Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive353

C. Nicole Mason

C. Nicole Mason (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Posting here because this is an obscure page (stats show only 5 page watchers) and posting on talk probably won't get any attention. As tipped off by an IP edit today, Dr. Mason was supposedly removed from her post as President & CEO of the Institute for Women's Policy Research in January this year, after allegations of toxic management and very high turnover under her leadership, both as reported by The American Prospect ([1], [2]). The second of The Prospect reports quotes an anonymous source saying she was fired, but also refers to a statement by the organization's Board that the decision for her to depart was mutual. I have not found any other sources for any of this. Websites published since that supposedly happened now refer to her as President & CEO Emeritus (or Emerita in some cases), such as this program for the 2023 Feminist State of the Union event which was held in April. She's also listed this way in a few professional directories but they are undated. She is not listed on the organization's website, and on their news feed their press releases abruptly stopped listing her as author after a release on January 20, 2023 (the next is dated February 7 and doesn't name an author). The organization lists someone else as their Interim CEO, and they have posted a vacancy for the permanent position. The IP who made the edit alleged that the "emeritus" position was created for her after being removed, but that was not supported by the source. Our page on the organization has also not been updated to reflect any of this.

I'm not sure how to reflect this in her bio appropriately, or even if she should have a separate bio in the first place. Suggestions welcome. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

What is she notable for? I'm certain that a top 50 award doesn't make all 50 notable. The other significant coverage of the subject is rather negative and problematic, BLP-wise. Usually, she's a commentator about a different subject entirely. In a few sources, she's talking about herself (her own publication), which can't explain her notability. Links to associated organizations show she had her job, but fail to indicate why that fact was encyclopedically significant; it's certainly not an inherently notable line of work. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 20:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

This looks to me like a perfect example of why we need higher standards for notability for BLP subjects. The article reads like a resume. It even has that sort of promotional "hire me" tone. Most of the sources look like primary ones, but she does have a few articles about her in some reliable sources, and because of that it will be difficult to get it past AFD, because to some any RS coverage is enough to warrant an article. I tend to look at it a little more pragmatically. A bio should be far more than a simple resume, and if we can't find enough sources to give us at the leasr the very basic biographical details, then there's no point in even creating an article. (In my opinion, we should have enough biographical info to make a decent start-class article, as a bare minimum.) I often use this as an example, but it's a good one, so I'll use it again. Casey Anthony was in the news a lot. Had a lot of coverage, to the point where few people hadn't heard of her. Yet, in all of it there really isn't enough on her to make a decent bio, so instead all info about her is described in the article about the event rather than disguising it as a pseudo-biography. To me, that's how I look at this case. But, alas, the threshold for notability is very low and it will be almost impossible to delete this article, so a resume is what we're stuck with. Zaereth (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Aaron Saucedo

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.

---

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Saucedo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I had never heard of Aaron Saucedo until today. The article starts out by saying that Saucedo is "an accused American serial killer". What it should say is that he is accused of being an American serial killer. The first wording implies that he is a serial killer even though the case hasn't gone to trial. Later in the article it says he had a job as a bus driver and while in this job committed "his first murder on August 11, 2015, with a Hi-Point 9mm pistol".

I opened up the page, saw the mugshot in the infobox, read the number of victims, the dates of his killing spree, and believed that this guy was a serial killer. Then I find out that he is only accused of this stuff. This isn't fair to the accused. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I have proposed the article for deletion, as it fails WP:PERPETRATOR -- even if he were to be convicted, he was not otherwise a celebrity, nor has any unusual motivation been given. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree. For all the multiple murderers in the United States, only a few are actually notable for their crimes. They usually make national news well before conviction (cf. Manson, Bundy, and the Vallow/Daybells). Even if this subject is convicted and then significantly reported in national news, it would still seem difficult to justify an article otherwise entirely based on state-level crime coverage of an otherwise private subject. JFHJr (㊟) 23:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Might this BLP not be moved to a more neutral name space? I'd undo my last reversion if it had the name "Phoenix street shootings." Then, coverage of the event could go on without it being a BLP space wise. Of course, concerns regarding the accused and surviving persons remain for attention. JFHJr (㊟) 00:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems to have been originally at Maryvale serial shooter. Whether we need an article on that is another question. This doesn't seem to have generated the national coverage of a Son of Sam, nor, seven years after the arrest, has it become a basis for discussing larger topics a la the Murder of Kitty Genovese. But even if we end up with an article there, we should not include a redirect from the suspect's name unless a conviction on a significant portion of the charges is made. But I should note that some of the coverage that is used as reference there are national (such as CNN) or at least non-local (Chicago Tribune carrying AP material.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm hoping for a successful PROD. Otherwise, let's figure out what direction to take this once we know our forum options. JFHJr (㊟) 23:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Article is now the subject of a deletion discussion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:11, 7 September 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.

Lisa Nowak FA

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.

---

The subject is an astronaut who then committed some sort of crime of passion. This is being run as an FA today and so I started some discussion at WP:ERRORS where I suggested that this might be contrary to WP:BLP. This noticeboard handles such issues too and may be better for longer-term discussion as WP:ERRORS doesn't do that. Please advise. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The comments there are also of concern. This includes the suggestion that being publicly pilloried on wikipedia would be a deterrent for committing crime. This could urgently do with some admin attention as it seems some very poor judgement is at play here. WCM_email 12:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

TFA has now been changed. I have seen no indication of faulty weight in the article, the lead or the TFA blurb-- the argument was one of common decency with respect to mainpage exposure-- so I hope this is resolved now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 14 September 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.

fariha roisin

Hello, I am acting on behalf of the living person, Fariha Roisin. I was tasked to write an updated article, so I did, edited it, published it, and it has since been taken down. I need assistance getting my previous, updated version restored.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.150.85.195 (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Article in question: Fariha Róisín – robertsky (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The content that you added to that article in August was unreferenced and therefore fails the core content policy Verifiability. Cullen328 (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Requesting inputs

Requesting inputs to review notability @ Talk:Anirudh Devgan#Notability for clearer consensus. Bookku (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Liesl Folks

This edit adds contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and is potentially libellous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BalsamDewberry (talk • contribs) 17:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I did some cleanup on the article, but it could use more eyes as there is a persistent WP:SPA restoring poorly sourced claims. Schazjmd (talk) 19:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

John DeLorean

Three edits way back in March by an IP user deleted content the editor thought unjustified: [3]; [4]; [5]. In their ESs they made some comments I think could easily be viewed as defamatory—or at least highly unnecessary!— about still-living relatives of DeLorean. I have no knowledge of DeLorean or related topics, but a brief online search does not surface anything along the lines of the editor's comments (to do with family relationships).

I have undone the edits, making some additional changes, but the edits themselves are not a BLP issue, I believe; the summaries themselves may well be. AukusRuckus (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Eugene Gu

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.

---

Eugene Gu is probably best known for his former presence on Twitter, including his part in a lawsuit against Trump blocking him, which was found in his favour. He has been subject to a number of controversies, including allegations of sexual abuse towards a former partner and operating sockpuppet accounts to attack critics. These have been covered in reliable sources, such as this article in The Verge [6] from 2019 (A pro se lawsuit by Gu against The Verge for the article was dismissed this year [7]). In a RfC from 2021, there was found to be a consensus against adding a specific wording mentioning the sexual abuse allegations (see Talk:Eugene_Gu/Archive_2), though I am not sure that the consensus of that RfC was against mentioning the allegations generally or that specific wording. The sexual abuse allegations have not been mentioned in any recent versions of the article. Recently, two infrequently active accounts have been tag-team edit warring to remove any reference to his presence on Twitter citing BLP, including newspaper articles regarding the Trump lawsuit, which I do not understand to be contentious. I suspect that these accounts are operated by the same individual, who may be close to Mr. Gu, and as such I have opened a SPI, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceForeverLife. As I am at the 3RR, I would appreciate outside input on the matter. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:51, 14 September 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.

Taylor Swift - editor complaining she's loved by the alt-right so shouldn't be on the front page

User talk:Doug Weller#Taylor Swift, User talk:Black Kite#The FA reads like an advertisement and this version of User:Chbarts"s talk page.[8]] Doug Weller talk 16:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Clearly, Wikipedia holds no responsibility for the fantasies of the alt-right. Having said that, there may well be legitimate grounds to question the repeated appearance of Ms Swift on the main page, as a part of a broader discussion regarding what might be seen as promotional content there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm currently watching a Swift article in the approved DYK nominations queue that I strongly intend to let sit there for at least several more weeks. I was hoping there might be an opportunity to promote it in two weeks or so given it'd been a while since the next Swift article by then...and then we ended up with a 36-hour Swift TFA, so, hopefully that author can wait three months or so. (I'm currently working on a narrow-topic article series and have given multiple other active prepbuilders instructions to space them the hell out.)

DYK tends to go through subject phases. There are staples (NYC buildings, radio/TV stations, etc), but at any given point we often have an excess of a particular niche that eventually burns through; right now it's songs and American footballers. Often when we have an excess of songs from a particular act it's a popular enough act (as Swift is) to be unremarkable in and of itself, but it can cause issues when they're clustered too close to one another, as has come up at DYK talk during the period after Swift's latest album release. At the moment we're in the unusual situation of an excess of songs from a little-known act, which no one seems to quite know how to deal with -- it stands out even more to have a rapid flow of hooks about a niche musician than a popular one. There are sort of de facto 'slow tracks' and 'fast tracks' at DYK depending on hook quality, image presence, subject matter, etc; it might be interesting to enshrine that clustered nominations on such subjects are slow-tracked.

By the way, if anyone has some nice non-promotional articles for the main page, I am constantly looking for OTD candidates that are pre-18th century (pre-11th especially, BC era a shoo-in), non-Western, or both. OTD tends to be fairly promotionalism-immune -- even the rare product releases we run are by definition old and often not commercially available -- but this presents the alternative problem of trying not to fall backwards into building Today's Battle and Hurricane. Vaticidalprophet 17:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I do agree with User:AndyTheGrump and I think he stated my case extremely well. —chbarts (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Chbartsbut your complaint was about support from the alt-right, not frequency. Does this mean you no longer are worried about that? Doug Weller talk 21:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I am worried about both Wikipedia appearing to promote commercial interests and the hint of alt-right nonsense. Swift is just a "perfect storm" of both of those things. —chbarts (talk) 23:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I have to disagree. There may be a bunch of idiots who like Taylor Swift, but their views are so irrelevant that AFACT, there is zero mention in our article which is an FA so we can assume has decent coverage of anything relevant. Perhaps some of these idiots will be happy when Taylor Swift related content appears on the main page, but in reality what these idiots don't realise is that what quality content on Taylor Swift reflects is that she's almost diametrically opposed to what they stand for. Nil Einne (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I mean its true she shouldn't be on the front page again but that reasoning is just silly. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• White nationalists also like polo shirts. They're also popular with golfers. I'm pretty sure Taylor Swift's main demographic is gay guys, teenage girls who sneak a hard lemonade when mom isn't looking, and mom's who drink hard lemonade and wish they were teenagers again. GMG^talk 19:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  @GreenMeansGo sorry, that’s wrong. Here’s an analysis, note that over half of Americans are fans (please let’s avoid criticising any nationality).

  Taylor Swift fandom demographic Doug Weller talk 21:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Doug Weller: Did I criticize a nationality? Also there are fans, and then there are fans. I was specifically thinking of the two guys I know who have tattoos of her lyrics. But the demos seem about right. A huge chunk of her fan base are Democratic, white, suburban, millennials. Anyway, the point being that the focus on the alt right here is a complete non sequitur. The alt right likes Tucker Carlson because he says alt right things. They just like Taylor Swift because she's white, pretty, and famous. GMG^talk 21:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  Don't sweat it GMG. It's obvious you were being humorous. Your analysis of the situation is spot on, I think. It's the kind of rationale I would just ignore, because distracting one's attention from the real issue is the purpose of a non-sequitur. Zaereth (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not much of a Taylor Swift fan myself, but I'm not sure if it's helpful to pigeon hole her fans in inaccurate ways. It's fine to offer reasonable criticism of something when relevant, but it's unhelpful for community building to make inaccurate claims which just annoy everyone. I'd also note that plenty of white, sururban, millennials are neither mums nor gay guys; and they're definitely not teenagers. Finally, I'd note that as much as Trump has unfortunately made alt-right views more acceptable, there are still plenty of mainstream conservatives even in the US who reject neo-Nazism. So even if Taylor Swift fans actually leaned conservative, it doesn't somehow make her alt-right fans more relevant. So I don't actually understand the point either of you are trying to make TBH. AFAICT everyone in this discussion except "chbarts" agrees the fact that some idiot Nazis consider Taylor Swift an Aryan goddess totally irrelevant to anything. And we all agree that they are such a tiny minority of her fan base (without needing to pigeonhole it), combined with a group that doesn't tend to survive well on an encyclopaedia based on reliable secondary sources; that the chances they've had much influence in her articles being written, and making it to the main page is very small. The only question and AFAICT the reason this is even here in the first place, is whether chbarts going around continually bringing up her alt-right fanbase is a BLP issue. IMO it's not since it appears to have some truth covered in reliable secondary sources. And while it may be largely irrelevant to anything on Wikipedia, for someone as notable as Taylor Swift, I don't think it matters much that that someone keeps bringing it up. If they should be blocked, it would IMO mostly be for WP:DROPTHESTICK reasons rather than BLP. Nil Einne (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'd also note that while it's quite likely many of the people involved in creating Taylor Swift articles are fans, the sort of superfans GMG refers to with tattoos of her lyrics tend to be the sort of people we'd much rather do not get involved in creating articles related to her. Long experience suggests they're often incapable of creating good encyclopaedic content especially assessing sources covering her or her works and obeying WP:NPOV. Since this seems to at least partially related to the FA on Love Story (Taylor Swift song), my assumption is that few super fans were involved at least in doing the work that made it a FA. In fact, I'd go so far to say while it doesn't matter quite as much, my hope would be it's the same number involved as neo-Nazi's i.e. zero. I'd also add that someone's personal views don't always align with a majority of their fanbase. The obvious example would be J. K. Rowling where I think it's fairly well accepted that a significant chunk of her traditional fanbase reject one particular area of her views. I don't think putting J. K. Rowling as TFA can reasonably be said to be promoting her views, but if someone were to make that claim, I don't see that talking about the general views of her fan base is particularly relevant. Ultimately it's irrelevant at least when it comes to FA since if the article is actually an FA it shouldn't be promotional of particular views beyond reflecting what reliable secondary sources say about such views. Hence why it's fine for us to have even Tucker Carlson as TFA if the article ever made if to that. And of course an FA being promotional of what the subject's (or creator of the subject's) general fan base think, should hopefully be a least as unlikely. Nil Einne (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  @GreenMeansGo I'm sorry, that wasn't aimed at you. It was a response to some nonsense I've experienced elsewhere. Doug Weller talk 06:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Murat Karayılan

Murat Karayılan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Various edit warring over what appears to me to be a poorly sourced claim of death (in addition to other disruptive edits by an IP unrelated to his death). No other sources seem to have picked up what this source says, and unless something is lost in translation they aren't 100% sure whether he's dead anyway, repeatedly describing it only as a claim and not even saying who is actually claiming it. Kathleen's bike (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum

I've found content under Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum#Princess Haya escape which are not supported by the sources used and in this edit and the three that followed I removed content (see edit summaries for why.)

User User:Woufeq reverted these twice and refuses to discuss. Can others here please take a look at the section? I'm new and don't know how to resolve this dispute. FossilWave (talk) 04:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

FossilWave, you need to post a neutral discussion thread on the talkpage of the article, citing all the reliable independent sources you can find, and inviting editor discussion. Do not edit war. Softlavender (talk) 04:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Softlavender The dispute is over me wanting to remove unsourced content on a biogaphy. The user the dispute is with, has refused to discuss. I've done what you've suggested, I'm posting here precisely so others can take a look at the section, and I can avoid turning this into an edit war. FossilWave (talk) 05:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

FossilWave, to repeat, you need to post a neutral discussion thread on the talkpage of the article, which you have not done. Here are your edits: [9], and here is the talkpage of the article: [10]. Nowhere on that articletalk page have you opened a discussion. Softlavender (talk) 08:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Softlavender I don't understand. How will making a new topic on the talk page help when the person who disputes my edits refuses to discuss? If the idea is to get others to notice the issues, isn't that what this noticeboard is for? FossilWave (talk) 10:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

FossilWave, you cannot possibly claim that someone "refuses to discuss" unless you post a neutral discussion thread on the talkpage of the article (and ping that editor to participate), which you have not done. It's that simple. Softlavender (talk) 11:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Softlavender In my first reply, the text "refused to discuss" links to my talk page, perhaps you missed it. In reply to a comment the user left, I explained my case and invited them to discuss where I went wrong. They then replied with "I don't like to discuss anymore." I guess I could have been clearer. You can read the exchange: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FossilWave I hope you can consider my edits and help me in cleaning up the disputed section now that this is clarified. FossilWave (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

FossilWave, discussion of article content must always occur on articletalk, never usertalk. Softlavender (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@Softlavender I don't see what that will help with. As I pointed out, if the goal is to get the attention of users other than the one reverting my edits, isn't that achieved by my posting here? Isn't the point of this noticeboard to draw attention to issues in biographies? FossilWave (talk) 04:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

FossilWave, at this point you are wasting everyone's time (and could be sanctioned for that). A highly experienced editor has explained to you four times exactly what you need to do. You can either continue to ignore that and at best probably achieve nothing or at worst be sanctioned yourself for wasting the community's time, or you can follow policies and guidelines and do that and achieve an outcome that will at least begin to be within Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It's up to you. I invite you to read WP:DISCUSSFAIL. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@FossilWave: Ultimately any case where you're saying someone 'refuses to discuss' and what we see when we visit the talk page is that the editor who 'refuses to discuss' has edited the talk page relatively recently [11] (albeit removing their comments for some reason), and the editor complaining has never touched it, is not a good look for the editor complaining. My assumption is that whenever an editor persistently refuses to open a discussion on the talk page, this is because they don't have a reasonable argument so are afraid to do so. If you wish to disprove my assumption start a discussion on the article talk page. While seeking help on BLPN can be helpful, it shouldn't be considered a substitute for discussing on the talk page especially on an article where it's likely there are a fair few talk pages watchers. Also, as SoftLavender has said you cannot claim someone refuses to discuss if you've made no reasonable attempt at discussion yourself. And the minimum for a reasonable attempt has to be opening a discussion on the article talk page. While leaving a comment on an editor's talk page or on BLPN can be helpful, you really need to start an article talk page discussion and give the editor time to respond before you make any claims about the other editor refusing to discuss. If your certain the other editor will not respond, again there's no reason for you to be afraid of doing it, just do it and prove your belief! Otherwise we have a silly childish game like the classic 'they started it' where one child is blaming the other for starting a fight none of which generally justifies continued fighting; except in this case what we have is two editors waiting for the other discuss instead of just making the effort themselves. One editor has to just buck up and start the bloody discussion or we never get anywhere. Yes this happens a lot and it's always very silly so you can forgive our frustration when someone does it. Nil Einne (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@Nil Einne Here are the words of the editor: "... For reminder, I dont want any discussion with you. I am not obliged to do something I dont want to." and "I don't like to discuss anymore. Thanks" These are on my talk page where I have now made two attempts to discuss, explaining my case. I did not mention this up till now but I would especially like you to look at the history of my talk page where you will find their original reply insulted me after which they blanked the section. I linked to these twice in this thread. Perhaps you can now see why I have insisted on help and attempted to avoid unnecessarily engaging with the user again. FossilWave (talk) 11:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I noticed that our article does use a court judgment which is concerning, however for something as high profile as this, I find it very unlikely there is anything significant from the court judgment that our article says that cannot be sourced via some reliable secondary source. So whatever BLP problems exist are likely to be minor ones. For example you seem to be concerned of the the issues of the subject taunting over his ex-wife over her affair with a bodyguard but this seems to be supported by this source [12]. If it's true that none of the current sources beside the judgment mention the bodyguard or taunting thing, this needs to be corrected. But the fact this is likely a case of simply the wrong sources used rather than the content being unsourceable and it's on such a high profile figure, means you're always likely to receive limited interest from BLP regulars. Note also that while technically including inline sources which aren't be used to support anything our article says may be a BLP issue, if these are reliable secondary sources and again given how high profile the subject is, it's a very minor one, so again something likely to receive limit interest from BLPN regulars. (And frankly all of the sources seem to be about the subject's "dispute" with his ex-wife so it seems unlikely any of them are that irrelevant, at best superfluous.) Including sources which aren't reliable is more of an issue, but the only one where this may apply it the Evening Standard. So many reasons why you should concentrate on discussion at the article talk page. If you really can't resolve some dispute via the article talk page, you could try bringing it here after trying to discuss on the article talk page. That is likely to be more productive than jumping here in the first instance. Likewise if it's feared some content while relating to the subject of the article, goes into too much details about other living persons such as his ex-wife or children, that is also something which will likely receive more interest. Nil Einne (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@Nil Einne As I noted in my previous comment, I have tried twice now to discuss with the user. If you have the time, could you take a look at the changes I made in this and this edit I made in the article? The edit summaries explain the issues. FossilWave (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@FossilWave: and again, as far as any editor actually reviewing the dispute is concerned, you haven't done jack shit since you've never touched the article talk page. Meanwhile the editor you're complaining about has. And our assumption is going to be you're afraid of going to the article talk page since you know you have no reasonable argument. Why else would you spend all this time arguing over why you don't need to to the most basic requirement to resolve the dispute i.e. actually opening a talk page discussion, instead of just opening one? Nil Einne (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I've grown sick of the stupidity of this dispute and have open a discussion Talk:Mohammed bin_Rashid Al Maktoum#Dispute over Princess Haya escape section. As I said there, please discuss your dispute there or somewhere on the talk page, if you want to continue to make changes or the reverts you've been making. If either of you is going to persist in making changes but refuses to discuss those changes somewhere on the article talk page, I'll ask for you to be blocked. And frankly, I don't care which of you it is and what arguments you may have about trying to discuss it elsewhere. Nil Einne (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Grace Byers

A virtual stalker by the name of Carlos Lobos keeps adding false information to her page. This virtual stalker, Carlos Lobos, continuously undermines the credibility of her page by adding fabricated details and spreading misinformation. Despite her efforts to maintain accuracy and authenticity, his persistent actions make it challenging for her to provide reliable content to her audience.  He cited that they were married and had three children; this is false. Carlos Lobos's relentless behavior not only damages her reputation but also poses a threat to her personal life. The false claim of marriage and children is not only misleading but also invades her privacy, causing distress and potential harm. Her family and friends have been diligently monitoring the page, but he keeps updating it with untruths. This is concerning for multiple reasons: 1. He claims they were married and procreated when she was a child. 2. She has a current restraining order issued against the man. 3. He has been notified to stop attempting to contact Grace. There is no credible source, online or otherwise, that can confirm that Grace was married to this cyber attacker.  Please help us remain vigilant or put a stop to furthering the trauma of a cyber stalker. It is crucial to take immediate action in such cases to protect Grace's safety and well-being. 

Is there anything we can do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandyzblessed m (talk • contribs) 13:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish has revdel'd the content and blocked the editor. Schazjmd (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I've also watchlisted the article. I was a bit busy when I was revdelling, but I think I got it all with no collateral. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Problems with the Controversies section in the Martha G. Welch article

Hi, I’m here at the advice of User:ScottishFinnishRadish to call attention to serious problems with the Martha G. Welch#Attachment therapy controversy section. It includes highly inaccurate and what appear to be intentionally inflammatory statements, as well as flawed and improper original analysis that inaccurately ties Welch to the injury and death of children by other therapists she had no involvement with. I’m an employee of ClarBright, a communications firm which represents Dr. Welch, so I have a conflict of interest. I will only report problems and propose solutions rather than edit the article.

For reference, here is the current version of this section (as of the last edit to the page made on August 12, 2023):

Attachment therapy controversy

Welch was a proponent of a form of the controversial practice of attachment therapy, and originated a variety of it sometimes termed Festhaltetherapie, Holding Time, or Prolonged Parent–Child Embrace. The practice has been proposed as a means of treating autism or preventing problems in the parent/child relationship. It includes forcing a child to face their mother while seated on her lap, arms restrained by crossing them in front of the child. For larger children, the mother instead lies on top of the child while supporting herself partially with her elbows. The mother and child are then encouraged to express their emotions to one another while in this position.

While the variety of attachment therapy promoted by Welch has not been associated with the child injuries and deaths that have been associated with similar forms of attachment therapy, it has been subject to controversy. One researcher has pointed out that several aspects of the practice would be classified as adverse childhood experiences if done outside a clinical context. These aspects include causing children physical pain and fear of pain, restraint, and causing children to feel as if they have no one to protect them. They have also noted that the genetic basis for autism makes this form of attachment therapy, which aims to cure autism by repairing the mother/child bond, implausible as a treatment for autism. Other critics have noted that attachment therapy practices, including "physical coercion, psychologically or physically enforced holding, physical restraint, physical domination, provoked catharsis, [and] ventilation of rage" are not recommended and should not be used because they lack proven benefit and risk harming the child.

References

• Much of the criticism is not about Welch. It conflates Welch’s book Holding Time with the work and practices of others, some of which is extreme and dangerous. This is WP:COATRACKING. This is a bio and should be firmly focused on Welch’s work, not on dangerous spinoff therapies advocated by others.
• There is WP:OR by this editor to connect Welch to extreme practices that have caused death and injury to children, which this editor acknowledges with OR commentary are not part of Welch’s therapy (“While the variety of attachment therapy promoted by Welch has not been associated with the child injuries and deaths…). Welch, in fact, has [condemned| https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/science-nurturing-impact-premature-babies] these extreme practices.
• These paragraphs are the sole explanation in this article of Welch’s work on holding therapy - and are an inaccurate characterization of Welch’s work. She does not advocate physically “forcing” or “restraining” children as part of this therapy[13]
• These paragraphs are based almost entirely on a single polemical journal article that has received very little independent scholarly attention or support (16 citations) and was published in a relatively obscure journal (as determined by its impact factor.) While there is certainly grounds for Mercer’s viewpoint to receive mention, the amount of weight being given to this obscure source is WP:UNDUE.
• Mercer’s criticisms of Welch and her work should also be attributed to her by name because it is one author’s critique rather than a medical study or a meta-analysis of the literature. Several of Mercers’ opinions are stated as facts where they are not.
• Much of the language violates neutral point of view and is inconsistent with the “tone” policy set down in WP:BLPSTYLE.
• Welch’s condemnation of the extreme methods that this section implies she advocates is not included. See: [14].
• Several sources do not verify claims. For example, the citations to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the Welch et al 2006 paper do not say that a child is forced or restrained during the therapy advocated by Welch. The sources describe a parent embracing a child in a seated position.

I give a sentence by sentence breakdown in more detail below, following my proposed replacement version:

Because of the serious problems noted above, here’s a new version I wrote that I feel would resolve the BLP concerns while maintaining other parts of the section that discuss reasonable critiques rather than launch polemical attacks:

Holding Time and Prolonged Parent-Child Embrace (PPCE)

Welch wrote a 1989 book called Holding Time. . Welch’s recommended treatment method in Holding Time involved daily sessions of emotional bonding that were to take place with a child seated on their mother’s lap with the child’s legs wrapped around her waist and their arms tucked under her armpits, and the mother holding the child in this position for up to an hour. Welch claimed that this technique increased communication and emotional connection between parent and child. In 2006, Welch and colleagues introduced a revised version of Holding Time therapy that was called “Prolonged Parent-Child Embrace” (PPCE) therapy.

Welch’s therapy has attracted criticism. In 2006, Chaffin et al noted that critics of Welch’s Prolonged Parent-Child Embrace or Holding Time therapies consider the prolonged contact between child and parent to be “coercive or humiliating,” while proponents of the practice argue that it is “gentle or nurturing” instead. Psychologist Jean Mercer wrote a paper that was critical of Welch’s Holding Time and Prolonged Parent-Child Embrace therapies as well as other forms of attachment therapies, but she also noted in that paper that “No reports of physical or psychological injury are known to have been associated with Welch’s ‘holding time’ or PPCE”. Mercer also argued that Welch should be considered the originator of several forms of attachment therapies that involved holding. According to PBS NewsHour in May 2017, “some of Welch’s ideas were… co-opted by other practitioners to promote increasingly physical and coercive techniques”, which Welch said she had “nothing to do with”, does not condone and was “devastated to be associated with”.

References

I’ve focused the section so it describes Welch’s work, then accurately describes the academic criticism of it. However, I have removed statements from the existing version that do not specifically involve a criticism of Welch. Again, Welch’s work should not be conflated with the body of attachment therapy, most of which is contrary to Welch’s therapeutic recommendations and which she has condemned.

For those who want an in-depth look at the problems with the current section, below I have highlighted the issues in individual sentences:

Paragraph 1, Sentence 1: This sentence improperly orients the section around criticism of a controversial therapeutic movement called attachment therapy rather than Welch’s specific work, which has been considerably more mainstream. This sentence also contains WP:TMI about various names given to forms of attachment therapies (including those developed by scholars other than Welch).

Paragraph 1, Sentence 2: This sentence is WP:COATRACKING since it is about attachment therapies more broadly, not about Welch or her specific work in this field.

Paragraph 1, Sentence 3: This sentence uses non-neutral language (e.g., “forcing a child”) to present a critic’s POV in the voice of Wikipedia. It is also unsourced and inaccurate. For an accurate description of Welch’s therapeutic recommendations, please see [2006 PAPER].

Paragraph 1, Sentence 4: This sentence cites a Welch et al 2006 paper which implies that Welch advocates a therapy practice involving mothers lying on top of larger children while supporting themselves with their elbows. However, the 2006 Welch et al paper does not propose or even mention this technique.

Paragraph 2, Sentence 1: This sentence is original analysis WP:FORUM, WP:COATRACKING and fails WP:Verify. It blackens Welch’s name by obliquely referencing incidents that injured or killed children that have nothing to do with Welch or her work.

Paragraph 2, Sentence 2: This sentence inappropriately presents Jean Mercer’s argument as fact in the voice of Wikipedia with the phrase “has pointed out”, which implies that Mercer’s view is not just an opinion. As was already discussed above, Mercer’s POV should be carefully attributed to her and presented as an argument instead of being dressed up as established and well-accepted medical “fact”.

Paragraph 2, Sentence 4: Here again, this statement should be attributed directly to Mercer, but is being presented more neutrally with a WP:WEASEL use of “They”.

Paragraph 2, Sentence 5: This report does offer criticisms of attachment therapies, but it only discusses Welch in the context of her book Holding Time. At no point in their report do the authors explicitly criticize Welch or her specific work in this field.

Thanks for considering this request. KnollLane55901 (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

This is something of a WP:WALLOFTEXT, but my opinion on these types of issues is usually the same: we shouldn't be isolating controversies at all. They should just be written into the biography as part of her career. If it doesn't fit as part of her career, it probably doesn't belong in the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with Thebiguglyalien here. You'd do best to try tackling these issues one at a time, because trying to respond to all your points at once will be very difficult, to say the least. I also think it off-balances an article to have anything negative walled off in a section labeled "controversies". First, a controversy is a "large, widespread public debate". It's not a lawsuit, or an argument, or a speeding ticket, or whatever. One person deeming something is controversial does not a controversy make. Second, it's like loading all the heavy stuff on one side of the boat; you'll tip it over. It just throws the whole article off balance, which becomes a serious NPOV issue. Negative info should be worked into the timeline right along side the positive. (Besides, it's far more believable that way and reads better.) A benefit of doing it that way is it's easier to judge weight and balance, and helps to weed out all the fluff, so that's where I would recommend starting. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I went through and again removed all the synth/contracting I found and worked a bit into the career section. This was very similar to the content that I removed oh so long ago. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

These problems seem to have been addressed in the most recent version.[15]

I agree that using sources that do not mention the subject is implicit synthesis and hence a violation of BLP. Also, criticism sections should be avoided and instead should be placed in the relevant sections of articles.

However, one sentence in the current text violates WP:WEASEL: "Welch claimed the technique could lower the risk of autism in children, for which she was later criticized." Also, none of the sources used for the sentence are MEDRS compliant.

TFD (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

jim foster baseball

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

Jim Foster has not been fired from Northwestern University. He was relieved of his duties due to false allegations and reports that are currently being investigated and he is pursuing legal action against all media outlets and individuals involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimFoster-TheTruth (talk • contribs) 21:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Is this an argument about semantics? Fired vs. "relieved of his duties?" It's not like he was laid off. No opinion on the allegations or investigation. --Onorem (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

ESPN says he was "fired". [16] AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll add another ref to the article for the wording "fired". And yes, he apparently is taking legal action, but teh OP's link to the legal firm's page doe s not tell us anything.Meters (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The new source (July 14) says that Foster was fired "on Tuesday" and was "initially suspended for two weeks without pay prior to his firing". Since July 14 was a Friday, it appears that Foster was fired on Tuesday July 11, not July 13 as our article claims. I'll fix it. Meters (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, the original ref specifies Thursday, and other sources agree so I'll leave it. Meters (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Kalki Bhagawan

Hi,

I would like to report a very serious violation of the Biographies of Living persons policy about Kalki Bhagavan / Kalki_Bhagawan. I argue the page is an attack page and the content on the page is tantamount to repeated specific violations of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons policy which I shall now give point by point arguments for.

All points are made as per the latest edit available at the time of writing this description which is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kalki_Bhagawan&oldid=1163515114

Firstly and most egregious is the summary itself.

"Kalki Bhagawan (born 7 March 1949 as Vijay Kumar Naidu), also known as Sri Bhagavan,[1] is a self-styled Indian godman, cult leader, businessman, and a real estate investor.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] A former clerk in the LIC, he claims to be an incarnation of God (the Kalki Avatar). He is the founder of 'Oneness' / 'Ekam' cult and White Lotus Conglomerate.[9]"

To describe somebody as a "godman", is a pejorative. To say something is a cult, is also not neutral. What might be a cult to one might be a spiritual retreat to another. Both of these I argue are "contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision" - because though a large number of articles are mentioned - but each of the sources mentioned 2 through 8 are opinion pieces in magazines. These cannot be substituted for court verdicts or formal results of investigations.

These are not links to news events e.g. the inauguration of a temple premise or anything technical. There is no burden of proof on any of them from a legal institution or a court or any Government institution at the state or city level.

Therefore, I firstly request that the summary be changed in a manner which better reflects the facts on the ground.

Next, the order of information itself is especially egregious. When a person's details are mentioned, even https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler - their/ her /his personal details are mentioned and then the list of things they / she / he did and finally any controversies / critical opinion. Here, this is completely the opposite. Please help correct this. Wikipedia as mentioned is not a newspaper and certainly not an editorial piece or tabloid.

Finally, the sheer volume of negative claims on the Wikipedia article are mind boggling

1) Most of the accusations are from 2019 about Income Tax raids on the premises. However, these are serious accusations, and the formal and final decisions of the courts should be mentioned (especially now that it is 4 years). If the decision of the court is to find the defendants not guilty, then it is certainly a moral imperative to at least mention that. Wikipedia edits are not a higher authority than a court decision made by the law of the land

2) The tone of the article is generally extremely negative against Kalki Bhagavan but is favorable towards any of his critics

- Viswanath Swami is called a social activist, but no further analysis is done on the merit of his claims. in the first paragraph itself the word "alleged" is used. That is argued to be against "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content."

- "Another writer at the time, Shameem Akhtar, was also critical of what she called the 'Kalki craze" - just because somebody is critical, it is not worthy of putting on a Wikipedia page. Please just stick to facts, court reports.

- "Dakshina Kannada Rationalist association" is called well known but that is not relevant to the claim here. Whether they are well known or not it is the merit of the claim.

3) Most of the headings are directly negative. "Allegations of Fraud and founding of White Lotus Conglomerate" , "Accusations against the organization", "Rebranding the cult - 'Ekam'" and numerous others are based on a premeditated opinion - please just help this article stick to facts.

4) All of the links are to opinion pieces which are argued to be "Avoid gossip and feedback loops" - when so much biased information is present, it is fair to request especially given this is a living person to only stick to the facts. Of the 100 links, please remove all the links which are not reports of actual events from newspapers. If a negative claim is made e.g. a court case report, please follow up with its result - especially after multiple years of the said claim. Or don't mention it. One good idea is to put all the allegations under a single concentrated section and not spill all through the article.

5) Political affiliation, is a matter of opinion and in the Republic of India, confidential to the individual expressed solely by their unanimous right to vote. Please therefore remove that section asspeculative. Reference: "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages."

Finally all information here is frozen in time. "The investigation is in progress" is incorrect, it might have been true at 2019 which the source links, but no follow up has been done.

The reason for this is shooting down of any neutral content edits also, leave alone anything positive.

This is my first time reporting an article on Wikipedia. Please let me know if you would like me to change my style to add more references etc. I am keeping it shorter, given the request at the top of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aditya the sun (talk • contribs) 15:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, but this is quite different from neutrality. Wikipedia neutrally reflects what published reliable sources state. So if something is described a certain way by the majority of reliable sources, the Wikipedia also describes that thing that way. Wikipedia doesn't represent both sides equally, which many mistake as the purpose of the NPOV policy. To do so would be against the policy on WP:FALSEBALANCE. I suggest raising your concerns on the articles talk page, but you will need to show that reliable sources back up any change you desire to make. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

No, they need to show reliable sources for any additions they wish to make. If they wish to have material removed, showing that it lacks reliable sources should be sufficient. Some legitimate sourcing questions are raised above. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks ActivelyDisinterested and Nat

Yes Nat - that is the crux of my claim. I shall take that up in point 2 below. But before that let me not even talk about the sources but why this is an attack page (arguments follow)

1) I am happy to accept the view that all Wikipedia requires is a neutral point of view of all published sources, not neutrality per se and no original research. All right. Then it is not about whether the person is living or not (possibly higher standards should apply for living persons as there is an impact on their life). Let us not even talk about the factuality of sources (will take up next)

Then take Osama bin Laden or Adolf Hitler - where there is wide spread agreement and reliable information by multiple modes of information of the loss of human life (regardless of political conviction) caused by them. Even then, the neutral point of view in Wikipedia as evidenced by the articles does not degenerate into name calling, as it should be.

Hitler is not called the "self styled savior of Germany" nor the same for Bin Laden as the "self styled issuer of Fatwa to the United States" and the organizations they led when alive are not referred to as cults - at least not in the first paragraph which shows up in all Google searches on them. This is as it should be and is the essence of factuality, civility and respect which is what is needed in an encyclopedia. Neither of these courtesies are extended to the subject of this article Kalki Bhagavan, even when the allegations are far less severe as per most legal systems in the world and also categorically unproven in courts.

If you can see the difference here, then that is the essence of the argument of why this is an attack page, especially the order of information. The earlier information is what shows up on Search Engines. Allegations and criticisms should be kept impersonal, verified and concentrated and generally after facts are presented neutrally.

Further, note these search engine searches have no impact on the lives of the individuals I mentioned as they have passed away. But they have a tremendous impact on the life of a living public figure which is why I quoted this parallel and the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy.

Finally the impact of this attack page (provided you agree that is a reasonable argument) is amplified by LLMs which consume Wikipedia and they have no advantage of human judgement. They will spit out the attack verbiage in unexpected and unexpected damaging ways.

In all the cases above, verifiable real details of the above their personal life are mentioned first with verified facts - positive or negative (even with no original research) . Why not extend the same courtesy to a living citizen of the world with no such damage to human life associated to them?

In the next post I will try to do a point by point rebuttal of sources in terms of whether they constitute a good Wikipedia source for a living person. Aditya the sun (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I am trying to come up with a list for point by point, trying to present it as neutrally as I can. It is taking some time as there are 110 cited sources, I will post within a few hours. Aditya the sun (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok here is a point by point analysis of the sources provided.

- there are 42 duplicate links, 20 opinion pieces, 1 blog post lol , approx 10 irrelevant links and several broken links/ which can’t be accessed

- that being said, please note I have tried to be objective and several are proper news reports, and those are fine

My request is

- remove the duplicates - this is not as heavily cited as it seems

- see link 92, Vishwanathan Swamis case was turned down - please allow mention of l such things especially when it is cited

- don’t allow opinion pieces and blog posts as sources for a human life

- please check for relevance , don’t allow irrelevant links

- however any criticisms do mention them in a

maintain civility and respect As much as that extended to Hitler or Osama Bin Laden as argued before

this is a living human being’s Life - and this should be in line with the biography of living persons policy

1. Nadkarni, Vithal C. (2008). "Oneness to the rescue of a world in peril". The Economic Times.
   • Opinion piece, called out at the start
2. From humble beginning to Godman Kalki". www.outlookindia.com/. Retrieved 6 August 2021.
   • Link wrong
3. "Mystic and the moolah". The Week. Retrieved 1 March 2020.
   • Opinion piece
4. "Bhagwan Kalki | Life Positive". lifepositive.com. Retrieved 23 May 2020.
   • Opinion piece
5. "The cult of Kalki". mm-gold.azureedge.net. Retrieved 23 May 2020.
   • Opinion piece
   • Logical fallacy There is a logical fallacy right at the start of the article - it says cults are bad. It then says Kalki Bhagavan is a cult and then therefore it is bad. But no proof or logical arguments are provided as to why it is a cult.
6. "How Kalki gave me a story, but not an Aishwarya look-alike". Times of India Blog. 4 November 2019. Retrieved 23 May 2020.
   • Blog post/ Opinion piece. Is this serious? Why is a blog post allowed as an established source?
7. "The Kalki Craze Outlook India Magazine". Retrieved 23 May 2020.
   • Opinion piece
8. Shobha, V (November 2019). "The cult of Kalki Bhagavan". Open The Magazine. Retrieved 23 May 2020.
   • Opinion piece in a magazine
9. "IT seizes Rs 33 cr from premises of godman Kalki Bhagwan and son". Hindustan Times. 18 October 2019. Retrieved 28 June 2020.
   • This is a news report. Good, only objection I have is the use of the term Godman is never justified in the title.
10. "The cult of Kalki". mm-gold.azureedge.net. Retrieved 28 November 2020.
    • Duplicate, same as 5
11. "The Cult of Kalki Bhagavan". Open The Magazine. 1 November 2019. Retrieved 28 November 2020.
    • Duplicate, same as 8
12. "Inside godman Kalki Bhagwan's world: Bollywood celebs, real estate and drugs". The Week. Retrieved 28 November 2020
    • Opinion piece
    • Allegations and hand wavy, tying to Bollywoood and drugs is textbook tying to association
13. Thorsén, Elin. "Oneness of Different Kinds: A Comparative Study of Amma and Bhagavan's Oneness Movement in India and Sweden"(PDF). Gothenburg University Publications Electronic Archive. Retrieved 8 May 2020.
    • This is fine, looks like a university student’s investigative paper but none of the results seemed strange.
    • On page 70 the author did say that such a movement is not strange in India
14. Kalki, Cult of (November 2019). "Cult of Kalki". Open Magazine. Open Magazine.
    • Duplicate, same as 8
15. "life positive". lifepositive.com. Religioscope.
    • Broken link
16. "India: a visit to the Oneness Temple of Amma-Bhagwan". Religioscope. 13 July 2008.
    • Opinion piece
    • do look at at least the last sentence in the last paragraph - “the guide sounded honest”
17. Founders, OO academy. "OO Academy Founders". OO Academy. OO Academy. Retrieved 8 May 2020.
    • Not a safe link
18. OM, WRSP. "WRSP – OM". WRSP. WRSP. Retrieved 8 May 2020.
    • This looks ok, I don’t have a specific objection
19. "The Cult of Kalki Bhagavan". Open The Magazine. 1 November 2019. Retrieved 10 October 2021.
    • Duplicate, same as 8
20. "The Cult of Kalki Bhagavan". Open The Magazine. 1 November 2019. Retrieved 9 May2020.
    • Duplicate, same as 8
21. Arun Ram (17 June 2002). "Kalki Bhagwan controversy: Tamil Nadu-based godman encounters spate of accusations". India Today. Retrieved 10 October 2021.
    • Opinion piece
22. "Mystic and the moolah". The Week. Retrieved 9 February 2020.
    • Duplicate, same as 3
23. "Income Tax Department conducts Search on a 'wellness group' in Chennai". Pib.gov.in. 16 October 2019. Retrieved 1 March 2020.
    • No arguments here, government report
24. DTNext, Publisher (20 December 2019). "907 acres linked to Kalki ashram attached". DT Next. DT Next. Archived from the originalon 11 June 2020. Retrieved 10 May 2020.
    • News report, reasonable
25. "900 acres of land owned by godman Kalki attached". Deccan Herald. 20 December 2019. Retrieved 10 May 2020.
    • Again a news report, reasonable except for the Godman pejorative
26. Vijayakumar, Sanjay (19 December 2019). "907 acres of land belonging to Kalki group attached". The Hindu. Retrieved 10 May 2020.
    • News report, not fully public so cannot comment but seems ok
27. Dec 21, B. Sivakumar. "Kalki Bhagavan case: 900 acres of benami land attached by I-T | Chennai News – Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 10 May 2020.
    • Again a news report, reasonable except for the Godman pejorative
28. "'Kalki' Bhagwan hospitalised". The Hindu. 1 December 2019. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 9 February 2020.
    • News report, not fully public so cannot comment but seems ok
29. "India: a visit to the Oneness Temple of Amma-Bhagwan". Religioscope. 13 July 2008. Retrieved 6 June 2020.
    • Duplicate, same as 16
30. Preethaji; Krishnaji (6 August 2019). The Four Sacred Secrets: For Love and Prosperity, A Guide to Living in a Beautiful State. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-1-5011-7379-0.
31. "Publishers Weekly". publishersweekly.com. Retrieved 9 May 2020.
    • Book review of a book by Kalki Bhagavan’s son. Why is this relevant?
32. "Society once had religion to give it purpose. Now it has wellness coaches". British GQ. 12 January 2020. Retrieved 9 May 2020.
    • Again an opinion piece
33. Shobha, V (1 November 2019). "The Cult of Kalki Bhagavan". Open The Magazine. Retrieved 16 May 2020.
    • Duplicate, same as 8
34. Thorsen, Elin. "Oneness of Different Kinds: A Comparative Study of Amma and Bhagavan's Oneness Movement in India and Sweden"(PDF). GUPEA. Retrieved 16 May 2020.
35. Ardagh, Arjuna. (2010). Ontwaken in eenheid : de kracht van de oneness blessing in de evolutie van ons bewustzijn. Wel, Anna van der. Houten: Zwerk. ISBN 978-90-77478-32-5. OCLC 662568093.
36. "Oneness Movement – WRSP".
    • Broken link
37. S, Jayaseelan K. (19 October 2019). "The rise of 'Kalki' Bhagwan: From an LIC agent to a self-proclaimed 'avatar'". The Federal. Retrieved 24 May 2020.
    • Opinion piece
38. "Chinese Actress Deletes Her Weibo Post Promoting 'Controversial Indian Spiritual Courses'". News18. 17 January 2019. Retrieved 14 May 2020.
    • Again there is no way that the deletion of a social media post is relevant to a human being’s 75 year life span. I am finding this irrelevant
39. "After Taiwanese Actor's Post, China Warns About Indian 'Cults'". The Quint. 17 January 2019. Retrieved 14 May 2020.
    • This is not a news report, it is an opinion piece
    • One of the problems straight away is a comparison of this with another organization of Ram Rahim. Why is this a valid comparison is not specified.
40. "Mystic and the moolah". The Week. Retrieved 19 May 2020.
    • Duplicate, same as 3
41. "After marathon Income Tax raid, godman Kalki Bhagwan faces ED heat". Hindustan Times. 24 October 2019. Retrieved 15 May 2020.
    • News report, ok
42. Thorsen, Elin. "Oneness of Different Kinds: A Comparative Study of Amma and Bhagavan's Oneness Movement in India and Sweden"(PDF). GUPEA. Goteborgs Universitet. Retrieved 15 May 2020.
    • Duplicate
43. S, Jayaseelan K. (19 October 2019). "The rise of 'Kalki' Bhagwan: From an LIC agent to a self-proclaimed 'avatar'". The Federal
    • Opinion piece.
44. Swamy, Rohini (22 October 2019). "Kalki Bhagavan, guru who started as LIC clerk & now has 'undisclosed income' of Rs 500 cr". ThePrint. Retrieved 29 June 2020.
    • Opinion piece, though initially a news report
45. Newcombe, Suzanne; Harvey, Sarah (15 April 2016). Prophecy in the New Millennium: When Prophecies Persist. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-07459-5.
    • Can’t read book but ok
46. Townsend, R. Lataine (4 January 2012). 2013: Beginning an Era of Hope and Harmony. BalboaPress. ISBN 978-1-4525-4342-0.
    • Can’t read book but ok
47. Ganguli, Aurijit (30 May 2020). The Shambala Sutras. Notion Press. ISBN 978-1-64892-982-3.
    • This is about a different Kalki, not relevant
48. "Bhagwan Kalki | Life Positive". lifepositive.com. Retrieved 2 July2020
    • .Duplicate
49. "Investigators seize more than $14 million from spiritual guru Kalki Bhagavan – EasternEye". 22 October 2019. Retrieved 28 June 2020.
    • initially a news report but later
    • Opinion piece - again a comparison with unrelated Ram Rahim is provided
50. Cowan, Douglas E. (2 September 2009). Corrigan, John (ed.). "New Religious Movements". Oxford Handbooks Online: 125–140. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195170214.003.0008. ISBN 978-0195170214.
    • Don’t have access to this, but even this agrees ‘cult ‘ is a pejorative
51. "Who is Samael Aun Weor?". Samael.org. Retrieved 25 December 2017.
    • 404 page not found
52. Sikand, Yoginder (2008). Pseudo-messianic movements in contemporary Muslim South Asia. Global Media Publications. p. 100.
    • problem even without having read the book - firstly Kalki Bhagavan is in India and India is not a Muslim country
53. Juergensmeyer, Mark (2006). Oxford Handbook of Global Religions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 520. ISBN 978-0-19-513798-9. ISBN (Ten digit): 0195137981.
    • Not available to read but ok
54. "The Kalki Craze | Outlook India Magazine". outlookindia.com/. Retrieved 7 July2020.
    • Duplicate
55. Sri Bhagavan Interview hosted by Mitchell Jay Rabin for A Better World TV early in 2005, retrieved 8 April 2020
    • Interview, reasonable
56. site admin (17 June 2002). "Cult in crisis – RELIGION News – Issue Date: Jun 17, 2002". Indiatoday.in. Retrieved 11 April 2020.
    • Opinion piece.
57. Nayak, Narendra. "The cult of Kalki by Narendra Nayak". mm-gold.azureedge.net. Retrieved 16 May 2020.
    • Duplicate
58. Arun Ram (17 June 2002). "Kalki Bhagwan controversy: Tamil Nadu-based godman encounters spate of accusations". India Today. Retrieved 25 June 2020.
    • Duplicate
59. "Who is Kalki Bhagwan Who Once Predicted Death of Organised Religions and Now Faces I-T Heat?". News18. 22 October 2019. Retrieved 6 March 2020.
    • Duplicate
60. "The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010–2050". Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project. 2 April 2015. Retrieved 25 June 2020.
    • No objections
61. "The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010–2050". Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project. 2 April 2015. Retrieved 25 June 2020.
    • Duplicate, same as 60
62. Windrider, Kiara; Sears, Grace (2009). Deeksha: The Fire from Heaven. New World Library. ISBN 978-1-57731-724-1.
63. Windrider, Kiara; Sears, Grace (2009). Deeksha: The Fire from Heaven. New World Library. ISBN 978-1-57731-724-1.
    • Duplicate, same as 62
64. Ardagh, Arjuna (1 April 2009). Awakening into Oneness: The Power of Blessing in the Evolution of Consciousness. Sounds True. ISBN 978-1-59179-864-4.
    • Duplicate
65. Calleman, Ph.D, Carl (16 July 2015). "The Mayan Calendar & The Transformation of Consciousness". A Better World. Retrieved 13 June 2020.
    • Book, ok
66. Roth, Ron; Montgomery, Roger (2007). The Sacred Light of Healing: Teachings and Meditations on Divine Oneness. iUniverse. ISBN 978-0-595-44896-8.
    • Book, ok
67. Nadkarni, Vithal C. (26 January 2008). "Oneness to the rescue of a world in peril". The Economic Times. Retrieved 11 April 2020.
    • Duplicate
68. Imranullah, Mohamed (22 November 2019). "'Kalki' Bhagavan's daughter-in-law moves HC against 'look out circular'". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 26 April 2020.
    • Duplicate
69. "Rs 44 cr cash, 90 kg gold, Rs 20 cr worth US dollars seized in I-T raids on properties linked to spiritual guru Kalki Bhagwan". DNA India. 21 October 2019.
    • Duplicate
70. "The Cult of Kalki Bhagavan". Open The Magazine. 1 November 2019. Retrieved 6 May2020.
    • Duplicate, same as 8
71. Ardagh, Arjuna (29 October 2009). Awakening Into Oneness: The Power of Blessing in the Evolution of Consciousness. ReadHowYouWant.com. ISBN 978-1-4587-3614-7.
    • Duplicate
72. "Bhagwan Kalki | Life Positive". lifepositive.com. Retrieved 9 May 2020.
    • Duplicate
73. Convened Insiders, Maverick (6 February 2020). "A controversial babu, a godman, film producers: Meet the faces behind the INR16,000 crore bid for RCom – ET Prime". ET. ET Prime.
    • Again this uses the Godman pejorative, not relevant also
74. "The Cult of Kalki Bhagavan". Open The Magazine. 1 November 2019. Retrieved 4 May2020.
    • Duplicate, same as 8
75. "Nairobi's tallest building planned". Deccan Herald. 22 December 2016. Retrieved 3 May2020.
    • This has no mention of Kalki Bhagavan
    • It mentions the White Lotus group which he is allegedly part of, but that has its own Wikipedia article
76. "Hilton kicks off second Nairobi high-end hotel". Business Daily. 23 May 2017. Retrieved 2 May 2020.
    • No mention of Kalki Bhagavan
    • It mentions the White Lotus group which he is allegedly part of, but that has its own Wikipedia article
77. Monks, Kieron (23 June 2017). "Work begins on the tallest skyscraper in Africa". CNN. Retrieved 3 May 2020.
    • No mention of Kalki Bhagavan
    • It mentions the White Lotus group which he is allegedly part of, but that has its own Wikipedia article
78. "Africa's tallest building aims to be a standout". The Business Times. 24 September 2019. Retrieved 3 May 2020
    • Not a public link
79. Wambu, Wainaina. "Nairobi's elegant office space that no one wants". The Standard. Retrieved 3 May 2020.
    • Link doesn’t work
80. "Dubai tycoons sought for contempt of court". Kenyan Tribune. 7 February 2019. Retrieved 3 May 2020.
    • Link doesn’t work
81. "Dubai tycoons sought for contempt of court". Daily Nation. Retrieved 4 May 2020.
    • No mention of Kalki Bhagavan
    • It mentions the White Lotus group which he is allegedly part of, but that has its own Wikipedia article
82. "Vacant school about 1 mile west of the former Northridge Mall proposed for 100 affordable apartments". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved 2 May 2020.
    • No mention of Kalki Bhagavan
    • It mentions the White Lotus group which he is allegedly part of, but that has its own Wikipedia article
83. "Dubai investors inject $200 million into Africa's tallest tower". africa.businesschief.com. Retrieved 6 May 2020.
    • Link doesn’t work
84. "Hotel Deco XV is Deco'd out". smallmarketmeetings.com. 11 October 2013. Retrieved 9 May 2020.
    • No mention of Kalki Bhagavan
    • It mentions the White Lotus group which he is allegedly part of, but that has its own Wikipedia article
85. Thorsen, Elin. "Oneness of Different Kinds: A Comparative Study of Amma and Bhagavan's Oneness Movement in India and Sweden"(PDF). GUPEA. Goteborgs Universitet. Retrieved 15 May 2020.
    • Duplicate link
86. "Bangalore franchise kabaddi team launched". Business Standard India. IANS. 16 July 2014. Retrieved 3 May 2020.
    • No mention of Kalki Bhagavan
    • It mentions the White Lotus group which he is allegedly part of, but that has its own Wikipedia article
87. Kosmik Music – YouTube
88. The Cult of Kalki Bhagavan – Open The Magazine
    • Duplicate - same as 8
89. "Studio-N Channel Locked Out?". 9 July 2018.
    • Only mention of Kalki Bhagavan is that it involves people who are “apparently” belonging to the Kalki religious organization
    • Why is that relevant to this article? Is it relevant to mention a Microsoft member in a biography on Bill Gates?
90. . Suares, Coreena (16 October 2019). "IT Sleuths search Kalki Bhagavan's properties in Hyderabad". NewsMeter. Retrieved 6 May2020.
91. June 17, Arun Ram; June 17, Arun Ram; August 6, Arun Ram; Ist, Arun Ram. "Kalki Bhagwan controversy: Tamil Nadu-based godman encounters spate of accusations". India Today. Retrieved 17 May 2020.
    • Duplicate
92. Correspondent, Legal (3 February 2004). "Plea for CBI probe against godman turned down". The Hindu. [1] "
    • The case was turned down!
93. "How Kalki gave me a story, but not an Aishwarya look-alike". Times of India Blog. 4 November 2019. Retrieved 10 June 2020.
    • Duplicate
94. "Mystic and the moolah". The Week. Retrieved 1 May 2020.
    • Duplicate, same as 3
95. Rangarajan, A. d (22 October 2019). "We have not fled the country, says Kalki Bhagavan, after I-T raids on his premises". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 1 May 2020.
    • This is a news report, again uses the word Godman unjustifiably
96. Imranullah, Mohamed (22 November 2019). "'Kalki' Bhagavan's daughter-in-law moves HC against 'look out circular'". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 9 April 2020.
    • Not fully public but looks technical enough
97. Sivakumar, B. (21 December 2019). "Kalki Bhagavan case: 900 acres of benami land attached by I-T". The Times of India. Retrieved 9 April 2020.
    • Duplicate
98. Windrider, Kiara (2006). Deeksha: The Fire from Heaven. New World Library. ISBN 978-1-930722-70-5.
    • Duplicate, same as 62
99. Ardagh, Arjuna (29 October 2009). Awakening Into Oneness: The Power of Blessing in the Evolution of Consciousness. ReadHowYouWant.com. ISBN 978-1-4587-3614-7.
    • Duplicate
100. Reily, Suzel Ana; Dueck, Jonathan M. (16 March 2016). The Oxford Handbook of Music and World Christianities. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-986000-5.
     • There was nothing in the linked page about Kalki Bhagavan
101. S, Jayaseelan K. (19 October 2019). "The rise of 'Kalki' Bhagwan: From an LIC agent to a self-proclaimed 'avatar'". The Federal. Retrieved 7 August 2020.
     • Duplicate
102. "Narayanan, Dr. Vasudha, "A 'White Paper' on Kalki Bhagavan, 29 September 2002", University of Florida, Gainesville, Montclair". msuweb.montclair.edu.
103. S, Jayaseelan K. (19 October 2019). "The rise of 'Kalki' Bhagwan: From an LIC agent to a self-proclaimed 'avatar'". The Federal. Retrieved 9 February 2020.
     • Duplicate
104. Ardagh 2008, Chapter 1,2.
     • Duplicate
105. Arun Ram (17 June 2002). "Kalki Bhagwan controversy: Tamil Nadu-based godman encounters spate of accusations". India Today. Retrieved 5 March 2020.
     • Duplicate
106. site admin (17 June 2002). "Cult in crisis – RELIGION News – Issue Date: Jun 17, 2002". Indiatoday.in. Retrieved 1 March 2020.
     • Duplicate
107. Swamy, Rohini (22 October 2019). "Kalki Bhagavan, guru who started as LIC clerk & now has 'undisclosed income' of Rs 500 cr". ThePrint. Retrieved 12 August 2020.
     • Duplicate
108. "Concerns over health status of Kalki Bhagawan". Deccan Chronicle. 30 October 2016. Retrieved 23 May 2020.
     • This is a news report. At this point, he is referred to as a spiritual Guru.
109. "Kalki Bhagavan hospitalized". mytelangana.com. Retrieved 17 May 2020.
     • Duplicate
110. "Mystic and the moolah". The Week. Retrieved 23 May 2020.
     • Duplicate, same as 3

Aditya the sun (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@NatGertler I have also added a summary of these arguments to the talk page under the heading “reasons why this is an attack page”. My arguments are now ready from my

end to be reviewed. Please take a look! Aditya the sun (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested@NatGertler I also want to call out strong bias in the talk page - I have raised specific objections there where guilt is assumed without merit of the claim. I request you to please see those as well. Aditya the sun (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I gave the article enough of a look to verify that there were indeed real problems with sourcing... and that there was too much, I hadn't the time nor base knowledge of Indian media to deal with it all. (I did delete one non-verifiable reference, which had been #2, which means that all the numbering the OP gave is now off.) Can someone with more time and willingness take a look at this? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I have proposed an edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kalki_Bhagawan&action=history with some of these addressed. I have not removed any information but only tried to make the article more encyclopedic. Please take a look @NatGertler Aditya the sun (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69 please see my arguments as to why I made my edit which you undid. I am happy to establish consensus but I have raised serious questions about the bias on the talk page. Even @NatGertler acknowledges here that there are serious sources on the page. I was not trying to do an arbitrary edit but have asked @NatGertler to review them. Please take a look at these arguments.

You can see my arguments in the section "Reasons why this is an attack page". There have been no responses to that, and you can see this is a BLP issue. Aditya the sun (talk) 02:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• serious sourcing issues

Aditya the sun (talk) 02:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

To be specific this is what I propose as a starting stable version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kalki_Bhagawan&stableid=1174685152 for this page to address:

- issues above (not all of them but it's an improvement I believe)

- mitigating the BLP issues

- mitigating the NPOV issues

as raised already. I have tried to keep all information as is, but have removed pejoratives, accusations which assume intent and matched the biography format of most people on the internet or Wikipedia.

Aditya the sun (talk) 02:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

In case anyone is reading this, @NatGertler has declined to participate further due to lack of time. Input is welcome and appreciated, and in my opinion - very necessary. Thanks in advance. Aditya the sun (talk) 05:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Subramaniam Ramadorai

The current information is extremely outdated.

Need help in updating the information. There are ample references to support the new information.

Will try to avoid external links if it violates the norms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DebaratiG (talk • contribs) 15:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@DebaratiG, you should first discuss your reverted edits on Talk:Subramaniam Ramadorai. Don't remove existing refs. Don't insert external URLs in the body, except as sources between <ref> tags. Don't use promotional language (such as "Due to his keen passion"). Schazjmd (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure DebaratiG (talk) 05:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. (September 2023).

Please help me identify the sentences and paragraphs where the citations are needed for verification. DebaratiG (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Geoff Metcalf

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.

---

• Geoff Metcalf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The entire article is practically unsourced, as it has only 3 sources, only one being related to the article remotely. This means the article is held together by no real evidence. Unfortunately, the article has had these issues cited since May 2008 and appears to have lost traction. Asking here to see if anyone is able to find valid sources before I possibly tag for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk • contribs) 14:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I say go for it. I looked but nothing jumped out at me as far as sourcing an encyclopedic biography. JFHJr (㊟) 21:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I removed the 3 "sources" after looking into each one and determining each one was bullshit. My edit summaries in removing each contain finer language and detail. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 04:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Glad we came to the same conclusion. Unfortunate to see an article with such extensive detail be entirely without a valid source. Don't feel that bad about deletion now, though. I'm guessing that back in 2008, it was more of a wild west for articles, because I think a modern editor would have a conniption if they saw the sources. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk) 11:13, 13 September 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.

Patrick Criado

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.

---

• 2603:7000:603a:2f9d:90a2:4fb8:ffd9:7e44 (contribs | filter log)
• 172.58.109.88 (contribs | filter log)
• 189.176.9.150 (contribs | filter log)
• 2603:7000:603a:2f9d:8f:be81:c863:9917 (contribs | filter log)

Content in Patrick Criado not supported by the sources used is repeatedly added in the article by several drive-by IPs [17] [18], [19], [20], [21]. Content is presumably a WP:BLP violation. On the internet I've only found hits linking both names (the article's subject and his purported couple) in es:wikipedia and a wikipedia mirror, let alone in an actual reliable source.--Asqueladd (talk) 08:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest requesting for page protection since the issue is vandalism. FossilWave (talk) 10:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and requested protection. FossilWave (talk) 13:56, 16 September 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.

Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull

There is a proposal on the article Talk page to add content to the lead of this article based on a tweet by Keen-Minshull that states:

I’m not a feminist. I am grateful to feminists of the past for the many freedoms I enjoy. But feminism has been taken over by pimps, punters, pro men pretending to be women, pro womb rental, anti child morons. Stop trying to tell me that I should be a feminist….

Additional participation in this discussion is welcome. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, it is not a single tweet; KJKM has said many times, including on video, that she is "not a feminist". [22][23][24][25][26] The current debate is (if I understand correctly) whether these statements are WP:V and WP:RELY per WP:BLPSELF, and whether the "not a feminist" identification should or should not be added to the article, which currently calls her a "women's rights activist". 74.76.229.168 (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, WP:BLPSPS clearly says we can source this information to Keen-Minshull herself. It's not (despite Beccaynr's claims) "unduly self-serving", and obviously so because it's a simple self-description that is if anything slightly against her best PR interests. Nor is it (again despite Beccaynr's claims) involving third parties: there are claims about third parties in some of the original sources but we don't repeat those claims nor do we use it to source any such claims. Loki (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

You're mistaken, any self description is inherently self-serving. In fact it's a key example of the sort of thing we're supposed to avoid. Otherwise we'd be adding crap like people calling themselves climate change scientist or vaccinologist when no one familiar with that these terms mean would remotely agree with that self description. Nil Einne (talk) 09:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I would note that having looked into this further, I've found a bunch of sources that do briefly touch on the "not a feminist" thing but only in a very limited way and often without even clarifying whether she's said it or in what contexts. So it seems there is even more reason to exclude as reliable secondary sources despite being aware there is some dispute on the issue, have by and large felt it not worth clarifying further. E.g. [27] [28] [29] [30]. The only source I found which did is [31] but unfortunately it's a discussion programme so not really a source suitable for a BLP. (I'm ignoring crap like Daily Mail obviously.) As I said on the talk page, why this is, isn't really my, or our business, we're not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Nil Einne (talk) 10:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

The talk page has soundly rejected this interpretation but also let me explain my personal issue with this claim:

Self-descriptions are indeed sometimes self-serving. In fact, on the very page in question we have a talk page note saying that we call her an anti-trans activist instead of her self-description as a women's rights activist because that's what the sources say. But just because some self-descriptions are self-serving, that doesn't mean that every self-description is self-serving. That's like saying that because some food is tasty all food is tasty. It's just a very basic fallacy. We need to actually use our judgement as to whether something is "unduly self-serving", there's no hard-and-fast rule.

In this particular case, "not a feminist" is slightly self-defeating, measured by the fact that supporters of Keen-Minshull often assume she's a feminist while opponents often loudly deny that she's a feminist.

The sourcing issues I think are fairer, but we do have at least one reliable source for this. Although it's audio-only, it clearly has both the interviewer and the expert (and a recording of Keen-Minshull herself) all agree that she's not a feminist. And besides the reliable source, we have Keen-Minshull saying over and over and over that she's not a feminist, which is important to clarify because other sources get this wrong all the time, and assume because she identifies as a women's rights activist, she therefore identifies as a feminist. Loki (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Just a note that I stick by my earlier view on using Keen-Minshull tweets as the sole source for the claim, as a violation of WP:BLPSELFPUB first criterion. But I'm lazy to debate it further. And for the article, I now consider it a moot point. I've found a source which I consider sufficient to add the claim in the article if editors feel it's important. (I'm still surprised at how hard it has been to find this given that Keen-Minshull isn't someone who has avoided the interest of RS, but whatever I don't care enough to argue it's WP:UNDUE.) For more details, check out the talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Changes to Ghaffari surname

There is an issue of religion The edits we have made regarding Judaism and its relationship to this surname exists edits has constantly been removed we are trying to explain that the Ghaffari surname exists in the Jewish community in Iran there have never been any citations or sources because the Iranians have never recognized Jewish people please help in making this page more inclusive and including information about the “Jewish” Ghaffari’s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewishsephardic (talk • contribs) 16:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

You appear to be making changes based on you own personal knowledge. Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, you need to find a reliable source that has already published what you wish to add. If you continue making changes in the way you are, they will likely be reverted as well. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Aria Finger

Hello - So I wasnt to say upfront that I'm affiliated with Aria Finger. That said, I believe that the material about the walkout on her page violates Wikipedia standards. There was an independent investigation into the allegations and it found no racial bias or discriminatory intent and Finger was reinstated as CEO. Here is a statement from the Board about it (https://twitter.com/dosomething/status/1295461817708359680/photo/2). Given that and the fact that the walkout sentence cites sources of dubious quality and the articles contain no investigative journalism, the sentence includes essentially unsubstantiated allegations and I think it should be deleted. I'd also suggest that even if the fact that the walkout happened is appropriate content for a biography of a living person wikipedia page, saying it was "in protest of racial abuse" is inflammatory and should be deleted. Thank you for reviewing this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.47 (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

1) I've reverted the latest edit that replaced the content that was not supported by WP:RS, violated WP:BLP guidelines, and presented WP:UNDUE weight. I've also watched the page. 2) IP OP, please consider registering an account and making sure you're logged in before editing. 3) Please see WP:COI for good ways for you to participate in the consensus process – again, registering an account helps. But coming here is a good step when you have a conflict of interest. Kudos. 4) And to everyone else reading: the edit history looks like a sock drawer, doesn't it? JFHJr (㊟) 00:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

This subject's notability is hard to make out. This one could also use a sourcing check. JFHJr (㊟) 00:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Jonah Paffhausen

The Jonah Paffhausen page is having repeated problems with an anonymous editor pasting in contentious, poorly sourced accusations about Metropolitan Jonah's adherence to Orthodox teaching. The content is defamatory and libelous, and appears to be the product of someone with a personal grudge against Metropolitan Jonah. I ask for the page to receive immediate protection and moderation. --Nepsis2 (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

There's a different forum for Requests for Page Protection. I'll be happy to watch the page though. JFHJr (㊟) 00:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP range from that page for a month for BLPvio and edit warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Global University Systems

My name is Hanisha and I work for Aaron Etingen. The Global University Systems page was recently changed:

• From: "Russian-born British entrepreneur Aaron Etingen (also known as Arkady Etingen)"
• To: "Russian entrepreneur Arkady Etingen (sometimes known as Aaron Etingen)"

Mr. Etingen was born in Russia, but immigrated to Britain as a child and holds British citizenship. The change seems to be designed to emphasize a Russian connection by focusing on his Russian birth name and saying he is a Russian entrepreneur, rather than a British one. However:

• His British name has 5x the Google hits and is what is used by reliable sources.[32]
• Reliable sources support the original "Russian-born British entrepreneur" reference.[33]

The phrase "Russian entrepreneur" infers he is working out of Russia with Russian companies. This is harmful to Mr. Etingen's business because of the stigma around Russian affiliation, and is offensive on a personal level, since his wife's home country (Ukraine) was recently attacked by the country the page infers he is affiliated with.

Thank you in advance for looking into it. Best regards. Mstechvision (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Mstechvision, that change (Nov 22) was the only edit made by a new account, and was unexplained, so I restored the previous version. Schazjmd (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

And on closer look, I removed "Russian-born" because neither cited source mentions that. Schazjmd (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Rahul Easwar

The article should be deleted because of these reasons: Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed. Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth).Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. Not adhering to Wikipedia guidelines and comment on talk section. [[34]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drbcheku (talk • contribs) 06:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems you are looking foremost for WP:AFD. For any user behavior issues editing or on talk pages, there's WP:ANI, but if the article is deleted at WP:AFD, the editorial problems may become moot. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 04:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Gurpatwant Singh Pannun potentially libellous material / repeated edits using biased sources.

This page contains potentially libellous material regarding an accusation by biased sources that Mr. Pannun made threats against Hindi people.

@Suthasianhistorian8 is repeatedly editing the page to add these accusations, the sources they are using fail to mention any "threat" made by Mr. Pannun.

I am requesting Suthasianhistorian8 be blocked from editing the page.

Due to the recent assassination of Harjit singh nijjar, many other Pro-Khalistan leader's pages such as this one are being vandalized by users for emotional reasons. I've also requested this page be temporarily protected from any edits

Crude attempts by an editor with 7 edits to their name to whitewash a controverisal figure, who as the Canadian Press, a highly regarded news organization with extensive ties to the Associated Press, reported, "advised" a religious community to go back to their country of origin as soon as possible and accused them of being disloyal to their nation [35] [36]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 09:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I have no issue if you would like to change "In September 2023, Pannun threatened Indo-Canadian Hindus and advised them to leave Canada"

to

"In September 2023, Pannun advised Indo-Canadian Hindus to leave Canada"

This is what I've been trying to correct it to, and it seems you're now in agreement Varials (talk) 09:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

No, the Hindustan Times, a source extensively used on Wikipedia, explicitly called it a threat - certainly a reasonable assumption. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

the Hindustan Times is objectively a biased source when it comes to Khalistani issues, considering Punjabs and Hindus are in direct opposition when it comes to the issue.

It would be like using "Russia Today" as an unbiased sources on issues related to Urkaine. Varials (talk) 09:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Funnily enough, the Hindustan Times was actually founded by a member of the Sikh centric political party Shiromani Akali Dal, which governed Punjab for decades. Hindustan Times is not biased, they called a spade a spade, telling people to go back to their country can 100% be construed as a racist threat. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The Hindustan times is Headquarted out of New Delhi, India.

India ranks 161 out of 180 on the world press freedom index

Any source coming out of India must be carefully reviewed as it is likely comes from a source in which the Government of India contains some editorial control.

Therefor, using sources from Indian media on a topic the Indian government is actively and aggressively attacking is ignorant if not malicious.

Anyone would agree that 3rd party, independent sources should be used. When you cited one, it contained no mention of a "threat" being made. Varials (talk) 09:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

We can't make sweeping generalizations that every single Indian news outlet is biased, those that are overtly so such as Swarajya or OpIndia have been deprecated by Wikipedia and can be removed on sight. But there are more neutral outlets, India Today, a prominent news organization, published numerous articles sympathetic to Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale for example. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 09:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Even the official Public Safety Canada Twitter handle called the video hateful and offensive and suggested it was an act of aggression and intimidation- [37] Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Halsey Beshears

Halsey Beshears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The referenced article and information which I continue to remove is gossip, slander, victimizing and should not be sourced based on the Wiki guidelines: Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures.

Thank you for your assistance!— Preceding unsigned comment added by NursePractitioner101 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Greetings. I've performed a deep revert to the last WP:BLP compliant version. Your edits were also problematic. Please don't source WP:BLPSPS (people talking about each other) from interviews to author WP:UNDUE (extensive) and WP:SYNTH (synthesized and irreverent) prose regarding personal health. As to this being a non-public figure, thanks for the laugh. He's a politician even if he's retired or scandalized or what have you. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes (~). Lastly, you'll find your mileage will improve when you don't begin here, and leave edit summaries, winking at WP:LEGAL. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 05:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Henry Blodget

Requesting that this line be removed from the first sentence of the page on Henry Blodget: "considered 'one of the great scumbags of our generation'[1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMarioNateRuizJr (talk • contribs) 19:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Craig Newmark

Craig Newmark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Folks, I was suggested by an editor to come here with an ongoing request I have on the Craig Newmark article.

It was suggested that the Philanthropy section could use some restructuring into subsections. Which I have been trying to do. I made a draft and tried the COI edit request queue and was told to establish consensus before making an edit request. Following that, I asked at Biographies of living persons and an editor said that wasn't the place to ask for help and suggested WP:BLPN. I did'nt think this would be the best place to post so before coming here, I also tried at WP:BIOG and the Teahouse without success. Since no one else has weighed in on my proposal, I am taking the previous editor's suggestion by coming here to see if anyone is interested. I am happy to take any questions on the Craig Newmark talk page Much thanks, Cnewmark (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

It may be tedious, but focusing on one specific COI edit at a time is usually the best practice. Thriley (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Thriley here, Mr. Newmark. That's a long list of things to tackle all at once. It can be more than a bit overwhelming, to say the least. But let me ask you a serious question: is that actually how you want an article about you to read? No offense, and please take this as constructive, but it reads like an accounting record. A very long and tedious accounting record. It's long and boring and really glosses over what it should be telling us about, which is the subject --this person that the readers want to get to know better. There's an old saying in writing, which traces back to Browning I think: "Less is more". Seriously, if you want that section to look good, adding more is not the way to go. It needs to be a much shorter summary that still encompasses all those wonderful thing that you do. That will read better, be easier to comprehend, and will stick better in the reader's mind. That's what an encyclopedia is all about, cutting all the boring details and whittling it down to the nitty gritty. Less is more. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Whenever I hear that a businessman's article has a "philanthropy" section, I raise an eyebrow, because it seems like every businessman who ever lent his gramma five bucks wants to be labeled a philanthropist on Wikipedia for it. I was please to see that in this case it reflects a very legitimate and aggressive philanthropy. However, it's a slog to read, with a lot of "in this period, this cause got this chunk of money and this specific organization got that chunk", with overlapping periods and overlapping chunks. It seems to me that, even though the organization is so closely linked to the man, we have enough material that the organization might have its own web page (Craig Newmark Philanthropies is currently just a redirect to the man). That way, in the individual's article, we could have a good summary paragraph, covering in broad strokes the amounts given, targeted issues, and key recipients. Then the organizations article could have much more detail, with listings of the foundation's structure and the various causes addressed, with those including listings of recipients. Doing that in a separate article would not seem to overwhelm the article. But that's just my view, others may feel that the organization is too linked to the man to be a separate article. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like a very good idea to me, just to keep the section from getting so bloated. Still, what I would want to avoid is ending up with what is basically a list article, or what I like to call a simple timeline of events. It's important to look at it from the average reader's point of view. What's their attention span? What's easier for them to comprehend, follow, and retain, a history textbook full of dates and events or a simple, short narrative? The question I would ask myself is, how can I take all this information and condense it, squeeze it, and pack it down into a single paragraph? From there, then how can I expand it, elaborating on the first paragraph, to another two paragraphs --four at most-- but no more? Answer those questions and I find I'm on the way to a good looking section. Zaereth (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Oliver Anthony

This article could used some help from experienced BLP editors. A recent RFC was closed as no consensus and the discussion continues about whether or not to include content. Some advice on how to proceed would be very welcome. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 04:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Hardeep Singh Nijjar

Hardeep Singh Nijjar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recently deceased individual. There has recently been a push to describe him, in Wikivoice, and in both text and the infobox as the leader of a terrorist outfit. However—all the best sources—Reuters, Associated Press, New York Times, and so forth—are careful to describe this as the Indian government's characterization (and the subject himself denied all involvement or support for violence). I take no position on what's true or false here, but we absolutely cannot describe this guy in wikivoice as the leader of a terrorist group. More eyes appreciated. Neutrality^talk 15:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Tim Ballard

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Talk:Tim Ballard#RfC 2 (it's about how/whether to report allegations, based on what sources). Opener of the RfC complains that "no one" responded to the first one, so I guess listing it here should help.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Note that the opener of that RfC appears to have told a fib, the first RfC received a lot of responses and is still open. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Dominic Ng

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

This article has been mentioned before but I'm hoping some more BLP experienced eyes for one particular issue at Talk:Dominic Ng#Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference on whether the subject's participating in the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference is WP:DUE for the lead. Nil Einne (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

By way of further explanation, at the moment we have a bunch of editors who may have a CoI or otherwise seem to be new who are opposed, one experienced editor who keeps adding it back unfortunately without explaining why they feel it is DUE (I'm dealing with that elsewhere), and basically me as the only experienced editor engaged in the talk page and I don't really know (which means I'm leaning towards exclude). The article is in a bit of a mess and also very short, making it fairly unclear what is and isn't due beyond their main job. I will also try to seek help from Wikiproject China although that seems fairly inactive. Nil Einne (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, @Nil Einne. I've suggested a rewrite on the talk page. INFjorder (talk) 06:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Unsure if it matters, but do note that this article was raised here 20 days ago: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive352#Dominic_Ng. – robertsky (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I think participation in the conference is probably noteworthy enough for a lede mention (one line), with slightly more below, but not much more. That's because of the nature of membership in the consultative body and the nature of the body as an institution. It's not representative, it has no power (advisory only), but it does reflect national, regional, and local policy. It's just sort of important, nothing to indicate notability, but probably noteworthy enough for a mention or two. JFHJr (㊟) 03:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• After giving the TLDR talk page a solid once through, I found the discussion around the COI proffer so scintillating that I thought the next best forum might be WP:SPI. So here it is. It looks like WP:MEAT at a minimum. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 05:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

  Turns out the subject's paid promoter User:East West AOT was socking (5 accounts). This does not bode well for this article's BLP issues in the future. Depending on page activity and WP:SPI admin action, this might need to go to WP:RPP to require reviewer levels, because paid editors will eagerly while away time to gain autopatrol. JFHJr (㊟) 22:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  Looks like admin already protected. Thanks User:Courcelles. JFHJr (㊟) 22:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  Because talk page contents subject to BLP rules too, I've stricken several comments and reverted a whole section proposing a rewrite because the paid contributor/s were socking in order to fabricate a WP:CONSENSUS in violation of BLP (re: sourcing, weight, relevance, etc.). Although the article is protected, the talk page may have these BLP problems crop up again. I'll keep watching. Appreciate any additional eyes. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 18:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Don Bingle

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

The wikipedia page for me has been wildly out-of-date and innaccurate for years. There is plenty of more recent and more accurate information about me online, including my complete writing resume, at my website at www.donaldjbingle.com. If anyone want to help out, please take a look there and please fix this. You can feel free to grab pics, book covers, details about my books, and more there. Also, information about my gaming history can be foound at www.orphyte.com/donaldjbingle/rpga.htm. Thanks for any help you are willing to give. Donald J. Bingle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:700:4A50:B5C8:FCD2:D64D:AAA5 (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Don. Unfortunately, personal websites and other self-published sources are not considered reliable sources (for most types of info) for Wikipedia's purposes. As an encyclopedia, we're a tertiary source, which means means we get most of our info from WP:Secondary sources, which are things like, books, magazines, newspaper articles, reliable websites, etc... Like most people, you may be thinking, what could be more reliable than getting it from the horse's mouth? The simple answer is that most people have a rather biased opinion of themselves and personal websites tend to be rather self-serving. Plus, secondary sources are how we determine the weight and balance of information. Unfortunately, this means we cannot always be up to date on our information, but then again we're not facebook. An encyclopedia should be written in a perfect or timeless perspective, just as we would if it was a paper encyclopedia which would never get updated. The best thing you could do to help update the article is to provide some reliable sources on the talk page, and request your changes there. Please review our WP:Conflict of interest policy, and try to avoid editing the article yourself. Thanks, and I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• Hi, Don. I'd like to reiterate that the article about you isn't supposed to be a WP:RESUME. But I'm willing to entertain your edit requests, to a point. My hope is that because you are an attorney, I might be able to provide feedback in terms that explain Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and the like. The forum to take me up on this offer is Talk:Don Bingle. Please initiate by going to "New topic" at the top. Your subject line should ALWAYS be "Edit request by [[WP:COI|the Subject]]" to let everyone know the request is coming from you even if you are logged out or on a different account. In the body, please propose your change. If it's a longer post than this one that I'm now leaving, please consider editing, refactoring, and reducing your request until it doesn't look like a wall of text (those are the hardest requests to handle). A plain statement and request work best. And sign the request with four tildes (~). Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 19:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Lou Engle

I would like some help on the Lou Engle article. The "Controversies" section has, I think, spun out of control, but there is lots of sourced information there and I don't want to gut the whole thing. (I am involved but I don't really want to be.) StAnselm (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh my God (no pun intended), that is awful. Not only do we have a controversy section, but it's broken into subsections of no more than a sentence or two each, with big, bold headlines above them. This is the perfect example of how not to write an article. I see a lot of unreliable sources there, such as Glaad and Rightwingwatch. There's no narrative to it whatsoever. It's literally just a list of allegedly negative things he's done, which makes it come off as a total smear job. That needs way more work than I have time for at the moment, but I fully agree, it needs work and is a serious BLP issue. Zaereth (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree regarding presentation (subheadings) and sourcing. I also think controversy is part of this subject's lasting biographical notability. That a dedicated half the article space and a third of references relate to the subject's notoriety is WP:UNDUE. What's reliably sourced should be streamed into the body in a timeline order. There should never be a judgment section. JFHJr (㊟) 05:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

A quick glance shows that there is little coverage of controversy in the "controversies" section. There are plenty of things he said that do not speak well to him, perhaps, but unless there is some kickback to them, they aren't controversies. A theoretical statement of "Gay people eat puppies" would only be a controversy once someone responded "no they don't!" (Just as a counterexample, Lou Engle#Anti-Muslim comments in Singapore does document a controversy, as it shows folks feeling the need to apologize for his speaking and saying he would not be welcome to do so again.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

There also appears to be copyvio issues with the controceries section, note the very close phrase between it and the GLAAD article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree the way the controversy section was written invited people to pile on. Many of the controversies did not have strong sources. I have attempted to reorganise in a more neutral way.[38] Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

That looks like a great improvement, a consensus oriented version. Coverage is more neutrally presented, even when it's adverse coverage that is biographically significant. Thanks, Morbidthoughts! JFHJr (㊟) 19:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Margaret Livingstone

The wikipedia page about me contains untrue libelous accounts under the heading 'controversy'. I tried deleting it, but it keeps re-appearing, apparently due to animal activists. I want my whole page deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlivingstonehms (talk • contribs) 14:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

• An IP and a few accounts have been trying to whitewash this article for a while. Again, we have a BLP which was formerly uncontentious but whose subject has been involved in multiple scientific controversies and since there was little to say about her previously, the article is now dominated by it. I have semi-protected the article to prevent the previous issues, but, like the article I commented on above, I suspect the "Controversies" section could usefully be shortened whilst losing little information. Black Kite (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that some coverage of the controversy is due. What is there is overlong, and relies too heavily on primary sources, some of them a little WP:FRINGE-y. I'd suggest a crisply written paragraph or two, sourced mainly to Science [39] and CBS [40]. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  Anyway, WP:BOLDly rewrote. Pinging @Black Kite: also @DaffodilOcean: as an established editor who seems to have done some substantive work on the page previously. I do not believe what was there before had a WP:NPOV, and it had a few unsourced and several self-published or similar statements. "Controversies" was a bad section title; I'm not sure that what I used instead ("Allegations of animal cruelty") is perfect, either. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  I like the re-write. With this ping, I realized that some text has been added to the page since I last read it. Hence, there is an on-going need to keep an eye on this article. Nice job @Russ Woodroofe. DaffodilOcean (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Emily Austin and Emily Austin Perry

Last time I brought up Emily Austin redirecting to Emily Austin instead of Emily Austin Perry it went down like a lead balloon. I fought the good fight and when the motion got resoundingly beaten, I accepted that decision. No problem. I'm only writing now because twice in the last couple of weeks, there were considerable spikes in page views to Emily Austin. 9,738 on September 2 and 12,065 on September 16. Does this in any way change things vis a vis who Emily Austin should redirect to? MaskedSinger (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

IMO this is one of the consistent errors of RM -- titles are navigational aids, not statements of something's value, and because Wikipedia is a living document it is a feature rather than a bug if navigation methods change routinely as their targets ebb and flow. Having said that, 1. by prior experience with RM this is still extremely unlikely to get through, 2. this is technically the wrong forum, and 3. in practice the least bad solution for a lot of these is to propose a disambiguation page rather than a primary topic. Vaticidalprophet 19:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I looked at the noticeboard for page moves and its only for requested moves. I wasn't going to go through process again unless people thought there was merit in doing so. Where is the correct forum to write post this?

My point then and now is that you have someone who is known as Emily Austin vs someone who sometimes is referred to as as such. For 100+ years, Emily Austin Perry was the most notable Emily Austin, but I would counter that in 2023, she isn't. If everyone else disagrees, fair play :)

All I'd like clarification on, is at what point, this could change? I won't bring this up again till that happens. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree Vaticidalprophet that there's a big difference between proposing a disambiguation page vs a redirect so when will depend on a lot on which one you're asking about. This case is somewhat complicated, Emily Austin Perry is clearly a way more significant figure in terms of long term significance frankly if you want to put it in numerical terms by at least one order of magnitude than Emily Austin the journalist is. This is tempered by the fact Emily Austin Perry has multiple names. But still this extreme difference in long term significance means that any proposal to make Emily Austin the primary topic is only likely to succeed if Emily Austin gains that long term significance which is likely to take many years at a minimum barring something extraordinary. You won't need something quite so extreme for a disambiguation page, but still some indication that this is is someone of wide interest e.g. coverage over a longer term and in sources which are more selective in what they cover would likely help. Nil Einne (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your very thorough answer. I really appreciate it. So the spike in views doesn't change a thing and thus there is nothing to do here now. MaskedSinger (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

BTW, while not relating to living persons, I've often considered Java a good example of the complexities of what is the primary topic for an article. I think for the entire life of the articles Java (programming language) has gotten more views than Java which is (and has generally been) our article on the island. Currently it's 143,468 vs 52,464 over 30 days and at least so of those 52k were likely people wanting to go to the programming language article or somewhere else (whereas probably very few people ending up on the programming language wanted to go elsewhere, except maybe a few for Java (software platform) or JavaScript). And I think the view counts have had a bigger differences in the past. I'd actually hardly be surprised if at least in the early days of our articles, more people also wanted to go to Coffee or something related to that rather than the article on the island. However whenever it's come up, the consensus has generally been strongly against the programming language being the primary topic, and fairly against even Java being a disambiguation page. (There have been some cases when the situation was changed but I think these were all fairly unilateral moves.) Editors just fundamentally disagree that an island of 152 million people, currently the world's most populous island, should be anything other than the primary topic. (Noting also the names of pretty much everything else came from the island one way or the other.) While the issues when you have two humans are obviously not going to be the same I think it does illustrate why for better or worse, editors may not just take view counts or what readers are looking for as the ultimate arbiter. Nil Einne (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I get what you're saying and it makes sense. I'm not sure if you read it, but the point I was making in the original discussion was that I can't imagine anyone is searching for a minor personality from 150+ years ago.

On top of this is the fact that I don't understand the conflict - Emily Austin Perry is Emily Austin Perry. Emily Austin is Emily Austin. So if anyone is looking for Emily Austin Perry, this is what they'd search for. Surely a person who is current and relevent and who is called Emily Austin would trump one of the 30 names Emily Austin Perry is referred to.

Additionally, if you look at pageviews for Emily Austin Perry you will see 2 recent spikes and these are due to the times that people were looking for Emily Austin. So it's clear who people are looking for. If it was the case you brought up where you're talking about a country fine, but here we have 2 people. Hopefully common sense will prevail. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Elizabeth Berkley

I hope this is the right place to ask this. She has two different birth years 1972 and 1974. Here's a few newspaper articles from the 90s. They're dated May 1996, August 1996 and April 1998. And respectively list her age as 23, 24 and 25 which all match up to a 1972 birth year [41][42][43]. And these were published at time where journalists were less likely to copy information from internet websites.

Also here's a Los Angeles Times magazine from the end of 2012 which says she had just turned 40 [44]. Her high school yearbook is also on Classmates and she's listed as a senior of Calabasas High School in 1990[45].

The only thing I can find that supports 1974 and would probably be considered reliable is this interview from Newsweek which is dated April 2008 and where Berkley says she's 33[46]. I don't wanna outright say that she's lying about her age, but that's not uncommon for celebs to do so. For instance, Octavia Spencer admitted she had been lying about her age up to until a few years ago. And while some celebs do graduate a year or two earlier, it's usually mentioned in other articles. And I can't find anything that says Berkley was 15/16 when she graduated high school.

Asking for a consensus on what should be done on her Wikipedia page? Do we either

A) Remove the birth year that's currently listed(1974) and put in a note saying that there's conflicting info regarding her birth year.

B) Put in both birth years and cite the sources.

or

C) Leave the 1974 in the article as it comes from the subject herself. Kcj5062 (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

• Celebrities have regularly been found lying about their age, that's not unusual. People are not reliable sources for their own personal information. If there are reliable sources supporting 1972 (which there appear to be in this case), leave it in. If there aren't, leave the birth date out completely. Black Kite (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  It's a normal thing to do. I'm no celebrity but I round my age all the time for those that ask out of morbid curiosity. JFHJr (㊟) 19:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with Black Kite. In an informational conflict, the WP:BLPSPS is a contentious source. OP's understanding of journalism in context is correct: they didn't check other sources, but took the subject's word for it, as is still done in most interviews. Because the BLPSPS sourced material conflicts and is contentious, it cannot support a later birth year, but the same sources may continue to support other prose. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 19:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  And on the other hand, you can't WP:SYNTH a birth date. Better to leave it out if you need to guess matriculation age and then do math on top of the reference to determine a birth year. JFHJr (㊟) 19:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Black Kite@JFHJr

  Is there a way I can do a RfC here? There's an editor over at Berkley's page that seems pretty adamant about leaving the 1974 birth year up. Kcj5062 (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, this is not WP:RfC so we shouldn't, can't, and hopefully don't RfC here. But at RfC they RfC, allegedly. JFHJr (㊟) 04:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe open a request on the article talk page? JFHJr (㊟) 04:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

• I have removed the 1974 date as it is only sourced to a flaky celebrity website and, as the OP says, better sources suggest 1972. Black Kite (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Black Kite

  Watch out for the user Quaerens-veritatem. He's pretty determined to keep the 1974 date up. He actually accused me of disruptive editing. Kcj5062 (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Tommy Villiers

Tommy Villiers sent me an email about four hours ago to ask that the family tree be removed from his article. I believe this was admissible per WP:BLPPRIVACY, seeing as its only sourcing was to specialist peerage books, but I wanted to check in just to be sure.--Launchballer 05:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Your edit seems BLP-good to me. If there's a BLP-good source for it, maybe he can be mentioned at Villiers family. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Removing the family tree seems fine from a privacy perspective. Removing any mention of the Villiers family I pause at because of the image management implications -- the meme of the indie musician with rich/well-connected parents is well-known, and something people it applies to generally want to downplay. I see Grabergs disagrees, though, so just noting that for wider discussion. (This is of course assuming a usable source covers it.)

Given the DYK situation, "Tommy Villiers sent me an email" makes me pause a little. I'm still AGFing about the cause of the articles, but are you in contact with Piri & Tommy? Vaticidalprophet 11:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily against it, but I'd like to see BLP-good sources about Tommy Villiers the singer make the connection, not some OR:ish connection of dots. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Piri I contacted in February to ask if she would consider donating images for her article, and I've been to one of her concerts and tried to attend another. This is the first time I've had anything to do with Villiers (he contacted me using the contact form on my website). I've had no further contact, all the articles were written entirely at my option (my autism means I write exclusively about special interests).--Launchballer 12:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I think removing the tree was a good idea either way. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I was using the one page of Debrett's Peerage available on Google Books preview for the immediate family, a copy of Burke's Peerage at Fulham Library to take me up to Thomas Lister Villiers, and then a source about Lister Villiers to take me up to John Russell, 1st Earl Russell. Both peerage books are reliable per WP:RSP, but I wonder if they both come under WP:DUE as they exist in no further reliable sources (well, thepeerage.com, but that's a self-published blog).--Launchballer 12:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I think having the tree in there was probably WP:UNDUE. I'd consider those sources reliable, and I don't think it's WP:SYNTH to assert that he's a member of the Villiers family on those grounds (others would probably allow less latitude), but the fact that it's taken that much work to assemble the genealogy suggests to me that it's mostly a genealogical curiousity—out in the Oort cloud of younger sons of younger sons, where membership in the family hasn't brought them noticeable levels of prestige. (I brought his great-great-great-great-grandfather to GA some years back; it makes a good read, if I do say so myself.) Choess (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Being a member of the Villiers family seems to be trivia, given how many generations they are removed from important/wealthy members of the family. I agree with the removal and there's no reason to mention it unless RS specifically make the connection. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Priya Venkatesan

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.

---

Please delete this page since it contains inaccurate, misleading, defamatory and biased information on the person the subject of the biography. The following links accurately represent my public image, as a prominent stakeholders in the precision medicine and oncology community. I am an elected member of prestigious medical societies: the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer. Additionally, I have many publications that received notable recognition from the scientific and medical community.

http://www.haysdocumentationspecialists.com

LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/in/priya-hays-60866025/

Advancing Healthcare Through Personalized Medicine Second Edition: https://www.springer.com/us/book/9783030800994

Twitter post of ASCO Connection mention of Second Edition posted by Springer: https://twitter.com/SpringerClinMed/status/1486036036018917377

Book review of Second Edition by Doody’s Medical Books Reviewer: http://www.doody.com/dej/PublicTitle.asp?ISBN=9783030800994#Title

Research Features edition of Advancing Healthcare Through Personalized Medicine https://researchfeatures.com/documenting-dramatic-evolution-personalised-medicine/

ASCO Post Book Review of Second Edition: https://ascopost.com/issues/may-25-2022/a-second-edition-adds-new-value-to-personalized-medicine/

Cancer Immunotherapies: Solid Tumors and Hematologic Malignancies: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-96376-7

Precision Oncology article (on page 98) Open Access Government (pagesuite-professional.co.uk)

I am kindly requesting that you delete this biography page or delete the current content and replace with this accurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priya.hays (talk • contribs) 16:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I have nominated this article for deletion due to WP:BLP1E concerns (see WP:Articles for deletion/Priya Venkatesan). S0091 (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@Priya.hays: Hello Priya, are you there? The deletion discussion (linked above) could use your input according to comments there. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 05:47, 20 September 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.

When is it ok to hyperlink Far-right in BLP

I have a concern related to linking Far-right (also linked as far-right politics within a BLP. I'm posting here to get editor thoughts. A typical example can be seen here where we state that sources have called a US politician "far-right".[47] There is no dispute that media sources have called Lauren Boebert "far-right". My concern is our definition of "far-right" clearly associates the term with Nazism in the third and fourth sentence of the lead as well as with a lead picture that includes the Nazi flag. While we can clearly see that the sources use "far-right", in most cases we don't know what they mean by far right. MOS linking [48] notes that we should be careful when using hyperlinks, "link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author.". Clearly we aren't linking within a quote when saying "sources call [person] far-right". However, we are implying that our definition corresponds with their intent. The problem is "far-right" (and other similar terms) can cover a range. A "far-right" US politician might be described as such because they are a strong supporter of gun rights ("guns for all!") and strongly oppose illegal immigration ("deport all illegals"). This would be especially true if they are part of a group of hardliners who frequently hold up bills to get what they want. That doesn't mean they are in any way shape or form related to Neo-Nazis. However, a hyperlink to far-right does imply the association. Something similar is true on the left where someone like Bernie Sanders or AOC may be called "far-left" but we wouldn't reasonably associate them with Maoist or Stalinist type communism. Is there a good way to handle this? Should the Neo-nazi etc associations in the Far-right article lead be toned down? Perhaps made more like the lead of Far-left which has fewer obviously negative associations. Springee (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Whenever use is appropriate linking is appropriate, the exception is quotes which should in general not contain links that the original quote does not. Also a note that we don't use "far-left" in either the Sanders or AOC articles because we lack reliable sources which refer to them that way, not other concerns. Perhaps a better example would be subjects who actually are far-left? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

"This shouldn't be linked since we don't know that the people who call her far right agree with the Wiki definition which includes neo-nazism. This is similar to why we don't include hyperlinks in quotes". Lol, no. This "rule" does not exist. Zaathras (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

You are correct this "rule" doesn't exist. However, I'm arguing that the same thinking that resulted in the MOS section I quoted should apply in this situation. You are free to provide a logical reason why you think I'm wrong. Dismissive "lol" type replies should be kept to user talk pages. Springee (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion about a possible canvassing violation that has devolved into back and forth arguing. Springee, in the future please ping someone from the discussion, or note that you've alerted someone in the discussion and explain the reason for the notification to avoid canvassing concerns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

This is also a pretty blatant WP:CANVASS violation, and may have to go to WP:AE. Zaathras (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC) It might be canvasing if this was a RfC or similar question. I pinged the editor in question because they raised the exact point I am asking about here. Springee (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC) If thats what you wanted to do you should have pinged Bill Williams in your question with a link to them raising this exact point. Canvassing was not the answer, its just misleading to everyone who comments in good faith because you haven't been transparent with us. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC) It isn't canvassing and Zaathras's bad faith accusation speaks more to their own POV rather than to the issue at hand. Springee (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC) Next time ping them in the question on the noticeboard and link to where they've raised this point. Then it won't look like canvassing, which this completely does. Are you in the process of notifying the other editors who had opinions about this in that discussion or was that your only notification? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion is off topic. Bill Williams specifically mentioned this issue a while back so I notified them as the discussion may be of interest to them. Canvasing doesn't apply when we are having a generalized discussion vs trying to make an article level change. Springee (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC) I appreciate that there may be some sort of misunderstand here but canvassing applies to all discussions. If thats the only person you meant to notify then it absolutely was canvassing and you owe Zaathras a pretty massive apology for your baseless allegations of editing in bad faith. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC) Again this is off topic. Zaathras's opening dismissive comment doesn't reflect a good faith attempt to address my question. Instead it can reasonably be seen as an attempt to derail the discussion. I don't agree my notice to BW was a violation of canvasing and to come out with such a strong accusation first rather than just asking on my talk page strikes me as a second accusation of bad faith. None of this off topic discussion is addressing the question at hand. Springee (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC) You solicited the opinion of a linked-minded participant of a past, similar discussion. That is canvassing. Period. Zaathras (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC) Please review WP:AGF. Springee (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC) Zaathras's opening "dismissive" comment was precisely on point: we follow what reliable sources say. Whining about being disagreed with is unbecoming, as is responding with "Please review WP:AGF" when someone points out that you have run afoul of behavioral guidelines –– especially right after you yourself have claimed that your opponent's effort to engage with you doesn't reflect a good faith attempt to address my question. This is all kinds of messy, Springee. Generalrelative (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC) Zaathras is welcome to say they disagree with my concern and provide a reason why. They did not. "Whining" about canvasing etc when this is an open discussion isn't helpful. Zaathras might have honestly been concerned about canvasing and could have said so in a good faith way. Your comment about "following what sources say" suggests that you have missed the question. At no point has anyone, myself included, suggested that we not include a DUE comment like "sources say [person] is far-right". I assume you don't mean that the cited sources include a hyperlink to the Wikipedia far-right article. Springee (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC) This is how Wikipedia works. If sources reliably call someone "far-right" then we include the term and wikilink it so that readers can easily learn more about the topic. You may not like that this means Boebert is conceptually associated with other far-right things like Nazism but that's not up to you. See Rhododendrites' comment below. This isn't complicated. Generalrelative (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC) "Zaathras's opening dismissive comment doesn't reflect a good faith attempt to address my question." and "Please review WP:AGF." don't really go together... You can't stamp all over AGF and then demand that others adhere strictly to it... Thats a double standard and a hypocritical one at that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC) That is a fair point. In return I will note that Zaathras opened with a less than good faith set of comments. It certainly is harder to assume good faith in return under such circumstances. That said, I'm open to appologizing for failing to AGF if Zaathras is willing to do the same. It would be good to stick to the concern, even if ultimately others don't agree. Springee (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC) I don't see the bad faith, but then again you don't see the canvassing so I guess we both have blindspots. I've said as much as I think is relevant on the topic, I'm not here to badger you and I'l take a seat to let other editors with different views have their say. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC) Wait a minute, you admit you wronged editor A, but will not apologize to editor A without a deal that editor B (who pointed out your error) apologizes to you for something? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC) Umm... no. Zaathras joined the topic with a condescending reply and falsely suggesting I claimed some rule existed when I did no such thing. They followed with a clear, public accusation of canvasing. That is reasonable grounds on which to presume they feel I was operating in bad faith. It is certainly understandable that a reasonable editor may view those as less than good faith behaviors. This isn't a RfC where the ratio of !votes matter. This is like the recent ONUS discussions [49] where getting a range of views is helpful. Another editor who has seen the same issue may have other examples (thus illustrating a wider issue) or different insights. Example excluded, this isn't an article specific concern so we can discuss it in general terms. So, no, the ping doesn't violate CANVAS and Zaathras was welcome to raise the concern on my talk page rather than here where it simply sidetracks the discussion. Springee (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC) Umm... yes. Springee, are you even aware that you have now spent more bits and bytes discussing me than you have spent discussing what you came here to, um, discuss? I think this pretty much concludes that your initial BLP filing is on such weak ground that you're no longer even trying to defend it. Zaathras (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The crux of the argument would seem to be that the line at MOS:LINKSTYLE which explicitly concerns quotes should be applied to text outside of quotes because we are implying that our definition corresponds with their intent. I'd disagree with the premise, except insofar as absolutely everything we write is indeed based on what someone else has written. As for the more general principle, we also call her a gun rights activist, linking to the article right to keep and bear arms. We link to that article even though it includes gun rights in Mexico, despite the fact that she has never (AFAIK) advocated for gun rights in Mexico. This is a less loaded (pun acknowledged but not endorsed) example, but just to say that many articles cover broad subjects with many dimensions, and not all of them have to apply. Any use of left/right labels provides a reductive summary of what someone's actual positions are, but it's a standard way to talk about it, for better or worse. Sources are typically going to call someone a "far-right politician" when they have expressed support for some range of far-right ideologies, not absolutely every single one of them. If the sources say someone holds "a far-right stance on immigration" that's not sufficient to call someone far-right without that qualification, but when someone (like Boebert) holds many such positions it should be unsurprising that she receives the broader label. Once that's established, linking is basic wiki style. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

+1 to this. Generalrelative (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

In general I'm not opposed to such a hyperlink. However, I think we have a BLP concern when we even imply that a person is supportive or associated with neo-nazis. I do agree that we don't specifically claim that whom ever is using the "far-right" label is implying nazism but I think even the implication is a BLP issue. Perhaps the solution a better intro to far-right? Springee (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps things are fine the way they are? Generalrelative (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps. But if others have seen similar things perhaps this is a broader issues. I guess trying to figure out how to ask it in a broader way would have been helpful. There often seems to be a conflict when trying to ask a generalized question that people get hung up in the details of the specific example. Conversely, if you don't provide an example then people ask for one. Springee (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

My impression is that this issue perennially arises because there is a conflict in how two different groups of people use this word. Experts in the fields of political science and political philosophy seem to define far-right as something rather similar to fascism, and our article on far-right politics seems to follow the lead of these fields (as it should). However, US journalists covering American politics seem to use it to refer to hardliners in the Republican Party who have staunch right-wing viewpoints, without necessarily meaning they advocate for a militaristic ethnostate or something. So yes, we always come back to the argument "well the sources say it, so should we", but at the same time we do typically recognize that journalists often make errors regarding the physical and biological/medical sciences, so why would social sciences be any different?

All in all I'd suggest that we'd have less of these disputes if we only used such labels when academic sources (in relevant fields) use them and/or when a very high quantity or quality of news sources use them. And then the wikilink is of course fine. We'd want usage from respected and nonpartisan political analysis organizations, or experts in political science or political philosophy (perhaps reported on in the media), not just a handful of Vox thinkpieces, casual usages in an everyday news article about logjams in Congress or whatever, advocacy orgs like Media Matters for America, and the like.

None of this is to meant to be a specific comment on Lauren Boebert or any other specific scenario. I'm not that familiar with what she's up to and try to avoid having to hear too much about these people. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

This is a serious problem with political comments reported on Wikipedia. The terms ‘right-wing’ and ‘left-wing’ , ‘far right’ and ‘far left’, do not have any agreed meaning in the real world, and it is unrealistic (and arrogant) for Wikipedia to assume that when anyone uses the term e.g. ‘far right’ they mean exactly what is said in our article on the subject. Therefore, there should not be a link. I have no view on Lauren Broebert as such – this is a general comment. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Having an "agreed meaning" is not relevant to the discussion. Note that there was an RfC in 2022, where the OP made the same (ultimately unsuccessful) argument they are making now. The closer did touch on the question of linkage to the article, but noted it, quote "...is not a problem of the article about Boebert". Zaathras (talk) 13:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

If an expression has no agreed meaning, then we cannot know what anyone means when they use the expression. Therefore, we don’t know that they mean the same as what is in our article. Therefore we should not link our article. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The closer also suggested that perhaps this may be an issue with the linked article. Please keep in mind that I'm only using these articles as examples. The issue of implied meaning is broader than just this example. Sweet6970 seems to get to the heart of the issue, "If an expression has no agreed meaning, then we cannot know what anyone means when they use the expression." Springee (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

If an expression has no agreed meaning, then we cannot know what anyone means when they use the expression. I'm sorry but I find this to be the most outrageous form of pedantry. It can be said about literally anything. You have provided no evidence at all to suggest that there is any doubt as to what "far-right" means –– you've just tried to shift the burden of proof onto others. As a thought experiment: please prove to me that mathematicians and laymen mean the same thing when they say "circle" or "the number three", using only reliable sources. It's too bad that the Nazis have given all those other "very fine people" on the far right a bad name, but them's the breaks. Generalrelative (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

A definite, narrow term like ‘the number three’ is not the same as a broad term like ‘right-wing’ ,‘left-wing’, ‘far-right’ , ‘far-left’. Speaking as a Brit, I have noticed that the political spectrum in the USA is completely different from the spectrum in the UK, so that ‘right-wing’ and ‘left-wing’ mean different things according to which country you’re talking about. And please do not make irrelevant comments. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Speaking as an American who lived in the UK for many years, I do not agree that that is the case. There are of course differences, but "completely different" is an absurdity. That's why you see e.g. European symbols of the far-right like the swastika at American far-right rallies –– and indeed, sometimes American symbols like the Confederate Battle Flag at European far-right rallies. And of course none of this is "irrelevant". Generalrelative (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

With respect, Crossroads, I don't see this as a problem. Sure, people are always arguing about politics. But the solution is not to restrict sourcing only to academic journals in a field where coverage by academic journals is sparse. In practice this would lead to a huge number of articles about politicians missing key information about their political stances (in Boebert's case actually not, since she's high-profile enough to be discussed in academic work, and for the record often explicitly as "far-right" [50][51][52][53][54]). Secondly, I'm not convinced that there is a real difference between academic and journalistic understandings of the term "far-right". Just because most people are loath to be associated with Nazis doesn't mean that we should make an exception to the rule that we follow the best sources available, nor –– as has been suggested above –– that we should carve out some unique exception to WP:LINK. Generalrelative (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

In fact, journalists do not use political terms in the same way and lack the expertise. That's why analysis by journalists is not considered rs in Wikipedia.

Remember when Lord Jeffrey Archer was speaking on CNN about the death of Princess Diana? America's major cable news outlet managed to mangle two titles in a major news story. TFD (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Your first point is simply incorrect. Nothing in WP:RS suggests that analyses by journalists are generally unreliable. They just need to be attributed. This is all made very clear in WP:NEWSORG. Repeatedly insisting that journalists use the term "far-right" differently from poli-sci experts without providing evidence is tiresome. I'm an expert and I have not found this to be the case.

Not sure how to address your comment about Jeffrey Archer speaking to CNN because it doesn't seem to me to be on-topic. Are you really suggesting that being an expert on the pomposities of the British caste system has anything to do with matters of practical importance? It's perfectly possible to understand that the British right are often royalists (though I would argue that this is not necessarily more pronounced among the British far right, for whom white supremacy and anti-immigrant sentiment really forms the central ideological commitment –– just as it does in the U.S.) without caring at all for such anthropological curiosities. Generalrelative (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure TFD is incorrect? That would imply that no RSs ever use a loose/non academic definitions of this or any other commonly used terms? Suggesting that some or even many reporters do stick with a clear, academically rigorous definition (do we have a copy of that definition) may be true. But you are suggesting that all sources, even ones like VICE and Mother Jones (to pick on a few) would use an academic definition at all times. That seems to be a stretch. Since you say this is an area you know outside of Wikipedia, what source you would point to for the definition and what evidence do you have that the definition is never used loosely? Also parallel examples like TFD's are on point here. While I opened this discussion with a specific concern related to far-right, this certainly isn't the only example of a loose definition being used by non-experts. Consider a light hearted example, imagine an article that says, "may sources called the court hearing a circus". Perhaps tigers were on trial :) Springee (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

TFD does appear to be incorrect. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Consider two possibilities and there relative likelihoods. One, that all reporters for all sources we would ever cite are going to cite have a strict and academically correct definition for any term that otherwise may be vague or imprecisely used in common speech. Two, that at least some sources we might use do not use a strict and academically correct definition at all times. Option two certainly looks more likely to me. Springee (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

You can present an infinite amount of straw people for consideration, but consensus will only be reached when you contend with what other editors have actually written. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm hoping that we can find some balance where we call can win. I do see what is being claimed. The claim was that the media is always using the term within an academic definition. How would we prove that? Certainly there are other examples where the media isn't as careful with definitions. Firearms rights people love to point out failures to distinguish between magazines and clip or semi-auto and auto firearms. Why would we assume that reporters writing for sources with a clear POV are going to be precise in their choice of words vs picking terms that may have an emotional hook with their readers? Springee (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

You appear to be exaggerating the claim that was made for dramatic or rhetorical effect. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Horse Eye, and agreed. As I argued above, the burden of proof should be on those making extraordinary claims. In this case, the extraordinary claim is that journalists who are ordinarily considered reliable sources for reporting facts are too ignorant of what the term "far-right" actually means to be considered reliable when using it. Asking me to prove that this term is never used loosely is of course not the appropriate bar, and the example of a term like "circus" being used metaphorically entirely misses the point. Sources which describe Boebert as "far-right" are not doing so metaphorically, and we have no reason to suppose that they are at odds with academic usage. Indeed, I cited five examples above where academics describe her as precisely that. Since I now find myself repeating myself (and growing rather frustrated), I'm going to take this page off my watchlist for a while and step back from the discussion. I've made my position as clear as I can. If anyone would like to discuss with me in a more informal setting on my talk page they are welcome to do so. Generalrelative (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

You specifically claimed expertise in this area. Are you saying that to say we should trust your word more than someone else's or are you saying that because you can provide some sort of evidence/data to back your views? Consider that the NYT warns we need to be careful about sources that mix reporting of fact with opinion of the writer [55]. We generally trust reporters to convey facts. We also generally say opinions need to be left to subject matter experts. So should we trust that when a source uses a loosely defined term that they are using it in a strict sense? Or should we listen to the NYT and be careful about the mixing of opinion/subjective claims and facts? Springee (talk) 18:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Did you just attribute the opinion of the independent Public Editor to the NYT in a complaint about mixing opinion with reporting? Does that seem ironic to you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Did the NYT run the article? The author does appear to have a background in the field ( Margaret Sullivan). Springee (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The Public Editor is an employee of the NYT, their job is to provide independent criticism of the paper... They do not speak for the paper and they don't publish articles they publish editorials (opinions). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Before I go, to briefly answer Springee's question about definitional sources, I'd suggest this recent report by the UK's Royal United Services Institute. See the definitions on p.9, and e.g. this pertinent quote:

While South African VRWE [violent right-wing extremism] discourse is largely based on locally relevant narratives, especially in the last few years it also borrows from international narratives. In particular, US-specific issues such as libertarianism, gun rights, hostility toward mainstream media, anti-authoritarianism, and ‘MAGA’ (Make America Great Again) slogans and narratives have gained increasing traction in the South African VRWE space online. The close connections between VRWE online movements in the US and South Africa was also demonstrated by the fact that the blocking of social media accounts and communities engaging with QAnon conspiracy theories following the January 6 storming of the US Capitol also affected South African accounts and online discourse significantly.

Anyone who tells you that the far-right doesn't operate as an international (or at least trans-Atlantic) movement isn't clued in to the relevant academic literature. Again, hit me up on my talk page if you have any further direct questions for me, including requests for additional bibliography. Generalrelative (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

It is true that these terms mean something in political science but they have become extremely dilute in general sources. Perhaps a WP:POLRS in the image of WP:MEDRS… Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

We should link it when the term is used, and we should use the term when multiple reliable sources do so. I think it's important that the lead of the Far-right politics article continue to make it clear that the term refers to multiple possible associations but does not imply that each association must be true for the term to apply. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

This to me is overlinking. The purpose of linking is to "increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand." Readers of Lauren Boebert's article are not going to say, "Her political views are really interesting, I want to read about Hitler and Mussolini." Furthermore, we don't even know if that is what the sources meant.

If you think her article should have a link somewhere to the political grouping she probably belongs to, I suggest Radical right (United States).

TFD (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Which just brings us full circle because Far-right politics#Radical right is ~90% of the US section at Far-right politics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Then link it to Far-right politics#United States. I might point out that the radical right in the U.S. developed independently of the extreme right in Europe, has been studied separately and differs in a number of key areas. TFD (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

That is linking it to far-right politics, the question is about whether to link it to far-right politics or not... Not what section of far-right politics to link it to. We can do that second question after we've answered the first. If we dug up Henry Ford do you think he would agree that the the radical right in the U.S. developed independently of the extreme right in Europe? Note that they've been studied separately, but they've also been studied together. Yes its true that they've been studied separately, but you appear to be implying that they haven't been studied together which is untrue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

You're assuming that "Far right" is about a coherent topic rather than a hodgepodge of things that have been called far right. TFD (talk) 01:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

When we link a word to an article the assumption is that the article is about what the word means in the text. If it doesn't, then we are misleading readers, which should not be one of our objectives. TFD (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not going to try to fight from my angle that we should be waiting for years (at leat 10) before we start using labels in wikivoice, as I think as long as there is a sufficiently strong demonstration via a source survey that academics and most media sources routinely use the term that we are then good to use it - id just prefer to see far more caution here. But I will stand on the issue that calling that out in the first sentence of a BLP is very much inappropriate per NPOV's tone requirement. Take any politican that is in the more moderate range (liberals and conservative) and you never see the person's political leanings in the first sentence, though usually is included in the first paragraph. Calling out politicians as far right in wikivoice (when appropriate) in the first sentence creates an attacking tone for telhe rest of the article. We (as a whole) are far too focused on calling out these people for their negatives and as such struggle to write appropriate tones for them. That's a much larger concern. Masem (t) 18:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

For interest: an opinion piece in today’s Guardian arguing that there is no agreed meaning for ‘centrist’ in British politics. [56] It ends: ‘The UK is at a potential turning point, with most voters concluding that nothing works. In such a striking context, the media should stop applying the term “centrist” as if it is self explanatory. Meanwhile, no leader should depend on “the centre ground” as a reliable guide. “Centrists” do not agree on where they are, how they got there and where they need to turn next. They do not concur because there is no clearly defined terrain in politics marked “the centre ground”.’

If there is no agreement, even in single country, as to where the centre is, there can be no agreement about what ‘far right/left’ means.

Sweet6970 (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Richard Eastell

Apologies - I am new to this and trying to understand how to resolve this article on my father (Eastell). The user that created the article keeps reverting people's changes, making it very skewed towards one investigation (in which Eastell was found innocent), and is consistently doing so without explanation.

As it stands, this page is harmful to Eastell and goes against Wikipedia's guidelines on Biographies of living persons in several categories - in particular: - Guilty unless proven innocent: There are four "controversies", not one confirmation of a crime or misdemeanour having been committed (in one case the exact opposite) - Neutral point of view: The way the article has been written since its creation is clearly trying to make Eastell look like a guilty party - Further reading, External links, and See also: Again, Only negative things have been linked here - the first link only serves to attempt to make the subject look bad purely by its presence (he only appears in the references of the article and is not a subject), and the second link was someone Eastell was the whistle-blower on, yet it is placed there to make it look like he was involved alongside them (which is simply not the case). — Preceding unsigned comment added by AFrozenCookieMonster (talk • contribs)

You're deleting material that meets our content policies, not least because it comes with sources that meet our guidelines. Blanking this material isn't going to stand. Please learn more about editing at Wikipedia, and then discuss on the article talk page, proposing the edits you have in mind and giving the reasons, in connection with our policies. Using the talk page (instead of editing the article directly) is especially important given that you have a conflict of interest with respect to this article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Deleting this material is not good enough. You are blanking content which meets Wikipedia's guidelines. Please use the article's talk page instead and explain why this material should be deleted. FlutterDash344 (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

• I actually wonder if those first two paragraphs are not WP:UNDUE for what appears to have been a fairly minor issue. I am always concerned when a BLP on a subject that is notable for one reason ends up being a laundry list of "Controversies". I'm tempted to remove them. The last sentence is a bit of a nothingburger, as well. Black Kite (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I disagree pretty strongly that this is a "minor issue". Most academic researchers are never involved in incidents like this. There's a reason it ended up being covered in repeated stories in The THE (and covered also in a separate publication): it is in fact an unusual thing. Consider the components: Eastell published a study where the drug maker did the research/analysis while Eastell himself didn't have full access to the data -- and other researchers took the view that the study overstated the benefits. Meanwhile he didn't disclose limits on access to the journal. And, the GMC uses the words "untrue" and "misleading" claims to describe what he did. Again -- all covered by a series of THE articles. Where I agree with you is re the final paragraph/sentence; this seems like more of a minor dispute. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I see you are the original author of this article (written in 2009) [57]. The original article seem like nothing more than an effort to publicize an academic controversy. A web search of "Richard Eastell" (both general search and news search) doesn't turn up anything about this controversy in the top pages I looked at. Looking at the current article I'm not sure about the NOTABILITY of the person and the article raises serious BLP concerns given it suggests academic fraud is the primary notable factor. I would say they are only marginally notable and given more than half the article seems to be to emphasize what Black Kite noted to be a fairly minor issue (I tend to agree) it's probably best just to AfD the whole thing. If not then the controversy section needs to be removed and the related content cut way down. Springee (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

• I didn't read the whole article in detail but zooming out it does seem like something that results in a person leaving their academic position is likely DUE (or more correctly should be included per BALASP). However, the See Also tags that were restored look problematic to me. Both effectively state that the people involved committed academic fraud. It doesn't appear that the disputed edits state that as fact thus, for the same reason we wouldn't include a "BLPCAT:academics who committed fraud", we shouldn't include see also links that do the same. Also, the argument that the content meets our content policies based on sourcing is weak. Yes, it needs to meet WP:V but that doesn't mean it should be included per BALASP. We have a new editor who read the article and felt that the content in question, in effect, failed BALASP and BLP concerns (my read of their arguments). The responses here feel a bit too much like biting the newbie who's base read has merit even if they don't know the correct ALLCAPS words to reference in their arguments. The correct answer here is probably a middle ground between outright removal and status quo. Springee (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  Other than the controversies, all the information is from the University of Sheffield or a paper authored by Eastell. Based on that, he fails notability.

  The controveries themselves are also non-notable. The Times Supplement story for example reported a GMC decision where Eastell was found "negligent" but not "deliberately dishonest." The GMC makes hears cases about doctors every day and they don't become notable unless they attract wide media attention.

  The article should be deleted. TFD (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Eastell. TFD (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Roza Otunbayeva

Recent additions at Roza Otunbayeva might need a few more eyes on them, as they appear to be deliberate additions of negative content. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The recent history indicates the following WP:BLP concerns: 1) WP:UNDUE discussions – whole subsections – of third parties (a meta BLP concern: even a Hollywood actor gets mentioned); and 2) WP:BLPCRIME accusations of wrongdoing that are not adjudicated as such. The negative prose is supported by an inordinate amount of background about third parties. That said, a politician being accused of rights violations as a member of government may be biographically significant if it's reflected in significant coverage by reliable sources. In my opinion, that threshold is met. It's a question of paring down all the prose, keeping reliable refs, to say the subject "was accused by international bodies and individuals of having committed several human and political rights violations and failures during her tenure." There's just very little room for it in her biography here. JFHJr (㊟) 00:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Karen McCarthy Woolf year of birth

Please see Talk:Karen_McCarthy_Woolf#Removing_year_of_birth_from_Karen's_biography: should we remove this poet's reliably-sourced year of birth because her friend says she is "uncomfortable" with it? I've replied fairly negatively, but thought I'd best check here as I'm not familiar with such requests. PamD 20:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Generally, we often give special consideration to subjects who request their birthdate be removed, and will often remove a full birthdate from an article upon the subject's request, because with identity theft and whatnot, it is considered a privacy issue by many, and we respect that. In such cases, we would generally use just the year instead. In this case, all we have is the year, and there is not as much of a privacy concern for that, at least from our perspective, but there may be some unforeseen reason the subject feels it is, and I would at least try to treat that with some weight and respect.

The thing about birthdates is, it's really just statistical data, not much different from height, weight, eye color, favorite cereal, etc. Albeit, nice info to have when we can get it, nine out of ten times it really adds no useful information that the reader absolutely needs in order to understand the subject. In other words, most of the time the article will read just the same without it, so that's another thing to weigh. In some cases it's necessary to distinguish between people with the same name, but the question I would ask myself is, is the date really necessary or can we do without it? To help, BLPPRIVACY says that a birthdate should be found in multiple sources, which as I read it means not one, not a couple, not even a few, but multiple sources, such that we can reasonably infer that the subject is ok with us publishing it too. (If they did, at some point we'd expect they they would've contacted those sources and asked for the date to be redacted, which any good RS will do upon request.)

So, in deciding this, I would have to weigh all those factors against each other and see which way the scale tips. It may be best to leave it, omit it, or simply narrow it own to a decade, such as the 1960s. However, the other issue we have is that the request comes not from the subject, but from some anonymous person claiming to be a friend, so that adds a whole new level of iffiness to the whole equation. I suppose in this case I would want to hear it directly from the subject before making any decision. Zaereth (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Ageism is definitely something that happens. I can imagine that the subject of a BLP looking for employment, romance, or an audience might not want it known that they are in their late 50s, etc. I have no idea whether this might apply in this case, but it should be considered in general. So, yes, I think there can be significant privacy concerns even for year-only birthdates. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The year seems ok per WP:DOB. We can remove it per WP:BLPKIND policy, it's editorial discretion where to draw the line in this case. I'm ok with removing it as a courtesy, but redacting is to far IMO. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Banjska attack misinformation: Serb casualties

In the Banjska attack article infobox it says "6-10 killed" on the Serbian side but this is not true. It is based on outdated info and rumors and speculations.

Citation number 1 says: "Four Serbs killed" This report from Radio Free Europe says that reports of a fourth attacker dead were incorrect.

Citation number 2 says 8 killed from "police sources" but it was as the event was happening (September 24)

Citation number 3 is from a Serbian lawyer's tweet in which he predicts there might be 7 to 10 killed (September 25)

The most up to date information from reliable sources all state that three Serbs were killed (and one Kosovo police officer):

From France 24 28 September: "Three Serb gunmen were killed in an hours-long firefight with Kosovo police"

From Reuters 28 September: "Three attackers and a Kosovo Albanian police officer were killed in the skirmishes."

From the Associated Press 29 September: "Kosovo police on Friday raided several locations in a Serb-dominated area of the country’s north, where weekend violence left one Kosovo police officer and three Serb insurgents dead"

From Deutsche Welle 29 September: "In the ensuring firefight with Kosovar security forces, three attackers were killed"

And there many more sources which can be found saying that just by googling.

Please someone help fix this incorrect information. I would do it myself but article is blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:6C2:86A:DDD:52BA:10FE:4EFF (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Banjska attack is the proper place to present this evidence and make your case. Cullen328 (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Javier Milei

There is currently an NPOV discussion on the NPOV Noticeboard.

Whatever discussion there was is long finished, no new comments since 6 September. Commenting so that the archive bot does its thing. Madam Fatal (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion may have been finished, but on looking at the article I can't help but think that it still very much needs attention, particularly since this person is the leading candidate in Argentina's upcoming elections. Ostalgia (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Oleksandr Yaroslavskyi

Oleksandr Yaroslavskyi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can someone take a look at this and tell me if it looks entirely like a commissioned PR job to them as well? We've had plenty of those from that part of the world and looking at the article's history it looks like it has, for years, remained an unreferenced mess of weasel words and puffery to make an oligarch look like the second coming of Jesus Christ, with regular additions/removals/changes made by SPAs. I don't have time to try to fix the article (I could just butcher it, but it would be less than ideal), but if anyone could confirm my suspicions and, at the very least, put some appropriate tags and remove the more egregious bits, that would be a huge upgrade over what we have now. Ostalgia (talk) 07:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Fixing it would require a cleaver. There's almost nothing that can be remedied without blanking. Instead of treating this as a WP:BLP problem, have you considered WP:AFD? If you'll AfD, I'd advise not butchering. But if you won't, then by all means, your gripe requires you to use the cleaver. I've watched the article and will support if necessary. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 23:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oleksandr Yaroslavskyi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) after all. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 00:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Coco Lee

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.

---

Hi there. I’m not familiar with the procedure but I guess this is probably the right place to address the issue. Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Competence_is_required, the article’s talk page, and the page’s history. Thanks! (missing signature for Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2023‎)

Hi Dustfreeworld. Wasn't sure which one of you I was talking to at first. I get a much better idea of the dispute from the history than from either of those other two pages, but I do declare, that is quite a lot of history to go through. My suggestion when coming to boards like this is to try as clearly and concisely as possible explain what the problem is from your perspective, so we can go into it knowing what we're looking for. Remember, we're new to this dispute, so explain it like you're talking to a newcomer.

The first thing I will note to everyone involved is that potential BLP violations should be removed from the article and not be restored until there is consensus to do so, not the other way around. With BLPs, it's far better to err on the side of caution, even if other parties feel (maybe rightfully so) that the info should be there, we need to reach a consensus before restoring it.

Next, the article needs a lot of work to make it read like an encyclopedia article. Currently, it's more like part bio and part gossip column. I get really, really nervous when I see nearly every sentence supported by 3 to 5 or more refs. In some cases, two or three concurring refs are good for info that is likely to be disputed. People often have a tendency to think the more refs the better, but too many like that actually throws up a big red-flag for synthesis. Most times a single ref can support multiple sentences, entire paragraphs or even entire sections. There is usually very little reason to to use multiple refs for a single sentence unless y'all are combining them to come to a novel conclusion Let alone multiple refs for each and every sentence. It makes the whole article look like synth, even if it's not.

Then, we seem to have a lot of really exhaustive details, especially surrounding her death and medical history. The extensive lists of medical information is worrisome in itself, because all of that needs extremely good, WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, which I doubt we have there. Encyclopedias are quick reference sources, which people can use to get a quick handle on a subject without being bogged down by all the intricate details. They're not supposed to be full novellas about the subjects. We're here to provide a summary of all knowledge, not all knowledge. The trick is being able to summarize it all into a relatively small and easily absorbed package, and in that it needs a lot of work. I don't have time for that right now, but what I would suggest is going around and viewing good articles on other celebrities, such as Kim Kardashian, and note the differences in tone, formatting, brevity, and coherence. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Dustfreeworld should not have tied ANI into this. I posted there a couple of days ago because they had not engaged in the discussion starting on September 13 about sources for the cite check that they had initiated [58][59]. In the mean time, they reverted the article and posted a template on my talk page. I understand the importance of concensus but they seemed to be ignoring good faith discussion [60]. The article's talk section is where the content and sources are being explained. Vacosea (talk) 04:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Vacosea, please stop your continual and deliberate false accusations, which I perceived as libelspersonal attacks. And please note that, as you have already been told (and you seem to be ignoring), potential BLP violations should be removed from the article immediately per WP:BLP. For those who want to know the truth, please see the reply I posted at ANI. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Dustfreeworld I'm going to reiterate what I said on WP:ANI here: do not use words like libel towards other editors on Wikipedia, as that can be considered a violation of No Legal Threats. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely no legal threats here. I’m not billionaire and definitely won’t spend money to take legal action on this kind of things ;) I’m just describing my feelings. Perhaps I should say “personal attacks” instead? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:45, 28 September 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.

Andrea Montanino

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

The page is poorly reference and clearly self promotional — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.4.151.195 (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Allan R. Bomhard

 Courtesy link: Allan R. Bomhard Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Nature of dispute: I have had a biographical entry on Wikipedia going back at least to 2004. Once that entry got finalized, it remained essentially unchanged for the better part of two decades. That is to say, for the better part of two decades, no one questioned my scholarly credentials or the content of my biographical entry. Then, for no apparent reason, my biographical entry recently got changed. The earlier version was a short, FACTUAL description. The current version, however, is no longer factual. Instead, it is a rather biased, unflattering OPINION. I have requested that the earlier version (with some minor updates) be RESTORED. For details, please see the lengthy “talk” section associated with the entry, which appears to have reached an impasse. Consequently, I am resorting to the dispute resolution process to resolve this issue. I feel that this is important, not only for restoring the factual content of my own biographical entry, but also for Wikipedia itself. If this can happen here, it can happen elsewhere and to others, thus affecting the integrity of Wikipedia as a whole and raising the question as to whether Wikipedia can still be seen as a reliable, unbiased resource. Thank you. Allan R. Bomhard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbomhard (talk • contribs) 17:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

See WP:DRN, where this discussion was moved from. NotAGenious (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The version of Allan R. Bomhard that Arbomhard prefers is an unsourced BLP. It was taken to AfD for that reason. The current version uses sources that meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability to describe Bomhard's scholarly contributions; the existence of these sources is what saved the article from deletion. The current version also omits the biographical details from the version that Arbomhard prefers, not because anyone wishes to suppress those details, but because we have no sources for them. If Arbomhard wishes any of those details to be restored, all we need is for reliable publications sourcing them to be supplied.

If Arbomhard also wishes to suppress the scholarly published criticism of his work, that is a different issue. We also have many other published scholarly works by others about Bomhard's work that are listed in the article but not really used for its content (the reviews of his books). It is possible that our article's description of his work could benefit from expansion based on these other works, but Arbomhard might not like the result, as the ones I checked were somewhat negative.

It is important here to keep in mind that, especially for topics that might be considered WP:FRINGE, neutrality does not mean the suppression of all opinions; it means accurately reporting the consensus of mainstream opinion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

A dispute about this BLP is also pending at WP:ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#COI_editor_Arbomhard. I advised bringing the issue about this BLP here, and advised waiting rather than filing at WP:ANI. One editor took my advice, and another ignored it; that is the way it is. I will point out that in Wikipedia a short description is only considered FACTUAL when it is attributed to reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Arbomhard - You want the old version of your biography restored, but it was removed because it is unsourced. Can you provide sources that will support a version of your biography that is essentially the same as the previous version, but is sourced? If so, that can be considered. If not, not. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I think we can be more positive: with reliable sources, all of the material Arbomhard wants restored is non-problematic and can be included. The problematic part is that Arbomhard is requesting reversion of the entire article to that version, leaving only the biographical material and removing the criticism of his scholarship. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Come on, David. A biographical entry should be just that. Criticism of my work on Nostratic properly belongs in the Wikipedia entry on Nostrattic (together with positive comments by qualified linguists). And yes, there is plenty of criticism to go around. I have always welcomed feedback, both positive and negative, and I have always tried to address concerns in subsequent versions of my work on Nostratic. Arbomhard (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@Arbomhard: Robert McClenon & David Eppstein are right in saying that you need to provide reliable sources for any information that you want to add to the article, and I have nothing more to add on that point. I do think it is worth explaining, however, that you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works when you write that Once that entry got finalized, it remained essentially unchanged for the better part of two decades. Wikipedia articles are never finalised: they are always open to change and improvement. The fact that nobody edited the article in nearly 20 years does not mean that it was fixed in that state forever; most articles which have not been substantively edited since 2004 are bad by the standards of 2023 Wikipedia and are in dire need of change! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Please refer to the "talk" section under my biographical entry, where I clearly demonstrate the bias involved in the current version of my biographical entry, and I have demonstrated that the sources cited in the current version unequivocally do NOT (!) "meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability" -- one in particular is quoted out of context and attributed to someone who is neither a linguist nor a Nostraticist, though it is claimed that he is. It is both hypocritical and an embarassment, to put it bluntly, to hold this up as an example of "reliably sourced" information and then criticize me for not providing "reliably sourced" information to back up the claims made in the earlier version of my biographical entry. Moreover, I have offered to supply "reliably sourced" corroboration of the statements made in the earlier version (the one I prefer) of my biographical entry, but no one has yet stated what is actually required. I have also pointed out that my life is an open book and that any required sources are already freely available on the Internet. Check the information about me on E. J. Brill's web site, for example. I do not wish to suppress any published criticism of my work -- most of it is already freely available on the Internet anyway. However, I do object to the fact that supportive reviews of my work were not also included! This gives a very distorted picture, to say the least (for details, see the most recent additions to the "talk" section under my biographical entry). I agree that nothing is "fixed forever", and I have myself suggested several minor changes to bring the earlier entry up to date. I stated a fact when I claimed that "Once that entry got finalized, it remained essentially unchanged for the better part of two decades". This can hardly be disputed. When I said "got finalized", I was referring to the fact that there were very early versions of my biographical entry that were modified to the version that remained essentially unchanged for the better part of two decades, Arbomhard (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

That a problem (an unsourced article) persisted for a long time (two decades) does not mean we can then never fix the problem. You can read about our sourcing requirements at WP:RS. You can list any sourcing that meets that standard at Talk:Allan R. Bomhard - either to support biographical details or to reference views of your work. If you do so, you should do so without focusing on other editors or attacking them - such attacks are a violation of our policies (WP:NPA). You're being extended leeway here because you're new and we know that changes to a biography can be upsetting to a subject, but there is a limit. MrOllie (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. That is helpful. Arbomhard (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

As instructed, I have added links to reliable source material on the Internet on the talk page accompanying my biographical entry. As an aside, you are correct, I am new to this. It is not my intention to be rude, only to rectify what I see as an injustice (bias), and, yes, it is very frustrating when I try to correct that injustice and am met with resistence (what I have called "roadblocks"), some valid, some not so valid. Please let me know what else I can do. And, as I becoeme increasingly familiar with Wikipedia's protocols and requirements, including behavioral requirements, I will try to respect those requirements, though I may need a little help and patience here. I apologize if I have offended anyone. Arbomhard (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Simon Hooper

During the Tottenham v Liverpool football match 30/9/2023 someone edited this man's page to put abusive language about him in Polish. What initially shocked me was that they originally referred to him as a Jewish referee although that word was quickly removed by somebody.

I haven't edited this page because I believe Wikipedia should see the abuse and find out who the offender was and take very strong action against them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevorius (talk • contribs) 17:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The vandalism has been cleaned up but this article still isn’t acceptable, as about 80 percent of it is devoted to two controversial incidents he’s been involved with during the current season, which is WP:UNDUE for someone who’s been a top class referee for five years. There ought to be other material in reliable sources that could be used to make it more balanced. Neiltonks (talk) 12:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Irakli Garibashvili

This isn't to report a BLP violation per se, but there's a dispute at Talk:Irakli_Garibashvili#Should_the_lead_image_be_changed?, and reversion levels in the associated article that aren't past 3RR yet, but with four users, including myself involved, it would be good for a 100% uninvolved party to come in and douse some water on the situation. Cheers, Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Proper application of WP policies to Kevin Sorbo article?

A talk page discussion with one other editor, @Ramos1990, is approaching an impasse with respect to what content meets threshold-eligibility criteria for inclusion in an article on the public figure, actor Kevin Sorbo.

I have not edited the article itself, and I do not believe they have edited it since the beginning of our discussion. Everything has been civil and the whole discussion can be found at Talk:Kevin_Sorbo#No_politics?.

This editor's history more than demonstrates (to my satisfaction, at least) that they are here to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. I hope that my own history demonstrates the same.

My concern, as you will find detailed in the talk page, is that this editor is relying upon what I think is a misinterpretation of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP in order to selectively exclude unflattering information about the subject—including even positions the subject has publicly professed and which have also been reported by independent media.

I link to their short edit history in our discussion.

Information added by third parties and supported by good sources that this editor has removed include two allegations of sexual misconduct, public efforts to undermine medical consensus on vaccines during a pandemic, and a public effort to present the breach of the U.S. Capitol as a false-flag operation.

The idea that such public positions are categorically excluded from Wikipedia on the grounds that Sorbo is notable only as an actor (who is not running for office—their example) seems to me a strong misreading of the relevant Wikipedia guidelines.

We would both be grateful for any input from a third party more knowledgeable about the relevant policies governing biographies of living persons.

Many thanks for your consideration –

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Just wanted to add some context. The content under discussion is not being "selective" but that some editors (usually IPs) are adding content that is seemingly for defamatory purposes only such as that Sorbo was somehow against vaccination when in reality he himself was vaccinated. Other strong accusations require strong sourcing (which other editors reverted through the years by the way), not weak sourcing. Wikipedia entries should be encyclopedic - not everything online about a person belongs on wikipedia - this is respected in general for many biographies of other public figures. Much of the issue revolves around sources that react to tweets or barely mention Sorbo, not comprehensive sources. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to look into this myself but to state the obvious, some anti-vaxers have received at least some vaccinations themselves. Anti-vaxers include people with a wide variety of unscientific believes about vaccinations from complete opposition to a variety of unscientific claims about certain vaccinations or vaccination components. So if Kevin Sorbo has received some vaccinations this probably should be mentioned if sourced but it doesn't mean he isn't anti-vaccination. Nil Einne (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Just to share on this board the one comment this post has elicited on the article talk page:

Thanks for the post on the noticeboard.

I agree with Ramos1990, Emir of Wikipedia, Ponyo, and Blablubbs on the sexual misconduct removal for very poor sourcing and potential WP:SYN on one of them. Much stronger sources are needed and I could not find any online. No issues were ever raised legally or seriously by either women. No recent updates at all on this either. WP:BLPREMOVE applies here.

In terms of the politics stuff, it does not seem like much of the content is relevant to the article. Much of the sources revolve around commenting on Sorbo's tweets - which can be taken out of context and slanted by any source. I agree with Ramos1990 in that not everything that is published on a person belongs on Wikipedia. His views on vaccines are not relevant anymore. The pandemic is gone and since he did get vaccinated to do filming in another country, it makes no sense to use Wikipedia to spread such content per WP:BLPGOSSIP.

In terms of political views, everyone has one and everyone has an opinion on every topic. But that does not mean it belongs on Wikipedia. It can be challenged and removed either way since it is true that political affiliations do change and is a private matter. Even if reliable sources exist, that does not mean it belongs in the biography of a person. From what I looked at, Sorbo is barely mentioned in passing on the source for CPAC and for the other stuff like his opinion on the vaccine stuff, it is all based on his tweets and end up being opinion pieces than true journalism. These are not news. I am sure you can find actors commenting on almost any topic from natural disasters to political candidates especially through twitter, but much of this is not relevant to the biography and requires higher quality journalism than opinion pieces.

We should really strive for better sourcing and better relevance when controversial matters are being considered on a biography page. We do not want Wikipedia to contribute to defamation or misinforming about an individual if we can avoid it. It should contain neutral content too.desmay (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The pandemic isn't over or gone but either way whether it's over is largely irrelevant to anything. If Kevin Sorbo was spreading nonsense about vaccines and this was well covered in reliable secondary sources then this is likely something we should mention no matter what's going on with COVID-19. Also as I said before, the fact Sorbo eventually got vaccinated is largely irrelevant. In fact, if Sorbo was trying to kill people with his tweets, and then got vaccinated himself for work; this if anything may be an even greater reason why sources may call him out for it. Ultimately the key thing that matters is coverage in reliable secondary sources.

Sorbo is only really noted as an actor rather than for any medical expertise, so there's less reason to add other random crap he said, no matter how harmful per WP:UNDUE. But if it's well covered in reliable secondary sources, especially secondary sources from after those tweets indicating long term significance, then yes this is something we're likely to cover since it's no longer WP:UNDUE as reflected in the sources. No matter whether people want to believe nonsense about the pandemic being over or eventually getting vaccinated somehow excuses any harm Sorbo did to others by his tweets.

One thing I would agree one is we do need quality sources. Looking at this [61], the sourcing for the vaccine thing was Huffington Post which isn't a great source for this kind of thing, and appears to be from the time of the event so a double whammy.

But I noticed something else there. We included some nonsense Sorbo talked about Hollywood disliking christians sourced only to Fox News, a source known to be problematic for politics which this clearly is. I looked some more and found further nonsense sourced to Daily Express. WTH? I can understand why the OP has concerns when people are removing stuff sourced to La Times while leaving stuff sourced to Fox News and Daily Express! A cleanup of all nonsense in the article may help reduce the OP's concerns. I removed the two obvious standouts but I expect there is more.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Nil Einne,

Thanks for chiming in! However, if material sourced to Fox News and the Huffington Post is not up to standard, then about 80% of the article needs to be deleted. (See Kevin_Sorbo#References.) He's just not famous enough to be covered by mainstream news outlets. But in some circles, at least, his social media presence is considered notable. Would something like this [62] from the Daily Beast be enough of a source to establish that?

My proposal was to include the (to many people) unflattering information repeatedly removed by other editors on the grounds that this is at least as notable and sourced as the other material, rather than to remove everything not sourced to major media outlets. As far as the NYTimes, the AP, or NPR are concerned, Sorbo is basically a non-entity. But I'm assuming this does not matter to folks who non-accidentally find themselves at his Wikipedia bio.

For background, the reason I went to the article was to see why Sorbo was hired as a spokesperson for an advertisement aired multiple times on the right-leaning Rumble's livestream of the second GOP primary debate. The article did not answer that, but a news search on his name turned up and abundance of material that did. Pretty much all of the coverage, though, is in tabloids or highly partisan sources. See, e.g., the results here [63] or at the search engine of your choice.

I would welcome further comments from you or anyone else on how best to approach this.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Nil Einne - "Sorbo is only really noted as an actor rather than for any medical expertise, so there's less reason to add other random crap he said, no matter how harmful per WP:UNDUE." The sources being used should be much higher quality and should explicitly detail, not just mention some any effects of his random tweets. No reliable source has claimed that his tweets are doing damage to the public. That would be an interesting piece indeed. I have not not seen one that does such a thing. Most are op-ed or poorly written non-journalism articles. He generally does not make a splash in the headlines. And WP:UNDUE does apply here. We need higher quality sources than just random little articles showing tweet wars. In general tweet and tweet-related articles are a very poor sources for wikipeida. It is not even journalism and look very amateurish and sloppy. Since Patrick Welsh kind of confirmed that - "Pretty much all of the coverage, though, is in tabloids or highly partisan sources. See, e.g., the results here [31] or at the search engine of your choice." then, per WP:NOTDIARY we should weigh the relevance of material being presented as it says "Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overly detailed articles that look like a diary." Ramos1990 (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Ramos1990,

Thanks for continuing to follow this! Would you mind elaborating your views on what, in this case, counts as an adequately good source? Because, as I state above, the standard that @Nil Einne suggests would require deleting almost all of the article, which I think would be a disservice to readers.

I am fine either way, but the standard should be consistent between positive and negative coverage with respect to do or undo coverage. After all, that he consistently tweets the way that he does is not (I don't think!) in dispute. (Just see [64] and jump around in the history as you please.)

Tweeting vaccine misinformation to 1.8 million followers very possibly has lead to easily avoidable deaths. I do not think, however, that the article should speculate on this. Readers can make their own connections.

Finally, it is important to distinguish using Twitter as a source (which it almost never should be) and reporting on statements (or a pattern thereof) made by a public figure on the Twitter/X platform.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Dario del Bufalo

• Dario del Bufalo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article is poorly sourced, with several claims not backed up by realiable and independent sources and it seems self-promotional. Its relevance should also be considered. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.42.221.81 (talk) 07:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Ben Aulich

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.

---

Can some people please check new article Ben Aulich? It contains many negative claims about living people and criminal cases and conduct, and I can't access the sources to check if it is a fair and due article respecting all aspects of WP:BLP (like WP:SUSPECT and so on), or a hit piece / one sided view. Fram (talk) 07:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be written by someone close to Aulich, with a lot of citations that are more about his opponents that don't even mention Aulich. Maybe an attempt at synthesis. Not sure if this is a BLP1E. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

After review, I've nominated this for AfD.[65] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts, it's straight up WP:ADVOCACY and WP:RGW. The material you removed gives that away. Google Britney Higgins or Bruce Lehrmann if you want to get an idea for the motivation for that article given that's the bulk of the material that you removed, which had nothing to do with the subject. It's a hit piece on Shane Drumgold. The stuff about referring to a respondent in a civil dispute as being prosecuted speaks to the loaded language being used. TarnishedPath^talk 11:42, 26 September 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.

WP:SUSPECT and QAnon-adjacent POV at James Gordon Meek

The current state of this article speaks for itself. The person covered in it is a former senior journalist from ABC News who was recently prosecuted and convicted for child pornography charges (see here). The article is now littered with irrelevant factoids, QAnon-adjacent dog-whistles and unreliable sources, including two explicitly pro-Pizzagate sources (a Infowars video and a Evie Magazine piece).

Some issues I've noticed:

• The article HEAVILY implies that Meek commited multiple sex crimes other than the ones he was convicted for (precisely, he pleaded guilty one count of sharing and another of possessing child pornography; he was never convicted for anything other than that). This is a WP:SUSPECT violation.
• The article suggests that the FBI was aware of Meek's criminal activities since 2016 and did nothing, even though none of the sources support this claim. This is probably a WP:Hoax.
• The current version of the body is so detailed that it reads more like an amateur detective novel than a well-summarized encyclopedic article. You can delete 80% of the "Investigation, Arrest, Conviction" section and nothing valuable would be lost.
• The article is filled with WP:CitationOverkills, blatantly unreliable sources (Twitter posts, statements from the prosecution, court documents, explicitly pro-Pizzagate publications, etc.) and original research.

A talk page discussion here was opened to address some of those issues, but the discussion went nowhere.

Some QAnon diffs:

• user @Virginia Courtsesan adds WP:INFOWARS's Rumble account [66], as well as a pro-Pizzagate Evie Magazine piece [67], as sources to the article to subtly make the point that Meek was an anti-Pizzagate journalist from "mainstream media" ABC News. In reality, this claim was debunked by Reuters.

• a news article is used out of context to make the statement that Meek was "either being aligned with - or turning a blind eye to - a shadowy world of ill-doings among the D.C. political elites".[68]
• this edit SYNTHs up the statement that Meek's alleged crimes were being covered up by unnamed people, using Twitter as one of the sources. The same edit also implies that Meek had meetings with "important people" set up by someone called George Nader.[69] Just like the previous diff, none of this is relevant to the actual facts of the matter and only works to promote the Pizzagate "sex-trafficking elite" talking point.

All of those diffs echo talking points directly associated with the QAnon conspiracy theory. I tried to remove the conspiracy stuff from the article, but Virginia Courtsesan (who wrote 63% of this article and is responsible for all of the diffs shown above) reverted me. SparklyNights 01:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, after Sparkly threatened to ban me (not an admin, of course) it seems he's intent on misrepresenting matters. I'm very much anti-QAnon and anti-conspiracy, the Rumble/Infowars link was only provided in the sentence dealing with the fact misinformation had been spread about Meek's case, necessitating major outlets like Reuters to fact-check it. Wikipedia was thus used to help prevent the misinformation. Absolutely nothing was being presented as true and sourced to Infowars or anything remotely Pizzagate-y or conspiracy, I'd be the first to raise complaint if I noticed something like that. I removed the link when asked (though I still maintain that where you had Tucker Carlson, Glenn Beck, Infowars and others spreading "Meek is innocent, this is a frame-up, biggest news of the year!" hyperbole...before Meek plead guilty, it's notable to link to their stories and reference the furor...while obviously making it clear their sensationalism is not relied on as fact, it's presented as a source for the viral misinformation about the case. Sparkly is pretending to present a Reuters fact-check to prove the Wiki article is incorrect, but the statement in Wiki is literally "Meek did this mild X thing, this was misrepresented in a series of viral misinformation - this was debunked by Reuters". I'm the one who put the Reuters fact-check in to prevent misinformation being spread.

I have no idea what Evie Magazine is, but I feel like classifying it as "pro-Pizzagate" is probably a false smear - a quick glance at https://www.allsides.com/news-source/evie-magazine-media-bias shows it is ranked the same as the Wall Street Journal as "leans right", not even "right", muchless conspircy/far-right (but again, I've never heard of it before this). Again, I'd already removed the link as per a Talk Page discussion, before Sparkly came here to make his accusations (though again, I feel the link was used appropriately and raise an eyebrow at seeing Sparkly's definition of the magazine, since a search on Google for Pizzagate+Evie+Magazine turns up no results suggesting his accusation is true on a glance).

I'm accused of WP:HOAX by this author for a statement which, if he were to look at the links on the page, is reported by the Department of Justice without any other source ever contradicting it (but since it's a primary source it can't be used as the footnote-citation per Wiki standards)....to claim this is a "hoax" is bordering on bad-faith ad hominem attack.

The article is only 25% the length at which we need to consider whether it is too long and detailed, it literally consists of only two parts. "Meek's Career" and "Later investigation, charges, conviction". While Sparkly insists that Meek hasn't personally given a jailhouse interview confirming some details, it's notable that he hasn't denied them even in the legal process.

Can every article use work to clean up language to be more perfectly neutral, sure - but this is hardly what Sparkles claims it to be. Coming into the article for the first time threatening that he is going to ban users who disagree with him, suggests an unwillingness to speak rationally. A glance at the talk-page shows I'm engaging with another user there and working to help ensure everything is neutrally-phrased and tidying up language to ensure it's clear that we only mention the misinformation because the misinformation was itself notable to the case, multiple articles were written about Rolling Stone's efforts to deceive, etc.

Claiming "statements from the prosecution" cannot be used, even when the Prosecution obviously secured a conviction/guilty plea and the statements are those being quoted in the Washington Post...seems again like a bad-faith misrepresentation of matters.

Claiming "A talk page issue was raised but discussion went nowhere" is a misrepresentation of the fact he literally first touched the article, and talk page, four hours before coming here to claim it's all "going nowhere". Meek was sentenced yesterday, I understand new people are seeing the article and have strong opinions - I welcome them all and all positive contributions on the article's talk page. But threats to ban me, then reporting me to BLP when I tell him to restrain the threats and focus on positive conversation, is thinly-veiled at best.

Tellingly, the user has made literally zero suggestions of how things could be re-phrased or re-worked to ensure there's no accidental misunderstandings by readers, or to ensure nothing negative about a living person is used inappropriately. He has simply deleted 80% of the article and come here to say we can delete 80% of the article and not lose anything he considers of value. But a neutral walk through Meek's beginnings, his motivations described by himself, his work - are all intended to offer balance and show how, the words of the judge (not quoted since only in primary documents), even heroes fall. Virginia Courtsesan (talk) 01:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

What i left you was a WP:WARNING, that does not imply that I was going to ban you. Users who are not admins can give others warnings, including warnings that mention that the warned user might get blocked.

About Evie Magazine's article, this is what it said: "interesting how the people who vehemently criticize any initiatives that raise awareness of child sex trafficking seem to possess questionable moral traits. (...) Considering Meek worked with the government, and with the news of the new bill to conceivably broaden the definition of 'sexual orientation,' it's possible Pizzagate isn't far-fetched at all." There is no ambiguity here, this is a pro-Pizzagate piece.

Plus, the statement that was sourced by you with the infowars source does not state that there was any misinformation related to Meek's works related to Pizzagate. What it implies, without any ambiguity, is that it was ironic how this anti-Pizzagate journalist turned out to be a target of a sex crime investigation. The pro-conspiracy tone is obvious here. SparklyNights 01:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The statement is "In 2017 Meek wrote an article about Russian disinformation wherein he referred to "the debunked Pizzagate conspiracy theory", which drew viral attention with exaggerated suggestions Meek had said much more", I do not think that can possibly be read as pro-conspiracy or presenting that it's ironic how an anti-pizzagate journalist was convicted of whatever...it addresses the fact there was notable viral misinformation which exaggerated a single sentence Meek had once written. If you can think of a better way to phrase the same information, I'm certainly open to seeing it written more bluntly or whatever. That's material for the talk page, or be bold and add your improvement to make sure nobody else draws the same (erroneous) conclusion you've drawn from reading the sentence. Again, Evie Magazine and Infowars were only linked as having gone viral for their exaggerated claims, followed immediately by the link to the Reuters fact-check showing it was a gross exaggeration of what he'd actually said. (and they were removed per talk page discussion anyways, before you made this complaint - again you only found the article four hours ago, maybe give it a little time to engage with the various editors on the talk page and offer your suggestions other than just calling for tremendous amounts of deletion. I'd love to see a list of say, five sentences you think are problematic, and how you think they would be better phrased or whatever...on the talk page. Virginia Courtsesan (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The actual full quote of what you wrote, as shown here, is: "In 2017 Meek wrote an article about Russian disinformation wherein he referred to 'the debunked Pizzagate conspiracy theory', which drew viral attention after his guilty plea to judge Claude Hilton." The quote you provided was the version you edited AFTER I complained about your edits. Again, the obvious insinuation here is that this "mainstream media" journalist who hated Pizzagate turned out to be a bad person himself. That's what any normal person reads when they see this article. I believe you should just admit that what you did was wrong and move on, there is no hope in defending any of this. SparklyNights 02:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I literally edited it when you said you read it as pro-conspiracy, to make it more clear it wasn't meant that way - it was meant to be debunking the claim which doubtless leads readers to the Wiki article to see if it's true that Meek "claimed he had debunked Pizzagate", etc. You said you read something into my wording that I certainly hadn't intended to be read into it, I promptly changed the wording to be more clear so nobody else would make the same assumption you'd made. That's...handled appropriately. Then AFTER that, you came here to claim nothing was being done and claiming it was a pro-Pizzagate article and accusing me of writing a hoax, etc. I'm trying to be reasonable - and I certainly admit that if my earlier writing of the sentence led you to interpret it as pro-conspiracy, rather than anti-conspiracy, then I was wrong in my wording. Good thing I changed it as soon as it was pointed out you read it as meaning the opposite of what was intended? I mean you could write an entire paragraph about the stupid fake screenshot people are sharing that spreads misinformation, and media's efforts to fact-check it...but I think it might be WP:UNDUE in that case. It merits a sentence that explains what Meek DID say, that conspiracies emerged afterward saying Meek claimed far more than that, and that Reuters is clear it's a gross exaggeration/misinformation. If you can put all of that into a more succinct sentence, I'd be happy to see it, honestly. Virginia Courtsesan (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, it seems that you had made another pro-Pizzagate edit to the Pizzagate page. The edit stated "In 2023, attention was drawn to the fact disgraced ABC News senior producer James Gordon Meek had written an article about Russian disinformation wherein he referred to "the debunked Pizzagate conspiracy theory", which drew viral attention after his guilty plea for child sex offences." Can you point out why you wrote that?SparklyNights 03:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Exact same reason, if I am mis-using the word "viral" to mean "misinformation" as you claim I am, and I have corrected it to be in-line with suggested improved language - why are you still here? I maintain it is viral and/or misinformation and/or disinformation - Reuters agrees with that. Obviously there are thousands of people who are sharing the nonsense "James Meek claimed he debunked Pizzagate, but he was convicted!" but the effort is to use the Wikipedia article to show all that Meek said is "X" in an article on Date Y, but that people then took it viral...and include the Reuters fact-check as a footnote to it. I really do not understand the problem, and I especially do not understand it where it was corrected and re-worded the first time someone said they had read/misread it as endorsing the viral information. Can we shake hands and stop bickering? I'll be the first to apologize, I'm sorry. Virginia Courtsesan (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd note that starting off with a long post tends to make it difficult to receive much attention on most noticeboards, but if you then follow this up with an even longer back and forth between the existing editors, you've made it even less likely you'll received any useful help. However briefly, I'd have to disagree that it's a WP:SUSPECT violation to report that someone was accused of multiple other crimes but in the end their plea deal was for a lesser crime. It's a very common part of the plea deal process that the prosecutor may agree to only prosecute a limited number of crimes. The key issue is whether these other accusations were covered sufficiently in reliable secondary sources. Especially if they were covered in reliable secondary sources at the time of conviction or after the conviction; or if they were discussed in court as part of the plea deal as reported in reliable secondary sources. Also if the suspect was initially charged with more crimes but these were dropped as part of the plea deal then this normally should be reported if well covered in reliable secondary sources. Meek also seems likely to be a public figure (award winning journalist) Nil Einne (talk) 04:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Also I'd say feel free to remove anything sourced exclusively to court documents or other unacceptable primary sources. If an editor reverts such removals, you can ask for them to be blocked or topic banned for a BLP violation. Nil Einne (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As probably my final comment on this matter, I will say that if all you have is a fact check, it's likely unnecessary to present something which allegedly went "viral" on conspiracy theorist websites or other unreliable sources especially on a biography article just to debunk it. The only chance it could make sense is if it's widely reported in reliable secondary sources in relation to the subject that such claims went viral. Nil Einne (talk) 04:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything sourced exclusively to court documents or other unacceptable primary sources, the only "primary sources" used are in the "Career" portion not the "Crime" portion, as there's an attempt to avoid the article being overly weighted toward the crime...so Meek's position and actions on the House Committee are lifted from House.gov, his early career is from his own online bio on his own website, etc...nothing that the subject of the article would mind. The only facts on the WP article about the crimes should all be sourced to, typically multiple, reliable secondary sources. Virginia Courtsesan (talk) 04:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Well that's not correct. I just removed some excerpts from court documents images that someone thought was acceptable in a BLP. Whoever did this should be topic banned if they ever try it again. Nil Einne (talk) 04:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

BTW, while not as serious a BLP violation, it's very unlikely there is any reason to include any thing about his position or actions if the only source is some House Committee document. If no one else cares about whatever this was, then nor do we. Nil Einne (talk) Nil Einne (talk) 04:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The article is a mess, and clearly not acceptable per WP:BLP policy. Sourcing is suspect, even from a quick look (e.g. citing ghbase.com, a Ghanaian tabloid website, for a story with no connection to Ghana [70], or the highly-questionable use of a YouTube channel [71] for what appears to be allegations about a Rolling Stone editor), padded with non-consequential trivia (e.g. Meek writing a letter to a newspaper: removed here [72]) and making thoroughly misappropriate use of sources (see e.g. here, [73] where I've removed what is blatant synthesis, turning a comment about Meeks career in intelligence into supposed commentary on the crimes). AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

 Administrator note This subject is now being discussed at ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @AndyTheGrump, @Nil Einne, @SparklyNights, @Virginia Courtsesan. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Duane Davis (gangster)

Recently in the news for obvious reasons. I am concered regarding inclusion of allegations by Davis that Sean Combs/Diddy ordered the hit on Tupac prominently in the lead of the article, which are not included at all in the Murder of Tupac Shakur article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I don’t understand why it is not included in that article, it is not libellous, nor a biography of a living person so doesn’t need to be substantiated, and there are plenty of sources, including reliable media coverage Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLP does not just apply to articles that are directly about a living or recently deceased person. It also applies wherever living people are mentioned, even if the article is not about them. Lard Almighty (talk) 09:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Sean Combs and Duane Davis (gangster) are living persons. The policy on verifiability is non-negotiable, so that anything in Wikipedia needs to be substantiated. If there are plenty of reliable sources, find one that is suitable for coverage of living persons. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Nathan Leventhal, Bio

The photograph accompanying the above "biography" , has an error, in the description of "Southhampton",-- The photo refers to a suburb of London, England, NOT Southampton, N.Y., which it should be. This is my only attempt at "editing" ANY WIKIPEDIA entry, so I hope this gets to the correct person to correct it. I have NO affiliation to this individual, his family, nor anything this person has done, or said in his life. I simply am making a notice of an incorrect photograph, inside of a persons' history.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.132.173 (talk) 00:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC) 

Hi there, and thanks very much for bringing this to our attention. However, our article doesn't have a photo. I think what is happening is that you're seeing this on google or some other search engine. Search engines use algorithms to search for any relevant images to show the reader, but they don't always get it right and often end up showing a photo of someone completely different. Maybe there is no online photo and it just found something with a similar name. Whatever the case, we have no control over what google does, so you would have to contact them to report any problems. Thanks. Zaereth (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Mubarak Abdullah Al-Mubarak Al-Sabah

Sheikh Mubarak Abdullah Al-Mubarak Al Sabah is alive and well. You may have confused him with another person - Sheikh Mubarak Abdullah Al Ahmad Al Jaber Al Sabah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.97.185 (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the claim of his death for being unsourced, thanks. FossilWave (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Donal MacIntire

Self Proclaimed Criminologist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.43.82 (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Donal MacIntyre? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Someone else proclaimed, it seems. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

deej fabyc

Hi I note that the University cited on this page for MFA is incorrect it is in fact the UNSW NOT USW. UNSW is in Sydney Australia USW is in Wales UK so - not even in same continent please see this link https://unsworks.unsw.edu.au/entities/publication/e7263b61-b545-40cf-85a3-942d458cfd32

correction would be much appreciated Thank you Deej Fabyc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.55.206.48 (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Fixed, the originally cited sources already had the correct information in them, so no need to turn to the primary source cited above. Iffy★Chat -- 16:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Steve Hilton

Steve Hilton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi editors, I am seeking opinions on this request to update a small section of the biography of political commentator Steve Hilton about the 2020 U.S. election.

The Wikipedia article says "Hilton promoted Trump's false claims of large-scale fraud," but this is not supported by the cited source, The Independent. Instead, the source quotes Hilton as saying "any evidence of fraud or irregularity should be brought forward and the court should adjudicate." Hilton also said "But when it’s this close. This important with this many late changes to the rules, of course, we should investigate them thoroughly. Not just for the sake of the win but for the sake of faith in our system." The sourcing never states Hilton supports specific election fraud claims. There is a difference between "promoting" specific fraud claims and saying that "any evidence of fraud or irregularity" should be investigated, and the Wikipedia article should faithfully represent the source material per Wikipedia:Verifiability.

In attempting an edit request to have the Wikipedia article faithfully represent the source material, a reviewing editor asked me to continue the discussion to reach consensus, which brings me here. I have a conflict of interest, as I am here on behalf of Steve Hilton, which is why I have not edited the article directly myself. I am happy to discuss further on the article Talk page. SKflo (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

u5 Deletion Request For Deen K. Chatterjee

This page was created by a user for financial extortion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deenchat (talk • contribs) 01:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

That is a particularly serious allegation, and frankly, given the article creator's extensive editing history, seems somewhat implausible. If you have actual evidence to back the claim up, I suggest you contact either the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee or the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department [74] privately by email, providing full details. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. If this was an attack article then I might take it seriously, but the article could not be reasonably described as an attack article in the slightest. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:U5 certainly wouldn't apply, as that is for pages in "User space" (Ones that are references with User:, and usually are mainly the pages where editors explain who they are and their interests.) This item is in what we call "article space". Creating editor doesn't qualify as a "has made few or no edits outside of user pages"; it looks like there's over a decade of reasonable contribution and no history of being "blocked" for improper behavior. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

As a courtesy to Dr. Chatterje (presuming it is actually him) I've nominated the article for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deen K. Chatterjee. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Ron Haffkine

my cousin died October 1, 2023. Please update to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:337:AAA9:D189:5497:590D:F00E (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh my gosh. I'm truly sorry for your loss. Unfortunately, we have to be very cautious about reporting someone's death, so we require a good, reliable source before we can do that. There is a chance that no reliable sources will report it on their own, however. My suggestion would be for you and the other family members to write an obituary and submit it to your local newspaper. Once it's published, you can bring that source here or the article's talk page and we can easily update it for you. One again, my condolences. Zaereth (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

This has since been added to Ron Haffkine, sourced to the Hollywood Reporter. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Tarique Rahman

The two Wikipedia articles Tarique Rahman and A. Q. M. Badruddoza Chowdhury are wrongly pointing out that Tarique Rahman was the President of Bangladesh. No such references and citations exist either online or in hard copy either as this is a factually wrong information. Tarique Rahman was never the President of Bangladesh. 12:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

This was a recent unexplained change made by an IP user; I have reverted it. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Tarique Rahman is not an incumbent either. That is a factually wrong information. No such references or citations can be found online either. 20:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Pinagare Mogodi

https://thebossstory.com/the-remarkable-journey-of-matshapa-a-botshelo-mab/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by PINAGARE (talk • contribs) 17:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

We don't have an article with that title, and that link would be worthless as a source (unknown provenance). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 18:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Sam Altman

IPs have been putting some serious allegations onto this article using unreliable sources (Twitter). We've now got it protected, but some accounts have started adding them, eg here, which the protection doesn't cover and diffs haven't been deleted. It can quite easily be reverted but I'm requesting people to watch out for the article and delete the diffs. Note that a discussion has been placed here, I'm not familiar enough with policy to tell if that should be deleted aswell. —Panamitsu (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Given that this hasn't been covered by reliable sources, I think including but is a clear BLP vio. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Eyes on BLP Guaidó issues with Interpol red alert request by Maduro administration

• Juan Guaidó
• Venezuelan presidential crisis
• Operation Gideon (2020)

Achieving neutrality, and avoiding BLP breaches and undue weight at Operation Gideon (2020) has been a constant struggle (see the talk page and two past talk archives and work underway to prep for a Move request).

This matter has taken on some importance this week, as the administration of Nicolas Maduro has requested a red alert for Guaido from Interpol (I hope I have that terminology correct), now living in the US, based partly on "Operation Gideon". More eyes are needed at Guaido, the Presidential crisis, but more urgently, at the Gideon article, which saw an unusual spike in pageviews just before the announcement. There have been ongoing BLP breaches and issues with misrepresentation of and poor use of sources, with very real consequences to living persons. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• 2023-10-05 Fiscal General Tarek William Saab anunció orden de aprehensión contra Juan Guaidó - Attorney General William Saab announced an order for apprehension against Juan Guaidó, Maduro administration. QUOTE: "Adicionalmente, se investiga la participación y financiamiento en actos conspirativos por parte del supuesto gobierno de Guaidó en contra de las autoridades legítimamente constituidas; tales como la denominada 'Operación Gedeón'."

  Translation: Additionally, the participation and financing in conspiratorial acts by the supposed Guaidó government against the legitimately constituted authorities is being investigated; such as the so-called 'Operation Gideon'.

• CNN
• Washington Post
• CFR - queries about coincidence

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll add that this is not the first time that Maduro's government issues an Interpol red alert against political opponents and that it recently requested the extradition of Antonio Ledezma and Dinorah Figuera([75]), so I would ask for care with those article too, although I can imagine that Guaidó's article probably will be the most affected. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Thanks for the information. Now I can see why you were mentioning this in a separate discussion. WMrapids (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I placed an edit regarding the incident in the article since you two haven't done it over the past few days. Feel free to take a look! WMrapids (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The article is using a primary source interview excerpt from a source about which there is no agreement on reliability to contradict statements from higher-quality secondary sources to claim that Guaido's representatives acted illegally: Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)#Statements about legality, BLP issues. Attention, more eyes, other opinions needed to the serious BLP implications here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Please do not forum shop. The excerpt does not describe anything illegal. WMrapids (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

You are welcome to explain on my talk page how you get forum shopping out of a) first alerting the BLP noticeboard of an Interpol red alert on 7 October, and b) a followup on October 8 after you edit warred other marginally-related content in a separate discussion into the 2020 Venezuelan Operation Gideon article, and c) an RFC at that talk page two days later, on October 9 over that content, after the post here received zero attention. I was under the impression we took BLP issues quite seriously, and that posts with legal consequences about living persons would get rapid attention from this board. They did not, so I opened an RFC; what would your preferred next step be, since others won't edit war against you, so the content, for which you have no consensus, stands, against BLP policy ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Julianna Guill

Not sure if this is the right place, but the same gross statement keeps getting added to this article sourced off some dubious article about "hot promiscuous characters in horror films". Would love some input here, cheers! NathanielTheBold (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Even if the source was WP:RS, it wouldn't support the claim being made. Revert as a WP:BLP violation and/or report the contributor at WP:ANI if they add it again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)