Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive352

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

J. Michael Bailey

Hello editors. I am seeking input on the acceptability of sources and the notability of an event. Psychology professor J. Michael Bailey recently had a controversial gender dysphoria paper retracted. I was trying to include a sentence or two on the retraction, something like: In 2023, Springer Nature announced they would retract Bailey's 2023 paper on the controversial Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD) hypothesis due to their editorial policies around consent. This followed an open letter asking Springer to fire the editor and retract the paper.

One editor said they did not want to give attention to the Bailey article because of a tweet where he said he wanted to 'Streisand' the retraction (I felt Bailey's tweets had no relevance in deciding to include it or not).

My two sources are:

MedPage Today
and this Medscape an article (republished from retraction watch, Medscape has an agreement to publish some of their articles at their discretion)

Other potential sources include:

This is the original Retractionwatch article. The same opposed editor has also claimed that because the Medscape article has republished content from RetractionWatch, the Medscape article is not due?
An opinion piece authored by Bailey about the retraction, on the more controversial Unherd website. I felt this may be acceptable on his own biography as a living person, although the other editors insisted it was not acceptable on the talk page.

David Daniels, countertenor

In the biography of countertenor David Daniels, the headline refers to him as a "convicted sex offender." This is inaccurate. David Daniels pleaded guilty under Texas deferred adjudication statute. That means a formal finding of guilt, and thus a conviction, has been deferred pending completion of probation. Upon successful completion of probation, the guilty plea will not be accepted and no formal finding of guilt/adjudication of conviction will ever occur. In the meantime, he is not convicted.

https://www.texasdefenselaw.com/library/deferred-adjudication-texas/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.12.231.126 (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the WP:LABEL and explicitly described his actions in the lead rather than quibble about whether the label is accurate or not. Editors rush to label someone as a WP:RGW kneejerk reaction. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Peter Foley (snowboarding)

An IP has been very busy pushing this topic across the encyclopedia the past day or two, despite a host of red flags (WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENT, possibly others). They were able to successfully forum-shop at AFC and get the article accepted into mainspace, despite the obvious problem with an entry containing intricate detail about allegations with no accompanying evidence of criminal convictions. I didn't look too carefully, but I'd suspect that other snowboarding-related articles have been spammed with the same content and sources. I can say that was certainly the case at Callan Chythlook-Sifsof. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Seems to fall under WP:PUBLICFIGURE with multitude of sources covering the allegations. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Unusual situation with Christine Lagarde

This discussion is likely of interest to BLPN. It's an interesting situation which should prompt some thoughtful reflection.

In my view, this is a classic example of why IAR is policy. We have a relatively unimportant fact in the biography of a living person (exact marital status) which we have factually wrong, per the subject. It has little impact on history really, but is still wrong. However, it is very well sourced. The explanation is that it was wrong in an early profile (1999, New York Times) and has been repeated many times in the press thereafter. I'm going to guess that at least some mentions in the press were reporters following our reports, but at least some of them pre-date us carrying the error. My view is that we should omit the claim on IAR grounds, while I encourage the subject to get a correction in a reliable source. In the meantime others are saying that we simply must carry it due to it being in reliable sources. I think that's not right. Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Note that Jimbo Wales has tried the same at Will.i.am in the distant past, and at Matt Hancock recently, and in the first instance he was just wrong but refused to admit this, and in the second claimed that some factoid had originated on enwiki and was only then picked up by reliable sources, when in reality it was first posted by the National (Scottish newspaper). This IAR approach (doing the bidding of "powerful people" (as he calls them) he met, but where he claims to have no COI despite this has lead to problems and false claims each time, and wouldn't be accepted from any regular editor. The claim in this case that all sources got their info from the NYTimes, even French sources like l'Echo or well-resourced books like Routledge's "The Europa Directory of International Organizations", seems again very dubious and self-serving. Fram (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Now, here's an almighty can of worms, if ever I've seen one. If removing well-sourced content from a biography is legitimate in this case because it is 'factually wrong, per the subject', why isn't it legitimate more generally? Why should we IAR in this specific instance, rather than the many, many others where the same circumstances arise? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I have a very minor involvement in this because I declined a semi-protected edit request on the basis that multiple RS supported the article's long-standing status quo, and even after this development I maintain the same position. The subject of this article could lie to any editor's face the same as she may have to Jimbo; he is no different from any of us in this regard. We follow RS, especially when an article's subject makes or requests changes without such support. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 16:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

This is, potentially, a dispute between a primary and secondary source. When such disputes occur, it's usually best to note them in the article, and there's plenty of biographies with notes to the effect of "Third-party sources say detail X is true of subject, but subject says it is not". The catch here is that Jimbo relaying Lagarde's statements does not constitute a reliable source. If Lagarde wants to put out a statement clarifying (her perception of) the record, her narrative can at least be given a footnote. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Also though, is there a WP:BLPNAME issue here? Whether Lagarde has had one husband or two, neither is mentioned in the body of the article, so I don't see why including the names of two non-notable individuals is appropraite as a privacy matter. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, if Lagarde made a verifiable statement then we could note that in the article, but Jimbo saying she made some comment to him at lunch is not exactly verifiable. This is somewhat reminiscent of the Emily St. John Mandel situation, although a little less straightforward – in that case, the claims about Mandel's marriage had been true and just no more recent sources had published that she had divorced; here, Lagarde is apparently saying that at least since 1999 reliable sources have been saying something that was never true.

On the other hand, the fact that reliable sources have been saying it since 1999 makes it in some ways less urgent; if Lagarde was really concerned that she was wrongly being portrayed in the media as having married someone she didn't, she probably wouldn't have waited 25 years to mention it and only then because she happened to sit next to Jimbo at lunch!

On the gripping hand, I agree that it's unclear why we need to name Lagarde's husbands in the infobox at all, as they are apparently not notable and are not mentioned in the body of the article. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The first thing to note is we've achieved consensus how to handle this and the article has been edited accordingly.

It makes sense to mention her first (if not only) husband, with whom she has two sons, because of how she had to balance the demands of being a mother with her career, which gets more than passing reference in several RS. The second "husband", Gilmour, is a story if only because of the disagreement between RS whether or not they were ever married and the heartburn it gives Lagarde. Jimbo suggested keeping him in the article, clearly noting the discrepancies between sources, in hopes some curious journalist might come across the article while doing research and say, "ooh, something for me to look into". So we did.

Number three is sort of a meh, but again he gets more than just passing mention in stories about her, and while some sources report they've been married (as does she), they don't say when. So that's what we say, and maybe the press will give us a hand some day.

Always nice to see a fellow Niven fan, cheers. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 21:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The Telegraph article is written with a high level of uncertainty: "Her first marriage, in 1982, to a financial analyst called Wilfred Lagarde, produced two sons, but seems to have ended badly a decade later, for all mention of Wilfred has been expunged from her biographies. She then married Eachran Gilmour, a British businessman, of whom even less is known, and is now being romanced by glossy-haired Corsican entrepreneur Xavier Giocanti, with whom she goes scuba diving in the Mediterranean." Denaar (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

UPDATE: @Andrew Dalby found two books in French which do not describe her relationship with Gilmour as a marriage. See his 18:21, 9 August 2023 comment on the talk page. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 15:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Denaar: @Xan747: The Telegraph was exaggerating: her biographies are quite clear about the names, not so clear about dates and status. "Glossy-haired", hmm, I haven't verified that.

If all mention of her partners is removed, people will just keep on putting it back. Basic information is now in the text, and is footnoted; a couple of points of doubt are also footnoted. If others think the names don't need to be in the infobox after all, well, that's fine by me. Andrew Dalby 15:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Andrew Dalby, article looks much better now, thanks. One thing that must change is the wp:dailymail citation supporting 1992 as the year she divorced Wilfried Lagarde, for which I've found better sources. I have some minor tweaks to suggest, which I will take up on the talk page. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 17:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

No problem about replacing the Daily Mail with someting more reliable: please do it. I'll comment on the article talk page. Andrew Dalby 06:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I replaced the Mail with the CNN citation we were already using. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 10:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Bulat Utemuratov

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

Hi, I have a Conflict of Interest and I wanted to raise an issue concerning a recent set of changes made to the article on Bulat Utemuratov. The changes in question are subheadings which are not in line with NPOV.

On the Talk page I have described why I think the content these new subheadings emphasise should actually be considered for removal (some was added by an apparent paid editor), and why arranging the format of the article to emphasise it is inappropriate.

Recently, Wuerzele rearranged the article and created a new section which I considered in violation of WP:CRIT and WP:SYNTH out of pre-existing text. I accordingly made a COI edit request to remove this heading and move the content so it was once again just part of the main Career section, which Spintendo answered. Spintendo made the call to introduce new section titles instead of the old, inappropriate one, but I consider the new titles to still be undue emphasis on the two events in question.

To be clear, I do not think either of the recent editors have acted in bad faith, and I appreciate Spintendo’s efforts to respond to my request, but the combined result of their recent additions has resulted in an article that does not hold to the ideals of NPOV or BLP. I would appreciate a second opinion on this. Podsought (talk) 08:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Could you please provide diffs for the edits you find problematic?

Otherwise, the Bulat Utemuratov Foundation subsection is mostly sourced to primary andself-published, plus third party reporting that is in passing, press release, or obviously sourcing directly from the subject. Does this topic actually merit the WP:WEIGHT of a subsection? Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 02:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Here's the diff to my edit. Perhaps I was confused about what had been requested. The COI editor stated can the inappropriate "Oligarch" title be removed as part of this? This section only makes sense chronologically, the paragraphs are otherwise unrelated and grouping them together under this title does not read neutrally. I took that to mean you wanted the information split. Since the information concerned two topics (the freezing of assets and the British MP speech) that's what I split it into. Regards, Spintendo 19:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

That's a very gentle edit. It comports with BLP guidelines. It didn't make any big content changes, just presentation. If the complaint is that there's a WP:WEIGHT problem, let's get other editors' input here and output on the article. But I'm fine with this edit. That said, what of the Foundation? Literally. JFHJr (㊟) 03:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Lil Tay

Unusual situation with Lil Tay, who had a brief burst of viral fame 5 years ago. Her family has recently reported her deceased, but the relevant authorities have no record of her death. Her article (which was only created after the supposed death was reported) treats her as if she's still alive, which I think is the correct call for the moment. Just thought I would post here to get second thoughts. Thanks Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Given the apparent confusion in normally reliable sources, we should absolutely be treating her death as unproven, and being careful to use the most reliable and up-to-date sources for anything related to it. Some googling reveals e.g. The Telegraph saying uncritically that she died (but only that the instagram announcement was "apparently by a member of Lil Tay’s family"), but on the other hand The Independent talking about "reports of her 'death'" (scarequotes original). Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Why on earth do we have an article? Wikipedia is not a memorial. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. The page was create-protected back in 2018 [2], presumably because people thought it wasn't a good idea to create an article about an internet famous 9 year old that had risen to prominence after being manipulated to act obnoxiously by her parents and brother. Arguably the coverage that was generated back then probably didn't pass WP:SUSTAINED. @Ingenuity: was the admin that removed the protection, presumably before doubts started to come out about the veracity of her death. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Because she got news attention in 2018 due to her social media stuff, and then again just now due to her apparent death very young, and there are enough people to whom "news attention twice" means "must write a wikipedia article immediately" that we now have this. I wouldn't be at all upset if there was a clause in WP:N specifically barring news articles from counting towards notability, but until that happens these articles will inevitably be created whenever some minor celebrity gets news attention. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

A low point for Wikipedia; response on my talk (can't even guess why I was asked to look in). I can't understand why the marginal sources haven't been cleaned out; when writing about a child, only the highest quality sources should be used, and Headbomb's reliability script is engaged on seven sources in the version I viewed. I wouldn't be at all surprised if DYK ran with this smut. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Noting that early on, the first marginal sources were introduced by Strugglehouse, in this 23:13, August 9, 2023 edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The reported death was WP:NOTABLE enough for inclusion in the project, I suppose, though with recent findings this all seems questionable. I was the one who requested the page protection (an alleged death hoax about a child personally irked me) which helped protect against edits stating that she was deceased. This resulted with Wikipedia having a more fairly accurate account on an individual than Snopes for some time, so I wouldn't call this a "low point" at all. Going forward, maybe we should have a section in WP:BLP to recommend WP:PAGEPROTECT for recent deaths or have a tool that when Template:Recent death, Template:Recent death presumed and Template:Recent death confirmed are placed into an article, a page protection request can automatically be placed on WP:PAGEPROTECT. Overall, I'm proud with how we handled this unfortunate situation. WMrapids (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Bruce Lipton

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

This is in regards to Bruce Lipton

Multiple violations on the Wikipedia : 1) Neutral Point of View (NPOV) 2) Verifiability (V)

The information characterized and supported by the "editor" for Bruce Lipton's page (a bot?) is libelous and slanderous. The work and research of Dr. Bruce Lipton has never directly addressed the controversy surrounding COVID. The basis of Lipton's 45 years of work, cell development research, and presentations are erroneous and not presented with a NPOV. The text being upheld by the page contributor and editor is libelous and written with a non-neutral point of view.

Violation of NPOV and V: The use of the terms "anti-vaxxer" and "pseudo-scientist," a popular culture reference should not be attributed to individuals. It is a popular culture term akin to name-calling and does not fit within a supported and verifiable living persons policy. Additionally, the term does not present information but rather summarizes a perspective that is a non-neutral point of view.

Violation of NPOV and V: The previous text highlighting research conducted at University of Virginia, University of Wisconsin, and Stanford into stem cells and contributions to epigenetics were removed and replaced with the heading "Anti-Vaccine Views". This title, the terms anti-vaxxer, and pseudo-scientist and the subheading Anti-Vaccine Views is antithetical to a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) as it is weighted with a heavily political, slanderous, and non-neutral view that is meant to maniplative and persuasively sway individuals instead of using language for reporting facts.

Violation of V and NPOV: The use of opinions and opinionated blog entries in the Subheading "Reception" is used for commenting on the living person's character and is made from the opinion of one person that clearly has an agenda to do personal slander and harm to the individual is used as a cited source and does not coincide with Wikipedia's neutral point of view and verifiability policies.

Remove the bots or persons that refuse to accept the edits to this page as they are perpetually violating Wikipedia's policies on Biographies of Living Persons. MishiNawi (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, MishiNawi. I recommend that you read two essays, Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans and User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased. Wikipedia articles summarize what reliable published sources say about the topic, and it is clear that such sources verify that Lipton's views are far outside the scientific mainstream. Accordingly, the Wikipedia article will reflect that reality. As for bots editing that article, the only bot edits I see in recent months are a couple of edits by Citation bot, which cleans up references but doesn't make any substantive content edits. Your repeated use of terms such as libelous and slanderous, comes to the very edge of violating the No legal threats policy. You must stop that. You can either pursue legal action or you can edit Wikipedia but you cannot do both at the same time. Wikipedia is a collaborative project based on editors Assuming good faith, and that is incompatible with your accusations that other editors are committing crimes. What is your connection with User:Anti1984propaganda, who was using similar language ten days ago, and was blocked for it? Cullen328 (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, your use of the singular "editor" surrounded by scare quotes indicates that you do not understand how Wikipedia articles are written. The fact is that 224 editors have contributed at least one edit to that article, and dozens have made substantive contributions. The article is the product of consensus discussions going back over nearly 14 years, rather than a single editor. Cullen328 (talk) 01:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Could you please provide the diffs of the perpetual removals? In the article edit history, find what you wrote and also what was undone. Set the dots on the version you did and the version that perpetually undid it. Tap/click to compare, and copy the URL from the comparison page. I know perpetual is forever, but a few diffs will do. JFHJr (㊟) 01:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

MishiNawi is a brand new account [3] with no other edits. Not to say we should not listen to new accounts but it is suspicious why they would raise these specific concerns. I would agree that the sourcing on the article needs to be improved but the claims of libel are not true. I would point out that at least one of their claims is also false. Lipton has addressed COVID, i.e. on his social media [4]. He is a noted COVID denialist who has claimed "The fear of the coronavirus is more deadly than the virus itself!". Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh I know it's a brand new account. I'm just asking what edits this person did, if any. I find it's unlikely someone would register to complain about a third party's problems with perpetual removals. In any case, it's normal that new accounts might own some pre-account edits. If that's the gripe, we can ask for those. JFHJr (㊟) 04:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is illuminating, Psychologist Guy. The COVID-19 virus has killed at least seven million people, and reasonable fear of the virus has saved millions of lives. This fellow seems to have earned the "pseudoscientist" and "anti-vaxxer" labels through his well-documented hard work. Cullen328 (talk) 06:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Vishwananda

Several BLP violations are currently present on this page. Instead of factual/objective writing, the article is written in an opinionated/persuasive style. Thus, the Neutral Point of View and the Verifiability policy is being broken.

One example of the persuasive style of writing is in the "Life" subheading, pointing out that "critics claim he bought the title for 30,000 dollars", sources cite to Christian publications.

The bias also leads readers to believe that he bought a title, wherein for any initiation in Hinduism, a dakshina is given. It should be also noted that the historical significance has been left out of this article about that initiation (see https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nashik/swami-vishwananda-becomes-first-mahamandaleshwar-from-outside-the-country/articleshow/49006144.cms).

The citations include links to tabloid-like websites (e.g. "Cult News 101") and links from the Protestant Church which directly has bias towards a Hindu Guru. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiva is Love (talk • contribs) 04:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Alfred Grimm

BLP issues resolved, article published. Non-admin closure. JFHJr (㊟) 01:48, 14 August 2023 (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.

I have translated a German article on the German artist Alfred Grimm. However, it's still in the Draft section. See Draft:Alfred Grimm. Is anyone able to review this new article, so that it can be published? Wesel-Wiesel (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Primary sources galore. Not fit for publication. JFHJr (㊟) 22:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

The only primary source is the artist's homepage. Some subpages of it are cited because of the many illustrations not to be found elsewhere. Wesel-Wiesel (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

References to the WP:BLPSPS support an undue amount of prose. Most of the list of best-known works, for example. Third party coverage is helpful to demonstrate they are actually well-known and merit any WP:WEIGHT in a biography. Same for each other use of the primary source to support prose. JFHJr (㊟) 00:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I have now added several third-party sources. Wesel-Wiesel (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Those are good improvements. I still count 3 best-known works with only a primary source. I also tagged three claims that need sourcing: free-lancing, family (third party prose), and a named past student (third party prose). Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 02:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

As an alternative to extensive reliance on BLPSPS for referencing/sourcing of biographical prose, are any works on public display eligible for image upload on Commons? If the goal is to link the images, then simply showing some in the article would further that goal's underlying purpose. JFHJr (㊟) 02:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I noticed that you are a single-purpose editor on both German and English Wikipedias. Do you have any relation to the subject, or any conflict of interest? Your editing also indicates more sophistication than a user inactive since registering in 2015. Do you have other accounts? JFHJr (㊟) 02:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I have some knowledge on this artist, but I am not related to him. Furthermore, I have been working on the German Wikipedia for several years using another account. Only for topics concerning Wesel, Dinslaken etc. I am using the name Wesel-Wiesel. I have now added further secondary sources. Wesel-Wiesel (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Just as long as you either stick to one account when editing on enwiki, or that you declare the second account per WP:LEGITSOCK you should be fine editing here. – robertsky (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a regular contributor to Wikipedia anyway. I have only used an old account for my recent entries here, as the artist lives in the Wesel district. I hope this is O.K. Concerning the article on Alfred Grimm, do you think that it is now ready for publication? Perhaps some illustrations may be added. See Sculptures of Alfred Grimm in Dinslaken. Wesel-Wiesel (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

You did not address robertsky's concern. You have not declared any other accounts per WP:LEGITSOCK here or on your user page, or even on the German wiki. How regularly you contribute is not relevant. Nor have you stated whether you have any editorial WP:COI in saying you weren't related; being a friend is enough. Could you please state your other en.wiki accounts and whether COI applies to you? JFHJr (㊟) 00:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can see, COI doesn’t apply to me. I’m involved in the cultural scene in the district of Wesel and I am interested in the work of Grimm. I thought this German artist should have an English article, that’s all. Also, I do not want to reveal my identity by declaring my other German account. I do not understand what the point of this discussion is either. I am here to create an English article about Grimm. This discussion should be about how my draft can be improved. Wesel-Wiesel (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

You'd only need to declare additional en.wiki accounts. I don't care to look into rules on de.wiki. If you say there are no other accounts here no matter how infrequently used, and if you say there's no COI, I'm satisfied. I've moved your draft into its article name space. Now that it's in live space, please expect other editors to raise similar editing concerns based on their observations. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 01:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

And yes. This is a visual artist. A good article deserves images of his work. Usually not more than one of the artist himself though. Please upload at commons and link from there. JFHJr (㊟) 01:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Bernard Looney

Hello editors, I'm Vishal and I work for bp. I wanted to bring to your attention some recent edits made to the Bernard Looney article by Kirkylad. The content additions made here relate to a protest campaign by Global Witness, a group which Kirkylad is affiliated with, according to their user page. I don't believe these additions are appropriate in the Bernard Looney article, particularly in their scale and scope.

I think the most applicable policy here is due weight. There was almost as much content added about the protest campaign as was in the rest of the article combined. Most of the content added is not related to Bernard Looney. Only the first two sentences are directly related to Looney, and the second paragraph briefly mentions him but is more about what Global Witness did and said than it is about him. The images added also do not do much to help readers understand more about Bernard Looney. This seems to me like a pretty clear cut example of undue weight and inappropriate "depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements, and use of imagery." The content added would be appropriate, I think, in the Global Witness article, but not in the article about Bernard Looney.

There are also some sourcing issues. The new content cites Reddit for information not related to Bernard Looney, which appears to be a self-published source by Kirkylad on a social media site. My understanding is self-published sources shouldn't be used in biographies of living people unless the article subject is the one who wrote the source. It also cites Metro, which is a tabloid and barred from use according to the reliable sources list and an irrelevant-to-Bernard-Looney BBC article.

The only source added with this content that both meets Wikipedia sourcing standards and mentions Bernard Looney directly is an article from The Independent, which states that "Global Witness bought out three advertising slots around London to comment on the pay package of Bernard Looney, whose earnings went from £4.5 million to £10 million last year." This seems like a load of content to add about three billboards.

I would propose removing that material entirely. If editors feel some should remain, I would suggest that a single sentence be added to the prior content about Looney's pay package, to the effect of "Global Witness launched a billboard protest campaign against the pay increase in London in July 2023."

Please let me know what you think. As I have a COI I haven't made these changes myself and am instead seeking thoughts from others. Vishal BP (talk) 08:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts cut the stuff sourced to Metro, which is not a reliable source for BLP material; I further trimmed the stuff which wasn't directly related to Looney and moved the discussion of the protest to go with the other content about Looney's pay package. (diff). I also cut one of the two images of the billboards: one is surely sufficient! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC) fixing ping Morbidthoughts Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Reflecting the criticism of the pay award is fair game, but I don't think the stuff about the billboards is relevant at all. It's just a silly publicity stunt by a pressure group and will have no lasting significance. I know it was covered by reliable sources, but articles don't have to contain everything that a reliable source says.Neiltonks (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I certainly have no particular commitment to including the billboards. Some googling suggests that while the controversy over Looney's pay is well reported (e.g. in the Guardian, The Times, Reuters, and Irish Times), the Independent is basically the only respectable source which mentions the billboards; everything else seems to be tabloidy junk. I certainly wouldn't object to anyone removing it entirely Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello all I am just joining this thread. Thanks for the feedback. Happy with the changes implemented and taken some notes for future edits as I'm new to this. Do let me know if we want to discuss anything further. Cheers all! Kirkylad (talk) 07:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts, Neiltonks, and Caeciliusinhorto-public: Thank you for responding so quickly here and taking swift action! I would support removing mention of the billboards entirely given their relative lack of coverage, but given my clear biases I am perfectly okay with letting others have that conversation. Vishal BP (talk) 08:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Garrett Camp

Page: Garrett Camp, an early co-founder of Uber that was only involved in the early days

Content: A section called "Complaints by Uber Workers"

History: This section has been removed three times by editors. It is restored each time by @Chisme: in September 2019[5][6], October 2019[7], November 2020[8], and now in July 2023[9]. The section was deleted most recently by @Tristario: in response to my prior BLPN post. You can see Tristario's explanation regarding WP:GUILT here.

Context: I work for Mr. Camp. Chrisme says I am whitewashing the page but I have not edited it. I have disclosed my connection, expressed my concerns at BLPN, and proposed a less promotional rewrite here that has not been approved yet. The rewrite does not include Chrisme's section about criticisms from Uber workers because that section was not on the page at the time. I am not aware of any other criticisms the draft would remove that would give rise to an accusation of whitewashing.John Pinette (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your disclosure and restraint. I haven't checked out your proposed version. But I did combine the undue complaint section into the wealth section, since that's the actual topic. Certainly, a stand-alone complaint section is not merited in this biography. JFHJr (㊟) 22:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Chisme If you are going to edit the articles of biographies of living people, you need to make sure that your edits comply with WP:BLP and the other policies of wikipedia. This is something that has been repeatedly removed by other users. Instead of accusing other users of whitewashing, you should consider the concerns they raise seriously.

In this case, issues with your edit include WP:WEIGHT, WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:GUILT. This clearly doesn't deserve its own section per WP:WEIGHT, but I also don't think this even belongs in the biography per WP:GUILT since it's actually more about complaints about the conduct of uber than Garrett himself, and it doesn't meet WP:PUBLICFIGURE since this "allegation or incident" hasn't been reported by multiple sources. Tristario (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Garrett was criticised probably because he was still on the board of directors at that time. Protestors even camped out at his mansion so they blame him along with the other execs.[10] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

That's a separate protest isn't it? And it's just a brief line about people protesting at the homes of Uber investors. And neither article says he was on the board of directors or even give any specific allegations about the conduct of Camp himself (besides buying the house). This doesn't seem like biographical information to me. Maybe we could have a brief line about people protesting the wealth disparity, although that still somes somewhat trivial to me Tristario (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:GUILT is not applicable under a plain reading of WP:GUILT. There's no crime here. There's no third party either. On the other hand, I support Tristario's notion that less prose about the topic is merited in this biography. JFHJr (㊟) 23:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:GUILT does not specify crime, it just uses the terms "negative information" and "conduct", and the third party is Uber. I think the general guidance it's giving is applicable here because we're including complaints about Uber and implying they specifically apply to the conduct of Camp, when the source doesn't actually make such a specific allegation about the conduct of Camp himself.

But maybe the right move here is to just have a brief line about people protesting the wealth disparity? Thoughts on that? Tristario (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The (2019) record-breaking home purchase does seem noteworthy to me in due weight. I added a second ref about it from Forbes. WP:GUILT is still about third parties, as in guilt by association. It doesn't apply at all. JFHJr (㊟) 00:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

If we're saying "Uber does this bad conduct" without actually having a source that specifies what Camp's involvement in that bad conduct was, or even that he's still actively involved in Uber, I think that's guilt by association, and I think including that in a biography is questionable, especially based on a single source. I do think your edits are an improvement though. I agree including the home purchase is noteworthy. Tristario (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

...And I've pared the criticism down to half a line. How's it look to you? JFHJr (㊟) 00:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that seems to be fine Tristario (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Naw, it's basically still the same protest about the disparity between the driver's pay versus the wealth of the investors and founders. He was the chairman of the board of directors at the time of the protests[11] so I have no hand-wringing concern about an undue perspective of whether he was really "responsible" for what they are protesting against. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Well having a source that specifies that is an improvement. I think I'm fine with what's currently in the article but I do think we need to be careful with things like this, for the reasons I explained above. Tristario (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Morbid and Tristario: BLP-wise, how does the current revision of the article look to you? I've taken a scalpel to some parts and sutures to others. I didn't talkpage any, but I left edit summaries. I found the page had further problems. I think if we can form a consensus on the article as far as sourcing and weight, we can move on to other stuff. JFHJr (㊟) 05:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I noticed the article did have a fair bit of low quality sourcing so it is in need of a cleanup. Per WP:RSP#VentureBeat, VentureBeat seems to be a reliable source, though, so you could add that back in Tristario (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Done. JFHJr (㊟) 06:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Garret Camp's PR man complains and asks to have news reports about a protest by Uber drivers in front of his house removed from Wikipedia. There is obviously a conflict of interest here on the part of Camp's PR man. He should recuse himself from contributing to this article, as he quite plainly has a personal agenda here. It seems a compromise has been reached wherein the purchase is included in the article with the words "drawing criticism from Uber drivers struggling for improved wages and working conditions." So be it. I still maintain we should be careful not to allow Wikipedia to be a free PR platform. You may note the Garret Camp article at present includes all kind of falderal detail about Camp: the "50 Best Websites" list, the"50 Must-Have iPad Apps" list, ranked number 6 in Fast Company's Most Innovative Companies, etc. etc. etc. We even learn which actor portrayed him in the movie "Super Pumped." It seems to me several PR men have worked over this article in the previous years. As editors of Wikipedia, we should try to maintain high standards. Chisme (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out another instance of undue weight in this biography. I've addressed your valid concern by removing the prose and the references, plus another that didn't even mention the subject. The biography should not slide into a collection of non-noteworthy corporate detail. If the details belong anywhere, it's on the article for the company. JFHJr (㊟) 19:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

...about your other concerns:

1) User:John Pinette did an excellent job of disclosing his conflict of interest, and sought attention in the correct way. He never touched the article; he made a proposal; he responded to feedback; he sought help here. I can't speak for any other editors on the article. Please remember to assume good faith when you disagree.

2) A criticism section in this non-public figure's WP:BLP presents undue WP:WEIGHT; consensus here is half a line is okay. It's just not a big part of this human being's life, encyclopedically speaking. Its prose should be congruently small.

3) As long as they were reliable sources, no news reports were removed. In fact, there are now two references supporting the criticism you support.

4) The actor ref is solid, and the show is apparently notable. So it's noteworthy here, one line looks fine. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 20:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

So, the above points aside, and just considering the current state of the article, would you join a consensus that the WP:BLP policy-related issues have been addressed? And if there are remaining issues, what are they? JFHJr (㊟) 22:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks JFHJr for vacuuming some of the fluff out of the article. I appreciate the time you took to examine it. I have no issues as long as the protest by Uber drivers remains in the article. Yes, PR man John Pinette disclosed his conflict of interest. I was aware of that. Ny point was, because Pinette has a conflict of interest, his edits and proposed edits should be viewed skeptically. Chisme (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand and thank you. Please note, I haven't put any time into JP's proposed edits or asked him for any consensus or feedback on the BLP edits for the same reason. If his proposals make it into the article, they'll still need to be BLP compliant. I think you can let go of JP. He's not a disruptive editor. JFHJr (㊟) 22:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

It's important that biographies of living people on wikipedia comply with WP:BLP, and if another user raises concerns, whether they have a conflict of interest or not, you should seriously consider those conerns. If you haven't already, I would recommend reading through WP:BLP Tristario (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi All. I appreciate the thoughtful discussion here. The content I proposed originally[12] was "Labor activists criticized Camp's purchase, given the contrast in his wealth compared to that of Uber drivers". I think something along those lines is more neutral, but either is a fair solution to the undue issue.

Regarding the promotion, I pointed that out here: "The article itself consists largely of awards, rankings, and promotion about the companies he's involved in." The point of the proposed rewrite was to replace the promotional content with more proper biographical material that summarizes better independent sources.

Spintendo and I already spent a lot of time on that draft. Perhaps it would make more sense to review the draft to avoid a duplicative effort. Thanks again. John Pinette (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Oleg Burlakov

Multiple WP:BLP issues in Oleg Burlakov article. All my edits silently removing by User:Ssr who agressivly converting this article into attack page against Oleg Burlakov's widow and daughters.

What I trying to change, and what User:Ssr republished twice:

[13] - Burlakov's wife Lyudmila and their children are involved in a large-scale property-related conflict resulting in a big series of international court processes commonly entitled^{[citation needed]} Burlakov case The wording "The Burlakov Case" is a personal invention of the specified user, not supported by any authoritative source. He needs it solely to justify the creation of a separate article with the same title, also intended to attack these persons. I requested the source of this wording, the request was deleted.

[14] I tried to remove a fragment, directly violating WP:BLPCRIME rule. Neither the court nor the investigating authorities have ever published information about Burlakov's alleged statements accusing his wife of being involved in the assassination attempt. There are no published documents on this subject. The source of information of the publication in which this information is given is not attributed. However, user ssr persistently adds this information to the article.

[15] same as previouse - user inserting to the article information not attributed to the publication from an anonymous source that the deceased allegedly accused his wife of murder. There is no legally significant confirmation of this information. My attempt to remove this info reverted by ssr.

[16] I tryed to remove а compromising and unconfirmed rumor with no public significance. The information that the wife and children allegedly did not visit Burlakov in the hospital is given in the original article of the publication as an unconfirmed possibility. My opponent also returned this infringing WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:BLPBALANCE information about possibility to the article.

[17] I removed information about the complaints of Burlakov's wife's opponents, which had no public legal follow-up. In my understanding, phrases like In February 2021, potential violations in the removal of the body were being investigated and the issue of initiating a criminal case was being studied should not be in a Wikipedia article if, in 2023, there is no information about that the criminal case was started. The opponent returned this information to the article. IMHO, he, again, directly violated a WP:BLPCRIME.

[18] one more WP:BLPGOSSIP violation. Removed by me and returned by ssr.

I originally put my edits back in place and suggested in the edit description that further editing of the article be discussed on its talk page. However, ssr did not do this, but returned all the negative information back.

I do not know what specific task this user is performing and what their motives are. However, I would ask more experienced users to protect the article from unfair attacks on little-known private individuals, whose public face is 100% determined by kinship with the deceased, who is not able to clarify the situation and protect his own and their name.

The identity of Lyudmila, Elena and Veronica Burlakova also falls under the requirements of WP:BLP1E and should not be covered in Wikipedia in such a peremptory negative way. I have not yet fully understood the procedures of Wikipedia, so I appeal to the administrators with a request to take adequate measures to this situation. Джонни Уокер (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Gotta say that Burlakov case article looks highly suspect. I don't read Russian, so maybe there's something in those sources which isn't in the English ones, but the English language sources do not suggest to me that this is a single notable case; it looks like a bunch of unnotable lawsuits being synthesised into a single Thing. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

It's a mess even in Russian. Apologies for trying to skirt this one through closure. I can do some additional reading over the weekend. A few RS questions, and WEIGHT secondly, stand out to me. JFHJr (㊟) 05:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

You are completely right. No sources uniting a series of different conflicts that took place in courts and out of courts between different people in different years in one case are presented by the press either in Russian or in English. In the Russian section, this article was removed by the administrators as an original research and an fork of main biographical article about Oleg Burlakov. After that, the user ssr not only continued to edit it in English, but also created the same article in Spanish and French. This looks especially bad, since there are no articles about Oleg Burlakov himself in these languages.

This situation looks like Wikipedia-based stalking to me. Considering that some of the cases mentioned in this article were not completed and lost their relevance due to the death of Burlakov, it is not clear what the conscientious meaning of publishing information about them in the encyclopedia could be. Джонни Уокер (talk) 11:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps a move to Burlakov inheritance cases or Burlakov inheritance suits would be in order?--Auric talk 13:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this does not solve the problem of multiple WP:BLP rule violations in the main article Oleg Burlakov. And the independent existence of the article Burlakov case under any title seems inadequate, since it is a copy of the main article, supplemented by unconfirmed authoritative sources of speculation by its author and a selective collection of facts that expose his widow and daughters in a negative light. It also contains many other details of the life of the deceased and those around him, unconfirmed by authoritative sources, including the features of the process of conceiving a daughter with a mistress and a description of the relationship between his women. At the same time, the user ssr does not show any willingness to discuss the relevance of these facts on the Wikipedia pages. There is no reason why there should be a separate article on probate litigation in which more than half of the material is irrelevant to probate. This question could have been reflected in the main article, but in compliance with the rules of Wikipedia, and not with watering mud on his wife and daughters. Джонни Уокер (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Kristin Harila

Norwegian mountain climber who recently set a world record amidst circumstances which led to a social media controversy. Many new editors have come to the page obviously bringing the social media dispute with them, trying to add their own analysis of the situation to the article or "tell both sides" in the form of a "controversy" section, often without any sources at all, or less often relying on sources which are unreliable (including the Daily Mail) or do not support the added content. Much edit warring; full protection requested at RFPP already. There is a productive discussion on the talk page (and several unproductive ones) approaching a NPOV solution to the issue, but it could use some editors less emotionally invested to carefully review the sources. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC notice on Roman Polanski

If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Nelson Bocaranda

Discussion at ANI#Case study and ANI#BLP vios continue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

This issue has endured for over a week now; Nelson Bocaranda is a BLP with a query at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Nelson Bocaranda since 11 August with no response. Absent a response, does BLP require that content to be removed ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Anthony Liekens

Hi there. Can people take a look at Anthony Liekens? The subject of this article admitted molesting a child, which was covered by reliable sources at the time.

However, most of those sources have now been blanked by the publisher (the links are still live in the Wayback Machine). A new editor with a surprising amount of knowledge of our policies has appeared and has blanked the section, saying that the blanking means we can no longer refer to the event in question. I initiated the BRD cycle, but the editor prefers to edit war and says our rules prevent discussion on the talk page.

I don't think that's correct, but I'm not prepared to continue the edit war. — Trey Maturin™ 13:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Relevant section is based on two citations. Both citations are anonymized. One citation has been retracted by the publisher. This leaves this section poorly sourced, making WP the publisher of original research, while doing harm to a BLP.

Relevant policies with regard to this:

"Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility_for_providing_citations
"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
"Wikipedia articles must not contain original research." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
"An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is 'do no harm.'" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoiding_harm

EmielDB (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

There is still a reliable source with the information – the Gazet Van Antwerpen – that you also removed. Therefore none of the above apply. — Trey Maturin™ 14:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain how you know that source, in either the current or archived version, refers to the subject of our article? Nil Einne (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

This citation is fully anonymized and does not identify the living person in the article. Linking this citation to the living person is doing original research. EmielDB (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let's put aside any changes or disappearance of the sources. AFAICT, even the archived versions of the sources are insufficient to support any addition to our article. One of them refers to a 45 year old inventor Anthony L who participated in the TV programme 'Team Scheire'. It also includes a censored photo. While this is probably sufficient for me and you to be confident it refers to the subject of the article with a bit of research, EmielDB is correct it's basically OR. The other one is even worse, it refers to a 47 year old inventor from Antwerp. The other details are similar enough it must refer to the same person but it's even more useless as a source for anything related to the subject of our article. (I'm not sure why the ages are different as they are both 2023, maybe the 45 year old one made a mistake and used the age at the time of the crime?) I don't know if there were even earlier ones which had even more details but unless we have an archive or at least some indication these sources exist in some archive as well as information on what they say, IMO removal of the section is the right thing. P.S. I should mention I used machine translation to read both archives sources so it's possible I missed something. I doubt it though since Dutch is written in the same alphabet as English so I should be able to see a name even without machine translation. Nil Einne (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

If an article has been specifically withdrawn, rather than just, say, aged out of their available database (and to be clear, I don't know about the policies of the site in question), then that's saying that what we value as a reliable source does not stand behind the article, and it cannot be used, particularly for negative material in a WP:BLP. And the fact that the source avoids giving the last name means this looks like WP:OR, even if the connection seems obvious. Might other sources be found? --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Belgian law, which is EU law but stricter, has a Right To Vanish that applies to newspapers and Google (etc) that, for some reason, can be used by convicted child molesters. I am shocked, but not surprised, to see us siding with convicted paedophiles editing their own articles – yet again – because of a technicality in our handed-down-by-god written-in-stone rules. We should be ashamed of ourselves. [Nothing in this reply applies to individual editors here: it is a judgement upon our stinkingly bad rules, not upon those who are enforcing them who all have the best interests of the 'pedia at heart.] — Trey Maturin™ 17:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Given that Liekens is presumably in prison, I'm not sure that EmielDB is actually them, though it is likely that they have a conflict of interest, as I don't think most reasonable people would be so invested in removing these verifiably true statements. The real problem here is Belgian law, given that the newspapers seemingly didn't fully name him in the first place (presumably for legal reasons), and that the right to be forgotten law seems to be able to be used extremely liberally. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

He got 40 months in prison as a suspended sentence (straf met uitstel, lit 'punishment with delay'), plus a fine. That means he never served time for molestation, but will get 40 months on top of his sentence if he sexually abuses a child again. He's not imprisoned, and someone (AGF, but, honestly) is using en.wp to whitewash his heinous crime away. I'm so very, very uncomfortable with us helping him do this "bcoz rulz is rulz tho". — Trey Maturin™ 18:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay fair enough then. Another problem appears to be Belgium's justice system then. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Trey Maturin: you keep suggesting there are all these archived sources but why don't you present them? I'm sure we've discussed RTV issues before, however it might still be worth discussing them again. But that discussion should either be generic or in a discussion where it's relevant. As I mentioned above, AFAICT so far no one has shown us a single source, archived or whatever, that actually names the subject of the article so all this talk of RTV etc seems irrelevant. So it seems to me the problem is not simply that the sources have disappeared so we have to rely on archived versions. The problem appears to be that sources never existed in the first place. Requiring a source while clearly identifies the subject without requiring WP:OR is not simply a technicality, it's a basic tenet of WP:Verifiability so is particularly important to WP:BLP. Indeed it's part of WP:5P2 too. If the sources do not exist archived or not, then we cannot allow OR to WP:RGW because some editors feel it's some countries or papers policies which are wrong. I would note there is a wide world outside Belgium and the EU. So really these problems primarily occur when, public figure or not, the subject is relatively unknown at least outside a certain area. So no one is interested in writing about them in RS from outside the area, since there is generally nothing stopping sources in the US in particular, writing about it. They can do things which for us would be WP:OR to decide whether media reports etc refer to the same subject. The alternative case is when sources have chosen to follow the lead of the local sources for whatever reason, in the latter case (which doesn't seem to apply here), there's even more reason why we have to follow the RS and now allow OR just because editors disagree with these RS decisions. Nil Einne (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

After this German case in April 2019, I would urge extreme caution in citing archived copies of otherwise reliable sources that have been retracted in whole or in part. While that particular case involved what was later ruled to be defamatory content, it nonetheless shows the danger in citing retracted sources. In most cases we don't know why a source was retracted, only that it was.

This sort situation for EU nationals might also become more common in the years to come. The recent ECtHR ruling in Hurbain v. Belgium expanded the scope of the GDPR's right to be forgotten for non-public figures who had been convicted of a crime, and this may be used in the future to anonymise criminal reporting providing the seven criteria set out in the case ruling are met. Depending on when the sources for Liekens were retracted and redacted (if it was after 4 July 2023), it's possible that this may even be an application of the recent ECtHR ruling. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I actually have similar concerns I didn't yet mention mostly because they seemed somewhat moot as long as we don't even have good initial sources. People keep saying this is a RTV/E/BF/whatever but AFAIK, we have no idea why those articles have disappeared as is the norm with most such cases. It's my understanding that seems to be supported by our article Right to be forgotten is that the general concept is that people shouldn't always be harmed long term over something in the past. E.g. our article includes this quote "the right to silence on past events in life that are no longer occurring". While "the past" is undefined, I'd be surprised if it would be taken to include a case where the person is still on probation for the crime and so it isn't really just a past even in their life.

Likewise there is significantly more reason why the public might need to know as it can have a greater effect on how they respond to something as e.g. a victim of some sort of abuse which would be considered relatively low on the serious threshold might consider it more worth reporting if they're aware that the perpetrator may very well get a more significant punishment. (While to some extent this applies for anyone with such offending in the past, it's much more significant when they are on some form of probation and so there's an existing sentence which would take effect if any new crime is considered to trigger the probationary sentence.)

Most times these issues have come up, even in controversial cases, they have related to articles a fair time ago, e.g. 5-10 years. I could imagine 2 years in some circumstances but 2-3 months makes me wonder what's the purpose of allowing the articles in the first place.

I don't know the specifics of Belgium law on the matter, I had a quick look but couldn't find anything in English that would help clarify. And I appreciate that one issue is that often it's up to the company to decide what they need to do based on laws which are somewhat vague, and risk fines if they reject a request and are wrong so companies may sometimes be more willing to action a request than they need to be.

But it seems to me it could easily be the case all this speculation is wrong, it wasn't really the RTV/E/BF that's at play but something else. Notably, I don't really understand the extremely half-hearted attempts at censorship, especially the photo one which per Russ Woodroofe's comments below is even worse than I realised. The name one at least does make it less likely a simple internet search will uncover the articles but I still find it weird.

In NZ, name suppression can apply in various circumstances some more controversial than others; but while many of these are breached in the internet age, at least their implementation is generally quite strict with the details published limited enough to make it very difficult to figure out who the person is solely from such reports.

I wonder if the issue here is not a RTBF, but for whatever reason there was an order for the identity not to be published, perhaps not as strict as in NZ, but still expecting it would be somewhat hard to figure out who the person was from reports. And some media made that extremely halfhearted attempt at complying and got in trouble for it.

It may be that the basis for the original order/whatever for keeping the identity out of media reports/articles came about due to similar reasons to the RTE i.e. a believe that the perpetrator would suffer excessive lifelong harmed by the publication of their crime. But while editors may fundamentally disagree with such a stance, the point is it's not a case where historic crimes are being expunged despite there being older sources which identified them. Instead it's a case where they weren't supposed to be published in the first places i.e. sources from Belgium shouldn't have existed. (And as I said, IMO from our PoV they didn't. Not because they disappeared but instead because as half-hearted as the attempts at censorship were, they were enough to mean we don't seem to have any source which identifies the subject in a non OR way.)

Nil Einne (talk) 12:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Likewise there is significantly more reason why the public might need to know as it can have a greater effect on how they respond to something as e.g. a victim of some sort of abuse which would be considered relatively low on the serious threshold might consider it more worth reporting if they're aware that the perpetrator may very well get a more significant punishment. That is a very culturally specific point of view. While that may be true for the US and to a lesser extent the UK, there are many European countries where anonymisation of both victims and perpetrators by the press, including post-conviction anonymisation, is the norm. We were discussing something adjacent to this at WT:BIO in July, and this seems to be an area where aspects of our policies and the expectations of our editors aren't wholly in tune with the realities of how reliable sources cover crimes and convictions in countries with strong privacy protections.

but for whatever reason there was an order for the identity not to be published That's possible. Similar court orders happen where I live in the UK, usually to protect the victims as knowledge of the perpetrator along with the date and location of the crime can make identifying victims easy. Sometimes it's also to ensure that the suspect can get a fair trial for a particularly sensationalistic or heinous crime, and I've seen more than a few non-UK editors tripped up by it. It could also equally be a journalistic ethics violation in Belgium to identify, in part or in whole, suspects and convicted criminals in cases such as this.

At the end of the day though, we just don't know why these articles were retracted, and because of how the press handles situations like this we may never know. All we can do is to ensure that we're not relying on retracted articles when including content in articles such as this. And if that means we have to remove content, then that is the unfortunate reality of covering content such as this from a global perspective when only local sources exist. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not that we don't know why these articles were retracted, we don't know if they were retracted. Retraction implies removal due to no longer being comfortable that the article presents the truth. There are other reasons why articles get deleted. Not all news sites keep archives indefinitely; while the rather short time between posting and removal raises concern, I do not know the practices of the site in question. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

P.S. I'm unconvinced the recent Belgium case (which I came across in earlier searches) is of great relevance here. For starters, as I understand it, it mostly re-affirmed a decision of the Belgium courts, so I strongly suspect many media outlets had already begun to comply. I'd also note that as I understand it, there's nothing new about RTBF/E applying to criminal cases. While it was a part of the case it had already been somewhat well established (albeit with strong dispute over what sort of cases this applies to). The biggest issue was as I understand whether media archives should have to comply with such requests since most cases have concerned search engines etc see e.g. [19]. Most importantly, I'd note that the article was nearly 30 years old and there's discussion in the case about how the person had been rehabilitated etc. Again I don't see how this would apply to someone who was only recently convicted and is still on probation so hence why I have doubts this really is a RTE/BF case. I'd note that the article19 discussion talks about a request for removal of two-year old article making it sound like they think this is an extreme example, also making it weird no one would think anything of a request for a ~3 month old article. Nil Einne (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

There are no archived versions of the original reporting RSes? Why can't we use them for an article that is not officially retracted? Even with the right to vanish situation, did the conviction go away? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

In reviewing the archived versions, did the originals RS articles directly name him? It's not obvious to me whether this was the case since they are not in English. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think an invocation of the Right to Disappear (as it appears may have happened here) is the same as a retraction. That said, I agree on a closer look that the archive sources do not identify the subject with enough precision. It _is_ remarkable that the one newspaper ran the same photo twice in separate articles, once blurred and once not. I found also this source [20], but I don't think it is of the high standard required for BLPs (it is in a satire magazine, and interpreting it may thus require WP:SYNTH). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

IMO it would help if the article is pared down. In particular, there seems to be too much info on Corona Denktank with sources which probably don't mention the subject, and in some case aren't even good sources (e.g. primary sources). Heck even the Team Scheire ref looks to be primary. Nil Einne (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Troy Halpin

User @Rightthewrongs10 states they are the subject of the article, and have repeatedly blanked sections of the article and removing the info box, and specifically removing references to their career. On their User Talk Page they have been insistent in wanting this information removed, and it appears to be a sensitive issue? The article is poorly sourced at the moment.

This could devolve into an edit war so I wanted to bring this to the attention of the noticeboard to get some uninvolved parties to look at it. Qcne (talk) 09:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The article is certainly poorly sourced. None of this looks like super contentious material to me - it's just details of his professional career, and I'm sure it could be sourced. I would have expected that a footballer with 12 caps and three goals for their national side in the modern era has plenty of coverage, but I guess Australia isn't that big on assocation football because google isn't turning up as much as I expected – though there is e.g. this from the Sydney Morning Herald and this from the Newcastle Herald which is more than just match reports. I don't know if he's sufficiently unknown that the article could be deleted per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, if we could verify that Halpin wanted the article to be deleted – there's no way to tell whether Rightthewrongs10 is actually Halpin. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I've removed some of the resume fodder since I could not find RS coverage of them. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Margaret Sullivan - journalist

"Newroom Confidential:" The book title is spelled wrong; it should be "Newsroom Confidential." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:EE0:50E0:4AF0:3BBF:54B7:9BAC:9888 (talk) 10:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks IP - this seems to have been fixed. In future, most articles, including Margaret Sullivan (journalist) are unprotected, meaning that anyone, including you, can edit them; you should feel free to make corrections like this yourself. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Assistance updating the page of Marine Tanguy

Hello, I am a representative for Marine Tanguy and keen to request some help with updating her Wikipedia page in line with Wikipedia’s policies on conflict of interest. I’ve posted the suggested amends to the talk section on the Marine Tanguy page and would hugely appreciate some assistance if possible. Many thanks in advance! Artdamo (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here; I have replied to the comments on the talkpage. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Joshua D. Wright

I am not sure whether an extra hot fresh sexual misconduct allegation belong to the bio of Joshua D. Wright. (It was also added yesterday; reverted by me due to bad source). I smell WP:COI here. - Altenmann >talk 21:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:PUBLICFIGURE requires multiple RS reporting on this. Is it satisfied? Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I may be getting skewed google results as I'm not in the US, but the Law360 source is the only one I can turn up online. We should follow PUBLICFIGURE and err on the side of leaving it out unless & until more sources start to report on this Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I removed the text in question. - Altenmann >talk 15:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Daily Mail published an article on it yesterday. While the previous articles in Law360 and ATL were trades without some of the rigor of other source types, this is pretty squarely journalistic reporting. Additionally, GMU acknowledged the issue in an email to the law student body. To me this feels like sufficiently robust reporting to satisfy WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Mr. G. Williams (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Mr. G. Williams, The Daily Mail is not a reliable source. Schazjmd (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Here is another incident although the article would seem to be an WP:RSOPINION.[21] Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Another article from Above the Law came out about the alleged misconduct; again it seems like an editorial/blog and may not be appropriate to establish facts.[22] Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay there is coverage from what I would consider a non-commentary reliable source.[23] I think that and the Law360 article are enough to overcome WP:PUBLICFIGURE on the allegations since it had an impact on him resigning. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Joanne Peters

Please refer to what I posted on her talk page. She refers to herself as Joey but Joanne is obviously her name. I think the page should stay as Joanne but Joey should be referenced at the top and additionally Joey Peters should redirect to it. What do other people think? MaskedSinger (talk) 05:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Shellyne Rodriguez

On Talk:Shellyne_Rodriguez, one user suggested reporting the Shellyne Rodriguez article because it needs mediation. That's true now. And next Monday (Aug 14), she has two court hearings, so depending on what happens in those two courts (on one day!), the article may need even more mediation next week.

The issue (from my perspective) is that the honest efforts of Reliable Sources to cover a news story that the Unreliable Sources dishonestly created with a cell phone camera are doomed to failure. Honestly reporting someone's dishonesty repeats their dishonesty.

As someone who taught at CUNY colleges for 16 years, I read both the Reliable and the Unreliable Sources with an entirely different perspective.

I'm curious to hear yours.

Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

That article has and had serious problems. I've removed a lot of content [24] as it was sourced to unsuitable sources especially primary sources like court documents, exam schedules and Students for Life America. Even some of the secondary sources were used in an almost primary source like fashion and they are also not reliable sources like New York Post and Fox News. I left in the use of New York Post in one paragraph that I saw because the rest of the text doesn't make much sense without it but the article needs to be re-worded to only cover what has been reported in reliable secondary sources, not anything that is solely sourced to primary sources or other unreliable sources; so that paragraph needs to be fixed to remove anything relying solely on NY Post as a source replacing it with anything that was reported on secondary sources and removing it where it's not covered. To be clear this includes anything coming directly from the video or anything about what the reporter was told or said which is not covered in reliable secondary sources. In other words, we can report the machete incident but we have to be careful to only report the details on that which we covered in reliable secondary sources. Probably the text can be simplified to how a NY Post reporter approached her at her home and she threatened them with a machete and was fired or something of that sort. Note that while you are free to read unreliable sources for your own interest, they are of very little relevance to what we should cover in our article whatever you perspective. If there is new material from secondary sources tomorrow we can cover that as it happens but we cannot rely on primary source, unreliable sources and editor WP:OR in the meantime. Nil Einne (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Yes. You noticed the issue. On the one hand, the rest of the text does not make sense without the NYPost article. On the other, the NYPost manufactured the narrative. A pamphlet-splilling is not newsworthy. Why were journalists covering this "news story" at all?

And now that anything Prof. Rodriguez says "can and will be used against her in a court of law," she cannot tell us her side of the story. Instead we all have to wait for a judge.

So given the inevitable one-sided nature of any writing about what the NYPost did, it would be better to just delete the whole "Legal issues" section than to exclude information necessary to her public defense. Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I want to note that User:Eryk Wdowiak may have a conflict of interest. They have tried to synthesize a narrative using uploaded screenshots from the university website. It appears Wdowiak works for the same university system as Rodriguez. @DMacks: any thoughts about this? Thriley (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Concur with possible literal WP:COI, or at best a massive WP:NPOV fail. Self-described attempting to Right Great Wrongs and help get the word out or provide a different side or weight of perspective not based on published reliable sources. DMacks (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you not see that the BBC re-reported the NYPost's story before ABC7? The British Broadcasting Company reported on events in Manhattan before the American Broadcasting Company's channel 7 in New York City. Look at the dates. The BBC reported the NYPost's story on May 24. ABC7 reported it on May 25. I propose a return to 1776. Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Clarification: "I propose a return to the Spirit of 1776." Before historians remind me of what happened to the Americans who defended Fort Washington in 1776, I wish to make clear that I prefer the Americans' triumphant re-entry into Manhattan in 1783. ;-) Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

As Eryk Wdowiak has repeatedly thrown around loaded terms and has now explicitly said we should make an editorial decision to "help Wikipedia avoid a defamation lawsuit",(edit summary) I have issued an NLT warning. I don't think this specific one actually crosses the bright line, but has the appearance of chilling intent. DMacks (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

This from the man who talks about "your behavior." What I said is that editors like you, DMacks, have made contentious edits that may cause Shellyne Rodriguez to take legal action against Wikipedia. For balance, I included some positive, well-sourced information about her in the article. It was quickly deleted.

I find it a shame that you cannot say anything nice about her. Instead of pointing your index finger at other people, maybe you should look your own other fingers pointing back at you. Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Here's the comparison. Between 01:39 on 01 Aug and 20:31 on 09 Aug, DMacks and his team removed everything that Prof. Rodriguez could use in her defense, citing "policy" as the reason. That's not policy. That's defamation. Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

That is utterly absurd. Wikipedia is not a court of law. Articles aren't evidence. What is or isn't in an article here has no bearing whatsoever on anything 'Rodriguez could use in her defense'. And I'd strongly suggest you drop the 'defamation' crap, before someone decides you are stepping over the line into explicit legal threats, and blocks you. Trying to win content disputes through such tactics doesn't work, and it would be a desperately poor day for Wikipedia if it ever did. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Her legal defense? I am certain that her attorneys have 1000 times more information than we do.

I'm talking about her public defense -- the one in the court of public opinion. If you damage someone's reputation in the court of public opinion, you will soon find yourself a defendant in a court of law.

And again, why do certain people here find it so difficult to say something nice? Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

And for what it's worth ... While editing the article, I read every single source. After taking an honest look at all the information, I found myself admiring Shellyne Rodriguez.

I hope you all will admire her one day too. Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Given the above further reference to "a court of law", I have started a thread regarding Eryk Wdowiak's behaviour at WP:ANI: [25] AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I was looking back to my experience in journalism and remembering the advice that my editors gave me. It's very simple: "If you damage someone's reputation in the court of public opinion, you will soon find yourself a defendant in a court of law." Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Eryk Wdowiak has now been blocked indefinitely. Could I ask those experienced with WP:BLP policy to take a look at the article though, since we need to treat this with care. I've removed a citation of the 'Students for Life' YouTube video, as it didn't seem appropriate, and anything of relevance was cited to secondary sources. Further editing may possibly be necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The third paragraph of the "Hunter College videos" section should be rewritten to not directly cite the New York Post at all. If the details of how the incident allegedly played out can be attributed to more reliable sources that assessed the Post's claims, then those sources should be used; otherwise they should be removed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with Tamzin. As Eryk pointed out before they were banned, the story was run on ABC7 which I would consider to be a relatively reliable source. That said, it's regrettable that other news sources didn't run it (I can kind of understand why), and the only other sources I can seem to find through Google search are all advocacy/opinion sites. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Sadly, there's no way to get an objective writeup of the situation as the only witnesses on either side are biased. All we know for sure is that "journalist" from a far-right new source was harrassing a "left-wing" public figure, and she responded with violence. Right-wing sources are naturally going to spin it as if she was unhinged, completely ignoring the harassment, left-wing sources are going to push the harassment angle despite the fact that the only two people who know the degree of the harassment both have an incentive to lie about it, and centrist sources are going to muddy the waters of the issue, as they always do. 208.87.236.201 (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

With all of the censorship here at Wikipedia, the public will never learn the truth. 173.251.122.2 (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I wish to report that the IP editor, or someone closely associated, appears to have sent a harassing email to at least one, and presumably many of my work colleagues, from an anonymous email address. (Among other things, they do not understand page protection, and are asking someone from Slovenia to advance the same edits as Eryk Wdowiak.) Is there anything that I should do? Apologies if this is a little offtopic for WP:BLPN, and perhaps advice should go to my talk page. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

See your talk page - best not to discuss this anywhere public. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

IShowSpeed

Internet personality IShowSpeed is embroiled in a nudity-related controversy. There's an ongoing discussion about whether a mention of this controversy is warranted. Proponents of inclusion have brought some sources, including Complex and Dot Esports. Opponents are questioning whether the sources are reliable for sensitive BLP claims. Opponents have also cited BLP, NOTNEWS, DUE, and recentism concerns. More input would be appreciated. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I think taking the sources to RSN would be good idea. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Complex and Dot Esports are already considered reliable per WP:VG/RS and WP:A/S. I personally believe both sources' journalism on BLPs are decent, but the question is even if they're fully reliable for BLPs, would the controversy even be worth including in his article? PantheonRadiance (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

RSN is good for discussions regarding whether specific sources are usable for specific cases. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that could be helpful too. Since there's more than just RS concerns here, I'd prefer to leave this up here for a while before taking it another noticeboard. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The reliability of sources is never black and white. It often depends a great deal on the particular information it is giving. I'd be happy to look at the specific sources in question and give my assessment of them, but I don't see them posted here or at the talk page, and it looks like digging through the history to find them is going to be a lot of work. But if someone wants to post them here I'll gladly take a look when time permits. Zaereth (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Complex: 1, 2

Dot Esports: 1 PantheonRadiance (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. All sources seem well written, keep a neutral point of view, don't try to sensationalize it, and remain rather objective. That said, all these amount to about a paragraph of the same information, which can basically be summed up as, "He had a Janet Jackson-type wardrobe-malfunction (to use a euphemism), which caused some stir on social media, and no consequences resulted", and given the size of the article and number of sources, I can't see giving it anymore weight than that, if even that much. However, weighing the sources against each other is best done by those who have read them all. Unlike Jackson, which received major, lasting news-coverage and had a rather big impact on her career, this looks a lot more like the usual celebrity gossip that will likely never have any lasting impact on his career. That's where the problems with the sources come in, because they really never did any investigation into this but are basically just regurgitating what TMZ said and what they saw on social media, and they make that pretty clear. Zaereth (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you make reasonable points; even though the sources seem fine, the concerns about due weight and its long-term impact still remain unclear, and there's still contention over whether it should even remain on the article. Someone else just readded the paragraph with different sources as I write this, but here's what a previous revision with the added sources looked like before we decided to remove it once more and gain consensus. PantheonRadiance (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

As a side issue: there are multiple talk page discussions about this same issue. Could an uninvolved editor review to see if it would help to hat some and direct discussion to a single section? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Ferdinand Topacio

This series of edits appears to have removed some potentially problematic content but also added some new problems back in. I reverted but it needs a scrub. VQuakr (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Much of the edits I added in the article are properly referenced to trust-worthy nees sources. Why remove them all? You also removed the part where Topacio is a lawyer of former PH president Estrada when it's also all over PH newspapers and it's a general knowledge as well. What's not general knowledge is Topacio being a singer and the subject's alleged links to several showbiz personalities which are sourced only to gossip YouTube videos. Access Control Allow Origin (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I restored a section that you removed because it is properly sourced. You also have to explain why you have to remove the part stating that subject is also a lawyer of former president Estrada, saying it is unsourced/uncited when it is already provided in the "Cases handled" section with proper citations.

Access Control Allow Origin (talk) 02:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Ken Carson lead image

Could someone please take a look at the lead image in this article and it's associated caption. I view this image as a violation of the WP:BLPCRIME and WP:MUGSHOT policies, as the image is a police mug shot, labelled as a police mug shot, for an arrest that did not result in any convictions. The image therefore, in my view, inappropriatley implies that the subject of the article is a criminal, despite the article containing no sources suggesting he has actually been convicted of anything. I don't think the mugshot is really appropriate as a lead image at all, but I'll wait for other people to weigh in on that.

I have twice edited the caption quoting relevant policies, and have been reverted twice by second skin, once with no explanation, once with a personal attack while logged out. I left a notice and a CTOP alert on their talk page, which they reverted telling me to "fuck off", so I am asking someone else to have a look at the matter.

It may be worth having a look at second skin's BLP edits more generally, because with a quick look there appear to be recent instances of them adding material to articles which is unsourced [26] poorly sourced [27] or not actually supported by the sources they provided [28]. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

It appears @Meters has reinstated my caption edit while I was writing this. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree with your edit summary, and your reasoning. We should not mention that this is a mugshot. In fact, if possible I would suggest that we replace the mugshot with some other free image. Meters (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Meters Per WP:MUGSHOT I think having no image at all would be more appropriate than having a police mug shot in this case. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

As currently presented, it's not very obvious that this is a mugshot, but of course the subject and probably many others would be aware of this. There is however an alternative [29] that can be cropped and used instead, which may solve the issue. Per WP:MUG I think that would be preferable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

(ec) As it is there is no explicit mention that this is a mugshot, but the reverted edits have been attempting to add such a mention to the caption (see [ for example).

There are other issues with this article. We cite no sources for his birthplace, birthdate or full name, for example. Meters (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to say that the IP that reverted the OP a third time, after User:Second Skin had done it twice, looks very suspicious as well, as it has also edited articles in the same niche genre as Second Skin.

20:48:46 SS tells the OP to "fuck off"
20:50:15 IP 162.191.155.51 reverts to re-include the mugshot text with the editsum "search "Ken Carson arrested" on google it's the exact same image you idiot"

Thoughts? Black Kite (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I had warned the IP for that revert and summary. I have to say that I also found the timing and the tone suspicious. Meters (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead image replaced with File:Ken_Carson_Rolling_Loud_2023.jpg, uncited birthdate removed. Meters (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Michael Oher, Leigh Anne Tuohy, Sean Tuohy, and The Blind Side (film)

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I'm not familiar with the process, but it seems like an edit war is going to need to be addressed on the pages for Michael Oher, Leigh Anne Tuohy, Sean Tuohy, and The Blind Side (film). Due to the prominence of the movie and the statements made by both sides, the lawsuit is drawing a lot people to the pages who seem unfamiliar with BLP, NPOV, or what can be said in ongoing legal situations (I'm not overly familiar with the Wikipedia policies, specifically, but I attempted an edit on the Leigh Anne Tuoh page and added an explanation on the Talk page--it has already been changed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiggeritian (talk • contribs) 23:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

As directed above, I added the BLP noticeboard template to the Talk page for each of the pages I mentioned. It would be good for someone to check I placed it correctly. I also didn’t know if there was something to do with the multiple separate items made on most of the Talk pages related to this issue. Tiggeritian (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

It looks like experienced editors are watching those pages and some have now been at least semi-protected. I'm not seeing a need for further admin action here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Poul Henning-Kamp

An Anti-semitism accusations section was over many years repeatedly re-added from IP addresses and also a single-edit account DemarcationZone86. The section is based entirely on self-published sources written by Henning-Kamp emself. As my knowledge of the policy goes, this should be removed per WP:BLPREMOVE point 1. But given that I'm not an experienced editor, I would like to ask for input. NicolausPrime (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

A clear WP:BLP violation. There would have to be far better sourcing. I have removed the section. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Richard Ford

Efforts to include a fully-sourced (USA Today, The Guardian, etc.) discussion of Ford spitting on Colson Whitehead and the allegations that have followed were immediately deleted. Ford himself has acknowledged (in the New York Times Magazine) previously using the n-word to dismiss a critic of a friend's work. These details are a relevant part of Ford's biography, which should not be whitewashed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardfordtruther (talk • contribs) 17:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi there. It's me, the immediate deleter. I think there's some of your added content that can be worked into the body of the article, and I've been reading the sources you added to think on the best way to do so. I don't think we can add such a large amount of content to the lead, and I have not yet seen a source say that the controversy is what Ford is "best known for" apart from his writing. In general, having a username like Richardfordtruther suggests that you intend to focus solely on increasing negative coverage of Ford, and if your goal is to build an encyclopedia, I urge you to change names. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I'll change the name, and I'll go ahead and make the changes in the way you suggest. However, "worked into the body of the article" suggests burying these facts in the "controversies" section, and I would argue that this would do a disservice to a fair representation of the facts surrounding Ford's career. Moreover, there's already quite a bit of unsourced information in the article, including a comment at the top of the bio that Ford is "best known for..." I wonder if the same level of scrutiny will be applied to those sections or if it is only applied to sections that do not exalt the writer. Richardfordtruther (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Another example of exalting language in the introductory paragraph of this biography that is not factually provable includes "master of the short story genre." Richardfordtruther (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I have put in a request for a user name change and have amended the additions in keeping with the suggestions above while also adding deeper sourcing that was missing. Richardfordtruther (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Request to remove a photo

i mistakenly added two photos of Nora Attal at Alexander McQueen Fall Winter 2018 twice, please I need few steps on how to remove one of the photos, thank you Andikan Efiok Eduok (talk) 08:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [Attal] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andikan Efiok Eduok (talk • contribs) 08:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Andikan Efiok Eduok, I've fixed it now. The article isn't really long enough to need two images, so I've just left the one color image. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Andikan Efiok Eduok (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Premeditated_Chaos can you please give me details on how to upload a photo on the infor box Andikan Efiok Eduok (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Laurence Fox image

Should File:LaurenceFox-Oxford-20060918.jpg be used at Laurence Fox#Acting career or not? Strugglehouse says yes and I say no. The image has a valid free license. It is a picture of an actor pulling "a bit of a silly face", in Strugglehouse's words, during filming in public. In my view WP:BLPIMAGE is the basis for us not including unflattering photographs from situations where the subject did not expect to be photographed (as Fox is clearly distracted by the production team). — Bilorv (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

If the issue is this edit, I would say that that image serves no encyclopaedic purpose. Why would we want it in the encyclopaedia? It's better suited to the tabloids. DeCausa (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

No, we have a good quality free image of him already, and that image is on the unflattering side. Unneeded. Masem (t) 01:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I think having different images of subjects across their career is good if the images are available for use. You removed the image from his article, saying that it's "Not clear what this image adds to the article.", and asking me to take it to the talk page. I think it adds value to the article as it's an additional image of Fox, showing him at a different time in his career, and shows an example of what the article is talking about within that section (his acting career). You also removed it from Lewis (TV series), citing the same reason, again asking me to take it to the talk page despite this being the first time you reverted it on that page. I think it adds even more value to the Lewis article, as it shows production of the show, something that is likely to interest a good selection of readers. Strugglehouse (talk) 09:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

What does it add to have a picture of a subject gurning? It's a puerile choice that undermines the encyclopedic credibility of the page. DeCausa (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Setting aside my personal feelings on the article subject, the picture adds no value to the article. I'm sure we could all find unflattering pictures of most BLP subjects in Wikipedia, non of them would be acceptable or enhance the credibility of the encyclopedia. Knitsey (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't even think that that the problem is that it's unflattering. It's that it would look like it's been put in the article to amuse a 12 year old. (That may be a disservice to 12 year olds.) DeCausa (talk) 10:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

You're probably right. Knitsey (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why you're accusing me of being a child just because I wanted to add an image to an article. I just don't think the image looks that bad, but if you really don't want to include it - fine. Strugglehouse (talk) 10:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Strugglehouse: I did neither of those things; rather, it was a fifth editor objecting to the image on the common sense basis that it is an unpleasant depiction of the subject. — Bilorv (talk) 10:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bilorv:, apologies, I assumed you reverted it. I didn't read it properly. Strugglehouse (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

BLP vs. ignore all rules

I don't know whether this noticeboard is the place for this question, but it's important that I ask. I've always tried to remove unsourced material from BLPs when I find it to adhere to the BLP policy, but I just engaged in a dispute where it was argued that use common sense overrides sourcing requirement. Is this ever true? KyleJoan^talk 02:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Rather than going into a long spiel, I'm just going to leave this link, since my thoughts on this have already been written down. User:Zaereth/Writing tips for the amateur writer#Editorial judgment: consciousness and conscience. In general, I think that "ignore all rules" is bad advice. Instead, rules need to be flexible to be able to encompass the infinite number of variables possible in different cases. This is where I think wikipolicy in some ways far exceeds the usefulness of laws as they are used in the legal system, that is, rigid and inflexible. Wikipolicy should really be looked at as a whole, and not simply individual policies that are potential loopholes to the others. I like to think of it as one giant equation, like you'd see on some Einstein's chalkboard, where any change in one factor affects the results of the entire equation and how all the other factors are used. When the policies no longer stand alone, but are all integrated into one, then they all work together, augmenting each other and gives it the flexibility needed to account for different situations that arise.

That said, I think policy is probably (if not already) becoming far too bloated. I think it's a grave mistake to try to make a separate policy (or part of policy) for every possibility. It's a Sisyphean task, for one thing. For another, it creates more complications than it solves and increases the rigidity. But moreover, rules should be more about the bigger picture, in terms of what is considered acceptable or not acceptable, as a guide to use our judgment wisely. Zaereth (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

If unsourced material is challenged, then the onus is on whoever wants to restore it to find a source and to convince other editors that the info is worth including. This applies to all articles, but especially to BLPs. If they repeatedly restore it without discussing, then they'll probably end up getting page blocked. It's not just a rule that the restorer is responsible... it's common sense. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

It is sometimes true that common sense overrides the BLP sourcing requirement. It's unlikely that firm rules designed by committee will be phrased carefully enough that exceptions won't be needed. Exceptions should be exceptional, explicit, rare, and called for in a way that makes it clear the editor doesn't just disagree with the rule. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Every time that IAR is invoked it needs a solid argument for it's usage. Editors are expected to use their own judgement, but that doesn't extend to "I don't like that rule, so it doesn't apply to me". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm a salty old editor and BLPN ogre. I'm a longtime deletionist, content and space wise. I just asked a COI editor to provide basic, utile, and innocuous content by directly editing the article for a singular purpose: a date or year of birth. IAR is more useful with experience. Funny, you don't need to shout IAR to get things done if you spend enough time with the concepts people like to call rules. They're complicated, they change, and that's why we have a consensus model. The dichotomy that your heading posits is false. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 05:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Jim Goetz

First thing, I should disclose that I represent Mr. Goetz. And while I recognize WP:BLPEDIT permits direct editing to remove unsourced information, we still prefer to bring questions to the community and avoid making COI edits.

The issue in question is the infobox, which lists a spouse and children. No source has been provided. Even if one can be found, WP:BLPPRIVACY indicates that the "standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified". I believe the circumstances here warrant its removal.

Other than these infobox listings, the article is otherwise entirely focused on his business endeavors. WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE suggests to include "only material relevant to the person's notability" when the person is not well-known, and indeed Mr. Goetz generally keeps a WP:LOWPROFILE. He has not held a leadership role at his VC firm for several years, and grants few interviews. In fact, a columnist for the Missoulian of the same name has many more Google News hits.

For these reasons, I'm requesting an uninvolved editor to consider removing the mention of spouse and children from the infobox. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the unsourced spouse and children from the infobox. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I really appreciate it, thanks very much. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

And thank you for coming here exactly how you did. Too few do. I've watchlisted the article as I'm sure some others here have and will do. Again, thank you! JFHJr (㊟) 04:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi again ScottishFinnishRadish and JFHJr. A few days after our discussion, another editor, Edwardx, edited the page for the first time to add information about Mr. Goetz's marital status and number of children, which of course I had made the case for removing. I reached out to see if they would reconsider, although they declined, stating the material was properly sourced and uncontroversial. I understand this view, although my interpretation of BLP policy is that when family members are not public figures and they have no relation to the subject's Notability, the subject's wishes for privacy on these details should be observed. As always, I will not directly edit the article, but I hope I can contribute usefully to the matter in this thread. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The argument can be made that disclosing the names of Mr. Goetz's children and spouse is violating WP:BLPPRIVACY, but mentioning that he is married and the number of children may be of interest to readers and appear to be public information. I don't know if there is a policy violation per se. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with noting the marriage and the number of children, while leaving out the names. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Have added a little more info from Goetz's own page at Sequoia Capital and his NED page at Intel. All standard stuff that our readers would expect for any business bio here. I have very extensive experience on business BLPs over many years, and this being my first time editing the article should be a positive. As an experienced volunteer, I can be more objective than someone who is paid by the subject. Edwardx (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, I accept I am not going to prevail on this point. Still, I appreciate the time everyone has put in to respond. So I have a different question now. Mr. Goetz is in fact no longer married, although there are no secondary sources confirming this. What's the best course of action? (I can provide the case number to locate relevant the court record; perhaps this is something to contact WP:VRT about?) I'm reminded of the recent Emily St. John Mandel situation (see: cheeky Slate interview, lengthy talk page discussion) and I'm hoping this has a simpler fix, even if just removing the marriage reference and leaving the children. Very interested to hear what you all think. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, WWB Too. It is disappointing that you are drip-feeding us, rather than being full and frank at the outset. Also, Goetz appears to live in Miami now, rather than Los Gatos - will you be you asking for us to change that too? All I can find when searching for "Jim Goetz divorce" is a page on UniCourt (looks like a scraper of primary source data) that he "filed a Family - Marriage Dissolution/Divorce lawsuit" in November 2021, and "The case status is Pending - Other Pending." Are they actually divorced, or just separated? The general rule is that we go with what is published in reliable secondary sources, Forbes in this case. Perhaps you or Goetz could contact Forbes to ask them to update their page? Edwardx (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Edwardx, I'm sorry you feel this way. As noted above, Mr. Goetz prefers to keep his private life private, even as his business career has made him a public figure. Since his marital status and children are not relevant to his Notability, my hope was that others would agree it didn't need to be here at all.

Regarding Forbes: because it was accurate for the time, I think it unlikely they will change it. That would be asking them to make information incorrect there; I think it would be preferable to make information correct here.

FWIW, the court record can be found via the Santa Clara county superior court website by searching the case number 21FL004073; it is not detailed, but it is apparent the matter has been carried through to its resolution. I think it is possible I could obtain a copy of the decision itself, though it would be inappropriate to share on a public page, hence my suggestion about reaching out to VRT. Any thoughts to add, ScottishFinnishRadish or Kcmastrpc? Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Forbes is one of their numerous undated profile pages, not an article, so it is a simple matter to request an update. Please see Contact Information. The Santa Clara site is down. Edwardx (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @WWB Too, your best bet will likely be going to VRT or getting Forbes to update their profile of Mr. Goetz. While I have no reason to doubt your claim, this is a sensitive subject where policy has not been changed even with the Mandel kerfuffle. I was not able to load the case number you provided either, but even if I could, I believe I would be reverted if I made that edit with the court document as the only citation. -- Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

For some reason, I too am having trouble with the superior court website this morning. Odd, it worked fine yesterday. As for Forbes: the profile is from the 2020 Midas List, as the page says just below the short biographical sketch. The text is not evergreen; the last line mentions that he joined the Intel board "in November", meaning November 2019. In any event, like Ms. Mandel, I realize this is sort of thing Wikipedia's verification standards make difficult. Thanks for your time, and I will explore my options with VRT. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

So the subject of a BLP requests that unsourced non-notable information be removed from their BLP citing privacy concerns, and then we go out of our way to find a source to make sure it stays in the article. Wow. Leave it out. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree. No amount of additional sources will make this relevant. Invasive Spices (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Lere Oyewumi

Not a complicated matter. A puff job, created years ago without references and still largely unsourced. Could be pared to a stub, but if I do so it may be misconstrued as vandalism. More eyes, please. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I support stubbing. However, this is a public figure who may or may not pass WP:POLITICIAN. So it might actually be a complicated matter. Assuming he is someone who passes the notability criteria, any unreffed prose about notability can be tagged or removed. Five years after tagging, removal is fine. It's not vandalism unless you forget to remove the template on top. Stub status is enough. If you think this person doesn't pass GNG or POLITICIAN, try AfD? JFHJr (㊟) 05:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Don't know about notability. For the moment, I was more focused on the tendency toward aggrandizement and the mass of unsourced content in a WP:BLP. I may circle back to it later in the week. Thanks. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:B58E:2993:33B8:D5A1 (talk) 03:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Prigozhin's alleged death

A discussion about adding a blurb to the in the news section of the Main Page attracted surprisingly many supports. All versions variously state that Prigozhin is dead based on the notion that the plane he was supposed to board went through a rapid unscheduled disassembly. No reliable news outlet I am aware of confirms yet that Prigozhin indeed boarded the plane, so while it is fairly likely he died, we can't be sure. In my view, all blurbs fly in the face of the BLP principle that BLP material be written conservatively and without overstatement - this one jumps to the conclusion straight ahead.

This post is made for the attention of BLPN regulars who I hope will use the tools in their disposal should the blurb be passed despite violating policy. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The BBC reported his death about 2 hours ago, but has now seemingly changed their story. Giant Snowman 19:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

If only Wikipedia could wait for reliable information. Alas, this comes with Wikipedia's status as a provider of breaking news.^[sarcasm] -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Moshe Bar (neuroscientist)

This article presents an almost identical situation to that of Shrawan Kumar shown above. That entry received excellent advice from Zaereth, but that advice was based on that article being a draft. My question asks, would that same advice stand for articles already in mainspace? The Moshe Bar article is already WP:N, but 60% of the references are to the subject's own work (Bar is a notable expert in their field of study). A COI editor has been working in good faith to improve the article, but a large portion of the content they wish to retain (shown in their Edit requests on the talk page) are still referenced by the subject's own work. I've made suggestions to the COI editor that their aim should be to drive down that percentage, but their responses have been a mixture of "I'm afraid I see no good independent secondary sources" and (I'm paraphrasing here) "let's just keep these references now and let others improve it later." I want to re-iterate that the COI editor has been extremely cordial and pleasant throughout all of our interactions. And while I feel that the outcome here is a forgone conclusion, I also feel that the COI editor might hear this much better coming from a group of editors rather than just myself, so I'd appreciate any feedback that can be provided in this forum. Much thanks for your time! Regards, Spintendo 06:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Spintendo, as the COI editor here, let me just clarify also that (as I believe you would agree) the problem you mention is almost entirely concentrated to just one out of the current four edit requests for that article.

And with regards to the latter edit request, I have also made the point that I believe it is a substantial improvement over the existing article, although the source issue from the original article remains in that edit request.

Hence, I guess the question here is if any COI edit request has to resolve all issues with the corresponding text in the original article, or if resolving some issues is enough to be considered for publishing? All the best, Urbourbo (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you as well, for commenting here too. I would agree with you that the requests that you've made have been beneficial in incrementally moving the article towards a better state than it currently is in, and we all appreciate that. I felt that even though I had mentioned the references needing to be reduced, they still stayed at a level of around 60% even in the newest edit request. Because of that, I thought an abundance of caution might be warranted since that seemed to be a sticking point that would be more difficult to get past in my review. No one doubts the importance of the subject's influence in his fields of study, that's not the issue at all. It's just that there's so many of them in the request that I thought the input from others would be helpful here in moving us to—what I think you would agree with me is—our ultimate goal, the removal of the article's maintenance tags. Spintendo 11:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again Spintendo for your efforts in this review. No problem at all with bringing in other views, and fully agree that we share the goal to ultimately remove the maintenance tags!

Whereas I can understand the remaining issue you see with the third of the current four edit requests, my hope would be that at least the first two current edit requests could be considered for publishing in their current states, given that those edit requests are already referencing multiple independent sources (compared to zero notes in the corresponding text of the current article) and that there are only two Bar-authored references in the first edit request and zero in the second.

All the best, Urbourbo (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

And just to clarify for editors following along, what Urbourbo means when they say the four edit requests, In order to keep the request manageable they had split the entire article into four sections and then submitted each section separately on the talk page under different headings for the two of us to work on during the review, to keep it tidy. Regards, Spintendo 14:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Urbourbo: does your COI access allow you to disclose a date or even just a year of birth? We like those for biographies, and prefer not to have to wait for the obituary! If you can disclose a date or year of birth, I think it would be fine to edit the article directly solely to add this on behalf of the subject. Please include an edit summary that states "COI edit. Subject birth." And I doubt anyone will take issue. Then, keep subsequent info, requests, and discussions on the article talk page. Sound doable? JFHJr (㊟) 03:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @JFHJr:, I've made the same reflection but unfortunately I haven't been able to source this. Do you think it would be OK to add unsourced? If so, I'd be happy to ask if Bar would be willing to share this information with us. Best, /Urbourbo (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Coming from you, I'd be fine with it, unreffed. I assume good faith for this addition. Your source is apparently the subject. As long as your edit summary states it's a COI edit. If another editor challenges it, they should produce a better source. JFHJr (㊟) 04:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I do some work on academic biographies here. I would suggest two things. 1) I see that JFHJr has cut down the publications etc section. I would suggest restoring the books (but not the book chapters, possibly excepting the Oxford Handbook chapter), which perhaps Urbourbo could provide ISBN numbers for. The ISBN gives a reference that the subject has published the book, and I think that books are generally weighty enough to be worth including. It might be appropriate to include, say, the top 3-cited papers from Google scholar in a "Selected papers" section, but not much more than that -- what was there was certainly overlong. 2) I agree that the long primary-sourced research section is inappropriate. A paragraph or so might be sourced to the subject's webpage (a secondary, though not independent source) per WP:SPS, if not unduly self-serving. I see, however, that the subject does not currently have a research description on his webpage -- a lab webpage would be a more appropriate place for most of the current article than Wikipedia is. Alternatively, the "Recent popular press coverage" section that JFHJr (appropriately) removed might be used to source some fragments of a Research overview. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

A long list of publications is undue when no unrelated source indicates any biographical importance or significance. Perhaps the top 3-5 would be helpful to a casual reader. Readers can also search Google scholar themselves to find a complete list. This is not a résumé even if this subject is THE preeminent scientist of his field. JFHJr (㊟) 17:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you about long list of publications. Books tend to support WP:NAUTHOR, however, and there are only two of them. It would be even more worth including them if book reviews (the acid test for NAUTHOR) exist. Perhaps Urbourbo knows of some book reviews? I would tend to include the handbook chapter, as those chapters are relatively high visibility works (although they may not get separately reviewed). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the résumé tag, assuming the unduly weighted publications list doesn't appear. If it reappears, please consider replacing the tag. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 18:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

JFHjr I can't begin to thank you enough for the help that you've given with the article, I really appreciate it. I think these changes look great, and I see that the citation needed tags that are left in the article coupled with your advice here and the advice from Russ Woodroofe are all helpful in that they show the COI editor where their next steps should be in improving the article. Thank you all again so much. Regards, Spintendo 02:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Welcome! I also removed the COI header tag because no COI edits jumped out at me since 2018. It was stale. There's no tag needed when COI editors approach the talk page in an honest, upfront manner. Just having their requests and input doesn't merit the ugly tag. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 03:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Thank you for doing that, and for all your help and Russ's too. Regards, Spintendo 04:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreement from me as well here, thanks everyone for your efforts towards cleaning up and improving this article! Just a note with regards to my edit requests. Those for the first two sections I believe are both still valid in their current states as far as I understand, and I will therefore take the liberty of re-opening them now. I'd appreciate any feedback on them specifically, perhaps easier in connection with each on them on the talk page? All the best, /Urbourbo (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Russ Woodroofe:, for his book Mindwandering, a quick googling reveals there are reviews published at least in The Straits Times and Psychiatric Times. Which other book were you referring to? I'll be happy to revise my edit request for the publications lists to a much shortened version along the lines of this very helpful discussion. All the best, /Urbourbo (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Russ Woodroofe: Now done, hope this works better! All the best, /Urbourbo (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Offended article subject

Please see this! Can anything be done? SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

A note for archive search purposes that this is about Alexandre_Grimaldi-Coste and which name to use. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I can understand mentioning him at Albert II, Prince of Monaco, but does this individual really warrant a separate article? His sole claim to notability is being the illegitimate child of a monarch, which seems to be WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:INVALIDBIO to me. There's otherwise nothing interesting to say about him. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

There's now a merge proposal, see Talk:Alexandre_Grimaldi-Coste#Merge_proposal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

David E. Canter

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I represent David E Canter.

Someone is continuously changing his wikipedia page with .com/non scholarly references that defame the character of David in his Bio. I have edited/undid the changes several times, but the person/people attacking David continue to edit his page through BOTS.

At the request of David Canter, we would like the entire page taken down.

Thank you, Alan Cameron GSE Worldwide — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acameron23 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Acameron23 There are no "bots" involved only other editors, you have a conflict of interest you can request edits with the template {{edit request}}, see WP:Edit request for more details. Theroadislong (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

While it doesn't inherently matter than the sources are non-scholarly (most of our references are not), it does matter that key attack material was source to the New York Post, which has been deemed generally unreliable. I have removed the offending material. This is not a stance on whether the page should be kept or deleted; it currently has a notability tag, and at least given the surviving references, a reasonable challenge could be made. -- Nat Gertler (talk) Nat Gertler (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

This doesn't require administrative intervention, except possibly a block of the OP if the resume their disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes, what's the the rule? Bite the newcomers, right? We hate real people who point out problems on Wikipedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Come to the right place and be threatened with a block. Invasive Spices (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

In its present form the article does appear to be WP:BLP1E. My quick search does not show WP:SIGCOV of any other notability. May not be WP:N. Invasive Spices (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The article was tagged for Proposed deletion which was endorsed by another editor and the article was deleted today. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Yumna Zaidi

The subject of this article recently appeared in an interview on Elon Musk's microblog website, supposedly claiming that some of the info in her Wikipedia bio is incorrect, including her date of birth (I say supposedly because the video is not in English so I'm relying on what is being said in edit requests on the talk page). I see requests to change this info as far back as 2018, none ever accepted because none ever provided a reliable source conflicting with the date we have, and many sources corroborate it. However, I see a problem with the origin of these sources:

Our article first added a DOB, July 30 (no year), on 2 July 2013. No source was provided.
A year was added, 1993, on 8 Sep 2013. Still unsourced.
The same month that was changed to 1990, reverted, and then changed to 3 July 1989. No sources for any of these dates.
At one point it was changed to 2000, but that was clearly vandalism.
The date was changed to 30 July 1989 on 30 March 2015, again with no source.
All of those edits were IPs. On 31 August 2015 Ponyo pared the date down to 1989 and removed some other unsourced info, but as far as I know there was still no source for the DOB. The only source in that revision was this (archive link), which gives "Birthday: N/A".
Ponyo then spent the next several months defending the article from a brigade of sockpuppets, all trying to restore a version of the article with the unsourced 30 July 1989 date. It was reverted each time, and through several rounds of protection the article ended up indefinitely EC-protected as of 3 Apr 2018. One of the vandals was Pakistanpedia, an editor well-known for poor quality paid promotional editing.
On 1 May 2016, a new editor restored the 3 July 1989 date with no source, then on the same day corrected it to 30 July 1989 and added this source. According to archive.org, in December 2015 that site gave a DOB of 30 July 1989, and the page had a revision date of 29 August 2015 - 2 days before Ponyo removed that date from our article. Some time between 9 Dec 2016 and 19 May 2017 that source changed its DOB to 3 July 1989. As of today that site still gives 3 July 1989 and a current age of 29, which is not how math works. The site appears to accept user contributions; not reliable. Ponyo removed the source on 5 Aug 2016 along with several other unsuitable sources, but left the DOB in the article.
On 31 December 2021 an IP asked about the age in the article, saying they watched an interview 3 years prior in which she said she was 24. That would give a range of 1991-92, which corresponds to a number of edit requests around the same time. None provided a source, though, and no source was provided for the interview.
The DOB of 30 July 1989 stayed in the article, unchanged but without a source, until two new sources were added on 2 Jan 2022. Those sources are the same ones that are in the article now: Bol News and Daily Pakistan. These two articles are a year apart, posting about her age as of her birthday those years. Oddly, both of these sources confused the date as 30 June, although it's clearly an error based on the publication date (the Bol News error is in an article linked from the one used as the source). Both sources link to a birthday post on her official Instagram posted on 30 July in the respective year, so that seems to confirm 30 July, just not a year.
Zaidi seems to closely guard her true age. The video of Zaidi stating our DOB is wrong was posted on 11 Aug 2023. I don't think she stated what the correct date is, just that ours is wrong, but the video is in a language I don't understand. Jéské Couriano has said, I think correctly, that celebrities are not reliable sources for their own ages since they have incentive to mislead, and that owing to the controversy about it we have an obligation to rely on high-quality reliable sources.

I think it's evident that the sources which have published a DOB of 30 July 1989 have taken the date from Wikipedia, since all the sources I've found are celebrity "news" sites which don't exactly have the best reputation for fact-checking, and all were published during the long period that Wikipedia presented that date without a source. I think the sources we have support 30 July, but not the year. I'm posting here for outside opinions but I will leave a link on the talk page; I think the responsible thing to do is remove her DOB at this time, unless and until a more reliable source publishes it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

If this is indeed a citogenesis situation, I agree. (The subject is a television star, hence the incentive to mislead on age.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 14:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for doing such a deep dive on this Ivanvector. I agree that the most BLP-compliant solution is to remove the birthdate altogether unless and until there is rock-solid sourcing to support its inclusion.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

In this case, I agree with removal of the DOB altogether without a good source because the topic has become contested and contentious. JFHJr (㊟) 05:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Tyson Fury/endorsements

(I will emphasise that good faith is assumed by all contributors.) Query regarding the Other ventures section of this professional boxer, specifically paragraphs 6–8 about his new product endorsements. Isn't all that detail about flavours, sugar-free versions and retailers (not the sources used, but using WP's voice to say "These multitude of products can be bought from here, here, and here") verging on falling foul of WP:CRUFT and WP:PROMO? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I think all those "Furocity" products can be handled together in one or two sentences. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that whole Other Ventures section is a proseliney mess; I've tried to add some coherent structure and trimmed some of the excessive detail about the energy drink stuff. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Immediately looking more encyclopaedic. Input appreciated. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 10:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Dominic Ng

I am new here, and have COI with the subject of this article, so I’m reaching out to the Wiki community for help.

Dominic Ng is a highly regarded American businessman with a notable public record. His bio has been edited to present a skewed and unfounded version of him associating him with the Chinese Community Party. Over the past couple years, the bio has shifted from resume-like to replete with controversies stacked into this bio. Aside from my ask that editors take a look into bias in the article as a whole, as well as the talk page, here are some specifics that come to mind:

• The section on APEC is so packed with controversies that there's no discussion of Mr. Ng’s actual role with APEC. And why is APEC a subsection of “China-US Relations” when APEC encompasses 21 economies bordering the Pacific Ocean?

• The sentence on the CCP front organizations links to a Chinese source, and the Google translation is so problematic, according to my colleagues, that it’s tantamount to a lie. If anyone with Chinese language proficiency can take a look, that would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance for your input! INFjorder (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@INFjorder, I have reviewed the article. I had done some edits, detailing my rationale for the edits in the edit summaries. Do note that Wikipedia is not a place to post one's resume, and one should not expect a biography here to be as such. It is unfortunate that his work as an US rep for APEC is shadowed by geo-politics, however I see no reason to remove them (see WP:CENSORSHIP, WP:WHITEWASH). Given that the APEC summit is coming up, there may be more sources about his work rather than this issue when or after it is held. – robertsky (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Alexander Jackson Maier

I've blocked the creator as a sock (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Stluciainformation) and G5'd the draft - there's a decently long history of nonsense here, compare Draft:Alexander_Jackson_Maier-Dlamini. firefly ( t · c ) 18:36, 25 August 2023 (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.

Here's an article that I've moved out of main space back into draft space. The editor, User:Nyhn2023, reinstated a paragraph ("Controversy") that I had deleted before because of BLP concerns--a paragraph full of editorial commentary, which plays fast and loose with the cited sources, one of which has this headline, "Black 'Irish Lord' who backed Meghan over claims of royal racism confesses he's a FRAUD: US student, 22, who proclaimed he was '11th Marquess of Annaville' apologises after lies exposed". This "Irish Lord" is the subject of the article, and two of the three sources for that section are, ahem, from non-stellar publications. I'm wondering right now if we shouldn't just squash the entire article for being a mostly unverified puff piece with BLP problems. Those with admin glasses will see that there's 118 deleted edits and the draft/article has been deleted twice, once for advertising. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Why did you move protect the page after re-draftifying in violation of WP:DRAFTOBJECT? If you think the page should not be in mainspace, revert and open an AFD. Iffy★Chat -- 22:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Yeonmi Park

See this ANI and this post about content sourced to a tabloid; I suspect that Yeonmi Park needs a deep clean because of extensive POV editing by The History Wizard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Did all the cleanup I could (flow, reorganizing, citing, redundancy and repetive wording with some source-to-text intergrity issues, but there is more close paraphrasing than I'm prepared to deal with; it's as if the entire Sommers Washington Post and The Diplomat articles were plopped in. Over and out, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Anthony Liekens 2

User Russ_Woodroofe claims the references do not name the defendant directly, although the first article names the defendant and their public persona directly and references his involvement in a television show Team Schreire on Canvas (Belgian television). The image is of Anthony Liekens in his Open Garage. Het Laatste Nieuws published an article about Liekens in 2020 which provides additional confirmation as both photos are of the same session. Since the assault charges have been made public, there have been several attempts to remove this information from Liekens’ Wikipedia page. We need to objectively consider if omitting this information is in the public interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tellingthetruthforher (talk • contribs)

Tellingthetruthforher, please see the discussion of the same article further up on this page. I read consensus there as being that, with the current sources, we can't include this. (I _certainly_ agree that it would be worthwhile to put in, if sourcing can be found. I spent some time looking, without much success.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@Russ Woodroofe, the discussion was based on two citations that have been retracted. None of the currently provided references have been retracted, so referring to the discussion as a proof of consensus is irrelevant. Tellingthetruthforher (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Tellingthetruthforher, while possible retraction of original sources was discussed, the main complaint was that none of the articles actually mention the subject. (At least, that is the reason I did not reinsert the material myself; I do not and did not believe that the articles were retracted, which usually comes with a message of retraction from the newspaper.) The layer of anonymity is indeed very thin, but per WP:SYNTH, I am doubtful that we are permitted to pierce it. All that said, I am going to stand back and let other editors weigh in here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The articles were not retracted in the sense that they were considered factually wrong. They were removed based on Belgian privacy laws. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The currently referenced articles are still available online. Tellingthetruthforher (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes. My point and that of Russ Woodroofe is that the issue with the original citations was not that the articles were "retracted" since that was for privacy right reasons and not for reliability reasons. The issue was that they did not fully name the subject. In my opinion it is not sufficient for us to be able to make the connection based on available information, that would be WP:SYNTH. We would need a source explicitly identifying the subject. And that is something the original sources did not and as far as I can see no other sources do either. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SYNTH does not apply. There’s only one Anthony L. in Team Scheire, there is only one Anthony L. in Schilde with an Open Garage, depicted the articles. Tellingthetruthforher (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research. "A and B, therefore, C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument concerning the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.
— WP:SYNTH

The fact that it is easy to connect the information to arrive at the conclusion that the subject of the articles is indeed AL does not change the fact that WP:SYNTH applies. Inclusion would be a WP:BLP violation. Feel free to start an WP:RfC. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The conclusion was made by the subject, when they reported themselves to the police. There is nothing potentially defamatory if it is public knowledge. Quoting Wikipedia:SYNTH in full does not provide more substance to an incorrect argument. Tellingthetruthforher (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH is very explicit about the fact that the content you want to add cannot be added without sources that explicitly and fully identify AL as the subject. The fact that you, or even everyone knows that he is the subject does not change that. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

They do fully identify AL as the subject, you simply refuse to accept it. Tellingthetruthforher (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The fact that the information that is given is sufficient to conclude that AL is the subject is not sufficient for Wikipedia. Unless he is explicitly named WP:SYNTH applies. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

It doesn’t apply. No synthesis is made. Clearly demonstrate, without the insistence to name AL in full, how the information within the individual articles does not refer to the subject. Tellingthetruthforher (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tellingthetruthforher: there's a clear contradiction between what you are saying. On the one hand you are saying it is not synthesis. On the other hand you are saying that the only way you know that these are the same people is because you've looked at the list of all participants in the programme and whatever Open Garage is and found that only one of them is named Anthony L. Nil Einne (talk) 06:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I have physically been to the Open Garage, met AL, and have spoken to some of the people involved with the 'children friendly' hacker camp Fri3d Camp after the incident. I know this is the truth and if there are events he is involved in that might invite children, the public should be informed. To clarify, I have no personal relationship with the subject or any personal vendetta against the subject. I simply know this to be factually true. I am aware that there is a steep threshold to be met to include this information on his page and that I have been somewhat argumentative, but there is an urgency to including it and I would like to find a means of doing so that is acceptable to WP without ignoring the obvious sources that are publicly available. Tellingthetruthforher (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

It really does seem that you're here for morally good reasons, Tellingthetruthforher. But that's actually not enough to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. Please consider what other ways you can protect your community besides insisting on including this content on Wikipedia, which clearly violates our policy against original synthesis. The explanatory essay on tendentious editing has a section about this that you should probably read before proceeding further with this line of argument. It's called "Righting Great Wrongs", and even explicitly mentions exposing child molesters as an example. Feel free to reach out to me on my talk page or by email if you'd like to discuss. Generalrelative (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the case of Tom Willett which has some vague similarities to here. That case involved historic offences but we had loosely similar issues in that while there were RS which named the person, it was impossible to be sure without OR it referred to the same subject as our article as none of the more recent sources which we used for our article mentioned these offences. There was a lot of editors from Reddit and elsewhere Talk:Tom Willett/Archive 1#Legal Issues trying to convince us we needed to document these offences in our article despite a lack of sources but we rightfully held fast. Eventually an RS was updated to include mention of these offences and we could include the information Talk:Tom Willett/Archive 1#Reliable source updates a 2020 profile to include criminal history. (These may not have been unconnected events but that's sort of moot.) That's really the only way that will work here too. Some RS needs to emerge, whether an older RS being updated, a new RS being published or even an existing RS which we've somehow missed being revealed which clearly links the subject of our article to the crime. Until that happens, our article will rightfully stay as it is. If it never happens perhaps because only Belgium sources are interested in the subject and editors are correct that Belgium law doesn't allow it to be published, so be it. I'm fairly sure there are people with worse crimes who we've not documented because of a lack of RS. In fact, I'm aware of one similar case in NZ, where the offender's identity has never been publicised to protect their child who was the victim of their crime, and it seems there's a fair chance we have an article on them. (Although I also suspect the offender is no longer active in NZ.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Do we actually know that they were removed due to the privacy laws, or is that an assumption we're making? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it is just an assumption at this point. But even if we discard those sources there are still multiple sources available. They just don't name the subject (but that is also the case with the removed sources as far as I know). -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I cannot access the full article that you say "names the defendant and their public persona directly". But the part I can see refers to the subject as "Anthony L.". Piecing together information like his involvement in a TV show, comparing photos, etc. falls in my opinion under WP:SYNTH. And given that the WP:V hurdle for WP:BLP articles is pretty high, and even higher for allegations of (criminal) misconduct, I see no way of including this in his article unless we find a WP:RS that uses his full name. Whether or not it is "in the public interest" to include the information has to take a back seat to WP:PAG. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Your best chance of finding a source that does name him is probably to look for non-Belgian sources that are not subject to Belgium's privacy laws. But I am afraid that media outside of Belgium may not have taken notice. At least I wasn't able to find anything so far. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia:SYNTH does not apply here. Tellingthetruthforher (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

If all supporting information apart from the full spelling of the last name applies to the subject, you can’t exclude the information based on an internal technicality that doesn’t apply to the referenced articles. Tellingthetruthforher (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." WP:SYNTH -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The information regarding Team Scheire is presented within a single reference and is sufficient. Tellingthetruthforher (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

It is not sufficient. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

It is if the subject is a known public figure and no other person in the Team Scheire TV show is named Anthony L. There is no way around it. Tellingthetruthforher (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

That chain of inference, right there - the If <X> then <Y> reasoning, that is original research. We can't do that. MrOllie (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

If we have a reliable secondary source (and not just a primary source) that mentions his involvement in Team Scheire, we can mention his involvement in that programme. Likewise for whatever Open Garage is. We cannot however mention the criminal conviction of someone called Anthony L from Team Scheire or Open Garage since doing so is a clear violation of WP:Synth. Note that this was already discussed last time, despite what Tellingthetruthforher said above, I did infact mention last time that making any connection between an Anthony L om Team Scheire would clearly be synth. (Not Open Garage since I didn't see it last time, but it makes no difference. Nil Einne (talk) 06:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Good news: I found a source. Bad news: I don't think it is an WP:RS. But I would like to hear other people's opinion before dismissing it. The source is here (en via google translate). The source names AL, describes his offense and his conviction. But it is an opinion article on a site that otherwise publishes satirical content: ‘tScheldt Vlaamse Satire. @Russ Woodroofe, @Nil Einne, @MrOllie, @NatGertler, @Generalrelative, @Tellingthetruthforher. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for finding this, and for the ping. I'd suggest that this doesn't clear the relatively high bar set by BLP when potentially reputation-destroying content is involved. I see no evidence of, for instance, editorial oversight. Generalrelative (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, but 't Scheldt is indeed not a WP:RS. Tellingthetruthforher (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Vesna Goldsworthy

This notice board is for en.wiki articles. We cannot form a consensus here for another wiki community. Non-admin closure. JFHJr (㊟) 21:26, 26 August 2023 (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.

A photograph of Mrs. Goldsworthy has been added to her page. The request for one may be deleted.
I am working on her bio. It will be posted in my sandbox. Will someone be able to review it before it is posted? There is a bio on Swedish Wikipedia that must be rewritten for multiple reasons [url https://sr.wikipedia.org/sr-el/%D0%92%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%93%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B4%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8 ]
Another editor is also modifying her page. I think that the lead section is getting a bit long. I would not change anything until after the bio is posted. Oldsilenus (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for bringing this here. Unfortunately, this page is not really for reviewing prospective articles but for reporting violations of WP:BLP policy, or discussing the use of that policy and how it applies to specific articles. Although I sometimes do review drafts that are brought here, that's just a courtesy really, and they have to be on Wikipedia so I can actually see them. But again, not really what this noticeboard is for. I would instead suggest taking your proposal to WP:Articles for creation, follow the process, and people there will be happy to review your draft. Thanks, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I was returning here to say that my comment on the leading section is incorrect. I will ask elsewhere where the leading section ends and bio begins! Oldsilenus (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. Think of the lede as being a short summary of the entire article. It's mainly just a quick synopsis for children, newcomers, people with short attention spans, or otherwise those who don't want to get all bogged down in details but just want the gist of it. The shorter and more concise you can make it; the better. In general, I would say to shoot for no more than three paragraphs to be most effective. Maybe as many as five for really complex subject, but if you find it approaching seven it's time to think about how to condense the information better. The lede is nothing more than a short summary of the body, and nothing should be there that isn't already covered in greater detail in the body. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I feel the need to point out that that is Serbian Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

You are, I am sure, correct. I was told mistakenly that it was Swedish and Serbs were asked to update her bio. I might as well ask here, since this is tea house, if in the age of computerized translations, i.e., Google translate, Edge (right click on a Serbian page and one has the option of an automatic translation to English) the Serbian sources may be used with care. Actually, the sources do not always seem to say what is claimed on the Wikipedia page.Oldsilenus (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Philippe Servaty

I've notice new user, Vesterf has made a lot of changes to the article with claims of a twitter spat (summaries now removed so I won't repeat them). Would someone be able to take a look at [30]. I'm not familiar with the subject or their history and I'm unsure which, if any of the sources are, are reliable. This involves the reversal of edits by Qualcommm250 who they state is impersonating another editor Qualcomm250 see edit summary [31]. I don't feel I have the experience to untangle this. Many thanks, Knitsey (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

This is my first time adding a report. I've tagged the talk page. Should I ping any of the users involves. I'm particularly concerned about the possible imitation of another editor. Knitsey (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I've already blocked Qualcommm250 for impersonation. Some pings or talk page notifications wouldn't go amiss. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I've left a message for Qualcomm250 about this discussion. Thank you so much (to both of you) for sorting it out. Knitsey (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

This does appear to have been a major news story in Morocco, so I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the main facts. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it was indeed a case of impersonation. Thanks for reporting it.

I'd like to add that the same person likely used sockpuppets impersonating other Wikipedians in editing Philippe Servaty: for this edit and others, they impersonated User:Kjell Knudde, etc. Qualcomm250 (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Sher Afghan or Sherafgun?

This notice board is for living and recently-deceased persons. Non-admin closure. JFHJr (㊟) 23:48, 26 August 2023 (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.

Sher Afghan Khan,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sher_Afgan_Khan Hello, I'm Sumanuil. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Sher Afgan Khan have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 20:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sumanuil. Can you please tell me on what ground you assume that my edit were not constructive? the Farsi name شيرافگن Sherafgun or sherafgin has nothing to do with sher Afgan? there is no Afghan (ethnic) there. It sis one word and has no relation to Afghan. I don't understand why would you purposely change something to a completely false and inaccurate translation? Anyone who knows a word of Farsi know exactly what شيرافگن sherafgin means, can you explain what the word Afghan come from and why you added "Afghan" to something that clearly does not say Afghan? thanks Abbie Abbie444 (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC) File names and references are not "false and inaccurate translations". - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 23:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I posted this in talk "I'm relatively new to editing, so I kindly request understanding if I don't adhere perfectly to the procedure. I've identified a minor translation error related to a Farsi term that significantly alters the meaning of the word in question. The mistake not only misconstrues the identity but also fails to accord respect to a notable historical figure. The individual in question is Ali Quli Istajlu, also known as Sherafgun (شيرافگن), the first husband of Nur Jahan. Regrettably, the author of the article seems to have misinterpreted the Farsi word "شيرافگن". The term was translated as "Sher of Afghan," which implies "Afghan lion." The Afghans, primarily residing in southern Afghanistan, are also referred to as Pashtuns. Due to this mistranslation, Ali Quli, who was ethnically Turkmen, has been inaccurately labeled an "Afghan lion." The true meaning of the Farsi word "شيرافگن" is "one who throws or tosses a lion." I recognize how the latter part of the word might sound reminiscent of "Afghan" but it doesn't pertain to the Afghan ethnicity. Instead, it's derived from a Farsi verb meaning "to throw." It's understandable how someone unfamiliar with Farsi might make this error. I attempted to rectify this mistake, but the author reverted my edit to "Sher Afghan" without providing any rationale. I urge those knowledgeable in Farsi to chime in and confirm this correction" This is Afghan in Farsi افغان you assumed افگن which sounds like Afghan, actually means Afghan. Abbie444 (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC) None of that merits "correcting" file names or references. Or pestering me on my talk page for an answer I'd already given you. And I don't know whose edits you're talking about. Nobody is trying to change the spelling to "Afghan". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbie444 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The words افگن (A-f-g-n) and افغان (A-f-ġ-ā-n) are unrelated. Additional vowels are placed by language and preference (of a source, a subject... and inconsistently at times!). The name cannot be spelled Afghan normally. Without a reliable source, it's original research. JFHJr (㊟) 23:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The subject is too dead for this to be the correct forum. Take this back to the article talk page or a different forum. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 23:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

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

RfC notices

Samaire Armstrong has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page.

Malik Zulu Shabazz has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page.

Louis Farrakhan has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. gnu 57 01:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC) gnu 57 01:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

It would have been better for you to have raised the BLPCAT issue here once you had been mass reverted on your mass changes rather than RfC every article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Background for other editors that GNU removed disputed categories (Discrimination against LGBT people in the United States, Anti-black racism in the United States, Antisemitism in the United States) from 30+ BLPs with explicit references to BLPCAT, (User contributions 12:06, 12 August 2023 to 12:48, 12 August 2023) and Beyond My Ken mass reinstated them without addressing whether there were BLP issues (User contributions from 00:33, 13 August 2023 to 00:45, 13 August 2023). Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to say that Genericusername57 made mass category deletions without seeking or receiving a consensus to do so. How Wikipedia's policies are interpreted is completely a matter for the community to decide, and for4 that reason, mass deletions or additions of any kind require a WP:CONSENSUS to be legitimate. Deletions made without such a consensus are subject to being reverted until the issue is decided by the members of the community in a consensus discussion, generally an RfC. This talk page is the appropriate place for Genericusername57 to start an RfC and get the needed consensus. Individual RfCs held on individual article talk pages are not sufficient, such a discussion needs to be held in a centralized place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

BLPCAT is a policy that reflects consensus of the community. You mass reinstated without addressing this or obtaining consensus per WP:BLPUNDEL. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The policy represents community consensus, but questions about how it is to be interpreted also need consensus as well. That is why there are judges in the real world, to interpret laws, no matter how straight-forward they may appear to be. That's the role that the Wikipedia community serves here in regard to our policies.

I suggest that it might be helpful for you to take a refresher course in how to AGF. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Did you take the course in reviewing GNU's edits? Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Pinging the other participants of the 3 RfCs about this discussion (Mgp28—StAnselm—Mathglot—GnocchiFan—Regulov) about the 30+ BLPs. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't think anyone has disagreed that WP:BLPRACIST represents a community consensus that BLP articles should not be in these contentious categories. The disagreement that started this discussion seems to be about procedure followed in removing articles from the categories.

So is the question now whether BLP articles in these categories should be removed from them? That seems to be an inevitable consequence of BLPCAT so my !vote is to remove them. Mgp28 (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I have closed the three RfC discussions as it didn't seem to be helping the discussion to have it fragmented across four separate places. Almost all comments in those three discussions are already reflected here.

A comment in Talk:Louis Farrakhan#RfC: Bias categories mentioned something not currently here so I am copying it to allow any further discussion. Comment by User:Rhododendrites 03:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC):

No per CATBLP, but also he's already in most of these categories [a couple steps removed] by virtue of being in Category:Nation of Islam.

Mgp28 (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this. People shouldn't be in racism, etc. policies, but they can be in organizations that are. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't see a problem either. I just didn't want to close the conversation on your comment before people had a chance to read it. Mgp28 (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

There are some tricky areas with BLPCAT. Like should Richard B. Spencer be in Category:American neo-Nazis? That seems like a BLPCAT violation, right? But it's also a defining characteristic of the subject. However, some of these were not tricky areas and very straightforward applications of BLPCAT. Undoing them en masse just because "get consensus", and therefore committing mass BLP violations (edit warring as a default mode of user interaction instead of, you know, actually making specific objections) is disruptive. Following the wording of BLPCAT should be the default, not something you need to find consensus for -- it's a policy; there's already consensus. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

While I haven't time to look into the specifics of these articles/categories, in general I would say that we need to be extremely careful about our use of categorization. It's a very powerful tool, because it dehumanizes and reduces people down to nothing more than the title of that category. Now, I'm not saying that we should eliminate it altogether, because categorization is a very fundamental part of how our minds work, and probably the minds of any animal with an amygdala (the emotional center of the brain). We cannot help but draw these rather arbitrary distinctions between things, simply because it's a much easier way to store and sort information in our own minds. (For more, see User:Zaereth#Little boxes). But, because it is so linked to our emotions and because it does dehumanize people, it is an extremely powerful propaganda tool as well. Categorization is the root of all stereotyping, which in turn is the root of all prejudice. When labeling someone a neo-Nazi, just keep in mind that the Nazis themselves used categorization to extremely devastating effect. My advice to everyone is to use extreme caution or risk becoming the very thing you fight against. Zaereth (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

CATBLP is clearcut. BLPs being placed in topic categories is also a big pet peeve of mine. There's a reason Category:Antisemites doesn't exist, and it's no reason to add BLPs to topic categories like Category:Antisemitism instead. Readers who click topic categories are likely looking for articles directly relevant to the topic, whereas for 99% of these BLPs, it's the inverse: articles to which the topic is only partly relevant.

Also I'm pretty sure that ~0% of readers notice, care about, or click categories (which aren't displayed on mobile), so the less time we spend on them, the better. If I thought it would stand a chance, I'd propose replacing the whole system with something like WP:Featured topics and WP:Good topics, like Britannica (except for maintenance cats). DFlhb (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Discrimination against LGBT people in the United States

I'm starting to review and remove the disputed categories, one-by-one rather than in mass. There are a couple of dead people that I left the category untouched. I reverted myself on one BLP, Roy Moore, against removing "Discrimination against LGBT people in the United States" because the article text made it clear that he made rulings against people on the basis of their homosexuality rather than harbor bigoted views. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Along the same lines, Schenkstroop reinstated the category Discrimination against LGBT people in the United States to Nick Fuentes arguing that homophobia is discrimination.[32] The fundamental question is should this category be applied to people who hold and express bigoted opinions against LGBT or require a discriminatory act like what Roy Moore did? I believe the latter if the category should exist. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Couldn't there just be a new category 'Anti-LGBT rhetoric (or views/figures) in the United States' or something like that? Zenomonoz (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Andrew Anglin

I need feedback on Andrew Anglin. I originally removed the category Misogyny because of WP:BLPRACIST since misogyny is a more severe charge of sexism. BMK disputed this, and I ultimately self-reverted because Anglin literally says, "I hate women" in the article text so I doubt he would dispute being called a misogynist. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

BLPCAT and this discussion from 2011 don't say that no one holds or expresses views that are sexist, racist and so on. They say that there is a consensus not to include anyone in these categories. Although the discussion I linked to is now 12 years old, I don't think anyone here has shared anything suggesting it no longer reflects community consensus.

If instead we want to say that we will include people in these categories who are definitely misogynist etc. then:

1. We will need a new consensus to do that, and

2. Someone will come along and mass add BLP articles to these categories. No one will be able to mass revert them because they will argue that the person definitely belongs in that category. So instead we will have RfC all over the place on "does this expression of racism or that expression of sexism belong in this or that category?"

Nuanced discussions about a person's beliefs can, and should, still take place in the article, with links to the reliable sources that support each statement. But I think it's safer (and reflective of continuing consensus) to adopt a unified approach for contentious categories that no BLP are added to them. Mgp28 (talk) 07:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

PS -- I'm new to this noticeboard. Will this discussion eventually get closed? I would remove Andrew Anglin from Category:Misogyny but I don't want to jump the gun on an ongoing discussion. Mgp28 (talk) 07:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Ariel King

I've just reverted a new user for removing information from the article. I've taken a look at the controversy section and the only references to the custody of the child is from a blog (in PDF form) and court/hearing records. Refs are...[33], [34], [35], [36] (podcast). I'm wondering if this is suitable?

A agree that this material is troubling, deriving solely from primary court records or from non-reliable blogs. I would note, that in the absence of this "controversy" section, I would assess this article as not meriting inclusion, and would recommend its deletion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The whole section doesn't sit right, especially because of the sourcing. There seems to be a push to also introduce promotional edits as well today.

The controversies section was introduced by an ip in July this year. Knutsen (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPPRIMARY Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Anything that is referenced to court documents should be removed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The 'controversies' section is entirely non-compliant with Wikipedia policy, per the above (citing blogs, court records etc). I've removed it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @AndyTheGrump:. I know that blogs are not acceptable in most circumstances and I was fairly sure court records are a primary source. Knitsey (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I've just removed another court document record from the personal life section. Knitsey (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

And I've deleted the section entirely, since the only remaining 'source' supported nothing. Per comments above, there seems to be no real evidence that King meets Wikipedia notability criteria, and unless some can be found, the article should go to AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Oph, I've not done that before. I might back away quietly and let someone else handle that. Knitsey (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I've added templates for primary sources and notability, and will give it a few days in case proper sourcing can be found, before nominating it myself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to keep an eye on it to see what you do as I'm interested in how it all fits together. Anyway, thanks for sorting it out. Next time I will be bold. Knitsey (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Aria Finger

I'm inquiring about the specific issue of the staff walkout and its reasoning and effects in the background section. The issue has recently been added three times by three different editors. I deleted the first two as they made claims that weren't supported by the citations (in addition to possible BLP violations). The most recent addition is supported by the citations but I think it still leans towards tabloid/gossip/unsupported allegations about a WP:NPF that would be a violation of the BLP guidelines. I do think it's a closer call and as a relatively new editor I wanted to get some input from the community before I made any changes. Thanks for your help.

If staff refuse to work and specifically gave those reasons and demanded her resignation, I don't think it's in itself a BLP violation. We do have to be careful how we word it, but as the CEO of a company I think to some extent she's a public figure at least when it comes to stuff specifically about her tenure as CEO. And a relatively large number of staff refusing to work and specifically demanding your resignation isn't an ordinary thing for CEOs. The only question then is the sourcing. WP:Vice doesn't seem a great source and I'm not sure Nonprofit Times is either. I don't know specifically about it, but such specialty sources targeting tend to have poor editorial standards, mostly it comes across in excessive puffery and promotional articles, however it also means we have to be careful about any content they publish. Also d we have any sources which talk about what happened? It sounds like she is still CEO, so was this just a one day protest with some concurrent actions e.g. internet petitions and tweets which quickly fizzled out? Nil Einne (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Nil Einne. It looks like she isn't the CEO anymore - there's a Forbes article from 2022 that says she was Chief of Staff to Reid Hoffman at that time - but a quick google search doesn't yield any information on when she left the org. And after searching around a bit I haven't found any other articles talking about the walkout. BMFife (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Alan Jackson

Please not the follwinf error - searching for [Alan Jackson] links to [Michael Jackson] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:58C:D0FA:FCEE:320D:9DA5:EC3C (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

This is ongoing vandalism, I've made a req at WP:RFPP. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Tiff Macklem

I've just removed a series of statements in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR from the "Governer of the Bank of Canada" section on this page. All of them appear to have been added by various IP-only editors in late July 2023. Edits were rather slanted and appeared to be unsupported by the attached references. Should the page be semi-protected?Vulcan's Forge (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protection is only warranted if the issues are ongoing. Wait and see if the information gets added back in. If so, semi-protection may make sense. But if the disruption was only in July and doesn't resume there is no need. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

It has continued with a different IP now writing "Restore information lost feom recent lame attempts to censor legitimately sourced input." I've semi-protected the article. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Saw that, thank you for the revert and the response. The original and restoring IPs all geolocate to Saskatchewan so they're probably the same person. I assume I don't need to close this and the bot will automatically archive it; if not, I have no objections to closure.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Aidan Comerford

Aidan Comerford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aidan Comerford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Aidan Comerford is an advocate for trans rights. A wikipedia entry for Aidan Comerford was created by a person who was been harrassing Aidan for years, who currently goes by the user name "WarrenWilliam" a few months ago. The page should be considered for deletion, or WarrenWilliam should be blocked from editing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziggymaker28 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, I’ve never harassed Aidan Comerford.

Secondly, I didn’t even know who Aidan Comerford was one year ago, let alone many years, so the idea of he and I having some sort of long-running communication is absurd.

Thirdly, are you Aidan Comerford? Because if so, editing your Wikipedia and Wikiquote pages, either under the name Ziggymaker28, or Ferretface78, or JohnBoyne71, or the IP address 109.78.51.110, is a big no-no. WarrenWilliam (talk) 05:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@WarrenWilliam and Ziggymaker28: It looks to me like you're both right for referrals to WP:SPI so that's where I moved your concerns. Warren's discussion is over here and Ziggy's is over there. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 19:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Under our processes for deleting articles, we are apt to delete if the person is not notable enough that Wikipedia requires an article on them (for which an argument could be made, at least based on the references currently used in the article), or that the page is an "attack page", which is judged less by intent than by content, and the page at the moment does not seem to be generally such a page. Barring some statement from WarrenWilliam that they are the person you claim them to be, we would largely look at the content of their edits on the page at hand to see if he needs to be barred, and I'm not seeing anything particularly problematic about the edits, although you are welcome to indicate why you feel their edits are a concern. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Goodreads, Amazon, Twitter... This is not a good WP:BLP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I shall comment there, but I'll sleep on it first. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Richard Wexler - potential delete?

Deleted: there are no outstanding BLP problems here. Non-admin closure. JFHJr (㊟) 22:35, 2 September 2023 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Wexler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not sure about this one. This page appears to lack secondary source notability, mostly the sources are primary source e.g. Wexlers own website, or his submission to congress, and then the ones in media are his own op-eds and articles he wrote. There are no secondary sources actually covering him that would establish notability to warrant an article.

There is a large paragraph claiming he has been interviewed and featured in a total of 15 media outlets, but there are only a handful of citations, most of them do not even mention his name, one is a fake citation, and the few that do are just op-eds he wrote! The one major secondary source literally get's one sentence from him, which seems like a low bar for notability. Can editors please advise on deletion and what to do? Zenomonoz (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

A quick web search suggests that what you see in the article -- i.e., that he shows up as an author or for brief quotes as an expert on child protection -- is what is out there, rather than third-party material talking about him in depth. So yes, a good candidate for deletion. The article was created over a decade ago by Valwex (talk · contribs) (if that name suggests COI, at least the editor did do it through Articles For Creation, so properly.) The article did survive one attempt to speedy-delete it in 2016. It is not heavily edited -- zero edits in 2023 to date -- so odds are good that if you use the simple WP:PROD deletion process, no one will show up to object to the deletion. If you do take it through the full Articles For Deletion process, be sure you follow the guidelines at WP:BEFORE first, doing more than just a basic web search (i.e., what I did) to make sure that there aren't sources giving notability. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion. I hope you'll repeat your concerns at the deletion discussion page (linked at top). Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 16:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Nat. Your comments would be good on the AfD. Zenomonoz (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Arleen Sorkin

(NON-ADMIN CLOSURE)

Reliable sources have now confirmed her death and date of death. Users should remember to be prudent and use reliable sources on biographies of living persons. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 11:29, 3 September 2023 (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.

The death of the subject of this article has been reported on social media, but it has not been reported in any reliable sources and every report so far is based on a single tweet from a single voice actor. In addition to reporting the death without a source, people are adding a specific date for her death when that isn't even in the tweet that is being cited as a source. This seems to be a violation of WP:BLP and WP:USERGENERATED. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Note: The poorly sourced report was also added to Deaths in 2023 ~~while this discussion was ongoing~~. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

"while this discussion was ongoing"? That's completely not true, I added her almost 4 hours before this thread was opened. Rusted AutoParts 03:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

You're right, I must have looked at the wrong tab, I thought it was added recently. I'll strike that out. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The article is Arleen Sorkin. I would tend to agree. If these additions are coming from non-autoconfirmed users, then Wp:RFPP is a good idea. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I see that it has already been protected. Is extratv (the source cited for her death) a RS? Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

On the front of the RS, her death HAS been reported in reliable sources. Extra TV in this particular case was the one I cited on her page. Neil Kaplan is the originating source, a colleague of hers. He tweeted about it, and it has been reported on by the secondary sources we need since social media can't be directly cited. Rusted AutoParts 02:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: It is. Has been used often to cite deaths, and have never had issues taken up with it before. Rusted AutoParts 02:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Extra is not listed as a reliable source and if you read that article, it's completely based on the one tweet (as of right now). Resubmitting it to RfPP is not a bad idea. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Jim Cummings, another colleague, has also corroborated, it's not just the one person on social media. Even still, it's been reported by Extra. It's confusing as to why it's being disqualified given I am not seeing the location you're stating its "not listed" on. Rusted AutoParts 02:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Another tweet saying "RIP" is not confirmation. It's not appropriate to toss the BLP policy out the window because it's a recent death. Please wait for a reliable source to report her death (and that does not mean reporting on tweets or reporting on fan tributes). Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Why do you insist on ignoring my point that most news first originated through social media and that's how most reliable sources first obtain said news? We HAVE a reliable source in Extra reporting her death. Extra not ever being in a discussion at the Perennial Sources list does not disqualify it's reliability. Me highlighting Cummings only serves to show it's not just Kaplan on Twitter that's worked with her saying she died, not to use as a source to link directly. This is....so frustrating. Rusted AutoParts 02:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

A gossip tabloid reporting about a single tweet is pretty much the definition of an unreliable source. The second tweet that you're citing doesn't confirm anything. It simply says "RIP [Arleen Sorkin]". Wikipedia isn't trying to be a newspaper that reports breaking news before it's confirmed. Wikipedia depends on verifiable and reliable sources. Given the prominence of Arleen Sorkin, I am confident reliable reporting will come, but it's not here at this point. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Cool your jets and just wait a bit. Could be a few hours, could be days. A reliable source will pick this up. JFHJr (㊟) 02:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

We HAVE a reliable source reporting it. Declan personally assessing it as "gossip tabloid" is meaningless, and still doesn't stand to disqualify it as being a reliable source. "Wikipedia isn't trying to be a newspaper that reports breaking news before it's confirmed" no one's doing that, I am making use of a reliable source to update a page's information to reflect an update to the subject.. And again, the Cummings tweet was just to do away with the sentiment it's just the one guy saying she passed. Rusted AutoParts 03:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Three editors have now formed a consensus that a more reliable source is needed to update this BLP. You've had two recommendations for patience and three asks for a better source. Refusing to accept a consensus by repeating yourself is not productive here. JFHJr (㊟) 03:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

...wut? All I see is TWO editors having agreed with one another, one editor simply inquiring about whether Extra is or not, and myself who feels it is. No consensus was at all formed, this thread is barely even an hour old. Rusted AutoParts 03:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

There's DQ, and Hemi would "tend to agree," and there's me. Just like you said it's only been a short time. Precisely why you should be patient. JFHJr (㊟) 03:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I dislike speaking for people, but it would seem to me Hemi's "tend to agree" was about the inclusion of a death date, which they rightfully removed from the page. They next asked in a second comment about it's reliability. Whether or not they agree with who remains to be seen, they haven't said anything since. I am not against a consensus not in my favor, but not when a persons stance is decided for them, nor when it's such a small pool of people (2). Rusted AutoParts 03:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

It hasn't even been 12 hours since Neil Kaplan's tweet said he "heard" she had died. The Extra article is literally a report about a tweet that is itself hearsay. Throwing WP:BLP and WP:RS out the window and not waiting for a reliable source to report that she has died doesn't make any sense. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

And I'm the one getting scolded about repeating myself... And frankly your definition of hearsay is pretty skewed. Rusted AutoParts 03:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't mentioned that about the tweet before. Let's focus on the content itself and Wikipedia policies. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Please stop the back and forth, everyone. Please wait, everyone. Please keep info out until a consensus indicates it's reliably sourced. The gripe doesn't need to be fleshed out any further, except for the best one or two sources when they crop up. JFHJr (㊟) 03:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Deadline Hollywood has reported it now, Deadline Hollywood is considered generally reliable for entertainment-related articles, so this surely closes the book on this. Rusted AutoParts 04:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

That seems sufficient to report the death.

I don't think this can quite be closed, though. The date of her death still hasn't been reported and it's still listed as August 26th in Deaths in 2023 and as August in Arleen Sorkin. Even though it's likely to be a very recent date, the month or day of the month hasn't been reported and should be left out. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The Hollywood Reporter is now reporting an August 24 death date. Rusted AutoParts 05:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the update. I agree that this can be closed out now. It's good that we've corrected the date and it reminds us of the importance of following these policies. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

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

WP:OVERLINK at Pope Benedict XVI

This WP:MOS discussion for a decedent over 6 months belongs on the article talk page, or at another forum. MOS concerns are usually addressed through normal editing and edit summaries. Be bold, be open, but this doesn't need to be at BLPN. Non-Admin Closure. JFHJr (㊟) 19:34, 3 September 2023 (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.

Could someone have a look at this edit to a high profile almost WP:BLP by a new account, and revert or partially revert a needed [37]? Thanks. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

You're talking about a WP:MOS concern whose textual content would not require BLPN consultation even with a living subject. This subject has been deceased over 6 months, and the actual content referenced in your comment does not relate to BLP issues per se, let alone BLP issues lingering from before or after death that merit extended BLPN attention (up to a year after death). I don't think this is the right place to ask for MOS help. JFHJr (㊟) 19:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, be bold. Revert it just one time if you disagree with it. JFHJr (㊟) 19:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Kathryn Campbell; CPA Australia

There is a current discussion on the CPA Australia and Kathryn Campbell pages with another IP editor who is wanting to include a reference to a member of the organisation, with a description that she is "disgraced", I note that the same editor has included the phrase in the person's individual page as well. I have been accused of vandalism, but am merely wanting not to place undue weight on including a mention to a member of an organisation on a page that has no mention of individual members, notable or otherwise, so including her on this page would likely place undue weight on the subject. I note that the editor has not referenced their work, either to confirm her membership of CPA Australia, or to justify the phrase "disgraced". Would appreciate some more input or contributions to the discussion to help establish some consensus as to the right way forward here and here, given the history (and future risk) of edit warring on these pages.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 06:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Mentioning on an article about an organization that one random member out of 150,000+ is "disgraced" is completely out of place unless it has directly to do with their membership of the organization. And even then it would be most likely WP:UNDUE. Calling someone "disgraced" without clear support by reliable sources is a textbook WP:BLP violation. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Completely agree, and despite attempts to discuss the matter, the IP editor has reverted attempts to balance wording of the Kathryn Campbell article, and despite my attempts to reach consensus with other editors, has not engaged with us in any of the talk page discussions. Should this IP editor continue reverting content, an edit war is likely, and page protection (for Kathryn Campbell at least) may need to be considered.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Jacob Hanna

This article is the subject of heavy back-and-forth editing (not by me), and has an enormous “Controversies and criticisms” section with many citations to PubPeer, as well as some throwing around of the world “slander” in edit summaries. I think it would benefit from attention from more people. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit war notice

Please see the recent history of Caroline Overington and the respective talk page discussion regarding the removal of personal material. Many thanks, SN54129 17:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Neema Parvini

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

This article should be removed. Details are wrong, potentially defamatory or libelous. Person is not notable enough for a page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‪84.21.135.36‬ (talk) 11:06, 5 September 2023‎

Greetings. Thanks for your comment. I've lightly edited the article to remove things that were problematic BLP-wise. Were there any other points of contention? If you believe the article should be deleted, you might register a user account and begin a conversation at a different notice board: WP:AfD. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 22:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I've also created a new thread at the article talk page. Please voice your concerns about outstanding issues there, unless no consensus emerges from the talk page. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 23:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Angelique Houtkamp

BLP complaint has been addressed. Non-admin closure. JFHJr (㊟) 23:45, 5 September 2023 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelique Houtkamp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Self-authored promo-page. Too subjective and filled with irrelevant info. Not wiki-worthy. Qwrk (talk) 09:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Greetings and thanks for your comment. I've removed all the obviously problematic sources. Because the prose doesn't even claim anything special, I did not remove it as unsourced or contentious, but anyone else might. If you believe the article should not exist, the correct forum is Articles for Deletion. I'm sure followers here would contribute to a discussion there, if linked here. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 22:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Qwrk: I'll observe you're ostensibly trying to retire but having a relapse, so I took it to AfD for you. If you can make it to the discussion, that'd be nice. JFHJr (㊟) 23:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the effort that you put in, highly appreciated. Yes, I'm not as active as I was before, but still hang on to my account in case there's important mountaineering info to be added to wikipedia, which is my main topic of interest. Again, I thank you very much! Qwrk (talk) 08:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

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

The use of social media sources to proclaim someone is dead

Although the specific matter is sort of resolved, because a published source popped up during the discussion, I am seeking input if asserting someone's death based on social media like TUMBLR, TWITTER, FACEBOOK posts are ever acceptable. The discussion was at Talk:Teeuwynn Woodruff. I recall seeing in guidelines or explanatory essay that death requires verification. I would like a link to that if someone has it.

I took the position that Wikipedia isn't a place to break ground on having the up to the moment news and we should not change the article as the subject being deceased until published by reliable sources. Others got ahead and used TUMBLR, TWITTER etc saying it was acceptable because the person who announced it is a former colleague of the deceased subject, or that it was someone who says to be her husband posting behind the deceased's own account. Is it reasonable to say we should have just sat tight until proper media outlets picked it up and published it, then cite that? Graywalls (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Social media is a self-published source and cannot be cited in a BLP about another person (WP:BLPSPS). This battle happens frequently when a death claim starts, with folks rushing to be first without waiting for reliable sources. We should wait, always. Schazjmd (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:BLP policy is clear:

Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article

and

Anyone born within the past 115 years (on or after 4 September 1908 [update]) is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death.

Generalrelative (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

(ec) Hell no. Under no circumstances would such a source meet WP:RS for such a sensitive matter. We don't use social media and other self-published sources for statements about living people, and until we have a proper source regarding a claimed death, we have to assume they are alive. We are obliged to 'sit tight'. The consequences of getting this wrong are vastly greater than those of being out of date. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely, it's reasonable to say. This comes up here a lot. Personally, I am of the opinion that we should never use social media as sources, period. They're not reliable, because anyone can say anything they like. People do hoaxes. Some people try to fake their own deaths. What's worse is they require too much interpretation by the Wikipedian. For example, inferring someone's birthdate because they posted a pic of a birthday cake. In the case of deaths, it has been rather universally agreed that we need good sources for that. Unlike birthdates, which my rise to the level of invasion of privacy, getting someone's death wrong can be very, very traumatic for not only the subject but also their friends and family. We should by all means wait until it has been reported in a reliable source; at the very least an obituary.

That always leads to the question, "what if it doesn't get reported or there is no obit?" Many people don't realize that newspapers don't automatically publish an obit when someone dies. It's up to the friends and family to write the obit and submit it to the papers if they want one, so not everybody gets an obituary. Not every notable person's death will be reported. In those cases I would say that it's far, far better to have an article that simply hasn't reported someone's death than getting such a report wrong, so I would strongly recommend erring on the side of caution and leaving it out until/unless reported in a RS. The price is too high if we get it wrong. I suppose after a person has reached 120 we can safely assume they're dead, but otherwise I'd just leave it out until a RS says otherwise. Zaereth (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

BTW, what if someone like Mark Rosewater (mentioned in Teeuwynn article) was to re-blog her husband's blog)? That would make it not "self" published. I can sort of see bloggers reposting each other to get around secondary source for non-notable things they really want to get published onto Wikipedia but do not get coverage in the news. Graywalls (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Blogs are self-published sources, and WP:BLPSPS still applies. Schazjmd (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

That's kinda using the idea of secondary sources rather loosely. A reliable source usually has editorial oversight to ensure that such mistakes do not occur, and a reputation for being trustworthy. For example, a newspaper wouldn't be any good if they accepted an obituary at face value. While we all know the content of an obit is written by the family, we can generally trust a newspaper to do the legwork necessary to make sure the person is actually dead. Can we say the same about a blog? I'd say the same about your question below, just to answer them all at once. In a good RS. the burden does not just fall on the author, but on the publisher and their chief editor. They're all staking their reputation, so the question becomes, do they have a good reputation? As a tertiary source, we don't do the kinds original research that secondary sources do, but what we can and should research is the sources and their publishers. Zaereth (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

https://www.cbr.com/teeuwynn-woodruff-obituary/ this would be good enough, right? The article sources the same thing, but as I see it, now the burden of fact checking falls on the article's author. If he gets it wrong, he's at risk of hurting his own reputation. Graywalls (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer sources that don't rely solely on social media for their death report (that they mention some other form of verification), but I don't think I'd win that battle when an RS reports it and editors demand to update the death based on it. Schazjmd (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

While I understand the concern about reliable sources, I frequently edit pages of people who are notable, but otherwise low profile. There have been a few articles where no sources meeting our standards was apparent a month or two after the apparent death (after a fairly careful search), but where I had no serious doubts about the death. I also had concerns that removing the fact of the death was causing some distress to surviving family and others. In such cases, after some time has gone by past the apparent event, I have not always removed death dates entered by SPAs and IPs. I am not sure what the right balance is here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Waiting for a month or longer at least gives the people who put information out to post a redaction if they realize their information is wrong. That's far from a guarantee, but it weeds out the "I just heard NN died", "Oopsie I heard wrong" issues. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

It really does not matter how long: a month, a year, or more. No RS = no death reported on the bio. Generalrelative (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Policy-wise you are absolutely right. My point is merely that the risk of getting it wrong is higher the closer to the alleged event we are. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

True. Generalrelative (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand the concern not to cause additional distress to grieving family members, but the policy is clear on this matter. You're free not to intervene if you so choose. We're all volunteers here after all. But to truly resolve the issue you bring up would require a revision of policy. Generalrelative (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I do understand the policy, would not myself add a poorly-sourced death date to an article, and would tend to _at least_ tag as "better source needed" or "citation needed" if one is added. I think that removing is usually the right thing to do, but for low-profile individuals, not always. I guess this isn't the place to discuss policy changes, but I do think the answer to the question has more nuance than a straightforward "No, never". Russ Woodroofe (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

There was a similar discussion recently. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Arleen_Sorkin. There the consensus was that it is not enough that there are reports about a social media post. At least not when it is not a really solid RS. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

In response to Russ, I would say that if family members are expressing concerns about a person's death not being included in their article, then I would recommend to them to submit an obituary to the local newspapers. Wikipedia is not the place to publish them, but a newspaper will, and as far as I know there is no time limit. There is a way to get it included that doesn't involve social media. Zaereth (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

That's excellent advice. Generalrelative (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, like I said, I don't think everybody realizes that obituaries are not automatic, especially in todays age of social media. Someone has to write them and submit them on behalf of their loved ones, and in these cases we're relying o those friends and family to do just that. At the very least they should be made aware that it's an option. Zaereth (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Zaereth, IP editors and SPAs do not always engage much on talk pages. If they do, I explain the usefulness of an obituary. (I am reading grief here in between the lines, from experience, and from posts on non-reliable sources encountered during my searches for a reliable source). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Ruby Franke

Ruby Franke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Can I request some eyes on this article about a vlogger who has been accused of child abuse? The article has been expanded by a new editor, Therangerrick, to include unreferenced personal info (which appears to have been removed in an intervening edit) and the names of two minor childrene: their changes on September 5, with some intervening edits by others. I made the following edit with an edit summary detailing the issues: [38]. I followed up with a section on their talk page detailing policy, which they have responded by characterizing as "unhelpful overall": User talk:Therangerrick#Concerns. They then reverted me and followed by removing the two names and making other tweaks. The first-person mentions and grocer's apostrophe remain uncorrected, as does an extra use of the BBC source, but my primary concern is the WP:UNDUE detail on the allegations with dates taken from the video content (and set off as a separate section). The only new source cited by Therangerrick, so far as I can see, is Distractify.com, which I doubt is an RS we should be relying on for added details; the only thing I trust it on is the site at which the petition was created. Rather than revert, and noting that the article was created in a somewhat non-neutral and bloggy style, I request attention from editors with BLP experience. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify. Your overall attitude was unhelpful. Anything useful in your response was overshadowed by the way you presented yourself. There was nothing wrong with the policy citations. Therangerrick (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

It was a polite note about serious policy violations. That's about as helpful as it gets. Most people would have slapped one (or more) templated warning message(s) on your talk page and been done with it. Instead Yngvadottir took significant time to explain to you in detail why and how your edits violated Wikipedia policies so you can learn from your mistakes. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Therangerrick (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not even sure why this is even an article? Surely it fails WP:N? Knitsey (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Potentially. Though she had 2.5 million subscribers and was quite popular. Therangerrick (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think she was WP-notable before the arrest, and WP:PERP would apply to someone who hasn't been convicted. It's getting coverage because of people's schadenfreude at someone giving advice on parenting and being themselves an (alleged) bad parent. Schazjmd (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree. But it has (more than) three RS and even though they are all WP:NEWSPRIMARY that means if it's taken to AfD people will say "passes GNG". -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to Random person no 362478479 for the endorsement of my approach, and to Morbidthoughts for making some changes. Apart from grammar/syntax, the effect of Therangerrick's edits is a matter of balance: they expanded the coverage of the accusations of abuse and set them off under a separate heading for greater impact. They added specifics, including dates, that are not supported by 3rd-party reports, but also removed at least two referenced details, the 5 days a week at 6 am and the "as of" (as a new editor, they may not have understood the function of the template). Since this made the article more sensationalist and since I agree that Distractify is a non-RS, I've gone ahead and largely reverted their changes again, but this time replacing Distractify with NBC News so we can keep the detail of where the petition was. I still don't see a source for one year but since that's a relatively trivial detail, I've kept it from their work with "citation needed" rather than reinstate the vague "early 2020s" wording I originally used. I've reinstated a couple of details that Morbidthoughts had removed because Therangerrick had moved them away from their citations. As to notability: I believe that ship has sailed with extended coverage on unimpeachable news sites, which is why I originally worked on the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

“Sensationalist” lol. This is misrepresentation, in violation of WP:AGF. Again, it was divided into sections for clarity. It was a nightmare to read because it was a huge paragraph that jumped all over the place. Therangerrick (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Therangerrick: people have been kind with you but it's clearly not working so I'll be blunt. If you want to continue to make edits about living persons, please quick learn the limits and requirements of WP:BLP. Otherwise refrain from making edits about living persons voluntarily so we don't have to topic ban you/make it non-voluntary. There are plenty places you can edit where you making mistakes will cause less harm when you can learn the ropes here. Please remember you and only you are responsible for all edits you make, including any violations of our policies and guidelines. No one has to teach you to be better, and especially no one has to be sufficiently politely or nice with you that you can consider it "helpful" or not "overshadow"ing when you violate our policies and guidelines. Yes we should always do our best to be civil but that doesn't mean we can't be clear on what is and isn't okay. Fixing an article which is poorly written or constructed is fine. But a poorly written or constructed article is far, far better than one with BLP violations so if you're fixing an article by adding BLP violations then you've made it worse and not better. I don't doubt you thought you were improving the article and are here for good reasons, but that still doesn't excuse editing which actively harmed a living person, no matter how much we may dislike said person. Nil Einne (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I have remained faithful to neutrality and fixing perceived violations from users who pointed them out and requested changes. Part of that neutrality is being honest and providing clarity to poorly written articles even if that makes people who support said person uncomfortable.

Personally, I don’t have any opinion on Ruby. I don’t know her enough to. However, it’s doing a disservice to WP users to not include all relevant information in a reader-friendly way.

I can’t change @Yngvadottir’s perception of WP policy or myself. I know plenty other users who would disagree on their interpretation of different citations they used. The point is, there should’ve been more constructive conversation and collaboration instead of mass deletion and one-sidedness. Perhaps they chimed in with good intentions. It didn’t come off that way in my opinion.

And now, they’re aggressively policing every edit I make, even away from Ruby’s article.

I am requesting a topic ban on this account. You were polite, even in your frankness which I appreciate. However, I don’t feel comfortable contributing anymore, especially when one user is targeting every move I make. Therangerrick (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Therangerrick, per your talk page, Yngvadottir isn't the first (or only) editor to bring issues with your edits to your attention. Yngvadottir's message on your talk page was a personal, civil, detailed attempt to help you learn how to edit BLPs on Wikipedia. When a brand-new editor focuses on BLPs and there are issues with their edits on one article, other editors will appropriately examine their edits on other articles as well. There are several new editors that I'm personally monitoring myself right now, to make sure that they stop making the initial errors that were pointed out to them. I suspect that you mean "interaction ban" rather than "topic ban" but there is no basis for one. I doubt that any experienced editor would consider Yngvadottir's communications to you out of line or inappropriate. Schazjmd (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Looking through your edit history, unless I miss something, it looks to me like the "aggressively policing every edit I make, even away from Ruby’s article" is one other article, Matt Koleszar, out of the several you have edited since the Ruby matter began. I see no edits from them on Akai Naomasa, Jeff Noble (even though there's a big old "was married to his wife" hanging right out there!), Mahamevnawa Buddhist Monastery, or Lewis Lehrman. The edits on Koleszar looks reasonable, many of them just the kind of thing I'd expect an experienced editor who laid eyes on an article to make. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

When it comes to articles about living persons there are often situations where a "remove first ask questions later" approach is necessary. Articles about living persons are one of the most sensitive areas. That is why WP:BLP says:

Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

So what you call "mass-deletion and one-sidedness" is a non-optional duty of any editor. I get that this can feel dismissive, but the simple fact is that some information is just too sensitive to keep it up until after a discussion. That is especially true for personal information and allegations of misconduct (whether legal or ethical). Please read WP:BLP very carefully. Relevant for the case here are among other sections WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:BLPPRIVACY, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:BLPNAME. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Alejandro Domínguez (football executive)

Before doing a move request, want to get some opinions here. Do people think that Alejandro Domínguez is the most notable of the 4 Alejandro Domínguez on Wikipedia, that instead of a disambiguation page, Alejandro Domínguez is his page? MaskedSinger (talk) 11:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

No; his page [and Alejandro Domínguez (footballer, born 1981) have roughly the same number of views per day; neither is far and away the obvious one. A disambiguation page is appropriate. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

ok great. Thanks for the ruling. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Cori Schumacher

This subject has agreed to step away from editing and (we hope) use the right COI steps. Non-Admin Closure. JFHJr (㊟) 01:12, 9 September 2023 (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.

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

Hello, I am Cori Schumacher, the subject of the Wikipedia page Cori_Schumacher. My Wiki user name is Beyawnd8.

After experiencing intense online bullying over the last few years, I am now in a battle to preserve my Wikipedia page. There is an active effort to vandalize my page - Cori_Schumacher. The user is BottleOfChocolateMilk.

What can I do to protect my page from this vandalism effort? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyawnd8 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide an example or two of the vandalism, and explain why it's vandalism? I see you provided some updated info and an image of questionable copyright status. Otherwise it looks like a plain old edit war and a double case of WP:COI and WP:OWN. JFHJr (㊟) 23:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Your edit attempts did highlight some sourcing concerns so I've partially re-instated some of your changes. As for the rest we really need secondary sources for your political career. And as for the pronoun thing, isn't that you X profile? Note as JFHJr said, your Wikipedia biography doesn't belong you. And you really shouldn't have created it yourself. As long as it exists, it needs to follow our policies and guidelines and will not be a hagiography or a biography you explicitly approve of. Nil Einne (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Sorry for the pingy invite. On the topic of the subject's interest in preserving this article, its claim to notability looks fuzzy to me. I know a full chart of this size would too big an ask, but does anything here speak for itself to you? WP:POLITICIAN looks distant, and WP:GNG looks questionable given actual topics of coverage in references. Thanks for any attention you might lend. JFHJr (㊟) 06:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

User:JFHJr - Am I being asked to review this article and offer my opinion on whether it satisfies biographical notability? If so, I will do that within 24 hours. I will first take a quick look at the history to comment on whether there has been vandalism, or whether the OP is yelling vandalism to "win" a content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I see nothing that even remotely resembles vandalism, only a content dispute, but I see that both editors have alleged vandalism by the other. User:Beyawnd8, in the above post, alleges vandalism by User:BottleOfChocolateMilk, and User:BottleOfChocolateMilk makes a similar allegation in an edit summary. Both editors are reminded that Yelling Vandalism in a content dispute is a personal attack. User:Beyawnd8 should not have created an autobiography in article space. That was fourteen years ago, but they still should not be edit-warring about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, she satisfies general notability. After checking 12 of the references, 3 of them are qualifying. The article needs to be edited for neutrality, but it passes verifability and notability. Does this answer your question? Robert McClenon (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Everything you've contributed here has been helpful. Thanks again for lending your attention. JFHJr (㊟) 00:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Beyawnd8: Here is where we are by consensus of three experienced editors: 1) no vandalism has occurred; 2) you're operating under a massive conflict of interest, so you should confine your activity to talk page edit requests (each of your requests restating your conflict of interest); 3) you pass notability guidelines, so the article probably couldn't be deleted to assuage the perceived bullying and vandalism your online presence has entailed.

Especially as to point (2), if you or your associates persist in editing or otherwise WP:OWNing it, please expect related discussions at WP:COIN and/or WP:SPI. The WP:COI page offers helpful steps for editors who want to see an article about them edited. Otherwise, step away and stop your edit war, please. Please let me know if we've addressed your concerns and can close this discussion. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 00:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Per the subject's last user talk page comment. Sorry I didn't see this before. JFHJr (㊟) 01:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Peter Larson

The article Peter Larson has recently been expanded with a heavily negative bent, and the infobox image replaced with what looks like a photo edited to look like a mugshot, which seems to be copyvio. I have reverted the image back to the previous version, but I think that the article needs more outside scrutiny to see whether it complies with BLP. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I've managed to clean up some of the most egregious misrepresentations of the sources, but some content of the article still maybe undue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Walter Benn Michaels

This is the third post (second repost) of a recent comment already addressed at BLPN. 1, 2 The WP:SPA OP isn't listening to consensus. Closing this disruptive post. Non-Admin Closure. JFHJr (㊟) 20:33, 9 September 2023 (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.

The [apparent] individual identified as/ at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Benn_Michaels is neither worthy of attention nor demonstrated to be important to users of W. "Citations" invalid, or absent. Note that the article likely is self- created, and the "creator" is a past, as well as present, offender against the rukles and spirit of W. REMOVE AND BLOCK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmacinerney (talk • contribs) 14:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Talk:Amy Schneider edits by 24.38.185.65

Wrong forum. WP:NAC JFHJr (㊟) 17:14, 10 September 2023 (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.

IP user 24.38.185.65 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has for years been using talk pages as a soapbox, complaining that the article subjects are not "really" the gender that matches their gender identity. On September 9, 2023, the IP user did so again on Talk:Amy Schneider. I gave a warning on that page and on the IP's user talk page. The user responded with vitriol that included more misgendering of the subject and removed a "final warning" from User:Innisfree987. Frankly, the repeated attacks on fellow editors and inappropriate behavior on talk pages would be more than enough to request an IP block, but as I have been informed that purposefully misgendering someone who was not notable pre-transition is a violation of WP:BLP, I am starting here. Please block the user to stop the misgendering and editor attacks, and please provide guidance on how to appropriately remove the WP:BLP-violating content from talk pages. Thank you. --LinkTiger (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@LinkTiger: This is what WP:ANI is for. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Sorry about that. I moved this topic there. --LinkTiger (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Silvia Bulfone-Paus

Hi everyone, I've never done this before, so apologies if I'm not doing things correctly. Basically, the Silvia Bulfone-Paus article has lots of phrasing that sticks out to me as very much not neutral - but I wouldn't be filing this if it weren't for the fact that there was something about the entire article that just doesn't feel right. I haven't gone through the sources to compare, but it seems that much of the article's content must have been written by someone with an axe to grind against the subject.

Full disclosure, I'm peripherally connected to the subject - I hadn't heard of her, but I was looking for an article about her husband (and stumbled upon hers instead) because someone I know who works with him professionally had mentioned that his research was well-known.

Again, sorry if I'm not doing this right in any way! Thanks for your time and help. If nothing's amiss here, then feel free to dismiss this—I just wanted to reach out in case my hunch is right after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.233.98.4 (talk) 23:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

If something "just doesn't feel right" you'll need to point to the problematic prose and/or refs. I notice you didn't begin a discussion at the article talk page. That might be a good place to start with it, when you can put your finger on it. This article was not written by a someone, but many editors. Otherwise, it is sometimes the case that people become notable due to notoriety. JFHJr (㊟) 23:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

There is some serious ass puffery of the controversy in this edit.[39] I sure didn't see any "mainstream" citations in the article. Another example of the problem of wikipedia basically being a CV repository for academics. Anything that actually gets them secondary coverage is blown out of proportion in the big picture of things. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts: Your edits are a great improvement. It's unfortunate that there isn't more secondary coverage about her accomplishments. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

There still is way too much WP:UNDUE detail about the misconduct based on Retraction Watch, a blog previously disputed on this noticeboard.[40]. It needs to be chopped down at some point to maintain WP:BLPBALANCE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Scotty Kilmer

Looks like an advert for his YouTube channel. He's not actually a trained mechanic, but claims to have an anthropology degree. He's causing quite a stir with advice on there which is definitely wrong and could even cause damage. Someone with experience need to decide if this page is relevant as he's only really YouTube famous and appears to claim to be an expert when he is not actually trained in the area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.109.180 (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Note it doesn't matter if someone is "only really YouTube famous". We don't care about fame here on Wikipedia, instead we care about WP:notability primarily whether other reliable secondary sources have covered a subject in depth. Looking at the article, the sourcing isn't very good so it might be the subject is not notable but that is what matters, not whether he's "only really YouTube famous".

As for the rest, our article claims with this not very good source [41] that he is in fact a mechanic and was a mechanic for far longer than he was involved in anthropology. It sounds like his training largely came observing (and maybe assisting) his father and grandfather and then I guess later doing it himself; possibly not the best training but I'm fairly sure something fairly common for a lot of older mechanics. Probably even still not that uncommon in at least some parts of the US in early 1980s when he seems to have started as a mechanic. (It's also possible there was some additional more formalised training that simply isn't mentioned in the source.)

There are of course plenty of working and trained car mechanics who do things that are wrong or which they otherwise shouldn't. And a few (admittedly fewer and fewer as the stuff they are dealing with gets more complicated) who do great work despite having little in the way of formal training. So that's all neither here nor there.

Our assumption is if there are decent reliable secondary sources on the subject, they will talk about things that matter such as whether his advice is actually any good. If there are decent secondary sources talking about Scotty Kilmer, which admittedly I'm not sure there is, but none of them actually talk about whether his advice is any good, it's not really something we can deal with.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Jeffrey Katzenberg

Closing per article talk page and edit history. This seems to have been addressed. WP:NAC JFHJr (㊟) 01:37, 12 September 2023 (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.

Hello editors, I'm Jeffrey and I work for WndrCo. I was hoping to generate some further discussion on a Talk page post I made on the Jeffrey Katzenberg article (I am not Jeffrey Katzenberg, but I do work for him) related to the addition of some recent content that I don't believe is adequately supported by appropriate sourcing according to the WP:BLP policy. I've laid out the argument in more detail there, but in short, recent content additions make claims that are unsupported by, and in fact are refuted by, the sources referenced in the addition. The content added is simply factually inaccurate according to its own sources. Given that I have a conflict of interest, I have not removed the content myself and am instead hoping to generate a consensus here. Please let me know what you think and if you have any questions. JeffreyAtWndrCo (talk) 23:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Poupette Kenza

Deleted and creation protected. WP:NAC. JFHJr (㊟) 20:59, 12 September 2023 (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 was recreated on 2 September 2023 following deletion at AfD on 5 May 2023. A variety of potential BLP issues may exist as this article is continuing to be developed, including for the minor children of the article subject, so ongoing review by editors, including by editors who can read French, is requested. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The article creator has repeatedly added contentious content about the article subject and their minor children that appears to breach several aspects of WP:BLP policy, after being alerted to the contentious topic area and after warnings, including about edit warring. Beccaynr (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, BLP issues can be addressed here. But the bulk of your comments belong at WP:ANI. Although some participants here are admin, most are just editors. Since the article is up for speedy now, most who would agree with you wouldn't edit it and couldn't address or sanction user behavior. JFHJr (㊟) 01:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I will note for those who cannot read French that a handful of sources are reliable (but negative), and the rest are less reliable (and mostly just as negative). What you'd expect from an online personality covered more mainstream for being fined for commercial activity. JFHJr (㊟) 01:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you - at this point, the edit warring seems to have ceased, and I have left a comment [42] on the article Talk page about the WP:BLP policy issues as I see them with regard to this content [43]. I rapidly removed the content because of the nature of the allegations and the content about the children - some of this appears to be related to a complaint made to a prosecutor, not by a prosecutor, and also a months-earlier report about something a prosecutor said, and a months-later action by legislators presented as happening "at the same time"; with further time to review, translate, and assess the sources, there may be a way to create some BLP-compliant content, but it seemed best to immediately remove the contentious content and graphic description, and instead proceed very carefully before restoring any of it. This content was automatically tagged as "possible BLP issue or vandalism" when it was added. Beccaynr (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

My impression is the BLP depends mostly on coverage the WP:BLP1E/WP:BLPCRIME for most of its content, even innocuous details seemingly unrelated. If all coverage actually about the fine is removed, a clearer picture might appear. It's not evident that this is a particularly spectacular fine to merit coverage as a basis for a BLP. JFHJr (㊟) 03:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, if there is primarily sensationalized coverage, this would seem to create a variety of BLP problems; for now, help monitoring the article for serious BLP violations would be appreciated, because I am basically done for the day. Beccaynr (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Tamaz Somkhishvili

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

Many of the links claiming cooperation with Russian ministry of defence etc. are libellous and utterly untrue, as they are part of a Ukrainian Black PR campaign to tarnish the name of Mr Somkhishvili due to the ongoing Legal Case he has against the City administration of Kyiv since many years before the war.

They are Piecing together a coat hanger article to try and distort the truth and create a narrative that will help the ukrainians to hide their corruption and their malicious activities by throwing dirt at an innocent person.

Many of the text should be deleted, in fact, the entire article should be deleted.

Please see Press release: https://zaiwalla.co.uk/news/article-detail/zaiwalla-co-acting-for-british-citizen-and-investor-tamaz-somkhishvili-to-seek-redress-through-english-court-for-unlawful-actions-destabilising-court-proceedings-in-ukraine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.17.151 (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

You should take your concerns to the article talk page, where germane comments have occurred, but no discussion attempt in over 2 months. This probably didn't need escalation to BLPN right away. But since you're here, would you 1) please clarify that your comment re "libelous" above is in no way a legal threat to editors who may disagree with you; 2) please clarify whether you have any relationship with the subject; and 3) please state what particular sources are problematic and why? That last one, about sources, might as well go on the article talk page... JFHJr (㊟) 22:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@JFHJr It probably needs an experienced copy edit around citizenship. The articles says he has 7 passports and directly mentions British citizenship, but the lede only mentions Russian and Georgian. The other citizenships should probably be noted somewhere like in Shahzada Dawood. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that prose either way. I don't think that's the OP's gripe either. Thanks for any improvements along OP's gripe, if any. Hopefully, the talk page will again become its immediate content discussion forum. JFHJr (㊟) 03:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Jim Anderson (loyalist)

Jim Anderson (loyalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) contains an unsourced, and apparently unverifiable, claim of death. Some history will be useful. On 23 May 2019 our article had his name as James (obviously Jim is a common nickname for people named James, so nothing to worry about there). Then on 23 July 2019 his name was changed to "Leonard James Anderson" with a claimed death date of 27 June 2019. That someone of that name from Belfast has died can be unreliably sourced by this death notice or several placed in a Belfast newspaper. However none of them are reliable for a claim of death, and we don't even know it's the same person anyway. Any ideas on how this should be handled? I'm thinking the claimed death needs to be removed, since I cannot find any reliable source that the subject of out article is in fact dead. Kathleen's bike (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

You make good case for the death to be removed. Beyond that, the sourcing of the page is just to three sources, all books... and one of those three (Red Hand) is used only for statements that do not directly refer to the subject. I know nothing about the topic and cannot speak to the reliability of the two other books, but it's enough to make me at least ask whether the subject meets our notability guidelines. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I have the same impression. JFHJr (㊟) 04:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

You might also ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland if anyone over there knows more and can help. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I have documented what the books say at Talk:Jim Anderson (loyalist)#Notification. My belief is that the handful of facts about this person that can be reliably sourced are insufficent to write an article, and can be covered in context at the Ulster Defence Association article. Kathleen's bike (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The article name space should be redirected. AGF for the death date well over a year old/ago, this is probably not the right forum. BLPN is for the living and those recently deceased. 2019 is not recent enough. JFHJr (㊟) 03:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

That the problem originated in 2019 isn't actually that relevant, according to WP:BDP he's considered alive unless we have a reliable source that he's dead which we don't since nobody has said any of the death notices can be used. I have formally proposed a merge on the article's talk page. Kathleen's bike (talk) 10:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)