Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive349

Discussions of a crime allegedly committed by Lauren Boebert's husband

Is it a violation of BLP to include a paragraph discussing a crime Lauren Boebert's husband is alleged to have committed. The back drop of this question is this disputed edit [1]. Boebert's husband is reported to have exposed himself in front of two girls in 2004 (if he is the same age as Lauren Boebert he would have been about 18 at the time). Lauren's disputing of the facts of the crime was published by several news sources in 2022. The question is does the inclusion here violate BLPCRIME as the content is about Boebert's husband vs Lauren Boebert? The material is in a general section about her personal life and doesn't appear to support a larger narrative about Lauren. There is a discussion related to the content here[2] but I think views outside of the subject area would be helpful. Springee (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Lauren was under 18 at the time of the incident; her husband was 24. He isn't merely "accused"; he was convicted since he pled guilty. BLPCRIME addresses non-notable people merely accused of a crime. His criminal history has been mentioned in multiple RS discussions of Lauren Boebert; WP is not the entity making the connection. VQuakr (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, she is the one who brought this up as she wrote about it in her book. You can't write something in a book and expect people to not comment -- particularly if the book comes out three months before an election and makes incorrect statements. And "alleged" should be stricken.O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It appears that Salon dug up the dirt before Boebert's book was published. It appears she was trying to respond to the accusations. Springee (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

VQuakr, I think the issue here is that her husband (were they married at the time?) is the subject of this information yet he isn't a public figure and the article isn't about him. We have to balance his BLP needs against the WEIGHT of this content in the article. Remember that when dealing with real people we need to err on the side of do no harm [3]. Springee (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I doubt many of her voters read Salon. They are more likely to have read her book where she apparently made false statements about this. The mention in the article is about her false statements in her book shortly before her election. "When first you practice to deceive." And why haven't you removed "alleged"? If it were just alleged, you'd have better legs to stand on. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

If she disputes the facts then the question is moot because its not about her husband anymore. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

According to the source I just read (I had never heard of her five minutes ago, so some research was necessary), the couple were not married at the time. This doesn't seem particularly relevant however, since she was apparently present at the time of the offense, and in commenting about it herself she has made it relevant to our article about her. I will say that I don't think that we should include the word 'falsely'. She says he didn't actually do it, but we say that he pled guilty and was convicted; that's all factual, and it's probably all we need to say. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

since she was apparently present at the time of the offense: according to Insider that claim was made by the NY Post, which is GUNREL, especially for BLPs DFlhb (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Girth Summit that "falsely" should be omitted, but I don't think there is any doubt that she was present. Various sources (including those that lean left, those that lean right, and primary sources) report that Boebert was present. Newsweek: "She and Jayson Boebert were not yet married and the pair were out with friends and family at the time of the incident." The Independent: "Ms Boebert’s version of events, however, diverges from the timeline and accounts that were provided to police and omits relevant details – including that she was there and spoke to authorities after the 2004 incident." Washington Examiner: "Lauren Boebert, according to the county sheriff’s report, was recorded as a witness. But she did not mention being present for it in her book, in which she says the night of the episode began when Jayson Boebert 'decided to try to bond with my stepfather.' 'The two of them went to the Rifle bowling alley and got to chatting over drinks,' she writes, omitting the fact that she was, according to police, with them." -Location (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Springee that Wikipedia shouldn't publish this. It can't be right to put Boebert's non-notable husband's non-notable crime into Wikipedia on the principle that 'it serves her right, because she wrote about it in her book'. This isn't about what serves her right, it's about not shaming her husband. He's a separate person. I quote WP:BLPNAME: 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. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. Is her husband's crime, or even her denial of it, "relevant to a reader's complete understanding of [Boebert]"? Surely not. Bishonen | tålk 17:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC).

"Is her husband's crime, or even her denial of it, "relevant to a reader's complete understanding of [Boebert]"?" of course it is, if she wasn't a political hot spot we would never even question it. Wikipedia is not censored, if it gets substantial coverage from WP:RS we cover it per WP:NPOV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

One thing in situations like this is the article is about Lauren Boebert, not her husband (who as far as I know is only notable due to being her husband). So details that are not about Lauren Boebert should be kept to a minimum. I don't mean that it should necessary be kept out of the article, but sentences such as "Jayson Boebert was arrested in 2004 for exposing his penis to two young women at a Colorado bowling alley." are undue, as they are about Jason Boebert not Lauren Boebert. Stating that he pleaded guilty to lewd exposure and public indecency is enough to then cover her denial of it. As to whether it's a notable enough detail to include at all it does seems like something a tabloid would report own, but it is something she has written about in her own memoirs so she seems to think it noteworthy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes the article is about Lauren Boebert, as is the coverage (people keep implying that these articles are about her husband but they aren't, they're about her). If it was just tabloids who reported on it we wouldn't be having this discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

An entire paragraph in her personal life section with 5 other paragraph was undue WP:WEIGHT. It's not that significant a part of her life and was just one part that was mentioned in her book. If the charges against her husband aren't being mentioned in general anywhere, then her dispute of it isn't needed. If her book was notable to have it's own article then assuming the other parts that are covered in reliable sources were also covered, then it would make sense to include that bit as well. If this event had occurred while Boebert was a public figure/notable, then it probably would warrant a mention. As things are now, I don't feel it is needed in the article at all. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It's DUE because independent RSs have discussed it in connection with Lauren Boebert. VQuakr (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Independent RS have discussed a lot in connection with her, we do not include everything single thing mentioned about her, let alone those mentioned about her husband. My comment about weight was the fact that way too much focus was given to this one fact in her personal life section compared to the relative scope in the grand scheme of her and the coverage of her. My response was to the version linked[4] that was mentioned. If it was going to be included it could honestly be done in one sentence, something like ~"In her memoir Boebert claimed her husband didn't actually expose himself for an indecent exposure charged he pleaded guilty to in 04". Like I said I don't feel like it should be in article, but if it was this wouldn't be undue weight. The version disputed focused on the husband too much, wanted to say more detail then needed, decided to mention twice he pleaded guilty, and twice he went to jail for it. Once again the article is about her not him, we don't need background on him or the charge, "she disputed he committed the crime that he plead guilty to" focuses on her and what she said. WikiVirusC^(talk) 21:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Boebert was present when a crime was committed (✓), the crime was committed by someone she accompanied to the venue (✓), she denied that any crime was committed (✓), she found the incident noteworthy enough to write about it (✓), she omitted key details about the incident when she wrote about it (✓), and reliable sources found all of this noteworthy enough to write about it (✓). We do not need to include every tidbit that reliable sources publish about her, but I think all of this meets the onus for inclusion and weight. -Location (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, at least Salon reported on the story in 2021, before her book came out in 2022. We shouldn't assume that she was the one to raise the issue. Springee (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Why have you refused to strike the dishonest word "alleged" which should most certainly not belong in a section header? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• I removed the word penis which I thought was unnecessary, despite the fact WP is not censored. I do not agree that the article has an overly large section on her personal life and the past as there is not much to focus on in her present as nearly all of her bills never came out of committee, and the pair have had an unusually, let’s say, colorful past and present.

My point is that I think we have been very polite with a couple with an unusual history who have used much of that history as a part of their campaign. Indeed he appears to be a part of her campaign, campaigning together, speaking to their gun themed restaurant, Evangelical Christianity. But, we cannot whitewash their lives.

Now, explain to me why we have an article about the current president’s, son’s, ex-wife which is basically a hit piece on the son of the president?[5] O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The Buhle article is egregious; why in the world would we assume claims made in divorce proceedings are true? And if the "claims" aren't confirmed, why would they be noteworthy? DFlhb (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

What's going on here? The claim that she was present during the incident is sourced to the New York Post. It cannot be alluded to in a BLP, and it isn't a valid argument for dueness. Second: the claim that she lied is WP:OR, since we cite no source that says it (and our article can't say falsely stated with the current sourcing either). According to her, her husband signed a plea deal, meaning that it never went to trial. I haven't seen any source contradict this. Expert sources are very clear that plea bargains don't prove guilt (for example, see this OUP chapter, or this amusing Routledge chapter). He pleaded guilty, and she said he was innocent. Those two facts are not contradictory.

On a separate note, I don't understand why we don't seem to mention Jayson's domestic violence against Lauren, which is obviously due, since it actually concerns her unlike this incident. Shameful all around. DFlhb (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Pleas in criminal court require allocution including admission of guilt. He went to jail. She also stated that she was present in her book. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I've now downloaded the book to check; I don't see it in there. And w/r/t plea deals, of course they involve a guilty plea, but that's immaterial to my argument. DFlhb (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• Piling negativity on a politician due to partner problems is known as coatracking which should not occur at an anyone can edit encyclopedia. If Jason Boebert or Allegations regarding Jason Boebert are notable, start an article on them. Otherwise, don't coatrack. Johnuniq (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Boebert's defense of her husband in her memoir is what stirred up the hullabaloo, so a much better option that those two would be My American Life which has been covered by reliable sources. -Location (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• First of all, there are plenty of reasons people plead guilty without actually being guilty of a crime. It happens literally all the time, prosecutors make a living on threatening long prison sentences if one goes to trial but probation or minimal prison time for pleading out. And somebody can make the math work in their head that it is not worth risking being found guilty for a crime they did not commit and getting more prison time than just pleading guilty. And thats a feature, not a bug of the American criminal justice system. And yes, you can be found guilty and not have committed the crime. Jesus, has nobody here heard of the Central Park jogger case, or the work of Innocence Project, or the reasons why George Ryan ended capital punishment in Illinois to think that guilty means did it the end? But what exactly does this have to do with the subject of our BLP? That she was there and wrote about it? Wtf cares, what are you saying about her? That she says her husband didnt commit a crime that he pleaded guilty to? Ok, and? This is indeed COATRACKING, and it is not relevant to any encyclopedic coverage of Boebart. This is not a list of all the things you want the voters in her district to know about before they head to the polls. Its still a BLP, and our BLP policy is meant to protect the people we dont like just as much as the people we do like. nableezy - 05:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  And it should also be removed until there is a consensus for it, not stay until there is a consensus against it, and it would be a lot better if Valjean reverted it out themselves in the meantime. nableezy - 05:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  User:Nableezy, I only reworked the existing content and it has since been revised and now removed. I believe it belongs. Lauren made this about herself by contradicting proven facts (that's known as lying). Lauren (who was 17) was there the whole time. Jayson (who was 24) offered to show his tattooed penis to three girls. After offering the bartender a view of his dick, the two "underage" (we don't know their exact ages) girls were approached by Jayson, who bragged that he had a tattoo on his penis, and without their permission, he showed it to them. They immediately complained to the owner, who tried to get Jayson and Lauren to leave, but they refused. Then the police were called. So "underage" is the best we can do. (This all reminds me of a joke about a cadaver in medical school. The medical students found a tattoo on the penis which quoted the gospel hymn "Love lifted me.") -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  I meant this restoration, which from my check was the last revert to include. I think we have a problem in a number of articles that ONUS is being flipped on its head, and doubly so in BLPs that have WP:BLPRESTORE requirements too. Until there is a consensus for inclusion, it stays out. Not until there is a consensus for exclusion it stays in. nableezy - 18:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree about COATRACK; I put in the "middle-ground" version, so I'll revert it out (but keep the domestic violence stuff I added). The pro-dueness arguments were sloppy, by relying on her supposedly "lying". The fact that it was cited to Newsweek, Daily Beast (MEDREL), Current Affairs (opinionated), minor local outlets, and outlets with somewhat relaxed thresholds for newsworthiness (Insider and The Independent, which are reliable but not in the same class as NYT or WaPo) also constitutes quite weak dueness. DFlhb (talk) 06:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

If this was just about her husband, I would agree it definitely does not belong. The fact she defended him in a book could be enough for some coverage but there would need to be significant sourcing establishing that her doing so is a significant part of her life story perhaps it is was a long-term contentious issue or something. This sourcing doesn't seem to be there, even the text that was removed just seems to mention the incident that that she defended him without establishing any significance of her doing so. Nil Einne (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

But it is just about Boebert's husband. The whole topic is about what Boebert's husband did. Boebert's husband is not a notable person. It is just one incident in the life of Boebert's husband and he is a living person and it is a repeat of his criminal record. Wikipedia does not exist to repeat scandalous facts about a living, non-notable person. On top of that, the article is not about Boebert's husband. It is off-topic and violates BLP. It should not be included because it violates BLP. -- LiwenAristodemos (talk) 23:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Well no, the reason it has become controversial seems to be because of what she said in her book. As I said, I don't think there's evidence it's been significant enough for coverage at the moment. But it's easy to imagine a situation where it could be significant. For example if she loses her next election and it's widely accepted that what she said was a significant reason for why she lost then it's quite likely this is something we would need to cover. In fact, even if she did not defend him, even if she had criticised him it could still have became a significant issue widely cited as a key reason for why she loses or wins the next election.

A loosely similar example is Pedro Pascal. While Pascal's father is not notable, we cover his indictment because it's said to have a significant effect on his early life and career. Frankly although this supposedly appears in sources it's still not explained in our article so it's not an ideal situation, but at least this was the justification for keeping it. Note we had some discussion on precisely what to mention notably the claim that the reason his father moved was not because of the indictment isn't mentioned because it involves claims about another living person even if this effectively reflects negatively on Pascal's father demonstrating the complexity of such situations as they often involve tradeoffs between the harm to various living persons, sometimes even multiple living persons who are non notable.

(I mean even in this case, while the identities of the victims is probably difficult to find, if we were to cover it any defence we include from Boebert or her husband would affect the non-notable victims who are very likely living persons as well.)

Another loosely related example is Saida Muna Tasneem. Currently we mentioned the fact she was recalled, but not why as it involves claims about her husband. This may work here even if again it effectively involves a tradeoff about a possible harm to her reputation (as readers may assume she did something wrong personally) vs that of her non notable husband. But just like the Pascal example there are going to be examples where that does not work.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Just for the record, Salon published an article about this incident before Boebert's book was published. Others might have as well. I would look at what she put in the book as responding to the media rather that being the first to publish the incident. Springee (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I would add this to the husband's bio if at all. This seems pretty minor stuff, unless more comes of it, which I doubt it will. --Malerooster (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: The topic of her husband's conviction is "relevant to a reader's complete understanding of (Boebert)". It should be included. Wes sideman (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  Wes sideman has restored the disputed content and claimed consensus. I don't see that consensus given the discussion here but I'm not interested in edit warring once my revert was overturned by Wes sideman. Springee (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  I do not see consensus, and I feel that the restoration is a violation of WP:BLP policies. I'm concerned here about WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:NPF with the editor mentioned above potentially disregarding the policies set forth in WP:BLPRESTORE. Any uninvolved editor would probably agree that this could be a WP:DE situation. Could you self-revert @Wes sideman until there's been a RFC and proper consensus established? Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any BLP issue. The information is factual. It's well-sourced. The arguments against including it are basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT and I've perused the edit histories of a couple of editors against including this; they seem to have a mission to minimize negatively-tinged information from conservative figures' articles, even if they're sourced. So I don't see a compelling reason to remove it. A lot of good policy-based points have been made here in favor of inclusion. Wes sideman (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

There are good-faith BLP objections, as demonstrated by this thread, and WP:BLPRESTORE is policy and states When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. There is no rush to include this, so there is no harm in waiting for consensus. Also, leave out the aspersions against other editors next time, please. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• The issue is her husband is not a public figure (he's not even notable for his own page). Any discussion of him at Lauren Boebert would need to be particularly relevant to Boebert herself. Now, if it wasn't for Boebert opining in her book that she didn't think he was guilty, it would be full-stop don't include the material. But, once she starts opining it starts becoming relevant to her biography. Also, some have suggested a BLPCRIME issue, and I reject those arguments since he's been adjudicated guilty. Interesting issue we got here. Firstly, if this needs to be included it should be kept as short as humanly possible. Ultimately, this has been covered in reliable sources in the context of Boebert, so a brief mention is likely warranted. Commenting on the sub-issue of BLPRESTORE, the material shouldn't be included until there is a consensus for it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 15:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Rahul Jain (singer) and BLPCRIME

• Rahul Jain (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I noticed this article because of a report filed at WP:AIV against an IP who kept removing the rape allegations in the article. I have cleaned up the article somewhat, including the rape allegations, but I don't think the allegations should be in the article as Jain hasn't been convicted of either allegation (as far as I know). It's been a long time since I got involved in the interpretation of WP:BLPCRIME, but I don't think Jain qualifies as a "public figure". However, IIRC, except in very clear cases, many editors disagreed as to the dividing line between a person sufficiently notable for an article and a "public figure". I've left in the allegations for now, but I'm tempted to remove them pending a discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what the quality of the sources are, so I can't speak to if the allegations are due, but I believe that they are a public figure because they've chosen to perform publicly for a living and were on the cast of (what I think is) a reality show. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

This brings back my frustration with BLPCRIME. It seemed like there were almost no article subjects who were not public figures. Based on your interpretation, pretty much all actors would be public figures, no matter how small potatoes they are. And, not that I know much or ever watch reality shows, pretty much anyone can be on a reality show. At the last audition I attended, they had a questionnaire intended to cull out auditionees with just one question: Are you human (answering no did not automatically disqualify you). I'll go back and hide my overly protective BLP head in the sand.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

There are indeed few article subjects that are not public figures. Exceptions would be people like George Floyd or Rodney King who are notable because of things that happened to them without their consent.

However, there are tons of people who are mentioned in passing in articles who are still absolutely covered by WP:BLP even though we don't have a separate article on them. (In fact, I'd argue that the main purpose of that clause in WP:BLPCRIME is for the case when we have an article on a notable crime for which the perpetrator is not known for certain.) Loki (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I've seen plenty of articles on people who were not public figures where blpcrime came into play. Academics who are notable due to being cited are an easy example. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that too often people use these words, such as "controversy" or "public figure", without really knowing what they mean. Instead, people tend to make up their own definitions for these words primarily based on what they want to put in an article. "Public figure" has a very specific definition --a legal definition. The law makes special exceptions for media outlets (Wikipedia included) when writing about public figures, acknowledging that they don't have the same expectations of privacy that a non-public figure has. It's not always the case that people choose to be in the spotlight, and in fact choice is not at all a part of that definition. For example, Charles Manson or Mary Kay Letourneau, or Oliver North up there. These people never sought celebrity status but they achieved it just the same. Likewise, most people seeking fame, including actors, never reach celebrity status no matter how hard they try for it. I think a lot of these problems would be solved if we simply quit making up our own definitions for words and use reliable sources for definitions instead. Zaereth (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article for a couple days, but it could use some eyes from people who familiar with Indian media to check if the sourcing is good for contentious BLP content. There are a lot of other sources over a decent span of time, so it looks like a mention is likely WP:DUE. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Article about James McArdle (actor)

I think there is a mistake in the article, under the heading "Personal Life". One had here on 18.04. added that James McArdle is openly gay and refers here to a newspaper article from 2017, but it is about a film (Man in orange shirt) in which James only plays a gay character -> source 12. It is not mentioned anywhere that James is really gay in his personal life. The author who provided the basis for this film is the one who openly deals with his homosexuality. Could you please check the point? 79.224.66.104 (talk) 08:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

79, afaict, you're right and I removed it. Thanks for noticing! If you're interested in editing yourself, WP:TUTORIAL can help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Pronunciation-needed template

There is a discussion at Talk:Alain-Sol Sznitman about whether it is ever appropriate to add {{pronunciation needed}} in a BLP. --St.nerol (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

That is not the only thing the discussion there is about. Bigger and more relevant for this noticeboard are:

• Is it ever appropriate to add a purported pronunciation to a BLP based on no sources at all, or based on a recording of someone else saying their name?
• Does the fact that an editor found the pronunciation non-obvious enough to tag this imply that the pronunciation is "likely to be challenged" (because it has been challenged) and therefore requires a source?
• When there are no published sources to be found listing a pronunciation to the name of a living person, is it appropriate to add a template so that the first thing readers see about the person is an encouragement to add the pronunciation, leading either to a permanent cleanup banner on a BLP or someone taking the template as encouragement to add unsourced material to a BLP?

My position is that, based on these principles, {{pronunciation needed}} is never appropriate for a BLP. A request for pronunciation can be made on the article talk instead. As the {{pronunciation needed}} documentation explicitly recommends: If the textual pronunciation is cannot be found or is not verifiable, {{Pronunciation requested audio}} can be posted on the talk page. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

A BLP concern raised on Reddit

A couple days ago, I happened upon a post on Reddit that was submitted by our very own Shadow of the Starlit Sky, an up-and-coming editor who has made nearly 1,500 contributions since joining last month. There weren't too many responses to the post, but there was one comment that caught my attention because it alleges something of serious concern.

A Redditor who goes by the name "Paraperire" attests that her biographical article, as well as that of her husband, both contain factual inaccuracies. According to her, we claim that she had "co-written" all of the songs on her first album when she was the sole songwriter, that her husband is married to a "Belgian or Austrian woman", and that songs she's written for other artists are misattributed to different people. She says that she has attempted to contact Wikipedia about this issue with proof of her identity, but to no avail—she received no response, and every change she tried to make was undone shortly thereafter. I asked her to explain the means through which she attempted to contact Wikipedia, and who she was specifically trying to reach, but her answer did not clarify any of this. I then sent her a private message on Reddit letting her know that I'd like to look into this for her, asking who she is and which articles are affected; she didn't reply.

Even though I don't know the specifics of her case, this is something that I feel needs to be addressed. I'm not really sure what to do, or who I should refer her to, so I'm bringing it here for additional input. I'm also going to let her know about this thread so that she can have a chance to comment if she chooses. Kurtis ^(talk) 19:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Without knowing which article we're talking about, there is nothing we can do. In general, we don't interview subjects or take their firsthand accounts as "proof". We rely on secondary sources like newspapers and magazines to provide information, trusting in them to get things right. Now, without seeing the article in question, there is no way to determine if this is sourced information, something someone added without sources, or just straight-up vandalism. The latter is usually easy to fix, but if the sources got the info wrong then the subject will need to take it up with them. I can't access reddit from my location, so unfortunately, without a specific article to go look at, these broad generalizations are all I can give you. The best way the subject can help is to go to the talk page and provide sources with the correct info, and request that others make the changes for them. Zaereth (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

That's partly what I explained over at Reddit—I told her that we strive for factual accuracy, and that we attempt to achieve this through citing sources, but that this can occasionally (albeit rarely) result in us amplifying widely-circulated falsehoods despite our best efforts. However, it slipped my mind to suggest that she take it up on the article's talk page, which I'm aware is what we generally advise BLP article subjects do in cases such as this. Kurtis ^(talk) 20:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Simply posting on the talk pages only works when someone is watching them. It's better to make a formal edit request. You could send them the links to these help pages:

• WP:Conflict of interest
• WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide
• WP:Request for edit
• WP:Simple conflict of interest edit request

-- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

If they won't identify which article is supposedly inaccurate, I'm not sure what we can do. I mean I guess conceivably someone could check every article in Category:20th-century women singers and Category:21st-century women singers to try and find one which matches her claims, but that's not exactly practical! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto @Kurtis @Zaereth Just found the post on my Reddit AMA right now and read it. As of right now I am unsure what to do (just like you three) because I'm not sure about what specific article this supposed act of BLPVIO is occurring on. I need more information so I can investigate deeper into this before making any conclusions. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 20:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

No worries, I don't think anyone is expecting you to investigate this—I just left a notice on your talk page because it was an issue raised over at your Reddit post. :) Kurtis ^(talk) 20:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Kurtis Ok, understood! I'll still keep an eye on this discussion though. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 20:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

One thing I should point out is that we're not the NY Times or Rolling Stone with the credentials and prestige those names invoke. As an encyclopedia anyone can edit, people often find it more than a tad creepy when Wikipedia comes to investigate them. If this person isn't giving their real name or responding to messages, you can bet there's a reason for that, so I wouldn't push it. If they want to contact us, they will.

At this point, we don't even know if this is all even for real. (On the internet, nobody knows you're not really Harrison Ford.) There are email channels they can use if they want to keep their identity private, but those are not really the best for things of this nature, because at the end of the day we can't really take the subject's word for it. On the surface, it seems like the subject would be the ultimate source of info, but in reality, as it turns out, people are actually rather biased when it comes to themselves, and the one person we tend to know the least is ourselves. (If you don't believe that just watch any episode of Judge Judy or Dr. Phil and see how self-unaware their guests usually are.) For example, there may be more than one side to the story, such as others who claim to have written the songs.

That's just advice in case this person ever comes here to read this but doesn't want to comment. Their best bet is to find sources and bring them to the talk page. If the sources themselves are wrong, then they should contact the sources and ask them to run a retraction. (Any good RS will want to correct their mistakes... in small print somehere on the back page. But it still counts!) If sources don't exist, then they can always hire a PR agent. Beyond that this discussion is pretty well moot because we have nothing to discuss. Zaereth (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Their reply at reddit indicates that they seemingly don't want to pursue the matter further due to a disagreement with the process.

In the few articles I have ever ran across where the actual subject of the article has had an issue with unsourced and/or damaging edits containing false info about them, it was almost instantly removed when pointed out on BLPN, so I find that the process works as a casual observer.

@Kurtis I do give you credit, though, on trying to help the person in question.

Awshort (talk) 06:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I did what I could. The ball is now in their court. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

It's impossible to act on this without any specifics as to what the article in question is. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Those who complain off-Wikipedia about errors in one of our 6.6 million English language articles, but refuse to identify the specific article, are wasting their own time, and ours. Or, they are trolling. Cullen328 (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• An update: Paraperire responded to my messages on Reddit. She has read this discussion as it stood a couple hours ago. I can basically confirm that she isn't interested in pursuing the matter any further. If she or her husband ever do decide that they want their articles corrected, they now know where they can raise the issue. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Zahid Chauhan

There are constant changes from an IP address which adds in only positive updates but removes any that may potentially be seen as negative, even when they are properly sourced and referenced. It seems as though they are trying to run the page as promotion rather than keeping it factual and balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheHeathen7 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Alan Joyce (executive)

The article Alan Joyce (executive) ended up on my watchlist some time ago when I was doing some category maintenance (I remove religion cats from Irish BLPs where WP:BLPCAT isn't met), but it's only today I noticed an earlier major addition by a SPA account, Qansafe. It's bordering on libelous, I think, and weakly referenced for what it's claiming. I'm going to edit now, to remove some of the material and to address the POV headings that have been added. A subsequent edit by Don Alfonso de Colombo also merits attention. Other eyes welcome. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Klete Keller

A few days ago I WP:Boldly changed the lead of Klete Keller from convicted felon and former competitive swimmer to former competitive swimmer who is also a convicted participant of the January 6 United States Capitol attack because the article didn't have any source call him a convicted felon. WP:BLPLEAD clearly states that The lead sentence should describe the person as he or she is commonly described in reliable sources. As per my WP:Before and according to the sources provided in the article none of the sources call the subject a convicted felon so I found it is WP:OR and violating WP:BLPLEAD and WP:BLP. I have explained all of these on the talk page]. Irrespective of ongoing discussion Wes sideman is restoring his edits even though WP:ONUS  clearly states that The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. This user has previously been blocked by ScottishFinnishRadish for violating his topic ban on abortion and has been advised by both HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) 1, and Deepfriedokra 2 for his edit behavior. But Wikipedia:REFUSINGTOGETIT, Wes Sideman continuing his pov push based on his WP:ILIKEIT arguments and I think this needs some attention. TheWikiholic (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• The article states that "On September 29, 2021, as part of a plea bargain, Keller pleaded "guilty" to a felony count of obstructing an official proceeding before congress." and states that he awaits sentencing. IMO that means that he is technically a "convicted felon" but I don't see the problem with your wording either. Black Kite (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  Nobody is denying that he is not a felon. But his notability is based on being the wrestler/firmer wrestler. No source says otherwise. So the article should follow what WP:BLPLEAD says. TheWikiholic (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

"his notability is based on being the wrestler/firmer wrestler" ?!?!? Where is the reliable source that says this? I don't see one. Wes sideman (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Since the article was created in 2007 I would say his notability was established before Jan 2021 [16]. Springee (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

You linked to a version of the article that has 1 reference, and if you click the source, that source doesn't even exist anymore. Also, reasons for notability can change, and have, drastically, in this case. Wes sideman (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• Noting that I was pinged into this discussion, but I don't see my past interaction with Wes as having any bearing in the matter at hand. No one is perfect, least of all me, and, again, I don't see that interaction as relevant to this discussion. I have no opinion on this content dispute. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  I would question the wisdom of describing someone as a criminal in the opening sentence when they're notable for something other than their crimes but that can be worked out on article talk pages. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  Kindly go over the article's talk page, I've tried my best to discuss the issue on the talk page, and the edit history of Wes Sideman on that page clearly shows that there is no point in discussing the talk page, and I thought this would be a broader space to get the opinion of more editors including admins. TheWikiholic (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with HJ Mitchell when they say "I would question the wisdom of describing someone as a criminal in the opening sentence when they're notable for something other than their crimes". This does not apply in the Keller case; they are notable for their crime. You can count the number of reliable secondary sources that don't mention January 6th on one hand. Meanwhile, there are hundreds of sources available that deal with his crime and conviction. Wes sideman (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• That's generally where I fall on this too. Also noting that I unblocked fairly quickly after consultation with HJ Mitchell. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

That all (in terms of the content) sounds right. Apart from in very limited cases I see little reason why we should be introducing people as "convicted felons" and "convicted criminals" as if that's their identity Tristario (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Keller's article predates Jan 6 so clearly this person was notable for something other than that. That they were a Jan 6 participant and plead guilty should be in the lead but not the opening sentence. Springee (talk) 12:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you should check the state of the article and its one source prior to January 6th. Barely notable, and if not for the Olympic relay team medal, probably would have been a good candidate for deletion. Hundreds of sources since then that describe his crime and conviction. Your post here, frankly, completely ignores reality. How do you feel about the lead of R. Kelly? Wes sideman (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend splitting that lede sentence. Forcing both his profession (swimming) and the Jan 6 conviction is putting a square peg in a round hole. This is a case where the lede as it is right now, without the "convicted felon" part, still captures the short "who is this person" in a neutrally-toned way. Wikipedia is not here to write attack articles about people, even those with convictions, and there's a better way to present the same info without losing any of it that removes the attacking position that the current form takes. Masem (t) 12:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Swimming is not his profession, and it hasn't been his profession for a long time. Even when it was, he was barely notable for it and likely would never have met GNG if he hadn't picked up an Olympic team relay medal; ie, his article would've been deleted. Since January 2021, however, he is easily notable - for his conviction. The swimming career is a long-ago detail that barely got any coverage before Jan 6th. Wes sideman (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, no - he won individual bronze Olympic medals as well, and easily meets GNG - but I wouldn't disagree that this is not what he's notable for now. Black Kite (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I would disagree, because if he weren't an Olympic medalist there wouldn't be nearly as much coverage about the January 6th plea deal. If he had never won medals there wouldn't be an article on him, and the January 6th coverage wouldn't be enough to make him notable. I think what this demonstrates is that he's very notable as a swimmer. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

That's true, but I was just pointing out that he easily met GNG long before he became a Trump loon. Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that we have many articles that introduce people as "convicted felons" if that is what they are most notable for. Even the R. Kelly article, which I have never edited, has "convicted felon" in the first sentence and I don't have a problem with that, even if Kelly is far more notable for being a musician than a convicted felon. In the Keller case, Keller is far more notable since January 6th than he was before. He was a swimmer that had scant coverage before that, and if it wasn't for the automatic-qualifier Olympic relay medal he won, I doubt he would've had an article, as he would not have met WP:GNG. Take a look at the article and its sourcing right before Jan. 6th. Since his conviction, the coverage of him is 100% about his felony. Wes sideman (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

That's not really good. Unless the only thing the person has done that is discussed in depth is committed a crime, forcing the lede sentence to include "convicted felon" or any similar phrases alongside their professional aspects is just twisting the article to be treated as an attack article. Masem (t) 12:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

That post merely expresses your own personal taste. Which has no particular status here. Wes Sideman is right -- Keller is now notable mainly for being a convicted felon (not for being a swimmer). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

No, the conviction is noteworthy because he's a notable swimmer. If he were not a medalist he'd just be another person who would never qualify for an article, and the only reason his involvement with January 6th was widely reported was because he was a notable swimmer. Just look at all of the sources used in the article, it's all centered around his being an Olympic athlete. The story about his being there was even broken by a swimming site, which reported that people involved in swimming recognized him. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The other side of that is what's important - he received very little coverage as a swimmer, and 99% of all of the available reliable secondary sourcing on him was published after Jan 6th, 2021. His arrest and conviction is clearly the most notable part of his bio now; whether an editor likes that fact or not has little bearing on reality. John du Pont is another good example of this phenomenon - he was probably notable just for being a billionaire, a philanthropist, for being the founder of the Delaware Museum of Nature & Science, for buying the British Guiana 1c magenta - but check his lead sentence. Wes sideman (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a horrible opening sentence. I don't have the time to go around trying to fix that in every article where it pops up, though. See David Duke and Talk:David Duke#RFC for "convicted felon" phrase in opening sentence for how this often turns out when it goes to an RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Is it? Seems to me that du Pont is most notable for his murder conviction. It's what the vast majority of the coverage of him discusses. David Duke, on the other hand, has been covered for many things other than his conviction - and his most notable trait, white supremacist, is mentioned first, as it should be. Wes sideman (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

No policy requires that the lede sentence include all notable features of a person. WP:FIRSTBIO (on the MOS) warns against inclusion of non-career-type language, even if that's what they are most notable for. In terms of writing, it is more neutral and dispassionate to explain what their career aspects were, and then to describe their conviction which may have come from that career (eg Harvey Weinstein's crimes are straight out of being an entertainment executive). You give context for why the crime exists. In the case here, the swimming career and the crime are two distinct, unrelated things, so its still necessary to establish the context of what the crime was for and unrelated to the swimming career. Masem (t) 12:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The only reason why his arrest and conviction are widely reported by the media is he is notable as the swimmer and that's exactly why he already had a standalone article before the 2021 incident. Even if we take the consideration of your argument that the 99% coverage of the subject received after the 2021 incident is related to his conviction identifying him as the former swimmer. In accordance and adherence with WP:BLP, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:UNDUE you need to take the totality of his life not just a single recent event. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The version of the lead that's up now DOES "take the totality of his life not just a single recent event" (sic). The thing that got him the most coverage, in his entire life, is the first thing mentioned. The thing that got him the 2nd-most coverage is the 2nd thing mentioned. The remainder of the lead is a chronologically-ordered expansion on the details of these things and a summary of all the things in the body. For the record, I didn't just write that lead unilaterally. It was the result of a discussion and collaboration by several editors. The current effort to whitewash it, led by yourself, has no basis in policy, no matter how many wikilinks you throw into the discussion. Wes sideman (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's true that he would not be getting special coverage had he not been a medalist. Had he merely been an Olympian but finished out of the medals, for example, that point would still make him stand out among the people charged. (It would also qualify him for an article under WP:NSPORT, so I'm splitting hairs a bit.) But we do have an article on the "QAnon Shaman", who was another Jan 6 participant who drew extra attention, so the combination of participation and media focus is sufficient for a notability of its own. Nat Gertler (talk) 13:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

At this point I think it's clear the current lead doesn't have consensus. I would suggest rolling back to the previous lead here [17] Springee (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC) EDIT: Per comment below I mistakenly linked to the diff where the lead was changed from the stable version. The Jan 30th lead is the one I would propose moving back to. Springee (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The version you linked to is exactly where the lead is right now, and the one that was stable before a handful of editors with a history of white-washing conservative figures' articles descended on it. That's fine with me. Wes sideman (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I liked to when the lead was changed. The version it was being changed from (Jan 30th). Also, accusing editors of "white-washing" is a failure to assume good faith. Please do not do that on this noticeboard. Springee (talk) 11:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Now you're talking about this version, which was a quick change made to a stable version by a sockpuppet of a blocked user. Needless to say, bad example to pick. Wes sideman (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:AE is down the hall to the left, and WP:ANI is down in the basement. This is a content board, not a behavior board. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I assume good faith at the outset. Then, when I look at the edit histories of a handful of editors looking to change this lead, and I see that they have a consistent history of removing information from conservative figures' articles that could be seen as negatively-tinged, and they argue on talk pages for such negatively-tinged info to be removed, I start to assume that they are pushing a political viewpoint. Anyone can look at these edit histories and see the same thing. It's painfully obvious. Wes sideman (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC) I've already said this once recently on this page, so maybe a second warning will get through, stop with the aspersions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC) WP:ASPERSIONS aside, there are edits in which you've made that appear, at face value, to eschew NPOV. Let's consider this reversion where you claimed the source didn't make that assertion, but it did. Unsurprisingly, What Is a Woman? has been virtually ignored by the left-of-center media. It received praise from conservative outlets but only qualified endorsement from the “gender critical” feminist crowd. While I agree that it was more nuanced than what the original editor submitted, one could have qualified the praise instead of just dropping the prose altogether. The state at which you reverted it to is arguably WP:UNBALANCED given other sources. It seems like you may be guilty of the same WP:POV pushing that you're alleging other people are here to do. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Regardless of the politics of the person in question or the editors involved, I have a hard time when any article describes a person as "is" or "was" something other than their profession or similar. Other characterizations should generally be expressed in terms of acts committed, not states of being. --Jayron32 12:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

It's fine to have this opinion, but it isn't policy-based. MOS:FIRSTBIO states that the first sentence should state "the main reason the person is notable" (his conviction). Plenty of articles describe their subject as "american+convicted"&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 convicted felon or convicted murderer or something similar. In any case, Keller is no longer a swimmer, hasn't been a swimmer for a while, and was barely notable as a swimmer even when he was a swimmer. His profession now? I have no idea. There are no reliable sources that tell us what he does for a living, at the moment. Wes sideman (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

"In recent years, he [...] dived into a real estate career [...]" --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Your arguments are WP:OR and based on WP:ILIKEIT. No sources are indicating that the subject's notability is based on his conviction. Or else you have to provide sources that prove your arguments. You have already added one source to prove your arguments on the article but even the title of the source that you added mentions him as the Former Olympic gold medalist Klete Keller pleads guilty to a felony charge related to Capitol riot. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't contradict what Jayron32 said. You can describe what someone is notable for without using an expression like "This person is a convicted felon" - which doesn't even describe what they're actually notable for. Keller is notable for being a former olympic athlete that took part in the January 6 Capitol attack, not specifically for being a "convicted felon", which is something that applies to countless people and is very unspecific. Tristario (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Exactly this ^. Springee (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jayron here. And no, I'm not going to to give a wikilawyering, policy-based argument, but am going to touch on the spirit behind the policy which created it in the first place. Call it "the deeper magic from before the dawn of time".

The goal here is to build an encyclopedia, am I right? If you look at other encyclopedias, going all the way back to the beginning with Pliny the Elder, they all have one thing in common. They're well written.

Writing itself is something that developed over thousands of years, and much of the great philosophies about it have their roots as far back as ancient Persia, Arabia, and Greece. Unlike the Egyptians, who went out of their way to make their writing as ambiguous as possible, with their use of pictorial hieroglyphics in a phonetic language to their wide and varied range of euphemisms, the Arabs and Greeks were studying how to convey language clearly and with greater ease. There's a certain order in which information needs to be given for it to be easily understandable --especially to those newcomers who have never heard of the subject before and have no clue what a "Klete Keller" is. This is universal, meaning it's true regardless of what language you speak. Pliny understood this, which is what makes his writing so good.

Wikipedia is different, because it's an encyclopedia anyone can edit. It's not written by trained, professional writers. As a result, it's full of crappy articles that range from college textbook to stream of consciousness. People get too focused on their own feelings and personal biases about what they think should go first that they completely ignore what the reader needs in order to build context.

I don't know why people put such emphasis on getting stuff in the first sentence. That's backwards thinking. The first sentence is not the thing that people remember. It's just a starting point that gives the very basic context needed for the reader to understand the second sentence, and so on. This is called cohesion, because it all ties together, leading the reader down a nice little pathway. If everything is coherent it flows with little resistance. That flow is vitally important, because it sweeps the reader along the pathway you created and leads them to the point of it all, which is not the first sentence but the last, be it the last of the paragraph, the section, or the article. That's where the point is and that's the part that the reader will remember. It's not the journey, in this case, it's the destination.

Modern science backs this up, because we can only hold a small amount of information in our working memory at a time, and anything new added pushes the current out. Thus, we never remember the pathway, but it's always the last thing we read that get's passed on to short-term memory.

Writing is hard work, and there is a heck of a lot more to it that simply jotting stuff down willy nilly. The Earth may seem flat when you're standing right on top of it, but if you step back and get a better perspective then the bigger picture becomes apparent. Similarly, writing may seem easy, but Zinsser's law says "Easy writing makes for hard reading", and that's what most people who participate in these types of discussions don't seem to realize. If the goal is to get some point across (which it is; don't kid yourself), then wouldn't it be better to make it a well-written point? Why make it hard to read and follow? A crappy article whispers while a good article speaks volumes. Zaereth (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Key on this idea is that our P&G around Ledesma is the assumption that the lede can be standalone from the body, but whether standalone or considered with the body, ab average reader will review the entire lede at one time. Meaning there is no rush to push info into the lede sentence. We don't want to bury the lede, but stating a person is convicted in the 3rd or 4th sentence is far from that. Masem (t) 22:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

After seeing this discussion here, I went to the article. Two words: Bill. Cosby. Although the crime was different, the same thing happened on his page. Back and forth war editing about the very first sentence: ... and convicted sex offender, felon, etc. Yes, I understand since then his sentence has been vacated and now, it doesn't even read as such; but this BLP is no different. It is suffering from WP:RECENT. WP constantly reminds editors that it is not a newspaper, but there seems to be such a hurried need to get the current happenings out there as quickly as possible. Not to take the matter lightly or any editor's work in jest, but I literally laughed out loud when I read: "convicted participant". I tried to look up the term. I could not find it. The current lede is so sparse as it is. The BLP isn't notable for very much. Let the first sentence state what he was first notable for, and then (as with the Cosby article) state what he is notable for second with the next paragraph that explains it. Let the lede "read" as a summary of the article, no need to state: "former competitive swimmer who is also a convicted participant." (I'm still wrestling with the - seemingly - invented term: "convicted participant". When the May 10 sentencing occurs, he's going to be a convicted felon.) At some point, when the "recent"-ism wears off, like Cosby, having the first sentence read as it does now, this will not only sound out-dated, but ridiculous. Maineartists (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Steve Kirby (musician)

Requesting assistance from experts to answer the recent talk page message for this article. Chubbles (talk) 06:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD It seems you have a good understanding of the policies around WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NPOV. I don't see an issue with your proposed edits; however, I haven't looked too closely at the sources. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

RfC

At War in Donbas (2014–2022) there are allegations of serious crimes raised against several living persons without providing a single source. As per the header I don't copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard (see diff). Could someone with knowledge of this policy please explain why WP:BLPRS doesn't apply in this case or perform an extended confirmed WP:BLPREMOVE of the respective paragraph? Thank you. 89.206.112.12 (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Y Thanks. 89.206.112.12 (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

2023 Cleveland, Texas shooting

Should the name of the suspect be listed at 2023 Cleveland, Texas shooting? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

His name and face has been all over the news, so saying he is sought (and no more) is accurate. GiantSnowman 23:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• Reply - @GiantSnowman:, then why were we adamant about removing the suspect for 2022 Ohio child-rape and Indiana abortion case? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

  BLPCRIME suggests it not be included at this time. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

No, not at this time. WP:BLPCRIME -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• Reply - @Kcmastrpc:, @Random person no 362478479:, if this is the case, do you know why his name is still located in the article? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is edited by folks like you and I. I’ve removed the suspects name. In the future, if you’re comfortable doing so, you’re welcome to as well. Kcmastrpc (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

  • Reply - The name is still in the page history... --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

    Yes, and it’s also in the references. I’m certain an admin could clean up the edits but I don’t really see the point. There are a few places to request this, the only one I know of is IRC and I’m not able to log in there at the moment. Kcmastrpc (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

    If you think it's necessary to wipe the information from the history you can ask for an admin to do so. You can make use of the admin help template. WP:AN/I is the place to go if the matter is urgent. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Lovely Peaches

This is a new article that would benefit from some more eyes on it. Essentially this person is noted for the ridiculous things they post on social media, and the article details some of the particularly disturbing examples. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think this person is notable enough to be on wiki and the article needs a lot of work, preferably while it’s not in mainspace. It failed AfC, but I didn’t look too far into why it was moved out of Draft. I’ve nominated for deletion, but honestly, it should likely be brought up at ANI for speedy delete. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lovely Peaches Kcmastrpc (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Jack Teixeira and WP:BLPPRIMARY

Today I removed various information on Jack Teixeira which was qualified with "according to prosecutors in a memo", in other words based on court filings. All of the RS available for this info cite the prosecution memo. WP:BLPPRIMARY reads as follows:

Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. 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, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.

The consensus at Talk:Jack Teixeira#April 28 removal is that this doesn't prevent us from citing reliable sources to rely on court documents. This isn't in line with the policy, so I'm bringing it up here. RAN1 (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting the policy. We're an encyclopedia, which means we're a tertiary source, which literally means "three times removed". We get our info from secondary sources. For us to take info directly from a primary source, such as court documents, we would be doing the work of secondary sources, and that's not what we do. We research. We don't investigate. The secondary sources we use do investigate, however. They get their info from the primary sources, and quite often this includes court documents. That's how info gets from the primary sources to us. As long as they are not providing copies of those documents (which a good RS won't) once secondary sources report it it's fair game for us, keeping NPOV in mind. Otherwise, we'd never know what happened in the court room. Zaereth (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

This is probably why the article on Teixeira fails WP:BLP1E because all we know about him is a result of the document leak and subsequent investigation. Having the standalone about the person invites this type of nonsense and doesn't show encyclopedic foresight. Masem (t) 23:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

There was an AfD discussion in which the nominator invoked WP:BLP1E. Result: "The BLP1E has particular force here, but I conclude there is a rough consensus that the article should be kept." Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I read the AFD comments, and that discussion is a strong example of how WP editors have come to want to finger point blame and any other type of malfeasance on BLP or other groups, simply because RSes go there. Wikipedia is meant to be even more neutral and respectful of BLP than most RSes including seminal works like the NYTimes and BBC. We need a massive sea change in how editors view such topics. Masem (t) 15:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

You will know then that there were arguments that the criteria that "each of three conditions" for not covering an article were not met, as well as those arguing otherwise. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it could be helpful to clarify how a subject may not be WP:LOWPROFILE due to extensive coverage per WP:BLP1E but can still otherwise be not well-known per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE for WP:BLPCRIME content. This article seems to be an example of how this can apply, because the available biographical information is being produced post-event and now through criminal court proceedings. The AfD closer also stated "There is a strong undercurrent to merge the article, and this discussion can continue on the appropriate pages", so we can continue to discuss whether or not to maintain a BLP. Beccaynr (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the arguments about him being a "public figure" were too feelz-based, and so loose that they could apply to anyone, making WP:BLPCRIME useless. Merge is warranted. DFlhb (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Taking this recent AFD as an example, the problem seems to be that while LOWPROFILE's application is meant to be before an event, editors are taking that to be after an event that thrusts them to notability. The latter would basically make BLP1E useless, which of course it is not. We really need to change BLP1E (and other related policies) that we're looking at what was known before the event to determine low or high profile individuals. (We also have problems related to RECENTISM and NOTNEWS, editors wanting to include details covered by 24/7 news sources but without the discretion and oversight of longevitiy that writing for an encyclopedia requires). Masem (t) 16:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree there are strong grounds for merging here, in particular the guidance in WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:1E, as well as WP:BLP issues. Tristario (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the section denies the use of court documents to support assertions about living people. My arguments for that would be they aren't reliable sources and relating info from them (even cited from secondary sources) makes Wikipedia more of a secondary source than a tertiary one. RAN1 (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

WP can never be a secondary source - that's why WP:NOR exists to block us from going there. And with regards to court documents, since we don't have a conviction yet, all info on the documents cannot be treated as factual, as we presume innocence before guilt. Masem (t) 23:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

No, the policy says we're not supposed to use court documents. Secondary sources can and do all the time. Anytime there is a case being reported, you can bet that the newspapers got some of their info from court docs. They may even sit in the court room and take notes. Normally sources don't tell us where they got their info, but just because in this case they did, that's still not a reason to remove it per BLPPRIMARY, so that's a losing argument. That said, I was responding to your specific question and the talk page discussion, without having looked at the article. I agree with Masem that the whole thing should probably be deleted per BLP1E and BLPCRIME, or at the very least be moved to an article about the event and not disguised as a pseudobiography about the person. At first glance I also see several other good arguments for removing the specific info in question, but BLPPRIMARY isn't one of them. Zaereth (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

There's a difference between "clued in from court doc, fact-checked" and "according to court doc". The way the article presents the material, it sure looks like it's using a primary source because the secondary sources aren't providing any real discussion there. RAN1 (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I thought about this more, including the issue of creating a pseudobiography based on what is derived from the criminal court proceedings, and particularly information presented by the prosecution. From my view, this content raises BLPCRIME issues, for someone who is otherwise not well-known, and includes contentious BLPCRIME information from when he was in high school. So with BLPCRIME and WP:BLPBALANCE in mind, I condensed content, removed various details, and moved content to the Arrest and prosecution section, pending further discussion about a serious encyclopedic need for inclusion of additional detail. Beccaynr (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

It can be more or less taken as guaranteed that any reliable source that is reporting on this case will have extensively fact-checked or attributed anything they publish, given the stakes. This isn't the 6 PM local news republishing a police bulletin about a car crash. Cases like this are the reason publications employ lawyers. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

They only thing they fact check when attributing a statement is did the person or does the document they are claiming said something actually say that thing. A reliable source reporting that a court record or a prosecution memo says something only means that the court record or prosecution memo says that thing, not that this thing is accurate or that the source is claiming it has verified the contents to be accurate. But the very existence of this article represents a failure of our BLP policy vs the wishes of an aggrieved subset of the community, so it does not shock me that further examples of that policy failing to stand up against that aggrieved community show up in its editing. nableezy - 02:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Yishay Garbasz biography

Yishay Garbasz: Revision history:

2A02:8109:AA3F:FC69:6134:1E7B:F532:783A
2A02:8109:AA3F:FC69:95D8:6E71:83F2:7673
2A02:8109:AA3F:FC69:258C:BF08:618:F260

The above IPs repeatedly add categories to the Yishay Garbasz biography that are not supported by what appears in the text of the article, even after an explanation has been provided in the Summary for why a category cannot be included. IP editor refuses to follow BLP policy and I do not want to be dragged into an editing war over BLP violations. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 09:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Imeretian Nation of Roblox

This use page contains accusations against an BLP that might be considered defamatory. Or at the very least be considered an attack page. @Imeretian Nation of Roblox:--Trade (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I've tagged it for speedy deletion. Even without possible BLP concerns, user pages aren't provided to host random commentary on groups of gamers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Massimo Carlotto

Massimo Carlotto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have just commented out the section of Massimo Carlotto's article dealing with the accusation of murder against him which was entirely sourced to a website called Misteri D'Italia [18] and contradicted in several places by the preamble to an interview given to The Observer [19]. However, as the interview was conducted by the Sports Editor, I am also unconvinced that this is a sufficient source to talk about potential crimes committed by a living person.

As the details of the court case are somewhat important to his writing, I did not want to delete the section outright. However, rewriting it would take time and skill that I do not have right now. The article may also require suppression of the edit history.

I am sorry if I have included too many details of the allegations, I am not experienced with these cases.

Best wishes, ~ El D. (talk to me) 17:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Garrett Camp

I work for Garrett Camp. The current page is almost exclusively cited to press releases, guest blogs, short blurbs, brief mentions in passing, and other low quality sources. In compliance with WP:COI, I disclosed my connection and proposed a more proper biography summarizing independent articles here.

The main thing I wanted to bring up here at BLPN is the "Allegations of exploitation" section, which criticizes Mr. Camp for buying an expensive house while Uber employees earn less. Here is the current article-text:

Current Content in Allegations of Exploitation section

"In June 2019, Camp bought a newly built, 11,000-square-foot mansion in Trousdale Estates of Beverly Hills for $72.5 million. Camp's purchase drew the ire of activists and Uber drivers, who protested the firm's labor practices and advocated for better working conditions for drivers. Karim Bayumi, a Los Angeles Uber driver and labor organizer, said "this guy is buying lavish houses with our money, our hard-earned money that they are unjustly taking from us.""

IMO, language like "drew the ire" and the editorialized quote are not encyclopedic. It's also misleading to omit that Mr. Camp has/had no involvement in Uber's business practices (as many sources explain). He was one of many investors frustrated by Uber's habit of getting involved in excessive controversy. Also, the "Exploitation" headline is not neutral and having a dedicated section seems contrary to WP:CRITS.

Proposed Content in Wealth section
Camp owns several high-end real estate properties in New York and California. In 2019, Camp purchased a $71 million mansion in Beverly Hills. Labor activists criticized Camp's purchase, given the contrast in his wealth compared to that of Uber drivers. According to Globe and Mail, Camp wasn't involved in Uber's operations or controversies around driver pay.

References

Hopefully someone here has a minute to take a look, whether they adopt my version or write their own. Let me know if there is anything I can do to be more helpful. Best regards. John Pinette (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I moved the content from that section into the wealth section, since that level of sourcing wasn't good enough for having its own section, and the section title was implying there were allegations of exploitation against Camp personally, which wasn't what the content said. Tristario (talk) 03:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Paul Rouleau

On Paul Rouleau, an IP is quite determined to include opinion columns as sources[20] but their added text doesn't meet WP:NPOV (nor do the sources appear to actually support the IP's text) so I rewrote it.[21] I explained on the IP's talk page[22] but they disagree with the rewrite. Attention by experienced editors would be welcome. Schazjmd (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment and issued a 3RR warning also for continuing to reinstate this information. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced claim that a subject died

I'm finding articles that are categorized as living people but have been edited to say that the subject died. One such example is at Daniel Doran (figure skater). How should articles like this be handled? It's entirely plausible that the subject died (most people do it sooner or later), but the risk of claiming that someone died when they didn't seems like a massive BLP problem. I tried to find a source confirming the death, but nothing came up. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The Doran example could be a hoax, as a very through search through newspapers.com with multiple parameters did not return anything about a death. Curbon7 (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the claim for now, and I suppose that's what I'll do going forward if I'm unable to find a source. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It could be hoax, but there have been other examples where we've had reasons to think they are probably correct but there are no RS and some cases this remains the case even after months. IMO, we should expect this to be common with people of relatively low notability where the notability is largely in the past. (I did come across a non RS suggesting by 2014, the subject may have fallen on hard times.) Olympics participants is one area where it seems especially common, while it's to some extent worse with those who didn't win there's probably also an aspect of many of them being obscure enough that it doesn't make it here. Note that it makes no difference to what we should do, if there are no RS then we do not mention it. I bring this up in case any editors have personal reasons to think it's true to remind them it does not matter. Nil Einne (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:BDP, living persons are presumed alive unless and until reliable sources report their death (or presumed death). We can presume them dead when 115 years have passed since their birth, per the same policy. Claiming a person died is a contentious claim about a living person, and requires a source inline or to be removed immediately and without discussion; there is no grey area. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Anyone else feel the sudden urge to go look for articles on people who lived 2000+ years ago where we have no information about their death and add "presumed dead"?^[Humor] -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• Do sources state that he is presumed dead? Or is there just no information one way or the other. If it is the latter, then Wikipedia can also be silent on the matter. --Jayron32 12:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  So far no-one has come up with any sources suggesting that he is dead, may be dead, or is thought to be dead. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  I have asked the IP to substantiate his (or her) claim.[23]. I also left a note at Talk:Daniel Doran (figure skater). Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Ihor Tantsyura

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

Page is being repeatedly vandalized by sockpuppet accounts in Europe and South America claiming subject's death without verification and using provided sources on individual's appointment to office as the sourcing for individual's death. Recommend an immediate lock on this page.

The article has been semi-protected for a few days. Neiltonks (talk) 09:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Oliver North

Oliver North was indicted, convicted, and sentenced on charges related to his role in the Iran–Contra affair, but the conviction was eventually overturned. His mugshot appears in both of those articles. I have no political dog in this one, but I am wondering how WP:BLPCRIME might apply and whether the image should stay or go. -Location (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

BLPCRIME doesn't apply in this case. North falls under the exception, which is WP:PUBLICFIGURE. His case was far to widely publicized to consider him otherwise. Zaereth (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

There is actually a relevant passage in WP:BLP about this, WP:MUG: Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject did not expect to be photographed. Because a police booking photograph can imply that the person depicted was charged with or convicted of a specific crime, a top-quality reliable source with a widely acknowledged reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that links the photograph to the specific incident or crime in question must be cited.

Perhaps others would disagree but I don't think there's much of an issue. It's not particularly out of context - he was convicted, it was just later overturned, and it's been well covered in reliable sources. What it does at least need though is a supporting citation, per the policy Tristario (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I moved the image down a bit, so it’s next to the pertinent article text.[24] Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Good idea Tristario (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Tom Willett

For sometime now, I have been in a back-and-forth discussion with unregistered editors regarding the inclusion of legal issues about this BLP stemming back to the 1970s. The initial edit attempts for inclusion were reverted based on certain WP policies as can be seen at History and Talk:Tom Willett. Accusations of a coverup from the online followers have now arisen and additional online attention has brought these past legal issues into the present more than where it was at the beginning of the discussion. Personally, I feel that it now does seem to be relevant to include this in some way at the BLP's article page but with proper RS; as I have advocated for since the beginning. It was never a question of a coverup, but simply proper sourcing to back the claim and suffice WP policy. I think it will take seasoned WP editors to introduce this content correctly so that future reversions will not be applicable. Although it may seem we are on different sides of the tracks on this issue, I am actually in accord with the editors who have been diligent in trying to introduce this content. However, since it is such a sensitive subject with quite a lot of separation of time not to mention coverage, all I care about is writing a good article that cannot be contested. To prove I had no ulterior motive at the article (I was accused of such), I removed myself from the activity. That being said, it does seem that it may be time to introduce this content in some way due to the elevation of discovery online. I am hoping that WP BLP editors with more experience in this matter will be able to assist those who are seeking it. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Is there sourcing any better than the last time this was brought to this board? That is, strong secondary sources that indicate that it's the same person, without any doubt? Because if not, this still shouldn't be in the article. Tristario (talk) 12:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the only "new" sourcing, are YouTube videos that have copied and re-uploaded the now since deleted video from the BLP explaining a very detailed account of his original court appearance for a specific legally titled crime (201.190 charge regarding public decency) but does not confirm the crime seeking WP inclusion. The videos that are circulating are drawing from the 1970s case WP:OR and linking it with the BLP's testimonial account. There are still no present day secondary sources regarding the original incident let alone new happenings online outside of these posted re-uploaded YouTube videos. Still, there are those that firmly believe that this should be included as "controversy" in some form without going into details of the actual case. I was hoping there was a solution that could offer a split-down-the-middle compromise that satisfies both sides of the discussion. I'm still holding out for this. Because he is notable for being a YouTube personality, perhaps the WP:RECENT of this YouTube controversy is reason enough for inclusion? Maineartists (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that. I don't think there's any compromise here, if the sourcing isn't any better we can't include this (or something like this) Tristario (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

<sigh> I thought as much. Given the upset online and what is happening at Talk:Tom Willett, once the temporary protection is lifted on the BLP page, I think things are going to turn ugly. Thank you though for your insight. Maineartists (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

These are the current sources available for inclusion.

- Six articles covering the trial of the BLP from the Las-Vegas Review Journal, including a photograph.

- A (now-deleted but accessible) video from the BLP corroborating the arrest and case. The BLP (thankfully) does not go into every detail, which are disturbing.

- A video of the BLP discussing their criminal activity with another YouTuber, providing further corroboration.

- At least two response videos from well known internet personalities, adding to the notoriety factor.

Keep in mind this has all transpired over a few days. I have a collection of statements from @Maineartists that I, along with others, find concerning:

- 2/20/23, in relation to the addition of sources of Willett's arrest: "I believe all of this to be a hoax".

This statement was made when I first opened the Talk Page discussion (20 February 2023). Since first placing the original article up for AfD due to promotional and fabricated content that was primary in its sourcing, the initial sourcing that accompanied the edits were in the same vein as the original AfD article. Since that original statement (20 February 2023), other sources have come to light, and the belief of the crime is no longer in question. It is simply a matter of WP policy for inclusion. Nothing more. Please stop using this as a case toward bias. There is no bias. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

- 2/21/23: "The problem that you face is proving notability for inclusion. The incident is 45 years old and has not been mentioned since. It is not a notable incident that is associated with the subject." Here I can perhaps understand the "red tape" behind proving inclusion, but these crimes are of such a severe nature that there ought to be provisions in place to support their inclusion regardless of notoriety.

- 2/22/23: "Once Willett became famous, if his crime was notable, it should have followed his career" Things get covered up all the time, and come to light later. Come on.

- 4/26/23: "As I have said since the beginning, I have no particular interest in this subject at all. I could care less if the content is included or not." I find this difficult to agree with based on the above conversation.

- 4/26/23: "The only "corroboration" would be that he was arrested, tried, convicted and his sentence was overturned centering around (in the BLP's own words from the video) "201.190 charge regarding public decency / intimate relationship with other people in public") No where does he corroborate the specific nature of the content currently trying to be introduce at this article."

Really? He would seriously have to spell out every single detail of his crimes for the inclusion of the articles? I understand there must be some burden of proof, but this seems excessive.

Finally, something that has largely been glossed over is the fact that Tom (the BLP) himself @Yonhope was caught editing his own article. Go back through the edit history and you will see his attempts to edit the language of a since-removed "Legal Issues" section. While you technically cannot prove this 110%, he uses the same username on several forums, including IMDB, where he states in his bio "Retired actor, musician and singer I make videos for YouTube using the name Featureman." I appreciated @Maineartists taking notice and action on this point.

If there is a way to advance a case of bias, I would like to initiate that. Ishnolead (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

You should read WP:BLP, which is a policy, and which applies to talk pages as well. We have strict policies on how we write about living people, and we need strong secondary sourcing for anything contentious, especially with crime. And there needs to be no doubt that the secondary source refers to the exact same person. This was discussed previously at this noticeboard here, and those standards aren't currently met. Maineartists is entirely correct to be concerned about the inclusion of this content in the article. Tristario (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I read through the WP:BLP and WP:RS, and still do not understand why the information cannot be included. Per the relevant case (Willett v. State, 1978) Willett was convicted of three life sentences and sentenced. He appealed on a technicality and won. This was corroborated by the BLP in a video he uploaded to the internet. This is all simpatico with the sources I have. Given the recent notoriety, I cannot seem to understand what barriers exist.

My concern with @Maineartists does not stem from their diligent efforts to ensure Wikipedia's integrity, but with their unhelpful and inappropriate comments. This entire process has been one big attack as opposed to helpful cooperation. It is interesting how this material went from a "hoax", to "If it was notable, it should have followed his career", to "No where does he corroborate the specific nature of the content currently trying to be introduce at this article." Every new piece of evidence seems to uncover new burdens. Ishnolead (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

What you are describing is a normal discovery and response of information through due-process here at WP. If you exam what you just wrote, it has not been a road block at every turn, but a continued effort to reach new understandings and solve upcoming problems so that the final effort cannot be contested by any editor once introduced to the article. I think you need to re-read my initial reason for opening this thread here at noticeboard: ["I feel that it now does seem to be relevant to include this in some way at the BLP's article page but with proper RS; as I have advocated for since the beginning. It was never a question of a coverup, but simply proper sourcing to back the claim and suffice WP policy. I think it will take seasoned WP editors to introduce this content correctly so that future reversions will not be applicable. It does seem that it may be time to introduce this content in some way due to the elevation of discovery online. I am hoping that WP BLP editors with more experience in this matter will be able to assist those who are seeking it. I was hoping there was a solution that could offer a split-down-the-middle compromise that satisfies both sides of the discussion. I'm still holding out for this. Because he is notable for being a YouTube personality, perhaps the WP:RECENT of this YouTube controversy is reason enough for inclusion?"] If you cannot now see my proposal but simply wish to continue to cherry pick negative intent for the sole benefit of argument, I would say that any bias is now redirected.Maineartists (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

If we're going to add content like this to the article of a living person we need to be completely sure that we do things right. And for that, we need strong secondary sources that explicitly support the content that is added. Videos by youtubers and conducting personal research into the matter have no bearing on this. It's policy, and you should read WP:BLP again - we need high quality reliable sources, and it needs to meet WP:V and not be WP:OR. Maineartists is not in the wrong here. Tristario (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

In addition to the above, the fact that the subject unpublished the video is incredibly important. Many of our policies regarding living persons rely on what the sources say now. If someone published their full name and date of birth on a verified social media account, then we could mention it per WP:BLPPRIVACY; but if they deleted those posts and asked us not to include that information, we'd (probably) remove it. Similarly, WP:BLPCRIME and WP:CRIME say to consider whether the subject was convicted, but also if they were wrongly convicted. If the subject's conviction was overturned on appeal, we need to ask if it's worth mentioning in the first place. Without reliable, secondary sources, the answer is nearly always no. Even if we pretend for a moment that there are no BLP concerns, a retracted article carries little to no weight; the publisher has essentially said "oops, we can't publish that", though of course we can't really read into exactly why. Woodroar (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Considering I came to this page to actually advocate your case, Ishnolead, in hopes of finding some common ground to introduce the content you wish to include to satisfy WP policy and the need for inclusion; this display comes close to trolling. I left the page to show no ulterior motive. Opening the discussion here in a clear attempt, as can be seen above in my original comment, to find possible reasons for inclusion is by no means bias. My link to the BLP Talk Page already includes all that you have copied. If you would just take a moment from your cause to see that I am trying to help you, it may be beneficial. Maineartists (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

If this wasn't made clear enough last time this case up, in the absence of reliable secondary sources connecting the historic case to the subject of our article, we will not be covering it. ABOUTSELF only applies in very limited circumstances, it definitely doesn't apply to details about a crime or alleged crime. Often such admissions may downplay the details or make other claims which would have implications for the victims who may often be other living persons but even when they don't, it's still not something where we can use ABOUTSELF sources. Note that even when this last came up (before any Youtube video from the subject), I did strongly suspect the details concerned the subject of our article, so I didn't worry that much about hoaxes, but it was also clear from the sourcing people were showing it did not belong. I actually made a similar remark above about deaths, it doesn't matter how confident we personally are about something, if there's no sourcing then we can't cover it. We cannot ignore our sourcing requirements to 'expose' someone's past or otherwise try and right a perceived injustice, beyond BLP see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS for how this is a concept which doesn't work anywhere on wikipedia. If you feel this is something super important for the world to know, you need to convince secondary sources to cover it. Nil Einne (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@Maineartists@Nil Einne, other interested, you may already know, but there are a couple of reddit threads on this (the discussion on WP), the accusations are currently on his wikitubia (fandom) entry, and there is a recent WP:MEDIUM article about Willett. We'll see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång Yes. I saw that. In my attempt to gather further sources to assist the inclusion to satisfy WP BLP policy, I discovered that I too have been falsely named in this controversy "cover-up" on Reddit by a certain editor here at WP. I was just going to write here that perhaps there will be secondary sources after all that may provide at least some coverage to at least introduce what is happening on his YouTube channel and YouTube at large; thus allowing a "back-door" tie-in inclusion for the (at the very least) mention of certain legal issues. This may finally satisfy once and for all the initial efforts to include this content. If done correctly and in keeping with WP policy so that no future editor can contest it. Which was my main goal to begin with. I would hope more seasoned WP editors than I would be able to gather those sources (if and when they become available) and introduce the content. Maineartists (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Las Vegas Review-Journal was mentioned above, but the hits I get [25] for "Tom Willett" don't seem relevant. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång I think you'll have more success if you search for "Thomas Willett" instead. MrPinkingShears (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Good thinking, that man. [26] Yep, that's more on-topic. For people interested in seeing if these have WP-use on this issue, WP:RX is an option. Having a subscription will probably work too. I've had no luck with the WP:LIBRARY. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

MrPinkingShears Never even occurred to me. Thank you for this. As well, WP:RX may be a good start. Regardless of the distance in time; it seems to be certainly relevant considering what is going on with the BLP's YouTube channel as a direct online response to the recent discovery. I do believe at one point Ishnolead said they had actual copies of these articles. How would they go about utilizing WP:RX for their benefit? I did read WP:RX, but I'm not quite sure I am experienced enough to guide them through it. Trying to restart the initial: "working with you" approach rather than WP policies that were seen as "red tape". I did try early on to explain how to cite a newspaper: [27] If introduced correctly, the legal issues (found here: [28]) could be tied in through an extension of what is happening currently with the YouTube reaction from the BLP himself. i.e. drop in subscribers, removal of video content, etc. I realize this would be WP:OR, but statistics have been introduced at the article. As well, it may just be a matter of time that previous media coverage such as: [29], [30], [31] gets wind of the online discussions and publishes a piece. That would obviously be the secondary source needed for inclusion. Maineartists (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• I revdeled the allegations in the history as BLP violations given the current posture of this discussion. This is not intended to forestall inclusion of BLP-compliant material regarding the alleged incident if it is located and gains consensus. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Would someone please scrub this defamatory remark: [32]? As a longstanding WP editor whose only intention is to write good articles, I do not deserve this. As a female contributor, I am beginning to become fearful of my contribution and safety here. I have removed myself from the article and Talk Page; yet due to unregistered involvement and false off site allegations of connections with the BLP by a certain WP editor, I am subject to this ongoing harassment: [33]. For the record, because it was clear that it had been created by the BLP and was full of promotional and false content, I placed the original article up for AfD: [34] and created a new article that complied with WP policy and guidelines. Had I known any of these legal issues existed back in March 2021, I would have certainly included the content with reliable sources. However, just like with all of my articles: Articles created I have absolutely no doubt I would have run up against the same obstacles with other WP editors in my attempts to introduce the content with the sources available. Just like countless other sections of similar content in the articles I create that have been reverted, edited, removed and deleted (including entire articles) due to insufficient reliable sources. (I tried to introduce a very well documented incident involving Ari Shaffir and Bert Kreischer that to date is not allowed at WP; regardless of the numerous online sources. It took me a while to understand why it couldn't be introduced, but I learned. It didn't consider it a "cover-up".) I hope this clears up any question of my intent once and for all. Maineartists (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Someone else removed the idiotic abuse from the talk page, and I've revdeleted it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I am very grateful. Just trying to do my best here. Maineartists (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

In moving forward, the semi-protection on the article will lift on May 6. Given the increase in online response, coverage and development, there will be activity and most likely demand for inclusion of some mention. In researching the original coverage found here: [35] from the original case, there are 22 articles that covered the 75-76 trial (3 articles are on a separate Thomas Willett 2005-2007). I have obtained the necessary information to cite the WP newspaper template. As I wrote earlier, I am sure it is only a matter of time before a secondary source will cover the story and satisfy WP policy. I have discovered this: Illumination published 3 days ago. Is this enough to introduce a "controversy" section regarding the response to his YouTube channel with a tie in to the 1975 case utilizing the coverage from the Review Journal? Maineartists (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The Illumination/Medium is of no use per WP:BLP. The old Las Vegas Review-Journal articles (which I haven't read per above) may have use depending on if it's clear enough that they are about this Tom Willett, that may take more discussion, here or at the talkpage. Per the snippets, it seems they are about a Thomas Willett who was 38 in 1976, so there may be a case for that, though they are somewhat unlikely to mention his YouTube career. Out of curiosity, do these articles go into the convictions being suspended?

If the Las Vegas Review-Journal articles are not useable at this time, we wait for better sources, which may make the connection clear and perhaps put the WP:BLPPRIMARY source in a different context (or not), and if article disruption starts again, we ask for article protection again. IMO, it's extra important to follow the word/spirit of WP:BLP with serious stuff like this. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought as much (Illumination/Medium). Just throwing it out there for others to see and have a record. Yes, the Las Vegas Review-Journal articles covers the entire event from beginning to end including suspension of conviction due to a technicality, not to mention extradicting Willett for the case to Nevada from Peoria, Ill. The coverage is very in depth including personal details about the named Willett. It's difficult to introduce this here without proper WP allowance. Maineartists (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the Las Vegas Review-Journal content is fine to include since WP:FRANKIE concerns were addressed by Willet himself. It is really now subject to whether there is a consensus to include this information. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

As I understand it, the address by Willett himself is not published (now). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Vladislav Ribnikar Elementary School shooting suspect

People are tripping over each other trying to assert the guilt, in Wikipedia's voice, of a just-arrested 13-year-old, by name. More eyes needed on the following pages, at least:

• Vladislav Ribnikar Elementary School shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of school massacres by death toll (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of youngest killers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not sure if semi-protection will have much effect; I saw at least one editor with over 800 edits filling in the "perp=" field. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

It's a situation legally equivalent to this: Killing of Kayla Rolland: On February 29, 2000, the boy had brought the firearm, along with a knife, with him to school. During a change of classes, he fatally shot six-year-old Kayla Rolland in the presence of a teacher and 22 students while they were climbing the stairs, saying to her: "I don't like you", before pulling the trigger. The killer of Kayla Rolland was not prosecuted due to being too young. The individual is not named, but his actions are not marked as something alleged, i.e. the article is not worded as: "... the boy had allegedly brought the firearm, along with a knife, with him to school. During a change of classes, he is alleged to have fatally shot six-year-old Kayla Rolland in the presence of a teacher and 22 students while they were climbing the stairs, reportedly saying to her: "I don't like you", before pulling the trigger." In the same way, the boy in the Belgrade school shooting should not be named, but there is nothing specific to wait for, upon which time it will suddenly become appropriate to write: "According to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, after entering the Vladislav Ribnikar Elementary School, the shooter, a 13-year-old student at the school, immediately pulled out a pistol from his bag and shot the security guard and then the pupils that he saw in the hallways" as opposed to According to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, after entering the Vladislav Ribnikar Elementary School, the alleged shooter, a 13-year-old student at the school, immediately pulled out a pistol from his bag and shot the security guard and then the pupils that he saw in the hallways".

There will never be a judgement, and the boy is not treated as a suspect, due to his age being below the Serbia's Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility which means that a crime has not been committed in the sense that the boy could have committed murders (or any other crime or misdemeanor ascribable to the boy). The only thing to wait for is for some more time to pass I suppose.—Alalch E. 23:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The Carlton Crew

The Carlton Crew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A user who seems to have inside information about this criminal organisation is repeatedly inserting and re-inserting information to the article about current members, at odds with Wikipedia's policy. I suggest restricting that user's access to edit this article. see i.e. this rev. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.155.147 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh

• Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I saw a request at WP:RPPI to semi-protect this article but it needs more than that. The negativity needs to be expressed in an encyclopedic fashion and someone here might have time to fix that. Johnuniq (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Marcello Minenna

Marcello Minenna Marcello Minenna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The content of the "Judicial controversies" section added to Marcello Minenna's article on the 6th of April (see diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marcello_Minenna&diff=prev&oldid=1148508654&diffmode=source) may cause unfair reputational damage to Marcello Minenna, as it violates wiki BLP guidelines and Wikipedia's three core content policies: neutral point of view, verifiability, no original research (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons). Quoting some of WP’s BLP guidelines: “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. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking. […] Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all”. Considering the sensitive subject matter of this section, links quoted as sources appear to be completely inadequate and unreliable, as they consist of minor newspapers with little circulation and no national relevance.

Let's not forget that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid" and tabloids are not reliable sources. Furthermore, these unreliable sources report, at most, rumors of ongoing investigations. Minenna is not under trial. He was never convicted. Quoting BLP policies: "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", according to the general principle of Presumption in favor of privacy. It looks like this section's only purpose is to smear Minenna's reputation, as it appears to be created primarily to disparage the subject. Similar malicious and biased editing has led to page protection of the wp's Italian version of this article. I hope administrators will consider the removal of all clear BLP violations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mm941 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Killing of Jordan Neely

Several editors have added the presumed name of the person who applied the chokehold to Neely in this incident; NY Post and Daily Mail sourcing has been rejected per WP:RSP, but the name has been added again with WP:BUSINESSINSIDER as a source, which is listed a "no consensus" on WP:RSP. My gut is that we should err on the side of WP:BLPCRIME here as the person is not a public figure and hasn't even been charged with a crime yet. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

New York (magazine) has now published the name, which at least clears the WP:RS hurdle; I still wonder if we should be naming names per the public figure clause of BLP. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Definitely a "leave it out" for me; despite naming in reliable sources, the person in question has not even been so much as charged with a crime. The justice of that decision aside, I quite agree that it does not belong in the article at this time. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Leave out until charged are issued, there is no rush. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Just a note that if charges do come about, that strikes me as an even stronger case for leaving out the name per WP:BLPCRIME. If, on the other hand, time passes and it is clear no charges will issue, then I think we're free to include the name. But reasonable minds can certainly differ. Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

It seems that not only are editors restoring the name, but there's now an RfC with wording that violates BLP in its own right. Personally, I don't see why we allow articles of "pending" crimes at all given that they almost never meet WP:EVENTCRIT. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The RFC is likely my fault for suggesting (mea culpa), but I quite agree that the name does not belong. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Dennis Wojtanowski

Dennis Wojtanowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This bio is a mess and I'm not sure what to do with it. Aside from two poor sources in the lead and infobox, the entire body is unsourced and appears to be written by editors close to Wojtanowski, including some apparently by Wojtanowski himself (see this one). You'll see that the subject is referred to as "Denny" throughout the article. Even the stated notability in the lead is wrong; it should be his former political position. I'll leave this to those here with expertise in cleaning up a BLP with this type of widespread problem because my instinct was to remove almost everything, rather than slapping templates on it. Stoarm (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Gentner Drummond, Oklahoma attorney general

Gentner Drummond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's a couple discussions of the potential BLP issues on the talk page. I've tried to remove/fix the BLP violations a couple times and they've been re-added every time. The main concern is the legal representation of family paragraph in the business and legal career section and whether or not there is A) enough sourcing to include it ( WP:PUBLICFIGURE If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.) or B) WP:UNDUE issues. I'm also not convinced his great-uncle Jack owning Osage headrights is due in his early life section, but I could be wrong there. Would appreciate if a more experienced editor(s) took a look. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

There are also BLPNAME and BLPPRIMARY concerns in that family paragraph. Reinstatement should not have happened without a consensus from discussion. As for the Osage background, that seems synthesised and WP:UNDUE given those Bloomberg print of the podcast transcripts don't seem to refer to present-day Gentner. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Andrés Rodríguez-Pose

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

---

Avatar317 (talk) is repeatedly posting unfounded and defamatory information about Andrés Rodríguez-Pose while, simulataneously, dismissing properly referenced material.

The defamatory content refers to a highly cited article (in the top 1% in its field according to Clarivate) and published in one of the most reputable field journals (Urban Studies), which was object of a reply by other authors and an counter-reply by Rodríguez-Pose and his co-author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikieditorZYX (talk • contribs) 22:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

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

John Gallagher, Judge

John M. Gallagher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) My name wrongfully appears in this biography as a person that was prosecuted by John Gallagher. I was not and I demand that, that libelous reference be immediately removed. Any reference to John Karoly Jr. should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.117.253 (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The source cited makes no mention of Gallagher, and accordingly I will remove it - though I'm not sure how libel comes into it really, since the source (the Pocono Record) does state that John Karoly Jr "pleaded guilty to failing to pay $1.9 million in taxes on $5 million in unreported income". Getting the name of the judge wrong in such circumstances seems a minor issue... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

COVID-19 misinformation

Can we get more opinions please on whether the cited source ([36]) relied on for this restore by Bon courage reliably and robustly enough supports the assertions that: a) it is a 'conspiracy theory' rather than just a 'theory', and b) that Bridgen 'supported' it rather than simply repeated it.

My view is that it does not, and that it is thus a BLP violation. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the source is adequate for this edit, and you're grasping at straws to object to this wording. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I've dealt with the editor's "contributions" (in the same vein) to the Andrew Bridgen article as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity, you reverted valid edits there with no good excuse. Wiki is about verifiability, and if cited sources do not literally verify content, then, especially in BLP situations, that content should be removed. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The source does not explicitly verify that he supported, rather than repeated the claims. And as this is a BLP context, should either be removed or adequate sources supplied. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and calling the idea that COVID came of of Fort Detrick a "theory" is so WP:PROFRINGE it's probably worth a visit to WP:AE alone, let alone when it's edit-warred over. Bon courage (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Fort Detrick, and if the content relies on that knowledge it should be explicitly stated as context and reliably sourced. We can't just drive a coach and horses through WP:BLP because we assume all other readers are bound to know it's true, regardles of how poorly it is explained and sourced. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The source very much reflects a promotion of the theory and specifically calls it a conspiracy theory. He chose to spread it to audiences as a fact, that's promotion; and the stance is repeatedly referred to as a "conspiracy theory" in the source. Unless you have some other information to cast doubt on Logically as a source, the edit you're concerned about looks fine. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. He's clearly promoting it. His tweet could even be construed as intending to give the impression that the information came from an official source.

The Fort Derrick thing is described as a conspiracy theory in plenty of RSes, so I don't understand why the OP is complaining about this. PieLover3141592654 (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Why do you assume I know anything about Fort Derrick? If it's in plenty of RSes why doesn't that context exist in the paragraph about Bridgen? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

We're assuming you've at least read the source that you're complaining about. If you have not, you may want to consider that as the first step toward questioning it as a source. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Yep, it is the primary source for its own ill-conceived condemnation of Bridgen. Using it on its own is to give it undue weight and undeserved credibility. What we need to do is explain the context of the allegations and support that with reliable secondary sources, then describe Bridgen's assessment of those allegation - again supported by secondary source. As Logically is not a reliable secondary source for the acussations, it should not be referenced for BLP-sensitive content. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

No, the primary source for the dude's statements is the dude's statements. The context of the article on the dude's statements is that the dude made the statements. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@NatGertler, but we're talking about the source of the 'judgement' that condemns the dude's statements, and that is self-published by Logically. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

What judgement? That his theory involved a conspiracy? A conspiracy is "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful." He said "the many politicians and officials who are responsible" -- there's your group; it's not a publicly acknowledged thing, so it's a secret; and COVID is harmful. His theory is that there is a conspiracy. What part of that are you arguing with? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@NatGertler, the judgement is in the 'Verdict' section. The section that misrepresents the content of a third-party tweet as being Bridgen's own claims, and actually judges the third-party claims, not Bridgen's. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you please stop wasting our time with falsehoods? Bridgen's tweet contained his own words: “As one consultant cardiologist said to me this is the biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust.” (Source: [37]) It is entirely his own claim -- he plainly embraces the view of the "cardiologist". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity, that reference, cherry-picked from a left-wing source known for it's relentless attacks on the Conservative party, is not a reliable source for supporting your synthesis about the actions of a then member of the Conservative party. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

What we're reporting from the source is not based on the "The Verdict" section, so that's utterly irrelevant. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@NatGertler, that was the only source cited - so what is it based on then? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The rest of the article before the "The Verdict" section contains all of the information in the sentence that was sourced to it. So did you not read the article in question? Or are you just here randomly making up nonsense to defend a position that has proven indefensible? Have you noticed the lack of traction your tactics are getting? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Of course I read it, several times, and that all concerns the allegations made by the third parties that Bridgen was quoting. There is nothing there substantiating the allegation that Bridgen promotes those allegations. -- DeFacto (talk). 05:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

So you didn't read the part where it specifically referred to "Andrew Bridgen's allegations concerning Fort Detrick", which was not in the "The Verdict" section? Or the part where they quote this tweet of him referring to " the many politicians and officials who are responsible"?? You missed both that statement of an allegation and that it was stated he'd made allegations. You may want to read it yet again! -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@NatGertler, I'm beginning to wonder if we are reading the same source.

The one I'm looking at has three sections: "Context", "In fact", and "The verdict".

In the "Context" section these actions are attributed to Bridgen:

1. He "posted a series of tweets concerning COVID-19 and vaccines".

1.1 He "told his followers, 'I can confirm that during my visit to Washington DC last Christmas/ New Year I was informed that the U.S. DoD were responsible for both the virus and the vaccines. Fort Detrick was named. Also a facility in Canada'".

1.2 He "followed this statement with a second tweet outlining his belief that those involved in this alleged plot are likely to be apprehended in the near future. It reads, 'by the end of the month, I expect to see the start of criminal proceedings against the many politicians and officials who are responsible around the world'".

1.3 He "followed up on his claims with a screenshot from the Wikipedia page concerning Fort Detrick. The section shown reads, 'In August 2019, its deadly germ research operations were shut down following serious safety violations, in particular relating to the disposal of dangerous materials'".

In a nutshell:

1. He repeated what he was told in Washington about the DoD and that Fort Detrick and a place in Canada were named.

2. He said that he thought proceedings would be started against those responsible (but he didn't say responsible for what - the source writers seem to have decided there was an "alleged plot", but do not clarify who alleged it and what the plot was).

3. He showed a screenshot of a page from Wikipedia concerning Fort Detrick and saying its germ research operations were shut down.

In the "In fact" section I see:

1. The source writers talking about "Andrew Brigden's allegations concerning Fort Detrick", but they have never told us what they think he, as opposed to the people in Washington he was talking about, has alleged. In fact, the source does not support that he has made any allegations at all.

2. The writers say they don't know who told him that officials were going to be arrested, but as I see it that was his pure speculation based on what he heard in Washington - there is nothing suggesting otherwise.

3. The writers then switch from talking about what is in their "Context" section to other allegations, which they have not substatiated, against him.

Basically, in my view, this source does not support anything it has been used for, and is not suitable for use in a BLP context. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so we're pretending now that his statement in his voice about the people responsible was not in the context of the accusations he was relaying? Despite the fact that he labeled that tweet "2/2" to make it clear that it was a continuation of the same statement? Our reading ability must be limited to that??? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@NatGertler, pretending what? To me his speculation that action might follow was clearly in response to what he heard in Washington. Why do you think it might not be? To me that was obvious, and I never suggested otherwise (although I don't see it in the cited source anywhere that the tweet was labelled "2/2"). -- DeFacto (talk). 18:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Logically appears to be a good source. BBC wrote about logically here and seemed generally complimentary of it, and it's been certified by the International Fact Checking Network [38], which we consider to be generally reliable for determining reliability of fact checking organizations, see WP:IFCN. Tristario (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

BLP related stuff generally demands secondary sources to ad due weight. Logically is a primary source for its work, so doen't pass muster. Presumably, if this story has due weight, there will be plenty of secondart RSes covering it. if there are, then we need to use them. If there aren't, then we need to cut it out of the article per WP:BLP. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Everything is a primary source for itself. It's a secondary source with respect to Bridgen and conspiracy theories. This is basic. Bon courage (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bon courage, as all it is doing is judging whether a report is true or false, it is a primary source for it's own opinions. It misrepresents what it is judging too (it transforms from characterising the disputed content as what Bridgen was told in to calling it Bridgen's allegations), so I'd suggest it is an unreliable primary source at that, and totally inappropriate for use as the only source supporting controversial BLP-related content. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

"all it is doing ..." ← Err, have you read the source? It contains a lot of analysis of the claims, their context, and the circumstance in which they were repeated. Insisting this is primary, suggests a WP:CIR problem. Bon courage (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same source - this one? I don't see a lot of analysis, I see no analysis, just unsupported assertions. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Then you don't understand. Anyway, consensus on this is clear to better to drop the WP:STICK and maybe read WP:SECONDARY so editors' time in future is not spent explaining basic concepts. Bon courage (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bon courage, I understand perfectly, a self-published 'judgement' cannot be accepted as a reliable source, and a majority without policy support is not a consensus at all. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

If this were the only source noting him spreading conspiracy theories about covid-19 then I would err on the side of excluding this. But, as it is, we do have other sources noting that so I don't think there's an issue with having a brief sentence about this in his biography (or another page). per WP:IFCN, logically is an acceptable secondary source, since it's been certified by the IFCN Tristario (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Tristario, thanks for your well reasoned comments. Are you able to identify the other sources you say also note this please? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

There's a section about it in his biography. [39] [40] [41] for instance Tristario (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The wording in his biography is controversial too, and at least two of those sources you mention are unlikely to be neutral for the politics surrounding this - The Guardian is a left-wing source known for its unrelenting attacks on Conservatives, given any excuse, and The Times of Israel clearly has its own agenda for jumping on Holocaust-related stories. LeicestershireLive doesn't claim they are his views, just that he repeated them. I don't think we have enough support to say, in Wiki's voice, that he promotes, rather than simply repeated, those views. -- DeFacto (talk). 05:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

See WP:BIASED and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources. Galobtter (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, The Guardian is unreliable in this context and "it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether". -- DeFacto (talk). 06:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

No, the key point is that the Guardian is reliable and "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective". Every source is biased for someone the key is to use a variety of sources to achieve WP:NPOV. Galobtter (talk) 06:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Correct it doesn't have to be neutral, but given its track record and level of bias wrt its treatment of the Conservative party members, it certainly isn't reliable in this context, so, unless its interpretation is balanced by sources offering differing interpretations, then it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian is fine RS and as for The Times of Isreal – what is this "agenda" you claim? Bon courage (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP, Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics. Its politics coverage is totally one-sided, and it is certainly not reliable in the context that its opinions of a then Conservative party member can be asserted as fact in Wiki's voice. See WP:BIASED too. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

It's a generally reliable source. That's the consensus. News reporting is assertable as fact in Wikipedia's voice. And what's this "agenda"? Bon courage (talk) 06:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

"Generally", maybe, but for anything concerning the interpretation of the behaviour of a Conservative, certainly totally unreliable. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. All its news reporting is A-grade WP:RS. (Opinion pieces another matter). This is now the fourth or fifth WP:PAG you've mistaken in this thread. Bon courage (talk) 06:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Given its level of bias in this context it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether. Your interpretation of the policies clearly differs from mine, but have you considered the possibility that it may be yours that is mistaken? Or even that neither of us are mistaken? -- DeFacto (talk). 07:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Not here, but then I'm not the editor basing their arguments on unexplained invocations of mysterious newspaper "agendas". Bon courage (talk) 07:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

That source is perfectly reliable for supporting the fact that Bridgen promoted the Ft Detrick conspiracy theory. JoelleJay (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@JoelleJay, your view, fair enough, but I'd love to know your rationale as I'm really struggling with this. All I see in that source is an incoherent rambling which includes non sequiturs. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm forming the impression that we might be well served by allowing User:DeFacto have the WP:LASTWORD. Just a suggestion... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Obviously verified by the source, which is itself high quality. The content should remain, in my view of the PAGs. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Shibbolethink, are you able to elaborate, with quotes from it perhaps, as to how you think that source supports that Bridgen 'supported' it [the theory] rather than simply repeated it.

And when you say it's "high quality", how do you reconcile that with all the anomalies it contains, its lack of cohesiveness, and its lack of substantiation for many/most of its assertions and claims (all discussed above)? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I think all of these have been very adequately addressed above by others, many multiple times. Continuing to respond to every comment that disagrees with you in this thread could verge on WP:IDHT and WP:BLUDGEON. My advice to you is to accept that consensus here is against you and move on to other, more productive editing. I will not be responding to other comments in this thread, you may feel free to have the last word. Have a great day... — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink, thanks for your understanding. I genuinely fail to see anything sustainable in that source though, sorry. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

So far, no-one has been able to show me the light, so, as I can see that a few are getting impatient with my 'ignorance', I'm going to leave it there for now and not trouble you any further. However, if anyone thinks they can enlighten me or explain the subtleties of this source that I am blind to, please feel free to add a section to my talkpage to attempt to educate me. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

LP (singer)

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

---

LP (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We quote the subject of this article - "I go by 'she' and 'her', but I honestly don't love it. But it would take me out of my life too much to insist on 'they'. But I respect people doing it."

A week or so ago, a user changed the article from she/her to they/them. I reverted once based on my interpretation of the quote. It's been changed back and forth a few times since then. How should it be handled when it appears that a subject might prefer one set of pronouns while also saying that they go by another? --Onorem (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

LP's own bio on her website consistently uses "she," "her," and "girl." MOS:GENDERID states that we should use a person's self-identification (in this case, female pronouns etc.) for their Wikipedia article, not our interpretation of what language matches their "real" identity. Blueshiftofdeath (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I reviewed the website and noticed it now uses the singular they. The pronouns should be changed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Holahola112 continues to edit war without discussion. I have given a final warning. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I have redacted the warning based on my review of the website bio confirming the use of the singular they. Hola has also initiated discussion with another source confirming the pronoun transition.[42] Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Rory Gallagher (Gaelic footballer)

Serious allegations made on the Rory Gallagher (Gaelic footballer) article today. Several editors have removed them, but they've been repeated by various IPs. I've requested temp page protection. Some edits will require oversight. Judging by the content, this may be an ongoing issue for the next while. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Donald Trump

There's a debate on the Donald Trump talk page concerning the jury verdict in the Carroll v. Trump lawsuit. Carroll's lawsuit including a claim for battery premised on several theories, including (1) rape, (2) sexual abuse, and (3) forcible touching. The jury found that the rape allegation was not proven to the civil standard, but that the sexual abuse allegation had been proven to that standard. (Separately, the jury also found that Carroll's semi-related defamation claim was proven to the civil standard.)

A few editors have said the article should only say that the jury had found that Trump had sexually absued and defamed Carroll. Others (including myself) have said that the full jury verdict should be included, in part due to a concern about an implicit BLP issue. (Conversely, one editor has said that it's the inclusion of the full verdict that yields a BLP issue.)--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

This is the top-level summary bio article on Trump's life. There are at least two other pages -- wikilinked in this bio -- that go into exhaustive detail about this incident and the trial. This Trump bio does not state that Carroll accused Trump of "rape". If suddenly it pops up that he was exonerated of rape, we would need to add at least a long paragraph about this incident and the trial, reactions, etc. which is UNDUE for the Donald Trump bio page. I'd also suggest not volunteering unsourced legal theories on this page or the article talk page. It doesn't help with the content issue under discussion. SPECIFICO talk 19:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you want to make arguments here? I think they should probably be reserved for the talk page. Also, just to be clear, the not liable judgment is not the same as "exonerated". And I don't think any of the legal theories are unsourced—in fact, almost every reliable source is in agreement. And I'm not sure deliberately not mentioning that Carroll accused of rape so that you don't have to mention the jury verdict is valid, but we'll let the consensus decide :) --Jerome Frank Disciple 19:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

That's quite misleading. The article never said Caroll accused him of rape. We didn't just scrub it to avoid saying he was not liable for having raped her. Please be careful. BLPN is populated by fresh opinions of folks who rely on accurate summaries of the issues under discussion. SPECIFICO talk 20:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

... I'm baffled by that comment. So, genuinely, it seems like you didn't pick up on the fact that the jury made findings as to Carroll's claims. You compared the rape finding to a finding concerning whether Trump had "broccoli growing in his ear" (your words). But ... that's obviously an absurd comparison because Carroll never claimed that Trump had broccoli in his ear.

Now, there are plenty of reliable sources that say what Carroll's claims were, and, yes, rape is noted in them. For example, CNN]

Carroll alleged Trump raped her in the Bergdorf Goodman department store and then defamed her when he denied her claim, said she wasn’t his type and suggested she made up the story to boost sales of her book. Trump denied all wrongdoing. He does not face any jail time as a result of the civil verdict.
While the jury found that Trump sexually abused her, sufficient to hold him liable for battery, the jury did not find that Carroll proved he raped her.

See also: NBC News, New York Times, CBS News

But when you say "the article", I'm assuming you mean just the NPR article that's currently cited, though I'm not sure why you're restricting it to that. [43] So, yes, the NPR article doesn't say, directly, that Carroll claimed anything beyond battery—it says that the jury was just "asked to consider" several theories. So I guess in a world where no other reliable sources exist, we'd have to imagine that the judge just randomly decided on some theories and threw them at the jury. But even the NPR article, like essentially every article covering the result, includes the full jury finding; in fact, it mentions the rape finding first:

The nine jurors, who deliberated for barely three hours before reaching their unanimous conclusion, did not find that Trump raped Carroll. But they agreed that he "sexually abused" her and that he defamed her when he denied her story.

--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

As I understand it, she alleged sexual assault and defamation. NY Law has three types of sexual battery --so the judge listed and described them and the jury picked the one that fit according to the jury instructions. I didn't see anything about an allegation of rape. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Did you get a chance to look at the sources above? (i.e. the CNN, NBC News, NYT, or CBS stories?) They all say it very explicitly.

If you're looking for a more legal explanation: Her claims were for battery and defamation. Battery is unlawful touching. She presented several theories of battery, which she detailed in paragraph 135 of her complaint:

Trump’s actions constitute sexual offenses as defined in Article 130 of the New York Penal Law, including but not limited to rape in the first degree (§ 130.35), rape in the third degree (§ 130.25), sexual abuse in the first degree (§ 130.65), sexual abuse in the third degree (§ 130.55), sexual misconduct (§ 130.20), and forcible touching (§ 130.52).

Primary source. See also this secondary source (or any of the above mentioned sources, which all say she had claimed / alleged that Trump had raped her).--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why you shouldn't include the (summarized) full verdict. It wouldn't take up much space on the page (just a few words), and it's an important matter. Tristario (talk) 23:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• It's not really a BLP issue and belongs elsewhere. I mean, the purpose of BLP was mostly to shield us from lawsuits, and to that end -- but also for its own sake, on moral principles -- to take especial care to hurt the feelings and/or damage the reputation as little as humanly possible without sacrificing our mission. In like 99% of cases this matters. There are few casesd where it doesn't matter so much. Kim Jong Un, a few people like that, there's nothing we could do hurt their feelings or damage their reputation. American presidents are in that category. There's no reason to hold back info on Joe Biden or Donald Trump on BLP grounds. What we need to careful of is POV. We all hate Donald Trump here, pretty much, so we have to bend over backwards to be fair. It's probably an NPOV issue rather than a BLP issue.

  Agree, not a BLP concern wrt Trump. Also it's not a big deal in his life story. It is highly significant for the plaintiff and for women's rights and there are pages that are focused on those topics and another on the broader topic of Trump's history of misogyny and misconduct. SPECIFICO talk 12:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• While I appreciating leaving a notice here regarding a potential BLP issue, please don't carry on the discussion here. That's not really useful. The discussion on this matter already exists at the article talk page, so if you have something to say on the matter, please say so THERE and not HERE. --Jayron32 13:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Bandi Sanjay Kumar

Indian politician, article is being saddled with police reports of his son's alleged criminal activities (no charges/no cases filed). Pretty sure a clear case of BLPVIO and BLPCRIME.

Please provide your comments. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

What about the exam paper leak accusation that you also removed? The accusation seems to be against the politician himself. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh wait. I see that it was redundant with information already in the article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I just merged it into the body per WP:CSECTION. Gotitbro (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Brett Cooper (commentator)

Is it contrary to WP:BLP policy to describe the subject as "right-wing and far-right" based only on WP:IMDB? I am seeking confirmation of an exception to WP:3RR while a request at RFPP is pending. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

IMDB is clearly an unreliable source, and "far-right" is clearly a contentious claim. The text has now been removed from the article, the page has been semiprotected, and there is a discussion on the talkpage where the IP is free to provide some actually reliable sources for Cooper's political views. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Sujit Choudhry

Dear Wikipedia Editors:

There are severe, inflammatory inaccuracies (potentially libelous) and omissions in the Sujit Choudhry#Sexual harassment complaint and lawsuit section of this article. I am personally connected to Choudhry, and would ask that the Wikipedia community decide the proper course of action.

A. In the paragraph of the current Sujit Choudhry#UC Berkeley and sexual harassment lawsuit section, the second sentences says that Choudhry “did not dispute that the conduct had occurred”, implying he admitted to sexual harassment. This is false. In a 2017 article in the Toronto Globe and Mail not currently cited on Wikipedia shows, the article says that Choudry from the beginning, Choudry maintained he did not sexually harass the staffer.

Unfortunately, in another source, The Guardian [44] conflates Choudry saying in a university report [45] that he had infrequently touched the staffer but with no sexual intent (e.g. hugs to express his thanks for managing the office) and the conclusion of the report that any touching constituted sexual harassment by the rules of the university, even without any sexual intent.

The next sentence, which starts with “Chaudhry did not dispute…” is simply false - as you can see from The Globe and Mail. To the extent The Guardian and the Toronto Globe and Mail conflict, since this is a WP:BLP, Wikipedia must be particularly sensitive to reports of misconduct - and a denial anywhere should suffice, even if the Guardian got it wrong. If needed, it should also be permissible under WP:PRIMARY to read the actual UC-Berkeley Investigation Report to confirm the Globe and Mail is correct.

I’d propose a more accurate version of those two sentences:

Choudhry did not deny that there had been physical contact with Sorrell, but insisted he had never had any sexual intent, did not sexually harass her. He also disputed her claims about how often the conduct had taken place. The university's office for the prevention of harassment and discrimination found that that Choudhry's behavior violated campus sexual harassment policies, stating physical contact violated sexual harassment policies even if he had no sexual intent.

B. There is an important context missing from the Sujit Choudhry#Sexual harassment complaint and lawsuit section that questions the validity of the university’s findings. Namely, Choudhry filed a lawsuit against UC-Berkeley claiming the disciplinary actions against him were disproportionately greater against him as a minority than against white American professors previously accused of sexual harassment. Here’s one way this can be rectified:

In September 2016, Choudhry, who is of South Asian descent and not a US citizen, filed a lawsuit against UC-Berkeley alleging that the university had unfairly singled him out in its disciplinary proceedings in an attempt to deflect criticism over its handling of sexual harassment charges made against professors in 2015 who were white American males.

C. The incomplete description of the results of the settlement are slanted to favor one side of the dispute - even though the settlement significantly favored Sujit Choudhry. Information that shows the actual result has been omitted. This version adds the missing info:

Under the terms of the settlement, Choudhry agreed to pay a total of $50,000 to Sorrell's attorneys, and also agreed to pay $50,000 to charities of Sorrell's choice. Choudhry was allowed to remain a tenured professor in good standing with no disciplinary record, and was permitted to retain his research funding. The university also dropped its disciplinary proceedings against Choudhry. Choudhry resigned in spring 2018.

Thank you. Timbuktu1900 (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I made a few changes to that section, in particular changing it to include his denial. We do need to include denials per WP:BLP. Someone else may want to include some of the other details you mention (I'd have to look at them more thoroughly) Tristario (talk) 07:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Punial State and related articles

Punial State (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ali Nizari (talk · contribs) has made a series of edits to Punial State with an elaborate, unsourced history of a "dynasty" in this state.

There is compelling evidence (presented on Commons) that at least some of the images uploaded to Commons by this user, such as File:HRH The Prince Of Punial.jpg, are fabricated. I have a strong suspicion that the vast majority of textual content added by this user is inaccurate as well, but cannot confirm.

Can someone take a look into this? I'm not generally active on this project so this is a little outside my wheelhouse.

Omphalographer (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Yup. Entirely unsourced, and quite possibly a hoax. I'll restore the article to its earlier state without all the 'dynasty' stuff. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I have left a notice on their talk page. The concerns raised here are serious and they need to demonstrate that this is not a hoax. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Reverted AndyTheGrump's restoration + added more claims - Arjayay (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• Now indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

A search of GBooks shows an entity known as Punial did exist in some form or another ([46][47][48]); that said, whether all the bullshit on the page is made-up or not is anyone's guess, as I'm just not seeing where the original creator (who is indeffed by the way) could've gotten any of that information from. Curbon7 (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Dream (YouTuber)

I've just removed a section from this article about grooming allegations that I thought was poorly sourced [49]. Since this addition was approved by other users on the talk page. I just wanted to get confirmation that "thegamer.com", "popbuzz.com", Dot Esports and Distractify are not good enough sources to include grooming allegations against public figures. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

They're not the strongest sources to meet WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Distractify and popbuzz are trash while thegamer.com and dot esports seem like clickbait gamer sites. Without demonstrating impact on this person's career, this is just WP:BLPGOSSIP. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

TheGamer should absolutely not be used for BLPs. WP:VG/S allows for its use, but only very sparingly and not for anything controversial. This would not qualify. Can't imagine those others are appropriate for controversial BLP claims either. Sergecross73 msg me 02:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

If the info is going to be included, stronger sources should be used. Here's an article from The Daily Dot, which is a much stronger source as an online magazine and has been held up as reliable at RSN multiple times. Silverseren^C 02:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Daily Dot is marginally better, but per WP:DAILYDOT there is no consensus on its reliability. there is community consensus that attribution should be used in topics where the source is known to be biased or when the source is used to support contentious claims of fact. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article.. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. It's considered reliable by WP:VG/S. Silverseren^C 02:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

That is interesting. WP:VG is probably one of the most proactive and thorough Wikiprojects when it comes to maintaining its source list in my experience, so it may be worth revisiting. Sergecross73 msg me 02:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Dinesh D'Souza Ad Hominem attacks

[[50]] Dinesh D'Souza is repeatedly referred to as a "Conspiracy Theorist". THis is an ad hominem attack, that doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. It is unsubstantiated, and doesn't belong in the otherwise substantive article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Triestman - Olek (talk • contribs) 03:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

He literally put out a movie last year about his theory of a conspiracy being involved in the 2020 presidential elections. Hard to see how that's unsubstantiated. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles call people what they're called in reliable sources. Reliable sources call him a political commentator, so Wikipedia calls him a political commentator. Reliable sources call him a filmmaker, so Wikipedia calls him a filmmaker. Reliable sources call him a conspiracy theorist, so Wikipedia calls him a conspiracy theorist. Also, a Wikipedia article can't be an ad hominem because it's not trying to present an argument. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Every description of D'Souza being a conspiracy theorist or promoting conspiracy theories in the article is supported by multiple sources. If you want the article not to say those things, you will need to show either that the sources cited do not support the claims made, or are not reliable for the claims made, or that enough reliable sources dispute this characterisation that we should not state in Wikipedia's voice that he is a conspiracy theorist. Just describing the claims as "unsubstantiated" without further analysis is not sufficient. And at minimum you should carefully read this 2019 RfC, which concluded that there is "Clear, near-unanimous agreement that sources justify the use of "conspiracy theorist" in Wikipedia voice". Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion re: the E. Jean Carroll verdict at Talk:Donald Trump

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Donald Trump § Multi-part proposal for content on E. Jean Carroll v. Trump. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Al-Qadir University, Pakistan

Please see this Reuters news, the controversy seems also covered by other RS. This wp article has only a minor reference to it. What would be the best way to cover it in the article Al-Qadir University?

I won't be able to spend time on that currently. So would it be ok if I add This wp article in See also section along with ref to the Reuters news?

Bookku (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Killing of Jordan Neely follow up

Previously brought up with short discussion that now has been archived. At that time no charges had been filed. Charges have now been filed.

There are currently three discussion about the killer's name: Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely#Name of killer, Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely#Name inclusion (active RfC), & Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely#Name of killer_(again) which was added today after the name was removed from article.

Also note while current version is now referring to him as just an ex-marine, there also was a discussion about whether to refer to him as an ex-marine: Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely#Irrelevant info, e.g. past and possible *future* employment. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

The article about Matty Healy, again

Matty Healy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There recently has been an edit war about neutrality which led to the two main participants being partially blocked for the next two weeks. Experienced uninvolved editors would be very welcome to have a look at the article's history, at the talk page and whether issues such as BLP policy violations remain. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Caroline Garcia

Caroline Garcia Caroline Garcia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caroline_Garcia&diff=1155089779&oldid=1154432959

defamatory entry in revision

• Reverted. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 14:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

David M. Gilbert

The David M. Gilbert article could use some other eyes on it. Gilbert was suspended, and later resigned, after a Florida State University investigation into allegations of sexual harassment. Sources in the article include Science Magazine, Newsweek (post 2013, so to be taken with caution) and the Miami Herald; the Miami Herald piece was also carried by several other Florida news outlets including [51][52][53][54]. It was also covered by the Famuan [55] and in brief by Inside Higher Ed [56]. An IP editor who appears to be closely connected with Gilbert (indeed, an earlier IP editor self disclosed as Gilbert) has been slowly warring to remove or reduce this material. The edit history [57] includes some legal threats, and I did make one of the IPs aware of the WP:NLT policy.

The IP editor does have an interest in making sure that our BLP policies are followed; indeed, some of the earlier removals might be supported under our BLP policies. I think that the sourcing is now strong enough, and the effect on the subject's career great enough that something about the incident needs to be in the article. Under the circumstances, however, I would like to bring this to broader attention (for the COI issues as well as the BLP ones). Pinging @Math-ghamhainn: who added the Science article and most of the current language about the incident to the article, also @Vanished user373257: who reverted the last wholesale removal attempt. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I am not an expert on BLP policies but the current text seems reasonable to me based on the sources and is relevant to the individual's career history. It now includes the subject's denial and/or explanations of his behavior. Not sure if that is standard or not in BLP situations. I have no COI with the subject as I have never met him or had any scientific interaction with him whatsoever, nor with any of the other individuals involved, nor do I have any affiliation with any of the institutions involved. Math-ghamhainn (talk) 06:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I didn't mean to suggest that there was any big problem with Math-ghamhainn's edits, and the only apparent COI that I see at the article is from the IP editors. The improvements from Morbidthoughts and Tristario look good -- thank y'all sincerely for taking a look. I did try to clean up some myself earlier, but expertise shows! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Jonathan Kreisberg

Jonathan Kreisberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My client, the subject of the article in question, would prefer to exclude their date of birth as allowed information on their Wikipedia page. This is at their direct desire and request. Previous attempts made by my client were redacted by Wikipedia editors, against my client's wishes.

If possible, removing this information (and any related references) from the history of edits to this article would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperWakka (talk • contribs)

For somebody who begins their post "My client" SuperWakka seems a bit of an unprofessional username. Given that the account that previously made those edits New for now music (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked by @OrangeMike: for promotional editing (and identified as the subject), perhaps this is block evasion? The article only currents lists a birth-year, which I don't see as a serious privacy issue. The article seems to have been created by a SPA and has a long history of promotional editing by IP users. I'm not even sure they're actually notable, given the very lacklustre referencing in the article. I think it should be taken to AfD, which would resolve your concerns. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for "SuperWakka" as an odd nomenclature. This has been an internal object for private reasons. "New for now music" was identified by my client as their attempt to privatize their birthdate info, regardless of their reasons for doing so. The point here is that their wishes, regardless of the manners of doing so, is to privatize this information.

I am fully aware that even in December of 2020, my client has made multiple attempts to remove, or even blacklist, this info, only to be met with abrasive and sarcastic editor remarks. Please understand the nature of this request and assist with fulfilling it. Thank you. SuperWakka (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLP encourages us to consider the privacy of the subject of the article, although the birth year isn't generally considered to be private information. Some people do consider their ages to be private information, though. Given the borderline notability of the subject, I could remove the birth year if no one else objects to that. I agree with Hemiauchenia however that deleting the article may be a good course of action, given its moderately promotional tone, borderline notability, and privacy concerns. There is some coverage of the subject of the article in sources, but they aren't very good quality sources and the coverage is mostly trivial. Tristario (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

My client prefers that the birth year information to be removed. Removing the low-quality references would also be appreciated. Mr. Kreisberg would "love to update" bio information, but if removal of the entire article is the decision most in line with Wikipedia's policies, please proceed as you deem appropriate. SuperWakka (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

After some further review of sources I don't think I will nominate the article for deletion since it's likely the subject meets WP:GNG from coverage in sources such as [58] [59] [60]. He's also mentioned in a number of books [61]. The notability is still borderline so I think removing the birth year is still justifiable Tristario (talk) 00:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Understandably. Thank you for researching this issue and coming to an equitable resolution. 174.127.176.144 (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

György Budaházy

György Budaházy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The subject is a recently pardoned domestic terrorist[1][2] but this information repentantly removed. Please take a look. Thanks, Bencemac (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Adah Sharma

Sources differ as to what her original birthname is. Some users are trying to put forth only version of it. Please take a look at the notes/sources and guide with this further. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 03:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Since the subject herself has provided conflicting information, unless there are other WP:RSes that would resolve the issue, your footnote seems reasonable. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Rebekah Vardy

The abuser was NOT a member of Jehovah's Witnesses. Rebekah left the community and town, with her mum, when she was 11 yrs old. Abuse started age 12 to 15 yrs old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darcey2000 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I have edited the article so as not to claim that Vardy's abuser was a JW: neither source says they were, and the BBC source says that "This story has been corrected to make clear that Rebekah Vardy's alleged abuser was not necessarily a Jehovah's Witness". However, neither source says that Vardy left the JW community when she was 11, and the BBC specifically says that Vardy claims the abuse was covered up by JW elders, so I have retained that. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

John Campbell (YouTuber)

Even the title of this article is demeaning (i.e., the "YouTuber" add-on, as if that's all Dr. Campbell does). An encyclopedia should state only facts (inasmuch as it is possible to determine facts). The article on John Campbell, PhD, is filled with derogatory opinions. The author(s) of the article are likely not qualified to define what is "misinformation" in the long-lasting COVID saga. I occasionally looked at Dr. Campbell's YouTube videos about COVID over the past two years and noticed his gradual enlightenment as he studied the results of a variety of scientific studies on various aspects of COVID and on various countries' responses to the virus. When he discovered that some of his videos contained incorrect information, he was quick to point out the errors in later videos and apologize for them. He may, indeed, be the very best source of unbiased information about COVID and related subjects that is available to the common man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfwlms (talk • contribs) 21:48, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

The claims that you've called derogatory are based on reliable sources; it's those sources that describe Campbell as spreading COVID misinformation. If there are reliable sources that support that Campbell has had a gradual enlightenment, then feel free to edit the article and cite those sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

In my understanding while on certain parts of social media Campbell's video channel content is lauded for being an example of "red pilling", respectable RS instead categorizes Campbell as somebody who went from being semi-reasonable to being a total COVID crank. Wikipedia of course follows the reliable sources. Bon courage (talk) 04:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I will note that the OP has made no edits to the subject's talk page (save a pithy "amen") before filing this. Also note that John Campbell has appeared on this noticeboard before (here and here), and it just really the same "he speaks the covid truths, big pharma doesn't like that!" tirade, over and over. Zaathras (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

While all you've shared could be true, Wikipedia can only reference content from what it determines to be reliable sources. Are there any specific changes you're seeking, and have you sought them on his Talk page first before coming here? Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Kajsa Ekis Ekman

• Kajsa Ekis Ekman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The user AnnikaCarina is repeatedly returning to the page Kajsa Ekis Ekman, adding libelous and unsourced content. The sources added seem to be added for credibility but do not reference what is being said, which a non-Swedish-speaker might miss. Several of the things posted by this user have been condemned by Swedish media ombudsman as libel in a ruling from April 2023. This user is posting on Swedish, English and Norwegian wikipedia and almost all edits have the sole purpose of slandering this one author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alinsky1 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the ombudsman ruling? I have notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Sweden to help evaluate this. If this disruption continues, it should be taken to WP:ANI Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

There are also multiple discussions happening on the article's talk page. Primefac (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Media ombudsman notice concerning the Dagens Nyheter article. In short allowing the interviewee to label Ekman a leading transphobe without allowing her to comment or soliciting other opinions on the matter, was considered inappropriate and defaming. The ombudsman could identify no ethical concerns with how the origins of the conflict or the history of the Arbetaren newspaper was depicted. Draken Bowser (talk) 18:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

After evaluation, several of the reinstated items in the lead are indeed BLP violations. Expressen is a tabloid while there seems to be some OR in picking and choosing the outlets she's been published by without independent RS. The edits were made by someone that may have a professional COI against her.[62] Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Expressen is considered a reliable source on svwiki. The enwp-community are of course entitled to reach another conclusion, but I wouldn't dismiss it as a mere tabloid Draken Bowser (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Note: Previous BLPN discussion [63] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it is fairly clear that AnnikaCarina from edits such as this does not seek to construe a balanced and encyclopediatic article on the article subject. The content gets completely skewed to emphasize 'controversies', to portray the article subject in an as negative light as possible. There is misrepresentation of sources, such as the application of the quote "very solid journalism" whereby the Swedish original is presented in a misleading way. --Soman (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, it hardly makes an attempt to present KEE's views before piling on and on with the criticism and slaps the word controversy everywhere. It is not a good look. Draken Bowser (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Primefac: I am surprised the last edits was first rolled back, and then the article was locked. I thought the point with "it is always the wrong version" was not to choose a version. By first rolling back, one version is chosen, isn't it? LittleGun (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is always going to be the wrong version. However, in an edit war I am generally going to assume that the version supported by two editors with over 400k edits between them is the "better" version than the one supported by two SPAs with barely 60 edits between them. I do feel like their opinions would be worthwhile and am somewhat surprised they have not joined in on the various discussions. (please ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I had a hard time following who has written what in the history. But the roll-back and immediate locking surprised me.

I have now translated the Swedish page and placed it here: Talk:Kajsa Ekis Ekman/Draft TBD. I believe it can replace the current article immediately. But I can see on the talk page that even prior to the translation one of the users has determined it will be falsely balanced.

Missed to ping: Primefac, sorry.--LittleGun (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

If there are no substantial objections, either here or at the talk page, I will implement the proposed changes. Primefac (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Hélène Jawhara Piñer

This article is visibly : -non-encyclopedic -unduly self-serving — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuligo septica (talk • contribs) 09:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

edmund fawcett

Hi, I'm Edmund Fawcett and can't object to item added about teenage affair with Polly Toynbee and the abortion. But think it's better to keep original order, with career first and family life as newly added to second. I wouldn't have a wiki page unless I'd had a career and written books but I doubt if I'd've had one only as Polly T's boyfriend 59 years ago. On wiki's own standards of relevance, that is, I'd think the previous order better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmund Tapp (talk • contribs) 14:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The article subject was not named in the source, so I removed that from the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I have made the corresponding edit at Polly Toynbee for the same reason. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Natalia Janoszek and an alleged forged resume

This issue came to my attention from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalia Janoszek. To the best of my understanding, there is a controversy currently in Poland where an investigative reporter (Krzysztof Stanowski) has alleged that actress Natalia Janoszek's resume was mostly faked/exaggerated. I am unsure of what to make of our article's current state (as in what is alleged to be fiction), so I thought it best to bring here. Pinging User:Marcelus and User:Sławobóg who brought this to my attention from the AfD. Curbon7 (talk) 12:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

John Block (New Mexico Politician)

The source on 10 is not a legitimate news outlet and is an op-ed, not a news source: https://2ndlifemediaalamogordo.town.news/g/alamogordo-nm/n/123139/alamogordotownnewscom-duplicity-alamogordos-sanctuary-resolution-petition — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.129.93.33 (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I've removed that ref, as well as the associated content and its other two refs that didn't support the content. Schazjmd (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Stewart Rhodes

I would like some eyes to take a peek, as subject was just in the news. I cleaned up the lead, taking WP:WEIGHT into consideration. But I was most concerned about source abuse. The article was labeling him a domestic terrorist because the RS quoted a judge saying that. I’m sure you can understand the distinction. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artificial Nagger (talk • contribs) 07:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Request for tag review

Looking at talk page discussion I tagged an article Anirudh Devgan for COI and notability. I wish some one help cross check/ review this tagging is appropriate enough to be on safer side. Bookku (talk) 10:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Chloé Dygert [Chloé Dygert]

[Chloé Dygert] Chloé Dygert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Information presented in the personal life section is defamation. Chloé Dygert herself has asked for this to be removed as to she receives a lot of online heckling from people trying to stop her career from progressing, posting false stories from little to no credit 3rd rate websites docking her for her political beliefs. The entire personal life section on her Wiki basically says nothing good about her what so ever, Its all political nonsense and it's saddening. Could we please get this changed and or removed. Thank you.

Defamation is, by definition, false. Are there specific statements of fact here which are being challenged for accuracy? Or is this more a question of these events not being the lens she'd prefer to be viewed through? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• The last three sentences of that section are about a corporation publicly "slamming" and "calling out" a living person they're not connected to. That's marketing for brownie points, or posturing. The idea we should add that bit of corporate marketing to a person's BLP is uniquely obnoxious. DFlhb (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  Not connected to? They're the sponsor of the team she's on. Schazjmd (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  Which is true (as is made clear in the source), but is not mentioned in our article section, which makes the import less than clear. If the material is to stay (and I think it should in some form), then such a link should be noted. I do actually have more concern with first sentence on that paragraph, as it is sourced to her sponsor Red Bull, a non-independent and not-presumably-reliable source. I have raised that issue on the Talk page.-- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'd missed it when skimming the source. But it's still "woke-washing" advertising typical of 2020, when corps issued 'strong statements' that didn't put their money where their mouth is (like dropping the team) except for gestures (hiring a "diversity consultant"). That same year they moved to Arkensas, a pro-discrimination state, and have continued to expand their presence there as more anti-LGBT laws were passed. Rapha is a self-serving unusable source, whether quoted by VeloNews or not. Surely we have independent sources criticizing her? DFlhb (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

  Your prior complaint was that we were using criticism from someone the subject is "not connected to", and now that you see the connection, the problem is that they aren't an independant source? No matter if you find alll such criticism to be "woke-washing", "posturing", seeking "brownie points", or whatever, facing public criticism from a sponsor, the very folks trying to get positive publicity off of your efforts, is significant, and the third party coverage of it suggests that inclusion is due. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Since when is the Red Bull website a RS to put WP:WEIGHT on though?[64] Seems like coatracking to find something seemingly consistent with the other sentences that were actually supported by RS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Is People (magazine) a reliable source?

I reverted a change in a BLP because its only source was People (magazine). This has been challenged (here) and I now don’t know how solid the ground is that I was standing on.

1. would one ever expect the article about a source to discuss its reliability as far as WP is concerned?
2. WP:BLPRS makes particular note of tabloids which I guess excludes People. But surely that doesn’t imply reliability?

What’s the best way forward here? Thanks, Nick Levine (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

People has been repeatedly judged a reliable source, as shown at WP:RSNP, although there is caution about using it for contentious claims. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

People is listed as generally reliable at WP:RSPS. Its listing is based on the RfC from 2013[65] closed as People magazine can be a reliable source in BLPs. [...] the magazine should not be used for contentious claims. Whether it's reliable for the edit you reverted depends on the nature of the content it was supporting. (I was typing while NatGertler had already answered, thus the duplicated information.) Schazjmd (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah, just found it. I'd consider People a reliable source for a celebrity wedding. It's what they do. Schazjmd (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance. Nick Levine (talk) 06:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

If the celebrity married an astrophysicist, People is a reliable source for the wedding details, but not for the details of the physicist's research. Context matters. Cullen328 (talk) 06:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

So People is expert when it comes to stars, but not to the stars that an expert on stars is expert in? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Joanna Marcenal case

I moved Draft:Joanna Marcenal case to draft space because I have serious concerns about claims of who was responsible for which crime, which don't seem to be supported by an actual conviction (no actual verdict is included in the article, and a source from 2020 indicates that at that time, no conclusion was reached[66]). For example, a statement like "His stepmother was free, although she is also responsible for crimes for also having custody of the victim and having control of the situation." sourced to this apparently unrelated article, doesn't seem to be acceptable under our BLP policies. I don't know if the mass of such issues warrant deletion or just thorough cleaning, but I don't think it should be kept as is. Fram (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Obviously a machine translation of the Portuguese article. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that explains some sources not working. Even more reason to keep it out of the mainspace. Fram (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the creator's history, he has been doing a lot of this. I'm not sure what his command of English is; he seems to respond only in Portuguese. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Spicy just blocked him over this language issue and the resulting articles, so it probably won't happen again! Fram (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Tim Noakes

Tim Noakes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tim Noakes, the subject of this BLP, responded to published criticism from a (non-expert) critic, but two editors are reverting the subject's response as undue weight. They have also claimed that the subject's own self-published comments are not allowed, which goes against BLP policy. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 06:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

This edit[67] is using a self-published site to make an attack on a third-party individual and calling their qualifications, expertise and good character into question. That is the very definition of how self-published sources MUST NOT be used on Wikipedia. You have done similar on that article's Talk page including allegations of stalking (which is a criminal offence in South Africa). Don't do this. Bon courage (talk) 06:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

How ironic. The 3rd party in question has done exactly that to Noakes, calling him (falsely) and antivaxxer, paranoid, and more (in fact he said, of Noakes' book: " extraordinarily heady mix of conspiracy theory, bad science, bad writing, and persecution complex"). What's good for the goose, etc. The allegations of stalking come from Noakes himself, using a different formulation of words. You also neglected to point out that the edit you cite has other sources beyond a self-published site. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 06:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Referring to the vitriolic quote I provided above, made by the 3rd party in question, it appears to be in breech of WP:BLPBALANCE where it is stated that Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Hmmm. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 06:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, but an "author disagrees with negative book review" piece is hardly the kind of secondary, independent sourcing we should be using. Especially for medical misinformation, Wikipedia has a duty to be clear what the mainstream view is, and should be careful about not amplifying character assassinations and allegations of criminality, even more especially if those do not appear in RS. Bon courage (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

You have gotta be kidding! McAlpine made a truly vicious attack on Noakes, one that is specifically discouraged by WP:BLPBALANCE, yet you would insist on publishing the vitriol and denying Noakes a response? This is laughable. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 07:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I guess crap books get negative reviews all the time. All Wikipedia can do it report on that. I'd leave any "vicious attacks" out of it. Bon courage (talk) 07:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

And we publish comments from vitriolic "reviews" from long-term enemies of the BLP subject, enemies with an ax to grind (long histry of attacks on social media for instance), and no expertise in the subject area, and then deny the subject a response? GTFO. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I see Noakes responded in the same outlet (so this isn't just self-published). From what I can see the right approach might be something like - include Noakes denial (WP:BLP says we should include denials), but do not include any strong claims about living people he makes in that denial (since I think we'd need better sourcing for that), and do not give significant weight to any WP:FRINGE claims in his denial (if there are any). I also think the criticism of Noakes could be worded better so it has more of an WP:IMPARTIAL tone (and complies with WP:BLPBALANCE). I have not looked at this in depth, so the approach I'm suggesting may not be quite right.

Finally, is the original source actually good enough to be including this in a WP:BLP in the first place? Is Juta medical brief (the "digital clubbing" section) a good source, and does Alastair McAlpine have subject matter expertise? Tristario (talk) 07:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Thoughtful response with excellent points raised, thank you. I would agree to your proposed edits. I will look into Juta medical brief. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The website is a news aggregator and it was recently bought by a South African publishing company called Juta. It also publishes opinion pieces. I would not class it as a quality RS. Ratel 🌼 (talk)

This is correct? We need strong sourcing to describe someone as writing an extraordinarily heady mix of conspiracy theory, bad science, bad writing, and persecution complex in a WP:BLP. We don't have to actually include anything about this book in the biography if we don't have solid sourcing. --Tristario (talk) 07:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

What is Noakes "denying"? WP:DENIAL the relevant BLP text is about allegations and incidents. Bon courage (talk) 07:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC); amended 17:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

He calls Noakes' book an extraordinarily heady mix of conspiracy theory, bad science, bad writing, and persecution complex. I think most people would consider that to be an allegation. Tristario (talk) 07:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

It's describing a book not making an allegation. I would oppose any attempt to stretch BLP to give authors a "right of reply" to bad book reviews. Where would it end. Would we then have to include McAlpine's response to Noakes' response? Bon courage (talk) 07:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I beg your pardon: he is implying that Noakes is a bad scientist, a conspiracy theorist and paranoid. There is no other possible interpretation. He is quite explicit about it: "The same issues that have plagued Noakes’ recent career, plague the book." Ratel 🌼 (talk) 07:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, or something along those lines. I understand the desire to rebut WP:FRINGE ideas and not give them credence on wikipedia. But, we still need to adhere to the spirit of WP:BLP, and we need to be careful, especially with claims as strong as these. That goes for any claims about McAlpine too, of course Tristario (talk) 07:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Now, possibly one thing that could be done is we could tone down the review from McAlpine, and that may eliminate the need to include a denial. Tristario (talk) 07:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 08:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Note, in regards to some of your recent edits to the article - if you're using a self published source for a denial I don't think you should give it much weight, and you shouldn't use it for claims about third parties beyond the denial itself (a footnote in WP:BLPSELFPUB carries a clarification about this). And not everything needs a denial (either because we can include a general denial for multiple things, or not everything counts as an "allegation or incident") Tristario (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

If a BLP is accused of very serious misdemeanours, such as being an antivaxxer or a supporter of fringe treatments, and especially as a doctor, he is most entitled to a defence from his own mouth. There is no problem with that at all. I don't believe I have exceeded the "denial itself" anywhere, or not substantially, but I do not object to your modifications. Considering that most of the criticisms are based on his idle tweets on off-career topics, the questions should be asked if any of them, other than the HPCSA issue, should be there in the first place.Ratel 🌼 (talk) 10:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

We need to manage a careful act of adhering to WP:WEIGHT, WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE simultaneously. I agree that if there's a serious allegation against him and he denies it, we should include it. While also adhering to all those policies/guidelines Tristario (talk) 10:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

what "serious allegation" is on Wikipedia? In general, cranks get their crank outputs criticised in the real world. I would object to re-interpreting BLP to mean that when fringe writings are criticised, the crank gets some sort of "right of reply" as that's right into WP:FALSEBALANCE territory. And avoiding that that is not negotiable. Bon courage (talk) 11:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLP is a policy, and we need to take it seriously, even when dealing with people that spread fringe claims. WP:BLP also applies to talk pages. I'm not talking about a false balance between mainstream and fringe views. I'm talking about an allegation like if someone is accused of doing something, and that person denies it, we generally need to include that denial. We also need to balance that with policies like WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. It's not a simple thing to do, and it's done on a case by case basis. Tristario (talk) 11:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

No, we "generally" don't, not if the denial is "unduly self-serving". There's no presumption in policy that including a denial is the default course of action which we have to argue our way out of. XOR'easter (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLP If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too. And a footnote in WP:BLPSELFPUB is clear that applies to self published sources too. All denials are self-serving of course. Tristario (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The example there (a politician engaged in an affair) does not seem even broadly comparable with the one here (a book written by the subject is bad in several ways). Especially the context of the quoted sentence (it's in a section titled "Presumption in favor of privacy", subsection "Public figures") is incompatible with the present case. --JBL (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I think we've resolved how we're including that review of the book now (this conversation turned into a general conversation, rather than about that specific case). Tristario (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

An "implication" is not an "allegation". Read it how you will, but don't think Wikipedia must follow. Bon courage (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Again, sensible approach with which I largely agree. Note: I have modified the original contentious content with what I hope will be a consensus edit, reducing McAlpine's quote and referring as briefly as possible to the rebuttal. For balance, I have also included a positive review by another medical specialist. I trust this resolves the issues at hand. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 10:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I think "Paediatrician Alastair McAlpine criticised the book as "bad science" in a review, to which Noakes responded." is good, although I removed the cardiologist review since it was self published Tristario (talk) 10:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I removed he cardiologist review a second time referencing this comment. jps (talk) 10:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the review was self-published in "FoodStuff South Africa", but either way that's not a good enough source for this Tristario (talk) 10:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Question: regarding the repeatedly inserted claim about Noakes removing 'entire food groups', can someone please tell me what food groups are referred to here? AFAIK no food groups are removed. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 11:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The word "entire" was removed to conform to the source. jps (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I repeat, what food groups are removed? Ratel 🌼 (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The diet's main premise is one that drastically reduces the consumption of carbohydrates. While it is not an "entire" removal, it is pretty obvious from the sources and our own article that this is what is being referred to. Please exercise WP:COMMONSENSE. jps (talk) 12:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. He advocates 50-70 carbs a day [68], which is not a "removal of a food group". Do you even know what a food group is, talking about common sense? Ratel 🌼 (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The recommended intake of carbohydrates per day is between 225 and 325 grams. jps (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's the official recommendation that has made obesity into a global crisis. You call that success? Ratel 🌼 (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

see WP:NOTFORUM. I think the current wording is fine, I think it's clear from the earlier part of that paragraph where it says "low-carbohydrate" that it's not talking about excluding literally all carbohydrates Tristario (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Just some context here. The primary source Ratel was citing was from 2012 and is outdated. These sources are not reliable either as they are personal interviews, but it should be noted that Tim Noakes is now more extreme with his dietary views as he promotes the carnivore diet and tells people not to eat carbs or vegetables at all [69], [70]. His views are very much on the extreme side, not taken seriously by dietitians and nutritional scientists. Per below, I believe the the Fringe noticeboard is the correct place to discuss this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

On a more rational note, rather than Youtube videos, would you object to using his recent books as sources for what he advocates?Ratel 🌼 (talk) 01:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Obviously. We don't put fringe health stuff in Wikipedia and are required to contextualize it mainstream, reliable sources. Bon courage (talk) 01:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is correct. We need to be careful about putting fringe health ideas on wikipedia in an uncontextualized manner. Tristario (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Note

There is a discussion also taking place about this article at WP:FTN. There is some confusion as to whether these two discussions should be collapsed into one or if they should be kept separate. This is a WP:FRINGEBLP, so YMMV. jps (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Charles Tex Watson,

I was reading about the Tate Labianca murders and noticed in this entry about Charles Tex Watson, that it failed to include Leslie Van Houten as one of the murderers of the Labianca's. I think it a major error not to include the name of one of the murderers in one of the most infamous murders in the US in the 20th Century. Someone should add Van Houten's name to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.88.161 (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a content issue rather than a BLP policy issue, and it better discussed at Talk:Tex Watson. I note that the articles on Leslie van Houten and the Tate–LaBianca murders both discuss her involvement. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Dan Grech-Marguerat

A promotional, poorly sourced and WP:COI inflected vehicle going back many years. Recent edits by several WP:SPA accounts have provided limited improvement. More eyes and hands needed. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• I'd appreciate help on this. Thank you. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
• Incidentally, Musiclover1991tomodell (talk · contribs) is a problematic username--either it's the account of Tom Odell, with whom Mr. Grech-Marguerat has worked, and who has thus far not acknowledged conflict of interest, or it's someone appropriating Mr. Odell's name, which may be a violation of guidelines for impersonating a notable person. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Julien Coupat

This person seems to be primarily notable for being accused of terrorism as part of the Tarnac Nine (it seems he was later acquitted). I think this is a WP:BLP1E violation and relevant information (such as about his arrest) should be merged to the article about the Tarnac Nine. I looked at his French Wikipedia article and it contains almost the exact same information. But I am not sure what to do in a case like this and figured I would bring it to users here in case anyone else has a different read on it. Thanks. postleft ✍ (Arugula) ☞ say hello! 02:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

More eyes required at Till Lindemann

Owing to recent allegations that have been made online there is some ongoing back-and-forth at Till Lindemann. Please see discussion on talk page here: Talk:Till_Lindemann#The_Sexual_Assault_allegations_against_Till_Lindemann_are_all_over_the_German_Press. — Czello ^(music) 10:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Alina Chan

Should the article on Alina Chan say, without any citations:

• that she is a "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence
• and that "Chan has repeatedly, publicly, and baselessly speculated that governments and health authorities around the world are engaged in a conspiracy to cover-up the origins of SARS-CoV-2"?

More eyes on the article, and participants in the discussion Talk:Alina Chan#Those who hypothesize conspiracies to explain natural phenomena are called conspiracy theorists. would be appreciated. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Chikezie

Could someone who is better versed in matters of BLP policies please examine this article, especially the section at the bottom pertaining to alleged legal and family matters, to make sure it conforms to policy? It doesn't seem kosher to me - for example, is TMZ considered a reliable source? - but I simply don't know enough about this area of Wikipedia to make a determination myself. Thank you. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

No TMZ is unacceptable as a source for wikipedia. I have removed the entire personal life section after reviewing all of the citations in it based on WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:BLPNAME. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Libelous content in Peter Oppegard article

I wish to bring to the community's attention a repeated addition of content to the Peter Oppegard article, which I believe to be libelous. The information in question is related to allegations and a suspension, which are not corroborated by official statements or reliable sources, and relies heavily on hearsay. I have tried to remove this content due to its potential to cause serious harm to Mr. Oppegard's reputation, but it continues to be added back. I kindly request an urgent review and removal of this content to uphold Wikipedia's policies and ensure the protection of living persons.

CozyExplorer42 (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Is it really libellous if the coverage is from USA Today? This isn't some self-published blog or obscure website. Can you explain why you think USA Today is not a reliable source for this information? Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you all for your responses. I understand the importance of upholding Wikipedia's policies and I do not wish to disrupt that.

To address the question from Hemiauchenia, it is not about questioning the reliability of USA Today as a media source. My concern is about the nature of the information, which is based on allegations and not officially confirmed statements by the United States Center for SafeSport. Allegations can potentially harm a living person's reputation and it is important to handle such information with utmost care.

To Bgsu98, I apologize if my intentions appear suspicious. My only connection to Peter Oppegard is as a concerned user who believes that the inclusion of unverified and potentially harmful information goes against Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of Living Persons. I am not the same user as Duebstep.

To Wpscatter, while I understand Wikipedia's stance on including all reliably sourced information, the Wikipedia policy also emphasizes respect for the subject's privacy, especially when sensitive matters are concerned. Without official confirmation from the U.S. Center for SafeSport, these allegations remain as such, and I believe their inclusion does not serve the encyclopedic purpose of Wikipedia but rather, potentially harms the subject's reputation. CozyExplorer42 (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

The suspension was on the Safe Sport website, but since the suspension has ended, it no longer appears in their directory. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Secondary sources, such as USA Today, are often preferred over primary sources. The article is not asserting the outcome of the investigation, merely that one is taking place, and that's supported by the reliable source. If you think that isn't sufficient for inclusion in the article then you're misunderstanding the purpose of a reliable source. WPscatter ^t/_c 19:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe archive.org can help with that? I would expect them to have old versions of the site archived. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

That said, looking at the current article, there's an argument for improvement per WP:PROPORTION and WP:BLPCRIME. We could consider shortening (bitten in the arm in 2013 for example) and merging separate section to the career section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I would also like to draw people's attention to the previous discussions on Talk:Peter Oppegard which involve a WP:SPA, whom I suspect to also be a WP:COI account. None of my questions as to the relationship between User talk:Duebstep & Peter Oppegard were ever answered. I highly suspect this brand-new account posting here is one and the same. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC

The account in question is Duebstep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Given that these accounts have been active within a month of each other, potentially a WP:SPI could be opened to see if the two accounts share an IP address or range. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

They certainly have some similarities in rhetorical style. It might well be worth checking. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

CozyExplorer42 has been confirmed as a sock of Duebstep. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Done, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Duebstep. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Noting that CozyExplorer42 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Duebstep (talk · contribs). Mkdw ^talk 21:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

You don't say! <insert shocked face here> Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy does not serve to protect living persons. If the information is reliably sourced and due for inclusion in an encyclopedia, it belongs in the article, no matter whether it's good or bad. WPscatter ^t/_c 18:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Paige O'Hara

I noticed that you repeatedly say that actress Paige OHara married her husband Michael Piontek in 1995 when I see nothing supporting that. All references suggest they married in August 1990 after a few months engagement. Ms O'hara has repeatedly mentioned in numerous interviews she got engaged on her birthday the same week she won the role of Disney's Belle. She has posted on her public facebook page that they celebrated their 25th anniversary in 2015. You should really correct this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.87.179 (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Removed the dates since none of the cited reference establish the timeline. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Margaret Forrester

I'm working on a new page and I'm being threatened with a "open a CCI for your [my] many contributions" because of my "disruptive editting" by a user named @Fram:. Can someone please advise as to whether this is correct or not? I'm told that I'm in a content dispute, but I have no dispute about the content of the article and I would just like to resolve this without threats being made. Hope you can help. Victuallers (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

What I actually posted to this admin's talk page was "Reposting very closely paraphrased copyrighted text after it has been already explained here is disruptive. I hope this is a one-off and we don't need to open a CCI for your many contributions, if this is the lack of care you show in avoiding copyright violations." No idea why this is raised at the BLPN noticeboard, but it again enforces my concerns about whether Victuallers should remain an admin, if they know so little about our policies, noticeboards, CCI, or that the names of people shouldn't be translated and that using automated translation is usually a bad idea. Fram (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Is this a dispute about whether or not some text is WP:COPYVIO or not? Diffs would help. I have to say the phrasing of the opening post is strange...not what one would expect from someone as experienced as Victuallers. Reads like a new account. DeCausa (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Victuallers created Draft:Margaret Forrester (2) (in mainspace, I moved it to draft). It contained[71] this:

• "Claude Barbour, Elizabeth Hewat, Mary Levison (then Mary Lusk), Mary Weir and Sheila White (now the Reverend Sheila Spence) - wrote an open letter campaigning for a change to the Kirk's rules on women ministers."

The source, BBC[72]:

• "Claude Barbour, Elizabeth Hewat, Mary Levison (then Mary Lusk), Mary Weir and Sheila White (now the Reverend Sheila Spence) - wrote an open letter campaigning for a change to the Kirk's rules on women ministers."

I moved this to draft with an explanation sp Victuallers could correct this and possibly other copyvio's, revdel them, and then move it back to the mainspace. Their solution was to first move it back, do some failed attempt to avoid copyvio by changing a few words, and that's it. Apparently the main issue was that I dared to move ther article to draftspace, not that they had posted copyrighted text. Fram (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Yep. Looks like COPYVIO. What do you want from this board Victuallers? DeCausa (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

No one disputes its a copyvio. So its odd that I'm accused of "content dispute" and threatened with further action (really?). Fram complains that I'm not co-operating, but this is unlikely to happen when accusation and threats are the opening gambit. Thank you for your assistance, I realise it was a tricky request for assistance as there was no dispute to resolve except for the accusation of a dispute. Obviously I intend to avoid making accidental copyright violations, but if I do, then a gentle fix or well mannered request will suffice and I will repeat "Thank you for your assistance". Cheers Victuallers (talk) 08:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

My "opening gambit" was moving the page to draft, and leaving you the boilerplate copyvio warning with a short added explanation of what the actual copyvio was (at least the one I found, no idea if there was more of the same). If you have an issue with the standard warning which is considered good enough to send to newbies and other editors, then please take this up elsewhere. But nowhere in that "opening gambit" was there a claim of a "content dispute", and the block warning was the standard warning from that template[73]. After you posted the copyvio to the mainspace again, I gave you the boilerplate disruptive editing warning[74], which lists as one of the possibilities of disruptive editing a content dispute, but also has a second bullet point about "other forms of dispute". I added my own text to the boilerplate to actually inform you of what the "disruptive editing" wasSo no, you were not "accused of content dispute", but thanks for providing yet another example of your often poor reading skills, which lead way too often to actual content issues in your creations, and which have now lead to this completely misguided and badly phrased BLPN thread. As for "accidental copyright violations", if you wouldn't try to make articles by either using automated translations or by pasting copyrighted text and then rewording it, then you wouldn't make any copyright violations. That's basic 101 editing. Fram (talk) 08:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Shelley Haley

Shelley Haley's talk page has attracted several attacks on the subject, from both anonymous and registered editors, in violation of WP:BLP. I have removed the entire discussion on these grounds, but this was done once before and one of the editors making the attacks reverted that edit and I suspect the same will happen again, so requesting admin intervention. Eritha (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Even though I am wary whether their comments exceed the boundaries of WP:BLPTALK, critical commentary does exist in RSes and should be included in the article.[75][76][77][78] Which ones? That can only be done through a civil discussion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I've made note of all this on the article talk page. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Jane Harris (writer)

This article raises a few concerns. If you take a look at the edit history, much of the work has been done by Special:Contributions/MadMaia , who admits on their user page "I am a web designer currently tasked with updating the wikipedia pages for a client". Almost all of their edits concern either this page or pages for Harris's books, none of which seem to be notable. The same goes for Harris herself, who is an obscure writer best known for cultivating a Twitter following as an anti-transgender activist; incidentally, any attempts to mention this fact on Harris's page are quickly removed, despite the fact that the phrase "anti-transgender activist" is accepted on pages for far more notable people such as Graham Linehan. The language of the article is extremely promotional and generally not encylopaedic, e.g. "playful and compelling voice"; "a chilling tale".

Looking at the notability criteria, Harris is not "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors", she is not "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique", she has not " created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" and her work has not "(a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." The books in question were nominated for awards many years ago but this does not satisfy these criteria and the articles discussing them should also be considered here.

Rather than jumping in by suggesting deletion, I thought it best to raise these issues here, but frankly, the page reads like a self-aggrandising promo for an insignificant writer. 2A02:8084:4F60:5600:BD1F:5E20:E8F:8984 (talk) 09:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks like it should be nominated for deletion at WP:AfD. I see no secondary source coverage of her, just the usual sites that list pretty much any published book. Thanks for pointing this out. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

There are two or three separate questions here: is Harris notable, is the article unduly promotional/unencyclopediac, and should Harris' anti-trans activities be mentioned. For the first question, I suspect that Harris might be kept at AfD per WP:NAUTHOR#3: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". For the second question, it certainly looks as though the article needs more citations and better attribution of opinions like "playful and compelling" and "chilling tale". Regarding the third point, the question is whether reliable sources discuss Harris as being an anti-trans activist. Linehan is widely discussed in reliable sources for his anti-trans views; if Harris is not then we should not be mentioning it in the article. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake, my google search on her had been malformed. There is a small degree of mention of her in some RS. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Elliot Page § Former relationships and other recent revelations

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elliot Page § Former relationships and other recent revelations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

NiJaree Canady

Without WP:RELIABLE sources, there's been a lot of messing with the birth date. Some of it appears well-intentioned, but much of it is vandalism. This may need protection from WP:BLP violations. In the meantime, if anyone can establish the date with a WP:RELIABLE....2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Removed birthdate per WP:DOB. Seems like just petty vandalism in messing around with her age. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, since I reverted one of the changes and did some searching:

- This appears to have been happening because the article was created with the wrong birth-date - some people (or perhaps one person) at Twitter noticed and started questioning why a 23 year old Freshman was playing.

- NiJaree herself retweeted a tweet of someone saying that "She’s 19. The 1999 thing originated from Wikipedia and spread. That is nowhere on Stanford’s website.".

- That said, I don't think there is any public publishing of her birth-date, other than people on Twitter saying which date is correct.

– 2804:F14:80B6:3101:E4B9:E400:1C03:F0D3 (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Added DOB with sources attesting to her birthday and her age on date per WP:CALC. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Simon Ekpa

More interested eyes welcome. The guy is a, sort-of, prime minister, there are WP:BLPCRIME issues and passionate registered and non-registered editors. Interesting coverage in African media but hard to say what is ok-ish WP:RS and not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk • contribs) 11:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)