Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive357

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family

Following this edit regarding the arrest of an FBI informant, I added the following:

James Comer, Chair of the Oversight Committee, responded, "the impeachment inquiry is not reliant on [Mr. Smirnov]. It is based on a large record of evidence, including bank records and witness testimony, revealing that Joe Biden knew of and participated in his family's business dealings."

The source cited was The Washington Times, however, Comer's verbatim response was also reported in The Hill, The Independent, USA Today, and many others.

My edit was reverted, and in this discussion the reasons for reverting were:

  • It is a BLP violation.
  • It is libelous, because no evidence "has actually been put forth, despite 13 months of investigations...Comer, as is his habit, is posturing in the absence of such evidence."
  • It must include "multiple high-quality sources, and include their evaluations of what he says, as they will likely criticize it. That he says it is not in doubt, but the BS needs to be called out. Context is important."
  • Comer's response is "a press release".

The input of others regarding whether this is a BLP violation, and whether WP:DUE would support this edit's inclusion, would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, certainly the Washington Times would be a poor source, particularly as there are good sources. If Comer's statement that there is a "large record of evidence" that the public somehow hasn't seen is included; I should think more of Smirnov's prosecutor's statements should be included. They would be found in the Independent source. Then, as Zaathras says, we are getting into WP:MANDY. How else to respond to an embarassing developement? O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
How you or I personally interpret Mr. Comer's response is irrelevant; he is the Chair of the committee about which this Wikipedia article is named, and this was his widely reported response. My concern is whether this was a BLP violation against Mr. Biden, and whether WP:DUE applies. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Actually, I don't see why this was brought here so quickly. There is discussion at the ATP. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Forum shopping? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't jump to that conclusion myself. If someone has a BLP question, I think they should by all means bring it here. The problem is, this is not an easy-to-make-out dispute, that is, without some extensive background knowledge into what exactly the dispute is about. To an outsider, I need far more info than what is either here or on the talk page to figure out how or why this should be considered a BLP problem. Unless it's a case where a possible BLP vio is blatantly clear and evident, then it's usually best to debate it for a while on the talk page before bringing it here, so people not familiar with the subject will have a better idea of all the nuances involved.
That said, here's my constructive criticism. I tried reading the article, but found my eyes glazing over within the first few paragraphs. And my goodness are there a lot of those paragraphs to parse through. This must be a recent event (probably still ongoing, I'm guessing), because it reads like a collage of newspaper articles rather than an encyclopedia. My advice is, far less detail and much more summarizing is needed to make it interesting and easy to comprehend. Zaereth (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Stepping away from the BLP issue, the excruciating level of detail in this article is inappropriate per NOTNEWS. The topic is notable, and summary coverage of the broad events makes sense, but this reads like a day-to-day blotter, which we should not be doing from primary/newspaper sources. Unfortunately we have far too many editors working on current events that write actively to this level of coverage, which is going to create massive cleanup problems in the future. Masem (t) 23:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
In their defense, it's extremely hard to write from a bird's-eye view and historical frame when the sources are all stuck at ground level and information changes daily. News sources in particular are at the bottom of the barrel in the hierarchy of reliable source, partly for that reason and partly because they need to sensationalize even the most boring things to fill their pages and sell their products. It's almost impossible to get the perspective needed until long after the fact. Still, I assume everyone on both sides can agree that we'd rather have people actually read the article than get bored and leave, or simply fall asleep before they even reach the half-way point.
What I would try to avoid is 1.) what I call "TV Guide summaries", you know, the kind that assumes the reader already knows what is going on and who all these people are. (For example, "John and Cameron try to sort out the tension between them while Sarah looks into her medical health and Cromartie searches for a plastic surgeon", when the summary should be, "The Connors travel forward in time ten years, but are followed by the Terminator chasing them, who rebuilds himself and takes the guise of an FBI agent". One gives the gist of it while the other assumes the reader knows all of it beforehand. And 2.) try to avoid just stitching everything together into a running quilt that keeps going for miles and miles. I know it's so tempting to include every minute detail, especially when hyped up by the media on a daily basis, but at some point it's important to step back and look for the forest among the trees. Try to give the most important information in the fewest words possible, and that means weeding out a lot of the fluff, unimportant names, and other boring details that just put the reader to sleep. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Here are a few thoughts. Various techniques should be used, and use as many different ones in the same article as is convenient. One that works well is to compartmentalize topics into sections. Yes, you're absolutely right that we already do this, but we should not be afraid to create new sections. (I suspect newbies may be hesitant to do this.) We must notice when we're stuffing too much into one box, when we start putting all the socks in one drawer, when we really should be using two drawers and separating them into whites and colors. That breaks up the "running commentary" that goes on and on forever. Sometimes this means we need to move stuff around as it becomes apparent that "like" is not "with like" anymore, but has become separated and no longer connected with the others in its topic group. We end up with needless duplication when this happens.

Some things are best dealt with in a chronological timeline, and others in topical groupings. Break it up with an occasional quotebox and image. Throw in a chart or table when convenient. Appeal to more than word lovers. Appeal to the visual senses. Don't summarize everything, especially controversial stuff. Then quotes are essential, and attribute them. Whatever we are doing, remember to respect the hard work of other editors. We are not paper, so preserve rather than delete. Summarization and condensation should still preserve the essence and as many RS as possible. (The references section is really, sort of, the most important part of the article. That is the foundation of everything here!) Above all, have fun learning and passing on good knowledge. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Nako Nakatsuka

Hi, I'd be grateful if someone could have a look at Nako Nakatsuka. I have twice reverted the addition of information about her relationships (engagement and affair) as unsourced. It has been added again with a private Instagram as a source - not sure if this is acceptable. Diff. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 07:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't think this is appropriate. It seems to be gossip about the subject of the article and other people she has worked with, all of whom are WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURES. The Instagram posts appear private so I don't know exactly what they say, but even in the best-possible case, we can't use WP:SOCIALMEDIA posts to discuss third parties. Mgp28 (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for dealing with this. Tacyarg (talk) 09:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Michael Zyda

The Michael Zyda Wikipedia page is full of defamatory information that is just not true. See http://mikezyda.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikezyda (talk • contribs) 20:30, 18 Feb 2024 (UTC)

Anything a subject says that could feasibly be challenged by a reasonable person cannot be used as a source. Do you have issues with specific passages in the article? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 20:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
@Mikezyda: Do you have any secondary sources to back the claim up? See WP:Self-published sources for why we avoid subjects' websites and other primary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not defamatory now, but the version from a few days ago was a BLP disaster, blatant BLP violations (like a completely unsourced [refactored] in the lead, and poorly sourced negative material). Obviously somebody editing their own biography is not ideal, but Zyda was clearly justified in removing this material in this case. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  • Before posting here, the editor in question did delete two sections from the article, at least one of which is a violation of WP:BLP (and which I was going to intentionally not mention by name in this discussion.) —C.Fred (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
    Why did you respond like the Zyda's complant was completely baseless then? The user who added the material @QuarioQuario54321: has over 5,000 edits, and their talkpage shows numerous warnings without them responding to them at all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
    In all cases I would subsequently comply with the warnings. Was I supposed to respond to them?QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
    @QuarioQuario54321: even a simple reponse like "acknowledged" or "understood" would be good. In future, please don't use YouTube videos or student newspapers for serious allegations against living people, even if they are likely true. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
    @Hemiauchenia The obvious reply when a COI user posts here and cites a COI site as a source is to ask for independent sources, especially when there's nothing obvious in the current version of the article. It took a little digging into the history to find out what happened. —C.Fred (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Whether or not the editor in question has a conflict of interest, the content in question was indeed wildly and blatantly a violation of our BLP policies, and ought to have been removed (as indeed it was). jp×g🗯️ 18:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Róbert Cey-Bert

At one of the village pumps I found this: "Róbert Cey-Bert is a fraudster[edit] Latest comment: 13 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion Róbert Cey-Bert's work and activities are not verified by any independent source or scientific forum, the events of his life are mostly based on his narrative, for which there is no direct evidence. Hungarian Wikipedia has therefore already deleted his article. More here in hungarian: Szélhámos az 1956-os érdemeiért tisztikereszttel kitüntetett Cey-Bert Róbert Az ember, aki mindenütt ott volt: a Magyarságkutató Intézet főtanácsadójának esete a tényellenőrzéssel I recommend changing or deleting the article due to the above information. Vander (talk) 9:36 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)Reply"

On hu.wiki Robert Cey-Bert[edit]( article • edit article • discussion • edit discussion • list • edit worksheet • story • links • log • dellog • monitor • delete • rename • infringer • protect • close • WP:AK ) This is a discussion of a deletion proposal . The goal is not necessarily to delete the page, but – if possible – to correct the errors. Please, if you comment, avoid faulty reasoning and keep in mind the relevant rules of Wikipedia ( namely , what does not belong in Wikipedia? ). After much deliberation, I am writing this deletion discussion. I debated because the subject of the article obviously fulfills the requirements of notoriety, certainly in the tabloid sense of the word, but we don't have an article about all the tabloid characters, who are in principle notable anyway... My problem with this article is that it is practically impossible to write it in such a way that it contains the pure truth. It is based on Róbert Cey-Bert's own statements, 90% of which turned out to be of dubious credibility and unverifiable, even in the most subtle use of words. If we take out the sections that cannot be verified by an independent source, nothing is left (at most, a bunch of references asking for sources, if we don't delete them from the article, but that's not even better). There is a thorough, very rich, verifiably sourced article about Cey-Bert's frauds [1] , but if we build the article entirely on this article and the sources in it, we will have an unpleasant, sad article about an eavesdropping uncle, which is not good either, if, in my opinion, the article structured in this way would be closest to the actual truth. Of course, it can also be neutral, include both sides, this would probably be the ugliest solution: Cey-Bert's statements at the top, why the statement is not true at the bottom - this is unworthy of a lexicon. My opinion is to push the issue and let the article go. The wiki will not be less if there is no article about a bigoted uncle. Viröngy discussion 17 August 2022, 01:41 (CEST) [ reply ]

Tobe an article candidate , then if it is important to someone, you can improve it. Even sources that seem independent at first glance are not. For example, merve.hu listed in note 4 lists Zita Tóth as the author, but switches to first person singular at the beginning of the biography ("my father was a mill owner", "my family's ancestors"). CBR talks about itself in number 5, and also in number 6. The role he played in 1956 is also interestingly sourced: according to the text of the article, "he joined the Corvin insurgents led by Gergely Pongrátz", according to the note accompanying the claim, "Gergely Pongrátz believed Cey-Bert that he fought with him during the Corvin..." and "Cey-Bert was able to convince Gergelly Pongrátz and Mária Wittner that he fought during Corvin in 1956." This should not remain among the articles, we will only discredit the encyclopedia with it. – Hkoala August 17, 2022 at 09:18 (CEST) [ reply ] 

I support Hkoala's suggestion. -  Pagony message 17 August 2022, 10:58 (CEST) Don't be angry, it's getting worse. We pack "sources" here and there, passages of text, but we always conclude that the source is itself. to be deleted -  Pagony message 17 August 2022, 21:47 (CEST) [ reply ]  
I support it , making it a candidate article is also a perfect solution, the main thing is that it doesn't look indecent in the article namespace. Viröngy discussion 17 August 2022, 11:27 (CEST) [ reply ]
to be deleted As a biographical article, I think it is unsalvageable and irreparable. You can add a refutation next to almost all of your claims, and if you delete them, essentially nothing is left. The article might be interesting as a phenomenon (insolence, pseudo-scientific activity, plus how the unsuspecting part of the media makes a star out of such bigots), but that's not what it's about. (I would only add that if there really were as many people during the Corvin at that time as there are today who are trying to take advantage of it, then the 56 insurgents would still be holding their own.) Today I took the trouble and read through the recently published writings, including the writing published on researchgate. So, based on these, this entry should not survive in any form on the Hungarian Wikipedia. –  VargaThe discussion August 17, 2022 at 8:37 PM (CEST)

Both were created by User:Fatongu. Doug Weller talk 11:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  • It's not as bad as it at first appears. For starters, the 2022 source that debunks a lot of the four decades of autobiography printed in the Hungarian press uncritically is already used in the article. By Fatongu. Added in Special:Diff/1167304303 back in 2023. There's a lot to check there against the debunking, though, that was there before the debunking came out and is still in the article now. A quick look doesn't indicate an easy place to start, and to unpick the stuff sourced to uncritical press. Uncle G (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
    @Uncle G It looks pretty tricky. We need someone who can read Hungarian for a start. Doug Weller talk 21:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
    I know here is a DeepL Translator, I think this could also be used. Vander (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Possibly to some extent. I've used google translate, and it can help sort of give me the gist of what is being said. It tends to work much better the closer a language is to English. For example, they translate French, Norwegian, and Swedish rather well, because those are what English is primarily made of, (although I find I can translate those much better myself just from the etymology). German and other Eastern European languages become much harder to translate meaningfully, and when you get into Asian languages they can become downright incoherent. The problem is they translate things very literally, and most languages are far more figurative than literal. Idioms and figures of speech, and even syntax, can come off wrong or even very confusing through machine translation. Semantic translation works much better, by translating the meaning rather than word for word, but machines just can't pull that off, so it's always best to have someone who actually speaks the language assess sources. There are some telltale signs of a good/bad source that are universal across languages, such as, are they using expository style? Do they avoid pushing their opinions? Etc... Zaereth (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Like people at the Hungarian AfD [1] also have concerns about this article. I've read the document in google translated form and it appears to be credible, but as a WP:BLPSPS it is alas unusable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I do read a little Hungarian (perhaps on a 2nd grade level; I can at least usually check the machine translation), and have some knowledge and/or opinions about reliability of Hungarian news media. I notice that Cey-Bert has been significantly covered by Magyar Nemzet, mainly as an author [2][3][4][5]. Magyar Nemzet at one time was perhaps the Hungarian equivalent of the Wall Street Journal; nowadays it is overly associated with the Orban government, and one should take it with more than a grain of salt. It is very plausible, for example, that the government would like to push the narrative of a 1956 freedom fighter, facts be d*mned. I don't have much Wikipedia time this week, but will try to check in from time to time, and am happy to try to comment on sources. I agree that the article should be trimmed with a chainsaw. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'll be your contact person for the Hungarian Wikipedia regarding the Róbert Cey-Bert page. Please be patient, I'll check the Hungarian page history and get back to you shortly. Szefato (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed content restoration at Karen Black, Gail Brown, Hunter Carson, Theodore McKeldin

Having unblocked the OP only this morning, I have now indeffed them again for clear failure to understand the concept that they should be staying well away from all of these articles. Black Kite (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Only two of these four pages pertain to living persons, but it's all interconnected.

I suggest restoring the content that can be found in these diff's at Karen Black, Gail Brown, Hunter Carson and Theodore McKeldin. Very basic, standard content that you would naturally expect to be included. But it seems that a certain somebody is recklessly determined to suppress it,[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] which is so bizarre to me.

My stance is that the content never had any reason to be removed in the first place. On February 10, I tried to start a discussion at Black's talk page, but couldn't get any editors to participate. I also brought it up at the Administrators' Noticeboard, again getting absolutely nowhere. Attempts to get the conversation going were shut down before any kind of resolution could be reached.

Your guess is as good as mine why 2003:D3:FF12:1D52:B55E:EBB9:DBF7:EF2B / 2003:D3:FF12:1D52:B8A2:D7CA:55DA:3AEE / 80.136.196.48 repeatedly blanks basic content and keeps putting a COI (conflict of interest) tag on the pages. Talk about chaos. There is no conflict of interest (the IP-switching editor seems to be suggesting this family is so irrelevant, that anyone who makes a substantial contribution to their pages must have a "close connection"). As a result of the inexplicable content wipeouts and meritless COI tags, each page is now incomprehensible and dishonors its subject. The pages were fine until the multi-IP editor came along and started making trouble.

This is an open-and-shut matter. Please remove the unwarranted COI tags and restore the content; then add protection and assign watchdogs to the four pages to prevent this madness from reoccurring. Deep Purple 2013 (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Is the above compatible with your comment at User talk:Deep Purple 2013#Unblock discussion? Johnuniq (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Nope. Blocked. Black Kite (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
For the record, I removed one duplicate post at WP:COIN and hatted a duplicate discussion at WP:FTN and pointed anyone interested to this page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Reposting from WP:FTN.
My guess may be good, at least: it probably has to do with the reasons in the edit summaries they're providing, specifically the inclusion of the names of non-notable living persons in articles, which is not generally allowed—part of your larger pattern of behavior that does seem reflective of a conflict of interest. I recommend you read the linked policy pages. Remsense诉 01:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
I've never seen a page on Wiki that specifically excludes the names of its subject's siblings and children. That's basic information. Deep Purple 2013 (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
See: WP:BLPNAME. We try to protect the rights of private individuals to keep their privacy. We have no right to invade in theirs, and that includes brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, and especially children who do not even have the ability to give informed consent. Wikipedia takes this very seriously, because not everybody wants to be famous or have their name in an article. The other reason is, to most readers, a name without an article to link it to is just a faceless word, void of form and substance, thus is meaningless. In other words, to the average reader, nobody cares, but to the people being named, it may well be a very big deal, and we need to err on the side of caution. Zaereth (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
I've seen thousands and thousands. Remsense诉 01:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Black's daughter acted in a movie with her, and Black's nephew (who is deceased) twice ran for public office. So they're both public figures and WP:BLPNAME does not apply to them. The only "non-notable" excluded individuals left in the conversation are her brother Peter (who I think warrants a mention on both of his sisters' pages) and the children of Gail (who I think warrants a mention on her page). Deep Purple 2013 (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
The latter do not, per the linked policy. Remsense诉 01:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jay-Z

At Jay-Z, Instantwatym has repeatedly been adding to the lead that albums Jay-Z recorded with R. Kelly was done with "singer and convicted sex trafficker R. Kelly", see this diff. Is it appropriate to include in the lead of a biography of somebody else entirely crimes that somebody was convicted of at some later date? Is it WP:SYNTH to include that descriptor in the description of the album on the page Jay-Z. Along with this, they have been seeking to included pending civil claims against Jay-Z that he fathered a child with a woman who was under 18. Both in the lead and in the body. Is it appropriate to include civil claims that remain unproven allegations in a BLP? nableezy - 15:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

R-Kelly Identifier
- The individual is identified as a convicted sex trafficker with crimes predating decades. Hence he was a sex trafficker at the time the albums were recorded. Identifying him as such is not SYNTH. In the article edit history you've tried to establish a new precedent that the identifiers of notable individuals with seperate articles have no relevance to Jay-Z. When the same precedent was used to remove identifiers for other notable individuals you reverted. Which quitely frankly comes across as a violaiton of WP:OWN and WP:NPOV, since are only taking issue with the identifier of one controversial collaborator and are contradicting yourself to keep this information removed.
Civil Lawsuits
- Lawsuits, even civil lawsuits pending trial, should be included in the legal issues section so long as they are sourced. Mentioning that an individual is involved in an active state supreme court lawsuit in the lead is very relevant. It's arguably the most important update in his lfie at the moment. Again, omitting these seems to be more of a violation of WP:OWN and WP:NPOV more than anything.
Other editors and admins are welcome to debate and take any action they wish. Thanks. Instantwatym (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
You can tell something is SYNTH when you use the word hence. nableezy - 17:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
The word hence is used here. If someone is convicted as a serial killer with a convcition based on murders predating decades, then they were also a serial killer in the decades prior to their conviction. Same thing goes for sex traffickers such a Kelly, who was a sex trafficker at the time the albums were recorded, much prior to his conviction. Instantwatym (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Unless sources make the same conclusion you are making, your conclusion remains the most basic form of SYNTH. A+B=C. nableezy - 17:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
It is not my conclusion. It is part of his conviction, which he is currently imprisoned for. His conviction includes crimes such as marrying an underage women in 1994 which predate the release of these collaborative albums. Jay Z was in fact cricisized Damon Dash, who he co-founded Roc-A-Fella records with, for knowing releasing collaborative albums with a pedophile. https://www.complex.com/music/a/brad-callas/dame-dash-jay-z-made-albums-r-kelly-after-abused-aaliyah None of these are my conclusion. Neither the covicition which details his crimes predating the release of those albums nor the opinions of other notable individuals cricisizing him for working with a known pedophile at the time. Instantwatym (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Changing Kelly's description in old albums seems a little too on the nose... I don't think its due. As for Jay-Z if there are reliable sources covering the allegations then per NPOV we likely should be too, the key is to present them as allegations and not facts. The lead is a bit much though and I would want a higher tier of sources than are currently being used. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Other events in R Kelly's sorry life are irrelevant to the article subject, and suggestive of some kind of knowledge or collusion on the part of the article subject. Unless there are really good sources that can be cited that suggest this, it does not belong in other BLP articles. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Agree with Escape Orbit here. Foregrounding R Kelly's crimes in the lead of the Jay Z article seems like a bad idea – we certainly don't want to suggest any kind of connection between Jay Z and R Kelly's crimes unless this is thoroughly supported by reliable sources Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Identity Taken Over?

I noticed this biography Neeraj Gupta. The original article was created for a different person of the same name in the year 2008, and it was associated with the original person till "10 August 2017", but, afterwards, few malicious users (few of them are already blocked) took over, gradually changed it for a different person. The history is clearly showing it. I would like to know if this is an acceptable practice in Wikipedia? Here is the reference of the original person: https://www.cuttingthechai.com/2006/12/364/the-real-parliament-attackers-revealed/ Apswikicontrib (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Apswikicontrib, I've reverted the article to original subject. I don't think it was appropriate for editors to change the subject of the article. If they wanted to write about another subject they could have written a new article rather than taking over an existing one. Disambiguation could have been sorted out later. TarnishedPathtalk 10:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Note: I have created a draft for the second person which I have submitted to AfC at Draft:Neeraj_Gupta_(Sculptor) TarnishedPathtalk 10:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Looking at the SPI for the blocked socks involved in the "takeover" it looks like the sockfarm is about paid editing. I haven't looked at that draft, but caution should be exercised in basing anything on what was in the article, with careful scrutiny of GNG etc DeCausa (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
I got a shit tonne of hits on google for the sculptor. A lot more than the cartoonist. The cartoonist seems to have moved into politics a bit and that article could probably do with a bit of an update given it's a stub, but I'm not from India so it would probably be a lot easier for someone with more knowledge on the subject to edit. I'm pretty sure about the GNG for the sculptor but I thought I'd do it through AfC just to be safe. TarnishedPathtalk 11:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

RfC about claimed statement at Julian Assange

An RfC at the above article is about whether a claim made by two journalists about something ostensibly said by the subject at a private dinner, but denied by others present, is appropriate for the subject's biography. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Emily Willis, TMZ

There is a discussion at RSN that may be of interest to watchers of this board, concerning TMZ-based information in a BLP. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

TMZ, among other sources reporting the same information. BD2412 T 01:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Gavin Koppel

In regards to Gavin Koppel, an original member of the band Incubus and a well known Dj, Musician, and artist. Over 15 years ago, someone created a wikipedia page regarding Koppel's legacy. Over the years, many editors have added information, good and bad. Recently I noticed that there were many dead links and misinformation. I finally took the time to clean up the page, adding relevant information, and solid, unbiased facts regarding the past and new artistic works. As soon as I removed all unfounded, defamatory comments, a user "Broc" attempted to revert those derogatory lies. I corrected him and then he attempted to delete the page. This is vandalism. Please see the talk in regards to this. Gavin Koppel has sold over one million copies with Incubus, and he is still a very active musician with current downloads, records, and tapes being released to this very day. THANK YOU — Preceding unsigned comment added by LyonCruz (talk • contribs) 08:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Please explain why you believe properly sourced material is defamatory in nature. While you're at it, please also explain why you're using both this account and User:24.205.63.99 to engage in the discussion around deletion here [21] Dark-World25 (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Very simply, it wasn't properly sourced material. Broc is knowingly and willfully lying to you. The statements were defamatory in regards to the unfounded assertion that Koppel lost a court trial against incubus, and as a result, attempted to retaliate against Kilmore 7 years later. The cited source connected to a dead link, with no regards to any of the subject matter, Broc was well aware of this, and he still reverted those defamatory remarks, which is malicious in nature and against wikipedia guidelines. In fact the new information added to Koppel's page will show that Incubus actually filed for a motion to seal the results of the arbitration (in 2003) and the result / judgement of that hearing is classified information which nobody outside of the legal parties involved is privy to. As an avid wikipedia editor, Broc clearly knows better. As far as usernames, etc., I am a rookie wikipedia editor, and I have no malicious intent. Navigating through the process of becoming a wikipedia editor is unfamiliar to me and I'm trying my best to follow the rules. I am in a location where more than one person resides. Thank you for your time. LyonCruz (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
@Broc: You might want to take a look at this discussion too Dark-World25 (talk) 08:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
@Dark-World25 thanks for the ping, it's appreciated. All I did is revert what I interpreted as vandalism (removal of properly sourced material), then candidate the page for deletion. Candidating a page for deletion is not vandalism, as deletions are decided by the community based on consensus, and I already mentioned this on Gavin Koppel's talk page. @LyonCruz there is no need to have the same discussion over and over on different forums. Please use the AfD discussion to present why, according to you, Gavin Koppel fulfills notability criteria for band members. Broc (talk) 09:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi! Can you give me any advice for improving this article?--Jselod (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
What you reverted was clearly conjecture that was against the wikipedia guidelines. When you couldn't manipulate the legacy of Koppel into a negative tone, you then decided to delete the page. Had the negative incorrect information remained, you'd have no problem with the page remaining. If the wikipedia page for Koppel is in fact deleted, it's only a matter of time before a new one pops up. Koppel has a cult following and is a legend. LyonCruz (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
@Jselod No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Broc (talk) 08:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
The amount of notability below can always be improved upon: Jselod didn't mention "editing", but specifically mentioned "Improving". Please respond accordingly.
the main releases on which the DJ is credited.
Enjoy Incubus EP (1997)
S.C.I.E.N.C.E. LP (1997)
Spawn: The Original Soundtrack Compilation (1997)
Monuments and Melodies (Japanese Edition) Compilation (2009)
The Essential Incubus Compilation (2012)
When Incubus Attacks DVD (2001)
Incubus fear the groove (2002)
DJ 1987 Negative (2002)
87 Ways DVD (2005)
S.C.I.E.N.C.E. scratch record GR-002 (2021)
Sounds of S.C.I.E.N.C.E. Mixtape (2021)
This list is not complete and there has not yet been a mention of other mixtape releases as DJ1987, nor a section of the article regarding his various residencies and performances and recordings as DJ 1987.
There are many ways to improve the article. LyonCruz (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you seem to be misunderstanding what is meant by notability in the context of Wikipedia. What you have listed here are all primary sources, called that because they directly involve the subject. Those are the types of sources newspapers and magazines and books use, which is why we call them secondary sources, because they are at least one step removed from the subject. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source (three steps removed), meaning they get their info from secondary sources, and so does Wikipedia. We didn't make up these rules. They've been around for almost 2000 years, and that's how all encyclopedias are written.
To determine WP:Notability, you need to go find some secondary sources, meaning things like newspapers, magazines, and books. They don't necessarily need to be online sources either, you can try checking the library too. Primary sources do not help determine notability for Wikipedia's purposes. We need secondary sources. For example, my favorite band is Blue Oyster Cult. Buck Dharma, Eric Bloom, and Allen Lanier all have their own articles, but only because they have been written about extensively in secondary sources. Unfortunately, Joe Bouchard and Danny Miranda don't have articles of their own, so their names simply redirect to the article about the band. This is simply because nobody has written much about them in secondary sources. (And Danny Miranda has got to be the best bass player I've ever seen, hands down.)
This is true for a lot of bands. I'd love to write an article about my friend Brock Lindow, but unfortunately no sources have written much about him, so his name just links to the band. To have an article about him we need sources that don't just simply mention his name, but give us enough biographical material about him to make a decent article. (Actually, this was just an example, because writing such an article would not only be a conflict of interest, but I wouldn't wish a Wikipedia article on my worst enemy. Too cruel! See: WP:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.) Please read the links I provided to get a better understanding. Anyhow, I hope that helps explain what types of sources you need to look for, and good luck to you. Zaereth (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your input! Very helpful. I did some research in these regards and what I found is extremely helpful in improving this article. It turns out that there were two very recent (2024) independent and reliable news sources from New Zealand who have written abut Koppel as DJ Lyfe, independent from Incubus. These qualified sources are cited on Koppel's page. Apparently DJ Lyfe is still recording and performing music worldwide. Below is what's now been added to Koppel's wikipedia page to improve the article, specifically in regards to Wikipedia's notability guidelines as requested by Broc:
DJ Lyfe's most recent performance as a solo recording artist, released in January of 2024, is a collaboration with New Zealand's Kaosis and Yap of One Minute Silence and Cristian Machado of Lion's at the Gate. DJ Lyfe is also featured in a music video released with the song. Joining the guest trifecta is the legendary, DJ Lyfe who was fundamental in bringing scratching to rock. DJ Lyfe scratches unused samples on Over This that he created for Incubus’ sophomore and critically acclaimed album S.C.I.E.N.C.E. According to a press release, Lyfe‘s contributions include unused parts he originally created for Incubus‘ 1997 gold-certified sophomore album “S.C.I.E.N.C.E.“. Kaosis‘ vocalist/producer Xen commented:“These three figureheads broke the musical ground that our generation built our careers on. They are true pioneers.”
So there should now be not a single reason to delete the article, but rather continue improving this biography of a living person. THANK YOU LyonCruz (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
That will be decided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavin Koppel, not here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
How and when is the decided? By Whom? Thank you. LyonCruz (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
@LyonCruz, a discussion for deletion is typically open for at least 7 days. Interested editors review the sources and provide their opinion. An uninvolved editor reviews the discussion when it's done and determines whether the consensus of the discussion is to keep or delete the article. Schazjmd (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
To avoid cluttering up the deletion discussion, I'll give my advice here. You'll want to avoid bludgeoning the deletion discussion with irrelevant arguments, as that will only hurt, not help your case. As Schazjmd said, everything here is done by consensus, which is different than a simple vote. (Please follow the link provided.) There's no boss. Nobody's in charge around here. We discuss things to death and try to achieve some kind of consensus, preferably without getting all upset at one another. You still have time to go find more sources, so don't give up yet.
That said, the sources you provided aren't good enough. Those are called press releases, which is not the same as a news or magazine article. (Only a small fraction of newspapers and magazines are articles, the rest is ads, op/ed columns, and press releases, so it's helpful to know which is which. It's pretty easy to tell the difference, actually, if you look closely.) The thing to remember is that you're writing a biography, not a resume. In other words, we need sources that tell us about the person, not just his career or what he's doing these days. Where was he born? Grew up? Where did he go to school? What did he do before he got into music. How did he get into music? What were his influences? Things of that nature, that tell who this person is and not just what they do. Not easy to do, which is why most band members don't have their own articles. (And compared to other encyclopedias, our notability requirements are very lax.) Still, don't give up yet, because there's still time. And if it gets deleted, then that's not a big deal either, because you can always keep trying in draftspace and if you do find some good sources the article can always be recreated in the future. There's no hurry.
Take some time to read other biographies. See what they have that this one is missing. Look for sources that can fill in all those missing blanks. Go edit some articles that you don't really care about so much, so that you can see how this all works without getting all emotional. These things will all help you very much in the long run. And if consensus doesn't go your way, there's no need to lose any sleep over it. Life will still go on. Once again, good luck to you. Zaereth (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I really appreciate the info. What is upsetting is that the person who nominated this article for deletion didn't seem to do so in an attempt to better the wikipedia community, but rather as a power trip because that person, Broc, couldn't have their way with defaming Koppel. I guess that's typical behavior here. Personally I have no further interest in Koppel's page. I assume that if it's deleted, there will be another created at some point. LyonCruz (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
@LyonCruz, I suggest you avoid speculating about another editor's motivation. You might want to read WP:NPA. Schazjmd (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. It is notated. LyonCruz (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Schaz. That will get you nowhere fast. It's a form of deflection. Assume Broc's motives are good, even if diametrically opposed to yours, and things will go much better for you. The way the discussion is going, it likely will end in deletion. I can tell you're upset, and that is understandable. If this was easy, everybody would be doing it. When you have calmed down and feel better you may find those sources we require, and you'll be free to write a draft and submit it to WP:Articles for creation where editors will assist in getting it up to standards. Nothing deleted is truly gone forever, because it will all be saved in the history. Zaereth (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
It really doesn't matter to me at this point. I've lost interest. I have no emotions wrapped up in this at all. I never did. Apparently the article didn't belong in the first place and what's fair is fair. I am still new to the wikipedia platform and I have learned a lot from it. I admire the democracy this platform presents. I believe that the page is much better off deleted than it was with a bunch of rumors and unfounded derogatory comments. Thanks for your help and thanks to all for educating me on the intricate ways of wikipedia. LyonCruz (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
This is my last reply to this discussion. I have no personal connection to Gavin Koppel nor to Incubus, and by that I mean I had not even heard about them, nor listened once to their songs, until I stumbled upon an IP edit that I considered to be vandalism and I reverted. At that point, and only then, I read the page and realized it does not fulfill Wikipedia's notability standards. I candidated the page for deletion, as it is the right of any registered user on Wikipedia.
The community, more than five different editors in total, expressed their judgment on the notability of the subject, and the consensus was to redirect the page as an alternative to deletion.
The content is not deleted, it is still visible in the page's history; if one day reliable secondary sources appear, said content can be reinstated. Until then, I see no need to discuss this any further. Broc (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Sexual misconduct allegations against Gabriel Matzneff

This article seems to be using a lot of questionable sources, including youtube videos, to make statements relating to criminal sexual misconduct, especially in this section. I read some of the sources and a lot of them don't match the claims made in the article, which also reads very taboid-ish in the parts relating to criminal accusations. The page also explicitly and sometimes implicitly states that Matzneff has engaged in acts that he has never been actually convicted for in court, instead of portraying them as criminal accusations (which is what most of the sources do).

I've removed some of the bad stuff early today, but a person who has been editing this page for 4 years now reinstated everything (again, using youtube as a source). One of the sources is also linking to French wikipedia for some reason. I want to see what more experienced people think about this. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  • I'm seeing The New York Times, The Guardian, The New Statesman, L'Express, Le Figaro, Le Monde, and pages 84 to 87 of a history book by Anne-Claude Ambroise-Rendu, professor of modern history at UVSQ, and published by Fayard (ISBN 9782213676340), as sources being cited for what you removed in Special:Diff/1209446575.

    The New Statesman piece, just for starters, directly discusses "The treatment accorded Denise Bombardier, a Canadian journalist who during a 1990 prime-time television roundtable dared to confront the author over his behaviour, as well as criticise the literary quality of one of his books". Yet you removed all mention of the confrontation with Denise Bombardier from the article. The Ambroise-Rendu book seems to mention this person a lot, according to its index.

    I think that you are not in the right, here, and should actually be reading some of these sources.

    Uncle G (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

    • These sources are not being used to make this statement, this youtube video is being used as an inline reference to do so. I also could find no confirmation that Matzneff was an "admitted" [redacted] in those guardian sources. And the article continues to explicitly and implicitly say that things that this man has not been convicted for in court actually happened, I don't think it was wrong to remove that and leave out only what he himself wrote and let the facts speak for themselves. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
      • No. The YouTube video is very obviously a mis-placed "here's the TV programme" footnote, because people get citations and footnotes mixed up. The New Statesman adequately sources a confrontation with Denise Bombardier, and if you had actually read the sources you could have simply fixed the conflation of footnote and source by attaching a source that was already in the article to the text. Instead you come here with a false characterization of what you have removed being sourced to YouTube and the French Wikipedia when it is blatantly obvious that it has 6 mainstream news services in 3 countries being cited, as well as Anne-Claude Ambroise-Rendu's book. You are not in the right, here. Uncle G (talk) 10:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I removed the statement saying that Matzneff was an "admitted" something and the account put it back there without even acknowledging the problem. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
    • What does "C'était même l'objet d'un de ses livres, «Les Moins de seize ans», paru une première fois en 1975." tell you? That's Le Parisien. You just aren't reading the sources. Uncle G (talk) 10:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Hayes Barnard

There is a discussion going on now at Talk:Hayes Barnard#Time magazine/GoodLeap about the appropriateness of a particular sentence, and whether it violates WP:COATRACK and other Wikipedia best practices for BLPs, which could benefit from input from additional editors. If anyone is so inclined to take a look and chime in, it would be much appreciated. JesseGoodLeap (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for correctly posting this here - I have nothing further to add and my original comments stand. Best of luck, NotAGenious (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I would like to report that the bibliograhical information regarding Yasmine Motarjemi in French and English is false and I would like the page to be removed, or the author to contact me for correct information

I would like to report that the bibliography regarding Yasmine Motarjemi

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

and https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasmine_Motarjemi

is incorrect and I would like the text to removed or corrected. As it is, it is providing false information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Motarjemi (talk • contribs) 13:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

In what way is the information incorrect? The bibliographic information is the listing of a single book, the Encyclopedia of Food Safety. That is a title that she is mentioned as author of in places where she seems likely to have had input on the biography, such as this, which certainly seems the same Yasmine Motarjemi we are talking about. She is the first-listed of three editor of that book in its entry at the library database WorldCat (which also verifies the date and publisher) and on its cover. Is the problem that we are not indicating she is a co-editor rather than a sole editor? Or is there some other matter with it? I will go add "co-editor" to the bibliographic entry now, but only on the English version, as that's where I edit. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Ida E. Lewis

Please eliminate sentence referring to Ida E. Lewis as the first female editor and chief of the Crisis Magazine in 1998. Former Detroit News reporter, Denise Crittendon, was appointed editor and chief of the NAACP's Crisis Magazine in 1994. Boston University Today was the main source for the claim that Ida E. Lewis. However, they have rescinded that claim and eliminated it from their article. My references include This Day, African American Life In Detroit, by Ken Coleman, 2013, isbn, 978-0578-120911 Jet Magazine, February 7, 1994, Denise Crittendon is First Woman Editor of The Crisis Magazine, pg. 39, (vol. 85, issue 14) St. Louis American, February 1994, The Crisis Appoints A New Editor, by Debra A. Robinson The Detroit News, Ex-Detroit News Reporter Will Edit NAACP Magazine, January 1994, page 15s St. Louis Post Dispatch, Denise Crittendon, the first woman editor of The Crisis Magazine, January 19, 1994, page 63 The Michigan Chronicle, Former Chronicle Reporter Named Editor of The Crisis, 1994 The Detroit Free Press, March 31 2023, Former Detroit News Journalist's Novel Takes Readers Into Afrofuturist World, by Chandra Fleming The Detroit News, Dec. 19, 2022 BLAC Media, Dec. 8, 2022, Former Editor, Denise Crittendon, Releases Novel, Where it Rains in Color Westside Story Newspaper, Jan. 5, 2023 BlackNLA, Former Editor of The NAACP's, The Crisis, Writes Afrofuturistic Novel, January 27, 2023 The New Crisis, The Magazine of Opportunities and Ideas, (Special Commemorative Issue: 90-Year Celebration of The Crisi, July/August 2000, page 74, Shaping The Crisis:90 Years of Editorial Excellence by Zina Rodriguez — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2A02:3000:44EC:ABAB:2F81:E1AF (talk) 08:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC) Metro Times, How Denise Crittendon Went From Journalist To Accomplished Sci-Fi Author, by Eddie Allen Jr. December 29, 2023 Black Firsts, 500 Years of Trailblazing Achievements and Groundbreaking Events, Invisible Ink Press 2600:8801:2A02:3000:6429:A490:C084:4F20 (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC) THE INSIDER, A LOOK AT WCCCD: Award Winnign Journalist, Author And Editor Teaches at WCCCD, issue 1- Vol. 1 www.wcccd.edu, june 2011Th Yhe Boston University rW On This Day, African American Life In Detroit, by Ken Coleman, 2013, isbn, 978-0578-120911 Jet Magazine, February 7, 1994, Denise Crittendon is First Woman Editor of The Crisis Magazine, pg. 39, (vol. 85, issue 14) St. Louis American, February 1994, The Crisis Appoints A New Editor, by Debra A. Robinson The Detroit News, Ex-Detroit News Reporter Will Edit NAACP Magazine, January 1994, page 15s St. Louis Post Dispatch, Denise Crittendon, the first woman editor of The Crisis Magazine, January 19, 1994, page 63 The Michigan Chronicle, Former Chronicle Reporter Named Editor of The Crisis, 1994 The Detroit Free Press, March 31 2023, Former Detroit News Journalist's Novel Takes Readers Into Afrofuturist World, by Chandra Fleming The Detroit News, Dec. 19, 2022 BLAC Media, Dec. 8, 2022, Former Editor, Denise Crittendon, Releases Novel, Where it Rains in Color Westside Story Newspaper, Jan. 5, 2023 BlackNLA, Former Editor of The NAACP's, The Crisis, Writes Afrofuturistic Novel, January 27, 2023 The New Crisis, The Magazine of Opportunities and Ideas, (Special Commemorative Issue: 90-Year Celebration of The Crisi, July/August 2000, page 74, Shaping The Crisis:90 Years of Editorial Excellence by Zina Rodriguez — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2A02:3000:44EC:ABAB:2F81:E1AF (talk) 08:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC) Metro Times, How Denise Crittendon Went From Journalist To Accomplished Sci-Fi Author, by Eddie Allen Jr. December 29, 2023 Black Firsts, 500 Years of Trailblazing Achievements and Groundbreaking Events, Invisible Ink Press 2600:8801:2A02:3000:6429:A490:C084:4F20 (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC) THE INSIDER, A LOOK AT WCCCD: Award Winnign Journalist, Author And Editor Teaches at WCCCD, issue 1- Vol. 1 www.wcccd.edu, june 2011Th Yhe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2A02:3000:5874:E544:5DEF:3AB9 (talk)

Carrie Keller-Lynn

The article UNRWA October 7 controversy, which lists several reports from leading newspapers describing the allegations, was recently changed in a way that raises questions related to BLP. The change included changing the label of one report from "Wall Street Journal report" to "Keller-Lynn article in the Wall Street Journal". Following this, negative information about the journalist was added, along with a photo of her wearing uniform, that seems to have been taken from the internet, and another piece related to "Accusations of author bias". This series of edits seemed strange to me, and it became even more strange upon discovering that the same editor had also wrote a new article (seems to be mostly negative) about the journalist, which I am not sure is notable enough for their own article. Could some shed more light on this? Is this okay, or, problematic?Eladkarmel (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

AfD the bio if it does not pass GNG. As for the article, whether additional material beyond simple attribution in the article is undue depends on how much reliance is placed on the WSJ source. If otoh, the argument is with the editor who made these edits, this is the wrong place for that. Selfstudier (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
The article about Carrie Keller-Lynn is a clear AfD.
She is a WSJ journalist but this is more or less about it. It does not pass the GNG bar.
  1. not "Presumed". No reliable sources about her in general. some refs that contain list of her WSJ and WP articles, to substantiate the fact she is a jurnalist.
  2. no "Significant coverage" of her activity.
  3. not "Reliable". Contains simply wrong facts (maybe taken from unreliable sources). For example, Aliza Landes, a low rank office, was not an IDF spokesperson. (check the list of IDF spokepersons).
GidiD (talk) 10:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
As already said above, AfD the bio if desired, this is not AfD. Selfstudier (talk) 11:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
I have put it up for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrie Keller-Lynn, as it's a poorly-sourced WP:BLP1E. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
I just deleted a section of that page, as it was headered as being about doubts regarding the WSJ article, but recorded no doubts, rather being a piece on the author of the work and a supposed friend of hers. The main source used was an essay on Literary Hub, which posits itself as "a site readers can rely on for smart, engaged, entertaining writing about all things books", and whether or not that qualifies it as an RS for this topic, statements being referenced there were at times not in the essay in the site's or the author's own voice, but were citations of other works. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Keizers has attempted to restore tclaims and has added content using a self-published source as justification of inclusion of a photo. As this material concerns the living persons pictured in the photo, this is not allowable under WP:BLPSPS. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree that this version of the article contains excessive weight on the criticism of the journalist who wrote the article. I don't know about BLP; perhaps, but seems more like a WP:UNDUE issue and a serious one at that. Coretheapple (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
There is an article about the subject and I don't believe it is linked. See Carrie Keller-Lynn and AfD associated with it. Coretheapple (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Bradley Ogden

2600:1011:a000::/40 appears to be concerned that the information provided by this article concerning a conviction is not accurate. I'm not at all familiar with the particulars of this case, but if someone could look that one over just to be sure I'd appreciate it. 2603:7000:8B00:2B01:78F6:A1BE:6E31:326B (talk) 05:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The source that we are using for saying he was convicted, while reliable, also says that he had filed an appeal. Unfortunately, I can find no source on the result of that appeal (I have no expertise in legal databases, I'm just looking for news sources.) Obviously, the outcome of an appeal would have a large impact on how we cover this. And I'm only finding that one source on the conviction. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 08:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Conflicting interpretations of WP:BLPPRIMARY

This is in regards to List of suspects in Operation Torpedo, an article created today, which is huge table full of external links to court docs and only citations are to court docs. The article creator disagrees with my interpretation of WP:BLPPRIMARY, and says:

I'm not sure that the WP:BLPPRIMARY is indicating that you can't use court documents as a primary source for things the court system has done to a person, or issued, such as a judgement or arrest or other event. There is a vast amount of information that is generated in court documents which are unacceptable to use as a primary source about a person, but that is different that describing the judiciary procedures. An court record about the arrest of a person is certainly adequate to create a reference to the arrest of the person for example, as is a judgement, appeal, release, and statistics about the case. These aren't really facts about the person, as much as they are facts about the operation and the prosecution that followed. Therefore, I firmly disagree with your interpretation of the WP:BLPPRIMARY, but do think that the WP:BLPPRIMARY needs to be updated for clarity for such situations as this.

Thoughts on this interpretation of BLPPRIMARY? Schazjmd (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Of course they're facts about a person (or people). We absolutely can't use court documents this way. Woodroar (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Please see Archive29 for one of the prior discussions on this topic. In the discussion, it was pointed out the nuanced difference between court documents (such as transcripts or arguments) which could be looked at as uncorroborated self publishing. Much of what is discussed is the difference between questions of fact and questions of law that are being interpreted by the courts. Which is different than relaying events or statuses. There is unlikely to be a better primary source than the court when assessing the date of an arrest, the term of a imprisonment, the specifications of a person's parole.
Those statistics and event records are far different than a he said she said, or statement made by counsel. Which in turn is far different than a Stipulation of Fact, an Appeals court decision, a Judge's order/summary. Being mindful that these cases are all settled, the persons have finished their appeals, and have been convicted or acquitted. Thus, the questions of law and questions of fact, and events are all past history to be reported on and recorded in an encyclopedia.
Socratically, we may ask, what would be a better primary source than the court to obtain a primary source for the jury's decision, the judge's order for length of incarceration, the judge's order for and amount of restitution, the status of a an appeal, the name of an accused, and the terms and conditions of parole/release? A newspaper journalist would only be doing using these documents as reference themselves as to the dates, times, lengths and specifications. eximo (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Lastly, this was not intended to be a standalone page, it was being sandboxed/drafted, and a user performed a "move" and moved the page to it's own page. It was intended to be utilized on the operation page much the same as in Operation Dark Huntoreximo (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I believe the language for WP:BLPPRIMARY should be updated to correct for the nuance of including facts that were obtained from a transcript or panacea of court documents, and be restrictive of the types of information and types of documents that the information can be utilized. eximo (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
This absolutely should not be a standalone article (I get that per above, it wasn't intended to be), but it also probably shouldn't exist, period. If all you have to demonstrate this content is a bunch of court docs, it's a undue weight issue and what Wikipedia is not issue (we aren't supposed to be list of court records and trivia like sentence or court case numbers) beyond the BLP considerations. Jiwhit, your interpretation of BLPPRIMARY is way out of the norm. Likewise Operation Torpedo uses primary sources to such a degree I don't necessarily think it demonstrates it meets the general notability guideline at present; at the very least I've tagged it with {{primary}}. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree with DWF and WR. The point of secondary sources is to summarize and analyze primary sources, and the point of tertiary sources (like us) is to summarize the secondary sources. Broad collections of raw primary source data are almost never appropriate here, and we should be especially careful with BLPs. Even more so when it's living people who have been accused but not convicted of a crime. Triply so when it's so sensitive a crime. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I blanked and redirected the page to Operation Torpedo per the above. FYI, Jiwhit01, we don't allow subpages of mainspace articles, so please do further sandbox work in subpages of the talk page, or your own sandbox. That Tired Tarantula, you were right to get it out a mainspace subpage, but this was evidently not ready for mainspace, and I'd recommend in the future you do something like move to Talk:Operation Torpedo/sandbox instead, unless you're willing to take responsibilities for all the contents of a mainspace article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
@FirefangledfeathersThat makes sense. I can do the work in the Talk:Operation Torpedo/sandbox instead. eximo (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
@FirefangledfeathersI'm going to undo your blanking momentarily, to do a move procedure, so that the history of the page isn't lost. Then I'll reinstall the redirect. eximo (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
@Jiwhit01, regardless of where you put it, you should not restore the BLPPRIMARY vio material. As you're building content on Operation Torpedo, please rely on secondary sources. I'd recommend also reading WP:BLPCRIME and considering to what extent naming any unconvicted person is useful to readers' understanding of the topic. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
For the above reasons, I blanked the sandbox. It's better than mainspace, but it's a problem anywhere. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
And the sandbox was just deleted by The Wordsmith. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Also, the equivalent tables that you added to Operation Dark HunTor and Operation Torpedo should be replaced with prose that summarizes what secondary sources have written about the prosecutions. Schazjmd (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
@Firefangledfeathers@Schazjmd Please cite a secondary source which would be more accurate (or available) than a Judge's order as to the sentence length of a convicted person?
  • the Appeal number
  • The date of arrest
  • the conditions of supervised release
  • the amount of restitution
  • the agreed upon stipulation of facts between the government and the defendant(s)
  • the appeals court's decision on a question of law
  • the jury's decision on a question of fact.
eximo (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Jiwhit01, this sort of question indicates a misalignment between your goals and those of an encyclopedia. I explained my view on this above, and I urge you to re-read it and let me know if you are confused by an part of it. If you just disagree, that's fine, but I don't think your view will be common enough to stand as an acceptable interpretation of the current policy. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
This table isn't some sort of doxing attempt, it's a tool for an overall project to identify the important questions of law and controversies that occurred during the course of prosecuting the defendants associated with an operation. Some of these operations had every single person charged appeal the methods used, challenging violations of rights. The ability for a wikipedia user to go and inspect the docket of each case quickly and easily while reading the expansive questions of law that were settled by the appellate courts is necessary to reduce the complexity. As I said before, Operation Dark Huntor is a prototype that isn't even finished yet, but the section on the Legality is going to be monumental in helping the public understand the importance of this case historically. Something that should be in an encyclopedia.eximo (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm fine with the goal of identifying "the important questions of law and controversies that occurred during the course of prosecuting the defendants associated with an operation". We'll know what's important, because secondary sources will cover it. I blanked the table at Dark Huntor that had similar BLP vio, and the article could use further review. I would not recommend using it as a template. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
WP:BLPPRIMARY is pretty clear: Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. This isn't a suggestion. They can sometimes be used to supplement the secondary sources, but absolutely not like this. I've summarily deleted the content per WP:BLPDEL as it was highly contentious information with no secondary sources, and there was no policy-compliant version to restore. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
@The WordsmithThe WP:BLPPRIMARY is overly narrow to exclude any primary source from any court document. The floor is open for arguments to changing the overly narrowly tailored language restricting any court document from being used as a primary source.eximo (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
It might be overly narrow in your opinion, but it is the current policy. It also overrides most other policies and processes due to the importance of protecting living people. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
@The Wordsmith If it was a living person protection, it wouldn't be a primary source rule, which was already discussed in Archive 29 if you had read it. That is covered under different rules, which are not any more applicable here than citating the name of Roe in Roe v. Wade. eximo (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
@Firefangledfeathers@The Wordsmith Would it appease the community if the line included the person's initials instead of their name? The name isn't the important part of the historical record. eximo (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
No. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
If reliable secondary sources do not mention the names, sentencing etc then it should not be on Wikipedia at all. I'm also looking at Operation Dark HunTor and thinking that might need to be redacted too. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
They are still living people whether you refer to them by their initials or their full names, and BLPPRIMARY still applies. If you think BLPPRIMARY is too strict the solution would be to propose a change to it, but I would be very surprised if such a proposal gained much traction and would not recommend trying. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
@Caeciliusinhorto Yes, I am recommending a change to the overly narrow language of BLPPRIMARY. What I'm witnessing is a bureaucratic adherence to a rule, (which I'm not faulting the adherence to a rule), when there is a deficiency in the rule. However, in general the community at large is not savvy to the vast number of types of court records, of which certain records, or certain information on those records would be the most accurate source to be used as a primary source. In reading the discussion from archive 29 it was clear that the focus was on the reliability of the documents when discussing a living person. Thus certain pieces of information from certain court documents are going to be the most accurate. It's just a matter of including a list of appropriate materials that can be obtained from a court document. The world has changed since 2010, the value of courtlistener.com is immense and we should be utilizing it for a more just, verdant and peaceful world.
Also, as a matter of culture, wikipedia is all about recommending the change to a rule via WPBOLD if the rule doesn't add the value necessary to create the best most useful encyclopedia we can imagine. so I resent the suggestion against attempting to change a rule. eximo (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
In reading the discussion from archive 29 it was clear that the focus was on the reliability of the documents when discussing a living person. That's not at all how I read that discussion. Even if that was the general belief back in 2010, reliability concerns are certainly not the only reason I think today that we should not be loosening BLPPRIMARY, and that's not the impression I get from other people who have weighed in on this current discussion either. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I think that what you're reading as "bureaucratic adherence to the rule" is actually much more people finding the rule to be much within the spirit of Wikipedia, with the combining of a preference for relying on secondary sources (see WP:RSPRIMARY) and a greater concern when it comes to matter regarding iiving persons. If this material is necessary for properly covering the subject, then we would expect to find it in secondary sources. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I haven't read the archived discussion, because it doesn't really matter to the above discussion. BLPPRIMARY is intentionally narrow, because the implications of it are so damn broad. My God, the Pandora's Box we would open if we loosened it even a little. What eximo is asking for is permission to operate like a news reporter rather than an encyclopedic researcher, and that not only presents the enormous potential for lasting harm to our subjects and sidesteps our other core policies, but also opens us up to liability for the info we publish. By that, I mean liability not only for Wikipedia but also to any authors of such information. (Yes, you.) Foremost is the protection of our subjects, but the use of secondary sources also protects us from any defamation claims. Secondary sources are also how we determine notability of subjects and the significance, weight, and balance of information. We get the same arguments from people wanting to use birth certificates to prove birthdates or tax records to prove fraud. That's getting into OR territory and is a box we should never open, even a slight crack. The longer a rule is, the more it is open to loopholes and misinterpretation, so it's best to keep it short and sweet. Zaereth (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I've done a bunch of cleanup and redacting to Operation Dark HunTor and Operation Torpedo. I think that's all of them. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
BLPPRIMARY is unambiguous when it comes to court transcripts it even has the word "not" bolded to make sure there is no confusion about its meaning. To me anyone trying to wiggle out of that is either on the edge of WP:GASLIGHTING or well and truly there. TarnishedPathtalk 10:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Fani Willis#RFC: alleged misuse of funds

There's currently an RfC at Talk:Fani Willis#RFC: alleged misuse of funds about whether allegations from a former employee of Fani Willis should be covered in the article. Editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPathtalk 10:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Jeff Gordon

Under Daytona 500 wins, 1998 is listed as a year that NASCAR driver Jeff Gordon won this race for the 2nd time, when it was actually the late Dale Earnhardt Sr. Jeff Gordon’s 2nd 500 win came in 1999. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.32.77 (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I just searched the article for "1998", and found no claims that Gordon won the Daytona 500 this year. (I also checked to make sure that some recent correction had not been made.) Can you give us a full quote of the line where you think this is said, so that we can address it? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Gregory Andrews

The section on Australian Public Service is biased and defamatory. It is based entirely on claims by Chris Graham who has consistently stalked Gregory Andrews since 2006 and published false and misleading material about him. The bias also extends to the fact that factual content about Mr Andrews that does not support Chris Graham's claims is consistently removed from the article. Factual information about Mr Andrews that does not support Chris Graham's arguments is consistently removed. Here is a link to the factual information. https://www.lyrebirddreaming.com/lateline — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.18.2.130 (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  • Yeah none of the negative statements seem to be supported by any of the refs, so I removed the entire section for now. You can ask for the page to be protected here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. As to restoring any of the section... Well newmatilda.com is not a good source for a Wp:BLP, as it appears to definitely have an agenda, there's a whole section devoted to how Julian Assange is the cat's pajamas. Just because they something good about the person dpesn't mean we can use them. Another is a transcript of some sort of investigation... OK by me, but other's would say its a primary source which want to be conservative about using... it may be that the entire section should stay deleted, if there're not sufficient good refs to support it.
Chris Graham has worked for the ABC, but he doesn't seem super notable, and he does write opinion pieces which is a possible red flag (maybe). We don't have to report all the gossip about a person, we don't have to include "Chris Graham says...". with a rebuttal. But he seems to have standing, so, probably. This should be hashed out on the articles talk page. Herostratus (talk)

Jared Grasso

Nature of Concern: Repeated attempts to manipulate factual information on the Wikipedia page regarding Jared Grasso's professional and legal history.

Summary:

Jared Grasso, a notable figure in the context of college basketball, has been the subject of recent edits on their Wikipedia page that raise concerns regarding the integrity and accuracy of the information presented. The edits in question primarily pertain to Grasso's involvement in a hit-and-run incident, subsequent legal charges, and resignation from his coaching position at Bryant University.

Description:

Leave of Absence: On September 29, 2023, it was reported that Grasso was on leave of absence from his head coaching position at Bryant. Providence Journal reported Bryant's statement as such: “Men's basketball coach Jared Grasso is on a leave of absence from Bryant University. Associate head coach Phil Martelli, Jr. will serve as the acting coach effective immediately.” [1]

Hit-and-Run Incident: On October 1, 2023, after the leave of absence was confirmed, Grasso was involved in a hit-and-run incident in North Smithfield, Rhode Island. Reliable sources in Rhode Island, such as WPRI, WJAR, ABC6, Providence Journal, and more have extensively covered this event, as confirmed by a brief Google search.[2] [3] North Smithfield police released the footage from an officer's body camera through WJAR 10, in which Grasso is featured denying the incident, as well as making frantic and vague statements to the police officer. [4]

Legal Charges: Following the hit-and-run incident, legal proceedings ensued, resulting in Grasso facing charges related to the incident. Grasso was charged with one count of "failure to stop for an accident resulting in damage to a vehicle," which is a misdemeanor in Rhode Island. This information has been reported by reputable news outlets. Charges were eventually dropped on November 8, 2023. As confirmed by the town of North Smithfield: “The Town of North Smithfield did file a 48a [Dismissal under Criminal Rule] in the case against Jared Grasso. Mr. Grasso’s insurance carrier accepted all liability in this matter — therefore, the case was dismissed.” [5]

Resignation: As a consequence of the legal proceedings and public scrutiny surrounding the hit-and-run incident, Grasso chose to resign from his coaching position at Bryant. The resignation was widely reported by local media and confirmed by official statements from the school administration.

Concerns:

The edits made to Grasso's Wikipedia page appear to be attempts to obscure or downplay the severity of the hit-and-run incident, the ensuing legal ramifications, and the subsequent resignation. These edits are concerning as they potentially misrepresent factual information about a living individual, which violates Wikipedia's policies on neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons (BLP).

Furthermore, it is reasonable to consider that the individual making these edits may be Grasso himself, given the specificity of the edits and the vested interest in altering the narrative surrounding their own actions.

Recommended Action:

Reversion: Immediately revert the recent edits that distort or omit pertinent information regarding the hit-and-run incident, legal charges, and resignation.

Protection: Consider temporarily protecting the page from further edits to prevent ongoing manipulation until a consensus can be reached on the accurate portrayal of events.

Investigation: Conduct a thorough investigation into the editing history of the page and any potential conflicts of interest, particularly regarding the identity of the editor(s) responsible for the disputed edits.

Community Involvement: Engage relevant Wikipedia editors and administrators to discuss the appropriate content and sourcing for Grasso's page, ensuring compliance with Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines.

Conclusion:

It is imperative that the Wikipedia page for Jared Grasso accurately reflects the factual events surrounding the hit-and-run incident, legal proceedings, and resignation, in accordance with Wikipedia's standards for neutrality and verifiability. Addressing the concerns outlined in this report will uphold the integrity of the page and mitigate potential harm caused by misinformation or biased editing.

Reported By: bbjeter

Date: 25 Feb 2024

I see no reason to mention it at all, per WP:BLPCRIME. He's obviously not a public figure, evident just by the length of his article. Without a conviction, there should be no mention of it in the article. Zaereth (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
For once, not sure if I agree with you. While we should strongly limit what we do mention, the fact it appears to have had a significant effect on what makes Grasso notable i.e. his coaching career, and in fact even cane soon after he'd had some success, means IMO mention of something belongs. For the same reason, we generally do the same with other stuff e.g. sexual assault allegations or sexual harassment allegations even when there is no criminal charges or disciplinary action if they end in resignations. I mean heck, we do the same with Twitter or other social media kerfuffles that end in resignations. Notably, it's fairly common that resignations end disciplinary reviews. Note also that most of the time the person may not say they resigned because of whatever allegation, but when it comes soon after some allegation or charge or whatever, RS link it and it seems reasonable they do, so it's fair for us to mention this link, but being careful not to say it was because of X if that isn't supported. I'm assuming RS have done the same here, but did not look. (Roy Price is a recent example I can think of discussed here where although there person was suspended then resigned but without any criminal charges or reported disciplinary action in response to allegations. In that case it seemed to completely end their career in that line of work. While that person was an executive so somewhat more prominent, I'm not sure they were a public figure either, and it wasn't part of the discussion Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive355#Roy Price.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Currently, though the article implies that Grasso resigned due to the charges against him, there is no actual source for that and it's entirely plausible that instead he resigned for whatever led to him going on leave in the first place. If there are sources which support the connection to Grasso's career then I can see the case for including a mention, but we don't have that in the article currently. By contrast, in the Roy Price case the sources explicitly connect the allegations against him with his leaving Amazon Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Good discourse here so far. I think it's important to understand @Bbjeter's perspective - take a look at the edits made by 96.230.157.3. It's very much spam-like, and even makes allegations against their athletic director (entirely unsourced, BTW). It's reasonable to suggest the edits from 96.230.157.3 are from someone close to the source. The user rephrased other parts of the article to paint the subject in a more favorable light. I support @Nil Einne's comments on removing the language of "resigning because of X" without hard evidence. Festivalpepper93 (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

It seems the case is more complicated than I thought and I'm more willing to support leaving it out. I admit I didn't read the opening statement that well and also didn't look that well at the timing. I incorrectly assumed the leave of absence came after whatever lead to him being charged. (The charges might have been after but they were from something that predated the leave.) However the opening statement explicitly notes, and unless I'm confused this is supported by sources [22] that in fact he was already on the leave of absence before incident that lead to the charges. So there's no way that the leave was because of the charges, if anything it's possible the incident that lead to the charges might have been related to the leave.

That said, I'm still torn, the 4 most prominent looking sources I came across discussing the resignation [23] [24] [25] [26] all do discuss the charges as well as the leave. This is perhaps in part because of the timing as the resignation came so soon after the charges were dropped. (While I can't say what the sources were thinking when they decided to include those details, my guess would be that they felt it suggests there's a fair chance either the charges or resolving them or at least the behaviour that resulted in the charges made Grasso decide he had to make a change; or it became clear even without them it was untenable to the university for him to stay.)

Interesting despite our article saying it was FMLA leave, two of the sources on the resignation explicitly note that per another source, it was not for family or medical reasons. Ironically though, this source doesn't mention this when they discuss the resignation, I assume they did in an earlier report. But the fact they decided it didn't need to be mentioned in their report on the resignation is interesting, although they did say "The Bulldogs are believed to be investigating Grasso’s personal conduct during his time on campus, which began with his hiring ahead of the 2018-19 season".

So yeah, it does seem this case is a lot more complex than I initially thought and so I'm now not opposed to just removing the charges although I'm also not saying we need to either. These cases are always complicated since while it's understandable people might not want precisely what happened to be public, this doesn't stop sources from commenting on them. And since whatever happened had a significant on what makes them notable it's not something we can automatically exclude. But we also have to be mindful even when it comes to highly impactful events on someone's career, it's not our job to report on every media speculation or unconfirmed report and it's entirely reasonable we do not report on some stuff of unclear significance and so limited weight even where it leads readers less informed of possible reasons someone's career changed or ended the way it did.

One thing I'm particularly interested in is what this source says. I think includes stuff Grasso said a few days after he resigned [27]. I would be interested in what, if anything, the Providence Journal chose to report along with Grasso's statement. Notable it sounds like he may have made said it was FMLA leave. Did the Providence Journal call this into question? Also did Grasso mention the charges or what lead to them at all; and did the Providence Journal say anything about them in this report? Since if he did, IMO this would definitely put greater weight on including them if in an extended statement Grasso felt it was worth bringing it up.

At a minimum I'd mentioned the leave of absence. I think we should probably exclude any mention of the FMLA, since it sounds like this might be disputed, and I don't think it was ever confirmed by the university. (Which might be normal if it was something that Grasso didn't want to be public, but is a lot murkier if it seems he's fine with it.) The charges as said, I can still see either way but if we do mention them we need to make clear that the incident that lead to the charges was after the leave since I'm quite sure if not people will make the mistake I did and assume he did whatever lead to the charges and then went on leave (whether expecting charges or just because of the incident), and then was charged. We also need to word it in such a way that may not the timing, but makes it clear no one has linked the charges or the behaviour that lead to them, and the resignation.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Bryant basketball coach Jared Grasso is on leave from the program. No reason given".
  2. ^ "EXCLUSIVE: Jared Grasso Arrested by North Smithfield Police".
  3. ^ "Bryant University Basketball Coach Charged In Car Crash: Reports".
  4. ^ "Bodycam records police interview with Bryant coach".
  5. ^ "Prosecutors drop hit-and-run charge against Bryant University coach Jared Grasso".

I've written an essay on using the terms "philanthropy" and "philanthropist" in articles.

WP:PHILANTHROPIST. This has come up a few times now and I figured it would be useful to at least write down some general thoughts that people can point to. I'm interested in any sort of feedback people have. -- Aquillion (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

A philanthropic contribution indeed :) Selfstudier (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Good essay, there's definitely a lot of overuse of philanthropist to describe every billionaire who has donated 0.1% of their wealth. Galobtter (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
How charitable of you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I think you cover the major issues well, its a worthy addition to the canon of essays Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Sadly, I doubt I could persuade the community to accept such a policy, but if it were down to me, I'd entirely forbid the use of the term in regard to living individuals. In the rare cases where actual philanthropy - as opposed to getting $10,000-worth of free publicity in return for $1,000-worth of expenditure - is occurring, it should be self evident, and not need the label. AndyTheGrump (talk)
I think in <10% of cases it is genuinely due... The difference between Andrew Carnegie and some guy who donated a dog to their local police department (a surefire way to get press coverage BTW, if you want to try to speed run WP:N give drug dogs away) is as a grape to a vineyard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I've suggested before that these generally positively laden terms, including things like "savant" or "polymath" should be added to Words to Watch, since just like negatively loaded terms, these are generally subjective terms that should be used with care. — Masem (t) 20:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Firstly, Aquillion, a well-written and carefully considered essay. Secondly, I wish you'd apply the same measured consideration and write an essay about when to and when NOT to associate someone with antisemitism and Nazism in their BLP. [28] That seems to be a little bit more consequential than whether some wealthy individual gets labeled a philanthropist or not. XMcan (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
A good and needed essay. There are a few things that I think should be considered for addition. One is that "philanthropist" is not defined as requiring donation, only seeking to do good.... which is all well and good but gets confusing when applied to, say, paid charity executives, and better wording should be found. The other is that there are a couple of other places where "philanthropist" shows up in BLPs that should be touched on, if quickly. One is as a title disambiguator, such as Bob Hoskins (philanthropist) (which looks to be a page badly in need of work); the other is in categories such as Category:American philanthropists; I would expect both to require the same level of sourcing as needed for putting in the first sentence. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Eric LeMarque

Over the last few years, anonymous IP users have tried to manipulate the sourced information on the article of author and former hockey player Eric LeMarque, usually in regards to the subjects age and height, or to inflate his hockey career by making it seem he was a high draft pick in the NHL or adding to the goals he scored in the Olympics. This has been going on for years[29][30][31] but today someone took a hard stance and after a IP users attempt was reverted[32], a freshly created user named User:ELeMarque has reverted all attempts to correct the article. Alvaldi (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Joe Kent

re: talk:Joe Kent

"far-right political candidate" Joe Kent references themselves do not cite any sources . There have been 5 or 6 toggles of this line-- showing contention over it's use -- among authors in the past few months

leading with "far right" (including the banner showing nazi imagery) does not represent the referenced sources. the two references (below) lack any source references for the "far right" claim. It's not a neutral term and does not meet the bar for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

This violates the two rules of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons : NPOV & V

That guideline specifies to "Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced"

Neither of the articles referenced (below) cite sources for the "far right" claim. In both references, They are editorialized claims made by the contributor.

Review of the Two Citations

Motion: I move to restore revision 17:42, 25 February 2024‎

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons User:JohnAdams1800

Tonymetz (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Tonymetz: How exactly do you know that Watson and Grisales were making "editorialized claims" and not reporting news? City of Silver 02:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
i put my reasoning above under "review of the two citations". Tonymetz (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Just a note that reliable, secondary sources have no obligation to cite their own sources. They're perfectly able to use primary sources, analyze them, interpret them, synthesize them, etc.—all things that we, as editors, cannot. That's why they're reliable, secondary sources. Woodroar (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
not only the sources are lacking. It's lack of any evidence or rigor in the citations. the term is used without any qualification.
Is wikipedia just links to unqualified opinions? Tonymetz (talk) 05:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Again, reliable sources don't have to provide evidence. That's how news reporting has been since, well, the beginning of news reporting. NPR's listing at WP:RSP links to multiple discussions where it has been found to be "generally reliable". This specific source is a clip from All Things Considered, their news program. The text introduction uses the phrase "far-right" and the audio uses similar phrasing: "GOP's radical wing", "ties to white nationalist groups", and "extremist ties". The KGW source is a local news report, specifically says "far-right" in the second paragraph, and the articles goes on to detail why in exhaustive detail. I mean, this isn't rocket science. News reporters are perfectly capable of analyzing a candidate's statements (on election skepticism, on vaccine conspiracies, on prior support of Nick Fuentes, etc.) and saying "yes, this guy's far-right". Woodroar (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
you're quoting a allegations during a debate
in the second case editoralizing "conspiracy" and the rest. Tonymetz (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Far-right is the more specific, accurate descriptor. Everything Woodroar says is correct. I basically second those arguments; they said it better than I could have. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
These are in addition to the numerous citations already in the article:
From The Guardian: Gluesenkamp Perez’s win over Trump-backed far-right candidate Joe Kent
The Olympian: Democrat Marie Gluesenkamp Perez defeated far-right Republican Joe Kent Fred Zepelin
From University of Virginia Center for Politics, a non-partisan reliable source: Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D, WA-3) to narrowly win the seat over far-right candidate Joe Kent (R) Fred Zepelin (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
more flimsy cliches lacking detail. what are the facts? Tonymetz (talk) 06:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
The fact is multiple reliable sources seem to describe him far-right. So far non reliable sources of equal quality have been provided that use something else, so calling him far-right in wiki-voice seems like it's WP:DUE and in accordance with the preponderance of reliable secondary sources. No source has to satisfy any particular editor or reader. That said, reliable secondary sources are generally reliable in part because they have a correction process. If you believe the available evidence does not support their statements, you're free to take it up with them. If sources issue corrections because you're right and they have no evidence, then we'll definitely update our article. Nil Einne (talk) 11:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
WP:DUE for the lede? for a mention? for categorization? And the quality of the citation has bearing. The source is only one dimension. A good source and a poor contributor is a bad citation. A good source and a bad article is a bad citation. Tonymetz (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
WP:REFBOMB Tonymetz (talk) 06:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Anat Schwartz

WP:ECR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

All the information about her higher education and about her career as a multi award winning documentarist was erased from her article, while some dubious information from Biased and borderline-reliable sources was added, all under the edit summary "last good version". A request for an admin's advice was responded with a cold shoulder and some lectures about WP:ECR.

Therefore I'm sking for advice from more editors about this article (which by thd way was created with a misleading claim of "translation from Hebrew", which was completely false, as only 3 sentences were translated from the Hebrew article, and the rest was original work).

Plesae review article and edit history and let me know if this is fair play. My version, which is a true translation of the article and doesn't cite dubious sources, can be viewed here: [33]. Thanks, Ithamar. איתמראשפר (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The subject matter is Arbpia/CT, this editor is non EC and not permitted by WP:ARBECR to engage in internal project discussions or anything else other than to make edit requests in talkspace. Apart from that this is also forumshopping. This thread should be closed. Selfstudier (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
You can't use WP:ARBECR as an excuse to legitomize non-npov, canvassing, citing unreliable sources and misleading edit summaries. I'm an experienced wikipefgia efitor, and the fact that I chose to focus on thd Hebrew Wikipedia, where I have over 12k edits, shouldn't be counted against my professional claims about editors breaching the guidelines. Since this ordeal started I haven't received any response aboutg the subject matter - only technical claims about EC. The deleted information has nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict, it's all about the subject's education and professional career. All the best, Ithamar. איתמראשפר (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
File edit requests at the page, you are allowed to do that. Selfstudier (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I understand, but why should I make requests at the talk page about such basic stuff like npov, reliable sources and truthful edit summaries? Doesn't the English Wikipedia conform to the standard guidelines and principals? All the best, Ithamar. איתמראשפר (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
EC editors will find the article and if need be, edit it. Selfstudier (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes. Going by the history the article already has plenty of attention. Also although this thread shouldn't have been opened, I don't think it's going to be deleted or archived to an archive page early, so editors will likely come across it from here. However, non EC edits should stay away from this thread and article, and indeed if they continue to edit this thread and EC editors aren't it's likely to be closed. Nil Einne (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I made a mistake.

Hi. Here, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2026_United_States_Senate_elections&diff=next&oldid=1210860279&diffonly=1, I made a mistake. I reverted though. I thought I could self report myself. I just think I should own up to my mistake. Thanks. I was taught that in real life. Cwater1 (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The edit looked alright to me, but a slightly different wording has been added to the article now so the point is moot. For something like this, "self reporting" at BLPN isn't usually necessary. If you think you might have violated BLP, self-reverting with an edit summary saying that you made a mistake (exactly the steps you took) is generally fine. Everything you did looks like it was in good faith and I don't see any blatant BLP violations, so it doesn't look like there's anything more to do here. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I thought the article said Mitch McConnel wasn't running for reelection for the 2026 Kentucky elections. I realized it was about him step down as Senate GOP leader after the 2024 elections. No worries, I rather be safe than sorry. I am here to build an encyclopedia. Cwater1 (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
He's also not running for reelection in 2026, so you were right on both counts. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I applaud your candor and demonstration of character, User:Cwater1. I too try to use actual real-life standards when editing here, but apparently a lot of people don't. Herostratus (talk) 22:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
We are all human here if not most. Cwater1 (talk) 22:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Settlement

propose a meeting 2603:6011:2F0:3460:716C:699B:5803:7A17 (talk) 06:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Neo Paganism in the Republic of Ireland

I wish to insist that I have never been found guilty of four charges in an irish court, as alleged by an anonymous contributor against me and publsihed by you in your article. I was never the founder of any political party as also alleged where you allow this anonymous contributor to make remarks against my good name and character that I could constitute a threat to society/the State. 

And not only am I actively libelled by anonymous means by you but it is malicious to boot. Therefore you leave me no option. I already have two cases for similar libel in the High Court.

I suspect that your anonymous contributor libelling me is a˜old enemy of mine called Con Connor of Druidschool, who is abusing Wikipedia as well as me!

Signed,

Michael McGrath, Kilkenny city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.233.17.139 (talk) 07:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The article did not in fact say that you had been found guilty of four charges in any court, but there were plenty of other issues with the text discussing you so I have removed it anyway Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
IP blocked, I see. This seems to be about [34], removed by @Caeciliusinhorto. To the ES I would add "Needs WP:BLP-good sources." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Josh Cahill

Josh Cahill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We could use some assistance with this BLP.

Specifically with deciding to include an event orchestrated by a PR/advertorial company named AeroTime, and when it should be included, if it should be rather bland and factual like in this diff or more elaborate, including who handed out the award, which people were part of the crew etc, like in this diff.

I'm more partial to the first diff, because I think it's more in line with WP:BLPSTYLE. But there are a couple of editors who insist on reverting to the more elaborate 3 paragraph revision. Maybe I'm just wrong, that's fine, but we could really use some more eyes on this.

This is being discussed in the AeroTime reliability section.

Other than that, even beyond this specific matter, I think the entire article could use a clean-up of cruft and suggestions from people who have experience with BLP. ConcurrentState (talk) 05:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

You removed well sourced information and information citated from the well known websites like Business Insider, BBC, Daily Mail which all are RS on Wikipedia.
If anyone have question on Aero Time reliability then that information can be removed or may be a better citation tag can be placed. Tanhasahu (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Um I'll be blunt here, I don't know if anyone who thinks WP:DAILYMAIL is an RS should be going anywhere near BLPs. Even WP:BUSINESSINSIDER isn't a clear RS so at best should be used with caution on BLPs. The BBC at least is really a RS. But anything source only to the Daily Mail should be killed with fire unless an actual RS can be found. Nil Einne (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
It's worth pointing out, that User:Tanhasahu began editing the exact same article shortly after and is arguing the exact same points as User:SajidKhan1235 who the starter of this section was originally in dispute with. Another account there, User:Instant History, is editing the exact same areas as the other two, and edited a page with a promotional tag on it created by a suspected sockmaster. DarmaniLink (talk) 09:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I began editing with good faith and was not aware that there is a debate going on the talk page. But, after reviewing the talk page I have made comments to the talk page. The removed information was cited with BBC which is reliable source. I was not sure about the source AeroTime reliable or not so I placed a better citation needed tag as usual. And, already a SPI is going on so everything will get clear after the investigation. That will clear that I am not associated with any of the listed accounts and my edits were good faith. I am seeing so many Wikipedia pages were being hijacked by the haters. First they make IP edits and then they revert those IP edits with a fresh account to represent they're stopping vandalism on Wikipedia. But, behind the curtains they are making Wikipedia worse place for readers as the information not remain neutral. But, other experienced editors can't see such things and blames others who were trying to make good faith edits. That's rise a question of editing Wikipedia for the editors who are doing edits as hobby and want Wikipedia a better place of information for the world. Wikipedians must look into this matter to stop this kind of page hijacking on Wikipedia. @DarmaniLink, have you checked the edit history of @ConcurrentState? Isn't there anything fishy? Does he have the good faith while editing this page? Tanhasahu (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Where is the source that says it was an orchestrated PR event? SajidKhan1235 (talk) 07:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Incidentally, having looked at the article history and talk page, it seems to be an extreme mess with plenty of questionable almost definitely CoI editing. The stupidest thing is is that I actually think given the limited sourcing, some of the stuff the CoI editors are trying to achieve might be reasonable. Notably, I'm unconvinced there's anyway reason to include his birth name nor where he was born or what citizenship he has. If only the CoI editing was more reasonable and this had been restricted to one editor who actively declared their CoI and restricted themselves to talk page edits, and posting here if needed but never editing the article directly except for extreme cases; maybe we would have removed the birth name and any mention of where he was born. However that would also mean they couldn't do the promotional stuff, so maybe that's why it never happened. Nil Einne (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Following the current talk page discussion there is a lot of visible biased toward the subject. For example Concurrent State who is almost exclusively focused on Josh Cahill's page. He started two discussions about having all awards removed based on his research which isn't backed by any sources. The talk page also refers to a link at a forum where editors are mentioned and the subject is being called a fraud which questions neutrality of the editors, which was also admitted on the talk page. It seems that anything that slightly shows any positive of the youtuber is deliberately removed while the incident section is maintained with questionable sources and not in line with WP:NOTNEWS.
Another interesting observation is a recent edit on Aero Dili's page, when @Some1 removed the edits on there based on WP:NOTNEWS & WP:RECENTISM but at the same time he has been ok with them being added to Cahill's page. Lots of double standards are applied here.
The suggested changes are well sourced by a BBC article or DW but ConcurrentState insists that his version is the only truth without any sources suggesting it is promotional. SajidKhan1235 (talk) 10:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I have no bias towards the subject, whether negative or positive.
I do have a bias against spending three paragraphs on a relatively minor event from a career perspective to list every single person involved, down to who handed the award, who flew the plane and stopping short of listing the pets of all the people present. Especially when the main source is a publicity company that sells advertorials and other publicity services and commissioned the subject to document the event in their efforts to create publicity.
Documenting the presence of all those people might be suitable on their own BLP or that of the airline, but I don’t think it’s relevant for this BLP. That doesn’t make me biased against the subject, it’s me trying to stick to the WP:BLPSTYLE.
But maybe I’m wrong, and that’s why we’re here on the notice board.
As for neutrality of the editors at large, I can’t speak for others. But I will point out that there’s more affordance on talk pages, as long as the actual article maintains NPOV. And as far as I can tell, non of the perceived biases and what not have seeped into the article itself.
As for @Some1, again I can’t speak for them, but I don’t see an inconsistency here. What can be relevant for one article, might not be for another, even when talking about the same event. ConcurrentState (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
If you are so concerned with the WP:BLPSTYLE why haven't you turned your focus on the incident section which is full of unnecessary details but that doesn't seem to bother you at all. Your only concern seems to have his awards removed. When can we expect your actions on these matters since you seem so worried about the integrity of Wikipedia? SajidKhan1235 (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
This is basically from top to bottom how I feel about it.
It could’ve been like the CGPGrey situation and the request, imho anyways, wouldn’t have been unreasonable.
But like you said, having to show your cards would’ve been detrimental to promotional efforts. So that might’ve caused the hesitation on their end.
To me what’s especially egregious is reading along on the talk page and purposefully causing link rot of every link that’s discussed and leveraging the fact that they travel so much to use IP sock puppets in an effort to muddy the consensus process. ConcurrentState (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
For further clarity, I'm unconvinced we need a request although it sure would have made things less confusing. The sourcing for the name seems very limited compared to the sourcing for the public name, and we do have strong evidence even if not directly from RS tor the subject, that the subject has made attempts to conceal it. IMO that's enough per WP:BLPPRIVACY to exclude it. The issue is more that I think the BLP reasonableness of some of the things the questionable editors are trying to achieve has been lost because of the extremely poor way it's been approached, as often happens in WP:DOLT like situations. Nil Einne (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
As WP:BLPRIVACY states: Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. His birth name isn't widely published. Out of 500+ articles none is mentioning it. There is an article from 2009 which is the only claimed source and if @ConcurrentState was so worried about the integrity of Wikipedia he would certainly act on it, however his only concern is to have awards removed from the page instead of actually following guidelines. Also his editing history is very suspicious... and yet he hasn't provided a single source to back up his claim of recent edit of it being a promotional event and it is solely based on WP:NOR, which once against collides with his views on upholding the rules of Wikipedia. SajidKhan1235 (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Can we take it down a notch with the pings? I get it, I’m the big bad. I’d rather you talk behind my back at this rate.
I’m pretty much on the same page with @Nil Einne w/r/t the name, but let’s not resort to WP:GASLIGHTING here.
Before that whole name discussion was going on, the handful of Freie Presse articles cited on the article were all stating his legal name, and then suddenly, during the discussion, the name disappeared from one article and the other articles where taken offline. When then subsequently it was pointed out that a copy of those articles still existed in the Wayback Machine, those archives were then suddenly removed as well. All that’s left is an archive.today archive that happened to capture the name being changed in the FP article, showing the legal last name after the stage name.
Those were also the only articles that contributed to the notability question by the way, and while I seriously wonder(ed) if this isn’t a prime AfD candidate, I instead tried to bring it up to par with BLP guidelines.
So how about instead of complaining about me, you constructively contribute to the discussion on how to improve it or argue why every living soul that was present for that event needs to be mentioned?
You love pointing fingers, but if this article is so near and dear to your heart, it might be better to put some work into it by either constructively participating in the discussion on how to improve the article or by making your case. ConcurrentState (talk) 06:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Just a friendly reminder that you still haven't provided a source for your claims regarding the AeroTime issue while you overturn other editors who have provided reliable citations. When can we expect to deliver these? You have no interest in find a consensus but only to have your version to be published. It's a very clear case of WP:NOR.
Quote by @ConcurrentState: "I do have a bias against spending three paragraphs on a relatively minor event from a career perspective to list every single person involved" yet you have no issue with several paragraphs on the incident section with absolute minor events. BBC, DW and other big media outlets have reported on the flight so I don't think it's a minor incident. Again when can we expect you to act on the incident section?
This online forum here shows clear biased toward the subject discussing edits on his page. Why is the subject not allowed to protect his privacy against individuals like doc2austin who is heavily involved in editing the article according to Jpatokal? Do you think this is fair? Do you want your name to be published? I don't think so.
Why are you so eager to have his awards removed? SajidKhan1235 (talk) 07:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The onus isn't on him to prove it isn't a reliable source, it's on you to prove it is. DarmaniLink (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
@SajidKhan1235, I have already told the other editors that something fishy is cooking behind the curtains and now you provided the online forum discussion that's going against him. But, I don't think they will take any actions against it. congratulations, they already placed multiple issues tag to the article instead taking actions against biased edits.
@SajidKhan1235 They work in a syndicate to defame any person's page so don't hope for any good faith actions will be taken on this page. They all will point fingers to you that only you're the wrong instead of taking proper actions. Don't be surprised if the page gets deleted in the next few months.
@DarmaniLink A question for you. Why we can't place a "Citation Needed" tag to that information till the reliable source found instead removing that information? If we can't do this then I have seen thousands of the pages with such tag and information on Wikipedia we also need to go to all the pages and remove such information. Tanhasahu (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
You absolutely can, it wouldn't even be tagbombing at that point. The article is to be blunt, really poorly written. However, information that isn't cited may be removed at any time DarmaniLink (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Stating here for clerical reasons, An account matching the name of the PR company which published the source in contention was found as a sock of an oversight banned individual involved in this dispute.
Special:Diff/1210725103
There is clear evidence of coordinated disruptive editing around this topic. If this is ever revisted, please take this into consideration. DarmaniLink (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Contest this page to AfD, Josh Cahill doesn't seem notable enough. All the airline incidents seems publicity stunts nothing else. Tanhasahu (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

For anyone interested, the article in question has been taken to AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Cahill. Some1 (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Dallon Weekes

Dallon Weekes#Personal life There is little to any evidence that Dallon Weekes is a still a memeber of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints, his recent interviews, instagram posts, and music production are heavily in contrast with this assertion. The cited tweet is from over 5 years ago and would not be credible as a source determining his current membership. It would be significantly more appropriate to refer to him being raised in an LDS household. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonshine Yarrow (talk • contribs) 22:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It's questionable if a tweet should be used for that at all per WP:PROPORTION, but I edited that factoid per MOS:DATED. Also made some other edits, it's not a good article from the WP:BLP-perspective. If you have a WP:BLP-good source that says he was raised in an LDS household, you can add that to article, with citation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I found an interview from 2021 [35] where he still say's he's a Mormon. While he didn't specifically say he was a member of the Church of the LDS, considering the question it seems almost definite that is what he meant.

I don't know the quality of 519 Magazine and interviews aren't my favourite type of source still if someone is still saying that in 2021 when they were ~40 years old, saying they are a member of the church is way more accurate than saying they were raised in a LDS household. And of course things could have changed since 2021, but that's pretty much a problem for everything in our article.

(I've remarked before a common problem is when someone is married or whatever and then isn't happy when we still say they are married although they have since divorced.)

Using dated is a solution for stuff like married, their religon etc, but it's not something we can use for everything. For example, I could probably find fairly recent primary or non RS confirming Weekes is still the frontman of I Dont Know How But They Found Me; and depending on how well know either are, recentish reliable secondary sources confirming this. But at any time this could become untrue however I don't think we really want to use a dated format for something like that.

(Or at least it's complicated. I mean I think we can all agree it's unnecessary to use it for something like Joe Biden is the president of the United States since realistically within 30 minutes of that changing there will be probably several orders of magnitude more sources reporting that than have ever covered anything about Weekes.)

Nil Einne (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

BTW, AFAIK religion is something many sources just accept without requiring verification even when the religion has formal membership requirements. Likewise even if the religion has a way of removing membership, I don't think this is something always reported on especially for low profile individuals. However, even for fairly strict religions like the LDS, there are way more people who are still members and consider themselves as such despite disagreeing with one or more fundamental tenets of that religion; than there are people who have been removed. (While the LDS also has disfellowship, that doesn't actually end membership.) In other words, it's very common someone can be a member of some religion even if many of their public statements etc seem at odds with that religion's positions. So unless someone is explicitly saying they're not a member of a religion, it's often fairly useless to try and decide from other stuff they've said. Nil Einne (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Brad Pitt potentially committed self-evident ________

pitt dated lewis in the 90s when he was 27 and she was 17. do we have consensus to label this as self-evident ephebophilia or will we get flagged for libel. i had a discussion here about it for context (do not comment on that issue thread, comment here) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Schazjmd#hey_whyd_you_remove_my_pitt_edits? NotQualified (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

You source is? Bon courage (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
go to the brad pitt page and check history, youll see sources and what i wrote there NotQualified (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
None of those sources mention "ephebophilia". Schazjmd (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
it's self evident, 17 and 27. NotQualified (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Without a reliable secondary source explicitly discussing his relationship in those terms your proposal becomes WP:OR, which is not permitted. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
go to the brad pitt page and check history, youll see sources and what i wrote there
>his relationship in those terms
elaborate? are you suggesting their partnership was solely platonic or may have been? NotQualified (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
No, you need very good sources discuss that in those terms. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
but the action in itself is ephebophilic? all i have to source is he was 27 AND she was 17 AND they romantically dated. no other evidence is required to prove ephebophilia as thats what it is. can i call russells teapot and ask how that isnt ephebophilic? are you suggesting pitt and lewis were only platonic, i would argue thats outrageous and obviously false. what bar of evidence is actually required here because i feel like i could just source the dictionary and prove my point:
(ɪˌfiːbəˈfɪlɪə )
noun
the condition of being sexually attracted to adolescents
https://www.collinsdic?tionary.com/dictionary/english/ephebophilia
all conditions of this definition are met NotQualified (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
You have no evidence of any condition, a condition of attraction is life long. Nor can anyone here accept you as any kind of expert on this? NotQualified. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
so what? he dated a minor for a couple of years and then suddenly got over his attraction of minors? thats the argument? would that hold up in a court room, that doesnt even sound plausible. pitt to this day still says he loves her so id argue the lifelong condition is met https://meaww.com/brad-pitts-greatest-love-a-look-back-at-actors-relationship-with-kalifornia-co-star-juliette-lewis NotQualified (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
You just absolutely destroyed any credibility, if he still is attracted to her that means he is not attracted to a 17 year old. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
hold on, do you think ephebophile means EXCLUSIVELY attracted to 15-19 or INCLUSIVLEY attracted? you seem to think the former and i think the latter. do we have any means of contacting a specialist on this NotQualified (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
No, and it would not matter anyway, what matters is many qualified written sources that use precisely the words you imagine apply, See WP:BLP. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
> what matters is many qualified written sources that use precisely the words you imagine apply,
so i have to find an article that outright declares someone his age dating someone her age is ephebophilic? NotQualified (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
possibly but not just one, many, see WP:DUE, and they all have of high quality, likely medical, See, WP:BLP. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
thanks alan NotQualified (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
oops, I misread your question, the answer is NO, you need high quality sources that discuss this precise relationship of this person in those terms, again likely medical. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
All conditions of that definition are met by your average 15 year old, if you want to put it that way. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
thats true. i guess im one lol NotQualified (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
WP editors should never introduce language like "self-evident", as that implies OR is being used to make that claim. — Masem (t) 15:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
No- to add a medical condition to the article would require a medical diagnosis and high quality reliable sources discussing this diagnosis - otherwise this should not be in the article or discussed on the talkpage at all. Just let it go.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I would add that the diagnosis should be the result of an examination, not an armchair diagnosis. Goldwater rule O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
i was more just going off of the relationship being self-evident in the same way a baby and a adult is pedophilic even without a diagnosis NotQualified (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
thats like arguing a 20 year old man dating a 2 year old baby isnt pedophilic by nature. how is 17 and 27 not ephebophilic? NotQualified (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
No, a two year old is a crime. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
so is 17 and 27 in most regions??? NotQualified (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
No. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent apparently most regions set it to 16 however it is still illegal in some regions. age of consent laws seem to be very complex however and take both parties age into account, so that needs to be factored in as well NotQualified (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
No editor or administrator is going to let you anywhere near suggesting a crime, see WP:BLP. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
thanks for the heads up NotQualified (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Although even then, we'd still need a source to actually label it as such, or anything else. The point is it's not up to use argue something is "self-evident". Something may very well be self-evident to us as editors, like the criminal and disgusting nature of a 27 year old being with a 2 year old, but we should be relying on what sources say not what is self-evident. If something is really so self-evident then it should be trivial to find sources that talk about it, as would be the case for pretty much any such example. If there really are no sources commenting on something, then so be it, we have to wait. A famous example of this might be Gabriel Matzneff. Despite the abhorrent stuff he wrote about in his book/s, until sources actually commented on it (which I think might have happened in 1990 if not before but I'm not sure if was the moment his books were published), it was not something we could talk about. even if we had an article. Nil Einne (talk)
WP:V Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Only thing I see that appears self-evident is that user NotQualified is not qualified to edit BLPs. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

well i did come here to ask for general consensus, that is due diligence NotQualified (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Respectfully, I don't think you will ever get that consensus here regarding this. You are essentially asking editors to agree to label someone as a highly contentious label, with no reliable sources labeling them as such, for dating a teenager 30+ years ago.
Awshort (talk) 08:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
thats why i didnt add it NotQualified (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Sion Sono

Can someone take a look at Sion Sono (history)? A user has repeatedly removed content on the grounds that a settlement was reached following a defamation suit. Nardog (talk) 12:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

At a minimum, it seems to me that the anything sourced only to those articles which were deleted needs to be removed. Even if an archive could be found, in a case like this where there's good reason to think the deletion was because the author or publisher has for some reason decided they cannot stand by the content, we can no longer consider them RS. I'd say the same for anything from another RS but which originates from the deleted sources unless the publisher has given some indication they still stand by the content despite the removal of the original source. Anything which did not originate from the deleted content even if it arose in response to the deleted content would seem to be something we could keep. Nil Einne (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Navalny; Amnesty International

Editor has been seemingly targeting all information that they clearly don't want to be shown and I can see it's been occurring for years.[36][37] [38][39][40] They know the information is correct yet they use flimsy reasoning to remove it. Today I had earlier added in this edit; (that Navalny refused to renounce his past controversial nationalistic videos (that's the focus) despite being asked to in numerous interviews. And that instead he repeatedly stated he holds no regrets in making those videos.[41][42] This is vital context to the topic and wasn't present before, but was quickly removed by them completely.[43] They are claiming they are just making it clearer in the edit description. But actually they are just really omitting all the info I added in completely. I got no interest in an edit war over something that should not be removed for mere political reasons. And looking at the guys long term past conduct since 2021 in seemingly doing the same back and forth edit warring with Mhorg. [44][45] and using bad arguments against multiple others in a recent thread that I made.[46] I really don't think it's possible to reason with them and why I request assistance to address them, or to add in my edit as I think such info obviously cannot be removed and it's disruptive to keep censoring that. 49.180.164.128 (talk) 05:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

If I may add another such example of attempts to "alter" cited statements in favor of Navalny: The article incorrectly stated that Navalny was expelled from the Yabloko party for opposing its leaders, however, this was neither supported by the source that was in the article nor by the official statement of the party itself, I fixed that, so that the article reflects what the source actually says [47]. Then the forementioned user went in and added back the incorrect information (albeit not removing my quote of the source - they only "watered down" the quote I added, but they didn't add the context that kicking out Navalny from the party was a step that the party had considered even before he opposed the party leader, which is clearly stated in the source article): [48]. The reason for their edit is also WP:OR, as there is no source supporting their claim that "The actual reason was Yavlinsky collaborating with Kremlin". I literally included a quote of the primary source (the party's press release) that states the reason for expelling Navalny, plus, reliable sources such as Reuters, but this user still just changes that edit with the unsourced claim of "Yavlinsky collaborating with Kremlin"...? Obviously, their edit was reverted again: [49]. On the talk page they also argued to remove all mentions of Navalny's nationalist views and questionable statements from the article, because "this page is already too big" [50] [51] [52] [53] [54]. Nakonana (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
I am not sure what you guys are talking about. This content is prominently included on pages about Navalny and Amnesty, and no one objected to include it. How much should be included is a legitimate question, and it was discussed on article talk pages. I would say less, but whatever consensus on this might be. My very best wishes (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Crimes of family members

I just removed a bunch of crimes of apparently non notable family members from Bilal Skaf [55]. While these were sourced, I don't see that they belong in the article, I mean we don't generally even include names. While some of these seem related to the subject's imprisonment and may have limited their ability to stay in contact while in prison, this doesn't seem sufficient to justify including them to me. (One seemed more or less completely unrelated and so I see no justification for including it in that specific article.) I left in one single one, of a brother's who's crime seems to be part of a related or possibly even joint offence. Appreciate any thoughts on this, especially whether to keep the brother. Nil Einne (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

We also have Sydney gang rapes which covers the brother, so added reason why it might be fine to include in the article. Note that for clarity, the info is in a section called family, it's not in a section about the subject's crime or his court case etc. Nil Einne (talk) 10:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Unless the crimes of the non-notable family members are directly related to some aspect of the notable BLP (for example, perhaps the BLP was charged for murder, while a non-notable brother charged for accessory to that), there's no need to bring those up. Again, BLP urges us to omit rather than include if there's any question on such matters. Masem (t) 13:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
If that's the case I'm unsure why Lauren Boebert's non-notable son is mentioned in her article. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure it should be, so I have removed it Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Anat Schwartz

I am concerned about the use of sources such as MondoWeiss[56] and CounterPunch[57] in this BLP. I am not completely convinced it meets our notability threshold. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Your concerns about sourcing and notability are well-taken and I have nominated it for deletion. Coretheapple (talk) 15:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Grover Furr

May I please ask if this source supports the addition of revisionist for Grover Furr. Specifically, the sentence in the article is:

"Grover Carr Furr III (born April 3, 1944) is an American professor of Medieval English literature at Montclair State University who is best known for his revisionist views regarding the Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin".

The source is Haynes, John Earl; Klehr, Harvey (2003). In Denial: Historians, Communism and Espionage. San Francisco: Encounter Books. pp. 26–27. ISBN 9781893554726. May I provide the quote from the text:

While historians led the way, politically committed academics from other fields eagerly jumped onto the revisionist band-wagon. In the course of reviewing a book by two fellow leftist scholars, Barbara Foley, an English professor at Rutgers Univer-sity, objected to their critical stance toward “Stalinism,” writing that “the term ‘Stalinism’ perhaps needs deconstruction more than any other term in the contemporary political lexicon.” She went on to endorse Arch Getty’s revisionist account of the Soviet Union and labeled Robert Conquest an “offender against what I consider responsible scholarship.” In her own book, after some perfunctory acknowledgement that there was a dark side to Stal-inism, Foley enthusiastically praised its “tremendous achieve-ments . . . the involvement of millions of workers in socialist construction, the emancipation of women from feudalistic prac-tices, the struggle against racism and anti-Semitism, the foster-ing of previously suppressed minority cultures . . . the creation of a revolutionary proletarian culture, in both the USSR and other countries.” Grover Furr, an English professor at Montclair State University, lauded the creation of Communist regimes in an essay-review entitled “Using History to Fight Anti-Commu-nism: Anti-Stalinism Hurts Workers, Builds Fascism.” In Furr’s view, “billions of workers all over the world are exploited, mur-dered, tortured, oppressed by capitalism.

Thank you.Stix1776 (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

OK. This quotation defines Barbara Foley and Furr as "revisionists", "leftists" and apparently neo-Stalinists. Authors of the book describe views by Foley and Furr as something ridiculous. My very best wishes (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I would leave the whole "best known" clause out, as so: "...at Montclair State University. Furr has written books, papers, and articles about Soviet history..." And then discuss Haynes/Klehr's criticism in the body, keeping in mind that they're not disinterested observer academics but considered themselves opponents. From Harvey Klehr:

"The disagreements between the two camps were only partly generational, because some traditionalists, like myself and my long-time co-author John Haynes, were roughly the same age as our revisionist counterparts. To some degree, the combatants were divided by current political loyalties, with most revisionists locating themselves at least on the left wing of the Democratic Party, if not as members of various socialist groupings. But traditionalists themselves ranged from such self-identified socialists as Irving Howe to conservative Republicans."

Schazjmd (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
So, according to this quotation, there were serious disagreements between two "camps" which were "only partly generational". The disagreements are huge: author even calls these sides "combatants". Importantly, author notes that the views of "traditionalists" (mainstream historians) did not depend on the politics ("traditionalists themselves ranged from such self-identified socialists as Irving Howe to conservative Republicans"). This is because they relied on historical facts and science, as opposed to personal political agendas. My very best wishes (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Can I ask you if you think that "revisionist" should stay in the lead as with or without attribution? Thanks.Stix1776 (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Sorry. What I meant to say is that I don't understand if "best known" or "who is best known for his revisionist views regarding the Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin". Maybe I'm tired, but I don't 100% understand your meaning.Stix1776 (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Revisionist is sourced, but I don't really recommend it and would prefer to avoid it in the lead if we can. Revisionist has multiple meanings, within the study of history generally meaning challenging the established consensus, or specifically the "revisionist schools" of thought for example in Soviet studies. It also has political connotations in Marxist thinking. On one hand, we want to trust the reader to follow Wikilinks if they don't understand something, on the other we still want to avoid predictable misunderstandings of non-specialist readers. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
"Revisionist" must stay in the biography. The only way that Furr is notable at all is his revisionist writings. If he did not make a furor with his revisionist claims, he would not have a Wikipedia biography. We are being kind to call him revisionist, as his views are also denialist. Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. But in fact he is a text book example of a denialist. My very best wishes (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Editors seem intent to ignore the opinion expressed in this noticeboard. This discussion seems dead. Am I allowed to bring this to the Dispute Resolution Board?Stix1776 (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Subject requests deletion, raises credible points

Deleted - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Parkin
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

A subject of a BLP has requested deletion and immediate removal of exact birthdate and middle names from his article. His comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Parkin raise some really important points regarding privacy, "automatic notability" and reliance on primary/niche sources for BLPs. I would think it worth experienced editors checking out the AfD. AusLondonder (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Dispute over birth year at Playboi Carti article

There have been conflicting dates of birth given by the subject in interviews over the years, with some pointing to a 1995 date of birth (using age as of date) and others pointing to a 1996 date of birth. Going by WP:DOB, if there is a conflict with age between multiple reliable sources, we cannot use one or the other and must point out the issue. Looking back over the old sources as I am writing this post, I do realize that no source specifically points to a September 13, 1995 birthday, just the year being disputed. (The sources that specifically points to a September 13, 1995 birthday are a bodycam video that was obtained a while back with the article subject stating their DOB as such. But since it is a primary source, it cannot be used).

I attempted to address this by providing references on the talk page, as well as in an edit note left here, but the article was reverted back to its original form by the same user who has did the majority of reverts over the birth date, according to the edit history.

The page is under page protection due to multiple editors trying to add one date or the other, so I was trying to point out the discrepancy with source and provide a note to meet in the middle. I would appreciate additional eyes, if possible.

Awshort (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Stephen Douglas Gore

This is an article about a "convicted fraudster" who doesn't appear to have been convicted of fraud. He pleaded to "illegal control of an enterprise". Google wasn't much help, but that doesn't seem to equate to fraud. Outside of the incidents that resulted in charges, I'm not sure this person is notable. Additionally, the article claims that Stephen Douglas Gore "was convicted of fraud after forging documents of consent". I believe I have checked all of the sources and not found that allegation, although I may have missed it.

This was in mainspace until I moved it back to draft. It was already marked as having close paraphrasing that needed fixing and included typos like "differed jail time" and "BRC was forced to pay $58 million after a civil jury awarded some of the families of the deceased". This should probably never have been moved out of draft space. Perhaps an article could be written about the Biological Resources Company events instead of one person. And maybe leaving out the refrigerator full of penises. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

can anyone see this draft? NotQualified (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, and it is indexed by Google. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
good to know, i guess you felt the need to audit my stuff. stephen definitely deserves an article and i support a separate BRC one as well. if more experienced WP editors will help with that id be grateful NotQualified (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
i found this blog post but i cant cite it due to WP guidelines as it's a BLP right? https://www.bryanfagan.com/blog/2024/february/the-dark-saga-of-the-biological-resource-center-scandal/ NotQualified (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
i guess you felt the need to audit my stuff I did not follow you here. This page is on my watchlist and I answered a question. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
sorry, thought you were user counterfeitpurses NotQualified (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Objective3000 and NotQualified: I'm pretty sure drafts will not normally be indexed by Google or most major search engines, since they always have the WP:NOINDEX parameter. While anyone including Google is free to ignore this, I don't think the generally do for Wikipedia, and especially not for drafts. I had a quick look and cannot find any drafts on en.wikipedia indexed by Google.

In this case, the original Stephen Douglas Gore article does still appear on Google, but there's no sign of the draft and I doubt there ever will. Unfortunately we have no way to control when Google will stop indexing the old article, but they're generally not too bad on wikipedia so I expect it'll probably be gone within a few days or a few weeks at most. (I'm not sure how Google handles redirects, possibly if the cross-namespace redirect had not been deleted the draft in the form of the redirect would have still appeared.)

The same applies to BLP article talk pages provided they have the appropriate template (although this means archives can be a problem) and also user space and user talk pages (although these can be overridden in some cases). Likewise articles newer than 90 dsays will not normally be indexed straight away until the are patrolled. (I'm fairly sure the last still works, since we sometimes get complaints from someone that the article isn't being indexed.)

The article was published on mainspace over 7 months ago [58] so wasn't new at the time it was moved back to draft space, so this didn't apply anymore. Also if I'm reading the logs correctly, it was marked as reviewed 5 months ago too.

Several noticeboards including this one, deletion discussions and some others are handled a bit different since they rely on the robots.txt although the result is sort of similar except that Google might display they exist just with no substantive content. That said, sites are known to randomly mirror wikipedia content. Any content mirrored elsewhere might be on Google via this mirror.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. I checked before making that edit and it was indexed and linked to the draft. It now points to a page linking to the draft. I looked at robots.txt and saw nothing about drafts. But the draft itself is noindex, nofollow. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
do you know where i can ask for help writing the article? NotQualified (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
the documents of consent thing came from reuters i believe. it should be easy to find online? NotQualified (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
while grim, the penises are a part of the story and i see no reason to make euphemisms about it. we have articles about serial killers here for comparison. stephens actions ended with a 58 million dollar penalty as he was heading BRC and his tale is extremely disturbing. i think we should keep the stephen article and add a separate BRC article. this just needs more attention from Wikipedians NotQualified (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
@NotQualified It's an encyclopedia article and it won't include every detail of the story, just the important ones. So it might say something about body parts in general, but it probably wouldn't include a fridge full of penises. You could start your blog about fridges and/or penises if that's important to you. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
feel free to edit yourself NotQualified (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
can i show a defunct company's logo on wikipedia, we cant get sued as the company no longer exists so it's public domain right? https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/assets/usa-bodies-business/brc.jpg?v=033920261217 NotQualified (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Copyright can survive the death of a company. But I don't think their logo crosses the threshold of originality required for copyright protection, O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
can you add it to the article please NotQualified (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I would rather that the article is about the company rather than the BLP subject. I really don't think NotQualified should be editing anything about living people honestly given their previous Brad Pitt comments. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
i did due diligence by coming here to gather consensus and didn't re-add it. thats deeply unfair. NotQualified (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
i went to the initial re-editor, asked what i did wrong, then asked around for community opinions and help. i am trying my best here, i am not trying to break the rules and i am sorry for doing so but i wasnt trying to and i'm not trying to do things wrong. i am learning. i tried my best to make an article for wikipedia and it wasnt good enough so it got moved to draft space and i think thats enough consequence NotQualified (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh has moved this mess back into article space. I give up. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

someone just rwmoved it as an 'attack article'? i do not know why or how they got that impression NotQualified (talk) 08:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that was me. The article was entirely negative in tone, poorly sourced, and contained unsubstantiated claims that he was convicted of fraud ("illegal control of an enterprise" is different from fraud", called him a Fraudster in the lede sentence, contained unsourced claims that he forged documents, and went out of its way to portray the incident in the most gruesome and salacious way possible while generally going beyond what the sources said. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
well i mean, it's hard to make this article positive or even neutral sounding in tone, his actions arent easy to sugarcoat. i tried being impartial regardless but it's just by nature a grim read. the fraud tag was added i believe by someone else initially. he did forge documents however, that's in the reuters doc. he used those to sell cadavers + sell diseased bodies to universities. about the gruesome wording, thats the wording found in the sources. maybe the sources i provided were sensationalising but honestly? i dont think they were. this was a man that literally strewn one humans head to another's body, had a bucket of penises, etc.. theres honestly no way to make this sound good without lying through omision. it's not appropriate to downplay acts of depravity, they are what they are and thats a sad truth. it's not attack article, it never calls for violence and, the inaccuracies can be edited. if you want to add a trigger warning and correct the mistakes that'd be appreciated. NotQualified (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
It's very possible to make any article about any subject sound neutral. It's not about positive or negative but about keeping an objective and dispassionate tone. (Yes, all writing has a tone, and because the reader can't hear the actual tone of your voice they have a very heightened response to written tones.) For example, (at the risk of invoking Godwin's law) see the article on Adolph Hitler. Despite all the horrible things he did, the article is very neutral and objective, and very well written. By comparison, check out the article on Mother Teresa. Neutral does not mean balancing the positive with the negative so we have equal portions of each. That would be creating a false balance, and nobody would expect that in either of these two examples. One is naturally going to be more positive than the other. Keeping neutral means means being objective and dispassionate in your writing, and specifically writing in the third-person objective.
WP:Balance, on the other hand, means we apportion information in an article, good or bad, in the same proportions found in reliable sources. In other words, we take all the sources that exist about a subject (not just the ones in the article, but all of them), weigh them as if on a scale, and weigh all that against any particular piece of information to determine how much space in the article it deserves. Does it warrant an entire section? A single paragraph? A single sentence? Or maybe it doesn't deserve any space at all. This part is more basic math in figuring out percentages, and largely depends on the size of the article.
Now, I haven't read the draft, because I've been out of town for a while, but just by reading your statement above I can see that you are not being at all neutral or objective in your description of it, and that's a major problem. You're very unobjective and passionate in your tone.
I'm not trying to pick on you or hurt your feelings here. Writing is hard work and not easy to do, and to be a writer you have to accept criticism because that's how we learn. I spent many years of schooling and reading books on the subject, and practicing and listening to criticism, to get to where I am today. No one can expect to pick it up overnight. Some people never pick it up.
At the same time, BLP policy is far too important to let things like that slide even for a moment, and BLP policy applies to draft space, talk pages, and noticeboards like this one just as much as to article space, so I think Wordsmith was right to delete the article outright, per WP:Blow it up and start over. Biographies are not a place to practice those skills. You'd do much better to pick some other types of articles to learn on that don't involve living people. Preferably something you don't have such strong feelings about, because that will help you learn to be objective and dispassionate in your delivery; to learn about the proper use of sources and how to avoid synthesis; how to weigh and balance sources correctly; etc. It takes time, patience, and work. I sincerely hope that helps, and good luck to you. Zaereth (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
when i get the time i'll respond in more depth. thanks for the reply, if yiuve the chance can yiu read it NotQualified (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Sure, provided I'm around at that time. I spend very little time online, but if I can offer up anymore advice I will. First you might want to work on spelling and grammar, because that vastly affects how people read and understand your writing, and how much confidence they will have in you. Starting off with bios is like trying out for the NFL without ever playing in college or the little leagues. Bios are the big leagues, so it's not a great place to begin. Zaereth (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

1977 anti-Tamil pogrom

Editor Oz346 has stated serious allegations against author C. A. Chandraprema in the article 1977 anti-Tamil pogrom. These have been mentioned in here and here, could these be a possible WP:BLPCRIME violation. Cossde (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

There are credible reports that Chandraprema has been involved in war crimes: https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/proposed-sri-lankan-envoy-to-geneva-c-a-chandraprema-was-a-member-of-prra-death-squad/
He cannot be used as a RS in Sri Lankan ethnic conflict related pages as you are attempting to do without further verification. Oz346 (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
The article you cited states "Chandraprema was arrested in Sri Lanka in 2000 in connection with the 1989 assasinations of two human rights lawyers – Charita Lankapura and Kanchana Abhayapala. A senior ex policeman in custody had named Chandraprema as the alleged assassin in an affidavit which is publicly available online. However Chandraprema was released after the Attorney General decided there was no legal grounds to proceed." Furthermore, Chandraprema appointment to the UN had been accepted by the UN [59]. This falls under WP:BLPCRIME and a violation of WP:Biographies of living persons. Cossde (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
There are more credible sources which indicate the same:
https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/02/03/sri-lankas-un-efforts-stave-justice-war-crimes Oz346 (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
If this person was a government official, as suggested here, then he's automatically a public figure, so BLPCRIME wouldn't apply. Even so, we can't go around saying affirmatively that he is criminal unless he was convicted, even in edit summaries or talk pages. This is why RSs are always careful to use words like "alleged" when talking about such things, and we need to be just as careful too. That said, I have no idea what this dispute is about because the person you speak of is not mentioned anywhere in the article except the references. If the dispute is whether or not he can be considered a reliable source, you may want to try WP:RSN instead. Zaereth (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Andrei Cherny

Andrei Cherny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We turn to you for help. We posted this request on the Talk page three weeks ago with no response. Andrei Cherny is in an active campaign for Congress and editor BBQboffin continues to insert and delete information and delete edits that are attempts to bring this article in line with the BLP policy.

1) The first paragraph states "The company is under investigation for allegedly inflating the impact of its carbon offsets." Nowhere in the sources is there any such allegation stated. Nor has there been any such allegation made.

2) Furthermore, this sentence does not belong in the opening paragraph of Cherny's bio because it violates the Balance section of the BLP policy. Cherny has served as a White House aide, Navy Officer, Arizona's Assistant Attorney General, author of two books, wrote Barack Obama's 2008 campaign policy plan Change We Can Believe In, drafted the 2000 Democratic Party Platform, etc. None of those are in the opening paragraph. Defer to you on whether they should be. But why an investigation of a company he left two years ago in the opening paragraph? Whenever this change is made, editor BBQBoffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) puts it back.

3) Cherny did not leave when the SPAC deal fell through. The merger was called off in August 2023 and he left in October 2022 https://news.spacconference.com/2023/08/23/interprivate-iii-financial-partners-calls-off-aspiration-deal/. Articles at the time said it was "amid a delay" https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-13/aspiration-ceo-cherny-stepping-down-as-spac-merger-faces-a-delay but there has never been any statement tying his departure to anything involving the SPAC deal other than that he left at the same time as the delay

4) It is categorically false that Aspiration promised "to help them offset their greenhouse gas emissions by planting trees." There is no source for that statement.

5) The history shows that edits were made to the article by Cliffh123 at 00:35, 13 February 2024 that more correctly explained the company's carbon credit business and provided an example of a deal with Meta/Facebook. This shows the company did not just "aim" to sell carbon credits. Those edits were taken down by editor, BBQboffin.

6) The information added on the investigation of Aspiration does not include the fact that this is "part of a larger effort to scrutinize the industry" https://kjzz.org/content/1868800/report-financial-regulators-probe-arizona-congressional-candidates-former-company. This omission makes it misleading — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHERNYFACTS (talk • contribs) 10:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

CHERNYFACTS, I recommend that you use formal Edit request templates at Talk: Andrei Cherny to draw attention from uninvolved editors. If you are a campaign staffer, then please comply with the Paid contributions disclosure. Cullen328 (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Cullen328 I took a look at the Andrei Cherny article and I'm somewhat sympathetic to this CHERNYFACTS editor's complaints. They haven't edited the article themselves, sticking to the talk page, and while their laundry list above is a lot, there is one thing that jumps out at me: there's a relatively large amount of information about the company Aspiration, Inc., which was all added by one editor, and it strikes me as a bit of a WP:COATRACK situation. The company is being investigated, and the sourcing has been used in a very pointy manner to paint Cherny in a fairly negative-POV way. I'm not sure that amount of coverage, and the manner in which it is presented, is necessarily WP:DUE on a BLP, but I would like to get some other editors' opinions on it. I'm uninvolved in either side of this debate, but obviously, CHERNYFACTS has disclosed they have a COI. On the other hand, the editor who added the passages in question does seem to have a strong opinion as well. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
On the other other hand, Fred Zepelin had a content dispute with BBQboffin at Blake Masters, wherein the former accused the latter of being a "white supremacist apologist". Fred Zepelin then followed BBQboffin to Andrei Cherny, first editing the page on February 25, right in the middle of the dispute at the Blake Masters page. Now Fred Zepelin is arguing the case of a disclosed paid campaign staffer. That's...not the move. I agree with Cullen's request to use edit request to draw in uninvolved editors. Marquardtika (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I noticed that you omitted the result of the Blake Masters discussion, in which other uninvolved editors agreed that BBQboffin was pushing POV. Of course, that has zero to do with this discussion, so please try to stay on-topic. I'm asking for the opinion of others on the WP:COATRACK issue, and that's all I'm doing. I'll thank you to WP:AGF and apologize for casting aspersions upon my intent in this discussion. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
That I "was pushing POV" was not the result of the Blake Masters discussion.[60]. The only thing the editors involved agreed on, Fred, was that your personal attacks against me should stop.[61].
For the Cherny page I added some content based on the laundry list CHERNYFACTS had posted on the article talk page[62] such as his publications and detail from the "company minimum wage" Fortune editorial he authored, but it was tough sledding as Fred reverted that last one here[63] and templated me[64].
I had also had a talk page discussion with @Cliffh123 (whose edit history I see now is exclusively about Cherny) about the article improvements, while he complained about the “election attack” of a “rival campaign” and had a similar laundry list.[65] I thought it was appropriately NPOV for me to revert his repeated attempts to delete an RS, but also to include Cherny's quoted response to the probe.[66]
Regarding COATRACK, I see Cherney’s notability deriving dually from his CEO business career (10 lines), and his political career (16 lines). As the business material is well-sourced (Bloomberg, Fortune, WSJ, etc.) and some of the political is currently sourced by a school newspaper and a campaign ad, I think we should expand the business part and better source the political part. BBQboffingrill me 23:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal UNRWA article controversy

RESOLVED
The disputed content has been removed. Beccaynr (talk) 02:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Similar content has been removed from other articles, including based on BLP policy objections:

Similar content was also added to Wall Street Journal UNRWA article controversy, and removed based on BLP policy objections e.g. [67] and [68]. After the Merge proposal discussion noted above began, similar content was restored and has since been expanded. There is a discussion with a request to remove the disputed content per WP:BLPUNDEL at Talk:Wall_Street_Journal_UNRWA_article_controversy#WP:BLPUNDEL.

The question for this noticeboard is should the disputed content be removed per WP:BLPUNDEL and consensus be obtained before the disputed content is restored in any article. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

As an update, the disputed content has been removed. Beccaynr (talk) 02:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Odetari birth date, single dates, and years active dispute

There has been some edit warring between me and another user, Bigeditingideas, over a few things over at the article for Odetari, namely his birth date, the year he began making music, and the release dates of some of his singles.

The source for the birth date (January 1, 2000) is a tweet from an account named hooliganchristi wishing Odetari a happy birthday on January 1, 2023, to which he replied, "Luv u bro happy new year". This appears to be the only source for the birth date, and even as a self-published source, it seems weak. Nowhere in the exchange does he confirm that it is his birthday, and with this being the only source for it, it seems smarter to err on the side of caution.

The source for him having started in 2016 and not 2018 is a SoundCloud account with the name "Odetari BEATS", which started posting songs in 2016. Thus far, that account has not been mentioned by any reliable sources, so it falls under original research. The Billboard article currently being used as a source for this provides the earliest year for when he began making music, other than its stating that he started producing trap beats ten years prior to its writing.

Lastly, Bigeditingideas has changed the release dates of some singles in the body text, specifically for Odetari's songs "I <3 Latinas" and "Good Loyal Thots", repeatedly removing "I <3 Latinas" from the body text as his debut single and replacing it with "Good Loyal Thots". This one is slightly tricky, since Apple Music does list "Good Loyal Thots" as his first single from March 2023 and "I <3 Latinas" later, whereas the aforementioned Billboard article states that "I <3 Latinas" came out in March and was his first song, while "Good Loyal Thots" was released in April. It seems wise to stick to what the RS in this case is saying as opposed to a DSP, though. benǝʇᴉɯ 10:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The WP:DOB is easy, clearly not good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Heiner Rindermann

I'm concerned that material on Heiner Rindermann linking his academic research to racist and white supremacist beliefs is poorly sourced and possibly inaccurate, in violation of WP:BLP. Given the contentious nature of the material, I would like it to be deleted pending discussion on the talk page, but am reluctant to re-revert until I am more familiar with the source material. Extra eyes on the article would be appreciated. Nangaf (talk) 07:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, many of the sources specifically refer to Rindermann, e.g. [69] [70] which is completely acceptable to include in a BLP. It looks like some of the sources that don't mention Rindermann were added to explain the fringe nature of Mankind Quarterly, so I am indifferent on removing those. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, your response was constructive. To be clear, I am not questioning the fact that Rindermann has contributed to Mankind Quarterly, Intelligence, or the UCL conference. I am also not questioning the fact that intelligence research has historical links to eugenics. What I think is unjustified is taking the context of eugenic research from the 19th century up until the 1960s, applying that context anachronistically to current research questions in psychology, and then labelling researchers who conduct such research as motivated by racism. I think it is at least *plausible* that this is what the media allegations against the ISIR conference attendees do. Wikipedia bios should, I believe, take pains to avoid endorsing such potentially damaging accusations. There is a Wikipedia article on MQ already, and I am perfectly happy for discussions of whether or not contributors to the journal are racist to take place on that page. I just don't think it's appropriate for a biography because it gives the appearance of a smear by association.
On the other hand, if you could show me a reference that showed Rindermann had directly endorsed racist or eugenic points of view, then such commentary might be justified and provide appropriate context.
Given the potential reputational damage to Rindermann of accusations of racism, I think the removal of the text and addition of quality tags to the article to be a necessary and urgent measure, and I would appreciate if no further reversions would be made until this discussion can be resolved with some degree of consensus. I accept that my original edit may have removed too much, but when I saw that it had been reverted wholesale, I was sufficiently troubled to bring my concerns to this noticeboard.
I found the German language Wikipedia article to contain more information on Rindermann's life and career, and suggest that we perhaps look there to see if some of that material should be included. Some of his public statements do seem genuinely controversial. But I don't think being on the editorial board of contributing to MQ and Intelligence, in and of itself, is evidence of eugenic, racist, neo-Nazi, or pseudoscientific beliefs.
On the contrary, I believe that saying so would be potentially defamatory, and not just to Rindermann. Nangaf (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I see that this discussion was initiated by canvassing from a topic-banned LTA. See e.g. this for context. I have no doubt that Nangaf was unfamiliar with this context, but now you know. I'll be happy to provide more details if anyone wants them. There is no need to waste additional community time on this. Generalrelative (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
It's true that I was unaware of this context, but I am not some shallow dupe, and I believe that the article can be improved. Nangaf (talk) 06:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Well his article does not say that he promotes eugenics or racism, it says he serves on the board of a journal which does. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Intelligence is a mainstream academic journal, so that statement is simply false. The claim that MQ promotes eugenics and racism is not an uncontested fact, so I would challenge the way that this is presented as a consensus view. In fact, I would claim that it is at least *plausible* that to accuse Rindermann of contributing to a racist journal is precisely the kind of anachronism that I mentioned previously. (Amazingly enough, academic journals can change their editorial policies over the course of 75 years.) Again, you don't have to admit that accusation is wrong: you just have to admit that it isn't an established fact.
For context, the current text of the article reads:

Rindermann serves on the editorial board of the journal Intelligence, and has been a contributor to Mankind Quarterly, which is commonly described as a white supremacist journal and purveyor of scientific racism. He has also helped to organize conferences for the International Society for Intelligence Research. Rindermann attended the 2018 London Conference on Intelligence, and was one of 15 attendees to collaborate on a letter defending the conference following media reports of its ties to white supremacy, neo-Nazism, and racist pseudoscience. The letter was published in Intelligence in 2018.

To my mind, that reads like a whole lot of innuendo -- "commonly described as" are weasel words, suggesting a consensus that may or not exist -- and endorses the media claims of racism. No sources are provided to show that Rindermann explicitly endorses racist views, so we should not be calling him a racist. And if we think he keeps racist company, we should identify those people by name so that readers can make up their own minds about them. (James Thompson seems like a candidate.) Nangaf (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I was talking about Mankind Quarterly, not Intelligence. He has contributed to MQ (not on the board). The article does not label Intelligence a racist journal, it labels MQ. I don't see the big issue here. Nobody is "calling him a racist", it says he has contributed to a racist journal. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for dealing with one issue at a time. I'm glad we agree that Intelligence is not racist! MQ may or may not have contained racist content at one time, I don't know much about it because anthropology is not my field. If it's anything like the psychological literature, then eugenic content was probably last published in the 1960s, and questions of whether or not the journal "is racist" relate to editorial decisions made by people long since dead. I guess the question I want to raise is whether MQ is "commonly described" as racist, or not, has any place in this biography. I suppose it might, if he made frequent, or particularly notable contributions: do we have evidence to support that? Nangaf (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
It's not really up to us to evaluate this. Wikipedia just reflects what the WP:RS/reliable sources say. Sometimes individual editors think the truth of the matter is more nuanced than what the sources say, but that is kind of irrelevant at the end of the day. In the past I was guilty of trying to remove critique from the odd BLP figure, but I learned a few lessons over time, especially after I faced a temporary block for edit warring. Ultimately, if it's reported in an RS it can usually be included on Wikipedia. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
That's not true. We can evaluate whether comments are WP:DUE as well as whether they are well-attested. This is particularly important for WP:BLP -- there are limits on what we can write about living people. And in this case, it is impossible to justify. Rindermann has published exactly one article in MQ, as a middle author. This is not an especially salient fact in his biography. And the additional commentary on MQ, with multiple sources, just makes the article more imbalanced. It really looks like the only reason MQ is mentioned at all is to get in some mention of racism. It looks like a smear, and it's dishonest, because it creates the false impression that Rindermann's one paper in MQ is representative of his academic output. Nangaf (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I do understand that there is a counter-argument, that I am saying he "only f*cked one goat" with apologies to Paul Macartney i.e. that any publication in MQ is per se such an important fact that it colours his entire career. I reject that view. It is an unimportant publication. Nangaf (talk) 06:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I think Nangaf is correct. Of the six sources that the article gives for connecting Rindermann to Mankind Quarterly, the first includes only one sentence saying that Rindermann published in that journal. The second source mentions Rindermann and separately mentions Mankind Quarterly, in different parts of the paper, but does not discuss any relation between them. The other four sources do not mention Rindermann at all. The only one of the six sources that mentions Rindermann having published a paper there is the first source, and that source includes none of the additional details about it being a "white supremacist" journal. There is no individual source that relates Rindermann to white supremacism or neo-Nazism. Combining separate sources to create such a derogatory association about a living person is a case of original synthesis and a likely violation of BLP policy. Mr Butterbur (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, that was my suspicion. Based on this, I am going to try to edit the article to remove the presumed synthesis pending further discussion. If it is immediately reverted, as I suspect it will be, then I will escalate the case to dispute resolution. Nangaf (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Once again, GeneralRelative reverted my edits without discussion so I have escalated the case to WP:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Heiner_Rindermann. Nangaf (talk) 05:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm staying out of the merits of the case, but it has already been removed from DRN and ANI, and I've made it clear at those venues that this is the proper venue to discuss the merits and to determine if the sources are making the claims that are in the included text. I would ask others jump in and determine this, as this is a real BLP issue, and the claims being made are very strong; strong enough that verification here is required. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

It looks to me like the sources have been checked and confirmed a number of times, as discussed on the article talk page. I would direct you in particular to Elmidae's comment, in addition to those by Zenomonoz. My assessment is essentially the same as theirs. Obviously not everything that's verifiable belongs in article space, but verifiability doesn't seem to be at issue here. Generalrelative (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Well, now it is at BLPN, which is objective enough and I trust for oversight of the edits, since they are making a very strong claim. If the sources are 100% on point, then surely a few objective editor here will agree. Currently, two editors disagree with you, so it would seem to be reasonable to ask others to take a look and opine, and that is what I am asking of others now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
The claims above for retaining this defamatory material which people agree is speculative appear to reduce to "as long as there's a reference for someone claiming this it should stay". That's not how living person articles are handled. I agree these claims being made are very strong and likely actionable in countries like the UK. As nothing supports the target of the article supporting any of these views, they should be removed. The link to a similar case above and the result (removal of derogatory and speculative claims) also influenced me.
Tim bates (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
That's not really the issue, Tim. The first question is: Do the sources support the claim? Next is: If they do, then is this WP:undue or does it add perspective missing without it. Being actionable in another country isn't really a consideration, and it isn't defamatory if it is verifiably factual. We aren't here to make people look bad, nor to whitewash their articles, nor to concern ourselves with the laws of all 195 countries on the planet. We often publish ugly facts, but only under the steps I've given. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Kind of a mixed bag here i think, with the WP content pretty close to the sources but awkwardly worded.
  • There are good sources describing Mankind Quarterly, so much so that WP:ASSERT is probably more appropriate than "commonly described as". Should maybe update the citations to the best sources for this such as Saini and maybe put into an extended footnote instead of the ugly OVERCITE.
  • There are news sources calling attention to his contributions to Mankind Quarterly, so should be fine. I'd think it would be better for the reader to say what he has published there, and i think with some pretty shady looking coauthors, but that might be considered OR.
  • On the journal Intelligence, the run on sentence kind of implies we are equating the reputation of the two publications and criticizing Rindermann for being on the editorial board. I think the sources are doing the opposite, they are criticizing Intelligence for having Rindermann on the board.
  • There is much news coverage of the UCL conference. The best source here is probably The Times. Most sources attribute the characterization as "secretive group of white supremacists with neo-Nazi links" to Ben van der Merwe's reporting in London Student. New Statesman published his follow-up article.
  • I can't actually find a source calling attention to the Intelligence letter defending the conference. The Times has: David Becker and Heiner Rindermann, from the Chemnitz University of Technology in Germany, presented a paper on why some nations are “brighter than others”. Maybe better to follow that and just say he attended and and what he spoke on rather than leading from the letter.
  • helped to organize conferences for ISIR is pretty weak sourcing in my opinion, and the construction doesn't really make it clear to the reader why it matters.
  • Jackson & Winston could be better utilized.
  • Surprised i'm not finding more reviews of Cognitive Capitalism, just Winston again so far.
I don't agree that the WP content is really making any "very strong claims". What i take from the passage is that he has published in a journal with a horrid reputation. This is well supported and should be called out in the content. He attended and signed on to a letter defending a conference, the conference was harshly criticized which was widely reported. To the extent the wording might imply more to the incautious reader the wording should be improved. But i think what the WP content actually says is well within the bounds set by the sources. fiveby(zero) 12:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't agree with everything you write here, but "commonly described as" are weasel words, and should be eliminated whichever way the consensus here falls. Either assert as fact that MQ is a racist journal that publishes pseudoscience -- and justify why that is WP:DUE and appropriate in the BLP of someone who has published in that journal precisely once -- or don't mention it at all.
If there is consensus that Rindermann's single publication in MQ is worthy of mention, perhaps the bio needs a separate section for Controversies. It does not seem appropriate to mention this minor publication in a career summary unless we are asserting as fact that Rindermann is a career eugenicist and a racist, and that this one publication is typical or emblematic of that.
I also agree that the article should not conflate MQ with Intelligence. Being on the editorial board of Intelligence can be considered an academic achievement, a career milestone for a psychologist in this field.
I believe that the UCL conference, or rather conferences, were organized by James Thompson who has co-authored some publications with Rindermann. (I am not 100% sure which of the conferences Rindermann attended, but possibly all of them.) Thompson doesn't have his own Wikipedia page and is presumably not a notable academic in his own right. Rindermann's co-authors on the letter to Intelligence include people like Richard Lynn and Gerhard Meisenberg who have without doubt come under scrutiny regarding the Race and Intelligence controversy.
The fact that Rindermann has chosen to publish with people like this offers grounds for similar scrutiny, in my opinion, but I do think we should be scrupulous about selecting sources that specifically link Rindermann to the controversy. (Emphasis added to pick out separate suggestions.) Nangaf (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
One article in MQ? Sorry if you brought that up earlier in the discussion and i missed it. I took Two other board members are Heiner Rindermann and Jan te Nijenhuis, frequent contributors to Mankind Quarterly and the London Conference on Intelligence. from New Statesman and checked and found Pallesen has co-authored several papers with Woodley, Kirkegaard and others who have published in Mankind Quarterly or who appeared at LCI, including Heiner Rindermann and Noah Carl. from The Guardian, then was distracted by looking at coauthors in other publications. Shows i am not being a very careful reader here. fiveby(zero) 14:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Removed the MQ content and tried to clarify what the conference citations are being used to support. Think the article needs to make better use of Winston and looking through de:Heiner Rindermann and another look for more reviews when i get a chance. fiveby(zero) 17:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I am certainly in agreement with those edits.
I do think we have to consider the New Statesman and the Guardian with a slightly critical eye because are both left-of-centre publications, and the Guardian in particular frequently editorializes in its science coverage. I would not expect them to publish outright falsehoods, but I would expect them to be hostile to the LCI attendees and it is possible that these sources might be cherry-picking facts about Rindermann that cast him in a bad light. The Times Higher Education is an excellent source for anything related to UK universities, but the Bothwell piece doesn't mention Rindermann.
The description of the LCI seems to adopt the polemical vocabulary of the media reports. A more neutral description, that sticks to the factual basis of the reports, might be something like "at which papers on race and intelligence and eugenics were presented".
A few other thoughts:
  • Jackson and Winston seems to me to be a useful reference.[71] It refers to Rindermann as an "hereditarian", meaning in this context that he publishes on group differences in IQ, and considers the group differences to be at least partly genetic in origin. This directly links Rindermann to the race and intelligence controversy, and justifies the Race and intelligence controversy category on the article.
  • This article cites Rindermann (2013) as an example of "(problematic) race-related research". This seems like evidence that his work is not necessarily accepted as authoritative by some of his peers in the research community.
  • Rindermann seems like the sort of person likely to have received money from the Pioneer Fund, but quick search didn't turn anything up.
  • I agree that the German language article is quite illuminating. Unfortunately it seems to be based entirely on primary sources. I suspect German language secondary sources do exist, but I haven't been able to find any yet. Nangaf (talk) 08:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Rose Dugdale

Rose Dugdale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is a quote from an author saying "Rose Dugdale did not kill anyone directly, but she was indirectly responsible for the deaths of a lot of people" compliant with WP:BLP? She has been convicted of several things, but this goes significantly beyond those convictions. Kathleen's bike (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Hugh Stephenson (journalist)

There are some factual errors in the entry for me which might be corrected thus:

1. He worked for The Times from 1968 to 1981 and was editor of the New Statesman from 1982 to 1986. 2. [Early life] Stephenson was born in Shimla, India, the son of Sir Hugh Stephenson, who worked for the Indian Civil Service until Indian independence in 1947 and subsequently joined the Foreign Office. 

   Hugh Stephenson was educated at Winchester College, where he became joint head boy.  [Winchester has two head boys, one a scholar and one not.]

3. [Career] Stephenson joined the Foreign Office in 1964 and left it to work for The Times in 1968, where he became editor of its business section from 1972 to 1981.

HUGH STEPHRNSON — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.2.179 (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Emily Willis

An article about porn performer Emily Willis was deleted in December 2022 after a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Willis. It was recreated about a year later, apparently translated from Russian Wikipedia. On February 5th, TMZ reported that Willis had been "hospitalized after an apparent OD". Editors kept adding the TMZ report to the article, possibly unaware of what WP:TMZ states: "When TMZ is the only source for a piece of information, consider also whether the information constitutes due or undue weight, especially when the subject is a living person". The article ended up being fully protected.

BD2412 was able to add the TMZ report because they are an admin. When I challenged the addition on their talk page they opened a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. That discussion may be drawing to a close as a new source has been found that is not just referencing the TMZ report. What that discussion has not addressed is whether or not this belongs in the biography of a living person.

Assuming that reliable sources exist, should the reported overdose be included in Willis' article? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The above account is not accurate. As the edit history plainly shows, when I added the reported content, I used two sources, one of which was Complex, which has no such admonition. At no time did I use TMZ as "the only source for a piece of information".
With respect to the content itself, it has now been reported that the article subject has remained in a coma for over a month following her initial admission to the hospital. This is no fleeting event. BD2412 T 04:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Sources seem to be giving more coverage to that than any other aspects of her life or career, so I don't see any reason to exclude it. I also haven't seen you make any argument as to why it should be excluded. The WordsmithTalk to me 04:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Willis had very little coverage in reliable sources to begin with. At this point, I am aware of exactly one reliable source (Toronto Sun) and one porn industry source (AVN) mentionng the overdose. The other sources are just reporting that TMZ said Willis overdosed. (But that's all been said in the reliable sources discussion). Given that, it's an issue of weight. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 05:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
That's more and better sourcing than what's available for pretty much any other aspect of the BLP subject's coverage. If sources are giving more space to this incident, there's your due weight. We weigh things based on the available coverage in sources. The WordsmithTalk to me 05:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
The big question should be whether Emily Willis should even have an article if she's minimally covered in RS, suggesting that she does not pass WP:BIO. Her having an article only invites people slapping any news items reported by shit sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Incidentally, BD2414 has just informed me that they are "Suspicious of your motives with respect to the suppression of information in this article". I have no personal or professional connection to Emily Willis. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Utterly irrelevant to this discussion. BD2412 T 04:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

should the reported overdose be included in Willis' article? I suggest starting an RfC on the article's talk page. Some1 (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Some1: I would note that I had previously initiated a still-ongoing discussion on this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Emily Willis overdose sources, since the objection originally appeared to be over the sources rather than the content. BD2412 T 04:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Coverage stemmed from TMZ, which is a marginally reliable source. It grew into being reported (albeit churning) both by tabloids as well reliable sources, such as Complex. It eventually became independently reported by AVN (a g reliable porn-industry source) and Toronto Sun (which is a tabloid, but is designated a reliable source by quite a few editors for news reporting and is also operated directly alongside a few newspaper of records in Canada's provinces). It seems like BD2412 is being antagonized here, honestly, by an editor who (in my opinion) a slight lack of competence based on their talk page / past edits, even saying Please consider resigning your admin rights. to BD at the RSN. The sourcing is now quite strong, the strongest I'd expect for a pornography actor to receive for such an event. So, this is a question of WP:DUE, I think the overdose and hospitalization is worthy of inclusion. It is clearly not a minority view, it is a fact and one that is widely reported. TLAtlak 05:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we should speculate on the overdose: one TMZ source says she overdosed, the more recent one says that the preliminary toxicology report came back negative and basically concludes that it's unclear what the cause is. As far as I can tell the only other outlets to have run the overdose story explicitly attribute it to TMZ. I've made a suggestion in the RSN thread of a couple of sentences which I think we can include, but I really think it's better to just avoid the overdose angle at all at this point. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree with your suggestion. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

TMZ is tabloid trash, Toronto Sun is also tabloid trash compared to the much more legitimate Toronto Star, and those other listed sites like indy100 are clickbait sites. Any overdose speculation is WP:BLPGOSSIP. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims about a living person should only be sourced to multiple HQRS. No combination of the sources mentioned above meets that distinction, especially when considering the provenance of the info (sources only citing TMZ for that info are not independent from TMZ in that regard). TMZ and Toronto Sun should not be used in BLPs in general IMO. JoelleJay (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I think the sources currently in the article discussing her recent hospitalization like Complex are fine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Vivibear

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

This article does not have a neutral tone and uses very poor sources. I know not if it rises to the level of marking for deletion under negublp, as I am completely new.

This article is mostly written as if it is talking about the accusations of plagiarism and not accusing her of plagiarism itself, but there are several instances where it is clear the author is anti-Vivibear.

Most notably, the "Plagiarism Controversy" section includes plenty of details about specific accusations with the cited sources being forum or blog posts. Even when this article cites a news publication, the cited article also appears to be reporting on the forum and blog posts, taking them as true.

There appears to be no suitable previous version to revert to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabeJWJ (talk • contribs)

I made a few edits to fix the most obvious issues, but I don't read Chinese and don't have the expertise to really go over this article – I agree though that a lot of the sourcing looks highly dubious and the tone strikes me as trying to prove Vivibear's misbehaviour rather than neutrally document what the sources say Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Arthur Demarest

There are some libelous things in Arthur Demarest's wiki page and strange unsourced and irrelevant hearsay--claiming he's "king of the jungle" and "coercing artists" as well as discussing settled lawsuits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:25DC:20:3D49:AA37:D02E:8F38 (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Just some vandalism that was overlooked. It's been removed. Schazjmd (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Keane Duncan

An anonymous user has repeatedly been seeking to edit the subject's personal life section variously unsourced, or with a series of twitter posts that link the subject to an organisation open to all who support its aims. The sources do not seem to unambiguously support the anonymous editor's wording either in respect of his sexuality or his supposed openness about it. I have suggested the use of alternative wording to accurately reflect the sources, and/or to discuss the matter on a talk page but the anonymous editor has instead responded aggressively.

I have no idea about the subject's personal life - the anonymous editor may - but I'm not seeing reliable and unambiguous sources to support the anonymous editor's chosen text about a living person. Ed1964 (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ed1964, WP:TWITTER cannot be used to source a claim about a person other than the one tweeting. I've informed the IP editor about that policy. If the IP restores the content, it should be reverted as a BLP vio and the editor warned about edit-warring. If they continue, report to WP:AIV. Schazjmd (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Lord Darzi - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ara_Darzi,_Baron_Darzi_of_Denham

The current summary of Lord Darzi's resignation from the Labour party is biased and potentially denies proven antisemitism. Labour's own Deputy Chair of the Labour party Tom Watson took a similar view, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission found Labour to have been responsible for "unlawful" acts of harassment and discrimination during Jeremy Corbyn's four-and a-half years as party leader. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62226042 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.219.131.128 (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

What point are you making regarding BLP policies? AusLondonder (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Yeah this isn’t the right venue for IP’s comment (and the way it was worded was initially confusing) but consider it  Done; it’s a trivial adjustment. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Academic criticism removed

Greetings, @RadioactiveBoulevardier removed [72] academic criticism of John Mearsheimer, including references to two journal articles, on the grounds of BLP violations - Talk:John Mearsheimer#Insertion of disputed material . Is this removal correct? Thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn’t characterize the criticism as "academic". As can be seen, instead of engaging with the subject’s work on substantive grounds, it entailed a personal attack (completely ignoring his analytical framework, as I noted in my TP efn) and was inserted in such a way as to violate the core of BLP guidelines. The original version I removed also contained an inappropriate wikivoice statement.
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Knowing nothing about the situation except what I'm seeing in the diff, that text does look like a BLP problem. Even attributed, we shouldn't be applying contentious labels to a living person without overwhelming agreement among sources that the label is accurate. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Liberal Party of Canada

An IP editor added a post yesterday calling for the violent death of Justin Trudeau, leader of the Liberal Party: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal_Party_of_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=1212949445 . I appreciate that @331dot: reverted the edit, but I think that the diff should be hidden, which I've seen done with other egregious edits about a living person? (I also think the IP editor should be blocked, but I don't know how that works.) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The IP should be reported to WP:AIV or WP:ANI. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  02:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I blocked the IP and revision-deleted that nonsense. The IP posted some other complaints but they are standard junk and best ignored. Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I saw the other stuff, but it's just political commentary, so I agree it should stay. Appreciate the quick action. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Shooting of Chris Kaba

Can we have more eyes on Talk:Shooting of Chris Kaba#Naming of police officer please. It relates to the application of WP:BLPCRIME and the the naming of a non-convicted and non-public figure who has been accused of murder. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

There is also a separate problem of unsourced allegations of criminality. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Sweet Baby Inc.

Could someone please hide this? Trade (talk) 08:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  • Done and watchlisted. - Bilby (talk) 09:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
    Here's another potential one from earlier (added here). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 10:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
    Please hide and warn the IP--Trade (talk) 10:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
    Also done. I didn't realise we had an article on Sweet Baby Inc - I was expecting an issues to show up on Gamergate. I should have checked, but I'll do what I can to keep an eye on things. - Bilby (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
    That's on me, I'm afraid (though I suppose it would have been written eventually). Thanks for keeping an eye on things. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 10:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
    I have no problem with the article being written. Just didn't realise that it had been. I was aware of the issues as I keep half an eye on the remnants of GG, but should have thought to check. Anyway, no hassles. If this get's too bad we may end up having to protect the talk page for a bit, but I see that as a last resort. - Bilby (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
    You didn't deleted the revision tho Trade (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Mehdi Ashraphijuo

Mehdi Ashraphijuo does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines based on available evidence. The article claims the subject is a mathematician, financial risk manager, academic, and writer, citing their personal website hosted at Columbia University. However, reliance on a personal website alone may not establish notability, as many universities, including Colombia University (see https://www.cuit.columbia.edu/web-publishing), allow students to create such pages without content moderation.

Furthermore, the article mentions that Mehdi Ashraphijuo holds the position of executive director (Vice President) at Goldman Sachs. While this is accurate based on their LinkedIn page, the role of VP is not typically considered notable within the banking and financial industry, as it constitutes a significant portion of the workforce at Goldman Sachs and other similar institutions.

Additionally, a review of the subject's Google Scholar page reveals approximately 120 citations, with only 5 citations in the past three years. This suggests limited academic impact or recognition.

Considering these factors, I suggest reevaluation of the subject's notability and potential removal of the Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WormOfWiki (talk • contribs) 00:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree, as there are absolutely zero secondary sources used in the article. Unfortunately, that is a bit outside this board's purview. I would recommend taking this to our notability noticeboard, which, while we used to have one with that name, today those discussion are held at WP:Articles for deletion. You can nominate it there and see where the ball lands. Zaereth (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Alvin Malnik

The article on this subject seems to fail the Wikipedia notability in that there is isn't significant coverage of the individual; there are many in the citations that *seem* to gesture to this but are completely random. The person seems to just be a real estate developer and restaurateur. I request a review of the notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biggyshorty (talk • contribs) 13:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll give the same advice as the section directly above. Notability is not something that falls under the jurisdiction of BLP policy in most cases. The place where cases like this are usually handled is WP:AFD. Nominate it for deletion and editors there will review the notability and delete if necessary, keep if not, and often improve if possible. Zaereth (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Tali Golergant

I am Tali Golergant's friend, writing to you on behalf of her mother. I request that you will delete the information "Limpertsberg" from her bio because of security reasons. There is no need to know the neighborhood she lives in. And for GDPR reasons: https://gdpr-info.eu/ I would also request that this information will be deleted from the page's history.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by שרון אהרימנוס (talk • contribs) 18:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@שרון אהרימנוס I removed it from the article text per your request. On the other thing, see Wikipedia:Oversight. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
thank you and thank you again. 2001:7E8:C2CC:8E00:8F0:BB0F:8F98:F695 (talk) 06:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Restored the info because that was not what the article said, which is that she used to live in Limpertsberg but now resides in New York. New York is a huge city, not a neighborhood. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Jack Antonoff

My name is Chloe Pace and I work for Jack Antonoff. I'd like to raise a couple BLP concerns for impartial editors to consider:

  1. The "Personal life" section says: "As of December 2019, he resides in the Brooklyn Heights apartment he shared with Dunham, containing his home music studio." While this technically does not state his address explicitly per WP:BLPPRIVACY, it's enough to make it easy for readers to ascertain his address and doesn't bring much value to readers. My request would be to just say he lives in New York, or something similar.
  2. The current page has a paragraph dedicated to a quote about being "desparate" for children: "In June 2014, Antonoff said he was "desperate" for kids, explaining: "It just seems like the most fun thing in the world. I've never met people who have kids who haven't looked me in the eye and been like, "It's the greatest thing that's ever happened."... I think it's biological. I'm 30. I'm not that young, right? I'm not, like, 24 or 22. I'm no longer in the phase of my life where I talk about everything as in the future. Like, I'm in the future.[6]"
MOS:QUOTE says "too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be copyright infringement, and so most of the content should be in the editor's own words." It seems odd for Wikipedia to dedicate such a big portion of the page to such a personal quote from 10 years ago.

Thank you for your time considering my requests. BaseballLover334 (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@BaseballLover334 Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I think your points are reasonable, especially 1., and I edited the article:[73] 2. is a bit eye-of-the-beholder, and the source is WP-good, but I think you're right per WP:PROPORTION, so I removed it. We'll see what happens.
I have to say, I think your message was very well made, and afaict you didn't use AI to write it either (or perhaps just very good AI). From my POV, you're worth your salary. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

SELFPUB and family members

Posted this at WT:BLP and didn't get an answer so trying here: I have a question on point 2 of BLPSELFPUB as it relates to family. If all the other points of SELFPUB are met, is it appropriate to use a self-published source by an article subject to provide the names and birthdates of their non-notable minor children? Or are they considered third parties? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

No, non-notable people are considered private individuals who haven't given their consent. Underage children especially, because they do not even have the ability to give informed consent. Who knows, they may grow up and find they don't want their private info published on Wikipedia, and we have no right to take their rights away. See WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPPRIVACY. In general, this is not facebook and we don't name non-notable friends or family. To most people the names are meaningless anyway if there's no article to link to, so generic descriptors work just fine. Zaereth (talk) 04:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Agree with Zaereth. I saw a case where a mother's social media post was used as a source her underage son (article subject) was autistic, and that struck me as a very bad idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Agree with Zaereth and Gråbergs Gråa Sång. "The couple have two children" is fine if properly referenced. On the other hand, "The couple have two children, Mildred and Ralph, and a French Bulldog, Zeke" makes me cringe and I remove that level of detail. This does not apply to highly famous people with massive media coverage abetted by the family. Cullen328 (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Propaganda.

The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

I have recently read a biography which although not incorrect in general, is biased and untruthful in that so much information has been excluded. Should we disclaim biography's written without fact checking or third party review as propaganda? in particular when those have a political or business interest? 2603:7080:6B03:2899:0:0:0:11CA (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Its impossible to address such a vague scenario. Can you link us to the article you're referring to? Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The Guess Who

I am fairly new to wikipedia and would like to point out that I do know someone that the above article is about. I want to ensure that I am following the policies and am finding it a bit overwhelming because there are a lot of different ones. Therefore, I thought it might be easier to ask for some help here to address my concerns. I did recently post some suggestions on the talk page for review.

Overall, I have noticed a lot of the sourcing is opinion pieces/ interviews without alternate views being presented. In addition, there also seems to be a fair amount of persuasive language being used. I also think that considering the current lawsuit, paid editors shouldn't be making substantial edits to the article and yet they have.

Any suggestions or advice would be greatly appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpiritedSea (talk • contribs) 14:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

SpiritedSea, I fail to see how this dispute is a BLP issue. The content in question is well-referenced and your concerns are convincingly refuted at Talk: The Guess Who. Cullen328 (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Michael Dinan

A concern has been raised on behalf of the article subject about the section of the article which lists his car collection: Michael_Dinan#Car_Collection. The few references for those parts of the listing that have sources listed in the article are behind a paywalled site, with the ownership information specifically obscured for non-paying visitors even when the vehicle is listed. The paywalled website is: <https://exclusivecarregistry.com/collection/mdcollection>. The concern raised is that the listing of vehicles is non-public information and thus a privacy issue which potentially raises other issues due to the high valuations of the vehicles. In addition, most of the vehicles listed have no sources indicating the article subject is the owner. Should the vehicle listing details be deleted, in whole or in part per WP:BLP, for these reasons? Geoff | Who, me? 16:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

According to the FAQ section of that website, it is "entirely user-driven, so our database can be edited anytime". Why should we consider this a reliable source at all? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Excellent point. Removed section per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#User-generated_content. Thanks! Geoff | Who, me? 21:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

debashish chatterjee

His colleagues have said that he maintains good rapport with the Chairman of the Board of IIM, while he has implemented strict security check for junior colleagues to meet him. Professors need to keep their bags and phone away, as a pre-condition to enter to his office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimsocial (talk • contribs) 07:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Have you read WP:BLP? Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Rachel Steinschneider

After researching this,I believe Rahel Shtainshnaider should be changed to Rachel Steinschneider. Most of the 3rd party online sources are incorrect and also need to be changed. I'm going by her linkedin and instagram. Anyone have a problem with this? MaskedSinger (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Updated accordingly. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

sean omalley biography

it says he has a daughter but it has been confirmed the child isnt his. please correct page 73.37.229.140 (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

See WP:BLP and bring an excellent source for this. Not Reddit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Also I removed a related item based on WP:BLPGOSSIP grounds.[74] I really question the reliability of these niche MMA sources if they are going to be focusing on that type of crap. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't know if it's still a problem, but there have been problems before where editors familiar with the area have insisted that Sherdog (and maybe one or two other questionable sources?) is the best source especially for anything about a fight but also IIRC for basic biodata (like height) despite community consensus being against that per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. It didn't help that a anyone in the area pushing back seemed to have equal problems e.g. socking making the whole thing an awful mess. Perhaps things have calmed down, I don't recall a recent ANI thread, or maybe just no one is paying attention any more. BTW, someone can have a daughter even if "the child isnt his" assuming you just mean it's not his biological child. So even if for some reason there's a public paternity test, this does not tell us whether he has a daughter or not. Nil Einne (talk) 09:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
The Sherdog database itself should not be seen as controversial, but I am not clear on how reliable their news reporting is nor whether their reporting panders to sensationalism. I just know that a lot of niche sites, whether gaming, wrestling, comic book, or mma, tends to pander to the clicks. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't know much about Sherdog, but there have definitely been cases where editors have been trying to go with what Sherdog says about the outcome of a fight even when ESPN said something different. (I found evidence of this yesterday when searching to refresh my memory in particular Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive437#User:NEDOCHAN reported by User:FormalDude (Result: 1 week partial block).) I also think there have been cases where editor's wanted to put the Sherdog height for someone only even when ESPN or something had another height; but I'm going just by memory so could be wrong. At the very least, I'm fairly sure there was opposition to any attempts to use ESPN or I think other better sources to replace Sherdog even when the biodata was the same. (I mean heights are always problematic anyway, but the consensus seems to be per RSPS that we should either prefer the ESPN height or report both.) From what I saw, a big issue at least in the past is that although the community felt different, regular editors in the area seemed to feel that Sherdog was the ultimate source for anything MMA and was always right and should be preferred, going against the communities view that some other sources ESPN being the most prominent, were better and should be preferred and probably deferred to when there was dispute. Nil Einne (talk) 10:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Had another look and actually the discussion that lead to the RSPS note, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 318#Sherdog.com, especially the discussion before the RfC is an example of what I'm talking about height etc. Obviously at that stage there wasn't a clear community consensus, although I think there had already been several small discussions calling Sherdog into question and especially pointing out there was zero policy allowing one source to be the ultimate source for details. However I did see some evidence e.g. that result dispute, that initially at least there was reluctance among regulars to accept the result of the RfC and instead there was a desire to still treat Sherdog as the ultimate source. As I mentioned, it didn't help that anyone in the area who seemed to pushing back against this trend was a sock or otherwise problematic, and I won't bother to link to this but did find strong evidence of this in my review. Notablt, the editor who started that RfC is an example of this User:Lordpermaximum. And yeah, while these sort of details about heights and technicalities of fight results might not be really what you're worried about, my concern is that editors still feel that way about Sherdog, there's a good chance that any news reported on Sherdog is going to be similar treated as highly significant and correct even when contentious although the current consensus is it should be used with caution on a case by case basis suggestion it should never be used for anything contentious. (And we also shouldn't ignore the possible importance of such technicalities. I mean probably not in a case like this when it comes to talking about someone's child but I suspect with some of the more gossipy stuff e.g. details of a relationship or breakdown, it might matter more to a MMA fighter that we get their fight details right than we report something misleading about some relationship.) P.S. I should mention for fairness that while some editors seem to think Sherdog was mostly likely to be correct even when disputed by ESPN etc and so were IMO treating it as the ultimate source for anything MMA, others seemed to just want to standardise on using Sherdog for everything for consistency. While the latter isn't so bad and makes it far less likely they're going to use it for something contentious just because it's Sherdog, it's still IMO a concern since it's not how the English Wikipedia is supposed to work. Nil Einne (talk) 11:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Roberta Flack

I would appreciate additional eyes on this BLP. Take a look, please at the Roberta Flack#Critical reputation section, which begins with criticizing her for breaking free of established genres of that era, which ought to be considered a good thing, immediately followed by five quoted and unreferenced insults of her work. I might delve into it myself, but it is St. Patrick's Day, and being 3/8 Irish, I have had a few drinks and do not want to edit the article in indignation. I am not even a "big fan" of hers, though I have listened to and respected her work for 55 years. It looks pretty likely to me that some editor has a grudge against this highly notable musical artist who is now 87 years old, and has set out to besmirch her reputation by cherry-picking or not bothering to provide sources, breaching WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. According to what I have read elsewhere, she is widely respected in the music industry to this day, and is described as having influenced other artists like Luther Vandross. I can return to this conversation tomorrow. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 06:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The citation was misplaced but the critic is acknowledging past criticism of Flack's work. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't know whether the criticism of Flack in our article is fairly representative of the opinions out there. But I don't t find it surprising that breaking with the norms of a genre is not always viewed as a positive thing. A famous example might be Kenny G#Criticism who is controversial enough that I think we still have to indefinitely semi-protect his article. Nil Einne (talk) 09:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
BTW, to be clear, I'm not saying what Flack did is similar to what Kenny G does. Just that I don't see it automatically follows she did things different from what people normally do in the genre or people expect from the genre so that's a good thing. Being different doesn't mean it's groundbreaking or revolutionary, and people might easily think the stuff the person did different is negative or crap rather than positive or good. What matters to our article is whether those opinions are common enough that they should be mentioned, and whether we are fairly representing other significant opinions. For example, our Kenny G article seems to do an okay job of this from my understanding of his reception. Nil Einne (talk) 09:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I put it on the bottom of the reception section to make the section chronological. Thriley (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that is appropriate since Jason King is reviewing past criticism of her career as a historical review and those two other paragraphs reinforces his comments. Checking the sources, he himself views her contributions as being positive and ahead of its time. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
This is unrelated to any BLP issue, but any article that has multiple conseutive sentences of the structure: "On Month Day Year, something happened..." is generally a poorly written article. See WP:PROSELINE and work on writing better. On March 19, 2024, Animalparty again pointed out the pervasive mediocrity of Wikipedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Chris Noel

Chris Noel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It states that Vietnam Veterans of America joined "other groups" to petition for her for receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

"the Vietnam Veterans of America joined with other groups and individuals to petition for Chris Noel to be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.[37]"

This is not true. The link shows an entry in the organization's Arts of War on the web page that simply reports that an effort is under way but does not say the organization "petitioned" for it, as that is not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdgarBedden (talk • contribs) 18:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks like you've edited the BLP to reflect the source more accurately, and nobody has disputed your edit. You've opened and shut your own case here. Please follow up if there's a content issue that requires a notice board. JFHJr (㊟) 01:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Martin Lewis (financial journalist)

Hello,

I am a representative of the British financial journalist Martin Lewis.

His page contains a number of factual errors and is in many instances very out of date.

There are several changes we have identified and many sections we would like to update, especially in regards to his campaigning work and awards.

We would like to work with the Wikipedia community to rectify the above, so I'm trying to make contact with relevant editors who would be willing to help us to achieve this.

We have citations from credible sources on everything we would like to include, but want to do so in a transparent and honest manner.

If this message is not the correct approach, my apologies.

But if it is, I would appreciate the help from the wikipedia community in starting to update his page.

Very best,

Elliott Haworth

I'll try to help. I've now watchlisted the page. The recommended practice is to post proposed edits on the article talk-page. I (and no doubt other editors) will evaluate what you propose, on the basis of the sources you offer. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Bruce Lipton

Bruce Lipton

According to the Biographies of Living Persons Policy, libelous information (such as calling someone 'pseudoscience') must be kept out of such biographies unless very well-referenced. The first sentence, "Bruce Harold Lipton is an American writer and lecturer who advocates various pseudosciences, including vaccine misinformation." violates this policy.

In addition, the entry author states, "He often uses the naturalistic fallacy." but gives no citations.

Also, the article devolves into a discussion about vaccines rather than a biography of Bruce Lipton. From the article, "Lipton has been known to express opposition to vaccinations, specifically with regard to a supposed association between vaccines and autism that has been firmly discredited:[9][10]." The citations in this sentence are in support of the author's argument about vaccines rather than about the statement about Lipton's beliefs. Also in the article, "These anti-vaccine viewpoints contradict the overwhelming scientific consensus, which firmly establishes the safety and effectiveness of vaccines in preventing various diseases."

The wording and sentence structure throughout the article reveal a clear bias. The author cites quotes by people that denigrate Lipton, which have no place in a Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Student2067 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I have added a source which states, in part, "Dismissed for years as a pseudo-scientist, Dr Bruce Lipton has fought to have his theories accepted". GiantSnowman 20:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
The negativity in the article seems to reflect what reliable sources have said about Lipton. Like Andrew Tate and Alex Jones, an article being mostly negative does not mean the article is biased. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Spot on. JFHJr (㊟) 01:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Sam Kerr

The top female Australian soccer player has charged with racially aggravated harassment of a police officer in London. Editors on the talk page have been going back and forth over inclusion of the incident in the lead.

Those in favor of inclusion argue that the incident has received extensive coverage by the media. Editors opposed argue that the coverage is not particularly deep (see Sam Kerr#Personal life for basically everything that has come out with sources) and the case won't go to trial for months. Given this, I think there are significant differences in how we're applying BLP and making presumptions about how this will or will not become a major part of her life. See Talk:Sam Kerr#Lede and the shorter discussion immediately following. I'm asking for some second opinions about how to apply BLP in this situation. Alyo (chat·edits) 02:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  • My opinion is that it is WP:DUE; there are hundreds of articles in reliable sources about this incident, and stories continue to be published. This has quickly become a very significant part of the coverage of Sam Kerr, and it would be an NPOV issue to exclude it from the lede. BilledMammal (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Apart from her game, it does not appear that she leads any sort of very public life. The best BLP policies I can point to are WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NPF. If a conviction results in a professional impact, it'll have been biographically noteworthy. Otherwise, it probably doesn't belong at all despite her own notability. Unfortunately, my best practical answers are "talk page" and "only time will tell." Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
PS. I forgot WP:NOTNEWS. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't think any of those apply here. Kerr is a public figure, the article makes it clear that this is still just an accusation, and none of the four WP:NOTNEWS points appear to apply. BilledMammal (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
" Also, while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." It can be argued that putting this January-thing in the WP:LEAD is "emphasized". Per current article content, having it in the WP:LEAD would also fail WP:LEAD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
  • I believe this is not appropriate for the lead. The lead is meant to be a quick summary of the entire article, and the incidence's importance to her notability is not high. The reporting of this incidence even if by RS borders on sensationalism. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I agree with Morbidthoughts and especially JFHJr. IMO this suffers greatly from our problem with recent news namely it's actually often very difficult to evaluate the WP:10YT when it's something happening right now. Especially when the consequences are not clear as is often the case with minor charges. (I mean this applies to major charges as well to an extent, but often if a person is charged with e.g. rape, they might be suspended or otherwise have their career significantly affected even before any trial.) In theory the charge could significantly hamper their career, but in practice it often doesn't, so the charge might not have long term significance. It's also possible even without direct significance on someone's career, the charge could be something that is nearly always mentioned in the future in relation to the person making it something that probably belongs in the lead, but again we can't know that so early on. I'm thoroughly unconvinced by any arguments on the talk page we should go by any maximum possible penalties. Many offences carry quite a wide range of maximum penalties. The media likes to talk about maximum penalties for shock value even in cases where there's no chance the maximum penalty will be imposed. (I mean even drink-driving carries a maximum penalty of 6 months which is long enough to have a significant effect on someone's career yet we aren't adding all drink-driving charges to the leads of articles.) Note that often and especially in countries like the UK with decent legal systems, this isn't even up to an individual judge. Even if the judge did decide to do it, if it's so egregiously out of step with the norms or any sentencing guidelines it will be reduced on appeal. Nil Einne (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the discussion here. As I commented early on in the tp discussion, I don't believe it belongs in the lead, which gives it undue prominence. Mention in the body is clearly warranted, but not in the lead, IMO. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
So far, uninvolved BLPN contributors seem to have reached that consensus. I'd only emphasize, in my own opinion, that any mention in the body be just one line or so of text. Especially before there's even any outcome or substantial professional impact implicating her central notability, the legal proceeding needs to be minimally weighted. JFHJr (㊟) 01:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
  • I agree that BLPCRIME is an issue here, doubly so for the lead of the article. If she is convicted then this potentially will merit such mention, but if she is not then it almost certainly will not, probably not even in the body at that point. And when we depend on an "if" for a BLP we should be taking the least potentially damaging route, and that means keeping it out. Im barely ok with including the detail in the body, but definitely not in the lead. nableezy - 01:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
    This. Exactly this. Thank you nableezy. JFHJr (㊟) 01:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Jonah Paffhausen

Some anonymous IP added defamatory materials about Metropolitan Jonah Paffhausen six months ago. I suspect it's a disgruntled former associate with a personal grievance. I think the editor was banned since they stopped for a while, but now it's started back up. Please assist. Nepsis2 (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

This is the second BLPN post for this article, but the talk page has never been edited to discuss this now perennial content dispute. I've re-watched the article. I'll also open a talk page section about the content in question. I do not plan to edit the article significantly, though. JFHJr (㊟) 22:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
And I left the IP a message. Even an IP can help build a consensus. JFHJr (㊟) 22:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Ruby Barnhill

Eyes would be appreciated on this article - there's been repeated addition of unreliable sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article for two weeks per repeated violations of WP:DAILYMAIL. Cullen328 (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Max Lugavere

This discussion has just begun on the talk page. No need yet to resort to BLPN. No discussion fork is needed. Post on the talk page if interested. Repost here if there is need to resort here for lack of consensus on the talk page. WP:NAC. JFHJr (㊟) 01:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Experienced editors' input would be welcome at Talk:Max Lugavere. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Vinestreet97 (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Larry P. Arnn

WP:NAC. Closing OP's discussion because it contains no factual statement of any BLP issue needing resolution. JFHJr (㊟) 20:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

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

This article shows a clear leftist bias in whom ever wrote it. There is no mention of Dr. Arnn's participation in the official biography of Winston Churchill. It lacks description of what type of education Hillsdale College supplies. It is just a left leaning hit piece. Please have someone edit the article so it is fair. I hope there is still a concern for justice and just reporting ALL of the facts about someone. Signed, Gregory Joseph Lashley March 22, 2024 TheMadLasher (talk) 11:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

As a graduate student in England, Arnn was the research director for Sir Martin Gilbert, the official biographer of Winston Churchill, editing the final six document volumes of the Churchill biography.. Generally speaking, criticism of an article works best if you read it first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
If any reader is interested in the college's educational philosophy, all they need to do is click the wikilink Hillsdale College. You have a strange definition of left leaning hit piece, TheMadLasher. Cullen328 (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Michael Pena was a actor in gone in 60 seconds it's not found on Wikipedia please put it up and edit it thank you.

Moot request. The movie is listed in the filmography section. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Please edit Michael Pena wiki page he acted on in gone in 60 seconds its not on there please edit...he acted in it and got paid for it please put it up thanks..... Michael Pena fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.231.22.186 (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Minor roles, as a rule, generally get skipped over when we discuss an actor's resume. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 16:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

John Duarte (politician)

This biography of a living person violates Wikipedia policies.

The page omits discussion of Duarte's violation of the Clean Water Act by plowing wetlands located on his property. In 2016, a federal court found Duarte and and Duarte Nursery Inc. liable for the violation. Duarte settled the claim by paying $1.1 million in civil penalties, providing mitigation for 22 acres of disturbed streams and wetlands, and agreeing to permanently protect creeks that are connected to the Sacramento River.[1]

The Political Positions section does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy. For example, on Abortion and LGBT+ rights, the section only mentions that Duarte voted against three bills supported by most other Republicans concerning abortion and LGBT+, giving the impression that Duarte is a moderate on these issues. The paragraphs omit to mention that Duarte has voted with the Republicans on eight other bills touching on abortion and LGBT rights, scores 18% on the Planned Parenthood Congressional Scorecard, and is endorsed by the anti-abortion group Californians for Life.[2][3] Duarte has donated money to Sen. Tommy Tuberville.[4]

These "political positions" do not address or deemphasize the issues that appear on Duarte's official website, which stresses the economy, water, crime, and education.[5] The section references a minor matter (the Confederate Naming Commission) while omitting major matters such as the environment, the right to vote, military support for Ukraine, and support for Donald Trump (to whom Duarte has contributed).[6]

Edits intended to conform the discussion to the NPOV policy have been promptly deleted with minimal or no explanation. Attempts to discuss the concerns have been ignored.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NDC3 (talk • contribs) 16:32, March 24, 2024 (UTC)

Um, your Edits intended to conform the discussion to the NPOV policy were deleting the entire "Political positions" section, twice. Of course you were reverted both times. I see no attempt at discussion on the article's talk page. WP:BEBOLD in adding content that is missing or open a discussion on the talk page about collaboration with other editors. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. Please at least try talkpaging this. Edit summaries don't substitute well for actual content discussion. Adding the content you think necessary and removing other content are different discussions. You'll need to achieve a consensus on either. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 00:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Long-Running Clean Water Act Dispute Ends, Duarte Agrees to Pay Civil Fines, Restore Streams and Wetlands". justice.gov. Retrieved 2024-03-24.
  2. ^ "Scorecards By Legislator". plannedparenthoodaction.org. Retrieved 2024-03-24.
  3. ^ "Pro-Life Voter Recommendations". californiainsforlife.org. Retrieved 2024-03-24.
  4. ^ "DONOR LOOKUP". opensecrets.org. Retrieved 2024-03-24.
  5. ^ "The Congressman Our Valley Deserves". johnduarteforcongress.com. Retrieved 2024-03-24.
  6. ^ "DONOR LOOKUP". opensecrets.ort. Retrieved 2024-03-24.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive357&oldid=1217232545"