the subject’s private life. Reference to these allegations was added to the subject’s biography on 5 September 2020. The subject has never stood trial in respect of these allegations, in either a criminal or civil court and there is no suggestion that these allegations were ever reported to, or investigated by authorities. Indeed, no legal proceedings have ever been initiated in respect of any of these allegations. At present therefore, the allegations are untested and have never been subject to any sort of scrutiny. They are strenuously denied by the subject.

The nature of the allegations is such that they are highly damaging to the reputation of the subject. As you will no doubt be aware, the BLP Policy, states as follows (emphasis added):

“Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care”. The policy goes on to explain that: “A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by §Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.”

The presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle which should be afforded to all individuals, including the subject of this page.

Whilst allegations have been made to the Hollywood Reporter – they remain just that; untested, unsubstantiated and hugely damaging allegations. The harm caused to the subject’s life by these allegations has been significant – both in terms of the psychological impact and the impact upon his career. Three years have now passed since the publication of the allegations, but there has still been no action taken by any authorities or individuals involved, nor is there any suggestion that there will be. Indeed, the article confirms that “none of the students says she reported allegations of sexual misconduct.” The only reports made appear to have been to the media. Repeating such allegations is therefore arguably assisting in trial by media.

In the circumstances therefore, I am respectfully requesting a review of the content of the subject’s biography with reference to the BLP Policy. I consider that the biography as presently drafted infringes the BLP Policy and should therefore be amended, so that reference to untested or untried allegations is removed.

I have raised these concerns on the Talk page, but to no avail. [[62]] I also raised these concerns on the Dispute Resolution noticeboard, but I was re-directed here.

Char296 (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Char296 09:10 24 October 2023

We've been here before. After a sockpuppet started a thread on this board in 2021, an experienced editor significantly reduced the amount of weight given to the allegations, but they remain one of the most major sources of coverage of Veitch and are necessary to explain many key career events (such as having a Quibi role dropped). No new sources have come to light since then, despite persistent single-purpose account activity from 2020 to present.

My position continues to be that we should reinstate a description of the allegations, sourced to The Hollywood Reporter (RSP entry). — Bilorv (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. There's no need to change the current article. Veitch is a public figure, and the allegations were widely reported. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree strongly. BLP does not mandate whitewashing. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Char296 started a RfC on this which Bilorv reformatted to be more neutral.[63] Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

This article seems to have been edited back in 2016 to satisfy a personal vendetta, based on a comment the editor left on the talk page. The information about Norman's criminal activities is relevant, but the editor made them the main focus of the article. They even put the subject's BOP.gov Register Number in the lead, which imo crosses a line. I tried to fix the most obvious issues but the article still needs a lot of work. BLP are really not in my wheelhouse so I'd prefer to leave further edits to someone with more experience. Also, does the editor need to be warned about this sort of editing behavior? SilverStar54 (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I started to trim the section, but this is entirely based off of primary sources and a random forum post as far as I can tell, so I've removed the whole thing: I can't find any news articles which could be used to write a BLP compliant section but at any rate there was nothing valuable there to base it off... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. It's surprising this has stood uncorrected for seven years! SilverStar54 (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I endorse the removal, and have removed external links relating to the content. Even more concerning is that although it may be the musician who was convicted, none of the sources even make it clear it is the same person to start with. Kathleen's bike (talk) 23:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Given that his biography is largely unsourced and his conviction for fraud, he may not be a notable musician. I did a check for RS about his drumming and wondered if this very article was used in the fraud scheme. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

This story is becoming weirder by the day it seems… SilverStar54 (talk) 06:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The page was created by @Paradise coyote, who’s a reputable editor and still active. Perhaps they can be of assistance. SilverStar54 (talk) 06:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

This is in response to a VRT ticket received from Brian Choo of the Wikimedia legal department, in which he asks whether there could be some discussion of our page on Matthew Parish, who has apparently repeatedly requested deletion thereof. I've agreed to try to start that discussion here; if there's any sort of consensus here that WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE might be applicable in this case, I'll go ahead and start a deletion discussion too (unless someone else beats me to it).

Notes:

• I have no interest in the topic, and – for now at least – no opinion on whether the page should or should not be kept
• For those with VRT access, the ticket is this one
• Brian's message includes this statement: "As many of you know, the Foundation's legal team appreciates hearing volunteer opinions on certain takedown requests, with the hopes of honoring volunteer editorial autonomy on the projects".

Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Ping to BChoo (WMF), for info. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! BChoo (WMF) (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I can add a few clarifying facts for this request. For those with VRT access, see also this linked ticket for the article subject's requests.

• I also have no interest in the article or its subject

• The area of concern to the article subject seems to be primarily this one, regarding legal issues, as well as the inclusion of their date of birth.

• The facts in that section seem to be well-sourced to reliable references. So far, there is no indication that any of the sources relied upon have issued corrections or retractions of their published statements. The facts stated appear to be noteworthy.

• The article subject appears to meet WP:GNG as well as WP:BIO as notable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.

Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Relevant links:

• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_188#Matthew_Parish
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive340#COI_and_legal_threats_at_Matthew_Parish
• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive271#Matthew_Parish (thread made by Parish himself)
• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive330#Matthew_Parish
• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_175#Matthew_Parish
• 94.189.147.212 saying "You are heading towards becoming a defendant in civil litigation. Please provide your coordinates for receipt of ciivil claim documents; or I will seek a disclosure order from the Wikimedia Foundation to this effect."

SparklyNights 01:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

As for the birthdate, I see no problem with removing it per BLP policy. When it comes to deletion, that's a different matter. The policy for requested deletion typically applies to "relatively unknown" subjects, and while my threshold for this is fairly broad, for others it's much narrower. Personally, I wouldn't wish a Wikipedia article on my worst enemy, but others often feel they're doing the world and our subjects a great service by creating/keeping articles that are of relatively little value. (I tend to feel we need much, much higher standards of notability for bios, but that's another discussion for another place.) The problem I foresee is that there are a good number of reliable sources in the article, which tends to make deletion very difficult to achieve. However, looking at the history I see this article gets an average of 15 views a day, which you can make a good bet are mostly from the subject or people who know the subject. Thus, would we really be losing anything by deleting it? I'm all for deleting it, but experience tells me that it's going to be a hard sell. Zaereth (talk) 01:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I think Parish is at least arguably relatively unknown judging by the small number of pageviews. Though there are a lot of clearly reliable sources in the article, once you take out the ones which are primary or mostly not about Parish, there's at least a reasonable argument that the article isn't that important and deletion is justifiable.

Where I think this article might struggle compared to some BLP deletion requests is that this article was created by a user who apparently claimed to be Parish here (deleted page so I cannot view it) and only decided he wanted it deleted when it became clear that his legal troubles were the most notable thing about him and he wouldn't be able to use the article to promote himself. This is not some non-public figure about whom personal information is being spread through no fault of their own; it's someone who tried to use wikipedia to promote himself and doesn't like the fact that the crimes he committed are mentioned in his Wikipedia page. People are perhaps less inclined to be sympathetic in such a situation than they are in e.g. the case of a marginally notable figure who doesn't want the details of their transition or divorce or whatever on wikipedia but has never committed any crimes and neverr sought any public attention. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I see your point, now that I dig deeper into the history. Definitely a case where WP:ABOUTME applies in spades. While there is some satisfaction of being able to say, "You made your bed, now lie in it", to me the far bigger factor here is its contribution to the encyclopedia, which as you said, isn't particularly great. The legal stuff is the only thing that separates it from the promo piece it was originally. I just don't see that every person who gets arrested, even multiple times, and gets their names in the paper deserves to have an article about it in Wikipedia. If we remove the legal stuff, we're back to a promo piece, but if we remove the entire article, voila, we've solved everyone's problem. This all seems like too much energy to waste over something that is likely viewed only by people he facebooks with.

This isn't the place for deletion discussions, though, and while I would give my $0.02, AFD is a whole different ballpark. I say toss it out there and see where the ball lands. Zaereth (talk) 02:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Based on the latter comment, and the tenor of the earlier discussions, I've nominated the article at AFD to start the discussion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Parish. Might as well see how it goes at AFD. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 13:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Thomas Basboll is edit warring on the Zoe McLellan article removing the section on her personal life. He claims the sources are WP:BLPGOSSIP which is not true since the multiple sources are WP:BLPSOURCES and the ex-husband's arrest and the arrest warrant against her for kidnapping are both supported facts. I have attempted to point out to the user why they should be the ones to provide an explanation for removing the material but they ignore me and keep reverting. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 05:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

My view is that all the information about Zoe McLellan's personal life is a hodgepodge of bad (TMZ) and primary (Fundrazr) sources that just reproduce insinuations and allegations made in an (obviously) acrimonious divorce. Journalists haven't taken a serious interest in this story for some time, so the conclusion, which it seems to be the purpose of the section to imply, that she has gone underground with a (kidnapped) child and is a fugitive from the law is, today, completely unwarranted. I tried for a while to clean it up, but eventually (months ago) decided that we (here at Wikipedia) simply don't know anything about her personal life and it's probably best not to have a section about it at all. @Jaydoggmarco's interest in this seems to be limited to re-instating, but not improving, a tendentious account of the worst thing that this living person may or may not have done. Unless one of us is willing to do a lot of careful work to provide a balanced account of her family life, I think, in accordance with WP:LIVING, we should just leave it out and the let article be about her (apparently past) acting career, for which she is (and should be) known. Thomas B (talk) 05:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The idea that i'm the only one pushing for this info to be added is false. @Jmg38 and @Robert Brockway both support this section being kept. Currently you are the only one edit warring and insisting that this info (despite being well sourced and regarding an ongoing case) shouldn't be included. It was included in the article until March 2023 when you removed it without discussion and then removed it again in August when it was re-added. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 07:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The most recent source in the article is over two years old, and yet it leaves the impression that McLellan "is a fugitive", which was literally the reason you gave for re-adding the content. We have no idea what her current life situation is and we should not leave the impression that we do. No one is following this story in the press. So putting it in means we'll be recording the worst moment of these people's lives until someone (like me) comes along and realizes that it is WP:CRUFT. Thomas B (talk) 08:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

She is a still a fugitive and the arrest warrant is active. https://twitter.com/MissingKids/status/1573821587245129729?lang=en https://www.missingkids.org/poster/NCMC/1418920/1 Jaydoggmarco (talk) 08:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know a lot about NCMEC or what we can conclude on the basis of that page. It seems to me like a primary source for a claim (@Jaydoggmarco suggests, "As of November 2023 she is still on the run") that is ultimately WP:OR. As far as I can tell, there is no recent journalism about her to cite. Thomas B (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

"there is no recent journalism about her to cite" That's because she hasn't been found yet. It isn't WP:OR to suggest that she's still on the run since arrest warrants stay active until the suspect is arrested. Your lack of knowledge of how the criminal justice system (or how missing person databases) works is concerning. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 08:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

No need to be concerned. I'll take a look. I've left a peace offering on the talk page and will get back to it probably on the weekend. I'm looking forward to hearing what people who work on WP:LIVING biographies think. Cheers. Thomas B (talk) 09:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

That source (fwiw National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, may or may not be WP:BLP-good) only speaks of 2021. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Like i have said before. Arrest warrants stay active unless the suspect is arrested. Plus her current age (48) is listed on the page which shows it's active. Am i the only one who understands how criminal law in the United States works? Jaydoggmarco (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you understand WP:BLP and WP:OR? There is a chance on en-WP that the people you interact with aren't Americans or lawyers, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand both. I also understand how arrest warrants work (and i'm not a lawyer). The lack of updates doesn't mean the warrant is not active. It just means her and her child haven't been found yet. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 09:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The lack of updates means that WP doesn't update, we leave it with 2021, if there is WP:BLPCRIME-good sources for that. Otherwise, we remove it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this interpretation. Unless we have sources explicitly saying "as of DATE, McLellan was still on the run" it's not Wikipedia's job to interpret the fact that the warrant is still active as meaning that she hasn't been caught yet, and it's also not WP:DUE for inclusion. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

It's updated because it shows her and her child's current ages. The missing kids database is reliable. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I also agree with Gråberg. But I would add that the remaining sentence, "In May 2021 an arrest warrant against McLellan was issued on charges of kidnapping her son," strongly implies that she remains on the run (as of the last edit to the WP page). Jaydogg seems confident that this is true (and that she remains free -- and out of the news --only because the police don't know where she is). I suspect the whole case may be lapsed and everyone has moved on with their lives after some legal hyperbole in an acrimonious divorce that, since she's not acting anymore, gossip columnists no longer care to cover. I don't know this for sure, fo course; I just think there's a significant chance that's the case. For this reason, I lean towards deleting that last sentence too. Thomas B (talk) 10:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Usually the police don't issue an arrest warrant for kidnapping unless there's probable cause. Also the boy is still in the missing kids database. Jesus christ does no one here know how the criminal justice system works? It's not just me saying this. Google it. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Can someone who's an expert in criminal law please chime in here and explain because i don't think i'm getting anywhere. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you are either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear: you want Wikpedia to claim that someone is "on the run" from the law based on a two-year-old source + an undated webpage + your legal expertise? Thomas B (talk) 11:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Based on National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, I hope that website generally knows what its doing, but it doesn't matter for the 2023-issue. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd add that IMO using it for anything is a violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY anyway. While strictly speaking, it is not a simple primary source as a database for children at danger it's not really a reliable secondary source either. And Jaydoggmarco seems to be proving why using it is a terrible idea with their saying we need an expert in criminal law to chime in here. Nil Einne (talk) 11:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Jaydoggmarco has been blocked for the time being. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

And perhaps we might as well continue this on article-talk. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

After your summary removal of the material I decided to dig deeper. I've been in contact with the lawyer for McLellan's ex-husband. He pointed me at documents which are all in the public domain. They are linked here. The warrant is active. McLellan is wanted by the LA County District Attorney's office right now. This information is pertinent to the article and should be included. Robert Brockway (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

That link appears to be your website. What have you got that can be used per WP:BLP, WP:BLPPRIMARY etc? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Now I saw your comment on the talkpage, we can keep the discussion there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

That source also using Wikipedia as one of its references so WP: CIRCULAR would also apply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• This seems a clear application of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#People accused of crime. A person who has not been convicted of, nor even arrested for, a serious crime, but merely has an arrest warrant; should not have this in the article. And hanging this off a source that has "was said", "claims", "appear", "no record", "no word", "we're told", "alleged", and merely that this claimant "believes" things, is very poor editing practice. There are no facts for a biography, here. Come back when a good source states things without weaselling out, in the normal journalism way, by reporting the claims and avoiding making direct statements of fact. Uncle G (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
  • There is a part of WP:BLPCRIME that makes this fuzzy, and that's the "For individuals who are not public figures phrase. I think we tend to view actors on the national scale -- as Zoe's parts made her -- to be public figures. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
    • That's a misinterpretation of that policy that would open the door to anyone who has public information "on a national scale" (which is highly parochial) being counted a "public figure". We are talking about the personal life of someone who has a public job and a private life. It is one of the worst instincts of the modern world to presume that anyone who has an acting job is fair game as a "public figure". That is an outright wrong presumption. Uncle G (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
      • I tend to agree with Uncle G here. We're talking about an article that has all of three sources. When talking about information of this nature, I think it's important to keep in mind that the term "public figure" has a very specific definition as defamation laws apply to this sort of thing. "A personage of great public interest or familiarity like a government official, politician, celebrity, business leader, movie star or sports hero." In Wikipedia policy, we often tend to make up our own definitions of such words to fit whatever suits our feelings, but simply starring in some TV shows doesn't make one a star or a celebrity. Most actors never reach celebrity status. Government officials are almost always considered public figures, which is necessary for journalists to do their jobs in the best interest of the people. Sometimes people can become public figures solely due to crimes they've committed or were only alleged to have committed, even if they were acquitted. Some examples of these are people like Charles Manson, Mary Kay Letourneau, or Casey Anthony (who was not convicted). But when you look at the sheer number of sources those stories generated, you can easily tell they've reached that celebrity status. When I look at the sources on this subject, I'm not seeing anything close. Zaereth (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Ramil Safarov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recently the user KhndzorUtogh made a huge edit (8K+ bytes) which contains lot's of violations of BLP. Previously I cleared up the article from a number of sources which were basically attack pages.

1. The title of the edit says I have found more stronger citations and added them, in addition to further expanding other parts. In fact he/she restored the previously deleted attack page called safarov.org. It's full of unsourced libelious mocking material. On the bottom of the page they put an axe photo and their email which starts with the word axe.No "About Us" or no information about the website owners. On the left page they put some government links to pretend like an official website.
2. Asbarez is another NONRS added to the article. It beloned to ARF (an ultra nationalist & irredentist political party in Armenia)
3. ArmenianWeekly yet another ARF owned partisan source. (English version of Hairenik see Contraversies)
4. Another problem is the editor added a source claiming it says "Safarov did not mention any insult in either his court trial, and made it very clear he killed Margaryan just because he was an Armenian." The source doesn't say such thing. Moreover user added a trial court as a second source which violates WP:BLPPRIMARY

Thomas Goltz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Prior to the edits above the user made a huge edit (3.6K+) on the article of recently dead journalist Thomas Goltz

1. Armenian Weekly again
2. admitted Goltz had a pro-Azerbaijan bias - the source doesn't say such thing
3. Horizon Weekly - another ARF owned source that denies Khojaly massacre
4. Partly unsourced (no book name or page) OR that claims Goltz endorsed a conspiracy theory.Later on on I asked from that user to provide the page number so I could verify. I checked the source it just says Sumgait pogrom remain shrouded in wild conspiracy theories...Azeris say it was KGB
5. One more minor issue is that the user added Ms. Goltz's ethnicity without a source.

From this all I see is editor's ethno-nationalistic manner. He/she tries to discredit the author which repors Armenian war crimes, and portray the convinced murderer as vicious as possible. Aredoros87 (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

One great detail Aredoros neglected to mention is that they had just previously removed a great deal of content on both articles[64][65] without any kind of discussion, which includes sourced information such as Goltz's racism. I simply restored parts with new sources and also added newer text with sources.

Ramil Safarov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1. What I had added was a pdf file of the original Hungarian court document, with the case number. The link was only included for user reference, as a previous RSN discussion decided would be needed.
2. Asbarez is not a perenial source and ARF is not "ultra nationalist".
3. Ibid
4. This is again the original court document, not on the article previously, which does not mention this.

Thomas Goltz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1. Again not perenial or "ultra nationalist".
2. The source indeed states: "However, and I think he would admit this too, he saw the war from the other side which inevitably colours what he writes."
3. Again with the baseless slander of ARF.
4. I provided the page and chapter, so Aredoros is just completely lying. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I forgot to mention. Please be aware of ARF's (Armenian Revolutionary Federation) irredentist ideologies. They claim lands from 3 out of their 4 neighbors. And still ARF owned publications are being used on Wikipedia. Aredoros87 (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

One more thing I would like to note: According to WP:BLP, articles must adhere to NPOV and according to Wikipedia:BURDEN "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material"

Thanks. Aredoros87 (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• Osama Hammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Clearly written with Bias, which is against the rules of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohamedabaids (talk • contribs) 19:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mohamedabaids, the best place to raise your concerns initially should be at Talk:Osama Hammad. Schazjmd (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I’m a public relations professional at NKPR, which represents Dax Dasilva. The Dax Dasilva article, which was recently added to Wikipedia, has one issue that I would like to raise here: there is an excessive emphasis on Dasilva’s sexual orientation in the present version of the article. It is appropriate in the Personal Life section, but should be removed elsewhere.

To that end, I propose the following: removing the third sentence of the lead, which at present reads as follows:

At the time of stepping down from his position as CEO, the Financial Post said he was one of only a few openly gay leaders of a major Canadian company.[1]

And please also remove the following sentence from the second paragraph of the Career section:

He was one of the only openly gay leaders of a major Canadian company.[1]

Its presence in the lead and Career section is unnecessary and makes that aspect of his biography too much of a focus. Heterosexuality is not mentioned in leads, there’s no reason why him being gay should be so prominently featured in the lead here.

Thanks very much for considering this request. Sunnyblu2023 (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

How many COI accounts have edited this article? I'm seeing that @Hindsight1984 just admitted his COI on the talk page. Is he working with you?

Removing the gay statement from the lead seems debatable to me, given that not all reliable sources mention that about him (though the fact that he is gay is relevant given that Lightspeed started out in a gay village and received early assistance from LGBT organizations). But I don't see any good reason to remove that information from the career section. SparklyNights 21:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sunnyblu2023 I think it's reasonable to remove it from the WP:LEAD, so I did that. The Career section I'm less sure about, at least the source checks out. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Tim Hayward (political scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A discussion is taking place at Talk:Tim Hayward (political scientist)#Academic review of Hayward's book about whether it's appropriate to include quotes from a review symposium about one of Hayward's books in the article. Whether or not to use material from the review has implications for POV/balance given that most of the rest of the article is about his controversial political views. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

We need more BLP-educated eyes on Western tulku. While there are many issues with this article, I am particularly concerned that the sources used to support allegations against Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo do not rise above the level of hearsay and should be removed. This article also appears to be racially biased. It is supposed to be about Western tulkus, but it appears to be more critical of white tulkus (and previous versions actually used the word "Caucasian"). Overall, I believe that after any BLP issues have been resolved, that it should be merged into Tulku. We do not have separate articles for Western guru, Western lama, Western shaman or Western swami; why should Western tulkus be treated outside their religious context when these other examples are not? Skyerise (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

One source being used that is highly questionable is an opinion piece in The Guardian, directing a question to the Dalai Lama. My understanding is that criticism of living persons must be sourced to news articles, not op-eds. Here's the source in question. It is clearly not a factual news article. Skyerise (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Hyde, Marina (24 September 2015). "Has Steven Seagal proved you can be a Buddhist and a mascot for the arms trade?". the Guardian. Retrieved 31 October 2023.

Just so others know, this section is forumshopping from an ongoing ANI discussion, in addition to the AfD Skyerise started on the above article that, thus far, isn't going their desired way. Multiple other editors do not agree with them about the claimed racial bias of this article existing, considering it is a legitimate topic of reliable source coverage on the inherent subject matter directly. Silverseren^C 00:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

This post predates my awareness of that AN/I thread, which was moved to ANI from elsewhere without anyone informing me at the time it was so moved. The opposing editor basically said "bring it on" when I suggested it was a BLPN matter. That's hardly forum shopping. I also only nominated it for deletion because the other editor said to. Later they claimed the remarks were sarcastic, but he can hardly complain about my following his advice, especially if it was insincerely given. Skyerise (talk) 00:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• The Guardian has a clearly marked Opinion section (as most reputable sources do) and all of those article URLs begin with theguardian.com/commentisfree. The source is from their Lifestyle section. I don't see why we wouldn't treat it as factual reporting. Woodroar (talk) 13:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
  • It's Marina Hyde's regular column. As our article on the form says What differentiates a column from other forms of journalism is that it is a regular feature in a publication – written by the same writer or reporter and usually on the same subject area or theme each time – and that it typically, but not universally, contains the author's opinion or point of view. It seems pretty clear from reading the Marina Hyde column in question that it is Hyde's opinion rather than mere factual reporting: the tone is nothing like the Guardian's usual news reporting. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Cliff Eisen has himself (he admits that user 67.81.21.189 is him in the revision of his article as of 00:43, 30 June 2022, and reverts the edit of admission 3 hours later) removed all information about his crime of sexual assault 5 times over 1.5 years. People were adding it back each time until about 1.5 years ago when the removal of this content at 03:35, 30 June 2022 went unnoticed. If I were to add this information again, he would surely just remove it as he has done 5 times in the space of 1.5 years.

Sexual assault claims are not alleged, they are detailed in this court case 'Miles v. New York University, 979 F. Supp. 248 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)' at this link: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/979/248/1447086/ The New York University was not found guilty, but Eisen was by proxy by looking at the line in the court case result above; "The simple facts are, as the university was forced to admit, that Professor Eisen was engaged in indefensible sexual conduct directed at plaintiff which caused her to suffer distress and ultimately forced her out of the doctoral program in her chosen field."

I am not an expert at wikipedia, and I'm not sure I feel comfortable adding this information back to his page unless I know that he isn't going to personally remove it yet again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlyingScotsman72 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know any details about this person beyond what you have written but I would think:

1. WP:BLPPRIMARY advises against using primary sources, and explicitly says that when writing biographies of living people we "not use trial transcripts and other court records"
2. I'm not a legal expert, but I would think there was a substantial difference between someone's employer not contesting that the person did something, and that person actually being convicted of doing that thing. From WP:BLPCRIME: "For individuals who are not public figures [...] editors must seriously consider not including material [...] that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured."

So unless there are secondary sources reporting on a conviction I would think not to include these allegations. Mgp28 (talk) 09:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

What Mgp28 said. First we dont use court transcripts. Second, the subject has not been convicted of a crime. Third, that is a motion by the defense for summary judgement to dismiss, it is not the result of the whole case. (Which from a brief googling, it appears she lost against the university.) Fourth, its a civil action. Fifth, even if the civil suit against the university was won, it still wouldnt pass the thresholds to be included in a BLP. In order to state that someone has either committed a crime, or lost a civil case with the lower thresholds (think O.J. here) you need to a)have sourcing that explicitly says that, b)have sourcing that passes our requirements.

Interestingly, there is at least one peer reviewed paper which talks about the legal implications of the denied motion (that the technically defined sex of the accuser is irrelevent: if the alleged male assaulter thought their victim was female, it doesnt matter if they hadnt undergone gender reassignment surgery and were still male). Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

There are enough RS out there to include this including a Harvard journal since it impacted his career.[66][67][68] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I see that you've added the information back, thanks for that, but I am concerned that he will remove it again as soon as he notices it is back. I guess someone (maybe I should?) should put this article on their watchlist so it doesn't get removed for 1.5 years again? FlyingScotsman72 (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

See [69] diff - edit contains libelous statement. Revdel warranted? Fermiboson (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Given that since this posting, sourced information that he was just convicted of rape, removing a claim that he was a rapist seems unneeded... and distinguishing between being a rapist whose conviction gets covered and being a "prominent rapist" seems a pointless splitting of hairs. It ain't libelous if it's true, and we accept conviction as sufficient indication of truth in the general case. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

This was only court of first instance. In the Czech law, he is still considered innocent until final verdict. Better to wait until the trial(s) is over (which may take from months to years...). Pavlor (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Not long after Anne-Marie Kilday (a British academic administrator) was kept at AfD, her article was overloaded by "controversies" by an editor whose username suggests that they are a politically-motivated student, with much of this material sourced to references that have nothing to do with Kilday. I tried trimming it back (keeping brief summaries of some of this material without the excessive detailed backgrounders and with a more-neutral section title) but the reaction from the student editor was merely to revert twice and pile on even more junk. More eyes would be very welcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Just a comment that almost every IP edit of Rafał Gaweł attempts to discredit him. Recent attempts include:

• saying that he pleaded guilty, contrary to the sources:
  • 19:11, 9 November 2023
  • 14:51, 9 November 2023
• categorising him as a criminal, despite his legal recognition in Norway as having been convicted for political reasons in an unfair trial
  • 07:06, 8 July 2023
  • 17:23, 31 July 2023

I don't know whether these need rev-deleting - they don't introduce new information, they just make claims contrary to the sources. Certainly the page could do with more BLP-sensitive watchers: the categorisations as a criminal remained in place for nearly four months. Short-term protection against IP editors would be unlikely to help: the BLP vandalism is done a few times per year; protection would have to be e.g. for a few years, by which time more editors might pay attention to the page. Boud (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

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

A bit trivial, perhaps, compared to other disputes. But don't overlook the rationale for the section blankings on User talk:Wfynde. This one is about which person, presumably all still living, is what band member. We shouldn't overlook the complaint because of the account name and the block. The editor has a point, and unsourced content can be challenged and removed. Then there's the hijacking by single-purpose accounts named after claimed band members. Uncle G (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Rupperswil murder case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) isn't strictly speaking a biography, but I am not sure we want nearly unsourced articles on a notorious crime, where both perpetrator and relatives of the victims are still alive. Now the perpetrator was convicted and most of the content can probably be sourced from German-language media, however, so it's mostly a matter of adding citations. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The David Hunt (gangster) article makes serious and repeated claims of serious criminal activity about a living person (see for example the secondary infobox for the "Hunt Crime Organisation"), yet he does not appear to have been convicted, or even been to court for any offence (there is a civil libel case covered in the article). Kathleen's bike (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't have time to do it myself, but the court documents and police reports need to be removed immediately, as well as the info associated with them. Those thing should be removed at first sight, but unfortunately I'm on my way out of the building right now. As for the rest of it, the vast number of other sources seem to suggest that this person may have reached the level of public figure for this sort of thing, in which case BLPCRIME wouldn't apply, although the rules on public figures would. Zaereth (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I've done an initial clean/cull. GiantSnowman 21:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I've noticed some contentious editing regarding the article on Brian Sims. (Redacted) Two examples of these edits include this and this. I do not want to get directly involved as, although I do not know Sims personally, I work for a company that Sims is on the board of, and I have already experienced some backlash for editing/creating articles on living politicians . Is there anyone here that can look into this more? The claim being made is that one political rival is making edits to "attack and defame". I'm not sure if this is accurate, but I thought it should be brought before other editors who do not have a connection to the subject of the article. It seemed bigger than a simple editing dispute, to me, since politicians may be involved. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Blocked the IP, and revdelling the claimed outing until I hear otherwise. Also redacting and revdelling the above message for good measure. Let me know if you think I went too far on this. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

And semied for a couple of weeks for good measure. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Two issues: the biography appears to have been largely written by COI accounts, including the subject, so the content really needs some shaking down. And the most recent edits have been defamatory, and need to be rev/deleted as WP:BLP violations. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Revdel'd, OS requested, watchlisted. The article definitely needs cleanup. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, ScottishFinnishRadish. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:48EE:464F:CE18:8A14 (talk) 04:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Four years ago, I removed the last mention[70] of "shirtstorm" in the article on the British astrophycist Matt Taylor, who is otherwise notable for landing a spacecraft on a comet. My reasoning was that, other than causing him a great deal of personal embarrassment, the event appears to have no significance in his life nor has it has any effect on his career. Other than an occasional revert of attempt to readd the story, the article has been stable without it. On November 8, User:Spiralwidget added a reference to the incident (and a string of sources)[71] and suggested in the talk that we take the dispute here if needed. That's what I'm doing. My view remains that this is just a very public humiliation that he was forced to endure but which should not be enshrined here.Thomas B (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

There are 57 hits on Google News for Matt Taylor + (rosetta OR physicist). Only ten are not about the "shirtstorm". It breaches DUE to entirely remove all mention of this - that's censorship. WP:AVOIDVICTIM doesn't say to strip all negative content out, as the furore was due to his own choice of attire and the mention was cut right down: "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic". We should restore a very brief neutrally worded mention. Fences&Windows 21:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• I agree that a brief mention is probably due, but it should be kept short as to not overwhelm the rest of the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I would be interested in suggestions for what this "brief mention" should say.Thomas B (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Based on the version you removed, I would suggested something like: Taylor was the subject of controversy over artwork on a shirt he wore during a 2014 ESA Press conference regarding the Rosetta craft, which some perceived to be sexist. Taylor subsequently apologised. No need to have anything more than that really. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Probably the ... eleven(!?) ... sources are unnecessary, but the text introduced by Spiralwidget here does not look unreasonable to me. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Could someone please hide these unsourced? And also block the IP Trade (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

195.224.181.210 continues to vandalize Garron Noone, despite being reverted each time. They have made no other edits and are clearly WP:NOTHERE. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 05:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[[

Slugger O'Toole, I have pageblocked that IP from Garron Noone for six months. Please let me know if disruption comes from somewhere else. Cullen328 (talk) 09:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Kurt Busch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am involved in a content dispute with MadBlade 2 over material that I feel is a WP:SYNTH of individual sources (some of which are poor, redlisted sources) used to arrive at an original conclusion that the article subject is "controversial." They are repeatedly restoring over 32k bites of data which accounts for about half of the article's prose (WP:UNDUE) in a section titled "Controversy." I have stated that while a chunk of the content is likely fine to include in the article on its own, in the appropriate place in the "career" section (or even a "legal issues" for some of it), it should be vetted for sourcing and BLP issues before being done so (doing so is on my long list of "to-do's" but I have been working much more the last year and don't have as much time as I used to).

They have asserted that I am "wrong" without any policy-based argument, and have now resorted to personal attacks[72] and assertions that they have "proved [me] a point"[73] to justify restoring the whole section.

I first removed the offending section in May of this year[74] and the user MadBlade (as an IP) first asked me about this in June on my user talk page, to which I responded. The MadBlade account then first restored the content on August 29 without any edit summary[75]. After I reverted, citing, amongst other things, WP:BLP[76], MadBlade then returned to my user talk page and revealed themselves as the IP who initially contacted me. I have since moved that discussion to the article talk page after this recent flare-up, which started November 11. No other editors have involved themselves so far so even though I believe i would be in the right to revert again per BLP policy, I have not done so and asked them to self-revert.

I'm honestly not sure to take this here or ANI, factoring the personal attack and the newness of the other editor. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not really convinced this gentleman meets all of the criteria for a WP living biography - Venkataraman Thangadurai.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venkataraman_Thangadurai

My judgment is based on a detailed review of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

I did look at his research and contributions - I looked at the history and creation record for the article - being objective, I am not sure this article should be on Wikipedia - his work, awards and publication history is not that different than many hundreds of similar researchers.

The FRSC award is common - I do not know this man, though I am involved in a research environment - more in the biomedical area -- his CV is not that different that many of my own peers.

As a newer WP editor - I was presented with this article to edit - and as I started to review the item - I could not see why this was ever approved -

I think this article should be removed. The original author is also not an established author on WP so it does look a little self-promoting IMHO - BeingObjective (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks like the person has two elected fellowship status that might indicate notability per WP:NACADEMIC "#3 The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics)."

[77] "Fellows of the RSC are peer-elected scholars who have made remarkable contributions in the arts, the humanities and the sciences, as well as in Canadian public life." Peer-elected at Royal Society of Canada.

[78]"These members are recognized at the plenary session for their scientific achievements, leadership, and active participation in the affairs of ECS. Each year, up to 15 renowned scientists and engineers are chosen by their peers for this honor." Peer-elected at Electrochemical Society.

The article will definitely benefit from some re-formating though. --PeaceNT (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Attention is requested towards claims[79] about Michael Pack made on the page Falun Gong. Pack's tenure as a federal appointee has been very justly criticized on a lot of grounds, but to my knowledge he has not been tried or convicted. Therefore it is contrary to WP:BLPCRIME to describe his activities as being criminal. This occurs against a backdrop of efforts to insinuate that the Falun Gong religion engaged in government conspiracies. Sennalen (talk) 06:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

This framing is false. This user is referring to the article's coverage of this article and this article, which they want removed from Falun Gong.

As the New York Times succinctly summarized the situation:

A battle involving Michael Pack and a U.S.-funded tech group revolves around software from Falun Gong, the secretive, anti-Beijing spiritual movement with pro-Trump elements.

The additions to the article contain quotes from the above articles discussing the role of the Falun Gong and the involvement of extensions it operates, like the the Epoch Times, known today for being a major source of conspiracy theories about especially Covid-19, climate change, and the January 6 US Capitol insurrection, among many other topics. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

As a point of fact, I have not removed nor have I argued to remove any reliable source. I have however tried to correct undue weight and the aforementioned BLP violation. Sennalen (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

That is false. See for example this edit from this user, which they haven't disclosed. Note how the Falun Gong is treated in the article and then in these edits.

Note that these proposed edits snip out the centrality of the Falun Gong in the matter, who received a quarter of a million dollars from the State Department for a highly controversial program that four people ended up using. It also entirely removes any mention of the Epoch Times.

While we definitely need more eyes and ears over at Falun Gong, you should be aware that this is a content dispute from an extremely contentious corner of Wikipedia with a well-documented history of highly aggressive involvement from its subject, the Falun Gong. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The diff shows that I corrected undue weight and a BLP violation without removing any sources, as stated. Sennalen (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• Rick Alan Ross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rick Alan Ross (talk · contribs)
• Past BLPN discussions:

• August 2015
• article move request
• account identity issue
• account identity issue
• November 2015
• December 2015
• January 2016
• May 2016

The subject of the article is again making requests for changes with similar complaints as in previous discussions, and similar problems in identifying BLP-appropriate references. Requesting help. --Hipal (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes this looks like a WP:LEAD POV issue. I've also commented there in case it's a third opinion they're after. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Historically cult members, later banned by Wikipedia, have edited my bio. Periodically, anonymous editors drop in to color and skew the bio negatively through their edits. I only am allowed to comment at the Talk page. I have posted some requests for editing and updates with detailed supporting citations deemed as reliable/credible sources by Wikipedia. My hope is that the editing process can lead to a fact based historical neutral point of view, as opposed to and editorial opinion driven point of view.2600:8800:7100:66:5764:F700:67C4:FD7A (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I had a look at the talk page, to see what all the hubbub was about, but within a minute my eyes began to glaze over and my head began to hurt. And I'm saying this as someone who generally give relatively long replies to better convey the meaning I intend. (Statements that are too short are very easy to misread.) But seriously, trying to follow all of that is a nightmare. My first suggestion is to first realize that you're dealing with volunteers here, so whatever you can do to make it easier on us, that will help you immensely in the long run. Try tackling the issues you see one at a time rather than all at once, then see them through to their conclusion before starting on the next problem. It's far less overwhelming that way, and you'll have much better luck.

That said, reading some of what you wrote there, and what you wrote here, leads me to suspect that you may share some common misunderstandings about how this all works, and what is meant by "neutral point of view. An article based entirely on facts is just a list of facts, and facts by themselves are meaningless. Facts are observable and, therefore, recordable phenomena. But facts make up only a tiny portion of what we believe to be reality. As humans, we have an ability that all other animals seem to lack; the ability to reason, that is, to ask why. The sun rises everyday. But why? Everything falls downward, But why? (It's not that Eve ate the apple, but that she asked why, which led to our loss of ignorance and bliss.)

Through reasoning, we come up with theories, which come under many names, such as ideas, notions, judgments, conclusions, or opinions. For example, the article on gravity would look pretty barren if all we gave were the facts about it. We need theories, such as the opinions of Einstein, or the opposing opinions of Newton. We don't settle on one opinion as being truth, because opinions by nature are operations of the mind and cannot be proven. We instead give a proportionate view of all relevant opinions and theories. This is not only the basis of journalism, or the foundation of all expository writing laid down by Pliny around 2000 years ago, but is also the very foundation of science. (For more, see for example: Philosophy of Scientific Method by John Stuart Mills, Reading and Writing: Nonfiction Genres by Kathleen Buss, Lee Karnowski, or Understanding Journalism by Lynette Sheridan Burns.)

An article based solely on fact isn't an article at all. We need theories and opinions to tie all the fact into something meaningful. Facts themselves are inherently NPOV, because they either are correct or they are not. If all we had were facts we wouldn't need an NPOV policy. That policy is to cover all the opinions and theories that give reason for those facts. What the policy says is not that we should eliminate opinions, but give them fairly and proportionately to what is found out there in the world. We give Einstein pretty much equal say about gravity as we do Newton, yet we don't give that same prominence to all fringe theories that haven't been widely accepted by the scientific community yet.

The same is really true with a person's bio. We give opinions and theories by prominent people who have some expertise in certain issues, but the goal is to present those with balance and fairness. The point is, your argument that the article should be totally factual and lack any opinions is logically flawed, and this is why it's not getting you anywhere. My advice is to try to formulate you arguments on sounder reasoning, and tackle them one at a time, and you'll have much better luck. I hope that helps, and good luck to you. Zaereth (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I get it. But the article has been used by cult members and others for personal attacks. This probably happens to quite a few biographies of living people on Wikipedia. That is, using Wikipedia bios to discredit someone in some way, shape or form. I realize that my situation is not unique.

Opinions must be grounded in facts, not misleading, and whatever bias exists recognized and as you say "with balance and fairness." Editing outside those parameters becomes less about education an more about propaganda.

I understand that my suggestions must be taken up over a period of time and I appreciate the volunteer time of those involved that sincerely want to make Wikipedia better.

At times over the years dealing with what seem like malicious edits at this bio can be bit daunting.

I have posted suggested edits, notable historical additions and raised questions concerning the balance, slant and context of some recent edits. Everything that I have suggested has been carefully cited with sources that are reliable and credible as determined by Wikipedia.

Again, I have no expectation of immediate results and realize that people have lives to live and other things to do.

Hopefully it can be handled in time.

Thank you again and all the best.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Algyx0262(talk) has undone the edits to the page Bennett S. LeBow which is accurately cited and concise. Please oversee this before Algyx0262 reverts the edits again. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by California4x4 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd stronlgly advise you to read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons before proceeding further. And note that 'concise' article that removes properly-cited content may not necessarily be seen as an improvement. Beyond that, I suggest you start by discussing any issues on the article talk page - we aren't going to enforce one preferred version over another just on your say-so. That isn't the purpose of this notice board. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

California4x4 has removed a properly cited factual article on Bennett Lebow which is the result of many people's work over many years and replaced it with their own version. Reversion to the previous version of the article is clearly warranted in this case Algyx0262 (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Fan Xiaoqin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's a very complex and sensitive situation here. I'll copy my thoughts from the DYK nom:

When reading the article, I noticed that buried in the middle was a mention of the subject being intellectually disabled. This is a hell of a thing to bury in the middle of an article, and many terms for intellectual and developmental disabilities translate poorly, so I checked the source to see if this was a mistranslation. My Chinese is very weak, but I was able to confirm that no, that's the correct translation/implication of the statement. The source specifically mentioned Fan being diagnosed with "intellectual disability level 2", which doesn't translate directly to English. Checking some Chinese sources, with again significant caveats, this seemingly translates to a severe intellectual disability -- corresponding to someone with very limited communication and self-care abilities who's unlikely to understand the consequences of being internet-famous. Descriptions of him in both Chinese and English sources agree that he has a very restricted vocabularly and doesn't seem to comprehend why people were paying attention to him.

Looking at the longread article in Sixth Tone, there's a lot of detail on the context under which Fan became internet-famous. There's a fairly consistent narrative that the fame was mostly his father's doing. This is agreed with by The Paper and at least alluded to by a number of other sources I could access. In particular, the "begging" that the article focuses on is clearly not something Fan understood the implications of. This article really doesn't get any of this across -- like I said, the mention of intellectual disability is very buried. While there are good sources cited in the article, they're poorly utilized.

The number of standalone biographical articles on intellectually disabled subjects is limited. I can't think of a single article that's had to have an "is this article hiding that the subject is severely intellectually disabled?" conversation, and I really can't think of one where that's combined with a high language barrier. It definitely needs, at bare minimum, serious revisions. I'm not convinced there's a good BLP case for this article existing -- it's a very sad and complex story about exploitation, for which the coverage is fairly limited.

Any thoughts are valued. The subject is a young teenager who was famous as a child, the subject seemingly has severe cognitive impairments, and many of the sources are in a language extremely dissimilar to English. One of those alone would make things difficult. Vaticidalprophet 13:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Author of the article here; thanks for giving such a comprehensive overview of the situation. I'm way out of my depth here and I haven't handled something this complex before, but I'll gladly implement any of your suggestions. I'm still planning on getting it on DYK. Bremps... 16:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the article may need to be deleted and certainly not put on DYK. The article subject is a child with low cognitive ability who has been exploited by his family and an entertainment company. WP:AVOIDVICTIM says "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." BLP also says "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures." Fences&Windows 20:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of actual notability (which I haven't analysed), I would be very uncomfortable with this being showcased on the main page. Black Kite (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the sources, there seems to be enough there to pass notability (I've seen AfD Keep results with much less), but I certainly agree that this doesn't belong on the mainpage. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

BLP is complicated. I've AfDed subjects with a reasonable case for notability on BLP privacy/sensitivity grounds and had delete closes. I'm contemplating whether that'd happen here. There's a big burst of international coverage during his peak of fame for "this boy looks like Jack Ma" (most of that is not in the article, because it's human interest stuff with little additional encyclopedic information), but children with standalone articles should really have sustained coverage. Then there's the recent stuff, like the Sixth Tone piece. Some of this is very good, but I'm not sure yet if it makes the case that he should have a standalone article, given the very particular connotation of "exploitation-driven 15 minutes of fame". Even without everything else here it's tricky to write standalones on very young subjects, given the difficulty with being confident about long-term coverage. Vaticidalprophet 15:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

What would "special care" entail? I purposefully didn't emphasize his disabilites as it could be construed by some people to be negative information about him. Bremps... 21:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Disability studies is, in an interdisciplinary sense, an interest of mine. Something that comes up a lot is the issue that many people believe downplaying or ignoring disability is in some way necessary or important to respect disabled people, when it's very often a disservice or actively harmful. It's tricky, because people do things with the best of intentions, and the unique structure of disability advocacy (that it's so disproportionately done by abled people who may have different ideas to disabled people) means a lot of people end up with the received wisdom that downplaying disability is the (politically, morally) correct thing to do. It's not, and we can see exactly why here. Disability is not an inherently negative characteristic, but downplaying that a subject is severely disabled and undergoing exploitation he doesn't understand is. Vaticidalprophet 03:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I see what you mean now. Thanks for the tip. Bremps... 04:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Note: The new revision of the article has a mention of intellectual disability placed far more prominently (in the lede). Bremps... 18:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Reading the article now, I actually feel more hesitant. The mention in the lead is very abrupt, and it highlights the very complex and sensitive exploitation going on in the subject's claim to notability. I feel inclined to AfD the article for wider thoughts -- the notability case is fairly borderline, and the complexity of the situation needs further attention. Vaticidalprophet 15:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm surprised to realise that WP:BLPPRIVACY doesn't mention anything about medical information. (Perhaps it should?) I would think that we generally shouldn't be labelling living people with diagnoses or disabilities without evidence that they have been willing to share that information about themselves. I think this even more so for children who may have been exploited.

Also to note, there are three sources in the article for the statement He and his brother have intellectual disabilites. The only one of these that I can access is Sixth Tone. The only use of the phrase intellectual disability refers to the subject's mother, not to Fan Xiaoqin. He is described as having slower intellectual development. Regardless of whether the article is deleted, this needs to be carefully sources. Mgp28 (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree that the article should be deleted. This is one of those cases where editorial judgment must come into play, and not simply rely on blindly following policy. Policy doesn't do much to address children, but it should, because it comes up a lot. It's what first brought me to this noticeboard more than a decade ago, when people were going after Sarah Palin's kids during the presidential election. It's that mob-mentality that makes people think going after some kid is somehow justifiable. It happens with politician's children, celebrities, and now with social media, kids who are just too young to know any better or think about the long-term repercussions brought on by 15 minutes of fame. Mental disabilities aside, children really do not have the capacity to consent, and we need to use extreme caution to avoid joining in that mob-mentality of exploiting them. That's just basic human decency.

That said, when it comes to any kind of mental defect, illness, or other such medical claims, I do believe we need to insist on MEDRS sources. This also comes up here a lot, especially with politicians, and even celebrities. For example, lots of people would like to label Donald Trump as mentally disabled or some such, and have tried in the past when random people in the media have discussed it, but to have that in his article we'd need very good, MEDRS sources, not just speculation by political pundits. Same with Hilary Clinton, and the list goes on. I don't see how some kid from China, whose only claim to fame is because he happens to look like someone famous, should be afforded any less. All in all, though, I'd say we should just delete the entire article just because it's the right thing to do. Zaereth (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

This source describes him as having a mental disability: https://m.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_16903490 Bremps... 20:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

That's a newspaper, not a reliable source for medical claims. For those we have exceedingly high standards. See: WP:MEDRS. Zaereth (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll admit I'm not terribly familiar with the guideline, but this isn't a broad medical claim (i.e. oranges have Vitamin C). This is just about this specific individual. Bremps... 00:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I only just noticed your comment above; the source in question interviewed Fan's family members on several occasions. It is highly unlikely for them to only be speculating. Bremps... 00:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

But did the subject consent? That's a very important thing. Consent. The problem is, the subject can't give informed consent because no child can. Their brains are still developing, even without any mental disability. Medical info is considered very private information --by law-- which is why you won't find many MEDRS sources commenting on someone's mental health, unless the subject gives informed consent, and that's the way it should be. But this subject... I mean, he's just a kid for God's sake. Let him be a kid. Maybe when he's an adult he will want to share it all. Maybe he'll want it all to go away and be a private citizen, but everyone has the right to give informed consent. We don't have the right to take that away, and should definitely not aid in his exploitation. Zaereth (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Alright, you definitely have a point there. Bremps... 15:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I think you're right that consent is the key issue here, but I don't think that WP:MEDRS is the guideline that gets us there. I'm going to try to put my thoughts together on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons as a broader point beyond this article. Mgp28 (talk) 12:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• I pulled the trigger: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fan Xiaoqin. Fences&Windows 20:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

GeorgeNotFound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) may violate the BLP for the following reasons:
His middle name may be doxxed information.

• Neither sources that state his middle name state a source of their own.
• Neither sources that state his middle name are "official", as in Davidson was not directly interviewed and did not assist with the articles' creation.
• The two sources, comicbook.com and Tech Times often use incorrect or clickbait-y information, sometimes lifted directly from Reddit posts. (^[1][2][3][4]).
• Sites that "farm" articles by commentating on current gaming news have been known to use doxxed information accidentally. Davidson's coworker and roommate Dream had doxxed information published on Forbes' website before fans alerted Forbes and the information was removed.
• Davidson's official interview with Variety does not state his middle name.

With the community surrounding Davidson and his fellow Youtubers/Streamers constantly having doxxed information about the content creators leaked, it would be a good idea to either find concretely official information about Davidson's middle name that was willingly given by Davidson himself, or to remove his middle name entirely from the article.
--- Sketchyswirl (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Wrt to content creators, I agree it might be useful to err on the side of caution and leave out information if it could be potentially doxxed info. In this case, it seems to be so (imo). Sohom (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I am requesting assistance with Laurence D. Marks, which happens to be me. This is disclosed on my page, and has been for years. For reasons that I suspect are due to my putting a discussion WP:AfD on a page of his interest, User:Rublamb decided to start changing things on Laurence D. Marks.

Many of these edits were questionable and were reverted by User:StarryGrandma, but Rumblamd complained. What was extreme was that Rumblamd decided that it was appropriate to change my name to "Laurence Daniel Marks". I do not now and have never used the full version of my name. If Wikipedia does not have rules/suggestions about changing the name of living people without asking them first, it should. I invoked the exception in WP:COISELF, in particular:

An exception to editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly.

And reverted the edits. While Rumblamd did not corrupt my name a second time, he proceeded to make more questionable edits. For instance he reverted an addition of an official image of my birth certificate which I provided using the conventional "Request for edit" and was performed by User:Spintendo. Birth certificates, which in the UK are searchable, are not reliable? Further Rumblamd created a claim at WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Laurence D. Marks self-edits with some selective information.

He then decided to call me "staff", which all faculty members consider somewhere between disagreable and insulting. I reverted that using the same exception, but I am now being attacked by User:Theroadislong with the accusation "subject appears to be incapable of NOT editing this page"

• Beyond invoking the exception, I have not been editing the page
• I am not the main editor of this page, and never have been

I am requesting some assistance in defense. There must be some protection for living people when key points such as their name and position are being changed without asking them for input. Living people must have rights too. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• The fact that you find it disagreeable to be referred to as staff does not come close to meeting the COISELF threshold of "defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly". Wikipedia editors tend to take a very strict view of COI editing, and I would recommend against relying on that exception outside of very clear cases. You are much more likely to have people agree to change the wording here by discussing on the talkpage.
  As for the birth certificate, Rublamb explained in their edit summary why they removed it: because WP:BLPPRIMARY does not permit the use of public records in this way. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Referring to faculty of a US university as "staff" is in fact both a serious error and an insult. "Staff" is the term used at US universities for maintenance personnel, secretaries, etc. That word by itself does not and cannot refer to professors. Calling someone as staff could easily be interpreted as deliberately saying that they are too menial to be considered a scholar.

  That said, the word "staff" does appear to be used with other meanings in academia outside the US, so this could easily be a misunderstanding either by someone outside the US or someone in the US but outside the academic system. Ldm was correct to revert the change (it is the sort of false and defamatory statement on a BLP that the subject should be allowed to revert) but it does not necessarily indicate bad will. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, I found it in Special:Diff/1184635131 by User:Rublamb. Rublamb, your user page looks US-based and claims many years of experience working in an academia-adjacent field. You should know better. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  @David Eppstein, For the record, I wrote, "Laurence Daniel Marks is an American professor of materials science and engineering at Northwestern University, joining the staff in 1985." I meant no offense and clearly used “staff” to mean an employee of the university—another definition of this word. No one would have thought that Dr. Marks was anything other than a professor from that sentence, so there was no crisis. I or any other editor working on this article would have immediately changed "staff" to "faculty" if asked. However, the subject opted to edit himself within minutes of my changes. While I do not agree with how this change was made, I do believe that this edit made the lede more accurate. Rublamb (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Let's not let this get out of hand and sprawl across two noticeboards (here and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Laurence D. Marks self-edits) as well as the active talk page discussion. Uncle G (talk) 04:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Dominic Foppoli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was apparently Mayor of Windsor, California, until he resigned in controversial circumstances. There have been IP edits adding accusations and a new user called Windsor1992 sanitising the article. It's hard to work out what is going on BLP-wise and having intervened once already and been reverted I'd prefer it if other editors took a look. Thanks. Mujinga (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh dear, that looks like a complete mess. Windsor1992's edits, aside from flagrantly violating WP:NPOV (e.g. it includes five paragraphs refuting the allegations against Foppoli, but doesn't even say what the allegations are!) has just completely broken the formatting and removed nearly 50 sources. As he is a public figure who apparently had to resign from his political role due to the allegations against him, we should cover them properly. On the other hand, the previous version gives excessive detail about the allegations against Foppoli and should probably not, for instance, name seven apparently non-notable women who have alleged he assaulted them. I've partially restored the version from before Windsor1992's edits, trimming out some of the excessive detail though to be honest I think there's probably still plenty of work to do here. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look @Caeciliusinhorto-public. I was just reading further back in the page history than I did before (it's also a wild ride) and @Missvain: protected it in 2021, so alerting them as well. Mujinga (talk) 13:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Wiki bio says her husband killed himself with a knife link to Daily Telegraph newspaper in the description says he shot himself. Please correct. Andrew Dock 65 (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Sharon Douglas died in 2016; Edward Nassour died in 1962. Neither is covered by our Biographies of Living People policy, and neither is relevant to this noticeboard.

I note that the article on Nassour also says that he died from self-inflicted knife wounds, and cites some different sources. If different sources give different versions of events, it might be worth discussing at Edward Nassour. I have removed the discussion of the method from Sharon Douglas as it's not relevant to her biography particularly. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

There does seem confusion over his sexual desires. Would make sense to check with his family as the sources say two different things. Concerning whether he had a homosexual relationship. Unless it's been cleared up from my last enquiry on the matter in Feb 2023. Andrew Dock 65 (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Alan Bates died in 2003 and is thus out of scope of this board. There is some discussion of Bates' sexuality on the talkpage, I see, but nothing in that suggests that the sources say two different things. Nonetheless, if sources do in fact disagree on Bates' sexuality, we should deal with that through Wikipedia's normal processes, not by asking his family to make a ruling which is not at all how Wikipedia works. I suggest you try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies to bring attention to the discussion, and WP:RSP if there is dispute over which sources are reliable. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)