Talk:Sam Altman

Reads like an advertisement tag

The article DID read like an ad! That was appropriate tagging. I rewrote the article (restructured, added sources, updated content, removed quasi-fan cruft verbiage). The tone is more encyclopedia-like but I am uncertain if it is ready for the ad tag to be removed. If anyone especially Hipal who tagged it initially, has any thoughts on this, please let's talk about it. Due to OpenAI, Altman's BLP is getting A LOT of views lately.-- FeralOink (talk) 22:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

There are still many poor references in the article. --Hipal (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I also think some of the wording needs to be made less like a press release in a few places, but didn't have further time to work on it.--FeralOink (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I fully agree. Unfortunately, attempts to restore WP:NPOV keep getting reverted by people, often people who refuse to even take part in talk. -- Rei (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Bilderberg Group membership

User:Hipal, why did you revert my edit? It doesn't fall under WP:SOAP. Mentioning Altman's membership and thricefold attendance of the Bilderberg Group conference is:

1) Not advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment: the information is presented neutrally

2) Not opinionated: factual and sourced

3) Not scandalous: factual and sourced

4) Not self-promotion: I have no connection to the subject of the article

5) Not advertising, marketing or public relations: the information is presented neutrally

Bilderberg Group membership is important and relevant information that's mentioned in the Recognition section on other pages of tech figures such as Jeff Bezos and Peter Thiel. I have reverted your reversion. Palm Puree (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

We disagree. It's most definitely self-promotion by Bilderberg Group, and not supported by an independent reference as required by #5. Please don't revert further until there is clear consensus to do so per WP:BLP. --Hipal (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

You realise that the definition of self-promotion requires me to be affiliated with the group, yes? Are you seriously accusing me of "most definite" affiliation with the Bilberberg Group? If it needs to be said I'm obviously not, if I was I think I'd have better things to do with my time. Are the edits that mention the group on Jeff Bezos and Peter Thiel, not to mention List of Bilderberg participants self-promotion too?

Other articles don't require it, but here are some independent references:

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/18/bilderberg-openai-microsoft-google-join-ai-talks-at-secretive-meeting.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/20/bilderberg-meeting-group-lisbon-kissinger

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12102071/ChatGPT-Microsoft-chiefs-join-European-elites-Lisbon-secretive-conference.html

You also have been repeatedly reverting fixes to an incorrect claim ("OpenAI was founded as a capped-profit company"), citing "no references" even though the claim left in the article was directly contradicted by the reference. I fixed this too, by adding a new reference, and you just deleted the whole section even though the article is bare enough as is and the information seems contextually relevant. You didn't delete the section before while it was incorrect and you were reverting any fixes to it, and now that it's corrected, you delete it? This feels really spiteful, man.

It's bizarre to see this from a user with so many edits, I will escalate this since I think you're engaging in bad faith. Palm Puree (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

self-promotion requires me to be affiliated No. As I wrote, It's most definitely self-promotion by Bilderberg Group. If you were affiliated with them, then you'd be editing against a conflict of interest.

since I think you're engaging in bad faith That undermines everything you're doing here. Please review WP:CON and WP:DR. --Hipal (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@Hipal: The definition of self-promotion we use here does indeed require that the editor be, or be affiliated in some way with, the subject of the article or the content being added. That affiliation is certainly one form of COI, but accusing the editor of self-promotion when they have clearly denied any affiliation is probably unwarranted. General Ization ^Talk 00:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I've clearly defined what I meant. I've made no accusations against any editor here. --Hipal (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@Hipal: Clearly the other editor involved believes that you are accusing them of self-promotion, that is, promoting themselves or someone or something with which they are affiliated. If that is not what you are doing, then please clarify. General Ization ^Talk 01:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Already did. Please read what I wrote. Note that I never referred to SELFPROMOTE, but I did refer to #5, NOTPROMO. --Hipal (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

You said "self-promotion by Bilderberg Group" and I'm not sure how that can be interpreted as anything other than #4, but regardless I still don't see how it falls under #5 NOTPROMO. The sentence is not written in an unobjective way. The section it's in is called "Recognition" so it's unavoidably going to paint the subject in a slightly positive light (and the other parts of this section do too), but it definitely doesn't meet the standard demanded by NOTPROMO. I added 2 third-party sources (dailymail is not allowed apparently) so is that sufficient to satisfy you? No reason to argue if so. Palm Puree (talk) 07:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the independent refs. Could you format them and include the full citation information? --Hipal (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@Hipal: In re: WP:CON: The sources provided by the editor for Altman's participation in three Bilderberg Group conferences are the list of participants in those conferences. We require that sources be independent of the subject; Bilderberg Group is clearly the authoritative source for this information and is independent of Altman. The editor has also supplied a citation of a CNBC article which discusses his association with BG and the conferences, and listed some more above. I support the inclusion of this content. If you have some cogent reason to reject it, please provide that reasoning here, but "self-promotion" won't cut it. General Ization ^Talk 01:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but the Bilderberg Group refs don't belong for the reasons given. We don't need to review BLP, do we? --Hipal (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, apparently we do. In what way do you think those citations violate BLP? General Ization ^Talk 01:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Lists of participants are no more promotional than graduation announcements or lists of alumni (regularly accepted as sources for academic credentials in BLPs) represent promotion of the colleges or universities that publish them. The pages contain no promotional copy; just lists of names, which support the claim that Altman participated in the conferences. General Ization ^Talk 02:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPSELFPUB

You're comparing participating in a conference with achieving a degree? Got any references that suggests such importance? BLP strictly places the burden of inclusion on those who seek to add the information. --Hipal (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

BLPSELFPUB (read it) would apply if we were talking about information that Altman had published about himself. That is not what we are discussing. Even if it was, all of the criteria for inclusion at that link are met.

And yes, the references already provided make abundantly clear why the BG conferences are important, why Altman's participation in the conferences is significant and relevant to the subject of the article, and how his contributions were not trivial. Perhaps you should read them. General Ization ^Talk 18:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

BLPSELFPUB says, Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. --Hipal (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

That does not make sense. Any third person can lie about you, but suddenly it is a fact? 79.199.174.214 (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB says, 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. --Hipal (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you're hearing me. The sources we are talking about are not "self-published". If you're confused about what that term means, please open a discussion at WP:BLP or another noticeboard; explaining it to you is beyond the scope of this Talk page. In the meantime, I think we should move on to add the content. General Ization ^Talk 21:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

(Alternatively, you could actually participate in the discussion at DRN about this dispute, as you were invited to do but have not done.) General Ization ^Talk 21:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

We disagree on basic policy (NOT, BLP, V; likely POV as well), and the burden is on those seeking inclusion.

Please WP:FOC, and per NOT:Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians.

Meanwhile, I've been cleaning up the content. The remaining self-published ref should be replaced or removed. --Hipal (talk) 22:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed we do, and that's why you should be participating in the discussion at DRN instead of insisting that it's your way or no way at all. My focus is fine, thank you; this is a content dispute. General Ization ^Talk 23:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

(And what is it you think I'm demanding of you? I am focused on you only because you are currently the only editor involved in this discussion who is obstructing the inclusion of this content.) General Ization ^Talk 23:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I've been cleaning up the content. --Hipal (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative project.. General Ization ^Talk 23:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, though I think any discussion on collaboration should begin with the relevant policy, WP:CON, followed by WP:DR. --Hipal (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Sister's tweets

Several tweets in which his sister, Annie Altman, accuses him of molesting her when she was four years old:

- https://twitter.com/phuckfilosophy/status/1459696376133001218

- https://twitter.com/phuckfilosophy/status/1459696444802142213

- https://twitter.com/phuckfilosophy/status/1459696500540248068

- https://twitter.com/phuckfilosophy/status/1568689744951005185

- https://twitter.com/phuckfilosophy/status/1603857979408728064

- https://twitter.com/phuckfilosophy/status/1635704398939832321

- https://twitter.com/phuckfilosophy/status/1661087295657869312

- https://twitter.com/phuckfilosophy/status/1708193951319306299

Alluded to in this article, but not explicitly stated:

- https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/sam-altman-artificial-intelligence-openai-profile.html

"As Annie tells her life story, she felt special and loved when, as a child, Sam read her bedtime stories. Now those memories feel like abuse."

Is there anything that could be added from these sources that won't breach the BLP policy? 2A00:23EE:19D8:4A3:E923:6ECE:A7E8:1017 (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

No. We are currently using the NYMag ref for other content. I'm not seeing any obvious usage for it regarding the relationship between the siblings. The tweets should not be used per WP:RSPTWITTER. --Hipal (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Those allegations would be a BLP minefield even if there was any kind of corroboration. Please see my next section. Sandizer (talk) 03:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The Mary Sue is generally considered to be reliable and reports on the allegations in depth here; Slate also mentions them. Fences&Windows 17:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

with writing like this, you can't say that the mary sue is neutral or reliable: He writes about bending the world to one’s singular will as a virtue. As a start-up hack. While much journalism around Altman adds to his budding mythos, one voice has been contributing a different sort of story for years. Artem.G (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Artem.G, you misunderstand NPOV. Sources don't need to be neutral; our summarisation of them should be. Fences&Windows 17:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand what NPOV is, I just think that your definition of "generally reliable" is incorrect here. Artem.G (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial for the consensus on The Mary Sue, and see WP:BIASED: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." Fences&Windows 20:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The Mary Sue article is clearly WP:RSOPINION and cannot be used to establish assertions of fact. This does not satisfy the WP:PUBLICFIGURE standard for me. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

It is not the author's "opinion" that Altman's sister accused him as sexual assault. For God's sake. -- Rei (talk) 09:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Let's be abundantly clear about what WP:BLP says: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article. BLP strongly condemns imbalance and omission. It is not, according to BLP, "okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape"; balance is mandated. "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources". Slate is a reliable secondary source. And yes, according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial, so is The Mary Sue. This is not the venue to re-litigate this. -- Rei (talk) 09:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of if there is enough coverage for inclusion, your wording presents the allegations as facts, such as starting when she was four years old. Which is not acceptable for inclusion.

Also for your edit warring, blp says Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion (for stating these as facts) —Panamitsu (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

First, let's be clear: your edit warring. You're the one who made five reversions without taking part in talk and without making any changes to the text.

Secondly: I don't appreciate the straw man. The text was, I quote: In 2021, writing on Twitter (now X), Altman's sister Annie accused him of repeatedly sexually abusing her as a child, starting when she was four years old. You transforming that into claims that the edit was a statement of fact, and not an accusation, in order to then attack what it didn't say, is not well taken.

Thirdly: Nothing is unsourced, and nothing is poorly sourced. There are three WP-acceptable secondary sources linked )want even more? Name your number.) So your claims that this is your reason to violate WP:BLP's mandates simply does not hold up (again: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article. BLP strongly condemns imbalance and omission. It is not, according to BLP, "okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape"; balance is mandated. "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources") -- Rei (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Note: This IP appears to be the same of Rei. Both users have recently edited the induced demand article. I advise that these two users are treated as the same person. —Panamitsu (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that I wasn't logged in. I've corrected the sigs so that there's no confusion. -- Rei (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea if everything in the Mary Sue is opinion or it only this one. But I agree that this is clearly an opinion piece. And as Morbidthoughts said, opinion pieces cannot be used to establish statements of fact and there is nothing in RSP that can change that. In fact the RSP entry specifically notes this "Opinions should be attributed." 22:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea if everything in the Mary Sue is opinion or it only this one - you don't get to re-litigate that here. WP has already decided on this issue. You need to re-challenge that decision elsewhere. Not in this article.

But I agree that this is clearly an opinion piece. - (A) It's a WP:V source backing up primary sources, which is exactly what Wikipedia requires. (B) Opinions are NOT prohibited by WP:BLP regardless, they just have to be sourced. And (C) it was one of three different WP:V sources. Exactly how many is enough for you before you insist on violating WP:BLP's requirements? (to reiterate: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article. BLP strongly condemns imbalance and omission. It is not, according to BLP, "okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape"; balance is mandated. "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources") -- Rei (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Have you read WP:RSOPINION? Opinions pieces may be reliable for somethings, but they are not reliable for statements of fact. So perhaps the Mary Sue's opinion that this was unfairly ignored by the world's media is an opinion that can be included, if we needed opinions on the matter. But we don't since we lack sufficient sourcing to establish the fact that these accusations are out there.

You're welcome to seek clarification at WP:RSN or WP:BLPN if you continue to believe that this The Mary Sue piece can be used for statements of fact. RSN is afterall where RSPS is established so if you're definitely right you should have no problems establishing that.

And as far I can tell, no one has suggest it's okay for BLPs to be temporarily unbalanced. However it is true that when there is dispute whether including something is a BLP violation, exclusion until there is consensus is what BLP policy requires. And several other editors have said they find this to be a BLP violation, because there is insufficient sourcing for inclusion at the moment.

If you feel the article is "unbalanced" that's because that's what the sources are like. Per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, we're not allowed to try and to try and correct problems in the world by ignoring our sourcing and other policies and guidelines just because we don't think sources are doing the right thing.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

First off, re: Have you read WP:RSOPINION - Yes, and I question whether you have, because it specifically says, and I quote, "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion. Otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in standard news article format. The edit credits the criticism of hagiography of Altman and omission of his sister from earlier reporting to The Mary Sue, as per the guidelines.

Secondly, the article isn't an opinion piece on the subject at hand. It is factual reporting. The article includes criticism of hagiography, but this only represents a couple paragraphs of a long article, most of which is direct straightforward reporting, from a WP:V source.

Third, let's stop pretending like this is the only secondary source. There were three sources in the edit, and scroll down to "This isn't fringe news" for more - and there's plenty more than that.

Per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, we're not allowed to try and to try and correct problems in the world - I would appreciate it if you would immediately cut it with the WP:AGF violations, thanks. And while you're at it, you can also cut out the "I've been here longer than you" tone, when you started editing in 2012 and I started in 2003.

I'm here because there's extensive coverage of this news, and the current hagiography omits it, violating WP:NPOV and, yes, violating WP:BLP. I'm not out here lobbing accusations that people reverting it are "Altman stans", and I'd appreciate it if you stop doing the inverse. I have no dog in this game. I however started encountering this news all over the place, and frankly found it shocking that this article included none of it, but goes on end about about any praise he's ever gotten and trivia about where he has a vacation home or who he dated a decade ago. You really think that's more relevant than his sister lobbying sexual assault allegations at him? Really? -- Rei (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Let's break down the entire WP:BLP article.

BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. - Check. Indeed, it's careful to use the original language ("sexual abuse") rather than "rape", credit everything to those making the claims, and make no assertions of their truth.

Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects - Check

, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves.' - Check. Ironically, something you're criticizing.

Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources without giving undue weight to recent events. - Check

Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources - Check

Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking. - Check

Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources - You seek to remove criticism and only include praise, this violating BLP.

so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone - Check

Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints - You seek to give *zero* space to criticism.

the views of small minorities should not be included at all - Nobody would consider "sexual assault is bad" to be the view of a small minority

Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral - Check

Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content. - Not even remotely

The idea expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. - The article is currently entirely laudatory, and thus, imbalanced, thus *requiring* inclusion of existing criticism being discussed in secondary sources.

Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. - There is nothing "unfair" about bringing up news coverage of your sister accusing you of sexually assaulting her.

Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone - Not even remotely

Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source - As discussed previously..

Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source - Bingo.

Never use self-published sources - We have verifiable secondary sources.

Using the subject as a self-published source - N/A

Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. - As covered previously, check.

Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced - N/A

When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced. - N/A. Very much not noteworthy "for only one or two events"

When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. You seek to violate "Neutral".

This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. - Again, N/A

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. - Let me repeat that: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article

Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. - Exactly.

People who are relatively unknown - N/A

Privacy of personal information and using primary sources - With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, many people regard their full names and dates of birth as private. ... -- N/A

Subjects notable only for one event - N/A

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. - No presumption of guilt is made.

Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. - N/A

The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. -- Not low-profile, N/A.

Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. - Which you seek to prevent.

Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. - N/A

BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts. - Noted.

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. - Meets the sourcing policy.

Usernames that contain libelous, blatantly false, or contentious statements.. - N/A

Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. - N/A

Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its verifiable reliable sources. - N/A

Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light) - N/A.

Recently dead or probably dead - N/A

This policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons -- N/A

.... everything else is either "N/A" or "Check". So, to sum up: BLP not only allows, but requires, inclusion of this content. -- Rei (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you should ever touch BLPs every again until you better understand WP:BLP. Anyone who says something as flawed as "BLP not only allows, but requires, inclusion of this content" does not belong anywhere near BLPs. Nil Einne (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Any more things you want to argue against without actually making an actual argument against them? If you have an issue with the text of WP:BLP, take it up over at WP:BLP, not here. I can only comment on what WP:BLP actually says. Not what you wish it said. To repeat: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article. BLP strongly condemns imbalance and omission. It is not, according to BLP, "okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape"; balance is mandated. "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources").

You seem to be of the mistaken belief that WP:BLP means "you can't write anything negative about living persons". It says precisely the opposite: that balance is required, and that allegations belong in the article if they are noteworthy, relevant, and well documented. Nobody will ever call a sexual assault allegation "not noteworthy" or "not relevant", and we have three WP:V secondary sources (I'd be glad to get more if that's insufficient for you). And meanwhile, the current article reads like an ad, as has been noted elsewhere in this talk section - not even remotely "balanced", as BLP requires.

If you want to change WP:BLP into a policy that says "you can't say anything negative about living persons", you'll need to take that up on WP:BLP and get it changed - not this article. -- Rei (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The problem here is that Altman has significant coverage. He is one of the most talked about people in the media right now. Mainstream media (BBC, Forbes, CNBC, etc) are not mentioning these allegations at all. There must be a reason why, as it would be an absolute gold mine for them. While there is coverage of the allegations, there is so little of it that it would be undue for inclusion. —Panamitsu (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Scroll down to the post starting "This isn't fringe news". Wikipedia's standard is not, never has been, and never will be, "Whether my favourite news sites specifically covered it." -- Rei (talk) 08:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

No what I want is for BLP to be properly respected. I've been dealing with these sort if issues of BLPN for years, and we never allow coverage of allegations when they lack sufficient sourcing per WP:UNDUE etc. Any editor who ever approaches BLP in the manner that allegation must be included, and when they can only find one or two mentions in opinions pieces and poor quality sources when there are probably over 20 better quality sources covering that person in sigificant in just the past week, should not be editing BLPs, period. Frankly I would never use the word "must" when referring to the inclusion of information (as opposed to sources) in articles, even when I strongly believe the information needs to be there e.g. widely covered response to some allegations since it's just unhelpful to talk in that way. Edit: Just for further clarification, as The Mary Sue notes, even the recent indepth New York Magazine profile on Sam which did interview his sister and mentioned some of her comments chose not to explicitly mention the sexual assault allegations for whatever reason. Nil Einne (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Annie Altman is NOT a WP:BLP violation

It meets all of the criteria for inclusion. By contrast, omission of this info and leaving the article like an ad (an already existing complaint about this article, as per other comments on this talk page) violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. -- Rei (talk) 09:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Rei Have a look on the "Sister's tweets" discussion. It mentions policy regarding that Twitter is not a reliable source for such controversial matter. This is probably why mainstream media has not covered the tweets. —Panamitsu (talk) 09:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Twitter is not the source. We have secondary sources now. Mainstream sources *have* covered it. I'd be glad to remove the Twitter *links* if that's your demand, but they're not the *source*. -- Rei (talk) 09:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Slate added as an additional source. Now two reliable resources are cited (and yes, The Mary Sue is a reliable source according to Wikipedia and may be cited.) -- Rei (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I think this can and should be included, but not like this. This issues obviously has serious WP:BLP implications and its worth handling carefully. This must be rewritten to closely match what reliable sources say directly, without editorializing or vagueness. The tweets are a WP:PRIMARY source and should be summarized and contextualized by a reliable secondary source. Just mentioning the existence of such a source is insufficient.

Likewise, saying this "has been more recently criticized" is not going to work. What do reliable sources say about these tweets? The way to avoid BLP issues is to include context from reliable sources. Any opinion or subjective analysis (such as criticism) must also be contextualized and attributed. Use reliable sources to explain who criticized what, and why it matters. Grayfell (talk) 09:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I would oppose inclusion if the only sources we have are The Mary Sue and Slate. There is substantial coverage on Altman, so it's WP:undue to include something with so little coverage. In fact ironically The Mary Sue makes this point for us, for whatever reason this is something which has been largely ignored by most sources. (I'm not convinced their reasoning for why is correct, but that's neither here nor there although it is worth remembering that this affects two (well or more depending on what we include) living persons.) Also is there some reason we're discussing this in two sections? It should me merged with the section above. Nil Einne (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The recent edit-warring made a bit of a mess of the talk page, and I responded where I thought it would be seen. Upon consideration, I think you're correct and I was wrong. It may be possible to include this, but only with much better sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

For clarity, I'm not complaining about others responding in this thread, but I don't understand why the OP who joined Wikipedia before me (before I even started editing I think), started a thread at the top of the page ignoring the existing discussion until later. IMO it should be merged at least as a subthread of the other. I'd sometimes do this myself but I'm a bit reluctant to when I've so harshly criticised the OP's taken on this. Nil Einne (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I missed the Times Now ref until now since it wasn't mentioned here. However I don't think it adds anything frankly I'm not sure we should use it at all. From what I recall and read, Times Now is one of those extremely pro-Modi/BJP channels known for their anchors yelling at everyone who disagrees and calling them traitors, terrorists etc. (This was a particularly funny incident of theirs [1]. Not mentioned in that ref but it's made even funnier by the fact that the anchor either didn't know or care that the person they were trying to yell at given their associations probably mostly agreed with them regarding US foreign policy.) While this is an area we shouldn't expect such extreme bias to be a problem, I'd always be wary of any media with such a poor track record although I don't know if their Times News Now section is better. Checking WP:RSN discussions isn't positive of them either. It seems they have been known for pushing the love iihad conspiracy theory and perhaps far more concerning when it comes to BLP, Sushant Singh Rajput death conspiracies. (Although my understanding is it's hardly uncommon pushers of love jihad will falsely accuse random specific individuals too, so maybe both are just as bad from a BLP standpoint.) I've looked and there might be one or two other sources but the coverage doesn't see to have changed much. Nil Einne (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

That's three WP:V sources. How many do you need? Just tell me, and I'll include that many.

Furthermore, this article is already facing allegations of coming across as an ad, so if you want to talk WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, this article is a huge violation in exactly the opposite direction.

In short, I'll be glad to add more sources if that's the issue. Just let me know. -- Rei (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a very serious accusation, so caution is appropriate and this lengthy discussion is warranted. Certainly tweets and unverified accusations are not to be included, but if there are credible and legitimate RS news sources that have covered the issue, then that coverage can be included, if not stated as fact and if appropriate denials (if there are any) are also included. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, they're only included because, according to WP:BLP, "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source".

This isn't fringe news; it's all over the place. Business sites like VentureBeat are talking about it. AI news sites like GenerativeAI.pub. Celebrity gossip sites like Genius. It's being talked about on news sites in France[2], Indonesia[3], Turkey[4], India[5], Mexico[6], Thailand[7], Taiwan[8][9], Nigeria[10], Ghana[11], you name it. It's international news. It belongs here. Wikipedia is not a hagiography site. Nobody is talking about "how long Altman has been a vegetarian" or "whether he owns a vacation home in Napa". -- Rei (talk) 08:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Not sure all that actually supports inclusion... I actually get the opposite impression. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:RS discussion

As per User:Nil Einne's advice, I raised this on WP:RSN here to get independent third-party feedback. The conclusions seem to be:

1) Given the numerous WP:RS sources with regards to the event itself, RS is established.

2) However, WP:DUE must be established in talk.

3) The Mary Sue article shouldn't be used for the event itself, but is fine for describing providing criticism of the initial lack of media coverage, so long as it is attributed to its source.

So with regards to #2: you already know my view on the topic. The article currently reads like an ad. This isn't merely my opinion, this was already an active area of discussion before this news ever became prominent. Wikipedia isn't a hagiography site. And given how this is a serious accusation, I cannot see how WP:DUE could be possibly disputed. -- Rei (talk) 09:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

As I mention above, I started out inclined to include this in some way, but the more I look at these sources, the less obvious it seems, and now I do not think this belongs. I do not think it would be respectful towards either sibling to mention some of the details for why I think this. Being a serious accusation is not, by itself, enough to make this due weight. We still need to use sources to decide weight. Some of the above sources, such as "generativeai.pub", "geniuscelebs.com", and others, are flatly unreliable and should not be cited for any contentious claims in a BLP article at all. (I also do not accept machine translations for sources. Especially for BLPs, I do not cite sources in languages I cannot personally read.) So for any source, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. What, exactly, are reliable sources saying about this accusation? Per Slate: "To be clear, these remain allegations, and were not mentioned by anyone (even Annie) as a cause of the firings."[12] I think there's also the issue that these accusations against Altman where mainly when he was still a child, and he is now an adult. I don't know exactly what that means here, but it means something and leaving that out would be telling an unacceptably incomplete history of events. So we would have to figure out how to include this in a way that satisfies BLP, based on the few usable sources we have. To be blunt, I do not think that is possible.

The article absolutely should be rewritten for neutrality. I do not think this is specifically related to this issue. Even before this recent debacle, there is ample reliably-sourced critical content on Altman. If better sources for his sister's allegations come along, let's discuss this again as appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 09:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The number of RS on this is IMO still way too low. Note that not all of those you mention in RSN seem to be RS, and of those which have been demonstrated, many are not great RS. This article may very well need correction, but as I've said before in relation to other things, if an article has way too much irrelevant and poorly sourced positive material, or is written in an excessive positive tone; the solution is not to add poorly sourced negative material. It's to remove the excessive positive material and re-write stuff we do include so we get the right tone. Nil Einne (talk) 11:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

There were around a dozen listed on RSN. Which ones are you disputing as to whether it's RS? Slate (magazine)? VentureBeat? 20 minutes (France)? Koran Jakarta? The Independent? The Thaiger? Liberty Times? ? The only one disputed there (and I agree with their point) in the list was the Yahoo News. To be clear, the number of RS required is "1".

You told me to take it to RSN to get this resolved (presumably expecting that RSN would side with you). RSN backed up that there's ample RS to support the text, and what needs to be discussed now is DUE, not RS. Don't tell me to take it to RSN, and then when RSN sides with me, say we're just going to ignore RSN.

As far as I'm concerned: if you say "take it to RSN", and RSN makes a decision: RS is decided. You can't pull a whoopsie and wish that it hadn't actually gone to RSN. As per RSN, the only thing left to decide thus is DUE. And if you're not going to make the argument "The subject's sister saying he raped her isn't worth two sentences.", then as far as I can tell, this discussion is resolved. -- Rei (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

And to quickly answer "What, exactly, are reliable sources saying about this accusation?" - exactly what the text they were used to support said: that there were allegations. Not "he did it". I would strongly oppose inclusion of any statement assessing their value of truth. But the allegations are absolutely DUE - it boggles the mind to think that one could argue that sexual assault allegations from the subject's sister aren't DUE - they have RS, and BLP is explicit that BLP articles should follow NPOV, which this does not. -- Rei (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I believe at least one and maybe of the more sources you have posted above are AI translations of the Slate article. These are not reliable, and should not be cited. As mentioned above, I would hope that nobody is citing a source written in a language they cannot read. Even if these machine-translated sources were reliable, they would not be useful for demonstrating due weight since they are not separate sources. (Similar to how an article distributed by the Associated Press may be republished in hundreds of newspapers, but those would still be a single source).

I quoted the Slate article to clarify my rhetorical question. The source exists to talk about his firing, and then says almost in passing that these accusations haven't actually made any difference for that topic. To put it another way, the source emphasizes that they are just accusations and then explains that they haven't actually amounted to anything. The page on WP:BLP discusses criminal accusations multiple times. We are not obligated to include accusations, and if we do, we need to provide context, but sources do not allow us to provide this context. If the only thing we are mentioning about Annie Altman is that she has made these accusations, were are defining her by these accusations. I don't think this is appropriate based on these sources. Annie Altman has made it clear that she has no intention of involving the law (nor is it clear this would be possible considering the siblings ages at the time). Treating "Sam Altman" as an encyclopedia topic, I don't think these accusations belong yet. If this situation changes or if more sources are found which allow us to discuss it, we can reevaluate. Grayfell (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

1) Random guessing as to the editorial process of RS is not part of Wikipedia's process.

2) An article being a translation of a different article does not make something not RS, even if true.

RSN settled this. Move on to DUE.

3) The title of this article is not "The Firing Of Sam Altman". Whether something contributed to his firing is 100% irrelevant.

4) "They're just accusations". Accusations of rape. From his sister. Which is *absolutely* DUE.

5) "We are not obligated to include accusations" - you're obliged to follow NPOV instead of writing hagiography and hiding anything negative about the subject.

6) "Annie Altman has made it clear that she has no intention of involving the law " - Nor could she because of the statute of limitations. She has written repeatedly about what happenened, year after year, and she very clearly wants people to know what she says about her brother, rather than the current trend of hagiography. The vast majority of rape victims do not go to the police. Because even without a tolled statute of limitations, the odds of anything happening to the perpetrator are extremely, extremely low, while the odds of negative impacts to you are extremely high. You do not damn someone for not wanting to go to the police. Period.

I think it may be time for a RFC. What do you think? --- Rei (talk)

4) "They're just accusations". Accusations of rape. From his sister. Which is *absolutely* DUE. Accusations of rape are not prima facie WP:DUE. You don't get to wave your hands and say that just because they are rape accusations they are due: it's on you to establish that they are due. (In fact Annie Altman, as you mention upthread, does not accuse Sam Altman of rape; she accuses her brothers of various forms of abuse, including sexual abuse, but never says that any of them raped her, and none of the acts that she describes appear to legally constitute rape in the state where Altman was raised and they were presumably allegedly committed).

Having read through this discussion as a previously uninvolved party, it seems clear to me that the consensus is that inclusion of Annie Altman's accusations is not currently due; you are of course free to open an RfC if you believe that the wider community would come to a different consensus but I do not see that there's a super compelling argument here. As far as I can see the articles which discuss the allegations in depth are not very high quality (the Genius Celebs article is a particular lowlight). Maybe something very brief could be included, but the text removed from the article most recently in this diff doesn't even meet WP:V ("repeatedly" is not supported by the cited source, nor is "starting when she was four"; we need to be very careful here to rigorously stick to what the sources actually say). Even if it did we cannot cite Annie Altman's tweets for claims about Sam Altman per WP:BLPSPS, only report on what reliable sources say about them, and per WP:RSOPINION we should attribute the Mary Sue's criticism if we are going to include it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

While I would say that this is splitting hairs in talk (what she described - repeatedly, and in detail - absolutely meets the legal definition of rape, with zero ambiguity), I fully agree that the text of changes should match as precisely as possible the language of the sources, and welcome any changes in this regard. I however profoundly disagree with you about inclusion. Wikipedia does not have a "no accusations" policy. Not even remotely. The standard is that you cannot assert that accusations are proven - Wikipedia has a presumption of innocence policy. For accusations, the standard is DUE. And since we run the risk of overusing WP acronyms without mentioning what they mean: DUE means not having the majority of an article on a minority position, and not mentioning fringe topics. Nobody is proposing that the majority of this article be about the accusations - the change is just a couple sentences. And it is beyond a stretch to call accusations of sexual assault from your sister "fringe topics". -- Rei (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• It doesn't seem like you're responding to my comments in good faith.

We don't cite multiple copies of the same source as though they were multiple sources, and an unattributed machine translation of a source is plagiarism and therefore not a reliable source and not something we should link on Wikipedia. We cannot use bad sources to imply something is due weight. Repeatedly stating this is "absolutely due" is not sufficient. Obviously, these are serious accusations that should be taken seriously. Wikipedia isn't the place to address these accusations. Of course Annie Altman is not obligated to go to the police or to go to anyone else. They are still accusations, though. Sam Altman doesn't owe Wikipedia editors any explanation either. By including these accusation in this article, we would be obligating him to answer to us. This isn't justice, this is online vigilantism.

Our goal is to summarize sources. To further illustrate the point, at least one of these sources misrepresents the accusations by falsely stating they were both teenagers at the time. That particular source was being lazy, but that's not a problem we, as editors, can fix. These sources are not treating these accusations seriously, they are treating them as gossip in a rush to cover a business story. The two or three reliable mentions are specifically contextualizing this as unsubstantiated accusations, but for us to pass-along these accusations in that same context would be inappropriate. Grayfell (talk) 07:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

So you agree that they are serious allegations that are widely reported by RS sources. Well, that's the standard for inclusion. You seem to be under two mistaken impressions. One, that the word "allegations" means "not appropriate on Wikipedia". This isn't how this works at all. There are entire massive articles worked on for years over allegations. What matters is whether they're noteworthy and properly attributed. And two, you seem to believe that we're supposed to be doubting the editorial policies of sources that are established as RS based on whether or not we personally like editorial choices. Again, that's not how any of this works. If an editor for a RS chooses to publish an article that's similar to that from another source, that's their editorial decision, not ours. We don't get to decide that here. And to repeat: all it takes is a single RS. RS was established here over RSN. We can discuss which of the RS links to include as references - surely we don't want to include a dozen. But that doesn't eliminate the establishment of RS. The debate is over DUE.

To repeat, these are the policies that govern allegations:

1) RS. This has been established by RSN.

2) V. Linked to RS.

3) NPOV. This article as it stands is the opposite of neutral - hagiographic even, as was already established before this topic even came up. This change moves in the direction of NPOV.

4) BLP. BLP's only comment on the topic of accusations is that the presumption of innocence must be maintained. NOT that they should be excluded.

5) DUE. The discussion topic at hand. And you yourself have now said that they are, and I quote you, "serious allegations".

Finally, I must insist on you stopping WP:AGF violations. -- Rei (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

"Serious allegations" does not mean that it could be due. It means that the matter is very serious; punishment would be high. —Panamitsu (talk) 10:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Since I think we'd all agree that this has gone on long enough, and no objection was made to bringing in outside parties, a dispute request has been filed at [[13]]. Just to notify everyone in this conversation. -- Rei (talk) 10:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Kara Swisher says she has a scoop

I am not a good enough Wikipedian to know off the cuff whether these tweets are noteworthy or sufficiently reliable in her voice for inclusion, but my longstanding impression is a lot of Silicon Valley goes to Kara Swisher when they want to leak, and her leak reporting is nearly flawless, unlike her op/eds. So I offer these excerpts for consideration by the more steeped in such questions: "it was a 'misalignment' of the profit versus nonprofit adherents at the company. The developer day was an issue.... Sources tell me that the profit direction of the company under Altman and the speed of development, which could be seen as too risky, and the nonprofit side dedicated to more safety and caution were at odds. One person on the Sam side called it a “coup,” while another said it was the the right move." Sandizer (talk) 03:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Wait until it is reported by reliable sources. We are not in any hurry to report what might be speculation. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Things are going so fast it's already several updates old. Sandizer (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Fully protected edit request on 20 November 2023

An earlier edit (Special:Diff/1186003145) added "K" as a middle initial of Satya Nadella which seems utterly unsourced and does not exist outside of Wikipedia (and was on nl Wiki [14] which I've removed [15] since it seemed like a direct translation of en's text) Wikipedia seems to be the only place with that now.

Proposed changes in Sam Altman#Microsoft:

• Remove K and wikilink: Satya K Nadella → [[Satya Nadella]]
• Remove trailing space after .: team. <ref> → team.<ref>

Skynxnex (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Skynxnex (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 November 2023

Link potassium iodide to the relevant Wikipedia article. Evanf32 (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Please establish consensus for this change, it seems WP:Overlinking to me. Nil Einne (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

It is, and generally speaking, Wikilinking words within quotes is discouraged anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

He's back.

https://twitter.com/openai/status/1727206187077370115?s=46&t=HUarsCF30BFrz3xURMUMPQ

HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 06:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Third-party reliable source: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/22/openai-brings-sam-altman-back-as-ceo-days-after-ouster.html ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

+ Additional source: [16]https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/22/23967223/sam-altman-returns-ceo-open-ai – NirvanaToday^t@lk 12:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Technically, the post says that they are still figuring out the details, which means that we might still need to wait a while for this edit.Pksois23 (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

He's back. And this time, it's official.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/sam-altman-returns-openai-ceo-infighting-ai-startup-rcna126214 SteelerFan1933 (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 November 2023

Altman has been announced to return to OpenAI as CEO. Ihikky (talk) 07:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Deactivating request as duplicate (see several sections above). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 November 2023 (3)

Sam altman has returned to the post of CEO in OpenAI, it's all over the news, can you edit it? Thanks. 4vidit.bansal (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Deactivating request as duplicate (see several sections above). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The page is wrong. He is CEO. Again.

Page is not up to date. Sam is back. 2A00:1110:23B:3E56:9567:7F9D:85A8:D0A6 (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 November 2023 (4)

Add information about Sam Altman being back as CEO of OpenAI as it was just announced by OpenAI on X/Twitter AhmedEdits (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Deactivating request as duplicate (see several sections above). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 November 2023 (5)

Sam Altman is currently the CEO of OpenAI 2001:1970:51A4:D600:200B:435B:1EFF:B99C (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Deactivating request as duplicate (see several sections above). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect date of return as ceo

Tuesday, November 22 2023 does not exist 2A02:C7C:B237:9600:8879:4F0F:F313:B388 (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done. thanks. Grayfell (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant sexuality ref

Altman's sexuality is irrelevant in the course of this article, I would like to remove on the basis that Bill Gates wiki, for example does not make reference to his sexuality directly.

"It is quite common to include it" is not a good enough reason, it is not encyclopedic in the context of the article about him. His focus is AI.

Altman neither is a campaigner for LGBT - I agree in that article he acknowledges how the internet helped him in his journey but that seems at best spurious or at worst prurient. A review of his blog finds no references to gay, lgbt, or homosexual.

I open this to the floor, I vote to remove it. Juddlackland (talk) 06:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Just so you know, your argument also falls short. Why would Bill Gates' article reference his sexuality? Being straight is the "default". The focus of Bill Gates was Microsoft - does that mean that the article should omit his past marriage? No. Same thing.

I'll restore the content. Please don't remove it again as it has been in the article for a long time without dipute. Keep it to talk. —Panamitsu (talk) 07:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. Please state your reason/s why his sexuality should be included, and they encyclopedic reasons to support them.

These are three reasons why it is irrelevant for this wiki.

Firstly, heterosexuality is not a "default", it is a minority. It is irrelevant to his bio, esp. when a little extra reading shows his sexuality clearly, if anyone be interested. From a Wiki perspective this should be the norm not that it's pointed out simply because he is a member of a minority. This is discrimination in reverse, and is fundamentally not encyclopedic. It is verging on the prurient and has no place here.

Secondly, just because something has been around for a long time is not a good enough reason. So was slavery, and so was having 10 children in the hope that 3 might make it to the age of 7 so they could start to work, as child labour was also traditional. The appeal to tradition is not a sensible argument for anything and again, not encyclopedic.

Thirdly, he is not an activist for LGBT rights. As I said, the referenced YouTube does talk about how the internet helped him come out, but that has nothing to do with his work in AI. Juddlackland (talk) 09:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll respond to each of your points in order.

1. Heterosexuality is not a minority. It is a majority. Read demographics of sexual orientation which says 93% of men and 87% of women identify as completely heterosexual. The mention of a past relationship does not show his sexuality clearly because he could be bisexual. I do agree that often LGBT stuff can weirdly prurient, but not in this case. This a biography, it serves to teach us about Altman.

2. I do not understand what you're trying to say here. Slavery and saying "Altman is gay" are not even remotely on the same level.

3. This is a biography, not a CV. It doesn't hurt to write about his personal life. —Panamitsu (talk) 10:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Could you please spell out for me why you consider reference to Altman's sexuality to be of encyclopedic value, when he is neither an activist for LGBT rights or issues, or defined in his work and personal life to the extent that it would be?

1.

1. That was (obviously) a typo, my apologies. But what does it matter what his sexuality was in the past?

2. You said "it's been there for a long time". That is irrelevant. I hadn't read it and I don't think it should stand. You are appealing to tradition, and I formed some concrete examples as to why appealing to tradition is not ever sensible, because things change, and life changes, so simply saying that it should stay because it has been there for a long time simply does not make sense.

3. To return to the example of Bill Gates. Altman's sexuality is of exactly the same importance, as Bill Gates', I used him as an example because he is also successful technologist. So by your reasoning Bill Gates' Wiki should start with "He is heterosexual". That does not, for exactly the same reason that Altman's should not, because it is simply not that important

Once more, if Altman were an activist for LGBT rights, I would agree this is relevant but it really not here.

Very happy to take this to the next step if disagree. Juddlackland (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Using Bill Gates as an example is completely irrelevant here as he is heterosexual. Find other gay businessmen as an example instead. Maybe Peter Thiel or Tim Cook?

Altman is also not a vegetarian activist. I'm surprised that you aren't disputing that as it is of may less value. —Panamitsu (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Have a read below why I used Gates as an example.

With my limited time I focus on matters that are of interest to me. I agree that I see even less value in Altman's vegetarianism, or his prepping activities for that matter. Juddlackland (talk) 06:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Tim Cook's is a great example. It does not start with "Tim Cook is gay". It talks about his attendance of Pride, with Apple and goes onto refer to his choices and how he wanted to be public about his sexuality.

It is my desire that Altman's wiki follow the same guideline - not to stick a huge "Altman is gay" at the outset. His sexuality is a part of who he is, not all of what he is. We understand that later, if we are interested. Juddlackland (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Bill Gates's biography does discuss his sexuality:

Gates married Melinda French on the Hawaiian Island of Lanai on January 1, 1994. They met in 1987 after Melinda began working at Microsoft. At the time of their marriage, Gates was given permission by Melinda to spend limited time with his ex-girlfriend, businesswoman Ann Winblad. Bill and Melinda have three children: Jennifer, Rory and Phoebe.

This, the 3rd paragraph of the section Personal life, 1st of the section Marriage and divorce, tells us he is likely to be heterosexual but certainly that he has had romantic relationships with more than one member of the opposite sex and that he has fathered 3 children. It may not use the word "heterosexual", but it's a stretch to pretend that his sexuality is not being described here.

Given that he has publicly discussed his sexuality, why would we not mention that Sam Altman is gay? The sentence about his sexuality has 3 references, one of which is a video from a LexisNexis series highlighting outstanding LGBTQ tech innovators, the other two being Business Insider and The New Yorker, all of which are good-quality reliable sources. We routinely discuss the sexuality and family life of biographical subjects — straight subjects and LGBTQ+ subjects alike — as does any biography.

@Juddlackland: Why do you his sexuality is not of encyclopædic value? — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 21:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed response.

I used Gates as an example on purpose. What I see as I unencyclopedic is the need to explicitly spell out "Altman is gay". That is inferred in the Gates article and I suggest it has exactly the same weight here. Why single out this label? To me this is prurient, not encyclopedic.

"It may not use the word "heterosexual""

Exactly. We learn quite enough about Altman to understand his sexuality, as we do with Gates, no more, no less, there is no need to stick a label on it because it serves no purpose. Juddlackland (talk) 06:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

That is counter to how we handle the biography of pretty much every LGBTQ person. Our guidelines are all about avoiding undue prominence, not avoiding mention. (See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § Sexuality, Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines and Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Identity.)

"Prurient" makes it sound like talking about sex and sexuality is somehow dirty. Wikipedia is not censored; we don't consider describing people's relationships or sexuality as "prurient". — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 11:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this detailed response. These are more compelling reasons than "it's been there for ages".

I feel this is undue prominence, given this is far from the most important aspect of him, that is what makes me think this verging towards the prurient. I have no objection to mention of sex or sexuality in general it appears to be for purpose of sensationalising it. This is what I feel is happening here.

I will have a good read of that style guide and see where I fall. Juddlackland (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

if it appears to be sensationalising it - the editor crashed. Juddlackland (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

What references do we have that might settle this? --Hipal (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

References are already in the article, as I described above. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 09:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

If you want help, make it easy for others. Somehow indicate what you're talking about. I see mention of a YouTube ref and [17]. That's all there is?

I've removed it based upon that single, poor reference, per WP:BLP. I'd assume that there's some general consensus on providing such information, especially in a BLP. Has anyone looked?

WP:BLPCAT has some general guidance for the corresponding category.

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Sexuality has guidance on giving such information undue weight.

Asking at WP:LGBT would probably be helpful. --Hipal (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I've restored the text — it's not a "single, poor reference" just because it's on YouTube; it's a series by Lexus published by Queerty (not LexisNexis as I mistakenly attributed it to earlier). His sexuality is also discussed in the refs in that paragraph, including in the New Yorker piece. It is trivially easy to find further references; I'm adding more to the article now. It would be much more useful for you to have looked for those rather than removing the text. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

For future reference, the discussion here wasn't about referencing and referencing was a red-herring. It would be useful in future to read and parse the discussion to better understand the nature of disagreement before sidetracking it on an unrelated topic. One individual, a relatively new editor, describing the mention of a BLP subject's sexuality as "sensational" does not represent a lack of consensus to include that detail. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

We disagree about the quality of that YouTube ref.

How about trimming back the new references to those that are BLP quality, and clearly indicate encyclopedic value, rather than WP:OVERCITE? --Hipal (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I've just added those references because you seem to be under the impression that Altman's sexuality was unclear and poorly referenced.

Queerty and Lexus are both perfectly reputable organisations and the quality of Queerty as a source is not considered of concern. That it happens to be a video hosted on a third-party doesn't mean that it magically becomes unreliable.

The only reference that is used just once is the Lexus feature published by Queerty. Feel free to combine the references if you can match them up better. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I've done some quick cleanup. It could use more. --Hipal (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Hipal for your input. I agree the article is stronger, but also still argue that the "Altman is gay" reference is totally unnecessary. This is all I wanted when I edited it out. I see no need for it, and to be accused of vandalism for it completely overboard.

To go back to my original example, we don't need a to have "Gates is heterosexual" on his page before talking about Melinda Gates, why should it be here?

This is what I see as the prurience, not the sexuality itself - that would be ridiculous. Juddlackland (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

We follow the references. WP:CT/GG applies. --Hipal (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Choice of main portrait photo?

I suspect that the photo with the star of David in background was not chosen as coincidence, I suggest it be changed to a more neutral not politically charged photo Solum7 (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to jump to conclusions but it's a rather awkward photo in other respects. 2601:642:4600:D3B0:5D8A:B528:EBC8:9A29 (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Hypothetically, I think if the crop were tighter, showing his head and chest but not his waist or forearms, it could work. 24.130.92.83 (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The earlier photo is too low in resolution to support cropping it to just head and shoulders. The existing photo now is fine. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)