Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive351

Associating Gerald Koocher with complaints about Guantanamo and torture are misleading and defamatory

https://www.hoffmanreportapa.com/

See for example: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.hoffmanreportapa.com/resources/RESPONSETODAVIDHOFFMAN1026.pdf chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.hoffmanreportapa.com/resources/Letter%20to%20APA%20Board.Final.080218.docx.pdf chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.hoffmanreportapa.com/resources/APA%20Second%20Letter%20Ethics%20Chairs.pdf

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.hoffmanreportapa.com/resources/Cover%20Letter%20and%20Resolution%20From%20the%20Division%2042%20Board%20of%20Directors%20final.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpkoocher (talk • contribs) 17:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Gerald Koocher -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Based on your username I assume that you have a conflict of interest (COI). Read through these: WP:COI, WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and make sure to disclose your COI according to WP:Conflict_of_interest#howtodisclose. I see that you have made a significant edit on the article (it has been reverted since). As a general rule you should not do that if you are the subject of the article. Instead you can make WP:Edit requests. The links you provided here are WP:Primary sources and therefore of only very limited use on Wikipedia. Sources for Wikipedia articles should be reliable, secondary and independent. Take a look at WP:No original research, WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources for more information. If you are aware of and can point to any sources that fulfill these criteria and support your edit that would be very helpful in resolving this. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

That attack website doesn't appear to be a reliable source, can you provide reliable sources which support your position? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The OP surely has a COI, but the sentence currently in the article is not supported by sources, and could otherwise be more nuanced. Indeed, of the sources cited for the sentence, the Washington Post source does not mention Koocher at all that I see. The Sun Times discusses his role at length, but does not claim that he helped author the report. He was in charge of the APA, and may have helped coordinate efforts leading to the report. "Implicated" is a loaded word. Other reliable sources that discuss the matter: Sciencemag [1], Slate [2], Chicago Monitor [3], Inside Higher Ed [4], ProPublica [5]. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

BBC photo allegations

I have reverted edits to both Graham Norton, and Talk:Phillip Schofield regarding recent allegations made against an unnamed BBC presenter. can someone please hide the offensive allegations? thanks Moons of Io (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

You can make a WP:REVDELREQUEST. That way you don't have to rely on an admin seeing this here. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I did that when I saw them earlier. I think we'll need to be on the lookout for this type of thing for the next few days. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Isla Bryson case has an RFC

Isla Bryson case has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Dasun Shanaka

Can someone please monitor Dasun Shanaka. There's a crowd of people making unreferenced edits, and I don't want to run too far afoul of 3RR. —siroχo 11:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

And to clarify, the edits appear non-constructive. —siroχo 11:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Huw Edwards

Potentially libellous reporting in personal life section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:1B9F:C201:5904:1BCC:45D5:9451 (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Which Huw Edwards (disambiguation)? Schazjmd (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

There is a since reverted edit on Huw Edwards with a link to a Sun article. I suspect this may have something to do with Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#BBC_photo_allegations above. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

That'll be the one. I've done a revdeletion. At this time no one is publicly naming who is being accused, so this type of thing is probably going to happen, for no good reason, in several articles. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Also at Stephen Nolan. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Colleen Ballinger

It may be prudent if more outside eyes could take a look at Colleen Ballinger and see if the section added regarding an ongoing controversy over child grooming allegations is adequate. There are several editors who appear to have been maintaining the article for a long time, and may not have the necessary objectivity. Zaathras (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the bad faith comment. The current paragraph is the rest of a long and involved discussion with input from many sides. Your recent edits weren’t great and you were asked to use the article talk page to discuss it. It would have given everyone who has been active on the article and its talk page to weigh up a section that is already straining the boundaries of WP:WEIGHT. - SchroCat (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The aggressive, it's mine tone above is the reason why I thought it wide to seek for a wider range of opinions. There's a line between being concerned with due weight and recentism vs. gatekeeping, and in my opinion it may have bene crossed. Zaathras (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

That’s fine. It’s a certain type of editor that throws ownership accusations around without taking into account others are safeguarding the article to ensure policies like WP:BLP are followed. - SchroCat (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Just to let you know that you're at 3 reverts, and the BLP exemption may or may not apply (criteria 7). Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I know where I am, but thanks for letting me know. BLP certainly applies for some of them. - SchroCat (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I hear neither aggression nor an "it's mine tone" in that response. Public opinion is slanted thoroughly against the subject as it is. Were there no mitigating editors keeping the article in line with WP:BLP, I suspect that it would be in much worse shape than it currently is. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I on the other hand, do hear it, and have been hearing it consistently throughout their discussions. “I know where I am, but thanks for letting me know.” “It’s a certain type of editor…” These lines come off as extremely condescending and like a “know-it-all”, as if they were looking down on relatively newer editors. Despressso (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have spent much of the time commenting on editors rather than the article text, which is what the talk page is supposed to be for. If you want us to all go to ANI and reopen the thread that says you can't drop the stick, we certainly can do that. - SchroCat (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I have been commenting on editors’ biased inputs which in fact do have to do with the article text. Would also appreciate if you didn’t threaten me.Despressso (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

You have made a series of comments about editors that go beyond appropriate. The fact that at least one admin has told you to stop should have given you pause for thought. And I’m not threatening you: if you continue to be disruptive then that’s where it’ll end up. SchroCat (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Beyond appropriate? Not once have I said something ad hominem or crude. And am I being disruptive right now for you to make such a claim? This topic is about what I have been arguing. If anything, I have never added original opinions, but just observations and questions. Anyone can go look at the Talk Page themselves and see what I stated. I am arguing bias and defensiveness for the sake of the article, not for my own gain. Despressso (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, the fact that at least one admin has told you on your talk page to rein it in, and by several people on the talk page. That speaks volumes, despite your claim to the contrary. You’ve spent much of your time on that talk page discussing other editors, not focusing on improving the article. - SchroCat (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

These several people are the same people that I am arguing against, so no, it doesn’t speak volumes. And I am not discussing other editors without it being connected to improving the article. Removing and preventing bias is part of a good article. I don’t know how claiming libel and misinformation, and adding opinions about the victims out of nowhere to begin with, is considered acceptable, but fighting bias is not. Despressso (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem is, as Johnuniq points out, that’s all you’ve done on the talk page, with zero input on the article. Commenting on editors rather than the text is disruptive. - SchroCat (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Claiming I have posited ZERO input is a lie as I have had conversations about actual text. Despressso (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree fully. The three following users, Throast, Ssilvers, and SchroCat have all been extremely defensive of the article subject, and frequently insert their original opinions into their talk page discussions like calling one allegation “mild embarrassment” and going as far as to victim blame an accuser who has gone on record in multiple reliable sources to state they were traumatized. In addition, the very first open discussion begins with Ssilvers vehemently denying the allegations weeks before any RS were available. Lastly, most of the article seems to be written BY Ssilvers, so that bias must surely be taken into account if they have been on top of CB’s wikipedia page for 15 years now. Despressso (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I utterly refute your claim that people have been "extremely defensive of the article subject": what people have been trying to do is ensure that BLP and BLPPUBLIC is followed. Too many editors have been quick to try and put in unreliable or primary sources, or to fully describe every aspect of the matter to an WP:UNDUE degree, breaching too many policies along the way. I've never seen any of Ballinger's material and I have no dog in the fight for her reputation, but I do take BLP seriously. - SchroCat (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I had a quick look and the sourcing seems acceptable for a BLP. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The sources being used are fine, my concern was that the brevity of the text of the section and the all-around efforts to sanitize the subject matter. Zaathras (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

There is no attempt to sanitise anything. We’ve had to wait for the stories to appear in reliable sources (initially there were either primary sources or unreliable ones), but as soon as there were multiple reliable sources (per wp:BLPPUBLIC), there was a discussion about how to frame the information. That discussion took about a day and the consensus version was published. That’s a responsible approach to a contentious WP:BLP question.

As to the claim about the “brevity” of the text: we have a fair percentage of the article dedicated to this and are pushing at the boundaries of WP:WEIGHT already, given the article is supposed to be a neutral and balanced view of Ballinger’s entire life and career. How much of all this will pass a five year test is anyone’s guess, but at the moment the article seems to be top-heavy with unproven allegations already. - SchroCat (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Is is rather curious that an edit even slightly critical of the subject, for example suggesting that an apology video was accompanied by ukulele-playing, is removed til it can be discussed. Yet the addition of text supportive of the subject is kept, and those that wish to remove it must discuss it first. There is clear case of WP:OWN here. Zaathras (talk) 00:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Lazy accusations and insults don’t help anyone. Maybe next time stick to BRD and don’t edit war? STATUSQUO is also something you may wish to familiarise yourself with, as is the article’s talk page where there isn’t a consensus for the change. - SchroCat (talk) 05:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:STATUSQUO is not policy. WP:ONUS is. You need consensus for inclusion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

And there is no consensus at the moment. I've reverted your edit warring because there is an ongoing discussion at the moment that shows no consensus for the change. Rather than jumping in to edit war, join the discussion on the talk page. You edit warred against the consensus, which is about as crass a move as you can make. - SchroCat (talk) 08:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit Warring? You are at your 3rd revert and exhibiting signs of ownership. Consensus is required for inclusion of disputed edits not change. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

oh bugger off with the lazy accusations of ownership - and fuck me, you've decided to edit war further - and against consensus? There is a consensus on the talk page. You want to overturn that, go to the talk page, don't just jump in brainlessly to inflame an edit war. FFS... - SchroCat (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@SchroCat: what consensus? There's definitely no consensus on the talk page to either include or exclude the ukulele thing, never has been AFAICT once there was sufficient sourcing to cover the apology itself. Nor can I see any consensus for this [6]. The only real consensus I can see on the talk page is there needs to be some coverage of the accusations, but precisely what should be covered, how and how much seems to have been disputed since sufficient sourcing arose to require coverage. Perhaps there is also consensus that there is insufficient sourcing to say anything about the parental ratings of the show. But beyond that, I don't see any clear consensus for anything really. Some editors dismissing other editors and saying they have consensus, isn't how consensus works. This is a BLP so in a lot of cases we will exclude until we have consensus but that doesn't mean there is consensus. And it also doesn't allow positive coverage to be included when there is still no consensus. Nil Einne (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

No. wrong on several points. To clarify, the ukulele point is a red herring: neither I nor anyone else has claimed there was any consensus on the ukulele, and there was never much discussion on the talk page about it. Where there was a consensus was over the paragraph outline the allegations. There was a discussion about the paragraph and it was accepted and put into the article. That was the one that someone jumped from this board into edit warring over without bothering to comment on the talk page. They acted poorly in their approach to inflame the situation, in both throwing around baseless accusations and edit warring against the consensus on the talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 08:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The consensus on the paragraph was reached and it was included with a sentence I put forward as essential. EDIT: Concerns regarding a revision of that sentence was brought up by Throast and Ssilvers deleted it hastily, without engaging in any meaningful discussion. The concerns I had about the mechanics of that specific sentence were echoed by you and Throast, which I outlined on the talk page under the full protection topic. The fact that these conversations are being dismissed as if they did not happen is confusing. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Goodlucklemonpig, I'm confused as well. Which sentence are we talking about? If I removed a sentence counter to consensus, that certainly wasn't my intention. The edits I removed were what I viewed as hasty, poorly sourced content additions or content that otherwise violated policies like WP:BLP or WP:DUE. I don't remember single-handedly removing anything that was agreed to prior. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

It was the sentence Ssilvers added to replace "Scrutiny of her...humour", originally proposed by me as a gesture to Becky and necessary for the inclusion of Ballinger's comments on parental discretion. I believe his further edits reworded it as "off-colour humour" which you correctly pointed out was not sourced and Ssilvers removed it. This was decided in a brief exchange between you two after the agreed upon paragraph had already been included. You then suggested a sourced alternative, which was not added. After the deletion of the "off-colour humor" sentence, Ssilvers did not remove the related comments by Ballinger, although in the thread regarding the statements on her "off colour humour" he claimed it was not a concern as he was removing the PG-13 comments. That removal wound up being a relatively small trim related to the literal rating of her content. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Right, so I did not in fact remove that sentence without engaging in any meaningful discussion; in fact, I did quite the opposite. I don't control what Ssilvers does, and I remember feeling icky about them hastily removing a sentence that was currently being discussed. I'd appreciate if you could correct the statement about me above. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I shouldn't have stated that you materially removed the sentence. I meant that you were the editor who proposed its removal, which was, as you said 'hastily', done by Ssilvers. I apologize and retract that description. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I mentioned this on the talk page and I'll mention this again here. In some cases it's fine for editors to comment on why they think something is likely to or not to become significant especially if it's something which is difficult to understand from a non expert. But particularly in a case where basically anything involves living persons and where the discussion is already highly contentious, editors really should refrain from personal assessments of accusations. Be they saying something described as traumatising is only "mildly embrass"ing or saying that it is instead "bordering on criminal activity", such comments are unlikely to help calm things down, plus are also BLP violations. They are of course also irrelevant to us, as editors assessments of anything ultimately are. Editors are free to think whatever they want about accusations, but they don't need to repeat their thoughts on Wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Pretty sure I just said the allegations IF TRUE, would’ve been bordering on criminal activity. Now she has been accused of an actual felony. This isn’t my opinion, it’s observation. Despressso (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Refika Birgül

The article lacks references and some segments look more like ad copy, especially Relationship with the Kitchen, Refika’s Kitchen Studio, and TV Show. The tone makes me think that either Ms. Birgül or someone from her team penned the article.

These segments contain many subjective assessments such as the following: "The fact that she thinks that even a nice view can be made edible is an indication of this passion of hers" "A mecca for foodies in no small part due to Refika’s efforts, the picturesque Istanbul neighborhood of Kuzguncuk became her living and working headquarters" "The fact that each show has a different concept, and that the Turkish cuisine is used in a local and natural way without any limitations make it stand out among other food shows" "[...]where she shared both delicious and very practical recipes with the audience in 10 minutes,[...]" " With this program, she aims to go back to her roots, to convey the materials, dishes and techniques of our country's rich cuisine to our viewers and values." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810D:1680:F88:0:0:0:253D (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Birth Date 2nd opinion

At Lia Lewis, I have cobbled together a birthdate in accordance with WP:SELF. Since she was age 24 when this article was published and declared her birthday 2 days ago on Instagram here. I have determined July 9, 1997 to be her birthdate. However, now I am thinking I may have the date wrong since she was in Australia at the time. Advice?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

If you have to do detective work to figure out the date, it's a sign that maybe we shouldn't include it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

We have the template {{birth based on age as of date}} that could be used with the article source to automatically produce the following: "(born 1996 or 1997)". That should be rather uncontroversial. Ljleppan (talk) 06:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

David Waters (actor)

I came across David Waters and it doesn't have a single source! I'm guessing he wrote it himself but this was done over 15 years ago... I'm new so not sure what to do so coming here for advice. Should I nominate it for deletion? Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 06:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• Hmm. I was going to say that if the article is accurate, he looks notable; so I investigated one sentence - "is well known for his role as David Bridges in the internationally shown television series Prisoner". He doesn't appear in our article on the cast list and a bit of Googling notes that he appeared in a minor role in 10 episodes (out of 692). Searching for general sources finds a lot of social media and mirrors of the Wikipedia page. If the rest of the article is like that, his notability may well be borderline at best. Black Kite (talk) 07:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  Ok thank you. So should I nominate it for deletion? Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 07:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  Check out WP:BEFORE before doing so. DeCausa (talk) 07:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you. What are your thoughts? Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 07:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  Without doing WP:BEFORE it's hard to say, but from what Black Kite found it looks like it may be a candidate. DeCausa (talk) 07:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. Thank you for taking the time to guide me. Much appreciated. Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 07:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  Going off the years on the IMDb profile, it seems likely you'd want to BEFORE using archival sources, like newspapers.com through The Wikipedia Library. Stage actors can also be trickier to source, and might have less 'mainstream'/more 'niche' coverage Vaticidalprophet 07:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Repeated addition of BLP-vio / BLPCRIME-vio

This irrelevant BLP/BLPCRIME-violating text has been repeatedly added, incongruously, to the Kyndryl article since May 4 [7], [8], [9], [10]. The text has nothing to do with Kyndryl, and the bizarre attempt to incriminate CEO Martin Schroeter is a BLP violation. The third addition [11] had a fake edit summary ("Fixed citation link rot.") and a fake citation [12] which mentions neither Kyndryl nor Schroeter and is a lawfirm press-release for a case which has not even been filed concerning dates when Schroeter was not even CFO of IBM. I started a discussion on articletalk explaining in detail why this text is inappropriate and violates wiki policies [13], but the editor nevertheless reverted my subsequent removal without comment [14]. I have now left a warning notice on the usertalk of the editor [15], who is now edit-warring instead of discussing, listening, or even offering rationales. Evuantum (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a clearly inappropriate edit: even if it weren't a BLP concern, adding it to the article on Kyndryl is simply coatracking. And the fact that the initial addition had the misleading edit summary "Fixed citation link rot" does not give me confidence in the editor. I've re-reverted. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Andreas Kalcker

Page of Andreas_Kalcker must be revised.. It is clearly a miscreditation of a person! It is totally upside down by purpose. For example how can they write MMS instead of CDS? Kalcker talk about CDS!

If it is true that a lawyer has a case about a dead boy, why do they refer to an article instead of any legal judge? Why do they mention bleach that is industrial doses impossible to drink? Not even same chemical formula? Water is a bleach. Criminal "factcheckers" should be identified by AI and removed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.82.90.240 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

These are the sources in English I have found so far, all from Business Insider: [16] [17][18] While I always agree with moving toward a neutral first sentence, this is a bit difficult to do here. But it does say he calls his treatment CDS, but that's the same treatment as MMS, so I've updated the article with that information.

Information should be based on reliable sources, and so far, the sources I'm reading in English seem to line up with what is already on the page. Denaar (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Can anyone give me a second pair of eyes on this article? This is a situation where a person is pretty much only notable for crimes he hasn't been convicted of yet, and I'm not sure the coverage is significant enough to keep. I did try to write it more neutral but there isn't much neutral coverage to work with. Denaar (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

RFC about use of Rotten Tomatoes for biographical information

This RFC at RSN may be of interest to regulars/watchers of this noticeboard. Abecedare (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Thomas Sewell (Australian neo-Nazi)

Everyone wants to hit a Nazi, but they still fall under our BLP policy. Thomas Sewell (Australian neo-Nazi) is one example.

See discussion on the subject talk page here. Briefly, one editor wants to have the article say that the subject was grooming or indoctrinating children into far-right ideology based on newspaper reports that have the subject attending a rally at which a child was also present. There is no linking by any journalist between the subject and the child, and I don't think our article needs to connect dots that nobody else has.

I've asked for discussion aimed at finding a consensus but the material keeps being restored and I'm unwilling to engage in a thousand-year edit war over this.

Editor AlanS has repeatedly tried to insert his version despite opposition from other editors, seen in edit-warring here, here, here and on the talk page linked above.

Could I have some wiser eyes than mine on this, please? --Pete (talk) 07:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

This is completely misrepresenting the discussion. At the present time I wasn't proposing to continue adding content in saying that the subject was grooming. Nor did I propose to engage in an edit war. My only proposal at the present time was that the WP:QUO material be maintained. You found that reason enough to edit war. AlanS^talk 07:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

This edit includes WP:COPYVIOs from the cited sources. DeCausa (talk) 07:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@DeCausa actually I thought that might have been skating a bit close to the edge as far as WP:COPYVIO goes. It was originally in the lead and then @Skyring removed it pointing out that it's not even in the body. I transferred it to the body. The copy vio was introduce by a IP editor. AlanS^talk 07:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

If you recognised it as a possible copyvio then you shouldn't have transferred it instead either started afresh to fix the concerns, or leave it for someone else who'd do that. Remember you are responsible for your edits including stuff you reintroduce via reversion etc. I mean it might understandable if an editor doesn't notice the text was possibly a copyvio but not when they do know proceed anyway. Also please remember that the general standard for BLPs is WP:BLPUNDEL, so the status quo is largely irrelevant if the text is disputed on good faith BLP grounds. If there was existing consensus from discussion (i.e. not silence) sure, but if the only reason to keep it is it's been there a while then no. ((edit conflict) with Morbidthoughts below.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, I question the claim that a text which was extremely substantially reworked in the past day or so because the original text was both a copyvio and highly problematic from a BLP standpoint can be considered the status quo anyway. To be clear, I'm not saying the proposed text was fine from a BLP standpoint, simply that actual status quo was something which everyone agrees is unsuitable for wikipedia so is out. So there is no real status quo argument for either side even if we put aside BLP concerns. (If this seems confusing, consider the same principle applies if the problem with the original text wasn't BLP but something else that everyone agrees with.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

AlanS, WP:BLPUNDEL is policy and you must obtain consensus for reinstatement rather than edit warring. WP:QUO acknowledges this if you read the exceptions. I don't see this consensus on the article talk page. This is the second article recently on this noticeboard where I noticed that you've reverted to reinstate disputed material on a living person.[19][20] This can be raised at WP:AE and get you blocked from all BLP articles. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts as I've stated to Skyring this is extremely premature to have started this discussion considering I hadn't edited since my last message in talk and was considering looking at possible rewordings that might meet consensus. AlanS^talk 08:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Regardless, your comment above and [21] suggests you believe reverting to the status quo is acceptable despite their being good faith BLP concerns. It is important you understand it is not, if you want to continue to edit BLPs. If this is too difficult for whatever reason, you could voluntarily refrain from touching BLPs instead of requiring us to pursue a topic ban. Nil Einne (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

You continued to revert to reinstate after Skyring explicitly brought up BLP concerns[22] in the edit summary and other editors had disputed you on the talk page according to the time stamp. Possible rewordings should have been hammered out on the talk page. Morbidthoughts (talk) 09:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I moved the material to the body once and then added in a citation and other material (with another citation) which I thought might meet Skyring's concerns. After that I reverted once. As I've stated I'm looking at material now and considering if there is possible rewordings that might be agreeable. AlanS^talk 09:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not about edit-warring - though I do take a dim view of editors battling to reinsert BLP material flagged as contentious; at the very least a consensus should be obtained in polite discussion - so much as the content itself. If nobody is specifically linking the subject and the child, then why should we even mention it? They attended the same event. Well, whoop-de-do, I attended the same event as the Queen once, and nobody ever linked her name with mine. Lost me chance now, I suppose. --Pete (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm unwilling to engage in a thousand-year edit war over this. On the plus side a thousand years can pass by surprisingly quickly in this particular topic area.^[Humor] -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Blitz the Ambassador

Hi, I think this is my second request. I want to change the name of this article and reduce the amount of music aspects to highlight that Blitz is more of a filmmaker now. It is an objective truth; could you please approve this ASAP? Happy to answer anymore questions about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadira.2154 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Nadira.2154, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a promotional website. We work to create articles that cover all major aspects of a person's life that have been reported on in reliable sources. Do you personally know Blitz or have any sort of professional connection with him? If you do, then you have a conflict of interest and special rules apply. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Simcha Rothman

I've seen a couple of recent, anonymous edits to this article, inserting "fascist" in the "splash" text that comes up when searching, the article itself, and (a few hours ago) the subject's name in Hebrew. I personally kind of agree with them on the merits - but these edits are obviously contrary to Wikipedia's NPOV standards.

I have not seen similar changes for Itamar Ben-Gvir - but his article is an obvious target for similar changes. I just checked, and there is a similar change to Yariv Levin: in Hebrew, the word "המחריב" ("the destroyer") was added to his name. (I just undid that bit of vandalism.)

Is there anything that can be done to protect these three articles (at least) from vandalism, at least until the current controversy over judicial "reform" in Israel quiets down a bit? I have limited capacity to police this stuff on my own - and I really don't like defending the profiles of people I intensely dislike! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Radlauer (talk • contribs) 10:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

You could make a WP:Request for page protection. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 10:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Carlos Castaneda

Cherkash (talk · contribs) has repeatedly restored totally unsubstantiated material about a living person claimed to be the son of the subject. The material makes multiple unsubstantiated claims about that living person: 1) their parentage; 2) their use of an alias; 3) legal action they are claimed to have taken; 4) outcome of a legal action which isn't even established as having happened in the first place; 5) insinuations of some kind of foul play. I've moved it to the article talk page for now, but the issues is that Cherkash (talk · contribs) doesn't see any problem with it because the article is about a deceased person. Another editor familiar with policy would be helpful here. Probably best if someone removes it from the talk page as well. I just moved it there to placate this contentious editor. Skyerise (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Never mind, this has been resolved. Skyerise (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Elisabeth Congdon

Ms. Congdon's adopted daughter is alive. Why is this biography allowed to dwell on her at length? I believe an article should primarily describe its subject. Apparently her famous daughter isn't notable enough for an article. The wealth of sources offered, without inline citations, are not enough to satisfy WP:BLP. Therefore much of what's described here should be removed. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks to me like the article is mis-titled. It's an article about a crime, not a biography of a person. Schazjmd (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me being bold and removing the names of family - that just stood out to me. I think Schazjmd is correct: this is really about the crime and should be retitled. On a quick peek it looks like it was the subject of a few books, so sounds notable, but they don't call it by the same name. Denaar (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Denaar, thank you for being bold. Whatever this is called, four things stand out to me: "black sheep" daughter spoiled seven children, suspect and suspected (twice), arrested (once, no disposition). Without inline citations those statements cannot be verified. Further, they aren't about the subject. May I remove all this stuff? Or do I have to wait for consensus among the article editors? (I am in the middle of another project and won't have time to follow up.) -SusanLesch (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

There are a ton of easy to find sources on this one. Not sure on the best title - "Glensheen Mansion Murders", "Murders at Glensheen Mansion", seem to be common ones. Will you be bold and remove the worst - I'll try to update it this week? It hasn't had a significant contribution in two years. Denaar (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC).

Bravo, Denaar! This looks a thousand times better. I put it in my sandbox and will try a little more tomorrow. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

It's a fascinating story. I'm sorry I didn't get more of the BLP sourced - I wanted to expand the Murder (per WP:Due). However, just about everyone who writes about the murders also writes about the continuing legal challenges of her daughter, so it's appropriate, I just think a high level summary will eventually be best. Feel free to wipe it, I'll re-add a summary with what's in the sources. Denaar (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I reduced the aftermath to one cited paragraph. Suspicions are not acceptable BLP subject matter. This story attracts all kind of theories. I removed a musical which is an unreliable source. Thank you, Denaar. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

P.S. I think the article title could be "Glensheen murders"—lower case. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Ray Epps (military veteran)

BLP about a person who is suing Fox News after false conspiracy theory allegations.

IP editor keeps trying (I've twice reverted) to add content to the lead that hints towards the conspiracy theory being true (debatably) and in a tone that is arguably un-encyclopaedic (sentence starts "Despite"). My request to discuss on talk page has been ignored and I've reverted multiple times already. Could do with more opinions and eyes on this please. CT55555(talk) 22:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Ray Epps (military veteran)

That's both a severe BLP violation and WP:PROFRINGE. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Mike Lawler

Im at 3rr, and even though I think this would qualify for the BLP exception, raising here. Daily beast wrote the following article with headline and story text repeatedly saying Lawler was banned for COI. https://www.thedailybeast.com/gop-lawmaker-mike-lawler-banned-from-wikipedia-for-self-editing-spree While lawler did get a notice for COI (and some edits removed), ban notice is clearly and explicitly because the alleged COI username is a BLP username. Single source, fundamental factual errors at the crux of the content. content being repeatedly added by many editors with the fundamentally wrong information in wiki voice. Even if story and or wiki text were to be corrected, I feel like this is UNDUE, single source doing navel gazing of on wiki activity from 2 years ago. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted twice. It is completely WP:UNDUE to mention but is being added because we Wikipedia editors do have a tendency to navel gaze from time to time. It's not that important that he tried to edit his own page. This happens often with other notable individuals. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, there's this account that appeared a few hours ago (before the page was protected) to edit the page adding a section about the controversy. I don't know why, but something smells fishy about DefNotMikeLawler... LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

That's probably an IP editor who thought they were having a little fun. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@LilianaUwU: I considered reporting the username as nothere/sock but decided to spend energy elsewhere :) ResultingConstant (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Meh, felt it worth the 30 seconds to type out a block rationale. Username violation due to the implication of in fact being Lawler (which, given the edit they made, is almost certainly not the case), NOTHERE, take your pick. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, the Beast article is now out of date, as I have unblocked Michaelvlawler (talk · contribs) per ticket:2023071210007843. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  A-HA! He paid you, obviously! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Surely, if there is one overriding criticism I've gotten as an admin, it's that I'm in the pocket of the U.S. Republican Party. /j -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Frank Figliuzzi

Hello all, Figloser and I are having a (very civil) disagreement regarding this page, and in particular my repeated removal of this text. My basic concern is that the site Tickle the Wire alone is not sufficient sourcing for this per WP:BLP. I am not really sure about the source, but even assuming, arguendo, it is reliable, I still think we need more. Would be eager to hear others' opinions, and feel free to tell me how wrong I am! It's Friday, so I won't be bothered a bit. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't characterize it as a disagreement so much as a difference of opinion, but I can confirm this has been very civil and I appreciate Dumuzid's willingness to initiate this thread as I'm new to Wikipedia and figuring out the mechanics. That said, www.ticklethewire.com, the website in question, was founded in 2008 and features federal law enforcement news from around the country. As a matter of fact, the website has been cited as a source on several other Wikipedia pages. The articles cited in my edits were written by a veteran journalist, Allan Lengel, who interviewed numerous FBI Agents who were eyewitnesses and listed them by name in the cited article. The journalist also contacted Figliuizzi, who is quoted as well. I'm also eager to hear the opinion of others. Thank you! Figloser (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the source, but want to talk a bit about balance. Generally, the lead should be a summary of the article. The lead includes that the subject wrote a book, but if we're going to write a lot about the book, I would move that out of the lead, and into another section.

If there were already a really developed section about the book, it might be appropriate to cover both positive and negative things about it, including criticism. However! Right now there isn't anything about the book at all, and writing "this is a criticism of the book" without anything else wouldn't be balanced coverage of the subject. Note - balance isn't just about positive/negative being even... check out WP:DUE for a better explanation of what I'm trying to get at. Denaar (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that Lengel is not just the author of the material, he is also the editor and founder of the site. While he is not the only person providing content apparently, the lack of an obvious editorial chain above him makes this seem to fall under WP:BLPSPS -- a self-published source not to be used in the biography of living persons. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Casey McQuiston transphobic edits

The first section of Casey's article has been edited multiple times to remove "they" pronouns and mentions of them being non-binary. That editor made transphobic comments along with their edits. Here is the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Casey_McQuiston&diff=1165569341&oldid=1163918094

Casey uses they/them pronouns in this recent TIME magazine article and on their Instagram. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.15.228 (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I've undone the edits that used the wrong pronouns, and watchlisted the article. It looks like it's only happened recently once, but if it continues to happen I'll request page protection. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Carla Foster

Carla Foster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I rarely edit about current affairs or living people so I may be out of touch but I think the Carla Foster article should considered here. Despite the title, it is not at all a biography but is an account of her trial and imprisonment. The referencing is incomplete. Recently her prison term has been reduced and suspended.[23] Thincat (talk) 12:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

So, in this example, is the person notable for just one event? Are there other articles covering the event? WP:CRIME and WP:BLP1E both apply here. "The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." This one is borderline to me - all the dates of all the sources are "June 2023". Does it meet WP:Event? I'm stripping out some of the primary sources. Denaar (talk) 13:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The article is entirely about the event. It should probably be moved to a better title, assuming that it actually has some kind of sustained relevance. Given that it has led to calls for changes in legislation it may very well be notable enough. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the MOS suggests "Trial of Carla Foster" as the name? WP:LAWMOS. The source on a lot of the article was a direct link to the trial document, so I stripped it and everything it referenced out. I started adding back in what I can source. Normally, I don't strip things, I just source everything I can first and remove what's left over, (I find this is the best collaboration method), but in this case... a lot of detail is taken straight out of the trial documents and not the news sources, so I was a bit more aggressive. Trial and Sentencing still needs work. Denaar (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you to the people above, and others, for changing the title of the article as well as for improving it and bringing it up to date. I have added links to the relevant legislation. I would not personally have created the article but I might have mentioned the case in Abortion in the United Kingdom#England and Eales and Offences Against the Person Act 1861. I'm not sure there should be an article specifically about this case but I'll leave that to others. Thank you for your help – this noticeboard seems to work. Thincat (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Lilya Budaghyan

Lilya Budaghyan has been undergoing persistent additions of unsourced content by a likely-undeclared-COI editor. I have tried removing the problematic content, and have left a warning on the editors' talk page, but have been repeatedly reverted without response. More eyes would be helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Let them eat cake

Let them eat cake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would someone be willing to take a look at this article and the recent edits to it regarding a French politician? There's a talk page discussion at Talk:Let them eat cake#Aurore Bergé. Thank you, 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Paing Takhon

Paing Takhon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should this paragraph be deleted on the grounds that it is poorly sourced and is potentially defamatory? Khiikiat (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The website being cited seems to be for some sort of politically-motivated app. [24] And the link provided is to a page that doesn't even seem to mention the individuals name. So no, it absolutely should not be cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Given that the contributor responsible for this improperly-sourced material has continued to restore it after being again informed of policy, I've now raised the matter at WP:ANI. [25]] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the contributor does not understand reliable sourcing because the controversy is covered in newspapers[26][27] outside of Myanmar, which does not have a free press. I will reintroduce. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Cammy Palmer (Scottish Footballer)

Someone is posting derogatory and libellious comments on this Wiki page about my son Cammy Palmer. The post has been edited several times but whoever is posting these comments continues to do so.

Here's a sample of the derogatory comments the person is adding to the page:

He is the son of Don Palmer, a...cult leader currently based in Glasgow...His brother is also a degenerate alcoholic.

Can you please investigate this matter right away and remove these comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donpalmer1960 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Donpalmer1960, hello. It seems you reverted those edits, which solves it for the time being. I've asked for the unregistered editor who made them [28] to be WP:BLOCKED, we'll see what happens.

It is possible to WP:PROTECT the article if this continues, but it's probably to early atm (not enough crap yet).

Now, in general you should not edit the article about your son per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. However, in these specific cases, you should absolutely do so, see WP:COIADVICE. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Requst for block was declined:[29] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Aliaksandr Azarau

There's a WP:SPA (single purpose, single day) who edited across the en, pl, de, et, and uk Wikipedias on 14 July 2023 adding negative content about living people – with sources – in relation to members of the Belarusian opposition. The particular people formerly played significant roles in the Alexander Lukashenko governmental system, and are now prominent in the de facto government-in-exile that is opposed to Lukashenko (in power since 1994, in which all of the presidential elections except the first one are of disputed validity; human rights violations such as arbitrary arrests and torture are common during his period of government). One source is paywalled, and few of the sources are in English.

I did a bit of tidying at Aliaksandr Azarau, BYPOL and Pavel Latushko. At least one of the allegations is very strong but (now) attributed to a known (not Wikipedia notable) journalist; one allegation is about an embarrassing camera-was-still-running statement.

Some further tidying (or stronger actions) by "second eyes" at the user's en.Wikipedia contributions would be good. For those who didn't yet know it, Belarus falls under Wikipedia:General sanctions#Arbitration Committee-authorised sanctions for "Eastern Europe or the Balkans, broadly defined".

In terms of cross-wiki alerts, I would worry the most about the Estonian (et) edits, but it's not clear where an alert could be made - neither WP:BLP nor WP:BLPN seem to have et-wiki equivalents. Boud (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

chris bentley (rugby union)

Chris Bentley (rugby union) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My brother put together a profile for my rugby career, I certainly did it but it seems like it has been up for review for some time... Is there anything that can be done to 'clean' it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.170.149.195 (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I recommend that you make a formal, detailed edit request at Talk:Chris Bentley (rugby union). Cullen328 (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Rossi Morreale

I strongly suspect that Rossi Morreale is subject to COI from @Hogs24:, who in the past has added random fluff like He KNEW he was born for this into the article -- in addition to spamming it with links to IMDb and Rossi's own website. I strongly suspect the subject is not even notable per WP:GNG/WP:BLP, as I was unable to find any substantial sources about him at all. Perhaps this is why Hogs24 and/or other editors are trying to beef up the page so much? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Grant Guilford

This page regularly acquires content that breaches the BLP policy. From a careful review of the policy the breaches include elements of tone, balance, attack page, use of unsourced and poorly sourced material, and gossip. It is time consuming to repair. Is there a better way to manage this issue? Thanks for your consideration.ShearpinQA (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Seeking correction to one of the A Martinez entries

This entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Martinez mentions a radio career that is wrong. The radio career belongs to this person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Mart%C3%ADnez . The radio career section should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.51.203.165 (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

That information was added in one edit a few days ago. I've reverted it. Woodroar (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Idris Elba's third child

An IP highlighted on the Idris Elba talk page that he has 3 not 2 children. It appears that Elba discussed this with the Daily Mail back in March, but hasn't been picked up by other outlets. The other child is older (31), and has stayed out of the spotlight. The IP links to a podcast by Smartless, and the best non-DM source I can find online is PopSugar. DM is unusable and PopSugar doesn't look much better, could the podcast be used? It is Elba talking about himself, I'm concerned about BLP issues. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Well he's also talking about his child so I wouldn't say it's just Idris Elba talking about himself. IMO it's best to just remove the number of children from the infobox and reword the article so it mentions his son and daughter without talking about how many children he has. This seems to be a good example of what I've discussed before WT:BLP of why we should interpret WP:ABOUTSELF strictly and exclude mentions of third parties even as they involve to spouses and children. If the other child has stayed out of the limelight for so long and even now that Elba has talked about it, no RS seems to think it is important enough to mention, why should we? Yes just mentioning they exist might not be that much but it still provides more info than we seem to need. If at some stage RS do pick it up then yeah we can mention it but let's wait until they do. Nil Einne (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't spotted that, but you're right. This is a BLP subject talking about another person. I've change the article so it's silent rather than incorrect. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Wil Wheaton

Was this an appropriate removal? 2601:240:E200:3B60:9592:2091:C98F:C348 (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on everything changed, but the removal of unreferenced or poorly sourced content is not controversial. This appears to be a content issue, I suggest raising it on the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

BLPs created by User:Davidcannon (un-archived)

Note that I have manually unarchived this thread. See also WP:ANI#Davidcannon's_BLPs. El_C 04:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)>

For some background, reading this conversation is useful context. Davidcannon is an adminstrator that has created 600+ articles, many of them which are BLPs. From a brief spotcheck, I'm not sure going to ANI is the best course of action (and honestly the idea terrifies me when it's not really something I've tried to do before). Two of the articles they've created have recently been deleted: Laisa Digitaki and Samuela Matakibau. However, the brief spotcheck has somewhat convinced me that not all of their biographies are like this. There does seem to be issues every once and awhile in regards to controversial unsourced information [30]. 600+ articles is a lot of articles to check and I thought that maybe here would be the better place to fix any problems that may be identified. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, some articles that could likely use a second set of eyes include:

1. Ben Padarath
2. Angie Heffernan - done
3. Sakiusa Tuisolia - done
4. Viliame Naupoto - done
5. Willem Ouweneel
6. Jimi Koroi - done
7. Pita Driti - done
8. Ballu Khan - links added
9. Peter Ridgeway - done
10. Imraz Iqbal - done
11. Richard Naidu - done
12. Meli Bainimarama - done
13. Litia Qionibaravi - done
14. Viliame Seruvakula - done
15. Vyas Deo Sharma - done
16. Akuila Yabaki - links added
17. Saula Telawa - links added
18. Jone Baledrokadroka - done
19. Naomi Matanitobua - links added
20. Jale Baba - done
21. Sakeasi Butadroka - done
22. Kolinio Rokotuinaceva - done
23. Lagamu Vuiyasawa - links added
24. Asesela Ravuvu
25. Asenaca Caucau
26. Simione Kaitani - done
27. Kenneth Zinck - done
28. Ofa Swann - done
29. Injimo Managreve
30. Kaliopate Tavola - links added
31. Ateca Ganilau
32. Petero Mataca - links added
33. Rakuita Vakalalabure - links added
34. Daniel Fatiaki
35. James Ah Koy

There may be more. I'm going to be taking a break for now. As I previously stated, more eyes and input is welcome. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm also pinging The Wordsmith because of the aforementioned discussion that started this thread. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Davidcannon's speciality on Wikipedia was Fiji and its unstable politics. As far as I am aware, he created well-sourced articles (but with embedded external links rather than references), but the links were mostly to Fijian news sites, and many years later, the links no longer worked and Davidcannon deleted them. Some of these links could be restored using web archives. For example, looking at the just-deleted article Laisa Digitaki, the references to fijitimes.com are recoverable, but references to fijivillage.com and fijilive.com appear not to be. I know there's a bot which can recover dead links, but for it to run, we would have to first restore the dead links preferably without removing subsequent improvements to the article, and we would end up with an article which has not been substantially updated for many years with some unrecoverable links and dubious notability. I certainly do not have the interest in Fijian politics to want to tackle this myself. Two editors currently active in that area are @IdiotSavant: and @Thiscouldbeauser:, would you have any interest in working on such articles? As you're not administrators and can't see the deleted article we're discussing, perhaps we could move it to draft space and blank it if you're sufficiently interested to assess it. (I am aware that User:Everyking was desysopped for offering to restore a deleted edit (but he did not actually do so upon reviewing the edit), so I want to make it clear I have no intention of undeleting this article without a clear consensus to do so.)-gadfium 00:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest raising it with Wikipedia:WikiProject Fiji, which does have some active users (people who did bios of MPs elected in the 2022 Fijian general election would be a good start). I'm currently doing a bit of cleanup for that project, and focusing on BLPs at the moment. I'd noticed that lots were created by Davidcannon, but not the removal of dead sources. I'll start checking for them, and see what I can do to restore them. Though there is an underlying issue with source availability for that period of Fijian history - major media outlets don't have archives going back that far (some having scrubbed them to avoid trouble with the military regime), and we've also lost the East-West Centre's Pacific Islands Report mirror of news coverage. Some of the latter is archived, but its very haphazard.

WRT the specific article, there appear to be sources available on RNZ. -- IdiotSavant (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Given the similarity of content, references for Laisa Digitaki should be available on Angie Heffernan.-- IdiotSavant (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

So you mean articles about Fijian politicians? Sure, I can create a few of them in the coming weeks if I find enough good info. I haven't created articles about people themselves before though. A quick Google search for Laisa Digitaki comes up with a deleted Wikipedia page, a LinkedIn profile, social media accounts (Facebook and Instagram) and articles about her from generally unreliable sites (i.e FijiLeaks and Fiji News Wars, the latter is a blog hosted on Blogspot which I only found out about today and the former being a site is often critical of Frank Bainimarama and claims to be like WikiLeaks), as well as other random stuff, e.g an e-book on Google Books about her and several other coup-era Fijian politicians and two random TikTok videos. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 05:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Its more a case of trawling existing articles, checking whether links have been deleted, restoring them, and adding other references as required (oh, and adding them to appropriate WikiProjects, because not everything seems to be appropriately tagged). Required skills: using the wayback machine and reference templates, and searching appropriate news sources (Fiji Sun, Fiji Times, Fiji Village, RNZ).-- IdiotSavant (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. There was still this content that I removed after you striked as Angie Heffernan "done" [31]. At least from what I've seen, I'm concerned that some of these articles wouldn't follow WP:BLPCRIME. An example is Ben Padarath – he was never elected as a politician (WP:NPOL) and there's a whole section with mostly unreferenced content detailing his alleged crimes. It's been like that since creation [32]. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

There's definitely a problem there with undue focus (I assume because of when it was written), but the article may also need expansion - there's stuff he has been convicted of (see here and here), but its not in the article. OTOH, that's not especially notable, and honestly barring the sedition charge, he's not someone I'd remotely consider creating an article for if there wasn't one already (so maybe he's a candidate for AfD?). Regarding sedition, where there doesn't seem to be a conviction yet, is there a guideline for political crimes? Because for a lot of Fijian political figures there's a history of oppression by the military regime, sedition or equivalent charges brought and later dropped, and not including them would be leaving out something very significant.-- IdiotSavant (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Gadfium "I am aware that User:Everyking was desysopped for offering to restore a deleted edit". This is well before I started serious wiki-editing. However, a more recent counter-example is Micaela Schäfer, which I deleted per WP:G10 / WP:BLPDELETE and was subsequently restored by SoWhy who cleaned it up and fixed all the BLP violations. There was a thread at AN running at the time, where I explicitly stated I had no issue with SoWhy doing this. So I think that's your answer - ask if The Wordsmith is okay with you restoring the article for the purposes of fixing the BLP issues, and if they are, then just do it.

A further point that's worth mentioning is that WP:BLPPROD originally only applied for articles created after the policy was introduced in 2010. Then, in 2017, this grandfather clause was removed by consensus. So at the time Davidcannon removed the dead news links, he might have reasonably assumed BLPPROD didn't apply because the article was verified at one point. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

We used to have a grandfather clause? Are there any others that are still in effect? It seems bizzare to me that we could ever decide anything by consensus and then go "but it doesn't apply to any articles created before now". I'm interested in the rationales that were used at the time. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people/Archive 7#RfC: Remove the grandfather clause? for further reading. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Just to briefly clarify that, it was a very unusual situation that led to the grandfather clause being created. The BLPPROD process was created because we had an absurd nightmare of something like 80K completely unreferenced BLPs, and one camp was mass summary deleting them while the other thought we should try sourcing them all instead of deleting. As part of the compromise for dealing with them, the grandfather clause was established to prevent people from just tagging them all at once while the effort to source them was underway. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 and Gadfium: I do object to restoring the history of those two articles either in mainspace or anywhere else, since the contents of them are bad enough that they'd be a gross BLP vio in any namespace. Pretty much all they covered was allegations of crimes committed and being investigated. What I can do is email the deleted versions (and the sources used, if you like) to any editor interested in rewriting. I have no issue with a bio (or even a stub) for those subjects being recreated if it can comply with our policies, just not the history of those two. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I've gone through 2004 Pitcairn Islands sexual assault trial, largely written by David, and the amount of unsourced depictions of underage sexual activity are beyond the pale, and if a new editor did that, I'd revert and redact it. And to make it abundantly clear, my issue here is adherence to WP:BLPSOURCES and our longstanding policy is that unsourced claims involving living persons should be removed - I have no opinion on the content. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems like his contributions were mostly in 2004.[33] Were the inline sourcing requirements different then? Was he an administrator then? Wikipedia policies and BLP (if it existed) enforcement may have been more lax then. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

No. BLP was first started in 2005 by Slim Virgin, who was probably one of the greatest Wikipedians to ever exist and someone I very much admired and looked up to, and even then it took many years to build and refine this policy into what it has become today. Rules were definitely much more lax then (it was basically the Wild West in those days) and not many people gave much thought to the real-world repercussions of the things we do here. Wikipedia has grown up a lot since those days, but there is still a lot from back then that needs to be cleaned up. Thank god we had someone with the knowledge and foresight of Slim Virgin. She has been sorely missed. Zaereth (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I had quite a few arguments with SlimVirgin back in the day, but BLP was one of her greatest contributions. I do know it wasn't taken as seriously as it is today at first. We had Rachel Marsden in 2006, Badlydrawnjeff in 2007, and Footnoted quotes in 2008 which especially strengthened it by creating BLP Special Enforcement. Even until late 2009/early 2010 there was a strong minority who felt that completely unsourced BLPs weren't a problem and it led to that mass deletion and the establishment of WP:BLPPROD. Yes, Slim will be missed but she helped get us where we are today. I probably wouldn't go bringing Davidcannon's articles up at the dramaboards since it was absolutely a different time with looser standards, but we do need to clean up the mess now by making them conform to Wikipedia's current BLP standards or summarily deleting them. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe pin this to keep it from archiving again until the list has a chance to be seen by more people? Valereee (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely. I had my own disagreements with some of Wikipedia's policies when I first started, in particular the whole "Verifiability not truth" phrase (which I still think is very poorly worded) but I had a great discussion with Sarah in which she explained the reasoning behind this seemingly contradictory statement, and in her reasoning I agreed entirely. I actually never had much interaction with her aside from that, but over the years you get to know people even if you don't interact. The first article I worked on was the flashtube article, which was mostly just a bunch of really plausible-sounding bunk that people made up because it sounded good in their heads. Same with the tempering (metallurgy) article, or the basic fighter maneuvers article. They were dreadful, but most Wikipedia articles started out that way. It was new territory and people were creating articles by the thousands each day. It was a very different time. I wouldn't waste a lot of energy assigning blame or shame. Like anything, we just have to tackle these things as we find them and move on to the next. Zaereth (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

She sounds amazing. I don't think I ever personally interacted with her, but I'm familiar with the username. I had no idea that she was instrumental in starting WP:BLP, we really should have a "history of Wikipedia" outlining the major changes we've experienced throughout time. I've noticed some stuff has changed since I started editing in 2018, I can only imagine the scale at which other who have been here for longer experience that. I agree that tackling this and moving on is the best course of action. If I had known that I could've just unarchived the thread, I don't think I would've started the ANI one. I just wanted to make sure these issues didn't disappear into a void and then someone else a decade later would be here to say something. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

She did some great things, but she could be absolutely infuriating to argue with. She also had a flair for the dramatic and a habit of unnecessary escalation, sandbagging discussions she didn't like and even wheel warring; there's a reason she has at least 3 or 4 Arbcom cases named after her personally. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks like RfA was in June 2004. And yes, sourcing requirements were far different then. Valereee (talk) 11:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note that I've used Template:DNAU at the top of this thread to prevent archiving; once the thread is concluded anybody can just remove that line to allow the bots to archive it as normal. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Not sure where to put my own comment. Feel free to move it or remove it. I've only just seen this, as my attendance on Wikipedia is intermittent at the moment. Most of the BLPs in question are Fijian biographies. There was a military coup in 2006, and many of the online sources (news outlets, etc) got censored. A lot of them have not been restored. Much as I would like to go back and add sources, I cannot do so when they no longer exist.

I fully support the BLP rules, and will fully support the deletion of any article of mine that cannot reasonably be made to comply with the rules as they stand. David Cannon (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Davidcannon: Thanks for the response! I realize that not everyone is on Wikipedia 24/7 (I once took a year wikibreak myself) so I'm glad to hear from you even if it wasn't immediately. IdiotSavant has had some luck with finding sources that were archived, but as you implied, many have been lost to time. If you have some extra time, maybe you could try to help? Many hands make light work. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, if you had any questions about how article creation standards have changed, maybe Ritchie333 or The Wordsmith would have some useful advice? I haven't been around as long as they have. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice :-) And yes, I'll be happy to return to the project to help with the cleanup whenever I've got time. Looking forward to it!David Cannon (talk) 06:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I found an archive of a book printed in 2005 about the Coup itself; click on the button for the pdf. [34] If anyone needs to source basic facts about the coup, you can probably find it here. I used it on the Ateca Ganilau article but couldn't source everything there. Denaar (talk) 03:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Note - another resource to help with these: Australia and New Zealand Reference Centre Plus on EBSCOHost has the Fiji Times from the relevant period.--IdiotSavant (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ritchie333, 2004 Pitcairn Islands sexual assault trial is far from from irredeemable. Doing a google search I found plenty of sources which can be used to improve the article. It's not the sort of subject matter that I'm willing to touch but the material is there. I found a broad range of material at [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], and [47]. I was recently watching a current affairs show about it here in Australia on our ABC so it's still highly notable and anyone who knows how to effectively search google can find plenty of material. AlanS^talk 11:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@El C: I'm grateful that you un-archived the thread, but I'm wondering if maybe it should still be here? It's been 4 months already... Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

John Bird, Baron Bird

The issue at hand started with 62.6.167.166 removing a quote from John Bird, Baron Bird on the grounds that the quote was taken out of context. @M.Bitton reinstated the quote on the grounds that the IP did not present evidence for the quote being taken out of context. M.Bitton subsequently claimed in a talk page discussion that the quote should be kept because the subject reportedly has not denied the quote attributed to him. However, in doing so, M.Bitton provided a reference containing this statement about the quote: "the press has a tendency to run with a quote out of context."

In my opinion, whether or not there is a denial of something which evidently originated in a tabloid is irrelevant. Tabloids are best ignored unless there is acknowledgement of what appeared in said tabloid is completely accurate. In this instance, there doesn't seem to be any.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Actually, the issue started when the IP kept insisting that John Bird was misquoted (not quoted out of context as suggested above). For the rest, and to avoid wasting time addressing what was said and in what context, I will simply direct the readers to the article's history. Many other sources were provided on article's talk page and more will shortly be added here. In the meantime, I will ping CodeTalker (the other involved editor). M.Bitton (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  I hereby direct you to the original edit summary in full: "This is a brief edit to take out a misrepresentation of his views and what he said. It was taken out of context".   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  This was a misquote and he was completely misquoted I left the link to the article's talk history for a reason. M.Bitton (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  A) Before being removed by the IP, the content has been in the article since 2018. B) There is nothing remotely defamatory or libelous in the statement in question. C) As promised, here are the supporting sources:

  1. "Bird, who called himself a “working class Tory” in 2010 and now describes himself as a “Catholic Marxist” – “largely to piss people off” – has a vision that is radical, but not revolutionary."
  2. "In a past interview he has described himself as a 'working class Tory'."
  3. When asked about a 2010 Daily Express article where he wrote that his “guilty secret” was his identification as a “working class Tory,” he commented that the press has a tendency to run with a quote out of context. Instead, he takes a different position, that of a “working class Tory with Marxist revolutionary tendencies” – a “real mix-up.”
  4. I’m John Bird, described in Wikipedia as a working class Tory, founder of The Big Issue; Cross bencher, ex-slum boy, ex-offender etc. And I want you to join me in putting meat on the Conservative “build back better” bones, by kicking up a fuss with your MP, and getting under the skin of the Government.
  5. In a 2010 interview, Bird said more about his own worldview. He confirmed what many had suspected for a long time. “My guilty secret is that I’m really a working-class Tory. There, I’ve said it. I’d love to be a liberal because they’re the nice people but it’s really hard work – I can’t swallow their gullibility and I think their ideas are stupid,” he said.
  6. I have no idea if Mr Bird would be willing to take on such a role but in 2010 he did confess to The Sunday Express (25 October, 2010): “My guilty secret is that I’m really a working class Tory. There, I’ve said it.” And went on “I’d love to be a liberal because they’re the nice people but it’s really hard work – I can’t swallow their gullibility and I think their ideas are stupid.”
  7. Founder of The Big Issue and crossbench member of the House of Lords, Bird’s rise up the greasy pole... “Someone said to me, ‘How did you get into the House of Lords?’ and I said, ‘By lying, cheating and stealing’.” Confessed in 2010 that “my secret is that I’m really a working-class Tory. I’d love to be a liberal because they’re the nice people, but it’s really hard work. I can’t swallow their gullibility.”
  8. Here's a video (published on the Big issue website) that shows him admitting to everything that the express has attributed to him (watch from @6:00).

  Since the "working class Tory" description keeps coming up in various RS years after he said it and is repeated by himself, I see no reason to exclude it from the article. M.Bitton (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  I see no reason to doubt that he made the statement. Even where he says "that the press has a tendency to run with a quote out of context" he does not deny that the quote was correct. It is also not clear to me whether he is referring to the Express taking his quote out of context or to later reports quoting the sentence without the rest of the statement in the Express (I tend to the latter interpretation). Also notice that in the same article he is quoted as still referring to himself as a "working class Tory" (with an added qualifier): "When asked about a 2010 Daily Express article where he wrote that his 'guilty secret' was his identification as a 'working class Tory,' he commented that the press has a tendency to run with a quote out of context. Instead, he takes a different position, that of a 'working class Tory with Marxist revolutionary tendencies' – a 'real mix-up.'"[48] Therefore I see no reliability issues here. The only question is whether a statement to a tabloid thirteen years ago is WP:DUE. Judging by the evidence provided of how often it is repeated it most likely is. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Jorit

I think the article[49] is turning into a WP:ATTACK as there is big amount of space (now 9 lines of text) to detail a minor event in the artist's career, and they are doing this by inserting parts of text that are not in the sources and not related to the artist's work. In addition, a website called "italy24"[50] is being used as a source for some parts, which seems amateurish, with poor English and which treats the event in an unprofessional manner. To say, in 5 days the article has received 420 views.--Mhorg (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted based on BLPUNDEL. I agree on italy24, suspecting that it is a news aggregator since it doesn't list the journalist or editorial board. I also question why TASS was used as a source. I do not have any opinion about UNDUE or BLPBALANCE issues outside of those sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

BLPUNDEL requires that consensus be achieved to reinstate material IF the deletion was made in good faith. As I say in my reply to Mhorg, his false claims that the info he deleted was not adequately sourced mean his edits were not in good faith. If he had read those cited articles, then he would have seen that every statement he deleted was in fact backed up. Saying otherwise is disingenuous. The ONLY divergence between the articles cited and the passages deleted is that in one sentence I translated into English a statement by Jorit. 72.86.133.238 (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

You should assume good faith that Mhorg sees problems with those sources along with the weight of your information. You also bear the WP:ONUS of gaining consensus to reinstate this disputed information. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I stop assuming good faith when an editor lies. If Mhorg's case is merely about undue weight, or he does not like a particular source, then he should not try to hide behind a false claim that the statements in question are unsourced. Having done so, he has demonstrated bad faith about as clearly as an editor can do. Furthermore, Mhorg has already sought consensus for both UNDUE and for that particular news article on Talk, and he didn't get it. The onus belongs as much on Mhorg as upon me, which is why he sought it to begin with. But WP editors circling the wagons and defending other editors' indefensible excision of material they just don't particularly care for is pretty much just another day at Wikipedia. A bare description of the controversy, with Jorit's artistic theft, his dishonest propaganda, and his evolving lies is an unflattering look for Jorit so we can't have that. 72.86.133.238 (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I would be more convinced that you are correct about UNDUE with this supposed "minor" event if (A) it were not a huge controversy in Italy, and (B) if there were not a section approximately as long at the end of Jorit's page that describes at excessive length the fact that he was merely nominated for a prize. A one-sentence statement would be sufficient to convey that info. In any case, your edits of this page deleting most of the description of the controversy have not been made in good faith. You claimed that you were deleting things that are not backed up by the sources, but that is false. Everything you delete is sourced. So your justification for making mass deletions is in bad faith. You deleted virtually all the context that would make clear what the dispute is over the mural and why it's controversial. Whether you trust "italy24" is really neither here nor there because there are other articles and trusted sources that also state what little is being sourced on Jorit's page to the one "italy24" article. 72.86.133.238 (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Frankly from the tone of your comments I don't think you should be touching the Jorit article point blank. Also if you feel some sections of the article are full of fluff, the solution is to fix those parts of the article. It's not to "balance" it out by adding excessive poorly sourced negative material. If you think it is, then it's a reason for you not to touch BLPs point blank. Likewise refusing to accept good faith BLP concerns and BLPUNDEL is another reason you should not be touching BLPs. And to be clear, we don't give a fuck what is going on in online forums. If you cannot find reliable secondary sources that cover it, then 1 billion people screaming bloodly murder in 1 million online forums is 100% irrelevant to wikipedia. And to be clear, if there are no reliable sources discussing something, then it is basically unsourced. It doesn't matter how many forums or other unreliable sources you can find, unreliable sources do not count as sources. This means if italy24 is not a reliable sources, and it sounds like there is good reason to think it is not, and definitely TASS also is generally not a reliable source; so any material sourced solely to them can reasonably be called unsourced. Nil Einne (talk) Nil Einne (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I didn't source anything to either of those sources. You plainly don't understand much of anything about this controversy, the number of high quality sources on the subject that are available, or the edit warring of Mhorg. There was nothing excessive about the short description of the controversy, which Mhorg has persistently kept reducing to a virtually incomprehensible squib no matter which editors added the information. His "undue" claims are made utterly preposterous by the fact he complains repeatedly about detail that is absolutely necessary context for this controversy even while he says nothing about the lengthy "Acknowledgments" section that exists merely to state that Jorit was nominated for a prize he didn't get. And I should not have to keep pointing out that an editor who makes bad faith statements - claiming falsely that statements aren't backed up by the citations - cannot legitimately be assumed to be acting in good faith. I'm a professional historian and I know a thing or two about the need to reject bad-faith claims. The result of Mhorg's bad faith is now manifest: a 3 sentence description that is nearly meaningless to any reader who doesn't know the information that Mhorg has once again successfully pushed off a cliff. From the tone of your comments, I don't think you should be pointing fingers at anyone else. 72.86.132.107 (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Being a professional historian does not absolve you of the ethical standards of Wikipedia. If these happen to be more stringent than in your domain of history research, then you will either have to live with that in your Wikipedia editing, or propose changes to policies such as WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:DUE or (this noticeboard) WP:BLP; these are not wired in stone, and there are likely still some missing nuances that should be proposed and consensed on; in principle there could also be major changes if consensus were obtained by transparent, structured, rational discussion.

Please remember that editors here are volunteers and are not obliged to search for references to justify content that has problems in the sourcing. Instead of a personal attack against Nil Einne, I would recommend that you follow Nil's advice: if you feel some sections of the article are full of fluff, the solution is to fix those parts of the article, keeping in mind Wikipedia's policies and accepting advice or fixes from others if you are unfamiliar with them. Boud (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Nil Einne engaged in a personal attack, while simultaneously missing the point that an editor acting in plain bad faith has (as so frequently on WP) appealed to an evolving litany of WP standards to justify deleting well sourced info he started out wanting to exclude. It was a crusade of excision in search of a reason. Coincidentally, his preferred blurb on the controversy now aligns almost perfectly with Putin's propaganda and tells readers virtually nothing meaningful about why Jorit came in for intense criticism. I couldn't care less about the fluff on this page. I mention it only because context matters: an editor deleting virtually everything unflattering to Jorit because it's supposedly "undue" has also been content with letting equally lengthy but flattering fluff remain in place. His reasons, some flat out false, are actually pretexts. That's one of the things that historical training instills - you must treat someone who misleads about source information as non-credible otherwise you're likely to be played. 72.86.132.107 (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

You are incorrect about Nil making a personal attack: Nil described your editing behaviour, not your intentions.

You wrote (about one or more people): "info he started out wanting to exclude"; "a crusade of excision"; "actually pretexts"; these are personal attacks - they negatively describe people's intentions; and "supposedly "undue"", which asserts that the judgment of "undue" was deliberately misleading. Boud (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC) (quotation marks added for clarity Boud (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC))

Why do WP editors almost invariably talk nonsense in any debate about standards? You accuse me of engaging in a personal attack against Nil. Why exactly? I did NOT question his intentions. I merely deflected back at him the dismissive statement he made about me ("Frankly from the tone of your comments I don't think you should be touching the Jorit article point blank"). It's nonsense to say I engaged in a personal attack but Nil did not.

I did not write about "one or more" person, that's more nonsense. I described ONE person, Mhorg's, behavior, viz that he deliberately used false claims about the citations to justify what he had already done repeatedly in deleting sourced info plus citations introduced by other editors than me. And you along with some other editors are effectively (even if you don't intend to do so) running interference for Mhorg by refusing to make anything of his manifest attempt to mislead. Good faith stops being good faith when it proves itself to be bad faith. How is that hard to understand? The knee-jerk defense of openly bad faith editing at WP once again proves it's futile to try to add any factual information that ideological, partisan, or various other trolls will invariably succeed in resisting. 72.86.132.107 (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

You wrote: "You accuse me of engaging in a personal attack against Nil". Wrong: I wrote "(about one or more people)" to clarify that I didn't try to sort who the personal attack(s) was/were against, even though in fact you did write "Nil Einne engaged in a personal attack". I wrote "You are incorrect about Nil making a personal attack". Saying that you are wrong about Nil making a personal attack is not a personal attack against you; it says nothing about your intentions; it only says that your statement was incorrect.

The statement by Nil, "Frankly from the tone of your comments I don't think you should be touching the Jorit article point blank" seems to be a judgment that you don't yet seem to be familiar enough with Wikipedia principles and recommending that currently you don't directly edit the article; it does not attribute any negative intent to you. So I don't see how it's a personal attack. Wikipedia principles are for protection of the encyclopedia, editors and living human subjects, not for revenge or making people feel bad.

The words "(about one or more people)" are mine, not yours. You wrote, "I described ... behavior, viz that he deliberately used false claims". That is incorrect: "deliberately" (at least in this case) is not a description of behaviour; it is generally very difficult to infer intent, and WP:AGF means that we assume accidental rather than deliberate errors or misjudgments.

There is concrete work taking place on the article and on the talk page; you are welcome to help, but you would have to assume good faith on the part of all the editors involved. Boud (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC) (Corrected: I did in fact state "Instead of a personal attack against Nil Einne". Boud (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC))

You seem to continue to misconstrue both what I said and what you said. You definitely accused me of attacking Nil ("Instead of a personal attack against Nil Einne..."). What I said to Nil that you objected to was just a response in kind to what Nil said to me - thus my point, which you keep missing, that you are playing the typical WP editor game of circling the wagons against IP editors while disregarding complaints about what some of you are actually doing. In particular, you and the others kept ignoring that Mhorg has a record of repeat reversions always with the result of making a travesty of this topic on Jorit's page - a travesty that looks like something from Putin's propagandists. And now that you yourself have tried to make some pretty modest improvements to that Putin-friendly description of the controversy, you find that Mhorg is back at it again, reverting edits about the most embarrassing stuff and blowing smoke on the Talk page. Face it, Mhorg is not editing in good faith. He demonstrated that by his false claim that the citations didn't support the statements he was deleting. Mhorg reads Italian and could reasonably have assumed that most or all other WP editors would not call him out for lying about the content of Italian news articles. Mhorg's behavior closely parallels that of another ideological troll editor I encountered years ago, Niteshift36, who spent years using every excuse to exclude unflattering material from Pam Bondi's page. Same MO, same excuses for constant reversions, same quibbling about plainly established facts, same misrepresentations of facts, same insinuations that I was up to no good because I edit via IP. Historians are trained to identify bad faith arguments. Mhorg is operating in bad faith just as the preposterously disingenuous Niteshift36 did, who, I should add, received a lot of support for a long time from WP editors who should have known better. 72.86.133.127 (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I have used {{s}} to strike out my error above and add a brief correction. Boud (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and please drop the other nonsense about "you are welcome to help". I did help, I created a very solid and brief description of the controversy. For which I received a ton of abuse and zero support from you lot, and now you have locked me out of editing the page. That's not what most people would describe as "welcome". 72.86.133.127 (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm only on this page for a different discussion, but maybe take a step back and a deep breathe. Editing on Wikipedia isn't always easy especially in controversial areas. I think if you look at how other editors are dealing with this page it's obvious they don't all agree with one viewpoint. Wikipedia works by consensus, so you need to convince others of you point and that's not so easy if the your butting heads with them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I make a brief reflection that I hope is not intended as a WP:PA: how is it possible for an anonymous user to be so deep into the dynamics of Wikipedia? Mhorg (talk) 07:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

As someone who edited as an IP for sometime I had a fairly good knowledge of the backpage working of Wikipedia before making an account. However I was also aware, even before making an account, of bad faith actors misusing the anonymity that comes from IP editing. Ultimately the bounds of AGF mean it shouldn't be used as evidence of wrong doing, unless there is other evidence of problematic behaviour. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree unless there is some specific evidence of sockpuppetry, it's not worth worrying too much about whether the IP is an illicit sock. However it probably is worth worrying more about the fact the IP continues to speculate about a living person [51]. While this was partly in response to speculation from Mhorg which IMO was also unnecessary, that speculation seems less harmful and slightly more germane to the discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

And now they're casting aspersions at Niteshift36. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I put one warning here, but each time that user grabs a new user's computer requests an IP from 72.86.132.0/23 (or so) the old one has presumably already been released for providing to other subscribers of that (not very anonymous) ISP. Boud (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC) (Clarify with more formal language than "grabs". Boud (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC))

"Grab a new IP"?! I have a new IP assigned to me. Yet another demonstration that the vaunted presumption of good faith applies only to WP editors and never to the IP trash you treat as 'the help'. And here you're having a serious discussion of whether I should be banned though all my edits of the page have been productive and my descriptions of them accurate. Can't help but notice however that there has been zero discussion of whether to ban the WP editor who repeatedly vandalized the page and gave misleading justifications for doing so. You've blocked the IP from continuing to make productive edits, but not blocked the WP from continuing to revert productive edits. 72.86.132.193 (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

As I said I was an IP editor for a long time, I rarely found an issue editing. I'm not saying it didn't happen, it did. But your continued battleground mentality and aspersions at other editors is why your running into issue. I can but suggest trying to work in a more collaborative manner. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Working in a collaborative manner becomes nearly impossible when WP editors instinctively rush in to attack IP editors without bothering to investigate the context, just because a biased WP editor identifies the IP as the enemy. Your experience may be that it doesn't often happen. Mine is that it happens quite often because it's easy to go looking for WP allies and it works. There's always at least one person who's willing to be used to that end. And so it is that nobody has yet told Mhorg that HE ought to change his mentality, even as he seeks once again to excuse Jorit for blaming NATO over Russia's killings. 72.86.132.193 (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:MGTADOT Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Says the guy who first jumped in to do Mhorg's bidding. Very impressive. How many days did it take to get back (most of) the information you rushed to delete? 72.86.132.193 (talk) 04:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

4 days to confirm consensus because that's how wikipedia is supposed to work. Not the edit warring and the battleground mentality you have pushed to WP:RGW. There is no rush to do things your way on your timeline. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Joan Bennett

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.

---

As discussed at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Joan_Bennett_Playboy_edits. the user ScoobieDoobie999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is trying to expunge all references on Playboy-related articles to a certain "Joan Bennett", who was a playmate of the month in 1985, citing privacy concerns. While I understand the concerns of the user (who presumably is closely connected to the subject), I simply do not agree that this is a violation of the persons privacy, given the public nature of the information. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)#

Got to agree. There is no breach of privacy that I can see in noting that an individual appeared in Playboy (and was presumably paid to do so). AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

That said though, the sourcing for the dates of birth on the lists is questionable. I'm not sure if the original Playboy magazine issues give the dates of birth. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. The original Playboy magazine had model profiles that would list date of birth and other facts of the model. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I think including her name in lists is fine, year of birth is fine, but I admit - the list with people's full birth dates and heights seems odd when the person isn't notable enough for their own article. Denaar (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

But are they a reliable source? In a field where perceived age can be of benefit, are we relying on them? This isn't part of their journalism. This is a magazine which routinely retouched the photos of their "playmates". Does Daisy Mae really like men with big dogs and slow kisses in the rain?? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

User is still making problematic edits. Ban them. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

ScoobieDoobie999 has now been indeffed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Am I the only one who questions whether we should have lists like that when AFAICT, for most of the people listed the only sources seem to be Playboy and associated sites or databases? I suspect most of these people were covered in reliable secondary sources but I don't really know. It would be good if people added such sources if they do exist. Nil Einne (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The individual "List of Playboy Playmates of xxxx" lists do seem unnecessary, given that there are only 12 entries per year (these could probably be consolidated into decade lists) and the lack of secondary sourcing for many of the models, but the List of people in Playboy by decade lists (which only include the name) seem reasonable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:12, 15 July 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.

Multiple BLPCRIME issues with Long Island Serial Killer article

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.

---

An arrest was made yesterday in the Long Island serial killer case, which has the usual consequence of people wanting to name the recently arrested person. I removed it as a blpcrime violation, since it seems rather unnecessary when it's been less than 48 hours since an arrest.

A discussion is in place on the talk page, but wanted to give a heads up in case anyone wants to join the discussion.

Edit: Changed title of this post since the old one was rather non-descriptive about the problem.

Awshort (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• Inviting all here to participate in the RFC regarding inclusion of the suspects name at Talk:Gilgo Beach serial killings. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 05:44, 16 July 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.

Bob Morley & Arryn Zech

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.

---

Bob Morley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Arryn Zech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reasons I believe it violates the biographies of living persons policies

WP:V

Wikipedia:Point of view Specifically the indication of relative prominence of opposing views.

This is in regards to the wikipedia page of Bob Morley (actor), the page cites gossip websites including a statement from his ex where she alleges abuse. Upon trying to add other information representing other sides, or more importantly adding life altering events such as knee surgery and marriage, gets instantly removed. The information has the same citations from news sites as well as videos from public appearances of the involved individuals. A timeline of his relationship with his current wife, providing another viewpoint on the accusations (with the same citations as the first accusation) has been deleted as well. Every addition is rejected even providing sources (the same sources as those added before)

Could someone take a look at it? It would be of my interest to add to the article in a way that represents all events and sides.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam4R4O (talk • contribs) 04:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Cheating allegations does seem like WP:BLPGOSSIP and the cited sources are not the strongest. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I'd say that in this case, the sources are as good as we can get at the current time. Also, the additional citations added to give "another side" of the story have been even worse than the existing sources. Also, I have serious questions as to whether the person who posted this original inquiry is doing so in good faith, considering their thinking that geekspin and Hollywood life are reliable sources, when it is clear they are NOT. A LOT of page have been editing that page and removing/adding content recently, and the OP is one of those people, causing the page to be muddled beyond belief, leading to situations which almost lead to edit wars. It is really bad.Historyday01 (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

We've discussed the same thing in the Bob Morley talk, so I'll not repeat too much from there, but one thing I want to point out is that this comment (Perhaps, but I'd say that in this case, the sources are as good as we can get at the current time.) to me is all the more stronger reasons to not include these claims (or drastically reduce how much we're talking about the claims).

Our requirements for how reliable sources should be, should not be lowered because one topic is less covered. Soni (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

That's true. I only added it originally because I was under the impression that it was the "right" thing to do, and never expected this much discussion about it. Historyday01 (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, we have discussions that can go far and wide over the most trivial topics heh. Sometimes, people just have strong opinions about policies we use here. And so long discussions often go in circles and need explicit closes.

But also, we need to be extra careful when talking about living people we directly affect by just "what goes into their article" so the extra concern and scrutiny is warranted here. Soni (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I can understand that. Historyday01 (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

There needs to be a clear consensus before restoring any disputed content without fixing the issue which are the sources supporting the contentious claims. Are there are no better ones out there? If they aren't touching the topic, wikipedia shouldn't either. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

You stated in a recent edit that "compromise text doesn't address the problems with the given sources", and I have to thoroughly disagree with your argument, as I would say NONE of the sources cited in the compromise text I came up with are unreliable. Some sources added by other users are, but the ones I added are reliable, plain and simple. Apart from talking about this on this discussion, there are also the various ongoing discussions on Talk: Bob Morley. I would hope you involve yourself in the latter. This is NOT the time to be acting boldly.Historyday01 (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

You're going to have to explain why continuing to use those same sources fixes the issue on how DUE this is. It doesn't meet WP:BURDEN nor WP:ONUS if people are disputing its reliablity on a BLP matter. Soni, maybe you can explain since you originally raised that objection. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Removed my previous comment. Please see my comment at the end of this discussion with new proposed text.Historyday01 (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Honestly I'll be frank and say I'm out of my depth on this one. I genuinely think DUE concerns are met with that wording, so if there's a deeper BLP related reasoning behind why they aren't, I don't know it yet. Happy to be informed correctly, if it's a case of me being not well informed. Else I think this wording is acceptable enough. Soni (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

You had a problem with the sourcing itself. I did and a couple of other editors have agreed with removal per WP:BLPGOSSIP. To be clear, did you believe the reliability of those sources met wp:v but not WP:DUE originally? You had mentioned a heightened standard for BLPs. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, did you believe the reliability of those sources met wp:v but not WP:DUE originally? That's more or less how I understood it. For a claim that's exceptional (the way it was originally phrased) these sources weren't enough. Since WP:DAILYDOT implies it's not an unreliable source, so to speak, but also not the most reliable?

For the claim phrased later Morley's relationship with voice actress Arryn Zech ended on Valentines Day 2019, with Zech later accusing Morley of emotional and verbal abuse I considered it okay because it met the threshold of being WP:DUE for me. The claims are made in a single sentence without implying either side's correctness. I considered Daily Dot to be a single source sufficient to support that claim (or similarly phrased).

That's pretty much the extent of how I understand it now. Sorry my BLP knowledge doesn't go deep enough, so I get the "BLPs should be held to a higher standard" but I don't know if this statement still breaks that expected standard. Hopefully that clarifies my stance and also where I'm confused on our usual way of doing things. Soni (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

What makes me doubt the seriousness of dailydot's article (besides having dubious strength as a source for wikipedia standards when it comes to contentious issues or claims: WP:DAILYDOT + Nociteboard) is their speculation about Taylor's involvement despite the fact that she was never named (appeals to speculative adverbs like "seemingly" - speculations are considered counterfactual fallacies: articles containing fallacies should be avoided - the writer also appeals to "weasel words"/"glittering generality": "Many are now accusing Taylor of being a hypocrite" WP:BLPGOSSIP). From how I perceive it, its tone and sentences are quite "gossipy", even more so considering that Zech's claims about cheating and alleged verbal/emotional abuse were never accompanied by any proof, screenshots, mention of a formal report or anything: claims require specific evidence.

Besides, as I said in a previous interaction, I think that if the claim is mentioned, the nature of it should be clarified. This was done only through social media, not before any authority (police or judicial). There are no charges or contentious situation legally reported by an article (as for example occurs in the article about Marie Avgeropoulos, where it is specified that the contentious situation involved charges that were later dropped by her boyfriend who had the injuries - this was also reported by outlets like the LATimes and People - it is worth mentioning that the latter can certainly be considered more reliable than dailydot, but even so the encyclopedia advises against using it as a source when it comes to contentious issues).

To summarize, I think that at least the nature of the claims (social media) should be specified in Zech's article where for now the claims are still mentioned. Without a clarification of this type, I think that the article in a first reading can give the impression that there were formal allegations.

I believe that for now this is all I can say about the solidity of the sources and the wording used in the article. Editngwiki (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. If I understand you correctly, the claims should be mentioned on Zech's page but not Morley's? Is that correct? Historyday01 (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Historyday01 I hope not. As I've said to you earlier, BLP or sourcing issues do not vanish just based on what article we're editing. If the sources are spurious enough to not support adding claims of abuse to one page, then they cannot be added to the other.

I think there's enough consensus of the same on this noticeboard to require removal. I will do so now (and we can re-add sections if there's consensus to add parts of it) Soni (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

That is true, I suppose. Not going to repeat what I've seen in other comments, but currently there doesn't seem to be any consensus on this topic (I don't think), from reading this discussion. I'd be fine with having it removed from the Zech page for the time being until a consensus is reached. Regardless of the consensus decision reached on this topic, would it be ok to use the Daily Dot and Popculture.com articles as further evidence of Zech's bisexuality? The Daily Dot quotes Zech as saying "When he found out that I am bisexual, he was furious", while the Popculture.com article says "Zach claimed Morely [sic] was "furious" after she revealed she is bisexual". Historyday01 (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Historyday01 I saw a clear consensus, but I'm happy if someone else uninvolved (and not SPA, duh) wants to re-evaluate or formally close this. It looks unclear at a glance, but that's almost all because of back-and-forth threaded discussion after discussion on this, which only very involved editors have an interest in.

And while it's not clearly specified by every single editor (because the question being asked was slightly altered every few replies), this is roughly the stances from the messages I saw (apart from myself) -

• In favour of removal - Morbidthoughts, Editngwiki (SPA, well supported with policy arguments though), ScottishFinnishRadish, Zaereth, Kizo2703 (SPA)
• In favour of adding watered down text on either page - BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4, Lexaevermorewoods (SPA), Historyday01
• No clear opinion on this - Skywatcher68, Adam4R4O (SPA)

As I have an involved opinion on this, I did not evaluate policy backing behind each stance (WP:PNSD), but IMHO it still does not support adding the text. So yes, I did see a clear consensus (which I'm happy to be corrected on, if it changes/someone else wants to confirm it) Soni (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd say that's a pretty good run-down of the opinions at this point. I would say it is leaning toward not adding the text, but I'm not sure how SPAs factor in, when it comes to a formal closure. Historyday01 (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• As for sexual orientation, I surprisingly cannot find a policy about that. But as before, I think primary sources are fine when noting it. So long as we're only noting down the bisexuality without getting into any other BLP issues, I think that'll be fine. Soni (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  Great. As it turns out, I had already added the sources there, and one of those bots added the sources in for the sentence "Her bisexuality was previously confirmed in media reporting in July 2020". Historyday01 (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  As for her sexuality, she mentioned it in these panels:

  2020, March: The Chicago Comic & Entertainment Expo (C2E2) - 4:30.

  2020, May: RWBY Live Stream GalaxyCon - 23:07

  2018, July: Montreal Comic Con - 5:20. It is mentioned by her coworker, Lindsay Jones ("Me and Arryn are bi").

  2013, June: RT Podcast Ep. 121 - 22:35. It is mentioned by Miles Luna, her ex.

  There are records that she has been openly bisexual since at least 2014 (via her old tumblr account @hazleapricot: screenshots 1 and 2 + more vaguely when she said she "is part of the LGBT community"). However, I have not found an article or interview from that time, but perhaps the video of the conventions will be enough, especially the one from C2E2 (2020). Editngwiki (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for providing those. Historyday01 (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  I found the method to close the discussion (Marking a closed discussion).

  Unless someone has something else to contribute, I guess we can proceed. Editngwiki (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  My understanding is that to close a discussion, we need an uninvolved editor, so no one here that has commented so far. Historyday01 (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  I have minimally edited the article as I feel it is not necessary to preserve the reference to Dailydot's publication because 1) it is a subtle way of including the claims that we already discussed extensively here and 2) because the article already includes a reference that can also be used for this topic: the interview conducted by Dunkelman, where the actress mentions her sexuality on two occasions.

  a) Min. 0:50 - Zech mentions how she sits and the stereotype of how bisexuals do.

  b) Min. 36: 5-38: 20 - After a fan asks about her dating experience. (in the article I referenced this last part of the interview in particular since there Zech refers to what her dating experience is like as a bisexual).

  I hope we can close this discussion soon. It has been a pleasure working with all of you. Sorry for the delay! Editngwiki (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  I will not revert @Historyday01's edit. But as I said before, I think that including Dailydot's article whose headline and text contains the allegations is an unethical way of including them when the discussion has not been officially closed. The persistence in including it seems suspicious to me, especially considering that there are other resources and (in particular) a reference that was previously used by Historyday01 in Zech's article.

  From what I saw, the previous interactions got a bit aggressive and I hope this discussion can be closed soon. Editngwiki (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  Ok. While I disagree with you, as I've made clear in this discussion, and as I said in my recent comment on your talk page, I only think it should be included until an administrator ends this discussion, and then included (or not) depending on how they end this discussion. Not acting "aggressive" or "unethical" in any of my edits, just trying to preserve the status quo of the article until the discussion concludes with a closing statement by an admin or non-admin (there are multiple ways of closing a discussion). Currently, a request to closure was posted by @WikiVirusC on May 4th, but there has been no action on that since the request for closure was posted 70 days ago. I don't know if there is anywhere else to post about a closure request, but that page seems to be the best (and only?) place.Historyday01 (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Should also include Arryn Zech in this discussion, as it is the same topic/sources. The information has been disputed being included in Morley's article back when it first happened, it recently got added back in after Zech's page was created a few weeks ago. I added her into this discussion. And since we are here on noticeboard, while not on her page, Eliza Taylor's name keeps being added into the accusations, and she wasn't even named in Zech's statement. Some of those gossip sources inferred she might of been referring to her when she said "a girl", but BLP wise I don't think we should be including her name at all especially with lackluster sources. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps. I think the current compromise text (at the end of this discussion) I just added in works to clear up a lot of the issues with the previous text. This discussion is muddled by people like the OP who want to "balance" out the page by adding in subpar sources (like links to Instagram and YouTube), which are not acceptable in contentious issues like this. I would say that Eliza Taylor shouldn't be added to Zech's page. Of course, Taylor is on Morley's page, but shouldn't be connected to the accusations as current sources only speculate that Zech is referring to Taylor (who she doesn't mention directly), which isn't enough evidence to keep her there. I will say this whole discussion has been a learning experience... I suppose. Historyday01 (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I think the current text on the matter in both pages is fine. It's brief, to the point, and not too detailed about the nature of the claims or Taylor's may-have-may-have-not involvement, just says clearly that there was a relationship and accusations without getting into the weeds. I feel reasonably certain that Morley's fans are still going to attempt to force their narratives in both pages regardless of how impartial we are or how much we do or do not mention or if we mention anything at all, and I don't think we should omit the topic altogether, so I think it's best to just have this brief summary and leave it at that unless better sources arise. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 17:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  I came up with new compromise text at the end of this discussion, which I believe addresses the issues people are having so far in this discussion, by not mentioning the accusations at all. Since there was, apparently, too much disagreement about the previous text, I see no reason to even try to defend it. It just seems like a waste of energy on my part. Historyday01 (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment@Discospinster, @–DMartin, @Skywatcher68, and @Editngwiki your comments in this discussion would be appreciated.Historyday01 (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain how you chose this list of users per WP:CANVAS? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing because it's because we left comments at Talk:Bob Morley.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I see a lot of participants missing if that is the case. Should they be notified? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I believe everyone else I didn't mention in my previous comment is mentioned at the end of this discussion.Historyday01 (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I just chose those on the talk page discussion. Historyday01 (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Not notifying everyone in the discussion is WP:VOTESTACKING Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I did not add those people to "stack" the vote, I just believed, incorrectly, that most of those in the talk page discussions were already here. It's as simple as that.Historyday01 (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• I don't really have any opinion here; I only stumbled into this while patrolling recent changes one day. I did ask Google about this just now and found at least one accusation that Zech has been lying; whether or not this has any bearing on recent edits, I don't know.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Hmm. Well this supports the case for the compromised text I note in another comment. Historyday01 (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment As I stated on Talk:Bob Morley, I would be willing to reduce it to the following compromise text: Morley's relationship with voice actress Arryn Zech ended on Valentines Day 2019. I have since removed the following sentence, per the below discussion: Previously, his relationship with Zech had only been rumored. If this text was chosen, it could avoid us delving into the accusations (as it doesn't mention them at all), and it may address some of the other comments on here. If accepted, similar text could then be added to Zech's page. Historyday01 (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  If two people were dating, and the only coverage was rumors until after the relationship ended, is it really biographical detail necessary in an encyclopedia? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  If all the page is saying is that they were in a relationship, I do not see that as controversial or violating ANY Wikipedia rules. Morley and Zech are notable figures, plain and simple. The least we can do is mention they were in a relationship, and then add warnings in hidden text telling people to add nothing else. Furthermore, adding something about the relationship would make it easier to push off the bad actors who are editing the pages of Morley and Zech more easily than getting into endless edit wars. So, in that sense, the compromised text would have further value. Historyday01 (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Why even mention the second sentence? Has Morley confirmed the relationship? How are these sites ascertaining there was one beyond looking at her postings? Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  I suppose, but I only added the second sentence because it is another source (which mentioned they were rumored as being together). However, I wouldn't be altogether opposed to getting rid of the last sentence. It appears that Zech posted about this relationship a LOT (including photos of them together, from what I've seen), but since she deleted her Twitter (I noted about the archived tweets on the Wayback Machine at Talk:Arryn Zech#Relationship with Miles Luna), and likely similar posts on Instagram (which is notoriously hard to archive, from my experience, apart from using sites like Ghostarchive or Archive.is, as the Wayback Machine isn't always good at saving such posts), so there isn't as much evidence on her side of the relationship. I would guess that would be the same for Morley. I haven't done a deep dive through his Twitter or any other social media, but if I have to guess, I would think he did the same as Zech and deleted his photos/tweets which showed her. Historyday01 (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  This all sounds incredibly gossipy and unencyclopedic. What is the point, and what am I supposed to learn about the subject by reading this? This just reads like the stuff of tabloids, not what one would expect from an encyclopedia. Zaereth (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Ok. Saying "Morley's relationship with voice actress Arryn Zech ended on Valentines Day 2019" (the compromise text) doesn't seem gossipy or anything like that. Honestly, it seems like the blandest text possible, devoid of any controversy, and I'm not sure why anyone would have an issue with it.Historyday01 (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

  Personally I prefer @Soni's edit, and I believe the whole statement from Zech had many inconsistencies, and, at times, involved mind reading and super hearing. I don't think it's a reliable source, but I'm willing to compromise if it keeps it entirely on her page and not darkening others with accusations in which there's no legal resolution, since there seems to be no other resolution for @Historyday01. Lexaevermorewoods (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  Hmm. Well, as I said in other comments recently on here, I'd be fine with keeping it removed from Morley's page (where it is currently not present, as it was removed near the beginning of this discussion), and keeping it on Zech's page (since she is the one who made the accusations), where it currently reads as follows:

  Zech's relationship with actor Bob Morley ended on Valentines Day 2019, with Zech later accusing Morley of emotional and verbal abuse. Previously, Morley's relationship with Zech had only been rumored. Historyday01 (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  I searched for interviews given by both during 2025-2019 and neither names the other. Sometimes they made comments about a "boyfriend" or "girlfriend" without giving specifics or names. The only article in which Zech is named says that the relationship was merely rumored. I have not been able to find a source that lives up to the requirements of the encyclopedia.

  Bearing this in mind, I agree that bringing this issue up can give the article a "gossipy style" that we clearly want to avoid here. Editngwiki (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, that is the one article I found earlier. Would it be ok to mention Zech's accusations on her page, but not Morley's? Because I would be completely fine with that compromise, and with leaving Zech out of Morley's page. Historyday01 (talk) 03:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

reference list
References

Comment: I think it would be in the best interest of all of us to conclude this discussion relatively soon, either toward removing or keeping the content, at least in the next couple days (I'm not sure how long BLP discussions typically run). I think it would do a disservice to keep this discussion dragging on. As such, @Discospinster, @WikiDan61, @–DMartin, @TimeTravellingBunny, @Kizo2703, @Lexaevermorewoods, and @Isaidnoway your comments in this discussion would be appreciated. @Morbidthoughts, I believe that's everyone from Talk:Bob Morley and Talk:Arryn Zech, but if I missed someone (that isn't already here), I apologize in advance for that.Historyday01 (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Note that multiple accounts participating in this discussion have few to no edits outside this topic (and not many edits overall). If there will be someone evaluating consensus at the end of this, I'd recommend taking that into account. Soni (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  That's true. Users like Lexaevermorewoods, TimeTravellingBunny, and Kizo2703 are single-purpose accounts.Historyday01 (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be removed from Zech's site too, cause it's nothing else but gossip. Loud and clear.

And, since all of THEIR proofs of the relationship on SM are either deleted (Morleys' acct) or Zech doesn't have Twitter acct anymore, it's just hearsay. Kizo2703 (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, I am suspicious about your reasoning since you are a single-purpose account, as you admitted yourself on April 6. You have also made strange legal threats in the past as well. Also your argument is illogical since Zech's accusations were posted on her Instagram, which is still active, and Morley still has a Twitter account. So I wouldn't call it "hearsay". Historyday01 (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, was expecting this, but unfortunately for you, have I done something NOTRIGHT until now? Because I'm not the one who used questionable sources. I just sent screenshots of your texts. Did anything happened to anyone yet?

Zech's accusations were posted on her Instagram, but NO SINGLE POST they were in relationship. Same goes for Morley's Twitter account - no single post about them. Only rumors on third party accts. Sorry.

As of for me being a single-purpose account, yes, on this, my free time account. Kizo2703 (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

But, since you cleaned up Morley's site, do as you wish, as long as you don't touch it ever again.

However, given that we concluded that its gossip we're talking about, it should be deleted everywhere. Kizo2703 (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, another strange threat from you, which is per usual, considering you ARE a single-purpose account, falling in line with what is stated at WP:SPA. Who is this "we" you are talking about? Again, your argument is strange as it implies that people never delete posts from their social media accounts, even though people regularly cull their feeds. In any case, I don't expect any rational argument from you on this topic. Historyday01 (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment for closer: When closing this, if it is decided to not include these accusations of abuse in either article, could you note whether we should use the sources "The 100' Star Bob Morley Accused of Abusive Behavior" & "'The 100's' Bob Morley accused of abuse" even if we are removing the abuse allegations. I tried to remove them from page because of redundancy of her bisexuality being "confirmed" by media, but it was put back in with an explanation(on my usertalk page) that more media reporting is needed media reporting is better to confirm her bisexuality. I don't see the point of having a content/BLP discussion on my talk page, so I have asked for it to be done here on this noticeboard or on Arryn's talk page. For reference the linked article don't really report on her bisexuality so much as just quote her statement of Morley's alleged reaction to her bisexuality. Editngwiki (talk · contribs), brought up several examples of her bisexualities earlier in this discussion, but Historyday01 (talk · contribs) says it's better to use media reporting. There are examples of Zech stating it herself such as in the one Youtube Video. I say the quote that is already in article describer herself as "a bisexual" was enough, and if we need more(which I don't think we do) the youtube clip of her saying she is bisexual could be a second reference. I don't have an issue of mentioning her bisexuality, but I don't see point of removing the abuse allegation, but putting in multiple sources that literally have the abuse allegations in title, when it is completely unnecessary. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

  Sigh. The YouTube videos mentioned by Editngwiki are nice, but I just don't believe they are sufficient on their own. If there were BETTER sources, I'd be more than happy to use them in the article, but the the articles on PopCulture.com and The Daily Dot seem to be the best sources on the topic. Adding more links and sources about someone's sexuality is BETTER than having less. Not sure how you don't get that. I am generally wary of using YouTube videos as sources and only use them, personally, as sparingly as possible. In some cases, where there are YouTube interviews, its fine, but I'm just not sure about those YouTube videos, as those moments are buried within the "RWBY Voice Cast Panel - C2E2 2020" (its over an hour long), "RWBY Live Stream with Lindsay Jones, Kara Eberle, Barbara Dunkelman, & Arryn Zech" (its over 50 minutes long), "RWBY (Ruby, Weiss, Blake, and Yang) Cast Q&A Montreal Comiccon 2018 Full Panel" (its over 41 minutes long), "RT Podcast: Ep. 221" (its over 1 hour and 43 minutes long). Is citing those long videos going to help users? I would say not, as they may have to muddle through a lot to get to what is cited in the text. I would argue the same goes for Zech's former Tumblr, a reblogged post and two screenshots from said blog here and here. I do not understand, for the life of me why any of those sources would be better than the articles in PopCulture.com and The Daily Dot. The inclusion of such links to YouTube and Tumblr would, as I understand it, run afoul of WP:BLPSPS and WP:ABOUTSELF, at minimum.

  Otherwise, I've observed some people try and add in YouTubers as a reliable source to some pages and began a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard back in July 2022 stating that YouTubers aren't usually a reliable source. So, I am very familiar with people using YouTube as a source. As for the rest of your comment, I felt that your edits on the page were renegade edits since the standard for sourcing someone's stated sexuality, from my understanding, is lower than the reported accusations, which are the reason this discussion began in the first place. I would NOT say the additional sources are redundant, but just provide more information on her bisexuality. I never said that "more media reporting is needed to confirm her bisexuality", although I admittedly did cause some confusion by using words like "support" and "proof". Instead, I said "media reporting ALWAYS helps in these cases [of someone stating their sexuality], rather than just interviews", which I still believe. I am glad to hear that you don't see "an issue of mentioning her bisexuality", and know there is an issue with having "multiple sources that literally have the abuse allegations in title", depending on the consensus here. Honestly, if I was to use social media as a source for Zech's bisexuality, it would be a challenge since Zech has rarely talked about her social media, and am not sure if citing the Instagram post which had her accusations against Morley would be any better than the current articles cited. Even worse, Zech no longer has a Twitter account, so what social media posts could you even cite?

  Trying to look through her tweets to find the "right one" which states she is bisexual would probably be a fool's errand to be honest. I even found one Tweet in which she reportedly said she is bisexual (if the Google search which said the text stated "'m bisexual I still cross my legs though when I sit but I love women and men and I find women of all types far more attractive then most men" had any validity) but it isn't even in the Wayback Machine or Archive.is, sadly. For many other people, it is relatively easy to find information about their sexuality. For Zech, it is a challenge as she seems to rarely post about being bisexual, and she no longer has a Twitter account (where people usually post these types of things, or at least they used to). Just thought I'd put this all out there for the record, as I'd say that WikiVirusC's arguments are wrongheaded in more ways than one. I will say that I've learned from this discussion to be even more wary about adding in "controversial" things to bio pages and will either not add those things in the future, or go out of my way to begin a discussion on said inclusion, so a discussion like this never occurs again. I am hopeful that the closing of this discussion will hold off any people vandalizing the pages of Zech and Morley as well. Historyday01 (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Youtube or Youtubers wouldn't be the source, the source would be Arryn herself. The redundancy wasn't the source(s), it was the mentioning her saying she was bisexual twice. Anyways this isn't an issue about her sexuality or the sourcing I am bringing up, its a BLP issue about the accusations against Morley. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. I still feel like citing the Instagram post would have the same problem, as it could have the abuse accusations in the title. However, in theory, I suppose you could word the title of the Instagram post, using Template:Cite Instagram, to ONLY talk about her bisexuality (as writing the entire title of all of Zech's accusations in the title would obviously make the title far too long to be useful to anyone). Even so, I am very wary about citing the YouTube videos, and even more about the Tumblr (which has been deactivated). I mean, even WP:RSPSS states in their summary that "most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all", adding that "content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. However, many YouTube videos from unofficial accounts are copyright violations and should not be linked from Wikipedia". Furthermore, WP:YOUTUBE states that "many YouTube videos...are copyright violations and should not be linked...links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis" and WP:VIDEOLINK says that video links "must abide by various policies and guidelines" and be "carefully and individually evaluated for inclusion." Only the "RT Podcast: Ep. 221" video would fulfill that standard, as the "RWBY Voice Cast Panel - C2E2 2020" video was uploaded byFandom Spotlite which is not a verified official account, with the same being the case for the "RWBY Live Stream with Lindsay Jones, Kara Eberle, Barbara Dunkelman, & Arryn Zech" and RWBY (Ruby, Weiss, Blake, and Yang) Cast Q&A Montreal Comiccon 2018 Full Panel" videos, neither of which have verified accounts. As a reminder, for YouTube verified accounts it is affirmed that such channels are authentic and complete. Now, that doesn't mean that all the videos are great, and people/organizations which are notoriously awful could be verified, but it is something to keep in mind.

In the past, I used to be gung-ho about citing self-published sources and got angry when they got removed, but I've learned over the years that self-published sources should be used very sparingly. Otherwise, I am glad to hear that you don't have an issue with "her sexuality or the sourcing". While saying all of this, I still personally don't see an issue with citing the Daily Dot or PopCulture.com articles, with a caveat that if the consensus does lean in favor of removal (which it seems it is), then perhaps there could be some hidden text (on Zech and Morley's pages) noting to not re-add the accusation and citing this discussion or something, right near the article(s) cited. The same could be the case if the Instagram post by Zech is cited instead. I suppose, in retrospect, I am somewhat glad this was added to this discussion, but on the other hand, I feel that these discussions of reliability of sources might be better suited for WP:RSN, just saying.Historyday01 (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• Include allegations, per comment in below section. (No one seemed to want to continue the discussion, so changing my suggestion for continuation to an include !vote)--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Argument for continuation of this discussion

Comment: I think I'm now very much in the minority, but I do want to make an argument that more discussion should be had here.

• As I understand, Zech self-published psychological-abuse accusations against Morley via Twitter and Instagram. A few mid-tier reliable sources picked those allegations up, including the Daily Dot [52], Girlfriend (magazine) [53], Distractify [54], and a few sources I haven't heard of, like DailyPlanet [55] (which included discussion of what appeared to be a response by Taylor, Zech's wife) and The Tempest [56]. Zech later deleted her self-published claims her Twitter, but her claims are still on her Instagram account. I understand there are a few side issues, like whether Zech also accused Morley's now-wife of abuse/an affair, but, as I see it, the abuse allegations are the crux, no? The key question is whether those allegations should be included.

I'm a little lost on the policy arguments. I seeWP:V mentioned ... but what, exactly, is the thing that needs to be verified—(1) that Zech tweeted/instagrammed what the third-party sources say she did, or (2) the alleged abuse itself? Given that many—most?—people are mostly talking about the reliability of the sources, it seems like the key issue is the former ...? Or, to put it as a question: If the New York Times had ran a short story simply reporting Zech's tweets, would the allegations, then, merit inclusion?

On the other hand, a few users seem to be suggesting it's the alleged abuse that has to be verified. User:Editngwiki, for example, discredits "Zech's claims about ... verbal/emotional abuse" because they "were never accompanied by any proof, screenshots, mention of a formal report or anything". They point to Wikipedia:Claims require specific evidence, which is an essay about the claims Wikipedia editors make against one another ... so, not quite apt, and, I think, not an accurate description of how WP handles allegations. User: Kizo2703, relatedly, says the allegations are hearsay because Zech deleted her original tweets ... but that can't be relevant. Courts might reject hearsay, but Wikipedia prefers it—that's why we prefer secondary sources to primary sources.

I think this is a complicated issue worthy of more and—due respect to the participants (who have had to discuss several different aspects of this)—more focused discussion. Part of me would obviously prefer a stronger source—because more reporting than "picked up her tweets/instagram" would be nice. At the same time, ... while I'm not coming out one way or another just yet (I think I need to read the opinions of some more editors), I actually think WP:PUBLICFIGURE might advise in favor of inclusion? If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article Notice that inquiry says we should focus on the documentation of the allegation, not documentation related to the underlying charge. Maybe it's a close call, but I don't see any reason to think the various sources just copied each other—the Daily Dot relied on Zech's twitter (and took screenshots of the note attached to her tweet), while Girlfriend magazine relied on her Instagram, yet the quotations in the Girlfriend piece are present in the Daily Dot's screenshots. (And of course, when several mid-tier reliable sources report the same thing ... that surely adds to the strength of their reliability.) That said, one semi-confusing aspect of WP:PUBLICFIGURE is the term "notable"—as I've understood it, WP:NOTABLE doesn't usually apply to article content.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying. I fully support keeping the accusations on each page (although I have come to accept that the consensus is on the opposite side, hence my recent comments accepting that reality). On the other hand, I also feel like this conversation is going in circles and going nowhere at this point, which is why, personally, I think a resolution would be better, even if it isn't the result I agree with. Zech didn't actually delete her claims, as they are still there on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/CCMDmz8FPwF/. However, her Twitter account has since been deactivated. In terms of the sources you point out, people have grumbled about Girlfriend Magazine (it was originally included in an earlier version of the text), and as noted above, but the strongest ones were Daily Dot, Popculture.com, and Den of Geek. There's also an article in The Music which says Zech and Morley were rumored to be in a relationship. As for Distractify, I thought that was a pretty unreliable, and it is a bit tricky for the DailyPlanet as Taylor doesn't specifically mention Taylor. with the article saying "Taylor never officially mentioned Zech’s statement but still managed to break her social media silence." That was an issue previously in this discussion as the aformentioned articles had said Zech was talking about Taylor, but she never specifically mentioned Taylor, only referring to a "girl". A little skeptical of The Tempest here as their about page says "page not found". I can, personally agree that WP:PUBLICFIGURE favors inclusion, but sadly I don't think many agree with that. And, personally, I'm a bit lost in the policy arguments too. All I can see is that people don't favor inclusion at the present time. And I'm not sure if the closer will say there is a consensus here or not, because the number of SPAs contributing complicates any possible determination of consensus in this discussion.Historyday01 (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the Music article really works—I think we should be centering on the abuse claims and, at least for now, not caring about just stating whether or not they were in a relationship—honestly I think the above discussion got a bit sidetracked on more minor issues that could be addressed separately. But I wonder if maybe this would be appropriate for an RFC.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with excluding the Music article, and only included it originally to support the assertion that Zech and Morley are in a relationship, but I admit that it isn't a great source for that. I also won't disagree that the above discussion probably did get a bit sidetracked on various issues. Some of that is likely my fault, but I was trying to make the best of a bad situation, as assumedly the consensus seemed against inclusion. However, I'm not sure if addressing the issues separately would be productive or having a RfC only because I am concerned that the discussion would be sidetracked by the same issues, as, likely, the same participants would be present, including some of the SPAs who contributed in this discussion. Historyday01 (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like more discussion is going to happen, hoping we can get a closure from the request I previously made. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I hope so as well. I would like there to be a closure. It seemed that Jerome Frank Disciple wanted to continue this discussion, but has made no additional comments since May 5th. Historyday01 (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, no one else seemed to want to participate in the discussion, so alas. I'll update my comment to a !vote--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I am, personally a bit tired of the discussion at this point, as it seems to be going in circles, so a closure is a good idea. Historyday01 (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Note that the below content was posted in a different section, I have moved it here for consistency. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm also wondering what's keeping the Bob Morley & Arryn Zech thread from being archived. Last post I can see is from June 26. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

It's the donotarchiveuntil setting under the header which is stopping it being archived I think before 2033. This can be removed if people feel the thread isn't needed anymore. Nil Einne (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I missed that you were talking about the section currently below and not this one but it's the same reason. The code to prevent archiving was added here [57] by User:WikiVirusC I assume because of their earlier closure request [58]. IMO it would be better to just remove the closure request Wikipedia:Closure requests#Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Bob Morley & Arryn_Zech & allow the thread to be archived since I don't feel the thread needs formal closure and after 98 days I'm not sure one is forthcoming. IIRC it's also possible to just request closure of the archived thread. Nil Einne (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I was hoping someone would do a closure as there was a dispute on whether to use sources that included the now removed allegations in their titles. I felt they weren't even needed for citations as other references did the job fine, but it was added back into article after I initially removed them. I added a comment to discussion asking for this to also be evaluated by closer [59], but clearly never has. More recently someone else tried to remove the disputed source again[60] last month, but it was added back in[61] with edit comment "I think it should stay UNTIL the discussion on the noticeboard is concluded by an admin". WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is to gain consensus before reinstatement of disputed edits; including citations, per WP:BLPUNDEL. People that continue to reinstate without this consensus should be given a CT/BLP alert and reported to ANI or AE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:01, 25 July 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.

Nonong Ballinan

This page has been under serious defamation and other uncited, false claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.153.186.170 (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The page has been semi-protected for 3 days. Hopefully, the vandalism will not continue afterwards. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

It continued. Requesting semi-protection for a longer duration now. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Soh Rui Yong

There has been slow editing tug-of-war between anonymous editor(s) and other registered editors (now, it is largely me) on Soh Rui Yong BLP that's there ever since... the article was created. Many of the recent anonymous edits are promotional([62], [63]), npov ([64]), or spiteful ([65]). Many of these edits were either reworked to be less promotional, or reverted. While the IP addresses involved are different most of the time, it is my belief that many, if not most, of such edits are by one person moving between the countries which the IP addresses are assigned to. The belief largely stems from the use of language in the edits. (there are other off-wiki stuff as well, but it is all circumstantial, and I didn't "keep the receipts".) I appreciate second or third eyes independent of myself or the subject to look at the article and tell me that I may have or have not been overly sensitive on this BLP. Also given that by now, I am one of the largest contributors to the page (going by xtools, edit counts and number of characters introduced), I appreciate for any feedback on my editing on this article. Thanks! – robertsky (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Martha Chizuma

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

The section on 'Controversy' is worth validating. Because the person talked about is the 'director of anti-corruption there is a risk that content and references in this section is designed to cast doubt on the individual rather than reflect accurate information.

On 11 May 2021, the public appointments committee rejected the appointment of Martha Chizuma as the director of the anti-corruption bureau.[2] Martha Chizuma was accused of being unprofessional when a phone recording between her and unidentified man was leaked.[3] In the phone call, she alleges that judges and magistrates are also part of a corruption syndicate.[4] Members of the diplomatic missions faulted Martha Chizuma for recruiting a United Kingdom Agency to do investigations on behalf of the anti-corruption bureau.[5] On 6 December 2022, Chizuma was arrested in connection to a leaked audio clip in which she spoke with another person about the fight against corruption in the country.[6] She has since been released on bail the same day of her arrest.[7]

I hope you can review this content and reference material for accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:27B6:ED01:D850:2C25:4DBB:447B (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I've edited to remove one apparently outdated "controversy" regarding CAP rejection. It didn't seem to matter much in the larger current picture of her other apparent controversies: phone leaks, foreign involvement in operations, and arrest. But if a larger picture develops in the future indicating more lasting relevance, the CAP opposition text might have a place. For example, a controversy (ie, being a whistleblower, political persecutee) has the potential to become a separate part of notability. I think the revision history indicates this and other issues are best addressed at the article's talk page. I left a word there, too. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 02:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Dan Patrick

I have been attempting to add information about Lt. Governor Patrick's role in censuring and requesting the termination of a professor at Texas A&M university for making disparaging remarks about the administration. I have cited a reputable news source for the addition, but a user has repeatedly removed the submission as 'unsourced'. According to my interpretation, I have met the W:V requirement of "providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution", and given the nature of this story as one of censorship, it is of concern that the story itself is now being censored. If the problem with the inline citation is that it occurs after multiple sentences from the same source, and the citation should be added after each individual sentence, the editor should have recommended those edits, rather than flagged the entire edit for removal, per W:BLP "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it".

Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:4040:5504:D00:60F8:77FA:6D0A:CBF5

• Your edits to Dan Patrick (politician) have not included any citations, inline or otherwise. -Ljleppan (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The ip must have conflated including citations in their edits about the controversy to a related article.[66][67] Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Another(?) editor has reinstated with the citations.[68] I have some concerns how much weight should be assigned to this controversy in the Patrick and Dawn Buckingham articles. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the Buckingham article, but I'm not convinced it should be in the Patrick one at all. The paragraph there begins: "Following a March 7th, 2023 guest lecture by Texas A&M professor Dr. Joy Alonzo [...] Patrick's office urged the university adminstration to fire Dr. Alonzo." However, I don't see that either source cited explicitly says that Patrick's office encouraged Texas A&M to fire Alonzo: just that A&M were "in contact" with Patrick's office, which is a much weaker statement. And none of the sources I have looked at seem to say that Patrick was directly involved in any of this. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I have a strong negative opinion of "something just happened, let's note it on multiple pages" (the idea behind WP:Recent as a guideline). It doesn't seem to belong in a "biography of Dan Patrick" or "biography of Dawn Buckingham" article, if Dr. Joy Alonzo had their own page, it would be appropriate there. If it's a notable enough event it might warrant it's own page, but I don't expect it does. Denaar (talk) 12:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

It is also added to the John Sharp (Texas politician) article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Schafesd: @Oak Azimuth: @1990'sguy: who have recently been editing about this issue in the articles. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Also @Thenightaway: Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the content isn't appropriate to add per WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. That said, it's better now (on the Patrick article), having been significantly trimmed compared to the WP:UNDUE version originally added. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Warren Forest

I'm having trouble getting a grasp on WP:BLP. An IP editor removed a woman's name[69] from Warren Forest. I reverted it[70], not seeing a problem with having the name. They reverted back[71] citing a letter from a prosecutor's office. I now think maybe it should be removed? And if we remove hers, should we remove the names of all the victims? I posted on the Teahouse about it[72] and a user suggested I post here. Thanks. Closhund/talk/ 07:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:NPF, WP:BLPNAME are policy. This did not require a prosecutor letter to stop inclusion. If the alleged victims are still alive, they should not be named.Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I'll scrub the article. Thanks. Closhund/talk/ 07:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Emily Austin (journalist)

I just created Emily Austin (journalist). The Emily Austin page redirects to Emily Austin Perry. There are no other Emily Austins here. Is it possible for someone to cancel the current redirect and instead place one so Emily Austin (journalist) redirects to Emily Austin. Apologies if this isn't the right page to post this. MaskedSinger (talk) 04:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@MaskedSinger, I found this at WP:RFD: "f you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. For non-controversial cases, place a technical request; if a discussion is required, then start a requested move."

It seems non-controversial to me, so I'd try that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

thank you! MaskedSinger (talk) 11:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion is closed. Is it possible for someone to archive the discussion so it doesn't clog up the talk page. Thank you. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Sinéad O'Connor date of death

Sinéad O'Connor's death was reported today (https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66318626 and dozens of other sources) but reliable sources at this time are not listing today (or any other day) as the date of death (e.g. from that source we have her death was announced on Wednesday evening). Lots of good faith editors have attempted to helpfully add 26 July into the article as her date of death. There's some concern that several of us who have been removing the date as unsourced are close to 3RR (I've reverted death date additions twice, for instance, and @MIDI stated on the talk page that they wouldn't make more reverts). While the BLP exemption to 3RR may apply here I thought it was worth bringing it up on this noticeboard since I never feel super comfortable going over 3RR one way or the other and I figure people who monitor BLPN would be able to help. Thanks! Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 23:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC) (edited 23:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC))

It looks like the BBC is heavenly leaning on the information from the RTE published here. Why do you doubt the date? The Banner talk 00:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Because even the RTE source doesn't outright say that she died on 26 July, just that the death was announced on that date. Within that ambiguity it is possible that O'Connor died on the 26th, and it's also possible she died one or more days earlier. Without a source that says something like "O'Connor died on 26 July 2023" we cannot either. All we can verifiably say right now is that the death was announced on that day. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

This is correct; sorry that my original post was confusing. The BBC, RTE, and other sources don't list a specific date of death right now, only that the death was announced today. Once reliable sources are reporting a specific date of death it should be included. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Sideswipe9th. An article about a recently deceased person still has to comport with WP:BLP: WP:RS only; no WP:OR, no false attribution of sources. No citing to a date of death that isn't reliably published. These will come in time. JFHJr (㊟) 02:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I think @Dylnuge: and I are probably in agreement on this; it's not necessarily a case of "what do we write?" (as Sideswipe9th says, we just need to say "X's death was announced on 1 January" or whatever). Instead, we need to see how best to deal with the good faith edits of others – those who do assume that the date of announcement is the same as the date of occurrence and in doing so violate WP:V. I held off reverting ad infinitum, because in my mind this wasn't exempt under WP:3RRBLP#7 as I couldn't really describe this as particularly contentious. That's the $64,000 question I suppose – are reverts like this exempt?

This is far from the first time this has all happened, and plenty of times the date of death turns out to be totally different. My essay is WP:MABEL. MIDI (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe full page protection with the date removed? I guess pages often are protected without regard to the WP:RIGHTVERSION? —DIYeditor (talk) 08:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

At the moment, there's no consistency in the way this is represented in the various places within the article. The article text correctly says no date of death has been announced but the infobox has the 26th, sourced to the BBC report which gives no date. What do we do regarding the infobox in these cases? Remove the death date altogether? I assume so, because anything else is WP:OR. Additionally, the lede says 'July 2023' and the short description just '2023'! Neiltonks (talk) 08:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Do we even know she was alive any time this year? This month? Why say anything, just leave it blank until we know something firm. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The Times is stating "Sinéad O’Connor, musician, was born on December 8, 1966. She died of undisclosed causes on July 26, 2023, aged 56" in their obituary. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the BBC is saying she was found unresponsive at 11.18am and pronounced dead at the scene [73], so the actual DOD is probably going not going to be pinpointed until the coroner's report, unless the police say something in a statement. Black Kite (talk) 11:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Police did say there was nothing suspicious about her death. [74] Masem (t) 13:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, though I don't see that makes a difference to the DOD. There's nothing there to say she didn't die the previous day, or even earlier. We simply don't know. Black Kite (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

That does make several sources (The Times, The Guardian, BBC) stating her date of death as July 26 (and none contradicting it) so I think it makes sense to include it in the article now.

I am curious (independently of this article) if others think that "pronounced dead on Date" should or should not be treated the same as "died on Date" in the absence of any other information. My gut assumption would have been yes, since I suspect that's the date that winds up on a death certificate and so on unless there's strong contradicting evidence, but it's true that it's not quite the same. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 14:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Pronounced dead is distinct from clinical death. Being "pronounced dead at the scene", as per BBC's current front page means that O'Connor was declared legally dead at 11:18 BST on 26 July, shortly after being discovered, however that's not a confirmation of when she clinically died. As before, there's no confirmation of when she actually died, which could have happened any time prior to being discovered. As such I would still err on the side of caution for now and say that she died in July 2023. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Definitely agree it's different, just wasn't sure if there was a standard around what "date of death" means in a Wikipedia article if a legal date of death is known and a medical one is unknown. I would have thought that in lieu of a distinct medical date it's reasonable to use a legal date that's reported in reliable sources.

I don't feel super strongly here. I can see the argument for removing the date and agree with your preference for being cautious and going for eventual correctness over immediate reporting. I'm not sure this is feasible from an editing perspective though, especially since there are multiple sources now (The Times, The Guardian, NME, probably more) that say "died on 26 July" with no distinction between legal and medical death; that seems to meet WP:V, even if all those sources might later update their stories with a clarification on clinical time of death. And even if the consensus is for excluding the date, it'd be extremely difficult to maintain that (short of full protection, which would be harmful in other ways since there's lots of editing going on), though that's a poor argument for inclusion. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 16:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

We certainly use "best known" dates of death, very often. Most subjects are not internationally famous, and the best source you ever get on when they died is when they were "found dead". Subjects who are either very famous or who died of highly predictable causes (e.g. a long illness) have certain medical dates of death, but this isn't true for almost all biographical subjects who die unpredictably or of undisclosed causes. Vaticidalprophet 16:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I remember an unexpectedly contentious dispute I had about this with another editor several years ago. It was on a page for an individual who was found dead at her home, though relatives mentioned to the press that she was thought to have died a few days prior. I wanted to use "c. Discovered Date", but the other editor was very insistent that only the date the subject was found and thus legally declared dead should be given in the article. Eventually there was a compromise in which we used legal death in the IB and such but included a footnote about the circumstances. As you point out, it would stand to reason that at least some discrepancy between biological and legal death is bound to happen for virtually any death that happens outside a medical setting, and it seems rare for any subsequent medical findings to be publicly released. But I also agree that since O'Connor was so famous, this may be an exception and additional information could very likely become part of the public domain.

I think the article has handled this ambiguity well so far if it wants to wait for these findings, and has fully explained the situation in the article text. Though I have edited on an article which handled it in a different way (but it was not anyone's first choice). Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Honestly at this point I am far less concerned with whether the article says "26 July 2023" or "July 2023" or "2023" or "found dead 26 July 2023" than I am with the edit warring happening between people who disagree on it. It's no longer a "simple" unsourced BLP issue. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 03:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I was only looking at the article as published and was unaware how much edit warring there has been on the matter. Though I'm not too surprised to learn this: it seems like one of those deceptively small decisions that balloons into a much bigger dispute among editors, because there often turn out to be many possible ways to address it. I initially thought there was a consensus in favor of switching it to "July 2023" for now and just explaining further where necessary. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Thankfully the edit warring has slowed down or stopped and it seems "July 2023" has been settled on for the moment, probably because A) there's now an RS saying "unknown" ([75]), and it's easier to point to a source than to argue a negative, and B) the page traffic has dropped a bit, so there are probably less editors doing a "drive by" fix of the date. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Repeat unsourced edits of "forced" disappearance on BLP Fu Xiaotian

The BLP Fu Xiaotian has been the subject of an editor's repeat unsourced edits characterizing Fu's disappearance as "forced." BLP requires "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard."

The editor has not provided any RS (or in fact any source at all), and appears to say that they will not be doing so ("I'm not debating this."). There is no attempt to satisfy WP:ONUS. Nor does any currently cited source describe Fu's disappearance as "forced."

I have removed the unsourced claim of "forced" three times within a 24 hour period, and do not wish to exceed 3RR or engage further with this editor.

However, unsourced contentious material is currently in the article (currently in form of the category, "enforced disappearances in China"). It really ought to be removed immediately.

And so I raise the issue here. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the (so far) unsupported category. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The sources cited certainly don't seem sufficient to support an assertion of 'forced disappearance'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the page the primary issue being raised is that some editors feel that you are hounding them. Is that not context you think its important to include in your summary of the situation? You appear to have cherrypicked which part of the dispute to bring here in such a way as to maximize your chances of obtaining a favorable outcome. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

This is WP:BLPN. Let's stick to looking at the disputed article content here - which isn't supported by the source and thus violates WP:BLP policy. Any claims of 'hounding' belong on WP:ANI, if anywhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is BLPN... When you bring an issue here you are expected to provide adequate context... JArthur1984 has not done that. This doesn't actually appear to be a BLP dispute at all, it appears to be a dick measuring contest. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Don't be absurd. An unsupported assertion of 'forced disappearance' of a living person is a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

It is, but the context of the violation is being misrepresented. It does in fact appear to be a multipage dick measuring contest which none of the editors involved should have indulged in. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell two people who used to be seen in public all the time have not been seen in public for a while. There seems to be a connection between the two. One user wants to say "forced disappearance" on both articles, the other "disappearance from public view". It is completely normal that someone who works on one article works on the other, too. Maybe there is more to this "hounding", but we'd need to see some evidence. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

It might be normal, but JArthur1984 doesn't mention a second article at all. I stand by my assertion that the selective disclosure of context by the OP was misleading. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#User:JArthur1984_Hounding. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Love it, apparently we're having a "who can provide context in the least helpful way" contest. I declare them both winners/losers! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Correct. We're supposed to keep the discussion here restricted to the content disagreement. Presumably so the discussions don't spiral as they have here. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@JArthur1984 your exact words here were "I also do not want to debate". Please don't quote other people in a way which appears to make them look bad when you can be quoted in the exact same manner. AlanS^talk 15:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to have created confusion. When I replied to that editor I should have put "debate" in scare quotes -- i.e., I did not want to argue. You can tell from the rest of edit that you have linked that I have always remained open to discussing sources and policies. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Conversation about the hounding started here. There are LOTS of sources saying Fu disappeared. Is ANYONE here willing to say that she may have disappeared by her own choice? I accept that using the term "Forced disappearance" may be an inference in the sense that it's not the exact language in the sources, but I don't think any reasonable person would say that an "unwilling disappearance" is meaningfully different from a forced one. NickCT (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Which sources say "unwilling disappearance"? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

In what way do you imagine this person "disappeared"? Do you think she disappeared by her own volition? NickCT (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't use my imagination, I use sources. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I imagine the Stasi would have liked you. But then, that's unsourced.... NickCT (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, they were big on sources. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Touché NickCT (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate you've got a valid opinion. But you got called by a WP:HOUND's howl. So I'm not sure your revert was valid. NickCT (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from with the social context being the PRC but I agree with Random et all that we do actually need something which says forced disappearance or uses disappeared as a verb. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

That's fine. And that's a valid opion. I opened up an RfC on this topic at Qin Gang. The problem is that a WP:HOUND poisoned the waters by bringing the conversation here in the first place. NickCT (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you should take a step back, the personal conflict between you and JArthur1984 is IMO getting in the way of building wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

He actually wasn't hounding me. He was hounding a differnet editor. Anyway, the proper place for this conversation is ANI. NickCT (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Looking for sources myself, I did a quick skim of "Fu Xiaotian has disappeared" and everything I can find is "rumor" and innuendo - and should we even be mentioning "there is a rumor this person had an affair?" - wouldn't that in and of itself be something to be a bit cautious about even if "the rumor" is sourced? Denaar (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

All this talk of "hounding" is not something of great relevance to BLPN. If editors feel there is something there that warrants attention, please take it to ANI not here. JArthur1984 was right to bring concerns here if they were being ignored in the article and talk page. It was not forum shopping and it was not wrong to not bother to mention irrelevant stuff like the "hounding" allegations. If we do not have sourcing that mention this being an enforced disappearance then we do not use the category. Editor's deciding that this fits their own definition of a "enforced disappearance" is not sufficient. If there is no category that fits, that's fine. We do not need a category for everything about a person. From my experience "enforced disappearance" is often something that is only really talked about when the person has "missing" for quite a long time, significantly more than the time period that has elapsed here. As our article enforced disappearance mentions, it also often means the person has been murdered. That may be a reason why sources are not yet talking about Fu's fate as a "forced disappearance", I don't know, ultimately it's not for us to decide why sources are doing what they are doing, but summarise what they say. Nil Einne (talk) 03:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

re "deciding that this fits their own definition of a "enforced disappearance" is not sufficient" - I think this is really the core isse. This is a debate about semantics. We all agree this person mysteriously vanished after falling out of favor with the Party in China. The only question is whether that's fairly described as a "forced disappearance". NickCT (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree to nothing of the sort, since I am not in the position to make any such judgement with any degree of confidence, and I don't believe any other contributor in this discussion is either. Not that it makes the slightest difference, since we don't base content on our coming to agreement over statements not supported by reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Correlation is not causation. Wikipedia is not here to document your guess of what happened. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Two people have stopped appearing in public in a country where people sometimes stop appearing from public because of forced disappearance. And we have an authoritarian, secretive and uncooperative regime acting in a secretive and uncooperative way. It's similar to the Covid origin argument "why would the Chinese government act like this if they had nothing to hide?" Well, that's just what the Chinese government does. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

It is at best original research to interpret a reliable source as saying something it doesn't say. There's no room for speculation or interpretation based on country conditions. In this case, I think more facts will come out in time. It can take longer than some prefer. JFHJr (㊟) 19:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Curtis Campbell

There is an IP user 163.182.198.137 claiming to be Curtis Campbell, editing his own page. He seems to be blanking information he does not want made public, like his former last name. T3h 1337 b0y 19:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any source saying that these two Curtises are the same person. It may be considered WP:BLUESKY territory, since they've both been credited with writing the same work, but there is room under strict WP:BLP strictures to make this article soley about Campbell and references using that name. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there should be RS acknowledging that the two are the same person before we start treating them that way. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Stacey Plaskett

Just wanted to get some extra eyes on this, since accusations of associations with Jeffrey Epstein are very serious. This article has been receiving increased politically-motivated vandalism lately. Recently, an IP added a section called "Ties to Jeffrey Epstein," which read to me as slanted because of the key details it left out and the unnecessary details included. It's not the first time this topic was inserted, but it was previously reverted outright. I didn't think it should be removed wholesale since this is a real issue that has received mainstream so I made an attempt to rewrite it in a more factual style. I am still not sure it even deserves a whole section header.

In addition to the Epstein-related edits, there were two other recent additions from IPs of negative material: [76] and [77]. These are still live in the article, and should also be checked out for WP:RS/WP:UNDUE. Dominic·t 04:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Lee Fang and Business Insider are not appropriate sources for this type of contentious material. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have removed most of the content related to Jeffrey Epstein as it was only sourced to Lee Fang's Substack i.e. an SPS; and Business Insider which isn't a great source so should not be used for contentious matters concerning a living person. It's possible better sources are out there on this material but someone needs to find them before adding the content. Nil Einne (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! We're on the same page, I just was less bold. :) The part you left in was what I had added with a RS to balance it out. Dominic·t 19:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Mini Ladd

Can I ask someone to review whether this very serious allegation is properly-sourced and if so how we should treat it within bounds of WP:UNDUE etc. [78] Thanks. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 10:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

It's possible there is some merit to include mention of the Twitch ban, but definitely not anything like that. It looks like an IP has removed it along with their earlier even more problematic change. Nil Einne (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Sattai Duraimurugan

Can someone please take a look at the mess that is Sattai Duraimurugan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and figure out what the heck to do with it? It isn't at all obvious that the individual (an Indian YouTuber) meets Wikipedia notability criteria, and even if he does, we certainly don't need the edit-warring that is going on, or an article containing badly-sourced and poorly-written content about 'charges' that seem not to have resulted in convictions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I've created an Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sattai Duraimurugan - SUN EYE 1 16:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I have reinstated the text about the legal issues since he is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and the AfD needs to consider the basis of his notability; that he keeps getting in trouble due to his political speech. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Those were WP:ROUTINE coverage and I would have added that in my Afd rationale if that section was not removed. - SUN EYE 1 20:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the AfD, multiple RS reporting of prosecution of political speech is not routine. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Tony Hinchcliffe

Hi, an ip hopping editor is edit warring to add unreferenced material to this article here and here.The youtube video they have linked does not include any rebuttal by Hinchcliffe and the accusation of racism at Pang is just the editor's own opinion in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Eduardo Vítor Rodrigues

This page has been vandalised consecutively. It is even currently blocked due to excessive vandalism. According to Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people, the information in articles cannot be supported by tabloids. All the information in this article is supported by tabloids. Furthermore, the content on this page only concerns court cases. This content is biased and, once again, goes against the policy on biographies of living persons, more specifically against the principle of impartiality. The content should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almeida Luísa (talk • contribs) 16:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Per the discussion at the Teahouse, [79] this relates to a biography on the Portuguese Wikipedia, and thus is out-of-scope for discussion here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Killing of Sanda Dia

Requesting more eyes on this article as an IP is trying to add names of accused, but with sourcing problems and giving out more info that appears to be in the public domain. CT55555(talk) 21:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Seeking help correcting page re Stan Rose

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.

---

• Stan Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stan Rose (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm the subject of this page: Stan Rose

There are two notices, and I believe both have been resolved or are no longer relevant, but have no idea how to get the notices removed. 1) "reads like an advertisement" - I don't believe this is the case. It follows the guidelines and reads similar to other biologist/entrepreneurs; 2) "lack of references"- there are many references cited. Thanks for your help reviewing the page and hopefully removing the tags Srose39 (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

That article has zero independent, in-depth sources. It should be put up for deletion. MrOllie (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Each statement in the page is referenced with a link to a published article, either from well-established independent sources or the URLs of well documented entities. If one is missing it can be added - or the statement deleted Srose39 (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The references are a collection of company statements and press releases, many of which don't mention the article subject at all. The article doesn't show that it meets either WP:GNG or WP:NPEOPLE. If this is the best sourcing available we're going to have to delete the article. MrOllie (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I have reviewed WP:GNG and WP:NPEOPLE. Over the next few days, asap, I will be replacing references that do not comply with those standards, as well as any content that does not. Kindly allow time to make the necessary updates so that the article does not need to be deleted 2601:18E:C101:1340:5166:970D:BDA1:4846 (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Mr. Rose, it would be helpful if you logged in before each post or edit. Keeping only one account is also the best practice for an inexperienced editor. If you forget a password, it can be recovered instead of making a new account or editing logged out. Also, you should stop editing the article about you. See WP:COI and WP:AUTO. Otherwise, more time would not bring your autobiography up to standards required by WP:BLP. Several editors are looking for good sources on your behalf in the deletion discussion, and are coming up empty handed. JFHJr (㊟) 20:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with this. As I just posted in reply to -- Random person no 362478479, I am new to this. I appreciate you pointing out these issues (logging in, COI, not editing). I hope the new references are helpful, as I was simply trying to assist in bringing this article into compliance - but others should handle. Going forward I will make suggestions here if I think they may be helpful, and not directly edit. Srose39 (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Srose39 Based on your username I assume you are the subject of the article. If that is the case you should also read these: WP:Conflict of interest, WP:Autobiography, WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and make sure to declare your conflict of interest (see: WP:DISCLOSE on how to do it). -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance. I am new to editing. I happened to read the article (which I did not create) and wondered why it was tagged. The first thing I did was to note that I am the subject of the article (see top of this thread). I now see there is a process WP:Conflict of interest, which recommends noting the COI in the Edit Summary. I have tried in good faith to be transparent and helpful, but now understand that other editors should handle this. There is another good source I found that may be useful, but will leave that to others: https://www.newspapers.com/image/529144177/?terms=%22Stanley%20Rose%22%20CEO%20&match=1

The Capital Times,

22 Apr 2004, Thu · Page 56-57 Srose39 (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The article was created by Pioneer28, who in their total of 55 edits only edited Stan Rose and no other Wikipedia articles. Are you Pioneer28 or know the person who operated that account? DeCausa (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

no, I'm a scientist and 3 time CEO who is widely known in my field (DNA analysis and genomics), saw the article was tagged, and naively tried to help improve it to be compliant. I now understand that proper procedure would have been to suggest changes here and allow editors to consider them, and appreciate everyone's help Srose39 (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Mr. Rose both states and insinuates not to have created the article under the User:Pioneer28 account ( "I'm new to this (...) have never sought personal publicity"; "I am new to this"; "I did not create (this)"). But Pioneer28 submitted a closeup image of Mr. Rose for the article, stating it was Pioneer's own work in the copyright info. Mr. Rose later updated the closeup as his very first edit. Pioneer28's edits end on 25 March 2022. User:Srose39 started 29 July 2023. Both are WP:SPAs. The likelihood they don't know each other is zero. The likelihood this is a new or different user is also close to that. JFHJr (㊟) 23:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I understand everyone is trying to be helpful, but I'm not that other user. The old photo you're referring to has been widely circulating for many years, and used in PR pieces by various companies. I did/do not own it. The picture I provided July 29 is one I do own and is more current (taken in 2022) Srose39 (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Pioneer28 claimed the copyright to that close up photo of you. According to its metadata, it was taken on 22 December 2008, Pioneer28 created your article 3 weeks later and uploaded the photo on 30 January 2009. It's highly unlikely that Pioneer28 simply scraped it from published sources just a month after it was taken. It's just as improbable that they, without any connection to you, decided to devote the entirety of their Wikipedia editing to your article. DeCausa (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The current version of User:Pioneer28, as in the identity of the editor, is just a wikilink to a redirect to the subject's article. I'm not sure how this doesn't also claim Pioneer28's identity as the subject, all edits considered. I plan on watching this space after the article is deleted. This promotional project started in 2009. It's quite long term. JFHJr (㊟) 03:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand your rationale, but I'm not that user, and never ran a "promotional project." Apparently my naive efforts to be helpful were ineffective. If the editors feel an article describing my work as a scientist/entrepreneur doesn't belong on wikipedia, that's beyond my control. Thank you for an informative experience regarding the nature of this site and how it is administered. Srose39 (talk) 18:54, 2 August 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.

Greensboro Massacre

@Stix1776 and I are looking for someone to weigh in on a BLP issue in the Greensboro Massacre article.

In the lead, it currently states: "Again, all of the defendants were acquitted by a jury that accepted their claims of self-defense, despite reports of 'vivid newsreel film to the contrary'." This is sourced from a contemporary opinion piece published in the New York Times. In my view, this violates BLP:CRIME by qualifying and casting doubt on the acquittal (suggesting that a crime had indeed taken place despite the lack of conviction) without enough sourcing (one line in a single op-ed).

Stix disagreed based on the article not being a biography and questioning if BLP applies, suggesting that removing names of some of the shooters would nullify the need to remove the qualifying of the acquittal, and that the sourcing is adequate.

Currently looking for someone to give input on these points. KiharaNoukan (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Without offering an opinion on the content: WP:BLP is clear that it applies to all material about living people anywhere on Wikipedia. Assuming the people in question are identifiable and alive, the fact that the article is not a biography and/or does not name them does not mean BLP policy does not apply. (Also note that per WP:BDP, we presume that people are living and thus BLP applies unless they were born more than 115 years ago or their death is reported in a reliable source). Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Caeciliusinhorto about when BLP applies. As a practical counterpoint, this case doesn't come close to the likes of the Death of Caylee Anthony, where the mother was acquitted and the article is impossible without naming her. But here, I think not naming possibly living people does resolve the problem. BLP still applies even when people are unnamed. In this case, keeping names out while retaining reliable sources seems fine to me, absent identifying prose (that also can be removed). We don't have to repeat every detail even from good sources, and BLP means we remove names of individual acquitted defendants from a massacre unless the accused were already notable (see: Robert Blake (actor)). JFHJr (㊟) 00:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to KiharaNoukan for tagging me. I feel like removing the names from the article might be ideal, as it's not really adding any relevant information to the article, since they're not famous.

Sorry to be skeptical about this originally. I've personally never seen BLP applied to historical non-biographies, and I wanted some advice from people that specialized in this matter. I do appreciate the opinions of editors who volunteer on this noticeboard regularly.Stix1776 (talk) 09:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

For the point on names, as it has been mentioned, BLP applies while people involved are unnamed. From what I understand on JFHJr's post, we can retain the source and other info from the sources that provide names. I understand that point, and the article does rely heavily on the same sources that provide the names. That being said, the naming of individuals occurs outside of the quote in focus, in separate sections, and the source utilized is not the same one that provides us with the names of individuals involved. This is a general question for noticeboard contributors: Let's say the article strips out all mention of names. Would inclusion of skepticism on whether an acquittal was in the right, sourced from a single op-ed's objections to it, be in line with BLP guidelines, and if so, should that belong in the lead of an article? KiharaNoukan (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll speak only to this case. See CNN, Black Past, and Politico who all make a point to report the "all-white jury". Yes, this casts aspersions on the process and result. Rightfully. BLP means we also don't name the (some of the) same defendants who lost or settled civil suits including wrongful death. JFHJr (㊟) 21:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@JFHJrI agree, there are plenty of good sources that talk about the all-white jury. I have no issue with it and it's been well-sourced. However, I am referring to "vivid newsreel film to the contrary," which is sourced from a single line in a single op-ed. I would be very surprised if that is enough to go past BLPCRIME threshold for inclusion. KiharaNoukan (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with mentioning the newsreel footage. It's reasonably sourced. There's no reason to think it's not reliable because it's an op-ed. There are already correctly aspersions on the process and resulting acquittal. This source doesn't support a stand-alone criticism of the trial, just one line within a well established all-white jury context. The newsreel doesn't make me question the acquittal any more than the jury itself. Withholding names is enough for BLP concerns in this article. JFHJr (㊟) 21:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I triple checked sources on this and I was able to find mention of footage from a news piece that might work better than the op ed: NYT (News)

"It has attracted national attention in the four and a half years since the shootings, in part because videotapes of the event made by television news crews appear to show Klansmen and Nazi members methodically firing at Communist demonstrators and others on a Greensboro public street."

However, with relevance to the trial, non opinion RS still do not describe the footage as "contrary" to the defendants' claims or their acquittal in their own voice, instead opting to present POV of prosecutors, jurors, and defense. Example: Above mentioned NYT and Washington Post.

@Stix1776 As a compromise would it work to mention the footage in the context of attracting national attention in the article in lieu of "despite vivid newsreel film to the contrary" in the context of acquittal? Possible inclusion: "The incident generated national attention after video from TV news crews appeared to show Klansmen and Nazi members 'methodically firing' at marchers." This would better reflect how the footage is described by publications that mention it. KiharaNoukan (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

No particular source is required to establish that the acquittal verdict was contrary to and despite newsreel coverage. It just is. It's nice that the op-ed used the word "contrary" though. See WP:BLUE/WP:PEDANTRY. There's less of a BLP issue saying "contrary" than describing particular and detailed actions of the accused in the video as you have proposed. JFHJr (㊟) 23:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

This is hardly a WP:PEDANTRY issue if multiple RS refuse to describe the footage in that manner, and instead opt to give weight to the opposing POV.

From the Washington Post article:

"Indeed, the evidence -- from dramatic videotapes of the shootout filmed by TV crews at the scene and testimony from 132 witnesses, including FBI acoustics experts -- clearly showed that both sides were firing 'at each other,' said Lackey. He felt the defendants acted in self-defense." KiharaNoukan (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

However, more cites in the article to these sources would be awesome! No reason to jettison the op-ed though... a contentious claim like this should have more than one reference anyway. JFHJr (㊟) 23:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

In regards to the op-ed should keep WP:RSEDITORIAL in mind: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Tristario (talk) 07:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@User:Stix1776: Thus spake the current live version: "Applicability of the policy BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts." Amen. JFHJr (㊟) 22:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Bi-State League

The article Bi-State League lists the league's presidents. The name of one such president is Jake Wells, listed as league president in 1936. The name in this article is a hyperlink to an article about Wells (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jake_Wells), but that Jake Wells died in 1927. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.238.66 (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for pointing it out. Schazjmd (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Shrawan Kumar (geneticist)

Draft:Shrawan Kumar (geneticist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is about the Wikipedia page, Shrawan Kumar (geneticist), that was submitted in November 2022. The comments made by DoubleGrazing on July 23rd have left me feeling very disappointed and disagreed with. It's possible that they didn't have the opportunity to evaluate each line of the article and the scientific merit of all the references provided in this article. However, I totally agree with first (TheChunky) Wiki editor’s comment or rejection of the article on January 5th as he pointed out some peacock terms in the article and he had no issues about references. I greatly appreciate his comment and the article has been completely revised in line with his suggestions and submitted in March 2023. Although at that time – many pre-internet era references link was missing. I took great effort in finding those very valuable research papers (references from 21 to 38) and link of each published papers are provided. Wikipedia readers now can access all those papers just by click of a button.

Coming back to the issues raised by current Wiki editor/reviewer that “there is far too much unsupported content’ which is not true. On the contrary, I provided way more references of every topic mentioned in this article. If someone is reading first paragraph about Kumar’s research interest such as molecular genetics, forensic science, biological anthropology, and population genetics – there is no reference provided in the beginning of that section. However, the reference of molecular genetics research work is provided in the same section below (reference number 8 through 19). The reference of Forensic Science research work is provided from references 21 through 28. The reference of biological anthropology and population genetics is provided from references 29 through 35. The BOR gene discovery reference is provided from 1 through 11 and 17, 18 and 19. The reference of PKD gene discovery is provided from 12 through 16. Reference of Kumar’s personal theater work (picture link in Wikimedia Common) is provided, line 6, in the section Education and Early Life. Reference of Kumar’s current work and career pathways – online PDF link is provided in line 15 of the first paragraph of the article. His work on the Onge population; the link is provided from references 36-38 and picture file is in Wikimedia Common – line 6 in the section education and early life. Reference of his current work is provided, available online, line 15 of the first section. NIH funding information is provided as reference number 39. The reference for serving in the editorial board of South Asian Anthropologist is provided (copy of the picture -in Wikimedia Common), line 9, in the section research and career section. The human chromosome workshop reference link is provided from 40 through 42. Also, if you review the history of editing of this article when this was submitted in November last year, several Wikipedia editors made very constructive comments and researched internet and added references about Kumar’s NIH funding source and his human genome project research work. I did not have those references.

The other concern this Wiki editor had is that “do not pile all the citations at the end as it does not make clear which source supports”. Again, if you review the subject and source all the references are for the same subject. For example, line 11 in section Education and early life eight references (number 21 through 28) are provided after the word Forensic science. If you click on each reference all are related to forensic and serology work; similarly, it is true on the next line seven references are linked after word population genetics and all research papers are of population genetics. I can understand the confusion as it is rare to find the geneticist who had interests and research publications on so many different aspects of genetics. I tried my best to provide as many references as possible I can get for each subject for the benefit of the Wikipedia readers and fixed the concerns related to first rejection – now again- this appears unending process, therefore this request.

In summary, many Wikipedia editors have already edited and added some missing content and references to this article, when submitted in November, 2022, making constructive contributions. I am grateful to them. Unfortunately, I don’t have any more references to add. This article is already supported by extensive references compare to many biographical articles I see in Wikipedia. In terms of notability, the discovery of genes is very impressive and great contribution to genetics which will be great for Wikipedia readers. Based on the facts, provided here, I request to Wikipedia administrators to examine the article and make the necessary editing/changes if needed and move it to an appropriate place. I would also like to inform that recently I noticed this biography is available in many other wiki pages such as Wikitia etc. I did not submit this article anywhere in the world except in Wikipedia. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.94.102.4 (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I took a look, and there are many problems with this draft. First, the tone is all wrong for an encyclopedia article. It appears to be written by the subject or by someone very close to the subject, because there are many things in there that only the subject could possibly know. Things like "...he showed a keen interest in acting...", "...he was interested in medicine...", or "...continued his zeal to do research...". People don't write that way about other people, because it implies an ability to read his mind. (See: Third-person omniscient) That's how people tend to write about themselves.

There is far too much technical jargon, especially in the lede. Private individuals like spouses, parents, and children should not be named. Then there is quite a lot of WP:Puffery. But the biggest problem is that nearly all the sources are his own research papers. These are WP:Primary sources, whereas Wikipedia is a tertiary source, so we rely on WP:Secondary sources for our information, which are things like newspapers, books, and magazines. The question is not one of how many papers he has written, but how much attention has his work received from others outside his specialized field in the scientific community. That's what we mean by independent sources, that is, sources which are reporting on him but are not connected to him in any way. Those are the kinds of sources we need to determine notability.

Notability is not determined by how many papers someone has written, but by how much they got noticed and picked up by the media in general. That's not to say that his accomplishments are not noteworthy, but notability requires that people outside his field took notice and decided to write about him. Those are the kinds of sources we need, and without them, it is highly unlikely this draft will ever pass muster and make it on to mainspace. I hope that helps explain, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The relevant draft is Draft:Shrawan Kumar (geneticist), for easier reference. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Luis Elizondo

Luis Elizondo

User stated he can do "whatever the fuck he wanted" and restored unsourced negative commentary about a living person here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=1169403375&oldid=1169403171

Please assist. I methodically read EVERY source and updated the article before the vandalism began with a large number of small edits, each citing the evidence and sourcing.

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&action=history

Please help. Live version seems to be a big BLP violation and not neutral at all. My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

That comment was in response to the claim that I couldn't unilaterally undo My name is not Alexander Hamilton's edits to the article, which is obviously untrue to anybody whos edited Wikipedia. My reversion could not reasonably be construed as vandalism. My name is not Alexander Hamilton is a SPA who has almost exclusively edited this article. My name is not Alexander Hamilton's editing had the collective effect of removing any negative commentary from the article. None of the negative commentary in the article was unsourced. Some of it many be undue, but that's something to be decided at the talkpage or at this BLPN discussion.. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

"None of the negative commentary in the article was unsourced."

The one I highlighted in the talk page just now is literally a lie based on the source cited. The other user just also violated BLP here. I don't care how many edits you have. User here attacked me and intentionally violated BLP. My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

"None of the negative commentary in the article was unsourced."

Are there rules for how someone is supposed to begin? Am I supposed to edit a bunch of random stuff first before finding something interesting to focus on? My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding rules, I suggest you start by reading Wikipedia:Vandalism. Reverting your edit was not 'vandalism'. Not even remotely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Is it vandalism to restore BLP violations? My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I would strongly advise you to drop the hostile attitude. This is a content dispute, and you aren't going to win it by rule-mongering. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

BLP policy says to remove all violations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Challenged_or_likely_to_be_challenged

"contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion."

That is what I did. Is that rule not binding on all of us no matter what we think? My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

With regard to the underlying issue, which seems to revolve around whether Elizondo was actually a director of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, as I understand it, this has been questioned in credible sources. Other sources state it as a fact, but that in of itself may not be sufficient to do the same. I'd suggest that people start by finding relevant sources and citing them here, since this discussion is going to get nowhere without them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

No, that's a load of bunk. It's not about "AATIP", it's about the literally opening line in the article as an example of the broader problems.

Right now it says:

Elizondo claims he was a director of the now defunct Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program...

And cites a 2019 article that CONFIRMS from the DOD that Elizondo worked at Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence but had no "responsibilities at AATIP".

See here: https://theintercept.com/2019/06/01/ufo-unidentified-history-channel-luis-elizondo-pentagon/

My version is BLP compliant as seen here and cites a later dated, updated source from NBC News, which has more veracity than Intercept:

My version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&oldid=1169403775

It says: "Luis "Lue" Elizondo is a former U.S. Army Counterintelligence Special Agent and former employee of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence."

^ that sentence is incontrovertible.

NBC News describes him:

Whether the UFO sightings are the result of advanced technology from foreign adversaries or if they have more bizarre, otherworldly origins, government officials need to have the facts, said Luis Elizondo, a former senior intelligence officer and the former director of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program.

This is the cornerstone of the article. People are wildly cherry picking articles to make every single solitary reference question this living person and to make them look bad. My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Here--this is a simpler example of what's wrong with a huge number of passages in the article.

Click here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=1169289811&oldid=1167347555

My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Asking for both sides in a dispute to provide sources is not 'bunk'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The 'bunk' is unilaterally restoring BLP violations. I know some 'wikipedians' edit by political moves but I'm not going to. I removed BLP violations. According to everything I've ever read the BLP policy is basically God and the rest of are irrelevant against it.

So that edit, what's wrong with it? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=1169289811&oldid=1167347555 My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

While WP:CLAIM is a word to watch, using it is certainly not a BLP violation. It's, at worst, a violation of WP:NPOV, but if what is being stated really is a claim and not substantiated, it cannot be WP:ASSERTed as fact either which makes the violation more of a WP:MOS issue. I do not think The Intercept is considered the fact-checking juggernaut of all fact-checking juggernauts when it comes to who had what role in the US government. Indeed, it is generally considered a biased source. jps (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The Pentagon flat out said he worked there. Why would we say claimed? My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

They verified his directorship? I must have missed that. jps (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

They verified he worked at a specific office. You're the second person now who seems to be misunderstanding and conflating unique topics.

See here for expanded context: Talk:Luis_Elizondo#Requested_edit_to_remove_BLP_violation._BLP_violations_do_not_need_talk_page_consensus. My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh, but they did not verify his directorship. Too bad. Well, if and when they do, fortunately Wikipedia can change wording to confirm. Until then, I see your options as saying that he worked in a certain office or attributing his role as director to the person who said that this was his role -- namely Elizondo himself. jps (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Why do you keep going back to that AATIP Director topic, which is not the topic at hand? Are you engaged in some futile attempt to bait me into something? It will never work, so save yourself the mental energy. Whatever game this appears to be, it's a waste of time.

Do you have anything to contribute to my proposed hyper-specific edit here? Talk:Luis_Elizondo#Requested_edit_to_remove_BLP_violation._BLP_violations_do_not_need_talk_page_consensus My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 00:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I see that you made this edit. That seems to be a problem to me. Do you agree that it is a problem? jps (talk) 00:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• Cited source: https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/ufos-are-make-way-us-senate-know-rcna973
• May 19, 2021, 10:53 AM PDT / Updated May 24, 2021, 2:59 PM PDT
• By Denise Chow and Gadi Schwartz

"Whether the UFO sightings are the result of advanced technology from foreign adversaries or if they have more bizarre, otherworldly origins, government officials need to have the facts, said Luis Elizondo, a former senior intelligence officer and the former director of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program."

One writer at a local newspaper and the Black Vault (?) site that compiles FOIA requests seems to dispute all that. Why would that one tiny news source outrank the aggregate weight of all others, including the New York Times and NBC News? My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:TRUTHMATTERS. We should not be asserting things which may be false. We don't seem to be able to verify this solidly. But, fortunately, Wikipedia is not going to run into problems by being cautious here. If and when better and solid sourcing emerges, we can update the page! Until then, it is not great to change disputed information into bald statements of fact. It's not the end of the world, but it isn't good practice. Maybe the best thing is to remove the whole "director" thing entirely until it is sorted out. There is no deadline to finish the article, after all, and I'm sure that as time goes on things will become clearer. And even if they don't, well, it probably is best for Wikipedia not to get into the mess since we are under no obligation to include absolutely everything. Make sense? jps (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Are "essays" binding?

What "policy" authorizes us to dispute multiple news articles from major news sources about minor details of a persons personal history? My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

(ec) The topic at hand here is whether the Elizondo biography is WP:BLP-compliant. All of it, whether in its present state, or as it was when you'd completed your mass edit. There seem to be good grounds to suggest that while you removed one WP:BLP violation, you added at least one too. Accordingly, I'd advise you one last time to cut out the hostility, before it backfires on you. You aren't going to win arguments that way. Stick to discussions over content, cite sources, and give other people a chance to respond. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Re: hostility -- I saw the troll who attacked me was chastised by some Administrator, so that is fine enough. I assumed we just went at each other here after that persons unhinged reaction, but that's nice that we don't.

I am happy to engage in strictly policy compliant editing, but I will not toe any ideology for any UFO woo-woo types or any skeptic/debunker ideologies either. I'll just follow the rules of the site.

Apparently a lot of the fringe on both sides dislike this Lue Elizondo for different reasons. Now that I have read about Wikipedia:Good_articles, I think I will get this article to that level and work to get it on the Front Page of Wikipedia on principle. If that takes a thousand absurdly documented edits, cool. My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

In regard to this first issue, currently the article states:

"From 2008 until his resignation in 2017, Elizondo claimed to work with the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence in The Pentagon."

This is sourced to [80]. However, the source specifically says "Mr. Elizondo had no responsibilities with regard to the AATIP program while he worked in OUSDI [the Office of Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence], up until the time he resigned effective 10/4/2017". Therefore, adding "claimed" based on that source appears to be a BLP violation, as it isn't a claim so much as a fact if it has been confirmed by the Pentagon that he worked for the OUSDI. There is a separate statment, that he claimed to be the director of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, and that seems much less certain so the "claimed" seems warranted. - Bilby (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Correct. I was warned this entire topic (why?) would be contentious, but that doesn't matter to me. That's why I edited each line, by line. As you say, this edit request is INCREDIBLY narrow. I will happily quintuple or decatuple source every sentence. My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 00:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly agree with Andy. As an outsider who knows nothing about this, you could either gain my support or turn me right off, and hostile attitudes are a major turn-off. Maybe it's just me, but it reminds me of one of my brothers, who will argue vigorously with people --even as they are trying to agree with him! It makes me think, "Whoa, I don't wanna get involved in this mess." In most instances, on Wikipedia or otherwise, you'll never convince the people you're debating with, so at a certain point it's not even worth trying. But debates are never about convincing your opponents, and I think people often forget that. Who you should be talking to, and trying to convince, is everyone else watching this page. People who haven't already made up their minds. People like me. But that will never happen if you don't remain composed and civil. Does that make sense? Right now, you are your own worst enemy if you can't get out of your own way.

Now, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, because many people don't realize just how strongly their emotions come off to the reader in writing. The general thought seems to be that "people can't see my face or hear my tone so they have no clue what my emotions are", but the opposite is actually true. Emotions come off far, far stronger to the reader because we don't have those facial expressions or vocal tones to augment them. (For more, see User:Zaereth/Writing tips for the amateur writer#Connotation and tone) So my advice is, tone it down if you want to get others to look into this and maybe even get involved. I hope that helps, and good luck to you. Zaereth (talk) 01:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Brilliantly said Zaereth. Sgerbic (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

"My name is not Alexander Hamilton" has been indef blocked by Courcelles. I have no strong opinion regarding the "claimed" regarding the OUSDI or other agencies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

To provide some additional context here for those that are confused: Elizondo is fairly well centered in the current tempest-in-a-teapot that is happening with respect to UFOs. The media has not been exactly stellar in their accounting of all this (unfortunately following a WP:SENSATIONalist playbook). Elizondo is not the current focus of much of this clamoring, but the sources that focus on Elizondo are all from the last dust-up that happened in 2017. There is an ongoing internecine spat between Elizondo and a tabloid journalist named Stephen Greenstreet who did a deep dive trying to verify Elizondo's story and has concluded that there are misrepresentations in the stories that he has told and that have been repeated uncritically by a variety of media outlets. For example, it is uncontroversial that Elizondo was in the employ of the DoD, but the precise nature of the AATIP (including even what the acronym even supposedly stood for) is not well attested to by anyone other than Elizondo -- and almost all reporting on how this program supposedly works traces back to statements he made. Meanwhile, there is somewhat strong evidence that the program was operating more-or-less as an arm of Robert Bigelow's flight of fancy including such fantastical elements as ghost hunting on a haunted ranch in Nevada. The implication is that this is something of a men who stare at goats situation all over again with a decently sized, unsupervised government budget running amok on a wild goose chases. Greenstreet has really only self-published his allegations, so I would be very uncomfortable using them as sources in any BLP, but it is undeniable that the independent verification of Elizondo's claims has only happened for a select portion (like, we can confirm that videos and pilot testimony exist, but a lot of the other stories Elizondo is repeating right now have never been backed up with anything but his own say-so). Given that the entire subject is something of a WP:ECREE game, for obvious reasons, I would argue that Wikipedia has good cause to be extremely cautious about all statements about Elizondo that are being reported in even otherwise upstanding media. Unfortunately, the incentive in this area seems to be to publish stories quickly for the views/revenue rather than making sure the facts are right. Careful journalism does not seem to be the concern even among sources we would normally consider beyond reproach. Again, WP:SENSATION. I think the best thing Wikipedia can do in this scenario is to drag its feet enormously. Points that we would otherwise not bat an eyelash about should be looked at carefully for independent corroboration (not just a repost of another source's reporting or a parroting of a subject's statements made in an interview). Rather, I think Wikipedia would be wise to apply a standard like strict scrutiny to basically any proposed "fact" out of an abundance of caution. When in doubt, leave it out. There is no risk of a BLP violation for not saying something. If we only include points that are clearly corroborated by independent sources and make sure that points that are attested to by only one person are attributed to that person, we will be fine. Stories will continue to be published that take certain claims at face value and repeat them without a clear explanation of how they were vetted, and we should preference those stories which explain exactly how a particular point was confirmed and only state it in Wikipedia voice if that confirmation happened through independent and reliable means. This is especially important practice when churnalism is taking over (as was the case back in 2017 with the Pentagon videos). Without independent corroboration, it is irresponsible for us to use the normal arguments of, "oh, this reliable source has said that XXX is true so we can WP:ASSERT it in Wikipedia's voice". Unfortunately, in the area of UFOs, the normal approaches do not necessarily lead to a decent accounting of the situation. jps (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

List of conservative artists

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conservative artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There are some serious BLP violations on List of conservative artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) that I'm not sure how to fully address on the article's talk page. A glaring one is the inclusion of names, identifying them as conservative, without proper sourcing and/or with notes containing subjective explanations. It's also strange to see at least two registered users that only created accounts in the last few weeks heavily editing that article, which raises suspicions about socking. Please advise. Thank you. KyleJoan^talk 02:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Wow, there's a whole bunch of things going on there, none of which is good: entries which probably could be sourced but are not (e.g. there are surely plenty of sources discussing Walt Disney's politics); entries where there are sources but they don't necessarily support the inclusion in this list (Morrissey is famous for saying politically controversial things, but is it meaningful to call him a conservative? The sources cited don't!); entries based on original research (Roger Daltrey is included based on a source describing him as critical of the EU; Jeremy Corbyn would be very surprised to learn that being critical of the EU is a conservative position!); entries which are just highly questionable on their own merits (Dwayne Johnson appears to be included purely on the basis that he gave an apparently entirely apolitical speech at the 2000 RNC; he also appeared at the DNC in the same year and has since endorsed Obama and Biden for the presidency, so even if he did once hold conservative views it's not at all clear to me that he still does).

I suspect the issues with this article all boil down to the inclusion criteria, or lack thereof. The current inclusion criteria suggested by the lead seem to me to be completely meaningless: "artists who held politically traditional beliefs [or] were associated with conservative politics" suggests that any artist who has ever held conservative beliefs or been associated with conservative politics is eligible for inclusion, which isn't super useful. People's political views change, as does what is considered "conservative". Possibly a meaningful list of conservative artists could be made if there were strict criteria on inclusion and it was actively maintained by editors aware of the dangers of it becoming "list of people some random wikipedia editor thinks have conservative views", but this article is not it. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Without any specific sources for each entry that explicitly demonstrates that the bulk of the media considered the person a conservative artist, this list fails BLP. There is probably some relevance of a topic "Conservatism in the artistic field" or something like that, and where a few well-known examples could be mentioned, but a full list is hugely subjective and shouldn't exist on WP Masem (t) 12:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with everything Caeciliusinhorto-public and Masem said. It's a hulking mess. Everything that's unreffed about a living person should be removed, then all that fail V. Then cn for all the dead people with no refs. I don't have the time now but might get to it in a day or two if nobody else does. And I hope someone does... happy to provide backup, time allowing. JFHJr (㊟) 00:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conservative artists. XOR'easter (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)