Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive356

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


陈牧驰

陈牧驰 I am looking for help to remove those repeated defamatory claims under the section “相关争议”(which means “Related Disputes” in English) —“私生活争议、粉丝暴行”(which means “Disputes regarding personal life, Fan’s Vandalism” in English) with respect to the specific living person 陈牧驰, who is a Chinese actor. Edits under these sections repeatedly restored by the same user are pure defamatory, not neutral, substantially biased and without verfiability as those edits are poorly sourced to tabloid journalisms. It is against Wikipedia’s policy that “[c]ontentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” Those defamatory edits has also make 陈牧驰 an attack page as “[p]ages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created primarily to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to;…… Non-administrators should tag them with {{db-attack}} or {{db-negublp}}. Creation of such pages, especially when repeated or in bad faith, is grounds for immediate blocking.” Please help me to remove those defamatory edits and also please let me know how can I report the same user keep posting those defamatory edits or bring this user to the attention of administrators for blocking. Thanks and best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairedits4U (talk • contribs)

Thank u so much! I am sorry for the inconveniences. I am not aware of that different language wikis are governed separately. Apologize again for the inconveniences. Fairedits4U (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Nick Adderley

While there is no doubt this police officer has been suspended for allegations of mis-stating his military service, the article is now reading like a hatchet job with several uses of WP:OR to back allegations of other misconduct. There is also a lengthy section Nick Adderley#Media inaccuracies which lists media details claimed to be wrong but with no sourcing of the conclusion, just the original report. Nthep (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Ugh, this seems to be a mess of stuff cobbled together (or inferred) from sources which happen to mention Adderley. At minimum it needs someone to take a hatchet to it (and for someone to have a look at both of the images, which are incorrectly licensed on commons, and may need deleting) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
I have trimmed the worst excesses. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Nikki Romney

I'm wondering what y'all think of this--it's so odd. It looks like a kind of a COI contribution, but on the whole one can read it as a purely negative BLP as well, with just a single event and maybe a half. I don't know what to make of it. I'm not inclined to accept it because all the coverage is negative too and I don't see the subject being discussed outside of the controversy, as an artist. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The article's creator demonstrates noticeable COI. I was unable to find reliable secondary sources to establish notability as per WP:BLP, except the controversy. Think this can be sent to AFD. Moonlight2006 (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure if it's appropriate to respond in this forum, and seek guidance. Nikki Romney first came to my attention about 12 years ago when I was a journalist at the local Nelson daily newspaper and we published a story about her double identity. Stories in various other local media followed over the years. We eventually became friends for a while and even lived together for a few years, but parted company, amicably, some 30 months ago. I did not consider there was any current conflict of interest; just thought she made an interesting read and worthy addition to Wiki, considering some of the other people profiled there. I touched base with Romney and received her permission to submit a couple of her images to WikiCommons, and also referred a copy of the draft article prior to submission, and then consulted with her re some edits. She was generally happy with it as being fair and accurate, despite the negative aspects - figured it was all just part of her story as an artist. I note she posted a link to the article on her website which suggests this is so.
I absolutely did not seek or receive payment for the contribution - as a former journalist that was the last thing I'd want or expect. Perhaps there'd have been more media corroboration over the years but she has always been publicity-shy and turned down several approaches from national TV and other media. She also did not seek the Wiki entry, that was entirely my idea as I thought her story warranted it. And there were several news stories about her across some 9 years, including three separate controversies and her winning 1st and 2nd prizes in a national competition. There were a number of other local media stories which I didn't bother with.
I did anticipate that some people who have taken exception to her art might try to interfere with the Wiki posting, and appreciate the obvious commitment from Wiki editors to maintain checks and balances. JonJaySon (talk) 02:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:BLP noticeboard

Template:BLP noticeboard has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Schierbecker (talk) 07:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Burzynski Clinic

There's some heated discussion and restoration of BLP-violating content.
I didn't start Talk:Burzynski_Clinic#Good_Evidence_for_Antineoplaston_Efficacy_from_Japan but much of the relevant discussion is there. Claims that no independent researchers have found Burzynski's treatment efficacious are false and defamatory. A large Japanese research group found a significant reduction in mortality, the primary endpoint in their study: PMC 4366171.

As my first attempt to address this documents with sources (and yet was reverted), ~half of his trial research has been published, not none.

To be clear, as far as I know, he's a fraud. I'm fine with much of the negative content about Burzynski and his Clinic. But in looking into it, I'm finding a lot of clearly false statements about him. I'm not a fan of fraud or defamation. Aside from the BLP legal issues, important though they are, there's another problem: Wikipedia will do a lousy job of convincing people that he's a fraud, if it continues to peddle demonstrably false claims about him.

I've removed them, and explained why I would be doing so before doing so, with a clear edit summary: rm BLP violation. See Talk:Burzynski_Clinic#BLP violation in Talk:Burzynski_Clinic#Good_Evidence_for_Antineoplaston_Efficacy_from_Japan.

I wrote there: Other investigators have been successful in duplicating some of his results. It's my understanding that BLP requires removing the false claim that "other investigators have not been successful in duplicating" any of his results. We all know: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. This is obviously poorly sourced as it is contradicted by w:V .gov sources. I've pulled it. If anyone want's to revert, I urge a visit to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard as a next, pre-revert step..
The reverter refused to come here, instead making multiple threats and false accusations on my talk page and in edit summaries; I explained this here. RudolfoMD (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

What is true or false here is not the issue. That is a matter of opinion. When we quote from an eminently RS like cancer.gov, do not alter the quote of a mainstream source so that it appears to support a quack therapy. The quote from the RS is not a BLP violation, no matter how much you disagree with it.
Based on your revert, we find your alteration:
  • Original: "Although these studies often report remissions, other investigators have not been successful in duplicating these results."
  • Altered: "These studies often report remissions"
That's deceptive editing to frame Burzynski's results as somehow legitimate. The part you deleted disputes his results. The man's methods are quackery, so stop defending him. You are trying to right great wrongs and should not be editing this topic, especially when your editing is deceptive. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
(Due to RudolfoMD's refusal to accurately sign their new comments with the right timestamps, the timestamps for their comments above can be confusing and make it appear as if my comment at 06:16 replied to all that is above my comment at 06:16. That is not the case. In the future, RudolfoMD, do not alter comments that have already been replied to or thread comments in a way that can create confusion. When replying to me, place your reply below my comment, not above it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC))
RudolfoMD, you refuse to acknowledge my point about that deceptive edit. Deal with it here, not on my talk page. You did alter an exact quote from a very RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
What is true, false, and defamatory, according to reliable sources is at issue. That's not a matter of opinion. What eminently reliable sources show WRT what's in the peer reviewed literature matters. Other investigators have been successful in duplicating some of his results. Knowingly putting false, defamatory info into the wiki is wrong no matter how much you want to insist that it's undoing vandalism.
It would have been better to delete the whole BLP-violating sentence instead of leaving the part that wasn't BLP-violating, but became what you, assuming bad faith, label as deceptive editing. It wasn't, and anyway, you reverted it already.
As I told you on your talk page, I removed BLP-violating statements that weren't quotes, I didn't alter a quote from cancer.gov. Yet you are repeating the claim again. That seems to be a deliberate falsehood. Why do that?
Again: To be clear, as far as I know, he's a fraud. I'm fine with much of the negative content about Burzynski and his Clinic. But in looking into it, I'm finding a lot of clearly false statements about him. I'm not a fan of fraud or defamation. Aside from the BLP legal issues, important though they are, there's another problem: Wikipedia will do a lousy job of convincing people that he's a fraud, if it continues to peddle demonstrably false claims about him. RudolfoMD (talk) 06:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Stop vandalizing talk pages, as you did here - deleting an active discussion. RudolfoMD (talk) 06:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I just archived a bunch of old and inactive threads. I didn't notice that you had left a couple of comments in them. I will restore those threads for you. In the future, start new threads instead of commenting on old ones. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Talk about burying the lede! Self-reported remissions with failed replication is a canonical indicator of quackery! Guy (help! - typo?) 19:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion here. RudolfoMD, you have made many edits, and I did not revert all of them. I am only referring to one particular edit of yours. That was deceptive editing on your part. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  • The question of whether or not some experimental research results have been replicated is not a BLP issue. Wikipedia would simply need WP:MEDRS saying whether (or not) the research results have been replicated. Note: a thread was already at WP:FT/N#Burzynski (cancer quackery) where this might be better handled. Bon courage (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
  • The problem is BLP-violating content recently re-added to the article, as noted in my OP. The world and this section both don't revolve around you and what you care about - an edit I already addressed two comments above (2nd ¶, :45). A comment that warrants attention. Stop off-topic beating a dead horse. Defamatory content is a BLP issue. V applies when evaluating content as a BLP issue or not. What policy backs Bon's claim that verifiable governments sources show is false - that no independent researchers have found Burzynski's treatment efficacious - is not a BLP issue? It's a direct attack on his reputation - which would be fine if it was based in current, verifiable reality - as a good chunk of the article is, but a smaller problematic chunk is not. Outdated claims are outdated claims.
    Some of the problems I pointed out and persisted in rectifying have been partly fixed - the article no longer says that Burzynski has not published results for any of the many trials he ran, an outrageously false claim that was in the article for how long? As I documented, at least 29 were published. But our article doesn't tell readers that. He's run about 70 trials, again as I documented, not about 60. I documented that. But the article still says ... 60. Help! I'm told I can't fix it - that it would be edit warring, and vandalism. For re-adding "However, clinicaltrials.gov shows 29 studies with results.<< ref >>" to the article. Proof is ample:[1]
    Additionally, the article has some other problems I just noticed and flagged. RudolfoMD (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
    Classic WP:CRYBLP. Whether not a treatment is effective is not a biographical question. This has been discussed before at length and the consensus is that BLP does not extend to a person's work.[1] Bon courage (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Agree with Bon courage: classic CRYBLP, of a pattern we have seen for years with this particular article. The simple fact is that Burzynski sells a ruinously expensive cancer "cure" with no FDA approval, no sound clinical evidence, and where most of the patients - including those featured on his website - die in line with original prognosis, plus the side effects of hypernatremia. Rudolfo is nitpicking based on age of sources (numbers that were accurate when published, but quibbles based on personal interpretation of primary sources as of today's date). We fix this with {{as of}}, not by substituting our own interpretations. This user is also advocating that Fauci is the father of COVID [2] (which arguably is a BLP violation), and various other fringe positions, so should probably be counselled on WP:FRINGE (which absolutely does cover Burzynski). Guy (help! - typo?) 19:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I agree with BC and Guy that this is not a BLP issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Not a BLP issue. It's a disagreement over content and doesn't belong here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "ClinicalTrials.gov search showing all Burzynski trials with results". clinicaltrials.gov. Retrieved 13 January 2024.

Nigel Farage used as an example of Chauvinism

At the article Chauvinism, we currently have the following:

An example of a modern-day British nationalist extreme enough to be labelled a chauvinist, as evidenced, for instance, in a 40-page background check by his own bank,[1] is Nigel Farage.[2][3][4][5][6][7] Farage himself admits to fighting for, inter alia, chauvinism.[8] His association with extreme nationalist views, including chauvinism, is so well known that it has been parodied.[9]

Discussion (here) about whether this should be included has reached no consensus, so further input would be appreciated. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of whether RS have made a significant connection between Nigel Farage and Chauvinism, the wording here just seems like an opinionated WP:SOAPBOX rather than something encyclopedic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Utterly inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree this is totally inappropriate. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think there's any doubt that Farage has shown chauvinist views, but that doesn't make him a poster child for the article more than anyone else who has done similar. Black Kite (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Why the heck would we ever use a living person as an example of an insult? This is silly. Are we going to start nominating politicians for the lead illustration on Douchebag? Not that I wouldn't have a few, it's just not appropriate jp×g🗯️ 01:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Given that the contributor concerned has persisted in attempting to bludgeon this political soapboxing into the article, I've started an ANI thread, [3] AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Why Britain's most prestigious bank canceled Nigel Farage". POLITICO. 2023-07-19. Retrieved 2023-12-13.
  2. ^ Donoghue, Matthew; Kuisma, Mikko (2022-01-02). "Taking back control of the welfare state: Brexit, rational-imaginaries and welfare chauvinism". West European Politics. 45 (1): 177–199. doi:10.1080/01402382.2021.1917167. ISSN 0140-2382. S2CID 237714380.
  3. ^ "Nigel Farage gin sparks Cornish controversy". the Guardian. 2022-09-05. Retrieved 2022-09-06.
  4. ^ Rosenbluth, Frances McCall; Shapiro, Ian (2018). Responsible parties: saving democracy from itself. New Haven London: Yale University Press. p. 14. ISBN 978-0-300-25194-4.
  5. ^ Alic, Liliana (2019). "NATIONALIST DISCOURSE AT THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT. THE CASE OF MARINE LE PEN AND NIGEL FARAGE". Redefining Community in Intercultural Context. 8 (1): 153–158. ISSN 2285-2689.
  6. ^ Zielonka, Jan (2018). Counter-revolution: liberal Europe in retreat (First ed.). Oxford New York: Oxford University Press. p. 11. ISBN 978-0-19-880656-1.
  7. ^ Woods, Hannah Rose (2022). Rule, nostalgia: a backwards history of Britain. London: WH Allen. ISBN 978-0-7535-5873-7. ...protests for a second referendum confronted the kind of bullish military chuvinism of Nigel Farage with self-consciously old-fashioned expressions of British good manners.
  8. ^ Crick, Michael (2022). One party after another: the disruptive life of Nigel Farage. London New York Sydney Toronto New Delhi: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-1-4711-9229-6. I fought fiercely for anarchy, CND doves and warmongering hawks, Christianity, atheists... chauvinism. This was not mere puppy play-fighting.
  9. ^ Leigh, Mark (2015). Thw World according to Nigel Farage. Blake Publishing. p. 1. ISBN 9781784185992. I've been accused of being lots of things. Misogynistic, racist, chauvinistic, bigoted, a fascist, blinkered and a bullying dictator. I absolutely diplore these constant attacks on my character and will state once more for the record that I am not misogynistic, racist, chauvinistic, bigoted, a fascist or blinkered.

Mia Khalifa

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Talk:Mia Khalifa#Birthday again regarding sources for a living person's date of birth. Thank you. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 02:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Virgil Griffith

User:Death Editor 2, who claims User:Death Editor was "banned by mistake" because he lost his password, continually adds "convicted felon" to the first line of Virgil Griffith. I tried reverting, but user immediately [de-reverted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgil_Griffith&oldid=prev&diff=1190677012]. It feels rude, because the first line of Bill Cosby is

William Henry Cosby Jr. (/ˈkɒzbi/ KOZ-bee; born July 12, 1937) is an American former comedian, actor, spokesman, and media personality.

If Death Eater 2 had their way, it would be

William Henry Cosby Jr. (/ˈkɒzbi/ KOZ-bee; born July 12, 1937) is an American former comedian, actor, spokesman, media personality, and convicted rapist.

Would love to get this disagreement settled. --TIB (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page User talk:Death Editor 2, it's just issue after issue. They seem to really like adding defamatory words to the first sentence of biographical pages. --TIB (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I keep updating this, I did not at the time know that they added 'convicted rapist' to the Danny Masterson page, but they did. I predict it appears on the Cosby page soon now that I have suggested it! --TIB (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
If our Osama bin Laden intro is a pretty tame "was a Saudi-born Islamic dissident and militant leader," then "felon" may be a bit undue for a biography. Zaathras (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I was unbanned as the records of my contributions for that account clearly show. And 'felon' does not apply that someone is a bad person, it merely states that they were convicted of a felony which they may or may not have committed. Death Editor 2 (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
And I WAS banned by mistake because I kept reverting the edits that showed that various islamic terrorist groups were on the side of climate change. Death Editor 2 (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Although I'm on wikibreak, I logged in to comment. Please remember that Cosby was never convicted of an offence which was called rape in the legal system where he was convicted. He was convicted of three counts aggravated indecent assault, his only one (at least for anything like this) and this conviction was vacated. For BLP reasons, we should always avoid renaming an offence in an article, especially when there is an offence with the same name in the legal system where someone was convicted. There are also a bunch civil judgments, handling those can always be tricky but whatever we do they're clearly not convictions.

In other words, we should never have called him a convicted rapist since unfortunately that was never true. I mean if editors want to say it's rape on talk pages, within reason, personally I'm not going to pushback on that. (Just like I don't mind say I find Cosby's lack of any conviction for rape unfortunate.) But definitely never in wikivoice in article text unless you can establish the vast, vast majority of RS do that.

Perhaps more importantly, I think it's well accepted that when someone's conviction is overturned we should never continue to say they are a convicted A no matter whether you can argue it's technically true. You can continue to refer to the overturned conviction but it needs to be done in a context where you quickly make clear it was overturned.

So IMO, if anyone now tries to add convicted rapist anywhere in the Bill Cosby article, they should be warned and then if they repeat either topic banned from BLPs or site blocked or banned. Heck even if they accurately name the conviction but don't make it clear within the same context it was vacated. So it's really a terrible example to use. Note that prior to the conviction being vacated, we did mention "being convicted of a number of sex offenses in 2018" in the first sentence [4].

George Pell is a good example where we don't label him a convicted anything but do mention the conviction in the lead along with it being quashed in the very next sentence. Note that prior to it being quashed, we did label him a convicted child sex offender [5]. Note also there was a bunch of discussion on how to handle this around the time it happened especially whether to call it a wrongful conviction. I think it was felt this was unnecessary when we're going to say it was quashed in the very next sentence.

More generally, the issue of labeling people convicted of crimes has been contentious for a long time. Two recent broad discussions I'm aware of are Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive355#Descriptions of BLPs and Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 53#Labels again - request for clarification/clearer guidance. And the essay Wikipedia:Crime labels has some links to discussions on specific subjects.

Personally I support the essay's suggestion of re-working the lead to make them more descriptive and avoid labels. But as I said in the BLPN discussion, I don't think we're that consistent (or fair).

However in so much as there is consistency, I think Griffith is much more like Klete Keller (who we do sort of label) than he is Masterson or for that matter Cosby and Pell prior to their convictions being overturned. All three of these had extreme highly profile careers prior to their convictions so that they were extremely well known for these careers and remain so, although their convictions were for extremely serious crimes and very high profile. (Cases like Osama bin Laden and Elizabeth Holmes are IMO even more different so I'm not sure how useful they are to consider as comparisons.)

Both Keller and Griffith by comparison weren't so high profile even if perhaps they crossed the threshold for notability. Griffith seems to have done more different things that got some minor attention that Keller, although I don't actually see any source in the article that is on Griffith from before the conviction. To be clear, I'm not including the several which seem to be something he was involved in but where I'm guessing he's only mentioned in passing. But whatever the case, they aren't people who were particularly well known. However they were involved in quite high profile convictions. Griffith's seem more serious (in terms of the sentence) while Keller's seems more high profile. But ultimately we're talking about cases where it's quite likely that their conviction is one of the only reasons people even known about them, especially now.

Note that I still don't support labeling Griffith. However I do think if we remove the label, the conviction should be mentioned much sooner than it is since as I said it's probably one of the most significant things about him. More generally, given the previous discussions I think it's clear there's no established consensus on how to handle such things. Therefore I don't feel the change to Griffith can be said to be enough of a BLP violation that it needs immediate removal. Instead both sides need to avoid edit warring and discuss, and seek more opinions etc to try and resolve the dispute, which yes this is part of.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Even if a person, who had a long previous career with notable achievements, is later convicted of a serious crime, tacking that onto the first sentence of lede is really messy and not an impartial tone. I would expect that conviction to be discussed in the lede somewhere, but ramroding it into the first sentence is sloppy and is strong evidence of pushing a POV into an article. — Masem (t) 15:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

David Steel

I wrote to you before pointing our that the report that I resigned from the Lords following the Cyril Smith enquiry was wrong. I in fact retired as planned at the end of March on the 55th anniversary of my by-election! DS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:3304:D101:6858:CE5D:5CE3:7C5E (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

But decent sources seem to put the resignation as consequent.[6] Bon courage (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Can you point to a reliable source which supports this? The BBC and Guardian sources cited in the article David Steel regarding the resignation seem to support the claims that our article is making. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia does have to be very careful about interpreting sources, especially for articles about living people. However the Guardian article cited after that sentence in the lead says:

He said he had already been contemplating retirement from the House of Lords but would now stand down as “soon as possible”.

StarryGrandma (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Emily Hampshire

Here we have another actress with conflicting sources regarding her birth year. The source that's currently cited was published a couple months ago and says she's 42.[7] I've also come across other articles that claim that to be her age as well. However the source that was cited prior is an article that was published in 2009 and talks about how she just turned 30 and that she's three years older than Jay Baruchel(born 1982).[8] And in this article she says that she doesn't wish to be in her 20s again and in your 30s, you start to know who you are.

What should be done? Do we either

A) Remove the birth year that's currently listed(1980-1981) and put in a footnote saying that there's conflicting info regarding her birth year.

or

B) Put in both birth years and cite the sources. Kcj5062 (talk) 07:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

EDIT: I started a discussion over at Talk:Emily_Hampshire to see if a consensus can be reached. Kcj5062 (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


I see no reason that must be a conflict. They're both consistent with (early) 1980, likely not 1981. ℰmi1y⧼T·C⧽ 07:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
The 2009 article was from October of that year. If she turned 30 that year, then her birth year would be 1979. And as mentioned above, it talks about her being three years older than Jay Baruchel who was born in 1982. Kcj5062 (talk) 07:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
You're right. I was thinking of it in a fuzzy "I just turned 30 at some point in the last few years" sort of way, but applied the uncertainty in the wrong direction; October 2009 is the latest possible date for her to turn 30, not the earliest. ℰmi1y⧼T·C⧽ 08:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
For various reasons I believe the Toronto Star article more than the BBC one. Primarily: 1) it seems inherently more plausible to me that an actress in her early 40s would want to be seen as slightly younger than she actually is than that an actress in her late 20s would want to be seen as slightly older, and 2) in the BBC article the age is just an aside and it's the kind of minor detail that would be easy to get slightly wrong, whereas the Toronto Star article is a profile largely based on an interview where she specifically talks about her reaction to turning 30. My inclination would be to put the birthdate suggested by that article in the lead, and put the BBC discrepancy in a footnote. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not by my computer currently, but I would suggest the opposite based on the multitude of sources pointing towards the BBC article suggested age. I pulled around 12 sources this morning that all pointed towards the BBC birthday of August 29, 1981, along with several self published aources on her birthday.
I'll follow up with the full reference list once home, but I would suggest a note suggesting something such as 'While most interviews point towards a 1981 birthday, in a X interview she stated she had turned 30, putting her birth year at 1979'. The one thing that is able to be sourced to her is her birthday is on August 29, of whatever year she was born on.
[9]
Reply to costar wishing her a happy birthday on Aug 29
[10]
Happy Birthday from the official Twitter account of her show on Aug 29
[11]
Same as above on Aug 29, different year.
[12]

post from costar on Aug 29

[13]

birthday cake post on Aug 29

Awshort (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@Awshort Please enjoy this brief profile from 2013 when Hampshire was listed as being 32 (you will have to click the arrows to see Hampshire). I will let you do the math. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Here's a article from The Globe And The Mail that was published in September 2012 and has 33 listed as her age[14]. This also implies a 1979 birth year. Kcj5062 (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Kcj5062 I suspect that further research would find that earlier reporting uses the 1979 birth date and later reporting uses the 1981 birth date, but there are likely to be fewer sources early in her career since she has less work to report on. I think we know what is going on here. Using the more common 1981 birth date with a footnote is likely the best course of action. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@Counterfeit Purses Other than the quote which ironically enough is the only time she has ever mentioned her age, all sources I ran across point to the 1981 date. As I had mentioned in my previous post above, I also agree with stating the 1981 date and the 1979 date in a footnote. It is also worth noting that the Hollywood Reporter link below that has her listed as being 32, also features Jay Baruchel being 31 at the time of publication and included in the same list. It adds doubt to the "three years older" part that the original interviewer threw into the Toronto Star article.
Dec 11, 2011
The West Island-born actor, just turned 31,
(She just turned 30 rather than 31 if the math is correct)
Sept 6, 2013
Emily Hampshire (32, Actress)
Mar 16, 2015
The Montreal-born Hampshire, 33,
Apr 28, 2015
The 33-year-old says many Canadian
May 17, 2017
the 35-year-old actress says.
Dec 14, 2018
Geiger, 30, and Hampshire, 37, first revealed
Feb 11, 2019
does know for sure is that the Schitt’s Creek star, 37,
Aug 28, 2021
later, the Canada native, now 39,
Sep 1, 2021
Hampshire, 40, revealed.
Jan 2, 2023
The 41-year-old Hampshire, from Montreal,
Apr 4, 2023
Emily Hampshire, 41,
Nov 1, 2023
On Tuesday, the 42-year-old actress,
Nov 2, 2023
Hampshire, 42, told her
Awshort (talk) 10:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
@Counterfeit PursesYeah this is looking similar to the Rebel Wilson situation that occurred years ago where before she became famous, there were a couple of articles about her that were published that listed an age that matched up to a 1980 birth year and then once she became famous, articles started listing her age that matched up a 1986 birth year. And it turned that the earlier articles were correct all along. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the same were to happen with Hampshire. Anyhow a footnote has been added to her page. Kcj5062 (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Júlio Lancellotti

An IP contributor is repeatedly ([15][16] [17]) adding a defamatory source about the subject (one which was deemed as unreliable at ptwiki) and being uncivil on the edit summary. DanGFSouza (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Todd Kashdan edits keep getting blocked. Not equal treatment between subjects

Todd Kashdan page edits that exist on other psychologists pages are being removed. Also, the page has factual inaccuracies that lead me to believe that the original posters of the material do not know the subject. Please compare his profile to that of Steve Hayes or other notable psychologists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pem725 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

No, we don't compare 'profiles'. We base articles on what independent reliable sources have to say on the specific subject of the article. If you have an issue with content, discuss it on the article talk page, citing necessary sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

James Renner

Something curious is up with the IP's interest in the article. First they deleted mention of Renner's termination from the Cleveland Scene. Now they're embellishing the account by claiming the Scene ran a news story it did not. More eyes on the situation would be helpful. —C.Fred (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Joaquin Phoenix

Main page: Talk:Joaquin Phoenix § Joaquin, NOT PHOENIX

It repeatedly references Phoenix when it was meant to be Joaquin. I find this to be extremely egregious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.13.128.17 (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  • That's wikipedia style, to refer to article subjects by their last name. You can read more about it at MOS:SURNAME. Schazjmd (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
    • Yeah, it just more formal, that's all, and encyclopedias are written in a very formal style. It comes from an older time, for instance, back in the days of the Founding Fathers, when the US was new, it would've been considered very rude for even your best friends to call you by your first name even in light conversation. That was reserved for family alone. That's how most formal writing is still done. Zaereth (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
    • It's the style of many things other than Wikipedia, too. Uncle G (talk) 12:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

John Crist (comedian)

A high profile "scandal" needs to be properly presented in this BLP that has needed basic cleanup for many years.

Here's a quote from the beginning of a recent article, to give an idea: The aftermath of the scandal that shook John Crist’s career has become part of his comedy, turning his lessons learned into new material and his experience with “cancel culture” into a punch line. (Shellnutt, Kate (2022-06-20). "'Canceled' John Crist Has a New Book, Tour, and Comedy Special". Christianity Today.)

There are two new references on the talk page that may be useful.

I reverted a recent expansion/rewrite to be on the safe side of BLP, while editors give the situation the care it needs.

I don't expect to have much time to get this article up to BLP standards, nor review the general consensus on how to address MeToo-related articles. --Hipal (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Donald Trump

Just a heads up about some article turbulence, in particular this edit of mine. I removed a word (widely considered an epithet in the diplomatic world) for reasons stated in edit summary. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Following up, I have reverted the obvious BLP violation as much as I am going to revert it. Input here at BLPN would be helpful and welcome, and hopefully the BLP violation will be reverted in a stable manner. More generally, if neutral editors can tolerate it, such editors could be very beneficial to that high-traffic article/cesspool. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

What this non-neutral posting is in regards to is a discussion on whether to describe the subject as "isolationist," based on sources. The discussion is ongoing and has been up for a week. Despite the still ongoing discussion The OP here suddenly decided 2 days ago that it was a BLP violation, and edited the article according to their preferred version. This was reverted, user restored, reverted again, restored again. This violates the discretionary sanctions at the article, the "may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message" in particular. "Isolationist" can have a negative connotation, but it is not at all a BLP matter for the status quo to remain while discussed. Certainly not to the level of severity where user Anythingyouwant can bypass discretionary sanctions to remove it. Zaathras (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Pray tell what reliable source is cited in this BLP regarding whether he’s an “isolationist.” And why exclude Trump’s denial, and exclude every reputable historian who says he’s not an isolationist? You must realize it’s a flagrant BLP violation, right? The question here is whether BLP policy applies to this very disfavored BLP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
We're not litigating the discussion on this board. That is for Talk:Donald Trump. The issue here is you edit-warring, violating discretionary sanctions, and wrongly invoking BLP. Zaathras (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
It’s wrong to invoke BLP, is it? Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
But this isn't really the place to litigate discretionary sanctions either, nor for that matter edit-warring. That should be dealt with WP:ANEW, WP:ANI or WP:ARE. I have no comment whether this is a BLP issue, but bringing attention to BLP issues is what this board is for so that would be an appropriate use of this board. At the very least since this does involve not only a living person but is something said about that person without within their biography, I'd be very reluctant to criticise an editor for bringing it here. This is separate from any edit-warring, discretionary sanctions violations etc which as I said should be dealt with elsewhere. Edit: Or to put it a different way, whatever wrongs the editor may or may not have made with their previous edits, if they felt there was a BLP issue it was surely wise for them to come here and see whether others agree rather than continue down that path. If they did stuff that needs to be dealt with, that can be dealt with elsewhere. Nil Einne (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC) 12:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm aware that those issues won't be adjudicated here. They were mentioned to show the OP coming here with unclean hands. Zaathras (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Anything to avoid addressing the BLP issues. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Gary Allen (runner)

Back and forth between accounts adding controversial WP:BLP content and a likely COI account using Mr. Allen's name. Needs more eyes and perhaps some sanctions or page protection. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

If an admin is about, I'd also suggest some rev/deletion of defamatory content. And it appears as if there's a more or less orchestrated campaign by several WP:SPAs to add promotional/positive content. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
I am in the process of redacting BLP content not accompanied by a reliable source. ... discospinster talk 18:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, discospinster. If the single purpose accounts continue--from either direction--I may request page protection or go to ANI. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Cameron Stracher

I need some additional editor help with this article. I'm involved at the administrative level, which limits what I should be doing to the article content.

A cursory review of the New Yorker article used as sourcing shows that it backs up some of the chief claims made about Stracher and his firm. There is a use of the New York Post as a source which needs removed, although the information sourced to the Post is in the New Yorker article. The article needs additional work for tone.

Ct234567, holding himself out as Stracher (and who I've blocked for making legal threats), has attempted to blank the article on the grounds that it is "defamatory".[19] There one unsourced paragraph about a pending lawsuit that was removed; everything else on the surface is sourced, but it does need some vetting since the Post is used at least once as a source. —C.Fred (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Luis Elizondo

Multiple WP:RS have stated Elizondo was the former Director of the AATIP program.

  • Washington Post[20]: Luis “Lue” Elizondo is the former director of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), an unpublicized U.S. government program created in 2007 committed to the investigation of UAPs. Elizondo joins Jacqueline Alemany, author of the “Power Up” newsletter and congressional correspondent, on Tuesday, June 8 at 3:30pm ET.
  • NY Times [21]: Luis Elizondo, the director of a Pentagon program she had never heard of: the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program.
  • More NY Times[22]: For years, the program investigated reports of unidentified flying objects, according to Defense Department officials, interviews with program participants and records obtained by The New York Times. It was run by a military intelligence official, Luis Elizondo, on the fifth floor of the Pentagon’s C Ring, deep within the building’s maze.
  • Politico [23]: According to a Pentagon official, the AATIP program was ended “in the 2012 time frame,” but it has recently attracted attention because of the resignation in early October of Luis Elizondo, the career intelligence officer who ran the initiative.
  • CNN [24]: Luis Elizondo, the former Director of Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program at the Pentagon
  • Representative Tim Burchett[25]: Elizondo is the former director of the Pentagon’s Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, which was created in 2007 to study UAP.
  • Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Ried[26]: As one of the original sponsors of AATIP, I can state as a matter of record Lue Elizondo’s involvement and leadership role in this program

I could go on with additional RS's but you get the gist.

His biography here at Wikipedia states that he is "Known for Claiming to be Director of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program". His leadership of AATIP being reported in such a skeptical language all based on one article in the Intercept.

Based on both BLP, and WP:WEIGHT the article should say Elizondo was the director of AATIP with the Intercept article being mentioned as a minority opinion .. if at all because it seems to be so WP:FRINGE given its weight.

Id like to hear people not involved with this topic to weigh in. THank you. DarrellWinkler (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I suggest that people read your talk page first. Did you come here from the Reddit thread or perhaps the one on X? Doug Weller talk 22:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Neither, and I would politely ask you to Assume Good Faith on this issue. DarrellWinkler (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I mean this Reddit UFO group [27] , can’t find the X thread again right now. Very hard to show good faith after having read that thread and knowing about the big attempt to dox User:LuckyLouie. See also WP:FTN# UFOlogy promoter BLPs. Goodnight. Doug Weller talk 22:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Are you suggesting I am involved in a campaign to dox an editor? I certainly hope you have something very concrete to corroborate that as its a pretty serous allegation. DarrellWinkler (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
It's certainly not what he's known for, and shouldn't be presented in the infobox like that. Otherwise, I think the article covers the disagreement of sources reasonably. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with "what he's known for". Do we need the qualifier on it when the vast majority of sources do not use it including the Senator who created AATIP as well as the Congressman who interviewed him. DarrellWinkler (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, if there is disagreement in reliable sources we cover that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
In what proportion? I can cite dozens of reliable sources which state unequivocally that Elizondo was director of AATIP. Those attempting to present this as something which is disputed have The Intercept? Doesn't it appear that's a WP:Weight concern on a BLP? DarrellWinkler (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Interviews are not independent sources - news sources typically use the job title(s) given by the interviewee with minimal fact checking. Politicians are generally not considered to be great sources for factual claims either, to put it mildly. Sources that examine the issue in depth throw enough doubt on the issue that Wikipedia should not be uncritically taking the biography subject's side on this. MrOllie (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Most of these are not interviews and you said it yourself: they were fact checked to some extent. Harry Reid isn't a reliable source on who was the director of a classified program he created? DarrellWinkler (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Uninvolved BLPN watcher here. Never heard of this guy and don't really care about this dispute one way or the other. I can believe in the possibility of aliens and life in outer space, yet find it highly unlikely they'd spend the time, effort and energy it takes to travel billions of lightyears just to spin brodies in some cornfield in Nebraska. (With all the cool places in the universe, why come to this dump?) That said, here's my two cents.
We don't just blindly follow what sources say. I can find a lot of sources that say any material can be used as a laser medium under the right conditions. When I check better sources written by laser experts, I can show quite clearly this is not true at all. When it comes to the reliability of sources and the weight (proportion) we give them, a lot depends on the type of source, but it also depends on the specific information it is giving. For example, a newspaper is generally at the bottom of the barrel in the hierarchy of RSs, whereas a book by a reputable publisher in laser physics would be far more reliable. In this case, we have newspapers that don't offer any proof, and others that source their info to what should be very reliable primary sources, depending on how much you believe politicians or Pentagon officials involved in counterintelligence. Either way, when there is a discrepancy we can't sort out, we have an obligation to phrase the article in a way that --in no way-- implies one is correct over the other. Let the reader decide. Now, if you have a better way to phrase it than using the word "claimed" which accomplishes that goal, then that might be a thing to discuss. Zaereth (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I think its a valid point to not reference this as definitive, however the conversation as previously framed prior to the article being locked was one of Elizondo being the only one who portrayed himself in that role, whereas link to the letter by Sen. Harry Reid (who was a part of the creation of AAWSAP), as well as the additional documents FOIA'd by "The Black Vault", at the very least the "claim" should be given equal weighting to the denials, rather than being seen as a "one man against the world".
As the page is locked, I am unable to make the amendment, and given the existing baggage around that passage, it may be useful for a non-involved party to make such an amendment, however I would phrase it as follows:
"Elizondo's has claimed to be a director of the now defunct Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, a program associated with the Pentagon UFO videos, is supported by former senator Harry Reid who was involved in setting up the program - this claim however has been contested by some reporters and Pentagon officials."
This subtle wording changes from "both" to "some" implies that this not as easily disputed as the reader is lead to believe, and the additional context for who Harry Reid is adds legitimately adds weight as to why his claim should be given due merit. Webmaster2981 (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Reid's support is already mentioned in the article, so there's nothing to change. Undercutting claims with terms like "some" isn't really something we do on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Just to intrude where I am neither wanted nor needed, I think the best version of the sentence is with no qualifier: "...this claim, however, has been contested by reporters and Pentagon officials." Have a nice week one and all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
I've removed the coatrack-of-quotes criticism section, most of which didn't match sourcing, and emptied the known for parameter. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
It's a somwhat weird situation. WaPo etc would normally be fine, but with the contradictory source(s?), what should be the WP:BALANCE is not glaringly obvious. In general, I would consider WaPo to have greater weight than The Intercept, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
It is a bit weird. On one hand we have Elizondo's claim being repeated by sources, on the other we have sources questioning that claim. I believe the current article represents an appropriate, reliable-source-based balance between those two poles: Elizondo's claim is included, as his claim. Alternatively, as mentioned above by SFR, Elizondo is not really known for that claim, so a better balance might be achieved by simply removing all information related to his specific role, claimed or otherwise, vis-a-vis AATIP. Perhaps WP:NORUSH also applies here: as additional, reliable sources emerge over time, this issue/content can always be revisited. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Those attempting to present this as something which is disputed have The Intercept? and all based on one article. No, there's more than one article, which for those interested can be read here. There is also this source, the sidebar of which presents a compelling case for questioning/disputing the "Directorship" claims. And there is also this source, which reports the fact that the Pentagon has questioned whether Elizondo had any official role in UFO research. The point here is that Elizondo's claimed role in the AATIP - which is certainly not what he is known for, and as pointed out above by MrOllie is derived from Elizondo himself - has been questioned in independent, reliable sources. Because of those reliable sources, if his claims are to be included at all in the article (and perhaps they should not), they can only be presented as his claims, and not as The Truth in Wikipedia's voice. I note lastly that this topic and these points have been discussed, at length, at the article Talk page, where consensus is not in favor of the OP's desired content. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 09:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

"Questioned", sure, but also reported as fact by independent, reliable sources (to which I'm not counting the senator). To me, it's not obviously clear that The Intercept has the final WP-voice-word here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
it's not obviously clear that The Intercept has the final WP-voice-word here. Where precisely, in this discussion or at the article Talk page, does anyone suggest that? Perhaps I missed something, but I just don't understand the basis for this comment. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
The article currently states "Elizondo claims that ending in 2012, he was the director..." While WaPo etc says he was. That gives The Intercept a top-dog position, in my reading. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Let's replace "claim" by "state". It is not that extraordinary of a claim that someone like Reid would put someone like Elizondo in such a position. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
The Washington Spectator uses the Intercept as its source on this and I shouldn't have to remind you that consensus doesn't allow us to violate Wikipedia's rules on BLP's. DarrellWinkler (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
It uses the Intercept article as a source, not the only source. And no one - no one - is arguing, either here or at the article Talk page, that consensus should violate BLP rules. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
You'll have to clearly explain how questioning a person's credentials is a BLP violation, especially when multiple reliable sources are doing so. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Winston Swift Boyer

Hi all--I need an editorial BLP opinion on this edit. I'm not entirely sure, but I'm leaning toward not including the conviction in this article--it's covered in Jacques Boyer. The COI is another matter. Drmies (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Completely inappropriate guilt by association, in my view. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, although not mentioning his brother at all is also not the way forward. GiantSnowman 19:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
There are two things Jacques Boyer is known for. That is being a child molester and a bicycle racer. We tend not to cover something about someone having been accused, but per WP:BLP, including it is fine when there has been a conviction. To cherry pick and showcase only the flattering part of their siblings is POV pushing when multiple reliable sources have significant coverage on both aspects. Graywalls (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
User:Graywalls, I also read the BLP, and this may be the first time I disagree with you. Second paragraph: "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"--"your brother is a convicted child molester" is a pretty titillating claim, and I agree with User:ScottishFinnishRadish that inserting the fact (as well-referenced as it may be) in this article just isn't anything more than titillating. The guy was in the Tour? That doesn't harm this guy. The guy was convicted? That may harm this guy. Not all facts are equal in regard to the BLP. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Nancy Dudney

New start-class article Nancy Dudney on someone who very obviously passes WP:PROF (elected to National Academy of Engineering). Sourced mainly to non-independent sources because that's the kind of source that is useful for sourcing factual claims about people like that. There is nothing unreliable about the sources; we cannot use that kind of source for opinions but here they are only used for uncontroversial facts. Even the cv clearly passes WP:BLPSPS (it's by the subject and we're only using it for uncontroversial factual claims). There exist secondary sources but they mostly say useless things like world-renowned expert on batteries instead of useful things like career details. IP editor insists on tagging it with a permanent banner-of-shame telling the world that its sources are non-independent (and, incorrectly, characterizes the sources as primary; some of them are, at least one of them isn't, but it is non-independent) and has been edit-warring to reinstate that banner. Help wanted. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

This mischaracterizes things a little bit, but yes help is wanted. I hope we are not violating protocol here by jumping the queue so to speak. But if there are any specialists in finding secondary sources for academics your help would really be appreciated, I know a lot of those don't come up on normal searches, and I think the article is just begging for an interested specialist to help improve the sourcing and expand it from its current start-class, thanks to all. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:78EA:9B86:3096:3798 (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
The IP's bad-faith assertion that I am not a specialist in sourcing articles on academics, after having created thousands of them, is also noted. Their condescending attitude is not helping me remain civil, which is also part of why I'm bringing this here. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
There is no condescension intended. Perhaps we need tone markers or something. I never said you were not a specialist, I only said we could use the help of specialists who might be additional or not, I made no assumptions there. Accusing me of bad-faith is weird. And no one is required to be a specialist to edit in the first place. Having specialists work on an issue just makes things a bit faster and more precise, but amateurs can muddle through things, projectspace is searchable so long as you have some idea what you are looking for (fourth-person you to be clear to avoid condescension interpretation) and the answers are usually somewhere. Even when things go awry all mistakes are reversible in a wiki. I don't understand what the problem here is. But that is ok because now that we are requesting outside attention hopefully someone who does understand everything will come along and clear everything up. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:78EA:9B86:3096:3798 (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
The fact remains that cleanup banners should be used only for articles where there is a problem to clean up. This article is not in a problematic state and putting it in a cleanup category is a waste of everyone's time, yours included. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
That still does not follow. To clarify, secondary sources are generally preferred and I do not believe that is a controversial claim. Maintenance categories are used by specialists/gnomes to find pages with issues that they like to address and are good at addressing and again that claim is uncontroversial. When thus categorized articles that would benefit from a specific task are more likely to be improved by virtue of being easier to find. Thus when the content of an article is mostly based on primary sources it is logical to add it to the maintenance category so it can receive additional attention from people who want to help, with the goal being to source most of the content from independent secondary sources.
It does not waste anyone's time, because the people that use those categories are willingly choosing to use their time in that way, and it does not waste my time because I want to help them find pages in their area of specialization. Overall it should theoretically save time. Take for example Template:Uncategorized which I add rather routinely when applicable. I could add a category or two in many cases but my imprecision rate will be higher than someone who has dedicated much time to the study of Wikipedia's category tree, and I will also be slower. By asking for help a complete and correct set of categories is more likely to be added in one go by someone who takes essentially no time at all to select them, instead of one needing additions and refinement and thus the total editor-hours used will be lower.
If instead I am misreading you, and your assertion is simply that having the majority of an article's content based on primary sources is never an issue that should be addressed by anyone I do not know what to tell you except that you are free to list Template:Primary at WP:TFD at any time. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:295F:37C6:A50D:14FD (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Playboi Carti

Rapper Playboi Carti's birth date has been brought into question following the release of his track H00dByAir and the release of footage of his arrest (with him saying his birth year at 10:43) in 2022. Consensus has not been reached, and editing has gone back and forth between the dates 1995 and 1996 for weeks without solid conversation. The majority of reliable sources state his birth date as 1996, but more questionable ones - such as a leaked driver's license state it is 1995.

This detail is being consistently contested, with edit requests and various users. I'd appreciate another opinion on how to proceed, as at this point I'm unsure whether continuous reverts is doing any good. EphemeralPerpetuals (they/them)talk 00:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

This issue was filed at DRN about 36 hours ago. I advised the filer that BLPN would probably be a better forum. If reliable sources disagree on his date of birth, I would suggest that it be removed from the infobox, and a brief mention made in the article that different sources provide different birth dates. However, if all of the reliable secondary sources agree, then the inconsistent sources are not important. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I think the issue with this specific case is that the footage of the rapper's arrest would likely fall under WP:RSPRIMARY. Although it's difficult to acknowledge that we cannot take footage from the rapper directly as the end-all, I think it is necessary to do so in this circumstance. Do you think it's worth putting a notice at the top of his talk page, too, to draw attention to this issue? EphemeralPerpetuals (they/them)talk 23:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
As far as I can see, there are no reliable references for 1995 (video on random Youtube account excluded for obvious reasons) and plenty for 1996. The only action needed is the warning, followed by blocking if necessary, of anyone adding the improperly referenced 1995 date). FDW777 (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Agree with this judgement - thank you. EphemeralPerpetuals (they/them)talk 19:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
@EphemeralPerpetuals: Can we not use his verified social media to add the correct date per WP:DOB?
[28] This tweet would line up with what is in the video, and is by the subject himself and qualifies as a birthday related text per the DOB section. @FDW777: wondering your thoughts as well.
Awshort (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Nancy MacLean

A newly created SPA has shown up on the Nancy MacLean article to push the claim that she's a conspiracy theorist, which has seen disruptive editing pushing that going back for a while, though not recently until now. Their account name, @DemocracyInCranes:, is a parody on the title of one of MacLean's books. They added to the lede the claim alongside a REFBOMB of mostly libertarian responses to said book, which is about the origins of United States libertarianism (in a not positive way).

I reverted the editor a couple times until @William M. Connolley: reverted me back and has stated they don't consider this to be a BLP violation. The only thing I did then was move down the claim to the section about the book in question. DemocracyInCranes has since added the American Conspiracy Theorists category to the article.

I would like the input of other editors on whether these additions are a BLP violation or not, with my username links above serving as pings to the two editors in question. SilverserenC 22:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it's a BLP violation. But I do see a disputed edit that has been added back to the article without any discussion on the talk page, by a longstanding editor who you'd think would know better. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Characterizing her critics as "some academic critics, many of them libertarians" appears to be incorrect. Maybe more accurate would be "many libertarians, some of whom are academics". We should avoid representing her critics as being more mainstream than they are. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Iqbal Survé

Iqbal Survé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Moved from User_talk:ToBeFree
 – ToBeFree (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what's happening with this article but there appears to be WP:BLP issues.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Long story. The subject of the article can be seen as a controversial figure. There's a history of COI editing on this page by single-purpose accounts associated with the subject of the article, editing positively about him. This has usually ended with them being blocked as sockpuppets. The most recent spate of edits started from the other "side" - single-purpose accounts editing negatively about the subject - and now a single-purpose account has joined in, editing in favour of the subject. Zaian (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Evgeniya Kanaeva

False data in the article:

According to Kanaeva's biography on olympics.com, she was born in Omsk (Soviet Union), not Anyang, Gyeonggi-do, Korea as mentioned in the article. https://olympics.com/en/athletes/evgeniya-kanaeva

Furthermore, the article includes several Korean place names, such as "Suwon" and "Anyang", which is strange because Kanaeva is a Russian athlete.

I kindly request a careful review and verification of the information provided in the article. Thank you for your attention to this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tata2906 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

An IP editor from Korea made a series of changes without explanation back in November which changed many of the placenames in the article from Siberian to Korean ones; I have reverted. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Meg (singer)

An IP user (on two addresses, but the edit summaries make it clear it's the same user) keeps adding unsourced information to Meg (singer). I can't find anything in the article references or in a quick online search to support it. I've reverted them three times (over three days), and their edit summaries are not encouraging as to their stopping this any time soon, so instead of continuing to be involved I'm bringing it here.

I'm hoping someone can tell me what the process is here - it feels kind of like a slow-mo edit war, but also it's continuous addition of unsourced info to a BLP (so a BLP violation), and additionally it's an IP user with multiple addresses. What is the protocol here? EasyAsPai (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I blocked the range for two weeks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! EasyAsPai (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Amin Husain

The edits made to this page this week are based on unsubstantiated information, Amin husain has been unjustly suspended and an investigation is still taking place, and the information cited is based on a tabloid rag article (the ny post) with the intention to harm and defame. We ask that these edits are removed until actual verifiable data is available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:863F:6942:E8EE:3FB:1513:F302 (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Question: Is Husain notable at all? I am seeing only low-quality sources here. The only reliable source I see in the article is a single ARTnews piece concerning the Decolonize This Place project. Other coverage of the project that I see on a cursory search mentions Husain in passing. Perhaps this should be a redirect to the project? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Woodroofe, I followed your suggestion--thank you. Yes that article is full of BLP problems. Oh, IP editor, don't speak in the plural here: it makes admins want to block. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Amin is a public figure cited in books and social movements and is an educator and activist a lawyer, as well as a lot of other things that are not derivative of his partial role in decolonize this place, so basically erasing him and just connecting him to decolonize this place minimizes and honestly feels like a lazy solution to making sure his wiki is updated with verifiable sources and data. Please remove the redirection. Sunkissed2024 (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
By email at ticket:2024013010011251 someone requested on-wiki discussion. If this is to be a redirect or deleted then please send to WP:AfD. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
User:Bluerasberry, I find it a bit concerning that a clearly problematic BLP is simply restored on the basis of a "public figure" comment, and an email that I can't read. This is the easy way out, but it is not the right way. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
I've opened an AFD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amin Husain. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Oh, and you restored his occupation as "Suspended Adjunct Professor"--seriously? Drmies (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
@Drmies: When an article has lots of citations then redirecting it without discussion results in a dispute more often than sending it to AfD. The redirect you made is fine, but someone did dispute that redirect by email. I restored it by request.
If I did something out of process then tell me, because I think what I did is the norm. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Ignoring the complaint made right here, and the obvious problems with the article (see my recent edits), that's not what I would have expected. "Restore upon request", that's news to me. Drmies (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
I think the goal here is instead of redirecting the article or deleting it, we actually do some due diligence research as your statement that you can't find notable articles about Amin Husain is confusing and inaccurate. Sunkissed2024 (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hamas most wanted playing cards: "list of terrorists"

Disclaimer: I am no fan of Hamas, but surely WP:BLP applies to them? User:Eladkarmel on 31 January 2024 created this article, apparently translated from Hebrew Wikipedia, with the very first sentence saying: The Hamas most wanted cards are a list of terrorists wanted by the State of Israel for crimes they committed against Israel, a sentence that remains as of this post. The article goes on to list 54 Hamas members, some deceased, some alive. It is very possible that some of them are terrorists, but to simply label all of them as terrorists (e.g. Rawhi Mushtaha, Chairman of the economic committee, Samah al-Sarraj, Member of Hamas's political bureau, Youssef Abu al-Rish, Deputy Health Minister) is questionable. Note that similar topic Most-wanted Iraqi playing cards has no mention of "terrorist". The sentence also states terrorists wanted by the State of Israel for crimes they committed against Israel, but there is no elaboration at all on what crime each person committed, which is another serious WP:BLP violation. Are Israeli sources Ynet ([29]) and Israel Hayom ([30]) good enough sources for such blanket statements? I do not think so. starship.paint (RUN) 16:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I've changed to "Hamas members" per MOS:TERRORIST. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I saw the article in Hebrew and thought it could be adapted to English. (I did this with Wikipedia's translation tool)
I may have made a mistake regarding the word "terrorists" (a word I usually don't use in the articles I create). Eladkarmel (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Oh, we definitely need the War criminals deck as counterpoint. Selfstudier (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Dani Matos

There are multiple people with the name Dani Matos involved with association football. Consensus is needed to determine which one the article is about, or if none of them are notable enough to merit a page.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Mark Bourrie, again

Over the past month, another suspected Spoonkymonkey sock, Oneofff, appeared to challenge claims in this article. There have been a number of past discussions about this same issue, such as:

All of these discussions were started by Spoonkymonkey socks, and since they have a penchant for using legal threats as a first resort in dispute resolution, they get themselves blocked before anyone can take their complaint seriously. But the thing is there is an issue here, and we're obligated to get BLPs right when editors bring complaints in good faith, even when they do so in ways that go against our social norms.

Spoonkymonkey objects to our description of Bourrie's testimony in the 2015 fraud trial of Canadian Senator Mike Duffy. The most recent revision of the contested section reads as follows:

In April 2015, during the fraud trial of Senator Mike Duffy, Bourrie testified that he received an unsolicited cheque for $500 from Duffy, after spending an estimated 80–100 hours combating internet trolls who had posted material about Duffy, including editing Duffy's Wikipedia entry.[1][2] Bourrie testified that he did not recall asking for payment and that his research services would usually run $100 per hour. Christopher Waddell, a journalism professor and former Parliament Hill correspondent, said it was "inappropriate" for Bourrie, as a journalist, to accept paid work from Duffy.[3]

References

  1. ^ Galloway, Gloria (April 17, 2015). "Duffy paid journalist to combat 'trolls' online, trial told". Globe and Mail. Retrieved March 26, 2019.
  2. ^ "Mike Duffy's payment for combating Internet trolls was funnelled through a friend's firm, court hears". National Post. April 17, 2015. Retrieved March 26, 2019.
  3. ^ Akin, David (April 9, 2015). "Duffy, as Senator, Paid Journalists". Canadaland. Retrieved March 26, 2019.

Note that the Canadaland article was published April 9, 2015. On the same day, Bourrie wrote a rebuttal on his "Ottawa Watch" blog (now offline, archived here) which Canadaland also published in slightly modified form on April 15 ([31]), in which Bourrie challenges certain details of David Akin's article. While our article is I think a fair representation of the sources, we do not mention Bourrie's rebuttal at all, and that seems to violate WP:BLPBALANCE.

Oneofff's last attempt to add Bourrie's rebuttal read as follows: (diff to current revision)

In April 2015, during the fraud trial of Senator Mike Duffy, Bourrie testified that he received an unsolicited cheque for $500 from Duffy, after spending an estimated 80–100 hours combating internet trolls who had posted material about Duffy before Duffy was appointed to the Senate, including editing Duffy's Wikipedia entry.[1][2] Bourrie testified that he did not recall asking for payment and that his research services would usually run $100 per hour.[3] Bourrie said he did the work while he was teaching at Concordia University, not while he was working in the media. He also stated he never covered the Senate or wrote about Duffy afterwards. [4]

References

  1. ^ Galloway, Gloria (April 17, 2015). "Duffy paid journalist to combat 'trolls' online, trial told". Globe and Mail. Retrieved March 26, 2019.
  2. ^ "Mike Duffy's payment for combating Internet trolls was funnelled through a friend's firm, court hears". National Post. April 17, 2015. Retrieved March 26, 2019.
  3. ^ Akin, David (April 9, 2015). "Duffy, as Senator, Paid Journalists". Canadaland. Retrieved March 26, 2019.
  4. ^ "CANADALAND Strong-Armed me into Writing this". April 15, 2015.

I see a few problems:

  1. "before Duffy was appointed to the Senate" is dubious. The Globe & Mail is clear that Bourrie worked for Duffy after Duffy was appointed to the Senate; the National Post doesn't give an explicit timeline but quotes Bourrie saying that the posts were made "from the time [Duffy] got appointed". I don't know how we reconcile Bourrie saying one thing in a rebuttal and then being quoted saying the opposite two days later.
  2. The removal of the quote from Christopher Waddell is more tricky. Without it, Bourrie's defense that he worked at Concordia at the time has no context. But I'm not sure that Waddell's opinion should be included: while we're presenting it fairly and in their voice, I don't see evidence that Waddell is an expert in journalistic ethics, and Canadaland is the only publication (that I could find) which published it. This also came up in the "archive 296" discussion linked above but wasn't acted on.
  3. "he never covered the Senate or wrote about Duffy afterwards" maybe just needs clarity. In Bourrie's own words he reported on the Senate's justice committee while a law student, but had not done so "in at least three years". His rebuttal isn't clear on what date he's referring to, but I assume he means before 2009 when Duffy consulted him on the malicious posts.

Appreciate any thoughts on this. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 06:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't include the rebuttal because per WP:ABOUTSELF it is either unduly self-serving or makes exceptional claims (claims that are contradicted). I'd probably think about dropping the statement from Waddell also. TarnishedPathtalk 09:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I’m Mark Bourrie.
I did not cover Duffy in the Senate
I mentioned Duffy once in one of my books (2014) I did not cover the Senate justice committee as a law student, I covered some meetings for Law Times. I stoped writing for them in 2007, when I started teaching at Concordia. This was before Duffy’s appointment to the Senate.
I knew Duffy for years before he was a senator. We sat next to each other in the parliamentary press gallery.
For what it’s worth, you have the name of one of my books wrong and are missing two others 142.117.142.7 (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Waddell was what’s called a “dial a quote”. Call him up and he would give good quote on and “facts” that he was fed. He did nothing to check them. In this case, he was wrong. The quote suggests I am unethical, a serious allegation to make about a lawyer and journalist. Despite Ivanvector’s claim, now written into the entry, I did not retire from journalism in 2017. A simple google search would have found the journalism I’ve done since then, including to long features in the Globe and Mail last year. As well, the year of my birth is wrong.
Look, I know I’ve alienated Wikipedia but I have felt ridden by anonymous editors from the beginning. The page on me was begun some 20 years ago with a false claim that I lost a lawsuit and from them on, it has been nothing but an invasion of my privacy and an embarrassment. Take a look at my bio. I could have brought so much to this project, if anyone had shown any kindness or good faith. Take a look at the edits attributed to me. There were many hundreds of them that fixed errors in articles or added to them. I won’t belabour the point. But at least as far as Canada is concerned, on Wikipedia you are either out or you are in. 142.117.142.7 (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
As the year of birth given in the article did not match the age given in the cited source I have updated it to match. I can see nothing in the article (or in IvanVector's post above) which states that you/Bourrie retired from journalism in 2017. I have not looked into the rest of these comments yet. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I think TarnishedPath means to refer to WP:BLPSELFPUB, although the text is basically the same. I'm not meaning to argue for its inclusion, but I've always interpreted that guideline to mean that we can't use a self-published source to support material in our article that is unduly promotional or about other people or unrelated events, not that we can't use them if any of those things are present in the source. I see how that would be open to interpretation. The other problem is that Bourrie's rebuttal was published by Canadaland, which is neither self-published nor questionable. Thus if we include Waddell's opinion, then we can also include Bourrie's reply. But I agree that we probably should omit them both - unless someone can demonstrate that Waddell is an expert on journalistic ethics or a source of expert opinion on the goings-on of the Press Gallery, it's just a random cherrypicked opinion, and it fails WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:AVOIDVICTIM. As for "former journalist", I mentioned this source in my edit summary, which reads "Bourrie was a journalist from 1978 until 2017". It seemed to me that the article content supported that timeline, and it also seemed to me that Oneofff was trying to make that distinction. I'm happy to see the error corrected; likewise for the birth date which I did not review. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Nothing on Waddell's profile at Carleton University leads me to believe he's a subject matter in journalist ethics.
It's listed that "He received a Ph. D in Canadian history from York University in Toronto in 1981, completing a thesis on price and wage controls and consumer rationing in Canada in World War II". No post-doc studies or fellowships are detailed that would lead me to believe that he's a subject matter expert in journalist ethics. TarnishedPathtalk 00:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Presuming that we're generally in agreement that Waddell's quote should be removed (I was hoping for more participation but it is mid-week) I have removed it. But I have a broader question: should Duffy's trial be mentioned in Bourrie's bio at all? It's described here as though Bourrie's testimony was a critical element of the trial, but Bourrie isn't mentioned at all in our coverage of the trial in Duffy's bio nor in our article on the Canadian Senate expenses scandal which it was part of. That's telling, isn't it? The newspaper sources we use were published on April 17, 2015, the same day Bourrie testified, and two weeks into Duffy's criminal trial which was practically the biggest news in the country at the time, and papers were covering every routine detail of it. But April 17 was a Friday, and by Monday the coverage was on to other things. Going forward in time: on May 7, Macleans ([32]) mentions the defence trying to block admission of the evidence Bourrie brought of harassment of Duffy on Wikipedia, and on June 1 the CBC ([33]) reported that it was ruled inadmissible. At least the Toronto Star and National Post also reported that, very much in passing. After June 2, the only source I found from a quick Google search which mentions Bourrie in the context of the trial at all is the judgement itself ([34]), Wikipediocracy ([35]), and various sources (including Bourrie's site, FairPress.ca) covering Bourrie's feud with Canadaland, but we can't use any of those for various reasons. It seems to me that it's an exceptionally minor detail of Bourrie's career, and practically not a detail at all of the trial. Is there any good reason we should include it? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 04:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

That was one thing I was a bit confused about when I started reading this thread. I really don't see a good reason why it's there. TarnishedPathtalk 04:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm also not convinced there's a compelling reason to include it; as we all seem to be in agreement and nobody else has weighed in on this thread I have removed the paragraph. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for updating his bibliography, TarnishedPath. Mr. Bourrie, if you're still watching this thread: while reviewing sources I happened to notice that the title of Bush Runner is also misspelled on your website's "about" page, in case you wanted to correct it. Regarding TarnishedPath's advice: you won't be able to leave an edit request on the talk page since it's protected from logged-out editing, but if any time in the future you see further abusive editing on the article that we don't catch, you can make a request on this page, or if you would rather deal with it privately you can contact our volunteer response team, who are signatories to a confidentiality agreement. Their intake email, regrettably buried in an FAQ well away from the main page, is info-en-q@wikimedia.org.

There are still some issues with sources on the page:

  1. I'm trying to find a source for Bourrie teaching at Concordia from 2007-2009; it was previously in the article without a source. Oneofff provided this, which we can use although it's written by Bourrie (but not self-published). It appears to be hosted on a WordPress site but the document itself is reliable. The article would be more stable if we could find an independent source, but I've had no success so far.
  2. There are several dead links. I recovered one yesterday, but others should be reviewed and archived, or a better source found if they're offline and can't be verified.
  3. Speaking of #2, the source used to support the sentence summarizing his early career, an article from the Ottawa Sun titled "'Prince of Darkness' sues blogger", is not available online. The archive link is to a page where a reader can pay a fee to order a copy of it, and the newspaper's online archives only go back to 2011. Given its title I don't think it would be an ideal source anyway. Can we find a different one?

There are more things we could probably improve, like adding some coverage of his interest and work on Great Lakes shipwrecks if there's independent sourcing available, but that's less urgent and can probably be handled on the talk page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ivanvector no worries with the updates. I might try and look for book reviews for any of the books that don't have any in the bibliography when I have time.
I found a Canada's National Observer article which says "The former Concordia teacher and current law student". The publication appears to be reliable, having editorial staff and policies. TarnishedPathtalk 01:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Fani Willis

Allegations that district attorney of Fulton County Georgia Fani Willis had hired a boyfriend as special prosecutor have been widely reported in reliable sources.

CBS News article: A Fulton County commissioner says he is now pursuing an investigation ... he would pursue a “full investigation”
ABC News source: would be "pursuing as full of an investigation as is permitted by Fulton County government."
Willis "sought to quash" the subpoena and accused Wade's wife.
PBS Newshour article: Fani Willis is accusing the estranged wife of a special prosecutor she hired of trying to obstruct her criminal election-interference case ... seeking to quash the subpoena.
Politico article: Willis moved to quash the subpoena

Certain editors would like to keep this information out of the article on BLP grounds. THe reason provide is Willis hasnt responded and we can only consider inclusion after an investigation is complete. The reasoning seems questionable. DarrellWinkler (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The reason is because the editors are looking to include content that insinuates wrongdoing on the part of Willis, a highly visible figure who is trying one of Donald Trump's criminal cases (see 2020 Georgia election investigation and Georgia election racketeering prosecution for more on that). I will note that there is a section titled "Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct by Fani Willis" at the racketeering prosecution article that I do not object to, as it is not a BLP and is the appropriate article for discussing pretrial motions.
This is one edit I've reverted. This is based on no concrete evidence that has been presented as of yet, but insinuations from the court filings of one of Trump's codefendants. The judge has yet to hear arguments relating to this. In addition to WP:BLPGOSSIP, there are WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS grounds to keep this out, at least for the time being. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
While I may not specifically endorse the edits you reverted, I would note that what comes to including basic facts per PUBLICFIGURE, your unsubstantiated references BLPGOSSIP and NOTNEWS have zero relevance. Please study the policies you cite and you shall see it yourself. Your claim that there is"no concrete evidence" is also irrelevant. What matters is that there are widely reported allegations and there is no indication that the allegations can be promptly dismissed as false. RECENTISM is an essay that is also cited BLPSTYLE, and may helpful in determining due weight, but the essay cannot subvert another policy, specifically PUBLICFIGURE. Politrukki (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I could throw around more letters like WP:VNOT. You do so quite a bit. You need to study BLP protections more generally. Court filings are not "evidence" until a judge rules on them. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Since my edit is being referenced and again being misrepresented here, I'll chip in my take.
You have claimed repeatedly that this is only based on court filings, which is incorrect. RS have done their own research and reporting on this. RS report on Wade's lack of prosecutorial experience while being assigned the lead role by Willis in this case - per Washington Post, Politico, Associated Press, based on their analysis of Wade's career and typical procedure. They note the >$650,000 he has been paid, larger than Willi's own salary, doing a job that normally is done by civil servants, per aforementioned WaPo article based on county records. They report on the investigatory measures taken by Fulton County audit chair sourced from him per NBC News. And some more up to date reporting includes NYT reporting backing up a relationship between Willis and Wade based on an independent witness. I'd also like to present that you seemingly? agree with me that my edit's presentation of content matches RS ("taking the words directly from sources"), after previously claiming bias.
Does your standard on "considerable harm can be done to a BLP by alleging wrongdoing that only a court can decide" (mentioned below) apply for any of the people mentioned in the Fani Willis article's coverage of her electoral indictments, who are as of yet, unconvicted or sometimes not even indicted? Including Burt Jones, who a judge has explicitly blocked Willis from prosecuting? We have RS coverage of both Willis and Jones, including their own reporting, their own evidence gathering, their own analysis, etc. It makes perfect sense to me why Jones is included. It does not make sense why Willis, given similar if not more coverage, is not. In the talk page and here, you brought up inclusion dependent on judge's ruling. However, the judge in Jones' case ruled entirely for him and blocked Willis from prosecuting. I'm not seeing any consistent application of your standards. KiharaNoukan (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
BLP is not "my" standard, it's the standard we should all be following. Even the articles talking about the travel say Roman's attorney has not provided evidence, which I expect we'll see in the February 15 hearing. That they traveled together in and of itself means nothing. It would be a big deal if the judge rules that this is a conflict of interest. Adding the insinuations of impropriety on her part now is a BLP violation for all the reasons I shared below in my reply to Magnolia.
While you're trying a whataboutism in how our BLPs treat the people Willis indicted, I will note that they were indicted. And the court process with Burt Jones has run its course. It has not with Willis and Wade. Willis has until February 2 to file her written response. We need to exhibit patience. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
What I'm doing is providing examples that we presumably both agree are due for inclusion to show why the mention of Willis & Wade is also valid for inclusion, so that we have something to ground us on the same page rather than just speaking past each other. I'm concerned that the haphazard citing of BLP policies you did below is indicative of that; among the policies you bring up include BLPPRIMARY is when all the cited sources are secondary (Magnolia just restored my old edit, which is entirely based on secondary RS). I'm not claiming that indictments are 1:1 the same thing as Willis-Wade (although my examples include unindicted people), only that inclusion of content related to judicial proceedings is clearly not incumbent on a judge's ruling.
I agree that BLP is the standard we should all be following. Along with the examples from the Willis article, I can also provide the example mentioned in WP:BLPPUBLIC: Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. It should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. Seems pretty apparent that the Willis-Wade revelations are this very textbook example. KiharaNoukan (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
There are enough sources to satisfy WP:PUBLICFIGURE; however the level of detail about the allegations disrupted WP:BLPBALANCE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely true. This is a "meat and potato" case of including allegations per WP:PUBLICFIGURE; Willis is a public figure, there are allegations that are noteworthy, hence it is clearly established that at least something should be included in the bio. I happened to take a stab at the bio by adding one relatively short paragraph. Now it is up to editorial discretion to determine how much content is DUE. Some of it cannot be done now, because the curtain is still open. The fact that there is also an article Georgia election racketeering prosecution where the allegations can be covered in-depth suggests that Willis's bio should only contain a short summary – at least for now. Politrukki (talk) 12:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Lemme quickly show the text that Politrukki added to Willis' bio a few hours ago that I just reverted: On January 8, 2024, an attorney for Mike Roman, a defendant in the Georgia election racketeering prosecution case accused Willis of prosecutorial misconduct. According to the court filing, Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade (whom Willis hired for the case) had a romantic relationship, creating an improper conflict of interest. The filing asserts that Willis went on vacations with Wade and so Willis profited from hiring him; it cited sealed records for the divorce of Wade and his wife.[1][2] These unsubstantiated allegations, sourced to court filings, violate BLP. They are alleging misconduct without the proof, which we have not seen, being adjudicated upon. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
This is a case wether I think we should take a wait and see approach. A lot of accusations have been made but odds are good that what we would want to say about this a year from now will be different than what we would suggest today. These could be facts that kill her career but if proven false they may amount to just a footnote. There is no time limit. Springee (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I was of skeptical of adding something at first, but I've come around to think we need something (though I would note that the unsealed divorce papers didn't reveal much[3]. But not just anything: something that doesn't just copy the claims over wholesale. Boil it down to a couple sentences at most, general language that the accusation was made and noting that it is currently just an accusation (leave the discussion of any evidence for Judge McAfee's courtroom) to which Willis has not yet officially responded (a speech at a church is not an official court document). As for sources, perhaps stick to Atlanta area outlets that understand the nuances of Georgia better than national ones, like the AJC or one of the local news TV affiliates, as long as it isn't just reupping something from the networks/wire services. I think that strikes a nice balance. Paris1127 (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Coverage has been widespread, and sources cited are reliable. Fani Willis is a public figure; readers would benefit from a paragraph about this topic. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
If "widespread coverage" and "reliable sources" were the only considerations, I'd agree with you. But they are not the only considerations, and considerable harm can be done to a BLP by alleging wrongdoing that only a court can decide. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: What specific part of WP:BLP leads you to conclude that? Magnolia677 (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm glad you asked.
WP:BLPSTYLE: BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement.
WP:BLPBALANCE: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all.
WP:BLPPRIMARY: Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.
WP:BLPGOSSIP: Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources.
WP:BLPPRIVACY: The standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified.
When it comes to BLPBALANCE's "disinterested tone", I'm concerned with yours. You wrote one of the other editors who is pushing this content by saying Fani Willis is one of the "mischievous Democrats" and that Fani's poor judgment will unravel on the front page of every reliable source by the end of the week, and your edit will be in like the dirty shoe it is. Let it be noted that even if she is dating someone she is working with, this is not necessarily an unacceptable conflict of interest. At least you advised them not to violate 1RR. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
As we say here in Mississippi, you've been busier than a church fan in August, but a deeper read of each of those policies shows that few have much significance within the context of this article. The depth of coverage on this very public person is overwhelming. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
And there's the rub: the "depth of coverage" is all reliant on the court filings (see WP:BLPPRIMARY above), and mentions that Roman’s filing included no concrete proof that Willis personally benefited from hiring Wade.[36] If there's a "deeper read" of BLP to provide that overtakes that, I don't see it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
We are only relying what reliable sources (many many of them) have reported. Isnt that what we do here? DarrellWinkler (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
With caveats, as described (to a point) above. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
The investigations and allegations are now from multiple places and widely covered. The depth of coverage argument no longer applies, the list is in Talk:Fani Willis . The only place that Fani Willis and this matter is NOT being connected is on Wikipedia. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
She has now responded in court documents, so that information can and should be included in the article. Speculation beyond what has been admitted or proven in court should not. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Right, that is now the case. So many editors lack patience, which is problematic when it comes to editing a contentious BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
As well as why we need better adherence to WP:NOT#NEWS. We're meant to summarize events, and while we can include current events, we should be extremely cautious of rushing to add news that requires significant validation (such as claims re BLP) even if every major news sources is talking about it. Masem (t) 17:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Amen. It'd be great if some of you could pop over to Talk:Fani Willis and tell this to the brigade of impatient editors who are very very mad at me for following BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, please pop over to Talk:Fani Willis. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Hakim, Danny; Fausset, Richard (January 11, 2024). "Atlanta Prosecutor Faces Upheaval in Trump Inquiry". The New York Times.
  2. ^ Gardner, Amy; Bailey, Holly (January 18, 2024). "Judge in Trump Georgia case orders hearing on Fani Willis misconduct claims". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. a scheduled Jan. 31 hearing in Cobb County Superior Court over a motion to unseal records in Wade's divorce case. Merchant has said she believes records in that case will substantiate her allegations of wrongdoing by Willis and Wade.
  3. ^ Gringlas, Sam (22 January 2024). "Fate of Georgia election case unclear as prosecutors face growing scrutiny". WABE. Retrieved 23 January 2024.

Tommy Vext

Tommy Vext (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Accusations against this artist have been repeatedly readded, for example in Special:Diff/1197348778, Special:Diff/1202499379, and Special:Diff/1202927575 (all by different people). While there is sourcing here, I'm not convinced that it's sufficiently reliable for including such accusations in a BLP. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:RSPSOURCES, MetalSucks is considered usable for its reviews and news articles. It also states "exercise caution when MetalSucks is the only source making a statement. While that site is the first to obtain the court documents about the accusation and report it, other media outlets picked it up and reported it.[37][38][39] Vext may have been exonerated[40] but it doesn't change the fact that accusations were made. It's worth noting both the accusations AND the exoneration. NJZombie (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Him saying he was exonerated does not mean that he was actually exonerated. If only accusations were made, then we should not be covering it under WP:BLPCRIME. However, the fact that there was a restraining order obtained should be enough to report the fact that a restraining order was obtained, but in California the request for a restraining order is not a criminal charge, nor is its granting a criminal conviction, so we should probably avoid going into detail about the claims. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Adam Bakri - correction of my nationality in the bio box.

Dear Noticeboard,

I hope this message finds you in good spirits. I am writing to you today regarding the representation of my national identity on my Wikipedia page: Adam Bakri. As it stands, the page incorrectly categorizes me as “Israeli, Palestinian” in the bio box when, in fact, I have consistently identified as Palestinian in both public and private spheres. This misrepresentation is deeply concerning to me.

The sources currently cited on my page to support the claim of my nationality include interviews and public statements where I have clearly identified myself as Palestinian. This evidences a significant misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the cited material, and I respectfully request that this be rectified.

Here is how the current categorizaiton of my nationality as “Israeli” violates the Biographies Of Living Persons Policies on Wikipedia:

1-Contentious Material: The page contains misrepresentations of my nationality, which are both objectionable and incorrect. This qualifies as "contentious material" about a living person under the Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy. According to this policy, such material, if "unsourced or poorly sourced, must be removed immediately," not only from the article itself but also from its talk page. Participants on the talk page are making false claims that I have identified as Palestinian Israeli, without sourcing. One individual has cited an archived/outdated version of an article from Interview Magazine, which has since been corrected to accurately reflect my identity. I have cited the updated article, along with other articles and snapshots from my verified social media platforms, where I clearly identify as Palestinian.

2-Immediate Action: The policy underscores the necessity of taking swift action to eliminate potentially harmful or inaccurately sourced content about living individuals. This signifies that I have solid grounds to request the removal or correction of the information related to my nationality, particularly if the current sources fail to accurately represent how I identify myself, or if the interpretation of those sources is mistaken.

3-Reporting to the Noticeboard: If my attempts to correct the information through the article's talk page or by editing directly have been unsuccessful, or if I've encountered resistance in making these corrections, the BLP policy recommends reporting the issue to the appropriate noticeboard. That is precisely why I am here, reporting to you, because I have faced such resistance, and failed to make the change numerous times. For me, this means turning to the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard, where I can outline my concerns for both the wider community and administrators to examine and address the issue.

4-Libelous Material: The mention of "potentially libelous" material in the policy highlights the critical need for accuracy and the potential legal implications of Wikipedia content for me. Although my case centers on misrepresentation rather than defamation, the principle of ensuring accurate and verifiable information about living persons still applies.

Here's another examination of the sources cited, where my national identity is distinctly and straightforwardly stated as Palestinian:

https://www.gqmiddleeast.com/culture/palestinian-actor-adam-bakri-quest

https://www.esquireme.com/culture/how-adam-bakri-came-to-his-senses

https://www.instagram.com/adammbakri/?hl=en

I hope for your cooperation in this matter and expect that action will be taken to rectify the inaccuracies discussed. I appreciate your help in advance and thank you for your attention to this important issue.

Adam Bakri — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACTORADAMBAKRI (talk • contribs) 20:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

This is something of a minefield. The article describes Adam Bakri as one of the Palestinian citizens of Israel. This is because Israel is a state while Palestine has not been since 1948. As the article Palestinian citizens of Israel says, "Common practice in contemporary academic literature is to identify this community as Palestinian as it is how the majority self-identify."--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Are you or are you not an Israeli citizen? If you are an Israeli citizen, then it should be kept in the infobox, if you aren't it should be removed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Bakri was born in Jaffa in 1988, so it seems probable that he does have Israeli citizenship. The infobox currently gives his nationality as "Israeli, Palestinian". Nationality and national identity are not the same thing, eg on a passport or in legal documents.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
{{Infobox person}} offers |nationality= and |citizenship=. Could this be a case where using both (one for Palestinian, the other for Israeli) may be warranted? Nardog (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
But even if it can be argued that it is accurate, is it necessary? We often populate infoboxes with material that is contextually trivial, just because there are fields. Does it convey any information needed to understanding his career that other points of data do not? We have thats he was born in Jaffa, we have in the lead that he is Palestinian. There are certainly careers for which national citizenship is a vital piece of information - political ones, for example. I'm not convinced that "actor" is one such career. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
I was thinking along the exact same lines as Nat. What's the point of even including the word "Israel"? Everyone in the world knows about the relationship between Palestinians and Israel. Unless there is some qualifier attached, like for example "Palestinian-American", then everyone knows immediately what country he comes from. Seems like unnecessary info to me.
There's a huge difference between a nation and a state/country. A "nation" is defined as "a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory." It's separate from the country or the state (government). In the US, for example, we all come from different histories, cultures and descents, yet we're a nation simply because we all inhabit the same territory. In both the US and Canada are separate nations, such as the Sioux, Apache, Cree, or Tlingit. These people usually identify their nationality based on their culture and heritage rather than simply a territory or state. In this case, I don't see that there's a need to even name what country the subject is a citizen of. It's already self-evident. Zaereth (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
There is a big difference between a Palestinian that is a citizen of Israel and one who is not in Israel. Bakri was free to study theatre at an major Israeli University and traveled regularly between the U.S. and Israel as a child according to that Interview article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I've managed to find a reliable source saying explicitly that he's an Israeli citizen [41], so I've added that to the "Early life" section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Entire keyboards have been worn out on Wikipedia debating whether Andy Murray is Scottish or British. This is because national identity and citizenship are not necessarily the same thing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Ed Rush

Ed Rush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A second (well, fourth, but you know what I mean) eye on this article would be useful. Per the discussion on the talk page, an editor feels it is all fine to add an unsourced alleged birth name (complete with a {{citation needed}} tag already in place) as that doesn't count as "controversial". Personally, my view is that "controversial" is not the benchmark here: WP:V is what's important – everywhere, but especially in a BLP. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Another editor filed a request for dispute resolution about this article at the dispute resolution noticeboard. I closed the DRN case because, as a case about a biography of a living person, this noticeboard is the best forum to address it. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Richard Carlson biography

The fact that Mr Carlson was the Director of the United States Information Agency is untrue. He did hold all the other positions reported in the article, all during the time while the Director of the Agency was Charles Z. Wick, not Mr. Carlson. I know this because I served in USIA at the time, and had personal contact with both gentlemen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.170.17.70 (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy link to Dick Carlson article. Schazjmd (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
That he was director of the USIA was in the lead but not the body of the article, and was not supported by the cited source, so I have removed it Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Peter Fraser (judge) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Fraser_(judge)

Dear Wikipedia,

I work at the Judicial Office, which supports the judiciary of England and Wales.

I have twice removed the two paragraphs below from this article Peter_Fraser_(judge) but each time they have been reinstated. The paragraphs are:

"Peter rowed for the Lady Margaret Boat Club for most of his time at college. Boats he rowed in won the University Clinker IVs and finished fourth in the May Bumps and he was selected for Blue Boat trials.[4]

In 1986 Peter joined the Royal Marines with two friends from Cambridge University, Prince Edward and Quintus Travis. Peter and Prince Edward left the Royal Marines in early 1987.[5][6]"

The first paragraph is inaccurate. It is also viewed as irrelevant to Lord Justice Fraser's role as a judge, the reason the article has been written.

The second article is also viewed as irrelevant, and I believe should not be included according to Wikipedia's editorial guidelines, which state under the heading that begins "Avoid gossip...": "Ask yourself... whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject."

I have now removed the paragraphs for a third time and hope they will not reappear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.33.196.47 (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Between the previous comment being made and my looking at the article, the text in question was reinstated. From a quick look, the IP editor above seems to have a point: it looks like trivia to me, and the sources are either bad (The Sun has been deprecated since 2019) or only tangentially about Fraser. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Your statement here suggests that Wikipedia's guidelines for editing when you have a conflict of interest apply to you; as your not editing through an account and your using a shifting IP address, I will note that here. Also, I see no relevant disussion going on on the article's talk page, such disagreements should be turned toward discussion rather than repeated insertion/deletion of the same material, which is considered edit warring. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I opened a discussion on the talk page. I removed the deprecated source per WP:THESUN, and also removed the rest of that paragraph, because the Guardian article only verifies that he left the Marines, which is not notable or significant. I don't consider him rowing in college to be notable or significant either, he played sports in college, big deal, and he is not even mentioned in Lady Margaret Boat Club or May Bumps or Blue Boat. Unless he achieved some sort of notability for his rowing, or it has received some significant coverage, I lean towards leaving that out too. A passing mention in a source is not good enough for inclusion, in my view. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Tracy Chapman Biography

Two lines after saying Chapman appeared on Stephen Colbert in 2020, It says that here 2024 Grammy appearance was her first appearance in 7 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.45.217.107 (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

It says her first live televised performance in nine years. Text doesn't indicate that she performed on Colbert. Schazjmd (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
She performed on Seth Meyers, but it was a pre-recorded clip. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Special WP:BLPCRIME exception for beheading cases?

A man has recently been arrested and charged with murder. He has not been tried or convicted. He is not a public figure. WP:BLPCRIME would seem to apply, but the circumstances of this case may be clouding some editor's judgment. Perhaps mine.

The case has been widely reported with headlines such as "Pennsylvania man arrested after allegedly killing his father and displaying his decapitated head on YouTube". I removed the entries from the above-mentioned articles on BLP grounds, but my edit has already been reverted on one article so I am starting this discussion. The editor who reverted me stated that "BLPCRIME doesn't apply - text does not accuse, only describes), reported in mainstream news". Does BLPCRIME apply to this case, and, if not, why not? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The text of the section does not "suggest(s) the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime". It only describes what the news article has described (and the news article also does not accuse him of a crime, it only describes the events). It's a grey area. I'm not sure it necessarily meets notability thresholds however, aside from that beheadings are extremely rare events, and recordings (either of the event or the aftermath) are even more extraordinary. And no, I'm not a 'murder junkie' as you characterized editors of the article in your contributions on Wale's talk page. That characterization, even if not directed at a specific editor, is uncivil. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
How is describing the crime and the arrest not suggesting that the named living person committed the crime? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I had the same question. The text includes ...and charged Mohn with first-degree murder and abuse of a corpse. Schazjmd (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
The text does not say "Mohn murdered and decapitated his father" in wikivoice. It also doesn't say "Mohn probably/obviously etc" did so. I believe that's the threshold. There's a difference between WP describing something, and readers inferring something. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
You believe the threshold for "suggests that the person ... is accused of having committed a crime" is to say in wikivoice that they did commit a crime? Seriously? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Is the snark necessary - expressing incredulity that a particular interpretation is entertained by a fellow editor? I wrote what I wrote. I didn't say that my interpretation is the threshold. I was speculating, based on a reading of WP:BLPCRIME and Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Crime victims and perpetrators. If there is a strict threshold - rather than the open-to-interpretation "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article" - with the italics my emphasis - then by all means, share it. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
CP, would you object to a description of the alleged crime that does not include the name of the accused? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I would not personally object to the information being included if it did not name the accused, if others feel that meets the guidance of the policy. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
That would be the approach I would recommend. There's an open question about how to handle source urls or titles that mention the name. If they can be avoided without sacrificing the quality of the content, that's probably the safest bet. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
It is hard for me to see how "charged [him] with first-degree murder and abuse of a corpse" is not exactly the kind of content that BLPCRIME applies to. Do we need to include the name? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Firefangledfeathers. To most people, the name really doesn't mean anything. It's just a word without a face, void of form and substance But to the subject and people who know him, it is a majorly huge deal. It's one thing to have your name splashed all over the newspapers, but at least there info changes daily. Encyclopedias tend to stick around for a long time, so they require a lot more compassion and care to be taken. If he's found innocent of the crime, then we would just end up victimizing him even more, and it's the morally right thing to avoid that as much as possible. Even the newspapers were careful enough to use the word "allegedly". But we need to have much higher standards and take more care.
Now I'm not saying he is innocent or a victim at this point, but I've seen this same discussion on this board many, many times. And in one case it was a mass shooting where the guy was caught on multiple cameras being taken down by police --and confessed everything right there on the scene! (I was even in support of naming that one.) They still always go in favor of waiting for a conviction before naming the suspect, and considering the long-term implications, I have to agree. It's not just the policy, but the spirit behind the policy.
The good news is, we can still tell the whole story just by using generic names, like "a man". It will read just the same and convey the same meaning. If he's convicted, then it's no problem to add it at that time. I'd also keep in mind that if his father is recently deceased, then he too still falls under BLP policy. Zaereth (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Just here to agree with FFF and Zaereth. I consistently advocate for leaving out the names of people accused of crimes--though, I again agree with Zaereth that there are some instances where the details of the crime and the person's involvement are so obvious that the caution does not apply. While I think there's little doubt as to the perpetrator in the instant case, the details are murky enough that it does not fall into the obvious category for me. As to URLs, it is probably best practice to try to avoid the name there as well, but I am not overly bothered. While an argument can be made that by including a link with the name in the address is a Wikipedia endorsement of the name, that doesn't strike me as particularly compelling. For me, it's not our job to protect the name, it's our job to make sure Wikipedia is appropriately circumspect. As ever though, happy to go wherever consensus leads on both issues. Have a nice week everyone. Dumuzid (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Anastrophe: Based on the comments here, will you go along with removing the names from the description of the incident? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not necessary to 'ask my permission' on the matter (I say that light-heartedly) - I'm just a random jackass on the internet. A reasonable compromise appears to be at play, so by all means, go with removing the names, though it all still seems rather a grey area that probably has no easy policy-based solution. The less I see the word 'beheading' the happier I will be, and my happiness, a priori, is the most important thing ;) cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I have removed the names. The wording could be improved. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Jane Fraser (philanthropy)

Jane Fraser (philanthropy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Page for this subject and her organization was created by someone hired by subject (see history of notes for page creator).

Please review and remove any unsubstantiated or bias information, if page is deemed to be notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.152.164.5 (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Similarly to previous request re Dennis Drayna, can you fill us in on specifics? The person who created the page was forthright in noting the nature of their edits; a conflict of interest is not inherently inappropriate. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't look to be notable to me. While there are a few university and company profiles and such, and a few links to Amazon if someone wants to buy her books, I find not a single secondary source to confer notability. Maybe a good candidate for AFD? Zaereth (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Found some local coverage such as this Memphis Daily News article, but I'm not turning up anything that would pass the WP:GNG. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Certainly, the casting of her being a "philanthropist" for being a non-profit executive (a role she inherited from her father) is not how we would generally wield the term. Lots of other promo-y things (citing a 2002 report that the endowment had grown from $3m to $17m since she took over in 1981; $3m invested in the Dow Jones in Feb 1981 would've been about $28m in Feb 2002.) So, promotional intent seems likely. Given that we have not seen a substantive update to the article in the past five years, and that the article creator has not been active in over a decade, I suspect a PROD would make this disappear with little effort. A look at the current sourcing on Stuttering Foundation of America also brings it into question (and much of the article reads like a brochure.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

David Miller (sociologist)

To absolutely no-one's surprise, Selfstudier (talk · contribs) has reverted the deletion of his own addition to the David Miller article, following the conclusion of his employment tribunal. The reversion goes against WP:BRD, and it violates the prohibition of WP:BLPPRIMARY that says "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." The only other source is a highly partisan one. An addition on this topic should come with high-quality sources and achieve consensus on the talk page. The sort of aggressive editing we've just seen (on an article with a 1RR restriction) is not appropriate for this contentious topic. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Reasons other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT are necessary for reversion. The primary is not used at all for the edit, it is supplied to back up the secondary source only. The secondary source is partisan? How exactly? Bold edits do not require prior consensus either. Selfstudier (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
If your goal is the censure of the editor, this is not the forum for it. If your concern is about the content, there are other sources which can be added covering much the same information, such as this Jewish News article covers much the same information. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Any comment about the use of a court document as a source? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Not used as a source. Selfstudier (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Time-wasting comment -- it is currently #12 in the list of references. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Is there anything in the article that is cited solely to the primary source and not supported by the news piece? If so, it should be removed. If not, BLPPRIMARY's "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source" applies. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
There's a line in the lead that says 'A statement from his solicitors said "This judgement establishes for the first time ever that anti-Zionist beliefs are protected in the workplace."' It seems unlikely to me that this statement would be due. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
The Jewish News piece indicates that statement as only a minor rewording. ("Celebrating the judgment Miller’s lawyers claimed it established for the first time the protection of anti-Zionist beliefs in the workplace.") The Guardian quotes it directly. If there's a question on "due", it's only in that the article is on Miller and not on the case. However, it oughtn't be intro material. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I should have said "due for such prominent placement in the lead". I'd feel the same about quoting the opposition's post-decision statement, "This will ultimately make Jewish students less safe", also quoted in The Guardian. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Idk, that is kinda what the whole thing was about, opposition alleged AS, Miller defence was AZ. Selfstudier (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
This is now being covered by mainstream UK news [42]. It's clearly due to include in some capacity. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
The article should I think rely more on that Guardian source (or others) than the court document. I don't see any issue with the actual text in the article relating to the employment tribunal though; looks fine from what I can see. Endwise (talk) 09:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
My view is that it is DUE to mention that Miller’s case is the first time that anti-Zionist beliefs have been found to be a ‘protected belief’, but not in the lead. I would agree with the current wording, and also agree that the Guardian source is, as a secondary source, more suitable than a court document. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
I disagree, the accusations of AS that led to all this are in the lead and the refutation of them needs to be as well. I see someone else has anyway done this. Added the Telegraph which also has in its own voice "In a judgment handed down on Monday by Judge Rohan Pirani, the Bristol employment tribunal ruled that the professor’s anti-Zionist beliefs qualified as a philosophical belief and as a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010." Selfstudier (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't disagree with that at all. It's just the "FIRST EVER" bit, which only one party to the dispute is claiming, that seems better covered in the body. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes I feel the same, especially since it doesn't seem of that much relevance to the biography of David Miller. I mean perhaps the case will become iconic and Miller name, whether he likes it or he doesn't will become associated with this right, but until that happens then the relevance to Miller is only that established he had this right. The only minor relevance to Miller seems to be that he couldn't be sure he had this right until his case succeeded, but that seems too minor. Nil Einne (talk) 10:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The issues raised here now seem to be dealt with well in the article, except two things: 1) The body now says "The tribunal made a landmark ruling" - but the "landmark ruling" is a quote from the lawyers; we don't have a secondary source saying it in their own voice, so we can't say it in our voice. 2) Should Middle East Eye, a weak source, be used so prominently (and without attribution) in the lead and body of a BLP, which requires high quality sources? BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Jan Tyl

"Molly In 2022, he created a digital persona Molly, who was the face of the advertising campaign of the Lunchmeat festival of electronic music and visual art, which took place in Prague at the turn of September and October 2022. She was able to write, among other things, a short bio of a performer, social media posts, or even texts for the festival's spokesperson.[21]"

This information is misleading, he is not creator of the "face of the advertising campaign". Concept of festival persona, generative AI development and realisation were done by different people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.139.84.216 (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

HorsegiirL

Nowadays this artist presents a persona to the world, which we repeat verbatim to the world, as the only things known about this artist. ČLÁNOK 2024 reports this, but it also states the artist's name in its 5th paragraph and notes that "Stella Stallion" is not this person's name; in stark contrast to our article having the literal text "real name 'Stella Stallion'" in it. From that in turn we find that this person's career did not start in 2022, but has a publicly documented career, with sources in Berliner Zeitung and Kaput and elsewhere (many of which were previously in the article) documenting it back to 2013.

We were about to put this biography on the main page from Template:Did you know nominations/HorsegiirL. Can we let it even stand in this form, irrespective of whether it goes on the main page? It's in large part an entirely fictional biography of a persona, but it as written reports it as true. The very first source currently in the article states that the writer was restricted "from asking serious, journalistic questions about this musician’s provenance" right off the bat in paragraph 1. Should we be treating sources for a biography as reliable that outright say that they weren't allowed to ask real questions and get true answers?

Refresher seems fairly reliable at first blush, and it does unequivocally connect the dots here. So this goes two ways. Either Refresher is good and we really should adjust a biography that is in large part a pack of lies; or Refresher is inadequate and we should not have a biography where the sources themselves outright tell us that they are being "restricted" and required to tell us a pack of lies. It seems counter to the principle of a verifiable encyclopaedia to be containing things that are untrue from sources that tell us that they are untrue.

Uncle G (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  • I do just want to say that the version that was submitted and approved wasn't quite as messy as the version I found shortly after finding this (which would never have even left my userspace), which I've slightly cleaned up. How are you accessing the Refresher article, because much of it is behind a paywall (and I did put in a Resource Request for it)?--Launchballer 21:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
    • The trick is that the 5th paragraph isn't actually far enough in to be behind the paywall. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
      • There's quite clearly more to it though, since none of the first five paragraphs mention Berliner Zeitung.--Launchballer 00:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
        • Not really. The Berliner Zeitung piece is a review of a song that the artist released in 2021, easily found by just looking for newspaper coverage of the artist. It was formerly cited in the article. I haven't cited it here because it has the real name in the title, sub-title, and first paragraph. More on BZ below. Uncle G (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Oh dear. We are currently sourcing the claim HorsegiirL is a mixed-species DJ of equine descent to this Vogue article. This is an interview in which Horsegiirl says My unique position is that I am actually half-horse, half-human. The fact that a source quotes Horsegiirl as saying something extraordinary is not sufficient for Wikipedia to state it in Wikivoice as fact. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
  • @Uncle G, you appear not to be aware of all of what happened here. The connection of the artist to a previous persona and a possible real name was not made in any RS before it appeared in the Wikipedia article (now revdel'ed, please look at it). I have the strong suspicion that the source of this content in the Refresher article is Wikipedia, where the connection was made using WP:SYNTH original research. It is likely correct, but there is a request not to connect HorsegiirL and her previous persona/real name that is believable. The DYK nomination suggested to put this person's real name on the Main Page against such requests. Usually we err on the side of privacy in such cases, and I see no compelling argument not to do so here. The article is not in good shape, I just performed a hasty revert to a version not including any privacy violations. —Kusma (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
    • This is why I posed the above choice about Refresher, you know. And I suspect that, given that to get this from Wikipedia Refresher would have needed quite a short lead time which seems unlikely, Refresher might have instead done what I simply did, which is look up the song and see the artist's real name given as writer credit, on music WWW sites dating from July 2023, long before this article even existed. Uncle G (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
      • I can only read machine translations of the Refresher article, but given that it contains the contradicting statements "her real name is unknown" and "her real name is <whatever>", I am going to assume it was indeed put together very quickly and with little thought. Not a good source for a BLP, and using original research while violating WP:BLPPRIMARY/WP:SYNTH isn't any better. —Kusma (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
        • I think that critiquing it based upon your own inability to read it is not on. The only critique would be that it got its information from us, which there are many indicators that it did not, starting with the close timeline that that would have required; including that it cited things that our article never cited, such as Instagram; and topped off by the fact that the information that the journalist found was one Google search away. That's actually why I searched. I looked at the other sources, some of which not even mentioning that they had made agreements not to do journalism, thought "They didn't agree to keep secret something that was public for the asking, did they?" "It cannot have been that ridiculous, surely?" It was.

          So I'm not buying your assertion that Refresher did anything but ordinary journalism, or is magically a bad source simply for doing that. You want to point to poor sources for a BLP, try the ones that didn't tell us that they are repeating the same pack of lies that Vogue at least told us was an agreed-to pack of lies. (Shame on you Horse and Hound! ☺) The ones that this article is currently based upon instead of the one that did journalism.

          If you want to go down the route of Refresher being a poor source, and can actually make a decent case that isn't based upon you rather than it, or for not using it because you don't "want to connect her two artist projects", then the next logical step is to nominate this for deletion since one of its major sources nullifies all of the other ones by stating outright that journalists have been "restricted" from asking questions and getting truthful answers. Leaving us with a known-false biographical article. These are our choices here, rectification, because we aren't about claiming people to have appeared in 2022 from nowhere as a horse, or deletion.

          Uncle G (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

This somehow reminds me of another case we had a while back. The person was an internet "celebrity" (a term more broadly defined with respect to the internet). His real name was unknown, so the article was all about his fictional internet persona. Questions arose about potential libel and defamation being added to the article, or something like that.

The question I had was, if the real person behind the fictitious persona is unknown, then how can there be any defamation? In other words, does BLP policy even apply to a fictitious character? Somehow, I don't think so. I would think we should generally treat it as any other article on fiction. For example, in the lede I would probably make that clear, because as written it sounds like we're trying to describe her as a real centaur. Perhaps something more like : "HorsegiirL is a German DJ, singer and songwriter from Berlin. She performs as a fictitious persona; a mixed-species horse..." That at least would give the nature of this article right off the bat.

BLP of course comes into play if we start trying to out the real person behind the mask. We need exceptionally good sourcing, and I would say multiple exceptional sources, to cross that line from an article about fiction to one about a real person. (And even then we'd need to be careful not to mix the two.) I haven't had time to really dig into those sources myself, and won't be able to get past any paywall anyhow, but from what I heard here they don't sound nearly good enough if they have that many issues. Zaereth (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  • It's complicated by the facts that this person's career is publicly and fairly well documented under xyr actual name, and is continuing in parallel. The Berliner Zeitung piece links to a YouTube music channel where the artist is releasing songs in xyr own name concurrently with the horse persona. Special:Diff/1198198632 requested that the artist's two projects not be connected, notice. Uncle G (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Joseph Edelman

I am writing to express concerns regarding the editing behavior of user Thedrdonna, particularly related to the addition of contentious content without proper sourcing in potential violation of Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons (WP:BLP) policy.

After I removed contentious content and explained my actions on Edelman's Talk page, Thedrdonna has repeatedly attempted to bring back information to the page, relying heavily on a single source from HuffPost's article. It's important to note that, as per the 2020 Request for Comments (RfC), there is no consensus on HuffPost's reliability for political topics due to its perceived bias in US politics, and its reliability in international politics remains undetermined (WP:HUFF). This lack of consensus makes the HuffPost an unreliable source for contentious political content on Wikipedia, especially in the delicate context of BLP articles. Please, check the Edelman's Talk page for more details and information.

Then, Thedrdonna added new edits based on the two new sources that didn't meet Wikipedia's requirements. For example, they have not only been based on questionable sources but have also included a misinterpretation of the content to support a biased viewpoint. In particular, Associated Press never mentioned Edelman or his foundation. The ProPublica document, while mentioning several organizations, was used without journalistic analysis or secondary sourcing, and the focus on the Do Not Harm organization was unjustifiably singular.

Additionally, Thedrdonna mostly refused discussing the sources and they also have deleted warnings left on their Talk page, which raises concerns about their willingness to engage in constructive dialogue and adhere to Wikipedia's collaborative processes. This action, coupled with the repeated addition of contentious and poorly sourced content, suggests a pattern of editing that could be interpreted as acting in bad faith. The intent seems to be the use of their account to add one specific piece of information at any cost, regardless of Wikipedia's policies and the veracity of the information being added.

Given the fact of the spreading of unsupported negative information and deleting notices on the Talk page, I believe there is also a possibility that Thedrdonna may have a Conflict of Interest (WP:COI) stake in their edits. Their focus on adding negative information without proper sourcing, despite repeated notices and corrections, underlines a disregard for Wikipedia's standards and an apparent pursuit of personal interests over factual accuracy and neutrality.

The current information (diff) added by the editor: [43]

The Foundation characterized its donation to Do No Harm, an organization that opposes gender-affirming care and diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in medicine and medical education, as "to provide support to protect healthcare from a radical, divisive, and discriminatory ideology."

Note: no reliable source has been provided to confirm this contentious information where Wikipedia requires two sources.

In light of the above, I respectfully request that the Noticeboard review:

1) The contentious content with no use of the proper sources

2) Provide more protection for the page of Joseph Edelman

3) To check @Thedrdonna's editing behavior, particularly the multiple attempts to introduce contentious content without adherence to Wikipedia's strict sourcing requirements for BLP articles. Llama Tierna (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The information I added includes text pulled directly from the Do No Harm page, regarding their positions on gender-affirming care and diversity. The second half of the sentence does not editorialize or otherwise engage in original research, it directly quotes the primary source, which I have been given to understand is a reasonable use of such a source. While we are discussing "constructive dialogue", Llamatierna has mostly deleted the new information, while simply citing ever-more arcane rules (in some cases, incorrectly) in order to support their deletion. They have also accused me of defamation. Hardly constructive dialogue. Thedrdonna (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Are you able to provide at least one credible, secondary source that is independent of the subject matter for proper use? This would avoid issues such as personal interpretation, original research, copyright infringement (through direct copying), or reliance on primary sources directly related to the subject, like Do Not Harm or basic tax returns. Remember, Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons (WP:BLP) policy mandates that contentious claims must be supported by two independent and reliable sources, with at least one being secondary. While you appear to have some familiarity with Wikipedia's rules for a relatively new account, you overlook the special considerations for biographies of living persons outlined in Wikipedia's guidelines, which you seem to disregard and violate. Llama Tierna (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
As the initiating poster here specifically sought to draw attention to one editor's efforts, I should note that those criticisms here include such concerns as having deleted warning messages from his talk page. That criticism has not just been here, but also on the talk page of the relevant article and in a WP:THREATENing message on the user's talk page. Per WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME, removing warnings from one's own user page is considered acceptable, so such ongoing criticism on that basis is inappropriate. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@ 164.127.247.207 (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

None of the ProPublica info is DUE as it is entirely primary-sourced and anyway is about the Foundation, not Edelman himself. If we don't have any IRS SIGCOV on this person other than a rather promo piece in Business Insider then we shouldn't have a standalone article on him. JoelleJay (talk) 06:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
In addition to the HuffPo piece, the Do No Harm donation has been covered in Pink News, which per WP:PINKNEWS is a generally reliable source. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
@JoelleJay, NatGertler, and Morbidthoughts:. The addition of Pink News as a source, which merely references Huffpost—a platform recognized for its political bias in US politics as of 2020—raises questions. It's unclear why we're using a source that effectively "mirrors"a biased one (WP:MIRROR) without contributing new information. Here's the link to the "no consensus" stance on Huffpost: [44] Llama Tierna (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
The Pink News piece doesn't merely reference the HuffPo piece, it places some statements in Pink News's own voice (unsurprisingly, as some of the information was quite easily verifiable.) You invoke WP:MIRROR as if it has some impact here, but it does not, as that piece is about mirrors of Wikipedia, which I've seen no claims that the source are. Having a point of view (a "bias") does not eliminate a source from being considered reliable. I see no contention over the truth of the statement that the Foundation gave the money to Do No Harm. Coverage such as the Pink News coverage shows us that interest is WP:DUE. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
That's fine, and it also gets around the coatrack issue of covering the foundation rather than the person. JoelleJay (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@JoelleJay, NatGertler, and Morbidthoughts: Just as a follow-up, Llama Tierna has chosen to continue this discussion here. Thedrdonna (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Bushra Bibi

This article is mostly about the personal life of a very private lady. I'm not sure even if she is notable for a personal article or we should redirect it to Family of Imran Khan. One thing is sure that we need a lot of cleanup so it complies with WP:BLP policy. Please help remove gossip-related stuff and something which is not "widely covered or known". Recently she was convicted over her un-Islamic marriage with Imran Khan in a Pakistani court which we should cover on her biography, but what her ex-husband is saying on a TV program in an interview is a primary source and should be removed (i.e. Bushra_Bibi#Alleged extramarital_affair. User:SheriffIsInTown insists that this is needed without reading WP:BLPGOSSIP. Can any one volunteer please? HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The section is sourced to Geo News, The Express Tribune, Dawn, Aljazeera English, and BBC News. The opposing editor is trying to WP:CENSOR sourced material under the blanket of WP:BLPGOSSIP only because the subject is a private lady. When they have so much media coverage, they do not remain private anymore. WP:BLPGOSSIP dictates about removal of poorly sourced content, this is by no means poorly sourced. Please do not allow censorship otherwise they will censor everything off of Wikipedia, they would not like about someone. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
SheriffIsInTown Would you share an independent WP:SECONDARY reference that mentions this was actually an "Alleged extramarital affair". Secondary source means analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. You have give us actual links, not the links of Wikipedia pages. What her former husband is saying is a WP:PRIMARY source, also see WP:INTERVIEW. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
SheriffIsInTown I strongly advise you to take back your statement "Please do not allow censorship otherwise they will censor everything off of Wikipedia, they would not like about someone". Why are you passing comments like that? It seems to be a problem. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
HistoriesUnveiler Just ensures that any negative information must be extremely well-sourced or otherwise remove it. --Saqib (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
The editor HistoriesUnveiler is involved in edit wars across multiple articles, and here, he is engaged in WP:Censoring and making completely false claims that Bushra Bibi is a private woman! She is the former first lady of Pakistan. She has faced numerous allegations and cases of corruption and corrupt practices, many of which have been proven, and resulted in convictions.[45],[46],[47],[48],[49],[50],[51] Before her marriage, she was Imran Khan's spiritual advisor, during which they also had illicit relationships, which have been confirmed multiple times by Bushra Bibi's former husband, as well as Imran Khan's former wife, close friends and others[52],[53],[54],[55] It has also been proven in the illegal marriage case for which she has been sentenced and fined under the marriage laws of Pakistan.[56],[57],[58]. War Wounded (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Adem Somyurek

An editor with 25 contributions, the majority of which are on Adem Somyurek (an Australian ex-Labor party politician) and the remainder of which are on a couple of British Labour party politicians, has been editing the subject to introduce WP:BLP violations and puffery. Can I get the eyes of some experienced editors on the article please. TarnishedPathtalk 03:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

It is clearly a problem. I'll go through their edits to check if any are valid, as I don't know anything about the subject, but so far it looks ugly. - Bilby (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
@Bilby, thanks for the revdel to remove BLP violations. TarnishedPathtalk 02:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
No problem. Victim blaming seems to me to be a clear BLP violation worth revdel. - Bilby (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
@Bilby, the diff at Special:Diff/1205429953 contains the same material. TarnishedPathtalk 04:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! Very sorry for missing that. I've revdel'ed it as well. I've given the editor a COI warning, and I saw that you had said everything that needed to be said. If there is any sign of this continuing I'm ok with giving an indef. - Bilby (talk) 08:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Hopefully they discontinue from their current trajectory. TarnishedPathtalk 08:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Harold E. Puthoff

There is a concerted effort to turn the Harold E. Puthoff article into an attack article, promoting attacks and removing anything neutral or positive. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 20:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Hal Puthoff is known as a credulous supporter of pseudoscience. It is hardly an "attack" to document this with reliable sources. jps (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Zero-point energy is not pseudoscience though. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 21:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Removing reliable sources before the section on ZPE can be developed is intentional here. The papers have nothing to do with "extracting energy from". The ZPE stuff is backed (and cited) by several reputable sources. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 21:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Puthoff's arguments that the vacuum energy can be extracted to do work are pretty much perpetual motion. A more classic form of pseudoscience there isn't. The ZPE arguments Puthoff made wrt stochastic electrodynamics are also pseudoscientific as they are written in service to such claims. jps (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Professor Gutmann, emeritus professor of inorganic chemistry at the Technical University of Vienna, was a well respected scientist. These publications have nothing to do with extracting energy or perpetual motion machines. That is misdirection. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry, are you referring to this pseudophysics blatherskite? [59]. That's just junk science par excellence. Do better. jps (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
You need evidence to support your claim apart from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC).
The sources are noted below. It's not hard to find many and varied independent sources identifying Puthoff's main claims about zero point energy as being motivated reasoning. He seems to think that there are a lot of "unexplained phenomena" that are tied up nice-and-neatly with the zero point energy. This includes everything from remote viewing to anti-gravity devices. jps (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Viktor Gutmann (Q2524269) this one. With all the awards and medals. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that appeal to authority is pretty weak, especially given what we know about Nobel disease. Pseudoscience is as pseudoscience does. It doesn't get baptized into real science just because the person advocating for it has stature. jps (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Additinoally, WP:PRIMARY sources written by Puthoff do not deserve exposition in Wikipedia unless they were noticed by others. We require independent notice prior to explaining claims in a published paper. jps (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Professor Gutmann wrote about it. Again, this is targeted to prevent development of the section, before such sources can be added. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 21:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
This is a pretty pathetic argument, bordering on WP:PROFRINGE. jps (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

And apparently this article being targeted to make it an attack article are all over Twitter. A significant target. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 21:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Please don't tell me you're taking marching orders from Twitter [60]. jps (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Lol. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 21:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Quantum vacuum fluctuations are a well-known, if not fully understood, effect in fundamental physics. Puthoff's 1987 paper about them was published in Physical Review, the world's most prestigious physics journal and his work has been cited by hundreds of scientists. As anybody who has worked with dispersion forces knows, one can extract energy from the vacuum on a temporary basis, but to repeat the process you have to put it back in again, so you end up with nothing. Nature never gives us a free lunch. I too deplore the attempt to turn the Putoff BIO into an WP:attack page. The matter could be taken to the WP:Physics noticeboard. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC).

  • Have you looked at the uses Puthoff has posited for this? His stated motivation for the paper is to extract energy without returning it. jps (talk) 03:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Any editor who says "the paper" is ill-informed. Puthoff has authored five Physical Review papers, primary author of one in D and two in A and co-author of one in E amd one in A. This was brought up on the article talk page in 2017. The argument from (purportedly) the article subject against including Pigliucci's view that this is pseudoscience echoes Xxanthippe above: the subject has been published in Physical Review and so isn't a pseudoscientist.

Alas, that too is ill-informed. I recommend that editors now read Martin Gardner on this, who devoted the entire chapter 6 of ISBN 9780393245035 to this, pointing out that the papers in Physical Review were in the late 1980s and early 1990s, that Puthoff devoted a subsequent decade to researching machines for extracting zero-point energy "all of them failures", and reports that astronomer Steven N. Shore actually addressed this talk page point before Wikipedia existed, pointing out that Puthoff was regularly rejected by The Astrophysical Journal.

This is not the only time that Shore has covered Puthoff, moreover. Back when xe was at Case Western Reserve xe wrote about Targ and Puthoff:

  • Shore, Steven N. (Autumn 1984). "Quantum Theory and the Paranormal: The Misuse of Science". The Skeptical Inquirer. 9 (1): 24–35.

In addition to Gardner and Shore, there's also Yam writing at the end of the 1990s about Puthoff's idea of the "zero-point-energy age":

That conceit is not shared by the majority of physicists; some even regard such optimism as pseudoscience that could leech fund from legitimate research. The conventional view is that the energy in the vacuum is minuscule.

— Yam, Philip (December 1997). "Exploiting Zero-Point Energy". Scientific American. Vol. 277, no. 6. pp. 82–85. JSTOR 24996046., p.82

The reality seems to be, Int21h, that Puthoff's claims not to be a pseudoscientist have been met with quite resounding assertions from others that xe is at best a "maverick" and "eccentric" (Gardner's words) or one of the "psientists" (Shore's word) ond is a pseudoscientist even in this, and that the zero-point energy research is "comparable to having research on how the brain works directed by a neuroscientist who believes in phrenology" (Gardner again), from at least 1984 to the early 2000s.

Uncle G (talk) 05:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)



All of this should be discussed in the article, not just "debunked" and removed. This is published material. To just remove his works and only include attacks is obvious BLPVIO and the admin corps is on notice. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 17:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't mean to burst your bubble, but unless you plan on taking this to ANI or someplace like that, then the "admin corps" is not on notice. Most of us watching this page are not admins, but we just have a keen interest in BLP policy. What we have here appears to be along the lines of a content dispute, which does involve BLP policy, in as much as BLP applies to NPOV. BLP says we must adhere to NPOV, but leaves the rest to NPOV policy, and that's what this discussion is really about.
That said, it would seem to me that just because someone spends time trying to make some experiment work does not in and of itself mean he's engaging in pseudoscience. By that rationale, then everyone at NASA would be pseudoscientists for searching for life on other planets. There's a difference between pseudoscience and legitimate research into the unknown, and let's face it, what we do know is microscopic compared to what we don't. Even the known-unknowns are small by comparison. Alfred Wegener, for example, was the laughing stock of the scientific community when he proposed the idea of continental drift, although now it's accepted as fact. Now, I'm not very familiar with this subject or his work, but it seems to me that what you all have to work out is a matter of weight and balance, and admins rarely get involved in those unless someone starts behaving badly. Zaereth (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I stand corrected, thank you. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 19:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
No offense intended. It's just, half the battle is just picking the right field. Likewise, half of formulating a good argument is picking the right premise, so if you look at this as an an NPOV issue rather than simply just a BLP one, I think you would have much firmer ground to stand on. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Rather than rely on the opinions of Wikipedia editors, it is better to look at the reactions of Puthoff's peers. In his GS listing of citations [61] Puthoff has garnered the following cites {358,355,356,202,333,133,211,154,123,76,73,32,46,41,14,25,19,19,18,16,12,700,9,9,5,6,37,6,4,2,48,2,46,3,45,48,28,..}. Ten papers with over 100 cites is a number that many physicists would be happy with. I see three types of publication: the first is mainstream work that has received mainstream approval, the second is more speculative physics, like his work on vacuum fluctuations that has prompted interest but no consensus of approval (theorists propose unsuccessful theories all the time, but that does not mean they are fringe) the third is the way-out fringe work like that on ESP. It looks as if the higher cited papers are to his mainstream work, the lower cited ones to his less conventional work. Unlike some people who have worked in unconventional areas, Puthoff has a strong mainstream background. From my experience of taking part in some thousand AfDs of researchers and scholars (I was right 91% of the time in my last AfDs) I would say that if the Puthoff BIO ever came to AfD it would be kept on the basis of his achievements as a mainstream physicist. If it were judged on his work in fringe areas (and nothing else) I think it would be less likely to be kept. Therefore, there has to be a balance made in his BIO in describing his mainstream and non-mainstream work. Xxanthippe (talk).
It looks as if the higher cited papers are to his mainstream work, the lower cited ones to his less conventional work. I don't think this is true. The paper with largest number of citation is 365: Mind Reach: Scientists look at psychic abilities. Another paper with 333 citation is on remote viewing: A perceptual channel for information transfer over kilometer distances: Historical perspective and recent research. A paper with 123 citations is CIA-initiated remote viewing at Stanford Research Institute. That's three of his ten works with over 100 citations. jps (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Dennis Drayna

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

Page was created by subject's son, possible conflict of interest. Does page need to exist? Does not seem to be a public figure. Please review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.152.164.5 (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of COI, and subject appears to be reasonably notable - it isn't necessary for the subject of a blp to be a public figure. Is there anything specific in the article that strikes you as peacock wording, undue weight, libel/slanderous, or otherwise unacceptable in a blp? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
See edit summary https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dennis_Drayna&oldid=846287102 for evidence of COI. (Note I am not the IP). Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
I presume you mean "Added biographic article on American human geneticist Dennis Drayna and contributions to science of stuttering. NOTE: Dennis Drayna in my father". Yes, I misspoke; there is a conflict of interest, but that does not inherently or explicitly mean that the edits are problematic. The person who added the information identified themselves, and their contributions to the article are - by my eye - uncontroversial, no loaded/peacock wording, or any other red-flags. If the content were larded with 'stellar accomplishements', 'top of his field', 'extraordinary contributions to' xyz, that would be problematic. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Ronn Owens

I am one one Ronn Owens's daughters. I have been the target of a smear campaign in which internet trolls have repeatedly gone onto my father's Wikipedia page and tried to my name and existence from his page, and only list my sister as his daughter. This article confirms the fact that Ronn Owens has two daughters, Sarah and Laura. I would appreciate it if you would please lock his page so that cyber trolls are not allowed to change it from this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.144.204 (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Since there is now a source showing Owens has two daughters, that matter is resolved. As far as the names of the daughters, names of children are normally omitted unless they are themselves notable people. —C.Fred (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Tim Hunt

After many years of relative stability, @LokiTheLiar has been pushing to expand the section on the 2015 online shaming incident in Tim Hunt's Wikipedia article. He has gotten what he (and others) interprets as a consensus for this at WP:NPOVN [62] over my strong objections. I need input on his proposal (which I believe will ultimately violate WP:DUE in its length before it can be made accurate enough to comply with WP:BLP). I'm happy to say more about that. But I also need immediate help on a procedural question: Should these changes be implemented while we're still discussing them? Loki seems to think it is important to introduce the disputed material now; I think BLP warrants caution, and we should work on the talk page until the issue is settled. If someone with experience on BLP could weigh in, I would appreciate it.Thomas B (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

This is classic WP:FORUMSHOPPING and you really need to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Just because you "strongly object" doesn't mean that your opinions override those of everybody else. At the NPOVN and talkpage discussions, nobody else agreed with your version which effectively frames Tim Hunt's comments and the surrounding controversy entirely through the lens of "online shaming". I really think it's a waste of time to have yet another noticeboard discussion, so I would advise people to instead comment at Talk:Tim Hunt#Proposed new version of the controversy section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Consensus has been reached in two different places, and a quite clear consensus to boot. Like I said on the talk page, it's not like anyone else here is unaware of WP:BLP.
(Also: Thomas Basboll, if you want to actually ping someone you can do {{u|Thomas Basboll}} to produce the effect earlier in the sentence, including the same automatic Wiki notification. Just putting an @ sign in front of a name only does something in the special inline Reply dialogue.) Loki (talk) 06:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
A RFC has now been opened to resolve the issue: Talk:Tim_Hunt#RfC:_2015_remarks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I would urge someone with admin responsibility to look at this RFC on Talk:Tim Hunt. There is a significant BLP issue emerging there concerning the 2015 Twitter controversy. Without going into the details, crucial facts that the initial social media claims were untrue is not being included and undue prominence is being given to the initial claims made on social media. WCMemail 08:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

This has now been to NPOVN, ANI, BLPN and there's a block being considered for one editor AND a RfC is running. I'm quite sure many admins are well aware of what's happening, and - yes - some of them have made comments. Most of the editors in the discussion are very experienced and well used to dealing with BLPs. Bon courage (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Unflattering subject matter not fully confirmed

I am working on User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Gary Bossert, which may even be in article space by the time you respond. I am in user sandbox space because his notability seemed questionable to me as I approached the subject. I feel confident that he would survive a challenge now. I intend to move him to main space in the near future. I am here because I have discovered content that I can not confirm is him (see User_talk:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Gary_Bossert#Possibly_a_basketball_coach). Bossert is a basketball player whose college career ended in 1987. He played high school and college basketball in the Buffalo–Niagara Falls Metropolitan Area. I have found content that shows a 1989-91 high school basketball coach tenure in the Watertown, New York area by a Gary Bossert. I don't see anything describing the coach as this basketball player that I know. However, it would be common for a college basketball player to try to be a professional basketball player and if he is not satisfied with his trajectory in this regard to go into coaching starting as a high school coach, college assistant, or college athletic admin staffer. So the chronolgy meshes well. The coach Bossert seems to have ended his career in an unbecoming manner getting called for 2 technical fouls and forfeiting an end-of-season playoff game. There is no subsequent mention of him as a coach. Should I assume he is the coach.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Before even getting to the question of whether it is the same person, is the information really WP:DUE? You say you found 'content,' but is that in a reliable source and one important enough that it means people took notice? It's certainly possible that it is due for inclusion, but as you describe it here, I confess I am a bit skeptical. That said, I am sure you have a better idea than I do! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
I assume the Watertown Daily Times is a RS because it is a major newspaper of a non-trivial municipality.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
He wasn't the only athlete by that name of that era; I find, for example, reports of a track-and-field competitor by that name in Pennsylvania. I'm not saying that the coach is not the same guy as the NCAA record holder; I am saying that the matching name is not sufficient information for inclusion, given that the names involved aren't that rare. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
So I totally leave out any mention of a Watertown area 1989-91 coach Gary Bossert?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, barring some other source arising providing a more concrete connection. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Don't build the Frankenstein for guidance. —Bagumba (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Resolved

I sent Buffalo & Erie County Public Library a long list of questions about things like 1. Who his father is 2. Whether he was the point guard on the 1982 17&U Empire State Games West New York team with Curtis Aiken that upset New York City 3. How many siblings he had 4. Where he might have transferred from 5. Post collegiate career info.

among the things they sent back were this link, which provides confirmation-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
That should do it! -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Richard B. Spencer

Richard B. Spencer rose to prominence in the mid 2010s as a far right activist, and our article on him currently states in wikivoice that he is such. However, in 2022, Spencer stated that he has completely reevaluated his beliefs and now identities as a political moderate. [63] Looking at recent podcasts and the like that he has participated in, his change in beliefs appears to be genuine. While obviously we need to heavily cover Spencer's historical far right activism and beliefs, which are the source of his notability, I no longer think it's fair to say them in wikivoice in the lead as if they are current. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'll admit I am uneasy making that change at the moment because it is essentially based on self-serving proclamations from the subject himself. Though covered by a couple of secondary sources, for my money I would want a bit more. But, as ever, I am happy to go wherever consensus leads. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I think saying something like "Spencer rose to prominence as..." would be a good framing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I was just coming around to a solution like that myself. No problem with that sort of revision. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Made the change [64]. I think the issue is resolved, at least for the lead. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't see any sources saying "Spencer rose to prominence as..." I do see dozens of reliable sources saying "Spencer is a white supremacist" or "...white supremacist Richard Spencer", etc. We should be using the wording that multiple sources are using. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
All of these sources are over half a decade old, and are not current. Spencer has distanced himself from his past views, and whether you find Spencer's mea cupla convincing or not (and its totally understandable not to), per WP:PUBLICFIGURE we are obligated to include them. Spencer has obviously said some extremely odious things that he's never going to live down, and that should be at the front and centre of his biography. None of my edits really attempted to downplay that. Also, is Spencer at this point still a major public advocate for the Alt Right? I think the Buisness Insider piece makes clear that the answer is no. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
"All of these sources are over half a decade old" - not accurate. I 100% believe you're operating in good faith, but I already added a source from October 2023 (Times of Israel) that ID's him as a white supremacist. There's a NYT article from October that does the same, I can add it if you like. I've addressed the alt-right thing - it's not so much that he disavowed the alt-right, it's that the alt-right has largely abandoned that label, which is something the Tablet source points out explicitly - the neo-nazis and white supremacists are rebranding themselves as "centrists", and Tait says that in his piece. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
But aren't these sources discussing Spencer in his historical mid-late 2010s context as a prominent alt right leader? As far as I can tell, Spencer is no longer really a public figure in the same way that he was back in 2017, and the lack of recent sources reflect that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
No, they are not. To interpret those articles that way would be original research. David Duke hasn't made any news since 2016, but no one is suggesting that "okay, maybe he was a white supremacist in 2016, but now he's probably not." More importantly, where is a reliable secondary source that states "Spencer is no longer a white supremacist"? It doesn't exist. You know why? Because Spencer is a white supremacist. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure that sources go as far as the edit made to our article. The Tablet Mag source doesn't really describe him that way, and the source linked in this thread is highly questionable for contentious BLP claims per WP:BUSINESSINSIDER and WP:JEZEBEL. The Jezebel source also mentions that his claims might be self-serving due to financial implications from the Charlottesville lawsuit. I'd hope to see some additional sources and stronger ones, if such coverage exists. In the meantime, since it is a BLP (and white supremacist/white nationalist are some of the most contentious labels we use in articles) erring on the side of caution with our wikivoice descriptions is probably the right call until a more firm consensus/sourcing is given. One part of the edit I'm not so sure on is "By the early 2020s". It is accurate, but given that we're barely sliding into the mid 2020s at this point some more precise language might be needed. If the current year was 2030 or later, I wouldn't question it. Given that June 2022 is closer to the present day than the start of the 2020s, it might be better to describe it as "By 2022". The WordsmithTalk to me 19:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Its obvious that regardless of what his actual beliefs are his prominent advocacy for the far right is now in the past and not part of his current activities, which the lead should make clear. Part of the problem is that some people are only covered by the news media for a few years before they fall into relative obscurity (as Spencer largely has), while Wikipedia is obligated to have a current up to date article even if there are few recent sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I have to "hmmm" yet again. I think I am mostly with The Wordsmith here. While I think the agnosticism of "rose to prominence" is appropriate, the "by 2022" line at the end of the lead strikes me as overly emphasized. It is properly couched as "said," but somehow in that placement and with that description, it reads almost like a Wikivoice imprimatur of the statements to me. It is 100% possible this is completely a quirk unique to me, but given the sourcing and self-serving concerns, I would be much happier if it was in the body of the article. Here, in the lead, it seems almost an intentional strong contrast to everything before--which, to me, starts becoming an issue of WP:DUE. But, as ever, reasonable minds may differ on the issue, and this is all just one old guy's opinion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I like the changes that Hemiauchenia has made in response to this conversation, but I share Dumuzid's concern that coverage of Spencer's ostensible political conversion is still too thin to be WP:DUE for inclusion in the lead. Better to build out a section on this in the article body first and then reevaluate. Generalrelative (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
This is definitely an improvement, Hemiauchenia. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I;ve changed again to In 2022, Spencer made statements distancing himself from his previous support of white nationalism and the alt right. Hopefully that's enough to address the concerns about the previous sentence being too favourable to Spencer. Would it be more appropriate to add the the "views" section? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Agree with Generalrelative that the new wording is better. I would personally rather see it in views and not yet in the lead, but we're definitely in the realm of preference at this point. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Hang on a second. Since when do we take the word of a well-documented white supremacist when he says "I'm not a white supremacist"?? That's a primary source and it pales in comparison to the multitude of reliable secondary sources already in the article. Why would Wikipedia help Spencer in his attempt to sanitize his own image, when the core principle of Wikipedia is to use reliable secondary sources? I can't believe this premise has gained any traction at all. I am absolutely against the change, and in perusing the article history, it appears the previous wording was very stable for a very long time, outside of a few random white supremacist accounts coming by and protesting it. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Leopards don't change their spots. Like Kanye apologizing to the Jews in December, then dropping an album with antisemitic lyrics in January. Let's not be too quick to whitewash Spencer here. Zaathras (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Even during the height of his relevance as an alt-right figure, sources noted that Spencer had a tendency to spout popular and moderate or even leftist talking points interspersed with far-right bigotry. For obvious reasons, reliable sources often used this to explain the "hide your power levels" memes or similar (see the ghost skin article). Since Spencer was and still is completely unqualified to talk about any of these political topics, it never actually mattered. Spencer's activity on Substack, as of this week, looks like self-indulgent reviews of 80s pop music... interspersed with nonsense about the "Jewish Question" and other convoluted forms of antisemitism. Again, nothing has changed, and without much better WP:IS, meeting him halfway with his sloppy PR attempts is a mistake. Grayfell (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

My views on this topic have moderated since my original BLPN post. I am fine with the article as is following FZ's edits, which I think are a reasonable compromise that isn't self serving to Spencer. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Marielia zaloumi

For privacy i dont want my birth date to be on wikipedia please rmeove it Zacharoula20 (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I've added the article to my watchlist. The date of birth in the article was never properly sourced so should not be restored to the article. Schazjmd (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you i have requested to be removed i can prove that i am
Real marielia zaloumi by photos on your email Zacharoula20 (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

twomad

A YouTuber that TMZ is reporting has died. More eyes would be welcome. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Seems to be at Draft:twomad. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I've draftified the article, but there is an AfD open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twomad. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm posting this here because in light of the drafting, I'm unsure if the AfD will close soon. I did identify two potential sources: a scholarly article discussing his content in several hundred words, and a NY Daily News (reliable per WP:RSPSS) piece reporting on his death. PantheonRadiance (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Peter_McGuffin

Hi there, I would like to report the passing of Peter McGuffin. I understand that he passed away on the 30th of January 2024. I heard of his passing from a mutual friend who is also a member of the South Wales Guitar society. I find the editing of the page a bit baroque - so if somebody could update it for me, that would be great. Many thanks, Andrew Sherlock — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.48.70 (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out to us. Unfortunately, we cannot add that someone has passed until it has been reported in a reliable source, such as a newspaper obituary, or the website of one of the places at which he worked. I understand that that may seem much, but Wikipedia is the target of many hoax death claims and occasional honest errors, and we must maintain our standard. If you see such a source online, feel free to bring it back here. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@NatGertler Tweet [65] by International Society of Psychiatric Genetics, it may be acceptable. Article at Peter McGuffin. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. I have added the death (although with a slightly vague date due to the source.) The article could use some basic editing -- there are twenty references that are handed-numbered and then just listed at the bottom, rather than being prperly ref-tag formatted, first off. There are signs that large chunks were copied from off-site (notably that several paragraphs were in their twice, and the use of non-Wikipedian section headings, although I have now excised the duplicate and done proper header formatting.) If someone has a bit more energy tha under-the-weather Nat to tackle these things today, there's an easy target for your efforts. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Several different sets of edits over the years brought in that hard-coded mess, such as User:Peter.Mcguffin (whose edits are obviously copied from somewhere since they refer to numbered refs that did not exist in that timeframe) which were then corrected by User:90.243.162.30 (demonstrating connection among those two) and User:90.253.146.252. Someone with a mind to clean up could use those as places to focus. DMacks (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I cleaned up the references and moved a duplicated section. A lot of copy editing is still required, and there is potential copyright violation of whatever the original text was copy-pasted from. Nangaf (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Trivium (band) – a former member may have transitioned gender

Here is the status quo ante: The Trivium (band) article lists "George Moore" among the former members of the band.

On 8 February, Galamity33 created an account. They have held themselves out as the former band member. Their only edits have been to change the name of said band member to "galamity" in the articles related to the band and the communicate with various users about the issues at their respective user talk pages (and their own talk page).

The user has been repeatedly requested to provide independent reliable sources. The only sources they have provided are:

  • A YouTube video on their channel (which has only one follower) showing their legal documents. This creates the usual WP:BLPPRIMARY concerns about using legal documents for a source.
  • An entry on themselves at metal-archives.com, which accepts submissions from users.

I conducted a Google search for "galamity" and got no hits on the name.

There are two issues I see here.

  1. Should we be changing the individual's name in the absence of independent sources covering the name change by the former band member?
  2. Even if we can verify the change of name, how much mention of their former name must remain in the Trivium articles, given that they were known by their own name during the time they were notable?

The user has repeatedly edited the articles listed above, and I have indefinitely partially blocked them from the two named articles on the grounds of edit warring (with COI and BLP(!) as supporting reasons for the block). I look for wider input on how to address the situation, since if this isn't the first time we will have a situation like this arise, I doubt it will be the last. —C.Fred (talk) 11:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The person on youtube appears to be the same as the tiktok user _galamity and, judging by the bio (though I cannot see anything further as I don't use twitter) @_galamity on twitter. Not sure how much that helps confirm/deny their identity as the former Trivium member; someone who has twitter and tiktok accounts may be able to find out more. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Is there even a reliable source for the existing name? I couldn’t see a reference. Perhaps it would be best to remove it, or even remove all the unsourced former band members, changing that section to list only “notable former band members”, which as it stands would just be the members with their own articles (assuming those articles in turn are deemed notable). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
At face value, the documents shared via Youtube look convincing but unusable for our own purposes. I went out and did a check to try to find something we can use, but I'm coming up empty. Moore has credits from 1999-2006, but nothing at all after that point. Galamity has a verified Spotify artist page, with no bio and only one song, published in 2021. Soundcloud has nothing before 2022. The Twitter/X account was created in 2021. There's essentially no record of Moore after 2006 and no record of Galamity before 2021. I can't find any biographical information on Moore either to try and establish a link. Obviously we need to be sensitive to a request like this, and the documents seem to prove (again, unsuitable for BLP purposes) that Galamity was previously named George Moore. I'm having trouble finding anything even halfway legitimate that can link Galamity to being the same George Moore that used to be in Trivium, as opposed to a different person named George Moore. I'm not sure what the right thing to do in this situation is, to rule out the possibility of an impersonator. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
In the absence of verifying information in reliable third-party sources, nothing should be changed. GiantSnowman 22:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
NB they also appear to have edited as Galamity3 (talk · contribs), and there's possible meat/sock puppets at TheyThemcausingMayhem (talk · contribs) and 72.70.189.67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). GiantSnowman 22:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. It's unfortunate if they really have transitioned but WP:V is policy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
i am offended and saddened that any of you are actually questioning the legitamicy of my gender transition. however "meat/sock puppets" is friggin hilarious. Expect this clown show to be referenced in an upcoming song release that im sure you all will refuse to acknowledge as well. Galamity33 (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
To be clear, the legitimacy of the transition of User:Galamity33 is not questioned. What is questioned is the verifiability of whether that user is the same person listed as a former band member—and now whether said member was anything more than a touring member. —C.Fred (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Do the sources for a later life transition fall under WP:BLPSELFPUB? I don't think that mentioning a gender transition is unduly self-serving, for instance. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I think they would if they weren't birth certificates and such. There's a very good reason we don't use such documents, and that's out of concern for our subjects rather than our readers in this case. Birth certificates can be forged or stolen, and really that's about all one needs to assumes another's identity. Youtube is not considered a reliable source, because so much of what you see has been edited or faked. There's often no way to tell. Then we have to worry about scammers and people just pulling some kind of hoax. (Yes, that does happen.) A self-published source should be at least verifiable that it really belongs to the subject in question. Now, there are ways to do that, because people have before (just don't ask me how because I'm as computer illiterate as they come). Better still, do some newspaper interviews or something like that, where we'd then have a reliable source verify the facts in question. Newspapers and magazines are always looking for stuff to fill their pages. There are a multitude of different ways to achieve that goal. The thing is, we have these BLP rules to protect our subjects from harm, and we need to be very sure we are getting our info from sources we can rely on. Zaereth (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
  • There was an issue like this on Elisa Rae Shupe, where a notable detransitioner re-transitioned and contacted us asking that the article be fixed; but there wasn't yet any WP:RS sourcing. As I recall, what we did initially was remove anything poorly-sourced from the article, which at least made it less stridently wrong; looking over the history someone updated the pronouns shortly afterwards, using a blog source, which was probably technically insufficient due to the lack of clear verifiability but nobody objected. Eventually RS sources did appear but it took some time. It's a complex situation because unfortunately I don't think we can make general exceptions to WP:V - even aside from the fact that it's core policy, creating a general exception would invite malicious actors to use it for hoaxes. That said, if editors are completely convinced in an individual situation and absolutely nobody objects, it's a reasonable WP:IAR case; at least in the case of Shupe it seems to have worked out. And additionally, a blog can be used for basic biographical details via WP:ABOUTSELF if there's no reasonable doubts as to its veracity - if for whatever reason every editor is confident that a particular blog really is the user in question, we can probably use it in cases like this. Anyway, removing Moore's name from the page entirely for now due to lack of any sources covering them is probably the right call and is similar to the initial steps we took for Shupe - I suspect that that will usually be the case when someone's transition isn't covered, ie. they were probably marginally notable to begin with and closer inspection will find that we probably shouldn't have been saying so much about them in the first place. It may not be what the subject always wants but it at least is in line with the WP:BLP requirement to minimize the risk of harm, and people can then do things like set up Google News alerts for further coverage in case it ever appears. --Aquillion (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but where are the sources that show someone named George Moore was ever even in the band? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, my search didn't really turn up anything for this that isn't WP:UGC. Older versions of List of Trivium band members list Moore under "Touring" rather than "Former Members", with a reference to the book Trivium - The Mark of Perseverance supporting the text Moore briefly performed as a second guitarist for Trivium before Beaulieu's addition. This was changed in January 2022. I don't have access to that book to confirm, but if any Trivium fans have the Ember to Inferno album then the liner notes might verify one way or the other. Otherwise, removing the entry might be the best option if we're unable to verify that Moore was actually a member of the band. The WordsmithTalk to me 23:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I would agree with just removing the name entirely. It's the easiest solution, given that they were only briefly with the band. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I would also like to note that this disruption is also occurring at The Autumn Offering band article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
i was in the band ... it was published in a book. i have a copy. please dont remove a highlight of my life from history. ive literally been on this page for 20 years people. Galamity33 (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
What I suggest you do is contact various news sources to try and do an interview or otherwise get them to cover you; they don't have to be particularly high-quality for us to cite basic biographical details to them, just good enough to pass WP:V. That would give us enough sourcing to include you and mention it. Wikipedia covers what reliable sources say, so if you want to correct something about the record of your life and reliable sources haven't covered it yet, the solution is to try and get one of them to do so. --Aquillion (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
@Galamity33 If you were in the band, you were in the band. Whether or not Wikipedia says so won't change that. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
You can view the liner notes of Ember to Inferno on discogs, which clearly show "George Moore" as having played acoustic guitar on the album. Joe Capricorn (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
here is the book that chronicles their tenure with the group
"Trivium: The Mark of Perserance"
top link on www.galamity.com
check page 48 where it quotes Matt Heafy telling them they are "in" the band 2603:9001:5FF0:8CB0:4C69:7BD8:E4A7:21A2 (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Joe Capricorn (talk · contribs) now meat puppet on this. GiantSnowman 18:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
link to book chronicling George Moore as a member now posted on www.galamity.com 🤘 2603:9001:5FF0:8CB0:78E8:E3CC:C46B:4F44 (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
That is not a valid source. GiantSnowman 18:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
it was valid for the past 20 years ... explain how a widely distributed and available book you can read online is not valid 2603:9001:5FF0:8CB0:78E8:E3CC:C46B:4F44 (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
To clarify - I was referring to www.galamity.com, not the book. GiantSnowman 19:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
how about this? 2603:9001:5FF0:8CB0:78E8:E3CC:C46B:4F44 (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Searching for their name in the book through google books here confirms they were in the band. Extremely simple to do. Someone coming with a request to have their transition recognized on wikipedia, and being met with "well it'd be easier for us if we just erased you from the page" is kind of ridiculous. Parabolist (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
And how is any reader supposed to verify/understand this when "galamity" insists on deleting any mention of the "deadname" that they say they were credited under? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
by deleting them entirely that in and of itself is recognition of the name change in some capacity since their deadname has been verifiable as an official member for the past 20 years. This seems like an Occam's Razor situation. 2603:9001:5FF0:8CB0:78E8:E3CC:C46B:4F44 (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I think scare quoting "deadname" speaks volumes here. Christ, dude. Parabolist (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
The quotation is because verifiable evidence has not been presented that galamity and George Moore are one and the same, not because I object to the concept of deadnames. For the record I strongly support Wikipedia's current WP:DEADNAME policy, but I also strongly support WP:V. If galamity can provide adequate proof that they were formerly George Moore, then I wouldn't oppose inclusion of their new name, provided that there was a footnote stating "credited as George Moore" or something like that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I am not a meat puppet, I just felt that if their name was to be changed on one page, it should apply to all other pages they are mentioned in.
I am an active member of Metal-Archives and I can say that their standards for edits are of a high scrutiny, and certain edits can only be done by high ranking users or site moderators.
Another thing I am wondering is, if galamity had their name changed legally, in some jurisdictions this requires a publicized notice. Sometimes that is in a local newspaper, or on a public facing court website. Would that be a valid source for the name change itself? Joe Capricorn (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I believe my edits were made in good faith. While I support having galamity's name recognized, I also reverted all the edits I made to several articles, such as the articles for the album Ember to Inferno and Revelations of the Unsung Joe Capricorn (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
@Joe Capricorn If the newspaper is a legal organ, then it's essentially a court record of the same type that WP:BLPPRIMARY tells us to avoid. The court website is to be avoided, period, per WP:BLPPRIMARY. —C.Fred (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I see. So in regards to galamity's name change being updated here, they more or less have to find a publication willing to cover the story?
and... uh... can I be removed from the top of this topic please? Joe Capricorn (talk) 05:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
We would need proof galamity was the George Moore was associated with the band. I think a social media post by an old bandmate confirming the galamity/Moore connection would probably be enough to be honest. I also removed you from the topic as you requested. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
A social media post by an old bandmate wouldn't be usable because it wouldn't meet WP:ABOUTSELF. Schazjmd (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
If galamity reacted to the post in some way to endorse it, it might be. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
@Joe Capricorn I am not a meat puppet… Yet didn't you state on my user talk page that it was galamity's post at the Metal-Archives discord that drew you to edit the article? —C.Fred (talk) 11:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
galamity created a whole tiktok account devoted to spreading awareness of this transphobic edit war where they display their legal documents as part of a press campaign
to validate their identity. its only a matter of time before an independent press entity covers them. are you implying all their supporters are meat puppets? 2603:9001:5FF0:8CB0:78E8:E3CC:C46B:4F44 (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I have checked the book — not via some dodgy WWW site, I might add. George Moore's "a few days" official career in the band is documented on pages 41 to 43 (at least according to the page numbering that the book reader supplied — also note that it says that this is a 2016 reprint by Bonnier Zaffre), although the book is largely recounting an interview with George Moore. Apparently there was a contemporary announcement on Lifeforce Records' WWW site, if anyone cares to play with the Wayback Machine. The album appearance was, according to the book, before Moore officially joined the band, and a "fluke" because Moore happened to play the guitar part right in the studio.

  • Shooman, Joe (2016). "Sparks Start To Fly". Trivium — The Mark of Perseverance. Bonnier Zaffre. ISBN 9781786061508.

Uncle G (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  • if you read the book in detail you will notice their tenure was over the span of some weeks to months and they were all ready recruited before being invited into the studio. most of the album had been tracked by that time except the final track which galamity (Moore) was credited for their contribution. Never the less this all aligns with the original edit that they were indeed an official member at the time. 2603:9001:5FF0:8CB0:78E8:E3CC:C46B:4F44 (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
    • Reading the book revealed the contrary to that. The band membership ended "a few days later" than the only show, and when in the studio the order was "Don't let George do anything on the album cause he's not officially in the band", both in Moore's own words quoted in the book, pages as already given. Uncle G (talk) 09:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
      • that quote from galamity (Moore) is them paraphrasing Brian Heafy (Matt Heafy's Father) which implies the band belonged to him and not Matt. In opposition to that, earlier in the book Matt Heafy himself is also quoted as saying they were "in" the band. By this logic the entire article would need to be edited including Brian Heafy as a member/ sole administrator of the group. However, galamity played on the album anyway which would imply Brian's classification of their band status remains moot. It is also public record that galamity (Moore) was included in the photo shoot for "ember to inferno" but was photoshopped out before the release. the photos were even posted on Trivium.org at the time. 2603:9001:5FF0:8CB0:78E8:E3CC:C46B:4F44 (talk) 09:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
        • If it were public record, you'd have cited exactly where to find that properly recorded in some sort of history of the band. It's rather sad how quickly the tune changes from how the book chronicles Moore's tenure in the band, before anyone pulls it out and reads it, to, when someone actually does read it and Moore's own words from the book are found to not support a lengthy tenure and not being part of the band for the album, to how the book is illogical and shouldn't be taken at its word for this. Uncle G (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
          "lengthy tenure" is a highly objective term to base any recognition off of, especially considering the level of participation/validaty of merit for any and all past members also listed in the article. Based off the book and any alternate sources, what excuses the others from not falling under this same level of scrutiny? The fact that Matt Heafy himself is quoted in the book as stating Moore was indeed recruited "in" the band after a formal audition on page 48 should be more than enough to justify their continued representation in the article after remaining uncontested for the past 20 years. The context of their entire removal stemming from light being cast on a possible legal name change/gender transition is also technically completely out of scope from the subject of this talk thread entirely. The question of whether galamity's identity could be properly validated should be the only concern. Moore's original inclusion in the article should absolutely be grandfathered in since they've remained present on the page throughout thousands of edits with even an entirely seperate article being created solely to document past members that also included them. 2603:9001:5FF0:8CB0:D5C:C343:715A:CAB1 (talk) 01:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
The argument that it should be grandfathered in is a flawed one because it's based ion circular reasoning, so it's unlikely to convince anyone. That said, I don't see any reason to remove Moore's name from the article, regardless of how long they were in the band. Even if they were only in the band for a single performance. I agree that the real issue is tying Galamity to Moore, which doesn't seem likely given the available sources. For that, there are things I foresee that Galamity could do to make this known to the world, but those all are off Wikipedia. A good PR rep might help a lot. Until we get this from acceptable sources, then we have to go with what we have. And even then, it would only be confusing to the readers to simply change the name in every article where it appears. We have to be able to connect the dots within the articles as well, or it won't make sense. Zaereth (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Heidi Lenhart

I found this source https://nedhardy.com/2023/10/26/heidi-lenhart/ for Heidi Lenhart's birth date and added it to the article but the editor Meters reverted it without any further motivation. I don't see anything wrong with it though and neither does another experienced editor that uses to remove unsourced birth days in BLPs. What do you others think? DrKilleMoff (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Judit Selymes

Judit Selymes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not quite sure if this or WP:RSN would be the better venue. I was approached by one of my mentees who said that Selymes died on the 7th of February. My own search for sources only found a very brief obituary on Legacy.com. I'm not even sure if it's the same person, as there's practically no description of the subject's history in the obit, but the birth date matches. Past discussions have been conflicting on the reliability of Legacy.com (see past discussion on RSN and past discussion on BLPN), but given that Selymes' notability stems from the 70s, I doubt that better sources will turn up. Liu1126 (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Timothy Tyson

I came upon the following claim in the middle of a paragraph:

"The Emmett Till lynching has seen more than its share of liars. mississippitoday.org Joint research done by a well-known investigative reporter and researcher into the truthfulness of Blood Done Sign My Name. They're finding uncovered and revealed some faulty footnotes, wrong details, wrong dates and wrong quotations."

The charges against Tyson seemed quite contentious, to put it mildly. Moreover, this particular sentence had misspellings, was missing a footnote, and misrepresented the article. Because these charges are so serious and potentially libelous, I deleted the sentence rather than fixing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.168.167.20 (talk) 04:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

  • Good call. The account who added it, Shakewalk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a SPA who has solely edited this biography over several years in order to add negative material, but who has been reverted every time. I would support indef blocking Shakewalk as WP:NOTHERE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
    • This is a joke. Does Thimothy Tyson have Trolls supporting his LIES? Tyson’s claimed that Donham lied and (he) Tyson had the proof she lied. The FBI reopened the Emmett Till’s case based on Tyson’s claim. The FBI question Tyson, and he had no recording or proof Donham lied. So, there you have it, Tyson was caught lying by the FBI in his Emmett Till book. So, the FBI closed the Emmett Till case. After a well-known investigative reporter was notified about Tyson lying in the Emmett Till book. That investigative reporter who had worked on the Emmett Till case for years looked into Blood Done Sign My Name.  The investigative reporter decided to check into the truthfulness of Blood Done Sign My Name. The investigative reporter along with a historian /author found problems in Blood Done Sign My Name as well. They found faulty footnotes, wrong details, wrong dates and even wrong quotations.  So, is it Wikipedia are YOU that is not letting the public know there is questionable information in Blood Done Sign My Name.

      You can check for yourself what this investigative reporter found and their names.

      https://www.gwcommonwealth.com/ The Emmett Till lynching has seen more than its share of liars. Is Tim Tyson one of them? | The Greenwood Commonwealth (gwcommonwealth.com)

      Now my question. Is Wikipedia a platform for liars?  or just for advertising platform for misinformation?    Shakewalk (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

      • While I somehow think this is going to be a waste of time, in the interest of assuming good faith, I'll see if I can help you out. First, when you start off by calling everybody liars, you've already lost the argument before it has even begun. Once you begin name calling, everything else just sounds like "blah blah blah". The old saying goes, you catch more flies with honey...

        That said, having thoroughly read through your statement, I have no clue what you are talking about. I'm sure it all makes sense in your mind, but to someone who has no clue about any of this, nor who all these people are you keep naming, it sounds like gibberish. No offense intended, but I seriously don't understand what you are trying to say. It's easy to talk about what you understand but damn, damn hard to write it in a way that others will know what you mean.

        Third, and foremost, everything you have said here and in the article are conclusions, not facts. Saying someone "found faulty footnotes" is a conclusion. Calling someone a liar is a conclusion. It doesn't really tell me anything except you think he's a liar. (In fact, it tells me a lot about you, but nothing about the person you're talking about.) Showing me what someone said that turned out to be false, well that's not a conclusion, but facts. When adding stuff to an article, it's important to remember, nobody cares about our conclusions. They only want the facts. Readers like to come to their own conclusions, and giving them ours just comes off as condescending (and, frankly, far, far less convincing).

        Fourth, everything added to an article must be found in a reliable source, which you need to cite at the time it's added. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Having looked into this more, I think Shakewalk's case has merit, but they've gone about it in the wrong way. There does seem to be quite a bit of discussion in news sources about how one of the bombshell allegations made in Tyson's Till book that Till's accuser Carolyn Bryant Donham recanted her court testimony in a recorded conversation with Tyson was not substantiated when the recording was examined by the FBI, and then Tyson gave inconsistent explanations as to why this was, and then he gave a date when the interview took place that was contradicated by email evidence saying he hadn't even met her yet by that time. There was already some mention of this in the article, but I've expanded it using the Mississippi Today article. Shakewalk's were problematic for a variety of reasons, but hopefully my edits resolve the issue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I have been focused on trying to expose Tyson for lying in Blood Done Sign My Name for a while. It was all ways removed. I’m not that familiar with the Wikipedia rules. And today I see today where his credible is now in question.  I i I see changes. Again Sorry. Thanks to all that made this happen! Shakewalk (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Anne Wangeci Schofield

Derek Schofield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Biography with regard to what happenned to Chief Justice Schofield is biased and does not reflect the truth with regard to what transpired with regard to the issue rearding the Constitution and Judicial Services Act. I wish to draw your attention to the following:

Firstly Chief Justice Schofield was appointed in that capacity under the Constitution. The Office of Chief Justice was enshrined in the Constistution prior to the Promulgation of the Gibraltar Constitution on 14th October 2006. The 2006 Constitution did not introduce the Office of President of the Courts. The Judicial Service Commission Act 2007 did. What the Chief Minister was doing was demoting the Chief Justice from being head of the Judiciary and creating the President of the Court of Appeal as overall in charge. It is noteworthy that Gibraltar has a visiting Court of Appeal made up of retired Court of Appeal Judges from the UK. The President of the Court of Appeal was and is not resident in Gibraltar and visits during sitting sessions. The Chief Justice objected to this change which was not enshrined in the Constitution. Upon taking legal advice he filed a Petition for an independent Judge to determine whether the Section of the Act demoting him was Constitutional. The Judge appointed to hear the case was a close family friend of the President of the Court of Appeal. He was also appointed to hear my libel case. I still maintain that the Judge should not have been appointed in the light of his relationship with the President of the Courts who had accepted an office which was demoting the Chief Justice. It is biased in its failure to mention that Fabian Picardo was elected as Chief Minister in 2011 and the provisions of the Judicial Service Act repealed the provision creating the Ofice of President of the Courts and reverts to the position that the Chief Justice is Head of the Judiciary. That is what Chief Justice Schofield maintained and was removed from office for his effort to protect the Gibraltar Constitution. It is therefore inaccurate to fail to include that the law was amended after Chief Minister Peter Caruana left Office and Justice Schofield vindicated.

Secondly with regard to the Judicial Service Commission the Chief Justice had reommended such a Commission for the purpose of appointment of Judges and Magistrates to protect the Institutional Independence of the Judiciary in an Opening of the Legal Year Speech prior to the promulgation of the New Constitution. It is misleading for the information on Wikipedia to give the impression that he was opposed to the creation of the Judicial Service Commission. Chief Justice Schofield was among the Group of senior parliamentarians, lawyers, academics and judges who met in Latimer House and produced the Latimer House Principles on the Relationship between the Three Arms of Government. He was familiar with the principles including the appointment and training of judges and funding for the judiciary. These are the issues that created friction between him and the establishment which led to the provisions which were in effect demoting him. There is a fundamental principle that you cannot demote a judge after appointment. The British Government is a signatory to the Commonwealth Principles (Latimer House Guidelines) on the Relationship between the Three Arms of Government. These Commonwealth Values are important and were being ignored. Once the Complaint was filed the lawyers embarked on a trawl to find grounds for removal.

Thirdly the Privy Council Decision is in the public domain. The Wikipedia entry states that he was removed for misbehaviour and inability. The Chief Justice was not removed for misbehaviour but for inability, The Ruling is clear that the inability arose from the tensions that arose by the introduction of an unconstutional section to demote the Chief Justice. Chief Justice Schofield continued to sit as a Recorder in the UK following his remova;l from Gibraltar until his retirment from the English Judiciary. It is libellous for your forum to state that he was removed for misbehaviour. Many of the grounds that the Tribunal had found as proven were not adopted by the Privy Council.

Fourthly,with regard to my case against James Neish the report is inaccurate in that it fails to mention that I filed a libel case after James Neish accused me of interfering with the Bar when I pointed to him in an email as Chairman of the Bar that the provision relating to the President of the Court was unconstitutional. I informed him that his views that a judge's wife has no freedom of speech was "dinasour like". I am a fierce defender of the right to freedom of expression and speech and having worked with the Bar in Gibraltar in promoting a culture of Human Rights I maintain I was within my rights to point out what was an unconstitutional provision in the law. This led to the Complaints filed by about 7 senior counsel some of whom were related to or partners of the Chief Minister for the removal of the Chief Justice. I have been proved right.

With regard to my withdrawal of the case it is true I decided to act in person when Sir Michael Turner declined to recuse himself. I have never spoken about what transpired nor has my husband . But I consider it wrong for your forum to be used to mislead the public and damage reputations. The right to a fair hearing is a fundamental human right and cronyism in the administration of justice or cases leads to denial of such rights. These are principles that I hold dear and am unrepentant about.


I trust that you will inlude the facts and remove the libel and misleading information contained in your report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7C:D6CD:8E00:F8D0:770E:BBB7:3343 (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, anonymous editor. Thank you for the information but, unfortunately, there's not much we can do with this. In most cases, content on Wikipedia should be based on reliable, secondary sources. Primary sources like the Constitution and court records aren't useful, except when they've been analyzed by secondary sources—and then we cite those secondary sources. We're not here to figure out who's right and who's wrong, only to summarize what the secondary sources say. If they're wrong, your best recourse is ask for corrections or retractions from the media or get coverage for your side of things. Armed with those sources, you can make edit requests on the article's Talk page, per our conflict of interest policy. But if, as you say, you haven't spoken about this before, there's really nothing we can do.
I would also suggest avoiding words like "libel" in your conversations here, as that can appear like a legal threat. Wikipedia has a policy against legal threats, which can include blocking accounts—and that gets you nowhere. Again, we don't create the news or take sides in disputes. We simply summarize what secondary sources have said about the subject. Woodroar (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Of course, almost the entire "Controversies" section in that WP:BLP, and more, is uncited and could reasonably be removed at any moment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
I've removed it. Woodroar (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Have Noted the response to my information posted yesterday as well as the removal of the controversies section. It was important that whoever posted was aware that some aspects of what was posted was libelous. I am pleased the same has been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7c:d6cd:8e00:319b:1e60:491a:2111 (talk)


Eddie Kaye Thomas

Page was previously protected (diffs in link) for ten days. Hours after expiration, disruptive edits resumed by same IP 2601:205:4300:54F0. Editor received 48 hour ban. After expiration, unsourced edits continued yet again.

I have reverted dozens of unsourced, disruptive, and non-WP:RS edits by this user on this page alone since October 2023. This behavior extends to many other pages as well (Max Minghella, for one) and none of my requests in edit summaries or his talk pages have been acknowledged or heeded. Can something please be done about this WP:NOTLISTENING editor? Rift (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Do me a favor and contact me again when I don't pay attention. Sometimes I follow the leader when a normal editor reverts an IP that was a bit odd at times. About 90% of the times I'm thanked for it. Trust me, I won't screw up your day, week or month touching unsourced names and exact dates any longer. Thanks for the ping and always feel free to come by and leave me a note. I'm being honest with you, because I don't remember these pages. That's why we still have erasers on pencils. Sorry again for the misunderstanding. Bringingthewood (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan § Controversy Section about whether a "Controversy" section should be included. It was subject of an edit war and the article is currently fully protected. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Timothy Gallaudet

Timothy Gallaudet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have tagged this article as being overly detailed. A number of sources used look questionable for the contentions being made and I think, generally, a culling and summarizing would work better. Thought to post here in case there were experts who knew how to handle this sort of thing.

jps (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Note that the subject of the article has stated on X/Twitter that my questioning of some of the sources in his Wikipedia article is tantamount to "questioning [his] integrity". jps (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
An editor who has added significant material to the article has now stated at User_talk:LMG2000#February_2024 that the subject is their father. I have steered them toward WP:COI for guidance. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Elise gravel

Numerous news articles have referenced potentially troubling stance of Ms. gravel in relation to Israel and Jewish Canadians. This is national news in Canada.

A publicist or another continues for the last 2-3 months delete all references to these news articles. Reference should be included and the entry should be temporarily locked.

See e.g following Montreal and National sources including the CBC and BNN (among many others). 

https://www.thesuburban.com/blogs/sjn/prominent-childrens-author-elise-gravels-anti-israel-campaign-prompts-action-from-the-jewish-public-library/article_cb31f25c-c4fe-11ee-963a-77c9b96c3380.html


https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7108041

https://bnnbreaking.com/world/canada/quebec-author-elise-gravel-in-the-eye-of-antisemitism-storm

https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/montreal-library-moves-childrens-books-over-authors-israel-comments/wcm/29c81956-79c3-4028-9579-44541bfadbd1/amp/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.198.58.61 (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The place to start a discussion on that is Talk:Elise Gravel. Consider WP:BLP, WP:PROPORTION and WP:EW. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
I see you did start a discussion, sort of:[66] However, people disagreeing with you doesn't make them "Publicist". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Also, BNN Breaking is probably not a source that we want to use (ever). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm glad to say that though the issue was added to the article, that source was not used. Spider sense or something, idk. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive356&oldid=1212345449"