Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive362

Derek Blasberg

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.

---

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

There's been some edit warring in this article over whether an incident earlier this month where Blasberg had an explosive bowel movement in Gwyneth Paltrow's cottage should be mentioned in the article. I think there's reasonable reason to exclude per WP:GOSSIP, even though the incident has been covered by reliable sources like Variety, but @FeralOink: has been insistent on including it. I thought I would make a post here for wider input. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The Variety source is a gossip article, which sources the identification to the Daily Mail. I've accordingly removed its other use from the article. The incident appears to fall afoul of BLP sourcing requirements in addition to being trivial gossip content. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, I have not been insistent on including the bowel movement portion in the BLP of Derek Blasberg. Let's refer to it as the "incident" for brevity here. As one can see from the first of two discussions on the talk page, on 4 July, I inquired of other editors whether it was appropriate to include. Three editors discussed and the four of us decided that it was; no one objected. An IP editor provided a link to an article appearing in a trade journal (Variety) for the fashion and beauty industry (which meets criteria for WP:RS and WP:NPOV) that was lengthy and entirely devoted to the incident. ELLE magazine and Yahoo! Entertainment reported on the incident too. Further sources for the BLP subject's personal life were suggested by one of the three editors in the incident discussion, see this later subsection of the talk page, also on 6 July, including New York magazine and Women's Wear Daily, legitimate sources for the fashion industry; both provided extensive, specific coverage. I cleaned up the entire article, added updated and encyclopedic content, and sources throughout. I began my work on 9 July and completed it by adding a new section about the incident on July 11.

This morning, 23 July, I noticed that most of my edits, both the incident and my article updates, had been reverted. On 22 July, the IP editor who removed non-incident related content with edit summaries that it was not factual (despite being WP:NPOV and WP:RS sourced); IP editor provided no explanation on the talk page. Willthacheerleader18 made her edits on 16 July, removing 11 July incident content. I restored both today, 23 July, after leaving a message for Will on her talk page, in which I linked to the talk page section with editors concurring on inclusion of the incident. Will made no comments there.

This is hardly edit warring:

• First a discussion on 4 July to 6 July, then edits on 9 July and completed on 11 July;
• removal of incident content by Will on 16 July;
• reverts by IP editor on 22 July of non-incident content;
• restoration by me on 23 July,
• then the following surprises today on 23 July.
• Merely an hour and 30 minutes after my restorations, first Carrite removed the incident content & sources AND 30 minutes later, Yngvadottir removed/ truncated informative sourced content unrelated to the incident.
• I have not made any further changes to the article. It remains as Carrite and Yngvadottir changed it, having reverted me.

Note that a COI, single purpose account, DBassistant (Derek Blasberg assistant?) made numerous contributions to the article in the past, so I was especially alert to IP edits with sus edit summaries.

Also, I was taken aback by edit summaries with this dismissive and unfriendly tone, when Carrite reverted me this morning: Personal life: Removes. Trivia on the one hand, BLP issue on the other. Feral Oink: stop edit warring to preserve this nor of judgements about what is gossip in the fashion and beauty industry, Yngvadottir: Removed earlier ref to Variety gossip column, the main part of which goes back to Daily Mail and social media posts; per BLPSOURCES. Friendship w/ Gwyneth Paltrow has already been reinstated w/ a different source. This edit is not an endorsement of the WMF.. Neither broached their changes on the talk page. The Variety article was a lengthy profile and analysis of Blasberg's career, of which the incident was a few paragraphs. It was not a "gossip column", and should not have been summarily removed.--FeralOink (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

FeralOink, here's that Variety link again: [1]. Yes, Variety is generally reliable for showbiz news, but that article is totally and openly gossip, and gives full credit to its sources; in particular, it traces the identification to the Daily Mail, which should be avoided when possible. This is a BLP. And as I noted in my edit summary, his being a friend of Paltrow was already in the article, with a different reference (you restored it). So despite being an extended treatment of the article subject, the Variety article that is primarily about the defecation incident is not needed to reference anything in the article, and its use cannot be defended. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Is the argument here really about whether a biography of a living person should go off at length about how he allegedly took a really bad dump once? In the primary document that appears when his name is searched on the Internet? I mean, this is really just a thing with absolutely zero encyclopedic interest at all, but beyond that, on a very basic common sense level: have we, at long last, no decency? How utterly embarrassing -- for us. jp×g🗯️ 01:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi FeralOink (talk · contribs), I am a woman and my pronouns are she/her (Will is short for Wilhelmina). I removed the edits on the Blasberg article, as I explained in my edit description, because it did not seem encyclopedic at best. Wikipedia is not a gossip column. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

JPxG you are grossly mischaracterizing the incident. The BLP subject did not "take a really bad dump". There were three sentences about the incident in the article, which is not "at length". This is the removed content: "On 6 July 2024, Variety reported that Blasberg had "an unseemly incident in (Paltrow's) guest cottage, involving an intense bowel movement which wrecked the place". Blasberg departed immediately, leaving some cash for Paltrow's housekeeping staff, rather than making any attempt to clean up after himself. The extent of the mishap was not limited to the bed, but rather (as detailed by Yahoo! Entertainment) fouled the walls, ceiling, and floor of the guest room as well." I agree, that the third sentence can be omitted. Also, notice that the article has received over 48,000 page views in the past 30 days so it clearly is of interest to some people. Finally, when one does a Google search on the BLP subject's name, three of the four "Top Stories" reference the incident. That is not due to the Wikipedia BLP as all three pre-date the changes I made on 12 July.--FeralOink (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I so very much apologize Willthacheerleader18 (talk · contribs)!!! I'm a woman too. I should have noticed that you were, and especially since you have "cheerleader" in your user name. (Yes, there are male cheerleaders, but still...!) I made several typos in what I wrote above. Yngvadottir is making a subjective judgement on what constitutes a "gossip column". Again, I will reiterate that there is a talk page discussion and that this should have been broached there first, rather than summarily reverting me and bringing it before a Noticeboard. I am particularly aggrieved at the lack of WP:Good faith by the initial Noticeboard entry by Hemiauchenia that characterizes me as "insisting" and then "edit warring"! I was merely restoring content that had been agreed to on the talk page. I even made inquiries myself about whether it was appropriate to include initially, per the talk page.

I am surprised that editors would use their personal judgement to determine which content from a WP:RS source is "gossip" and which is not. Perhaps that belongs at the sources noticeboard rather than BLP.--FeralOink (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I am surprised that editors would use their personal judgement to determine which content from a WP:RS source is "gossip" and which is not. Deciding what should be included in an article is a fundamental part of what we do here. Accepting for the sake of argument that nobody disputes the reliability of Variety as a source here, the fact that something is verified by a reliable source does not mean that we have to include it. This is supported by policy: see e.g. WP:ONUS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. In particular, our BLP policy says that Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, and the lead of that policy explicitly mentions exercising editorial judgment.

At any rate, regardless of what policy says: how can including this possibly be a good idea? What encyclopedic virtue does it have? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so I will disregard Wikipedia_Wonderful_698-D, GramercyGreats, and 98.248.161.240 on Talk:Derek Blasberg. My initial enquiry there was "This is all over the news although it hasn't made it to Page Six/NY Post... yet. Paltrow told Oprah what Blasberg did at her home. I added two sentences without mentioning the ghastly "incident" but sourced his close friendship with Paltrow using two WP:RS, WP:NPOV references that cover what happened. I have no idea whether something like this belongs in a BLP of a socialite or not." Responses by other editors included "It does." and "The story has been picked up by international outlets including Variety and the Daily Mail. I believe it does belong on the page." Just now, I checked the edit history of those users. They are scant, and in one case, has a disclaimer that they only edit occasionally. I apologize for my error in judgement about trusting the advice of the three editors on the talk page without further investigation. I was naive. I am unaccustomed to editing BLPs about people in the popular media. You were correct to revert me. JPxG, there is NO need to say I "have no decency"! If I had no decency, I wouldn't work on this project.--FeralOink (talk) 09:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS. Something being "all over the news" does not mean it is appropriate for an encyclopedic biography. I do not see any attempt to provide an argument for the long-term significance or noteworthiness of the content. – notwally (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Y'all gotta be shitting me that this is anything but WP:BLPGOSSIP. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Very much WP:GOSSIP, is not encyclopedic unless if it leads to something else. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I realize this now. The article does not include any content about the subject's incident at Paltrow's. Can we close this already? I don't think we need any more editors saying the same thing when it was already agreed upon unanimously by SIX editors to not include anything about the incident.--FeralOink (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Gavin Wood

• Gavin Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi! In the article Gavin Wood, a founder of Etherium, there's a controversy section discussing a blog post he made in 2013 (which he acknowledged writing but claimed was fiction). One source is Buzzfeed News, which is fair enough, and another is Business Insider, but the rest are crytocurrency news sites which I have no idea how to evaluate in regard to BLPs. Thus I was wondering if there were any thoughts in regard to their use in the BLP. - Bilby (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

An 18yo guy wrote a fantasy blog involving sex with an underage girl. There is no suggestion it was anything more than bad-taste fiction, and the author deleted the blog post after internet outrage. Now enthusiasts can use Wikipedia to right great wrongs by keeping the outrage alive. An argument could be made for a very brief sentence with the 2018 BuzzFeed article as a reference. However, the current detail and Controversies section are totally WP:UNDUE. The issue might be DUE if a reliable source explained how the incident had a significant and long-lasting impact on the subject. At the moment, the issue is that a successful tech entrepreneur has made a lot of money in an area (cryptocurrency) where there are a lot of opponents who would like to amplify Gavin Wood's problem. Johnuniq (talk) 06:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't use any of those crytpo sources, BLP is very clear that we must be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. Those are not suitable for a BLP. And I wouldn't use WP:BUSINESSINSIDER in a BLP either, as I don't see it as a high-quality source, which only leaves WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS. So, with only one source remaining, I think it's reasonable to argue that an entire section is UNDUE as well.

And on another note, I am appalled by the personal attacks and aspersions against Bilby made by Lustigermutiger21, seen here, here, here and here. Granted, they have been warned, but I'm not convinced by any of their responses that they fully understand how totally unacceptable those comments are. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The listed material seems more like cheap gossip to me and I'd agree their inclusion is undue, and I also think the insults levied against the editor above are completely unnecessary to the point of administrator involvement. Lostsandwich (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not so worried about the comments, in that I would block if used against another editor, but I'm considering it closed in relation to me. If it starts again against anyone there is only one possible outcome.

I was unsure re WP:DUE, which is why I initially trimmed it back. [2] But once you start including some, you need to include a bit more - mostly that the post was rapidly taken down and that there was an apology. But if it is deemed undue I'm completely ok with that, and I'm ok with not covering it if the only viable source is buzzfeed news. Crypto isn;t an rea I usually touch in any regard. - Bilby (talk) 09:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I understand your position, but I am worried they don't fully understand how totally inappropriate those comments are. They didn't even acknowledge those comments were personal attacks, apologize for them or retract them by striking them out. That is unacceptable. In my view, if they don't fully understand what they did was wrong, now, in the first instance, then they should be formally warned by an admin that they will be blocked if it happens again. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The sources I have given are, in my opinion, reliable and the topic is relevant. I have acted in good faith to expand the article with a relevant event in Wood's life. My statements against @Bilby were not personal attacks but were made in the heat of the moment because the subject is very sensitive. The sensitive topic, the media interest, the publications and the outcry that followed in the crypto community are, in my opinion, reason enough for the controversial section. Lustigermutiger21 (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Lustigermutiger21 - No, your comments about Bilby were personal attacks; you made derogatory comments about an editor, as the diffs above clearly demonstrate. And the fact you don't fully understand that is problematic. You were advised to remove the attacks, and you haven't. Will you retract all of those attacks by striking them out? Isaidnoway (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I had no intention of attacking anyone personally and I apologize to @Bilbyif it came across that way. Lustigermutiger21 (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Lustigermutiger21, those were definitely personal attacks, and you should strike them as has been recommended by other editors. – notwally (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I think this material is probably undue if the only reliable source is BuzzFeed News. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE. – notwally (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I consider BuzzFeed and Business Insider as reliable sources for the "Controversy" section and would like to highlight the fact, that the article has bunch of unreliable sources backing other sections. Lustigermutiger21 (talk) 06:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Matt Morgan

Details added to the Career/Radio section, citing an article from September 2023, regarding an ongoing legal issue involving Russell Brand should be removed as per this government guide advisory notice: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/media-advisory-notice-russell-brand 37.228.204.18 (talk) 11:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

You mean Matt Morgan (comedian)? Wikipedia is not subject to UK law but even so I can't see anything currently in that section of the article that is improperly sourced. Bon courage (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

A WikiProject people watching this page may be interested in

Hello folks. I'm trying to revive Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue. I started a recent discussion there as well. Given that this has implications for BLPs more broadly, I figured it wasn't entirely inappropriate to leave a comment here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:MrBeast

In the talk page there is frequent discussion of adding serious allegations to the article of criminal conduct without reliable sources based on the belief that the allegations are true, including through refrences to self-published youtube videos not made by the youtuber in question, analysis of primary sources and of poor secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Originalcola (talk • contribs) 17:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

all that is appropriate to add is that theres a controversy, not that mrbeast is somehow complicit beyond what is objectively true and reported NotQualified (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson

92.233.82.113 is the forth troll account that has griefed his talk page / article this month. tommy has now been called, without proof, 'an international terrorist', 'self-proclaimed nazi', and more. someone even demanded publishing videos of child porn in order to confirm he combatted grooming gangs, which is obviously absurd and bad faith trolling. this repeated defamation in such a short notice mandates a raise in protection for his page. NotQualified (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Requests for page protection can be placed at WP:RPP. Note for any looking on, it's Tommy Robinson (activist) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

We don't usually protect talk pages (the article has been semi-protected for months). I hardly think that an IP describing a video that makes false allegations regarding a teenager, and which was screened in violation of a court order and means that Yaxley-Lennon* now has an arrest warrant out for him, as "shite" is a major issue. * "Robinson"'s real name Black Kite (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

it's the international terrorist, and nazi claims that mainly concern me. not 'shite' NotQualified (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but page protection will make it so all IP (and some non-IP) users cannot edit on Talk page, and some have been making honest attempts to contribute there. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

thats why we dont usuallt just make protections, this page is being griefed too much and tol badly NotQualified (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like that much; you're saying four times in a month? And looking at the talk page in question, the "terrorist" claim wasn't this month, but last. If you wish to remove that from the discussion, that is something that can be deleted under WP:BLPTALK. I see that a few comments this month were deleted under WP:NOTAFORUM, which may apply to some (but only some) of what you're concerned about. In any case, this is not the page that can grant you page protection. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Imane Khelif

Imane Khelif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Imane Khelif is a woman by birth and chosen identity. People have edited her page to change pronouns to ‘he’ because they believe she is trans (she is not) and they are transphobic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:240:2C60:B54C:129F:5FFB:C570 (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

It looks like this is working itself out on the talk page and the current version of the article looks OK to me. The article is also semied. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

It has now been ECP'd because of speculation edit warring. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Taral Wayne

Many sources are adding content to Taral Wayne claiming the subject has died. However, I have yet to find a reliable source claiming as such. So far it's just social media posts or fan-created content. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Andrew McManus

I would appreciate it were an editor with experience in BLP issues to take a look at Andrew McManus, to which I was drawn by a reference error (now fixed). McManus is a music promoter, and I would judge is likely notable. A large part of the article comprises criticism of his business practices, based mostly on a single article published in The Sydney Morning Herald, an Australian tabloid, and I suspect that the article may have seen COI editing by people who have lost out as a consequence of the failure of McManus' companies. I am unsure how to proceed – probably some discussion of the legal issues is appropriate, but the article as it stands is close to being a candidate for G10. Thanks in advance, Wham2001 (talk) 08:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

While I have no comments on the article and deletion, just a note that The Sydney Morning Herald shouldn't be called a tabloid. Yes it publishes in tabloid format (nowadays?) but it's not tabloid journalism which is what matters to BLP. In fact, AFAIK despite suffering (as with many sources) from an increase in sensationalism and with more focus on entertainment as many news sources have done to try and survive in the modern media landscape it's still generally considered one of the best Australian news source considering the dominance of Murdoch media there. See WP:RSPS and previous WP:RSN discussions. Nil Einne (talk) 11:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with the above. The Sydney Morning Herald is tabloid in size, not journalistic style (in common with many other newspapers in Australia / New Zealand which have changed from broadsheet to tabloid size in the last 20 years). It's Sydney's newspaper of record and up there with other former broadsheets such as (in NZ) the NZ Herald, the Post and the Press.

As for the content, it could do with a prune (we don't need to know about all the article subject's failed business ventures) maybe limit them to ones that have ended up in court. Daveosaurus (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I've pruned a couple of sections of excessive trivia or peripheral involvement and will leave it to the BLP experts for further work. Daveosaurus (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Criticism and controversies should be summarized, we don't need to know insignificant details like the room number of the hotel or that it was a "5-star Hilton Hotel" or what Owen Hanson has been described as. In my view, it is wildly UNDUE and some sections also suffer from excessive bolding. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

List of intersex Olympians

There is no RS confirming that Imane Khelif is anything but a cisgendered woman. Including her in the article is highly misleading and inappropriate. It needs to be removed until we have consensus for otherwise

• @Zenomonoz:--Trade (talk) 08:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The referencing for at least one of the other entries is not what I would expect for a BLP matter. Red Fiona (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:DOB and Associated Press as a RS

Since it involves BLP policy, wanted to post a notice here as well for the discussion at RSN regarding the reliability of AP for famous birthdays.

Awshort (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Using names in 2024 Southport stabbing

Could those here familiar with WP:BLP policy please take a look at ongoing discussions at Talk:2024 Southport stabbing#Suspect's name, Talk:2024 Southport stabbing#Organisers' names, Talk:2024 Southport stabbing#Victims' names, and Talk:2024 Southport stabbing#Should we name the accused?, to help with policy guidance/arguments. Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Southasiapress

[3] What is the reliability of this source and the news site overall for exceptional claims being made about deaths squads and human rights violations? Other than being a non notable source, it also appears to be an op-ed and questionable source making claims about multiple living people allegedly running death squads Axedd (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The best place to post this inquiry is probably WP:RSN. Once a threshold determination is made on reliability, it's easier to apply that consensus to relevant WP:BLP content. JFHJr (㊟) 19:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Apostol Tnokovski

The page of Apostol Tnokovski should be deleted because:

1. There isn't enough independent coverage to pass the General notability guideline.
2. It is very poorly sourced. Some sources can't be verified, others are broken links, and the ones that work are from small blogs with no authority on the subject.

This is a self promotion page from an aspiring designer. A simple Google search shows that his designs have never been turned into products for him to be considered a Product Designer as the opening line suggest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morningstar.pm (talk • contribs) 03:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

This should probably be listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion rather than here, as this is a page for handling issues related to how to cover living persons, not whether to have articles on them at all. Wehpudicabok (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Sinfest

Sinfest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a comic strip that an editor User:Wehpudicabok is intent on repeatedly adding a paragraph[4] of negative opinions about the artist's mental health that is sourced to a single unreliable self-published blog. Talk page discussion I've started at [5] seems to be going nowhere and I'm about to hit my third revert. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. Elspea756 (talk) 03:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The section as it was written on Wikipedia was entirely about the comic, not its creator. Admittedly, part of it was sourced to Kleefeld talking about the artist, not the comic; I removed that portion. The portion that is about the comic itself should stay, as it's the result of community consensus, as I have repeatedly mentioned (and been persistently ignored about). Wehpudicabok (talk) 03:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

See here for some background and the consensus for the current (as I type this) version of the disputed text. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Good news: Talk page discussion has resulted in removal of about half of the BLP material sourced to a self-published blog,[6]. However, bad news, there is a continued effort to now take a portion of the blog post saying the artist is allegedly "on a downward spiral [from] nerd [to] extremist" and insert that in the article as instead a passage about the artist's work rather than the artist themself. I've just removed it again.[7] I'd rather be editing other things, so any help would be appreciated. Thank you. Elspea756 (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

You have put words in quotation marks that are not in the post being used as a source; it actually says "To quote Ryan Broderick, who wrote a summary of everything you need to know about Ishida and the downward spiral of Sinfest not long after Kaella's thread ...," which is unambiguously a statement about the downward spiral of the comic strip. I don't know where your not-a-quote comes from. --JBL (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I finally figured it out: your "[from]" replaces one sentence of Kleefeld plus four sentences of something that Kleefeld is quoting; "nerd" and "extremist" are then words not of Kleefeld's but from the end of the quote. This is rather misleading! You are correct that Broderick's comments about Ishida, as quoted by Kleefeld are not usable in WP; luckily, no one seems to have been using them, and the assertion that Sinfest has experienced a downward spiral is manifestly not a comment about Ishida (neither in our article nor in Kleefeld's article). I see that at least four or five other people have made this point on the article talk-page. --JBL (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I would encourage you to go to the article talk page and address the points made there that the contested content is a description of the comic's themes, not of the author (about whom little is known).Daveosaurus (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Herman Brusselmans

Belgian author Herman Brusselmans has made stupid comments in his most recent column (he has written satirical and willfully provocative columns for some 30 years now), which seem to be willfully spun in the worst possible light by some Jewish sources and some editors. I should probably refrain from editing this further, so uninvolved eyes on this article (and especially the section "Alleged call for violence against Jews" / "Call for violence against Jews") would be welcome. Fram (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Jason Momoa, Talk:Jason Momoa, Lisa Bonet, and possibly other pages

For some time now, a mostly dynamic IP user has been trying to add information about Jason Momoa having a new wife. I'm not sure how to describe this situation without violating WP:NPA. If this fantasy relationship exists, no reliable source has ever mentioned it. Page protection is simple, but what can we do about the multiple nonsense edit requests? --Onorem (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest taking this to WP:RFPP Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Jason Momoa is about 30 days into 90 day semi-protection. Where is the recent disruption occurring? Cullen328 (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Multiple edit requests/comments (4 at Talk:Adria Arjona and 13 at Talk:Jason Momoa yesterday) demanding that wikipedia be updated to say that Nicolle A. Morea is Momoa's wife. The attempts to add that name to Momoa's article began last September. This is the obsessive fantasy of a person in Germany. Her "source" is her post on Medium which explains the "sign" that Momoa has given in a photograph to validate her fantasy so that the "relationship" can be updated on wikipedia. Short of a project-wide edit filter blocking edits that include the name "Nicolle A. Morea", I don't know what else can be done to tamp this down. Schazjmd (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Since the person in question isn't notable, I don't see why that couldn't be done. Acroterion (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Started an SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moreamomoa. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

John Clauser

See also: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive 91 § CO2 Coalition, and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 94 § John Clauser

Rationale: I am submitting this BLP report based on an edit I've restored due to the use of WP:EXPERTSPS. See also: Talk:John Clauser#Recent deletion of Sabine Hossenfelder.

Summary: John Clauser is a Nobel prize-winning physicist who joined a leading climate denial organization shortly after winning the award, gaining some currency in right wing media circles for promoting climate denial. For what it's worth, Clauser's odd behavior is not entirely unexpected. People who win the Nobel prize are susceptible to Nobel disease, a common affliction.

Recently, fellow physicist and science communicator Sabine Hossenfelder evaluated Clauser's claims on her YouTube channel, stating "Clauser starts with a made-up definition, suggests that climate scientists miscalculate an uncertainty by forgetting to mention how it’s actually calculated, suggests that they lie about something that’s clearly stated in every single paper on the topic, presents a self-made hypothesis that climate scientists have told him since last year is trivially wrong, and to top things off calls everyone who has actually works on the topic 'dishonest'." Hossenfelder's opinion is considered the mainstream consensus viewpoint, so there's nothing controversial here.

Editorial behavior: User:Kbahey recently added Hossenfelder's analysis to Clauser's biography,[8] followed by User:Panian513 removing it based on WP:USERGENERATED,[9] and my subsequent restoration of the material.[10]

Question: Was I wrong to restore this material? Thanks in advance. Viriditas (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Hossenfelder's video[11] seems sane, rational and good, but it makes statements about a person. If we could use experts' Youtube videos to debunk nonsense, Wikipedia would be far too easy. BLP is clear-cut about not using self-published sources for content about a person. Bon courage (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand your position. But my position is that Hossenfelder is not commenting about Clauser, the person, but rather about Clauser's comments regarding climate denial, which are two different topics. Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

If that were true, you might (might) win a fight to keep it. But there are statements in the video describing him (e.g. as a 'climate changed denier') not just focussing on the bollocks he utters. Basically, this is clear-cut and bios are a WP:CTOP so trying to push it will just get you sanctioned. Bon courage (talk) 04:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "push" anything. I'm trying to understand if the material Kbahey was acceptable. I thought it was, which is why I restored it. Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to give a quick explanation - apologies if it isn't concise, as I'm just about to head to bed.

An important part was left out of your summary - I left a message on User talk:Kbahey explaining the policy reasons behind the removal. YouTube is not considered a reliable source. WP:UGC makes it clear, as video hosting services is defined as user-generated content. YouTube is especially perilous since it toes the line between a video hosting service and a social media site, which is another type of source which is generally unreliable. I do think that there should be mention of refutations of Clauser's claims, since they are considered fringe views, but as I explained on Kbahey's talk page, this should be a reliable source, such as a peer-reviewed article from a reliable science journal. As you said, Hossenfelder's views are the mainstream views, therefore, it shouldn't too hard to find a journal article specifically refuting Clauser's claims.

In sum, the medium of a claim is important. Certainly, Hossenfelder's views are mainstream, but a YouTube video can't be peer-reviewed - only a journal article or a book can. Panian513 04:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

My reading of it is that Hossenfelder views meet WP:EXPERTSPS. The question then becomes, can her analysis of climate denial be included in an article about a living person? Both you and Bon courage say it cannot, but I don't see any reason why it can't other than "Clauser is a living person and we can't use SPS" in a BLP. Viriditas (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

It's wrong to say Hossenfelder's views - it's more accurate to say Hossenfelder's medium of presenting her views. I'm not saying that her views are wrong, but that the medium of publishing the views isn't good enough for an article. Since YouTube is social media, by citing a YouTube video, it'll sound like the article is just commenting on Internet drama. If the article instead cited an article or another reliable source, then it'd qualify as a notable dispute in the scientific community. Panian513 04:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see it that way. I see YouTube, as it is used in this case, as a distribution channel for Hossenfelder's show. YouTube is not being cited here, Hossenfelder's content is; nor are we citing the social media elements. I will revert my restoration as a show of good faith, but I hope this discussion continues. Viriditas (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

She's not a climate scientist, as she says; she relied on other people to pull the material together for her. Hossenfelder is a good egg, but pushing this is futile. Bon courage (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, that's the second time you've tried to say that I'm "pushing" something, when I'm not. I've already said I'm going to restore Panian513's version as a show of good faith. Clauser is not a climate scientist, he's a physicist, and his comments about climate science were rebuked by his peer. Viriditas (talk) 04:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you should not have restored the material per WP:BLPSPS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the material should not be used in a BLP per WP:BLPSPS and WP:EXPERTSPS. Even for non-BLPs, the subject-matter expert exception can be difficult to determine when to use properly and the policy requires editors to "exercise caution when using such sources". Further, the self-published content does not seem to be adding much. Instead, I would suggest pulling addition criticism of his views from The Washington Post article. The article notes that Clauser "has never published a peer-reviewed paper on climate change" and then quotes two climate scientists. I would also suggest removing what Clauser "believes" and "has concluded" from the article, as there seems to be no reason to give fringe views more exposure. – notwally (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Your proposal has been discussed many times, and the community chose to include what Clauser believes due to reasons. I have linked to some of the previous discussions up above, but there are more on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's that simple or that black and white. See this discussion, for example. My reading of that discussion is that 1) there is an unstated implication that there are legal considerations at work that override the use of a reliable source in some cases, and 2) we should avoid creating a "he said, she said" situation where certain claims about living people can't be properly vetted or substantiated. My argument up above is that Hossenfelder is attacking what the living person said, not who they are. Further, if as another editor said up above, Hossenfelder "relied on other people to pull the material together for her", that's another form of vetting at work. In any case, because the unstated implication is that this involves legal issues, it appears that I am being asked to no longer discuss it in this venue, so I will end my participation at this point. Viriditas (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

It's that black and white. So far, it looks like everyone you have asked here agrees that it's improper. Either the material isn't mean to say anything about the living person, in which case it doesn't belong in their biography; or it is meant to say something about them, and thus WP:BLPSPS applies. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:EXPERTSPS can't be used in support of inclusion as it states Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer (bolding in original). Local consensus can't decide that doesn't apply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

anita vandenbald

Use of the word Hijacked in describing Status of Women committee actions is politically charged — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:8600:B850:748F:1115:87B8:551C (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Don Cherry

There is a discussion at Talk:Don_Cherry#Ron_MacLean_comments that would benefit from the experience of editors that follow this noticeboard. Andrew Englehart (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Helmuth Nyborg

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

There is currently a dispute as to whether the phrase "far-right politician" belongs in the opening sentence of this BLP. Experienced editors are invited to weigh in on the article talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Emma Barnett

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

Appreciate input to the thread I opened here: Talk:Emma Barnett#WP:BALASP. DeCausa (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Austin Lane

THE WIKI AGE FOR AUSTIN LANE IS NOT ACCURATE AND NEEDS TO BE REMOVED OR UPDATED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhoenixHouston (talk • contribs) 04:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• There is no age given in the article and hasn't been for some time. Black Kite (talk) 06:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You may be seeing a date when searching with Google, that date comes from Google not Wikipedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

BLP issue at History of violence against LGBT people in the United States

As happens with a lot of these lists of crime articles, there are some BLP issues with BLPCRIME and lack of sourcing for perpetrators. Additional eyes would be welcome. Currently there is an attempt to add a name without any evidence of conviction. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Only the perp's name needed removed (so I did that). EvergreenFir (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

This absolutely did not warrant a discussion about this, ScottishFinnishRadish. I have stated before and I will state again, you really should read LGBT and Wikipedia. Thank you, EvergreenFir. 9t5 (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@9t5: While we have to ensure our coverage of LGBT issues is good, in no way shape or form can this override BLP. And sorry but any editor who thinks it does should voluntarily desist from editing anything concerning living persons or they should expect to be topic banned. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is not acceptable on the English wikipedia and it's especially not acceptable when it comes at the expense of BLP. Note while I won't give a formal alert for contentious topics, BLP and gender and sexuality are both contentious topic areas meaning editors need to be on their best behaviour. Treating BLP as being overriden by some desire to fix problems perceived with the world or wikipedia, is most definitely not that. Nil Einne (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, while I'm not opposed to EvergreenFir's fix, BLP definitely means that if there are no or insufficient sources for any of the names, removing the entire entry is preferable to leaving it in. Any editor who reverts to keep the material without fixing it is solely at fault for the BLP violation that results. (To be clear, the editor who introduced this change is also at fault for their violation, but their violation doesn't excuse any editor also violating BLP by reverting an attempt to fix the problem.) While it might have been better ScottishFinnishRadish to implement the same fix, their actions were perfectly reasonable especially since such lists are always very tricky since it's unlikely that the list should have every single alleged act of violence that is reported in one or two sources so it's an open question what level of coverage we require before including an entry. (Frankly I hate lists of non notable cases.) This case happened long enough ago that sustained coverage should be demonstrable by now, so if it can't be, I think there's a good question if it belongs. Note that while removing the name reduces the harm to the perpetrator or alleged perpetrator, it doesn't actually eliminate it. Early reports can sometimes be misleading or incorrect, and of course the details of crimes can be disputed, and it is imperative we don't claim stuff happened in wikivoice when there is dispute. Note also we have to consider any living victims, which applies to the victim in this case. It seems the victim in this case voluntarily put their name out there which reduces concerns, still we need to remember victims may sometimes do stuff they later come to regret, so we do at a minimum need reliable secondary source coverage before including it and I only found this on IIRC the fourth source so it's easy to see it can be missed. More to the point, my earlier commentary comes into play, being fair to the alleged perpetrator means we may have to report any dispute over what happened, especially if it was never resolved e.g. via a legal case which can affect victims. Nil Einne (talk) 23:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

When editing via desktop-on-mobile it is difficult, sometimes impossible, to edit a large section in the source editor, so sometimes a revert is the best tool available to deal with blatant BLPvio. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The current listing of every crime against LGBT ever done does not serve the purpose of being an encyclopedia. IDK about RIGHTGREATWRONGS, but listing like this makes the page less informative and likely buries the gist of info for folks looking into the history of LGBT violence. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It took me about two minutes to spot a gross violation of WP:BLP policy in that list. [12] There are undoubtedly more... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

There's a lot sourced to a defunct LGBT hate crimes wiki, too. I spot checked a few, and luckily that wiki has decent sourcing. The whole thing needs a thorough check, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I found three more blatant violations, in less than 10 minutes. The article is a disgrace. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I've suggested on the talk page that the list be pruned down to Wikipedia-notable events and people. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree. A list article full of non-notable examples of anything is mostly meaningless. Worse about people. Worst about crime. The article could benefit from either WP:TNT or a re-write with a more constrained scope. JFHJr (㊟) 00:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a similar problem at List of people killed for being transgender, where it is common for additions to be made without any source saying that the victim was killed for being transgender, rather than being a transgender person who was killed. I don’t think that, even if accurate, this type of ‘list’ article serves any encyclopaedic purpose. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

It's an issue at every List of some sort of crime or victim or criminal. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

While I heartily agree that the list should be limited to hate crime cases (rather than simple murder cases lacking transness as a motive), that page is useful for anyone digging into transgender history. The history of trans people across the world includes the history of violence against them. The history of groups and the hate against them is fundamentally different than something trying to document the "history of murder" -- it is about the group being targeted. Is List of regicides also in your sights? List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots? These are useful pages. They should be well-maintained to improve quality, but Wikipedia stands to be a useful source of historical information for readers of a history of violence that is otherwise largely not compiled and remains underdocumented. AmityCity (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Except Wikipedia is not here to support the underdocumented. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that reports only well-documented topics. We are not a research repository of the non-notable. Especially when it comes to people and crimes. JFHJr (㊟) 00:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Of course -- and no entries should be added without multiple clear and reliable sources. These events are notable; my reference to an "underdocumented" part is the void of encyclopedic collection of these events were these pages to be removed. Absent a list like this, there would be no clear way for a user interested in learning about the topic to go from Chanelle Pickett to Murder of Shelby Tracy Tom -- despite the deep parallels between such events. AmityCity (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

And if said list remained congested with a collection of non-notable cruft like the amalgamation that presently exists, would that not hinder the casual user in seeing the relationship between notable events? And since this is still BLPN, I'll additionally ask how inclusion of names and events that apparently fall short of WP:BLP1E is justified on a scale that defies WP:WEIGHT as to notable or even noteworthy examples of the titled topic. Imagine for example Bhutanese refugees (or any other categorical victims) listing non-notable people in a separate section of the article. The long list of non-notables needs to go. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 02:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

For that purpose, I think it reasonable that the LGBT list take a similar bent as the transgender list -- and specifically limit to individuals targeted for their sexuality. I agree that the list would be more useful without random domestic murder cases. AmityCity (talk) 03:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The problem is they never stay limited in any way. List articles like these become magnets for anyone who wants to add whatever they think fits the criteria of the title, no matter how remote the connection may be. We don't have enough people to police all these lists from here to eternity, so I think the benefits of having them are far outweighed by the potential harm they can and often do cause to living people. Zaereth (talk) 03:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

On the article talk page, so far it looks like 5 experienced editors (with the combined editing experience of several decades) have agreed that notability should be the bright line for inclusion. Others at BLPN might care to chime in there. JFHJr (㊟) 04:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Isn't the policy that these types of articles should have relevant blue links for each entry to show they are notable? – notwally (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it’s that they should have clear inclusion criteria and be notable as a collection , see WP:NLIST. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 05:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Although the full policy details seem to be more complex than that, e.g., "While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, so common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list." I would argue that these crime lists are very broad subjects and that the BLPCRIME considerations warrant excluding non-notable entries. – notwally (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree -- but it's not as simple as "there's a policy that dictates this outcome". 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

EC Stilson

Requesting mediation on edit made 19:23, 6 August 2024 "Information not relevant to this page"

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=EC_Stilson&diff=prev&oldid=1238992728 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:200:5CC0:C989:200A:DF20:744E (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The removal is obviously correct, given the terrible sourcing. Please consult WP:BLP. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You obviously haven't looked at the rest of this biography. All of it is terribly sourced and the entire bibliography is self-published. 2601:647:200:5CC0:C989:200A:DF20:744E (talk) 04:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

So propose it for deletion, then — the removal is appropriate regardless. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 05:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

It has been proposed for deletion since January 2024 with no progress. 2601:647:200:5CC0:C989:200A:DF20:744E (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:AFDHOWTO. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Benji Krol

I'd appreciate more experienced eyes. I've noticed several issues with this article. It appears to divert attention from the sexual misconduct allegations to another individual, even though the sourcing doesn't do this. This has led me to suspect that the author may have a connection to the subject. The author, Joshbanana, is an almost-SPA for this individual and has confirmed some sort of connection with the management of the subject: its just that i was emailing with krol's manager and i wanted it to be perfect in this comment on their user talk page. I've discussed this with the author: User talk:Joshbanana#August_2024 but I don't know how to proceed. The AfD seems so strange to me Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benji Krol. How should I proceed? Svampesky (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:COIN should also be notified. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Is that too soon? That would mean having three discussions happening simultaneously: this BLPN, the user talk page, and now COIN as well. Svampesky (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah. probs.

I'm posting the appropriate template on the COI user's talk page to notify them of COI policies for now. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

If talk page resolution doesn't resolve and COI user does not abide by WP:COI policies, you can probs report them. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I've tried to find contact information for Benji Krol's management, and an email for his management isn't publicly available anywhere. @Joshbanana: how did you get this email? Svampesky (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:AVOIDOUTING applies. Svampesky, you should not be interrogating Joshbanana about his email or email addresses he has access to unless if they disclose they do have the COI or if they continue to do suspected COI type edits.

Others can do the investigation if necessary. Just follow protocol and work on the page. :D Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I wasn't aware of that particular guideline. I'm going to step back from my participation in this matter; and observe and make notes how more experienced users handle it. Svampesky (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I don't actually think it's the subject writing the article himself. I was questioning the connection that the author has with the subject's management, per them confirming they have been in contact. Svampesky (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You didn't think one COI notice was enough? You posted the exact same COI notice that had been posted by Svampeskly approximately 45 minutes earlier. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I was also confused about that. Svampesky (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• I removed the section on the sexual misconduct allegation as poorly sourced. We need high-quality sources for allegations of this nature, and Dexerto is not suitable for a BLP. See most recent RFC on Dexerto here in the archives. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Imane Khelif II

Talk:Imane_Khelif#2nd_lead_paragraph:_"public_scrutiny"_vs._"misinformation"

The main issue here is whether Khelif facing "public scrutiny" about her Olympic eligibility should be included in the lead. The term "scrutiny" is used in several reliable sources to describe the situation, but others have said the lead should only state that "misinformation" occurred (as it currently does).

I and supporters have argued that "misinformation" alone is not a balanced/complete description of the response to her participation, and that something like "public scrutiny... including misinformation" more closely aligns with sources. Opponents have argued that including the term "public scrutiny" is not appropriate because "scrutiny" would legitimize the misinformation or give it undue weight in a BLP.

The discussion is currently dominated by a small group of people – including myself :) – and consensus seems far, so I think it would be good for additional experienced users to weigh in. Thanks! JSwift49 (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Sharon Davies

AntiDionysius is making false claims about Sharon Davies over criticisms of two boxers in the Olympics, namely (1) that there is no evidence to support Davies complaints when they failed sex tests with the IBA and were not allowed to compete as women (2) (in the comment redoing the edit) that Sharon Davies claimed they were trans when neither article referenced mentions or suggests that.

Mentioning the controversy is fair, but the mischaracterization is potentially libelous. Davies is making claims about sex that are protected under British Law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorrectionsClerk (talk • contribs) 03:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

This quotes Davies as saying that the two female boxers are "male". GiantSnowman 09:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the problem in simply repeating what Davies says. She claimed (amongst all the other stuff she has spewed in the past) that the Olympics were "allowing women to get beaten up by men" [13]. Black Kite (talk) 09:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

There's no doubt she has described the two boxers as "male", but in the two sources provided there is no evidence that she has described them as "transgender". That's a quite separate matter from the question of evidence, but it's important to get these basics right. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Rene Gonzalez (politician)

I'm seeking clarification on whether the alleged/apparent paid editors of |Rene Gonzalez (politician) properly noted the public taxpayer funds used in the initial edits, per this https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2024/08/portland-commissioner-rene-gonzalez-spent-thousands-in-city-funds-to-polish-wikipedia-page.html -- I saw they went through the COI process, which is good, but I'm not seeing where the campaign listed its paid contributors and that they used taxpayer money. Thank you for your review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:4700:F8E0:E432:9F37:9EE8:B49A (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not sure what you're asking. The source you provided requires a subscription, so I can't read it nor assess its reliability. Are you asking if this info should be included in his article? That depends on the reliability of the source and the WP:Due weight, which is something that should be discussed on the article's talk page. Are you asking if the COI editor should be admonished for leaving out the fact that they were paid for their edits? I don't know what good it would do, but this is not the proper noticeboard for that. Maybe WP:COIN or WP:ANI, but I don't know what they could do after the fact. All in all, the discussion on the talk page shows that the editor made some rather simple and reasonable requests, some of which we accepted and many denied. (If that's worth $6400.00, then I'm in the wrong business!) None of it is really outlandish or white-washy, and the editor did declare their COI. Either way, this isn't something for this board to deal with, at least not this early in the news reporting. Zaereth (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

OregonLive is the website of the Portland Oregonian, the newspaper of record in our state. Carrite (talk) 02:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems details have been added and removed from the article, but there's no discussion of the content on the article's talk page. I would suggest starting a discussion there on whether the content should be in the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

That does not seem to be a question for this noticeboard. Having said that, a clear COI was stated, including "I work with Commissioner Rene Gonzalez", which at least suggests the person is employed by the government. Even beyond that, the material was not actually posted by the firm that was the recipient of the government funds at issue in the newspaper article; they may have helped compose the edit request, but the request is the responsibility of the poster. Whether or not it was stated with perfect precision, it was clear enough to deal with the COI involved. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Jim Riswold

• Jim Riswold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Two IPs edited Jim Riswold earlier today to claim that he died. Since there were no sources cited in support of these claims, I reverted them. I tried searching for sources myself, but so far have only found this. Is that good enough for Wikipedia's purposes or is a better source needed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It's a self-published source, so I don't think so. Lard Almighty (talk) 09:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Ad Age seems to be a trade publication so I'd suggest using with strong caution on anything BLP, but IMO it probably good enough for a death report [14]. Frankly though, we could likely also just wait. Riswold seems to have been active recently enough and their profile is sufficient that I suspect something better will emerge. Nil Einne (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Ad Age is a trade publication, but it's a very well-established one; basically, it's the paper of record for the advertising industry. For factual news related to the industry, it's definitely an RS. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who helped with this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

J.D. Vance Service Medals

Someone removed his medals from his profile. 63.131.188.140 (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Based on what I'm reading from the talk page archives, they were removed both because secondary sourcing of them wasn't shown and also because the extra ones were just general "served in a tour" type medals that literally all US soldiers received, which don't meet due weight considerations, particularly if they don't have significant coverage about them in sources to support their inclusion. Silverseren^C 01:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

And now they appear to have been added back in by Avraham without talk page discussion and linking to a primary source regarding them. Silverseren^C 01:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

And appears to have added them in with a reference to a Twitter post (complaining about their removal on Wikipedia) that Avraham then "fixed" with a removal just now. To cover up that that was the source and not an actual link to even the primary source in question. Silverseren^C 01:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The DD-214 is a reliable and verifiable source. Not every source needs to be on line. That is what {{cite document}} is for. -- Avi (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It is a primary source that you aren't even linking properly anyways because the link you had added was to a political Twitter account. Silverseren^C 01:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

We should not be using a public document to support claims about a living person. Woodroar (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows reliance on a primary source "to a lesser extent" (See first sentence of WP:PSTS). The reason we do not prefer primary sources is that they are "…close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." That does not apply here. The absolute authority on the awards a US veteran has received is the US Department of Defense which lists them on the DD Form 214. There is no possibility of "misinterpretation" or partiality. Furthermore, as per the continuation of the aforementioned paragraph, there is no interpretation being performed here. Merely transcription of the US DoD form. We are using it to make a "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Anyone can get the DD-214 with a properly filed FOIA claim, and many have. Requiring that some other source literally quote the DD-214 word for word just to make it secondary is solely bureaucratic in nature and not required as per our policies I just listed. -- Avi (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY: Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Woodroar (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The article is JD Vance and there are complaints at Talk:JD Vance. However, this is not a BLP issue. Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

This is neither a trial transcript nor a court record. Moreover, this is not an assertion about JD Vance. This is the absolutely most authoritative and least partial document listing the awards he received. We are not claiming he was guilty of X or innocent of Y or accused of Z. We are merely listing the awards that the US DoD has confirmed were given to Vance. Moreover, one may even consider the DD-214 to itself be a secondary source. The primary source would be the actual citations that were delivered with the awards, would they not? -- Avi (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• I don't know why the link was changed to the Wikipedia article, but I've scan-backed his specific form and changed it into a cross-Wiki-link to that. As to the sourcing issue, this is not a prohibited source; it is not a "public document" as defined above because it is not a document filed in a court (which, while publicly available, do not reflect judicial determinations nor objective "facts" but instead merely reflective the subjective viewpoints of the participants in the lawsuit). There is nothing subjective in this document, nor is there anything which could bias the stance of the person writing the document. The document is, in fact, a neutral, non-political document which simply describes his term of service and the awards which he has received. It is the best source for such information. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• That's at least an improvement, but doesn't address the due weight concerns I brought up initially. Particularly when the removal of the routine medals was decided in this discussion by a consensus of 5 different editors, all in agreement. They thought, at most, the Good Conduct and the Marine Corps medals should be mentioned, but none of the rest. Silverseren^C 02:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Silver: I don't really think it's appropriate to weigh the importance of his various service medals; that's an unnecessary, and perhaps unduly editorial, function. In any case, I think it's a discussion best suited for the article's talk page; I don't think it's reached the level where it needs to go to a noticeboard. (The start of this discussion by an IP led to more discussion here than is necessary.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

    Non-primary WP:RS weighed the importance. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  I made this [15] comment at the article talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude but why the fuck is anyone even thinking of using a primary source as the sole source of info for JD Vance? The dude is currently running to be vice president of the United States, on the ticket of one the major political parties. And even more than that, he's running with Donald Trump someone with an extraordinary high profile, during an extremely contentious election cycle. And he himself has significant attention due to the perception he's been a questionable choice as VP candidate which has harmed the chances of Trump winning for a variety of reasons including his public comments; and also questions over his past comments of Trump. To top it all, he has been the subject of significant shitposting memes. I'm 99% certain you can find many secondary sources for all I've said. All this is to say, if you cannot find secondary sources for whatever it is you're trying to add, then clearly it's irrelevant nonsense that none of the many many many thousands of sources out there talking about JD Vance thought was important enough to talk about so is so far into WP:UNDUE territory, it's not even funny. Nil Einne (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

See WP:PUFFERY. It's for cheap vainglory, nothing else. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Avraham did you actually see the Form 214, and not what some rando twitter account says is the Form 214? nableezy - 23:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Jahvillani

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

This article lacks notability, is almost entirely self-sourced or poorly sourced. Refs 15-50 are merely links to song promos on the same website. There is no page for the artist on All Music, the artists' official website is a parked domain on Wix, the artist page on the record label site is a photo, and nothing else; a mere 4 compilations appear from the same label on MusicBrainz and Discogs. I'm unsure how to tag the page for these things. Ebonyskye (talk) 06:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Geoffrey Kabat

• Geoffrey Kabat (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

An editor identifying as the subject of this bio has appeared on its Talk page to propose a rewrite as a "corrective" to the "egregious distortion" they say Wikipedia has in relation to an incident concerning the effect of the tobacco industry on a piece of published research they co-authored. Could use more eyes/opinions. Bon courage (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Eva Poumpouras (self-)promo vandalism

I have recently started adding content within the article about Evy Poumpouras, first under the IP address 80.187.66.38 and now under my newly registered account TRVTHSERVM. However, two users (not sure if they are actually the same person), one being 35.140.144.82 (a US IP) and now someone with the name Isabelle Belato, keep reverting those changes without giving any reason whatsoever as to why. I have given my reasons as to why I have made those changes on the talk page as well as in the "View history" page, but instead of replying those users just keep deleting those changes to "beautify" Ms. Poumpouras article of anything that is critical of her claims as well as the sources given. In fact all the sources in that article are tabloid papers using Poumpouras' own claims as a source, which would count as a questionable source. I have added the template "better source needed" as there are no official documents or independent, third party confirmations proving that Poumpouras actually worked as a so called "special agent". Same for the USSS Valor Award she supposedly received for being a 9/11 first responder. 9/11 first responders are one of the best documented people in recent US history, but her name cannot be found in association with that award.

So to summarize: the article in question is repeatedly getting purged by a certain individual, or individuals, from all indications of unproven claims made by Ms. Poumpouras and template inserts to use more objective, reliable sources. The article prior to my edits to which those individuals keep reverting is, as far as I can see, nothing but a promotional piece instead of an objective, critical list of facts about a living person. It is not using provable facts, but mere opinions made by Poumpouras herself. Wikipedia is not an "about me" page but an encyclopedia. I am writing this here in the hopes to prevent an unnecessary and infantile edit war, which the individual(s) in question seem to want to provoke. TRVTHSERVM (talk) 06:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The top of this page notes "Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. ". This issue started to arise less than 24 hours ago. Asking for help here is dramatically premature. Recommend archiving this and allowing discussion to continue at Talk:Evy Poumpouras. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

All right, I'll wait a couple of days then and reply here again if the edit war continues. TRVTHSERVM (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Kris Kristofferson

• Kris Kristofferson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello there. Additional opinions might be needed on the Kris Kristofferson article regarding his 2016 Lyme disease diagnosis. The current discussion can be found at Talk:Kris Kristofferson#Lyme Disease - revisited. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Since no one's responded, I go ahead and give you my two cents. This isn't really a BLP issue as much as it's an NPOV issue. Now, if it were a case of people speculating someone had a disease, it'd be a different story. For example, if we tried to put in his article that so-and-so said, "Biden's poor performance in the debate was the result of mental illness." that would be a big no-no per BLP policy. In this case, the source of the information is the subject himself, which the article makes clear, so we can simply take that for what it's worth. Is it true? Is it a lie? Is it a misdiagnosis? Doesn't matter. It is simply what he said.

The bigger question is: is it DUE? We have one source, Rolling Stone. The other two sources are simply regurgitating the Rolling Stone article, which they freely admit. (This is a reliable source's way of saying, "We're not taking any credit or blame for this. We didn't do any fact checking. This is all on them.) Is this one source enough to show that this is due weight, or is it just trivia?

One thing that strikes me is how very little this tells us about the subject. As someone who's never heard of him before (yes, I've been living under a rock... rock n' roll) the sentence in question made little sense until I read the sources. Without knowing any of the background info, I was like, so? Who cares? People get lyme disease, so what? It wasn't until I got the background information that it began to show some significance in his life, and this is what's missing for the average reader to be able to understand. When we summarize a source, we need to summarize the whole source, not simply pick parts of it and leave the significance of it all a mystery. Of course, if we do that it might make it even more undue given the lack of independent sources.

The one thing that really stands out is the next sentence, and I quote, "Noting that the diagnosis was facilitated by an alternative medicine doctor, David Gorski commented that Kristofferson had become a victim of chronic Lyme disease quackery." That one is poorly written in that it could have several different meanings, depending on how you look at it. Is this Gorski his alternative medicine doctor? Why use the word facilitated? People don't talk like that except when they're trying to sound smarter than they really are. Does this mean he was diagnosed by an alternative medicine doc, or that an alternative doctor passed along this info from another doctor? What is "lyme disease quackery"? Does this Gorski think that lyme disease is not real? (Please, God, don't tell me you expect me to click the links to find out, because that ain't happening.) This really reads like it was tacked on by a lyme-disease denier in order to make some vague point known only to themselves. but all of it is lacking any of the necessary background info needed to make it understandable and significant to people who don't already know it, that is, the average reader like me. Not to mention "quackery" is a colloquialism and shouldn't be used in formal writing. Oh, and the source is both a blog and an opinion piece.

To sum it up, I see no BLP violation here, but y'all need to have some serious discussion on the talk page regarding NPOV, due weight, and wording. We should only include information that shows some significant impact on his life and career, but we also need to convey that significance to the reader. Otherwise it's pointless. Zaereth (talk) 00:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

• The trouble is there's lyme disease (the all-too-real thing) and "lyme disease" (sometimes also called "chronic lyme disease", a made up disease which often "diagnosed" as part of a medical fraud in which the fraudster can then sell lucrative unnecessary treatments). In the latter case, often the victim will believe some deep underlying problem in their body has been found and evangelize for the very quackery they've fallen prey to but which "conventional medicine could not find". Don't know about this particular case but Wikipedia needs to make damn sure it's not mixing things up. WP:SBM is a generally reliable source, particularly on medical fraud. Bon courage (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand that, but only after reading the sources. It wasn't clear at all from reading our article, in fact, I had to read that sentence a few times before it began to make a little sense. And I would have had to go down a couple of rabbit holes to really understand it, which I really hate having to do. The sentence itself needs to be rewritten; gaps need to be filled and questions answered. But I still don't know if any of it is DUE. Has the subject gone off on some campaign to promote this, or is it just this one interview? I mean, it's always good to try and debunk some quackery, but that also has a WP:Don't stuff beans up your nose effect. Often it's better to give such things less weight, not more, unless there's a much deeper story and public interest in it. Zaereth (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Has the subject gone off on some campaign to promote this, or is it just this one interview?: I think it's probably just the one interview with Rolling Stone, since I didn't find any evidence of the subject going off on a campaign to promote it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• As I stated on the talk page, if the article subject has stated that he thinks he was diagnosed with xyz, even if he was only diagnosed with quackery in real life (how would we editors even know) then we should cover it at face value in the article. If it is disputed, we can always note that in the text. Sjones23 here removed it crying BLP in their revert of ScienceFlyer, but how could that be relevant if the subject stated it himself, it cant therefore be controversial. I dont understand the issue, but wondering if we might have WP:TE here. Lord seems to think the very mention of a diagnosis is worthy of some sort of additional analysis (and WP:OR) on the part of us editors to figure out if the dude really had it or not. Confused what is controversial. If the subject had a dream and woke up and thought he was now a donkey, we would include that...So whats the issue here? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  The problem is that saying somebody was 'diagnosed' with a fake disease gives credence to that fake disease, so Wikipedia needs to add some context for NPOV. If no sources exist on the particular case that's hard. Best just to omit; Wikipedia is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Bon courage (talk) 06:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Is the Lyme claim by the subject covered in RS? I recall there were WP:RSP green sources for that. Correct? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

There's a ScienceBlogs piece from Gorski.[16] which is solid on the quackery as you'd expect. But using that for a BLP would be problematic. Bon courage (talk) 07:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Not impossible though. It would just need attribution rather than be used as a definitive third-party source. WP:EXPERTSPS has some guidance on that to never use such sources third-party sources about living people. With otherwise poor sourcing though, just leaving the lyme mention out entirely may be an option too. KoA (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Above says RollingStone, that is more than sufficient for a BLP. We aren't stating that the subject has or had Lyme disease in wikivoice, we are stating that the subject said he thought he had lyme disease. Big difference. MEDRS doesnt apply to this. Also this scienceblogs is not an RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You're correct in that we don't need MEDRS sources for this. Now, if this were something like the Biden example I used above, we would need MEDRS sources, but not for this. This is not an issue that falls under BLP policy.

However, it still falls under NPOV policy, including BALANCE and WEIGHT and the WP:10 year test. As an encyclopedia, we summarize the key points about a subject, and by definition summarizing means cutting out all the trivia and boring details, and whittling it all down to the nitty gritty. Not everything in a reliable source is worthy of inclusion. For example, if a subject said they had a dream they were a donkey, we would most certainly not include it unless it became something significant to their career. If they said their favorite cereal is Fruitloops, we probably wouldn't include that either. That's just trivial nonsense with no point.

The biggest problem with the disputed content is it had no point. That's just a problem with poor writing. Scientists invariably write for scientists, not for the general reader, so unless you already know what they're talking about, nobody understands what they're talking about. Same with fans. Fans write for other fans, so they automatically assume everyone else has the background knowledge to understand what they said. It's a very common problem. People always understand what they mean, but conveying that in a way so that others will get the point is very difficult. If we include it, it needs to have some point to it, and that's going to take a lot of clarification.

Weight is another big issue, which helps us separate the wheat from the chaff. Especially for celebrity articles, otherwise everytime Jennifer Aniston went to the bathroom it would be part of her Wikipedia article. Weight is how we gauge public interest in the information. This is basically a simple math formula in figuring out percentages. By comparing this one source to all the other sources that exist on this subject, how much space in the article would it deserve? 50% of the article? 40%? Less than 1%? In other words, does it need a full section, a paragraph or two, a single sentence, or would even one sentence be too much? (I'm leaning toward the last one, but then again I'm not familiar with all the sources.) Weight and balance are best discussed on the article's talk page between people who are familiar with all the sources, not on a noticeboard like this. That's for y'all to come to a consensus on yourselves. Zaereth (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. NPOV cannot be swerved, in particular WP:FRINGESUBJECTS which says "Any inclusion of fringe or pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The fringe or pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how experts in the relevant field have reacted to such views should be prominently included". Thus if Wikipedia is airing the idea of a chronic lyme "infection", it needs to point out it's not a real disease. ScienceBlogs is RS for this, but the BLP aspect makes its use problematic. The best solution is just to leave this stuff out. Bon courage (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with the last sentence: it primarily seems undue weight to mention this at all. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 05:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• There's also this interview with Lisa Kristofferson (the subject's wife) on The Lyme Times back in 2016. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  We definitely don't want to go anywhere near that. Bon courage (talk) 06:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  I see. As for Rolling Stone, it is considered a reliable source for culture matters per WP:ROLLINGSTONECULTURE. However, RS is unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues reported since 2011 as per WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS. Deciding whether the articles are accurate or not would also be considered original research on our part. I hope this helps. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Deciding the accuracy of articles is part of what we do. For example, the dogfight article used to say the term came from pilots who would constantly turn their plane's engines on and off during combat, which made them sound like dogs barking. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that was complete bunk. WWI fighters didn't have starters. You had to get out and turn the prop by hand, which is a little hard to do in combat. The source was a tour guide for some town on the East Coast of the US, which probably was a perfectly reliable source for tourist information, but a lousy source for aerial combat. It wasn't hard to find better sources.

Let me ask you this: is the fact that the subject said he had lyme disease the main point of the Rolling Stone article? That's like summarizing the movie Avatar by saying only that the main character was in a wheelchair, and nothing else. Never mind the blue aliens and the greedy corporation trying to steal all their unobtainium. There's nothing really special or significant about someone contracting lyme disease; it happens all the time. By itself, it's like saying the subject said he caught a cold, or that his favorite color is purple, which begs the question, "So what?" If we're going to include this, we need to tell the reader what it's all about. We need to answer the "so what". Yet doing that will most certainly require more than a single sentence, giving it even more weight. Doing that opens the door for those who are critical of this as being pseudoscience, so then we need to add even more weight.

Then the question becomes, does this one Rolling Stone article have enough weight of its own to warrant us giving so much weight in our article? Personally, I hardly think so. One RS article for a celebrity doesn't add a lot of weight, plus Rolling Stone magazine doesn't carry a lot of weight itself, even for the information it is reliable for. (Far better sources exist.) Now, if he was promoting this pseudoscience and going around preaching this to anyone who would listen, and started getting a lot more sources to do their own independent interviews, then we would have evidence of a greater public interest in this whole thing. We would then have the weight needed to include it in the necessary detail for the reader to get the full picture. Lacking that, I think it's best just to leave it out entirely. Zaereth (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, reasonable concerns. To give an example, reliable sources from WP:RSP such as CBS News, CNN, HuffPost (where Dana Parish's 2016 interview with Lisa Kristofferson originates from), Variety, USA Today and the BBC can mention how a subject's health problems impacted their lives (such as the aforementioned Lyme disease, which previously was the subject of a discussion on the Justin Bieber article). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be a disconnect here. Kris K does not have the 'health problems' he thinks. He's being conned by quacks. Chronic Lyme disease is a fake condition. Wikipedia isn't going to play the game of giving it credence. Bon courage (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I completely understand where you're coming from. As a side note, there were some previous discussions about the Lyme disease situation on Kris K's talk page: one in 2016, one in 2019, and one in 2023. Taking the above statements raised here by Zaereth and Bon courage into consideration, I also think we can simply leave it out for now pending further feedback; we can also reach a potential consensus on the talk page if it's needed. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Anni-Frid Lyngstad

Some person keep inserting a false claim into the 'Early Life' section of the subject, based on a unreliable source which in turn has used discredited information. This has already been discussed and resolved before by those adding reliable information to that page.

To clarify, the subject was NOT a part of the Lebensborn program during World War Two. Respected and well researched biographies of both the Pop group ABBA as well as the individual involved have long debunked this rumour. The subject, Anni-Frid Lyngstad, was born six months after WW2 ended in Europe. The German military machine had evacuated out of Northern Norway even earlier. Hence, there was no Lebensborn program operating there during her mothers pregnancy. In any case, her mother and father had no connection with the Lebensborn organisation before the pregnancy.

The Lebensborn program was set up by the SS and was used by members of the SS, the paid up members of the Nazi Party and fanatical believers in that ideology. Anni-Frid's father was not in the SS. Neither was he a professional soldier but a pastry chef who had been conscripted into the Heer (German Army) during the war. In occupied Norway, German soldiers were encouraged to fraternise with the local women but this is separate from registering with the Lebensborn organisation in order to specifically produce racially 'pure' children . To have a child under that program, both parents needed to undergo tests to prove their racial 'purity'. Pregnant women gave birth in specific Lebensborn nursing homes where they also received pre and post natal assistance.

None of this happened in the Anni-Frid Lyngstad case. The nearest Lebensborn home had been 26 miles / 42 kms away in Narvik during the war. Anni-Frid Lyngstad was born in the family home in the small village of Bjorkasen. The midwife couldn't attend so the birth was assisted by her grandmother and aunts.

Many years later, it was discovered that Anni-Frid's father, Alfred Haase, had survived the war and was still alive. He denied any knowledge of Lebensborn. He also didn't know he had even fathered a child. They had a year long love affair and it's thought Anni-Frid's mother became pregnant when they spent one last time together before Alfred Haase was evacuated the next morning.

Anni-Frid, therefore is one of the many 'War Children' born as a result of relationships between military personnel and civilians during WW2. And she is mentioned under that Subject title. But she is not a product of the Lebensborn program. It is wrong to suggest it so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bovis Messroom (talk • contribs) 18:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it seems the term has become something of a catchall for "anyone born of a German soldier" which is most definitely not the case. I haven't looked specifically in to the case to see if the mother ever applied to the program, but what you've presented seems convincing so far. Lostsandwich (talk) 06:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. The two links I posted are for the most respected and well researched books that have dealt with this issue. The first biography is 'Bright Lights Dark Shadows' by Carl Magnus Palm. This biography goes into depth on the lives of the four individual members who would form the Pop group ABBA. This book is regarded as the definitive biography on the band and Palm has become trusted by the group members, so much so that he has been granted access to unreleased studio recordings at the groups HQ in Stockholm. He has gone on to write a number of other books regarding ABBA.

The second link is probably even more noteworthy. This is for the biography 'Frida Beyond ABBA'. It was written only a few years ago by Remko Van Drongelen. In it, he explored specifically the life of Anni-Frid Lyngstad. He went even further than 'Bright Lights Dark Shadows' in exploring the archives, her family ancestry, quotes from her family members and interviews with those who knew her very early life. Anni-Frid Lyngstad herself helped provide some information to the author of this book. So whilst it's not an 'official' bio/autobio, it's pretty close to one.

In neither of these biographies is it suggested there was any contact with the Lebensborn program. Their in depth research has led both to conclude that Anni-Frid Lynstad was the result of a genuine year long love affair, the sort of which was happening between soldiers and civilians all over Europe during WW2. When Synni, Anni-Frid's mother, discovered she was pregnant in March or April 1945, it's highly doubtful that Lebensborn was even operational in Northern Norway by then. No evidence has ever been found to suggest any contact with it. Northern Norway was being liberated by Allied forces at this time while Germany itself was being invaded and weeks from surrender.

What is abundantly true though is that the Lyngstad family and mostly the mother and new baby were subject to the same post-war reprisals in Norway as those who were registered with the Lebensborn program there. It would seem they tried to 'ride it out' in their home village till emotions cooled but to no avail. Fearful, the mother, child and grandmother all left in May 1947 for a new life in Sweden.

Sorry for rambling on but I thought this issue had been cleared up before on the Anni-Frid Lyngstad entry and now somebody seems insistent on inserting an incorrect statement in her profile again. I don't know if they're doing it maliciously or not but it's wrong. Bovis Messroom (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

the issue isn't that information was changed, it's that you edited an article and did not indicate why, that is critical. Otherwise all the info seems to check out. Lostsandwich (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I haven't recently edited anything in that article unless you mean by trying to delete the offending sentence. The person with the handle 'disco-spinster' is the one who has recently edited the 'Early Life' section by inserting that sentence implying Anni-Frid Lyngstad is a Lebensborn child which is false. That sentence is still there.

I'm not too clued up about the editing protocol on Wikipedia and therefore apologise if I didn't follow the right procedure. I just got a little annoyed seeing that untruth being inserted into the section again. I have already contacted disco-spinster, informing them of the known facts and asking them to withdraw their own edit but I've had no reply as yet.

Again, apologies for not doing things right. I'll endeavour to do so in future. Regards. Bovis Messroom (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Chris Lintott

I'm requesting a reversion of an edit by an anonymous user to Chris Lintott which changed my job title from 'Professor of Astrophysics' to 'Research Fellow'. I remain a Professor of Astrophysics - see the Department of Physics webpages here. I think the confusion is that I'm a Research Fellow at New College, but this is not my main place of work. I'd revert it myself but am being cautious about editing the article about me. Thanks Chrislintott (talk) 11:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I just corrected the article. TRVTHSERVM (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. Chrislintott (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Censored

Why was most of Vance’s distinguished military record erased? 2603:7081:1BF0:1190:6137:5728:C104:9AA (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Probably best to discuss this on the article talk page and to be as specific as possible. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

There is already a thread about this above. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 10:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Read the text in the article, his military record is there. All his decorations may not be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Rachel Zegler

Some extra eyes would be appreciated here. There have been IPs making edits from the questionable (inserting weasel words into discrimination language) to clear-cut violations of BLP (adding unsupported allegations that the subject is antisemitic). Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I put in a WP:PP request to increase protection, likely to be approved. Should hold until the IP vandals get bored and move on. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Harriet Sandburg

Harriet Sandburg she is a singer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennifer Maria Thomas (talk • contribs) 11:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

This editor seems to have recreated this page multiple times -- it seems some administrative intervention to prevent that is needed. --100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

It's salted now (by Justlettersandnumbers) --Hammersoft (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Casey Wasserman

Just posted this question on his talk page but may as well also post here to get some more input. There's a bunch of stories now about him and what he got up to in his spare time. What's the deal in terms of adding it to his article? Billie Eilish already left his agency because of this. Relevant to add? Or just scuttlebutt? MaskedSinger (talk) 05:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

It depends a great deal on the nature (quality and volume) of sourcing — in neither discussion you started have you mentioned a source that you might use for this content. What are the highest quality sources that have covered it? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 10:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

cc @Nil Einne

https://variety.com/2024/film/news/casey-wasserman-billie-eilish-tabloid-scandal-fallout-1236106962/

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/billie-eilish-casey-wasserman-agent-cheating-b2597115.html

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/billie-eilish-wme-casey-wasserman-sexual-misconduct-claims-1235975797/ MaskedSinger (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Having read those an some other sources like [17] and below, as I expected it's complicated which means the due situation is not so clear cut. It's been confirmed that Eilish moved to another agency, and this came no long after the Daily Mail report with allegations against Wasserman. Various sources say insiders have said she was upset by the allegations or even that it was the reason for the move. However there has been no official confirmation, and I expect there won't be, that it was the reason. There are at least some sources. e.g. Variety which seems confident enough in their sources to say in their voice that it was the reason while others like the Independent seem to just be treating it as something that has been claimed. It's also a little weird that some of the sources seem to be concentrating on the "extramarital affair" aspect when while there's no comment (that I've seen) on precisely what concerned Eilish, it seems much more likely it was the employees aspect. Nil Einne (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Do we have a high quality secondary source or preferably multiple such sources, confirming Billie Eilish left his agency because of whatever it is? IMO if so, that's the sort of career impacting move that strongly suggests at least some limited inclusion is WP:DUE Nil Einne (talk) 10:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Also Billie Eilish left his agency is this some sort of elaborate trolling? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

For interest, as someone with little to no knowledge about this story (apart from seeing this the other day), I have no idea what "his" is meant to suggest. He's CEO of the agency isn't he? Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh I see, I mis-parsed. I've struck my confused comment. (Feel free to remove my two comments and yours, if you like.) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

No worries, I'm in a permanent state of confusion. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist)

Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist) has two issues open in the last two talk page sections, on the first sentence of the lead and on one particular footnote in the lead. Extra eyes useful. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident

2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There have been a few removals and reinstatements of the alleged perpetrator's name in the page's history ([18] [19]). This looks to me a failure to adhere to WP:BLPCRIME, but as the name has been published in seemingly reliable sources I'd like another reading before nuking the page history under WP:RD2. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 19:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I just removed the name again; I agree that it seems a straightforward case under WP:BLPCRIME to not include it, but have no knowledge of revdel policy to offer an opinion about nuking the page history. --JBL (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Kristan Cunningham

Kristan Cunningham has been a completely unsourced BLP since 2008. I was unable to find anything of substance on her, just a couple clickbait/gossip articles, random quotes from Design on a Dime, or press release/hype pieces. I couldn't find anything of substance, nor any other notable works. Should she be AFD'd or redirected to Design on a Dime? Either way, it's clear she doesn't meet WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Ping @Tedder:, who has edited this article multiple times. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh wow, 2010, I have zero memory. tedder (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Tedder: Do you think a merge or AFD is warranted? I tagged it for merge, but there's hardly anything to merge. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: even just a redirect is probably fine. tedder (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

sport-interfax.ru

Hi all, I just reverted a change to Imane Khelif at Special:Diff/1240638173 to remove a clarify tag which was edited into the article on the basis of a page at sport-interfax.ru. Is this an appropriate use of the source and is it reliable for usage in a BLP? TarnishedPath^talk 14:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Vegan416 to discussion too Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

This is quite revealing that you decided to remove the tag even before you checked if it is reliable source or not. Plus you falsely claimed in the edit note that it is not a secondary source whereas it clearly is. Vegan416 (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, this particular editor is also extremely active on the Talk page (making roughly 10% of edits over the past 500) and page edit history (5% over the last 500). I'm not making accusations of WP:OWN, but I believe this editor should consider whether or not their activity could be construed as such. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any analysis. I see a mere conveying of stats. From the article (translated) "In the category up to 66 kg, Saadat Dalgatova (Moscow region) defeated Azalia Amineva (Republic of Bashkortostan), Galina Golovchenko (Moscow) defeated Elena Vystropova (Republic of Dagestan)" and no other commentary added. For its usage I consider this to be WP:PRIMARY. TarnishedPath^talk 14:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Secondary sources take information from primary sources all the time, that's the point of secondary sources. Interfax also conveys information on how the matches were judged, In all cases, the winners were determined by unanimous decision of the judges. Best I can tell is that this source isn't considered unreliable, and per the limited discussion available it seems that it should be considered reliable for non-controversial topics. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The information conveyed in that article is contradicted by a number of reliable sources. So I don't see how we can take it as an uncontroversial statement of facts. TarnishedPath^talk 02:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Sport-interfax.ru is a Russian news agency dedicated to sport reporting. These are not the boxers themselves or the organizers of the tournament who published it. And we are talking here about a simple fact: one boxer defeated another. What kind of deeper analysis do you expect here to make it more reliable??? Also I should note that this article is archived in wayback-machine from August 2022, i.e. 6 months before she lost to Khelif. So any idea of a Russsian conspiracy that change this article retroactively is ruled out. Vegan416 (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I think concentrating on the reliability of the source is maybe missing the mark. The source cannot be used by itself to say something about the undefeated record as that would be OR although that doesn't seem to be what was attempted. Are there no reliable secondary sources which further comment on the alleged undefeated record? That would be the ideal situation. If there are none potentially we could remove the claim entirely, but it really depends on the level of coverage. IMO it gets very tricky when a claim has widespread coverage but is possibly in error but no source has commented on this error. Nil Einne (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

yeah, clarify tag may be useful, imo. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bluethricecreamman: absolutely useful, as well as necessary. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Idk necessary and IDK if we needed a full quote in the original edit, but we could put in to ask exactly how long Amineva had been unbeaten? for the year? the championship? Are the sourcing claiming she is unbeaten for her entire career (which seems unlikely based on these other sources)?

Would be useful to identify and narrow down. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The above sources only mention the Russian championship. They don't say anything about her loosing a fight in an international competition. M.Bitton (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The tags are based on WP:OR, and therefore, inappropriate. Furthermore, the IBA itself describes Azalia Amineva as "undefeated":

(July 18th, 2024 / IBA Champions Night) Azalia Amineva of Russia will feature in the only women’s match on the card, with the undefeated amateur facing the undefeated professional Rehema Abdallah of Tanzania in the 66kg weight category.

M.Bitton (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

How is this OR??? Assuming interfax is a reliable source on internal Russian sports results (which nobody here presented any reason to doubt) then we have a reliable source that states she was defeated in 2022. That proves that the claim she was never defeated before 2023 is false or at least questionable. Therefore a clarification tag in very much in order. Vegan416 (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Vegan416: +1, agree 100%. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Did you actually read the rest of my comment? M.Bitton (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I read it. It is interesting to see that now you suddenly consider the IBA to be a reliable source after you had smeared it liberally in the other talk page :-) In any case even if we consider the IBA to be a reliable source then we have a situation of two reliable sources contradicting each other. This is precisely one of the situations for which the "clarification needed" tag is required. Vegan416 (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't, but the fact that you do is what's important here. No, we don't have "two sources", what we have is multiple RS making a statement and some trying to contradict it using WP:OR (based on a couple old articles). M.Bitton (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

False claim. I never said that the IBA is a reliable source. And there is absolutely no OR here. The fact that these articles are 2 and 3 years old doesn't make them old, and doesn't make using them OR in any way. Vegan416 (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Using them to draw a conclusion that isn't made in either of them is the definition of WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense. Noting that the statement "AA was defeated by another boxer is August 2022" contradicts the statement "AA was undefeated until March 2023" is the simplest logical observation. This is akin to observing that 2+2=4, and is definitely not OR. See WP:2+2=4. Therefore we have a contradiction between sources, and that requires a "clarification needed" tag. Vegan416 (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

"X defeated Y" is a thing that can be true at one time and then later become untrue -- consider specifically the situation that Khelif defeated AA, and any sources that might have been written about that before Khelif's disqualification. If this is real then it will eventually be taken up by reliable sources explicitly, without requiring you to do original research (just as, for example, the dubious claim present in many early reports that Khelif withdrawing her protest made the disqualification "legally binding" has disappeared from later reliable sources, replaced with more accurate descriptions). There's nothing urgent about any of this; wait for good sources to come in instead of trying to do this kind of OR/SYNTH. --JBL (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no OR here. I am not claiming that AA was defeated or undefeated until March 2023, I'm just pointing that there are apparently contradicting sources on this. And therefore we need to call for good sources to clarify this contradiction - which is precisely the job of a "clarification needed" note. Vegan416 (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Of course there is. For a start, "undefeated" is supported by multiple RS and the Russian-led IBA. Second, it's clear that it's referring to her bouts in international tournaments (as I mentioned previously, the two sources that you're basing your OR on are about the Russian championship). M.Bitton (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

We don't know what the RS who speak of "undefeated" mean by that exactly. Maybe they mean international tournaments, maybe not. They do not say. Assuming that they mean only "international tournaments" without any evidence is the motherlode of OR. Whereas I didn't do any OR at all. Vegan416 (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you know what the IBA means by it? M.Bitton (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

No, and neither do you. That's why we need the "clarification needed" tag Vegan416 (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't need any clarification because, given the statement, what matters is the fact that she is "undefeated" as far as the Russian-led IBA is concerned. M.Bitton (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any RS that supports your interpretation? Vegan416 (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not interpreting anything. The sourced statement about her being undefeated is linked to the IBA and the IBA states that she's undefeated. M.Bitton (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

But the article doens't attribute the claim to the IBA. The article says that she was undefeated in WIKIVOICE. You cannot do that when there are contradicting sources. At the very least you should put clarification needed tag, or attribute the claim to the IBA. Vegan416 (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

1) The article says: "This disqualification [by the Russian-led IBA] happened three days after Khelif defeated Azalia Amineva, a previously unbeaten Russian prospect. The disqualification restored the Russian boxer's undefeated record". 2) The IBA is touting Amineva as undefeated (in 2024). M.Bitton (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

You only proved what I said. The statement "Azalia Amineva, a previously unbeaten Russian prospect" is NOT attributed to the IBA but rather written in wikivoice. And this is unacceptable when we don't know if this statement is true, because there contradicting sources. At the very least you should put clarification needed tag, or attribute the claim to the IBA. Vegan416 (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Believe what you want. I'm done here (unless another editor wishes me to clarify further). M.Bitton (talk) 12:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Does BLP policy justify suppression of well-sourced undisputed fact just because people might draw unwarranted conclusions from it?

Questions regarding content concerning Imane Khelif should not be misrepresented as hypothetical questions on other topics. More so when the issue is already being discussed in another thread.

Suppose a public figure (such as a preeminent athlete) refuses to comment about unsubstantiated (but not refuted) public allegations made against them. Suppose that their refusal to comment is not disputed, e.g. it appears in a distinguished RS, together with a video of that refusal to comment. In such a case, does BLP policy requires us to not report about this refusal, just because some of the readers might deduce from this "no comment" response that the allegations might be true? I think this is an extreme and unreasonable interpretation of WP:BLP without any actual support in the wording of WP:BLP. WP:BLP only forbids writing unsupported claims and insinuating language, but it does not forbid publication of well established facts, no matter what some people might make of them. Also there are many examples in Wikipedia where facts like that were mentioned. Here are just a few examples: The allegations of “improper relationship” against basketballer Josh Giddey were not substantiated, yet the fact that he declined to comment on them is mentioned in his article. The Mitchel Report on doping in baseball had some allegations that were unsubstantiated (e.g. against Todd Williams, Kevin Young, Todd Pratt) and yet the fact that the involved athletes declined interview is noted in the wikipedia article about athletes mentioned in the report. The sentence "She alleged that she was raped by U.S. President Bill Clinton on April 25, 1978, when he (aged 32) was the Attorney General of Arkansas. Clinton declined to comment on the issue." Appear in the lead of this article, despite the fact that these allegations were never substantiated. Despite all of that it seems that some editors staunchly claim that in the case of Imane Khelif we shouldn’t mention the undisputed fact that she declined to comment on the lab tests she had or hadn’t done, because they claim some people might deduce from this that the (unsubstantiated, but not refuted) claims that she has DSD/elevated-testosterone might be true. BTW, Here are some highly reliable sources that speak about Khelif’s lack of response to the claims that she has DSD: · "Khelif has never disclosed her biological markers" (NBC); · "Khelif declined to answer when asked whether she had undergone tests other than doping tests, saying she didn’t want to talk about it" (Time); · "We do not know if Khelif and Lin are athletes with DSD because the full results of the tests are confidential, and the fighters are yet to declare them." (BBC) Comments? Vegan416 (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC) Is it really necessary to start a third simultaneous thread about this article on this noticeboard alone? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC) I don't see here any thread that deals with the question I raised. Vegan416 (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC) The question that you've raised is framed in a bizarre and grossly offensive way; but fundamentally it comes down to the same question as above: "Why can't I write whatever I want in the biography of Khelif?" The answer is "because Wikipedia has strong policies preventing you from doing that". 100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC) What's bizarre or offensive in my question??? In any way you didn't explain why you seem to support different standards in similar cases??? Vegan416 (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC) The idea that the examples you've chosen are similar is bizarre and grossly offensive. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC) They are similar in the sense that some unsubstantiated (but not refuted) claims were made against a public figure (in sports or politics) and the subject of this claims declines to comment or provide evidence against the claims. Vegan416 (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC) I mean you're literally involved in a discussion at ANI of this specific question, which led to an administrator telling you that you do not have a thorough enough understanding of sources w/regard to GENSEX/BLP/MEDRS to be working in that area. I strongly suggest you stop participating here in this discussion and at the Khelif article. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC) So that's a good reason to post here in order to get an explanation why it is allowed according to BLP to mention "no comment" response in all of those examples I brought, and not ok to do the same in Imane Khelif's case? How would I learn about the intricacies of BLP if I don't ask questions? Vegan416 (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Phoebe Campbell

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

I have previously removed the Personal life section in Campbell's article per MOS:GENDERID - which says - Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. The source being used only says that Campbell won Best Non Binary Performer in a Play Award. The source does not say "Campbell identifies as non-binary". Would winning an award for best non binary performer satisfy self-identification per GENDERID? I don't believe it does, interested in other editor's opinions on this, as it has been added back into the article by an IP editor. I would also note that I have looked for high-quality sources for a definitive self-identification and can't find any. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

A third-party source can definitely be used to say someone is trans or nonbinary, and indeed would usually be preferrable to a first-party source, provided that the source is reliable on the topic of LGBTQ identities. And reliable sources generally aren't in the practice of outing trans/NB people these days, so self-identification is usually implied. (Contrast the case of Bubba Copeland, who we refer to by the pronouns he took publicly, not those he was outed as sometimes using in his private life.) The question here, then, is one of source reliability. I would not consider an award's title a reliable source. It is effectively a self-published source (which can't be used for BLPs), and we don't know what exact definition of "nonbinary" this private organization uses. Maybe it's different from the standard one—wouldn't be the first time that happened with an award's scope. (The Martian is not a comedy or a musical, even if the Golden Globes think it is.)

I also can't find other sources, although I haven't looked very hard. I will say, I don't see any issue in saying Campbell won the award, since we're not making any statement about their identity, just stating an objective and encyclopedic fact about their career, and the win received RS coverage. That wouldn't belong in § Personal life, though. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 19:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway: Ah, here we go! Their profile with Spotlight says nonbinary. In the footer it says "The information in this profile has been provided by or on behalf of the member concerned." So unless there's any dispute of Spotlight's fidelity to the information people provide, that would seem adequate under WP:ABOUTSELF. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 20:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

That could be used to re-add. I deleted the entire Personal Life section, because the sources used did not match the claims. We still don't have a source for the claim of pronouns that they use; that was being sourced to an example of someone else using those pronouns for the subject, which may be sufficient for us to chose our pronouns, but not enough for us to say that the subject uses those pronouns. (That wordage always stumps me; people don't tend to speak of themselves in the third person, although Nat sometimes does.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

More pedantic trans/NB people (like myself) tend to say "take" rather than "use". But yes, if you're saying that we should use they/them as an editorial decision, but not state in wikivoice that that's their preference, I agree with that. Lots of articles do that when pronoun preference is unclear. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 21:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

This look good to y'all? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, source looks good, and also agree with the editorial decision on pronouns. And now we have a consensus that we can reference if need be for genderid and the usage of pronouns. I've had the article on my watchlist since I discovered a Twitter account was at one time the only source being used, and the pronouns were being changed. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

That works! -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Brides of the Islamic State

After it was mentioned at an offsite criticism forum, I have radically truncated Brides of the Islamic State as violating WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE and in the table of nationalities, WP:OR. Reporting my actions here and noting that JustStepSideways had already made less sweeping changes out of BLP concerns. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I support your edit. And thank you for doing it. JFHJr (㊟) 02:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks good. Might much the same logic apply to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Not sure. It's a far more developed article, the list has a higher chance of approaching completeness, and there aren't the same overall issues of doubtful responsibility. Many articles have been soft or hard deleted and redirected there, in some cases indirectly; for example I see that Mohammed Al Amin was undeleted in this state (one primary source) and currently redirects not to the main list, but to the subordinate List of Mauritanian detainees at Guantanamo Bay (AfD'd on 10 August). There's less sensational press coverage. But the summaries of cases in the tables might still be excessive under BLP, and I do think those who were exonerated and don't have articles should be footnotes in the text and not listed. I think I'll leave that article to others; but there are my thoughts FWIW. (By the way, my ping above and in an edit summary should have gone to Just Step Sideways.) Yngvadottir (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Zoe McLellan

User:Jaydoggmarco has decided to reinsert poorly sourced information we have previously agreed was inappropriate in the BLP of Zoe McLellan. The motivation behind the edit (to right a great wrong and impugn someone's reputation) is pretty clear from the edit summary: "This is an ongoing criminal case. It would be morally wrong to cover-up for her."[20] There was a discussion at this noticeboard about it late last year, where we agreed that this story, given the available sources, is not suitable for WP.[21] I'm not going to war over it, so I hope someone else will step in.--Thomas B (talk) 06:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I just made this edit:[22]. Previous discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive354#Zoe_McLellan and Talk:Zoe_McLellan/Archive_1#Is_ZM_a_fugitive?. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your edit, removing the content. After reviewing the sources used, they are totally inadequate for allegations of this nature. We need high quality sources for a BLP. User:Jaydoggmarco, please don't edit war this content back into the article, and please read WP:ONUS - The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. It's clear you don't have consensus to re-add this content. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Meanwhile their other recent edits include removing well sourced content. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 09:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

[23] is a pretty remarkable edit summary for someone who was literally blocked for 2 weeks for exactly what they’re doing now. Perhaps @HJ Mitchell: would be interested in this development. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 09:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Says the person who's been blocked several times. Let's not go there. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A100.36.106.199 Jaydoggmarco (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of who did what right or wrong in the past, you User:Jaydoggmarco need to stop violating BLP as you did at Zoe McLellan or you should expect a topic ban from all living persons at a minimum but possibly just an indefinite site block or ban. Nil Einne (talk) 10:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Fwiw, I just read through a reddit-thread about this "case". Without solid sources, it's not something WP should touch with a barge-pole. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Aldo Maccione

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

Some anonymous user has repeatedly edited the page with unsourced and unfounded claims the living person is a French citizen. I reverted the changes with motivation each time, but this is getting tiring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco.caminati (talk • contribs) 12:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Unemployed

“He spent most of us adult life unemployed”??? His first hit song - he was 19 almost 20”. Lame. 2600:1700:5FBF:8C10:B6:3466:A061:6956 (talk) 04:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The sentence "He spent most of us [sic] adult life unemployed" does not appear in any Wikipedia article, nor if I change "us" to "his". Could you please clarify what article you're referring to? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 04:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe he's referring to Blueface ("he had spent most of his adult life unemployed") -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Scott Ritter

The first sentence of Ritter's bio was recently changed to read "William Scott Ritter Jr. (born July 15, 1961) is a convicted American child sex offender". It's a little strong given the other elements of his bio. There is a discussion of the sentence at Talk:Scott_Ritter#First_sentence. Burrobert (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The description is apparently accurate although over-the-top considering what the sources say he did and what "child sex offender" might mean. However, the sentence is totally inappropriate given that if that was what Ritter was known for, the article would not exist. Johnuniq (talk) 04:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This discussion brought to my attention that no one had ever closed Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2024 archive § RfC: "convicted felon" / "convicted sex offender" in the lead sentence despite there being, as Hatman31 states, a pretty clear consensus. I've taken a stab at implementing a close. If no one reverts me in the next day or two I'll create MOS:CONVICTEDFELON. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 05:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Miriam Grossman

The citation (note 1) for the assertion that Dr Grossman "has promoted conversion therapy for gay people" is a throwaway comment in an Australian newspaper - Dr Grossman is American - that she is "famous for her approval of conversion therapy". I've just spent 30 minutes raking through google responses for <"miriam grossman" "conversion therapy"> and also following links, and I've not been able to find anything except vague assertions that she was a member of NARTH (she's not mentioned on the Wikipedia article for NARTH) and that she supports gay conversion therapy. I realise that the current trans orthodoxy results in disparagement of anyone who doesn't subscribe to it but it does look a lot like people have been trying to denigrate Dr Grossman by associating her with conversion therapy in order to undermine her position on treatment of young persons with gender dysphoria. I think the comment should be deleted from the article and the reference taken out. If there is a better reference - one which actually does demonstrate that she supported gay conversion therapy, then that should be used instead of this worthless reference in a random Australian news article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.97.203 (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• "Trans orthodoxy"? Oh dear. Drmies (talk) 12:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  She specifically refers to conversion therapy in the field of gender dysphoria. In fact, it's what she claims to do, as in this interview. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Taylor Lorenz

I cleaned up the article, removing various parts of the article that discussed unsubstantiated rumors, used grammar to create a negative tone, remove unsourced assertions, and many other edits that were intended to ensure the article is a NPOV, is balanced (eg removed claims about her from an editorial on fox news that she rebutted) and generally cleaned up the article.

User Little Professor then reverted my edits, claiming that my edit contained "Mass introduction of unsourced material, insertion of POV" among other claims. My edits were specifically to improve tone, avoid libelous information, and were all responding directly to sources (or lack thereof).

The diff for Little Professor's edits is here.

I will grant Little Professor that I cannot decide on my own that fox news is unreliable, however that edit removed an allegation from a news organization that regularly attacks Lorenz.

Little Professor also accused me of misleading edit summaries without any evidence.

As Lorenz is a very polarizing figure, and is a well known target of online harassment and abuse, it is especially important that her article take a neutral tone and follow the rules for biographies of living persons. Little Professor's edit to remove my edits seems to be in bad faith.

The diffs for my edits are as follows:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1240589386

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1240589622

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1240590519

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1240591071

5. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1240591321

6. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1240591714

7. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1240593893

8. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1240594080

9. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1240594239 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leirbagflow (talk • contribs) 00:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Which of you is responsible for the repeated use of the verb "reveal" (compare MOS:SAY)? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Not sure but I've just removed instances of the word 'reveal'. Leirbagflow (talk) 09:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

👍. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Reading over, but hard to really get a sense of exactly what the error or BLP violation is on either side? Both versions seem basically good enough? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The article violated (and may still violate) NPOV WP:BLPBALANCE WP:AVOIDVICTIM and a number of other policies.

The original page (prior to my edits that little professor reverted) contained a ton of unbalanced information, was headed in the direction of WP:ATTACK and generally attempted to list all the dirt anyone could find on Lorenz. She has been the subject of a long, vile, coordinated harassment campaign that was spilling onto the article about her.

My edits were an attempt to begin cleaning up the article. Little Professor reverted my changes and accused me of multiple things with no evidence. I've asked Little Professor for that evidence and have gotten no response (see my talk page). Delectopierre (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I also prefer 'said' to 'revealed', generally speaking. It's more neutral; 'revealed' sounds like taking as granted that the statement is true, and also has connotations of admitting or accusing of wrongdoing.

As for edit #3, both youtubers continue to say that they weren't contacted prior to publication. See eg [24]. And considering the circumstances I don't think we can dismiss their claims. The former wording is better; if we quote the latest editor's note then for balance we should also cite Mazeika. Hi! (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Emily A. Holmes

Resolved

 – Article now ECP for six months, thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

More eyes and views would be useful at Emily A. Holmes. This is an article about an academic. There is a slow-moving content dispute about whether allegations that she has bullied postgraduate students should be included. This has been discussed on the article's Talk page, but not resolved. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

There are at least four editors involved who are SPAs, whose only edits have been to the article and/or the talk page, three want to add them, one wants to remove them. If the disruption continues, you could request page protection for ECP. Another alternative would be to have a RfC. Holmes doesn't appear to be a high profile individual, so multiple sources should be used, and another thing to consider is if these allegations had a significant impact on her academic career. For the time being, I would leave them out. It also looks like the source being used was censured for having been in violation of good journalistic practice in relation to the article they published about Holmes. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The article it's based upon has an update at the end pointing to a ruling by the Swedish media ombudsman about the reporting[25]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, both, that's helpful. I'd missed the link to the ombud ruling. Reference has been added again by one of the SPAs. I've removed it and requested ECP. Tacyarg (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Even without that ruling, this person fell under WP:NPF. A more relaxed WP:PUBLICFIGURE standard requires multiple sources and that wasn't given in those edits. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Rachel Zegler again

Not because of the "Free Palestine" thing like above, but about the inclusion of whether her comments on Snow White being allegedly problematiced sparking an internet troll review bombing is bad.

Brewing edit war, would like to know if WP:PUBLICFIGURE would apply here or if it would be better on the Snow White film. (seems there were a few sources talking about it?)

Pinging @Lisha2037 and @Spanneraol Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

No edit war from my part as I haven’t undid any edits. Another user agreed with the content you and I added. @Spanneraol seems to think it’s internet trolls doing the backlash which completely isn’t true. Various sources in Wikipedia’s list of relatable sources reported on her comments and controversy. They were taken out of context. I didn’t add anything about her comments on Palestine or how she’s a Latina; I only added the comments and behaviours directly related to the story of Snow White. Im willing to bet the movie is going to bomb because of the bad publicity, heck Disney already moved the release date cause of it, and then everyone will be going to her Wikipedia page to find what happened. Lisha2037 (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

You tried to add something, you were reverted, and you tried to add it again without discussing first.. which is the definition of edit warring. Spanneraol (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Im sorry did you check who reverted it? It wasn’t me. Please look at what you’re saying as you clearly are not. I think the general consensus is that it’s valid to add it so I’m going to add the content in again with even more sources. Unless you can find sources to back up your claim. I can also report you for edit warring as you reverting an edit made by two different accounts constituents edit warring? It applies to both sides. Lisha2037 (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The policy is that if you add something and are reverted you need to discuss your content on the talk page without re-adding it. And since there is an ongoing discussion you should NOT be unilaterally adding the disputed content. Spanneraol (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Douglas Emhoff

[Douglas Emhoff] his biography states that he is married to Kamala Harris the 49th president of the United States.

An election that has not happened yet!!!!!!

Here's the link to his page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Emhoff#:~:text=Douglas%20Craig%20Emhoff%20(born%20October,president%20of%20the%20United%20States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B001:1B86:0:48:AB6C:C701 (talk) 11:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It actually says "the 49th vice president of the United States". Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Andy Valmorbida

There has been recent and ongoing edit warring taking place at Andy Valmorbida. Please would an uninvolved editor familiar with BLP policies take a look? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

List of Guantanamo Bay detainees

The page at List of Guantanamo Bay detainees appears to be a huge WP:BLPCRIME violation. It attempts to list by name all the people known to be detained at Guantanamo Bay, which the article describes (in footnote) as "suspected unlawful combatants". The strong majority of these people are not blue links, they're folks sourced to a similar Washington Post list, for whom we have no information but name and nation. Many of these people have not been charged with, much less convicted of, any such unlawful activity. (The list was created by a since-WP:CBANned editor who frequently sought to cover terror-related topics in inappropriate detail.) I attempted to raise the issue on the article's talk page several days ago to no response. Before I go to the effort of either trying to have it deleted or the sizable effort to alter it to a blue-links-only list of notable detainees, I thought I should check to see if others feel my BLP concerns may be inappropriate. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Not taking a view on this myself just yet, but putting my "What would I do if I was someone who wanted to defend this article" hat on; I see BLPCRIME says editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, I would say "The list does not violate that. It doesn't say these people are criminals or accuse them of having committed crimes. It just states the simple fact that they are (or have been held) at Guantanamo Bay, that's all."

The list headings are 'Name', 'Nationality', 'Captured' and 'Note'. None of the first three involve suggesting the person has committed a crime. A spot-check of the notes field shows it's mainly appears to be used to bald facts - age at capture, if they've been released/repatriated, etc. I don't see any notes stating what crime they've allegedly committed, and again, putting the above hat back on, if there was such a note on any entry "We will remove that note/entry, we don't need to delete the whole list."

I think for it to be a BLPCRIME violation, it would have to be demonstrated that "Detained at Guantanamo" means "Has been accused of committing a crime. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not going to waste any time debating against this strawman editor you're cosplaying as. Do we have any actual editors who feel that being placed on a list of people being held at a location for those suspected of being unlawful combatant is not a suggestion of them having violated combat laws, and that these names of database-sourced unnotable people serves some encyclopedic purpose that trumps privacy concerns. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I apologise, I was trying to be helpful and it wasn't my intention to create a strawman. If you'd like me to strike or remove my comment I will willingly do so. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that serves an encyclopedic purpose, yes. It's just as easy to read the list as "People the U.S. government has illegally detained" as "Terrorists", and advocacy on behalf of those detained has focused on getting their names out there and humanizing them, not on promoting their privacy. There's encyclopedic information about most/all of these detentions, and one role of an independent media (which I'd broadly categorize Wikipedia under, even if we're WP:NOTNEWS) is to publicize important information about the murkier affairs of state. So yes, we must "seriously consider", but here that serious consideration leads me to "leave it".

That said, I don't like all the stubs we have on the detainees; those are BLPvio magnets and generally unfair. They should either be expanded or redirected to the list (which has already been done with quite a few in the past). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 19:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but the advocacy is presumably not driven by the subjects themselves. As for "There's encyclopedic information about most/all of these detentions", I'm certainly not seeing it on the list; for about half of them, the only other information beside their name is their nationality. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a stand-alone list, so the list itself is notable because they have been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, and the criteria for inclusion on the list is "detainees that have spent time at Guantanamo Bay". If you think the list should be limited to those with WP articles or detainees who are otherwise independently notable, that is certainly within editorial discretion according to WP:NLIST and WP:LISTCRITERIA. But I don't see this list as a huge WP:BLPCRIME violation. A problem I do see with the list is the lack of the article being updated to reflect what became of these detainees. My guess is the overwhelming majority of them had to have been released, because the current detainees list says as of December 2023, only 30 detainees remain at Guantanamo Bay. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

RFC on Asmongold

There is an RFC you may be interested in on Talk:Asmongold as whether or not to include his surname within the article.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 04:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Imane Khelif

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

I removed a comment from the talk page of this article for violating WP:BLP per the header Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. I was reverted almost immediately with the edit summary citing WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS. Both of us posted on each other's talk pages at much the same time; I explained why I removed their comment, and I suggested they self-revert their adding it back. They declined to do so. Therefore, I'm coming here as the next step.

• Reinsertion of removed comment

Given Khelif's public statements are that she is a woman, and especially given the fact that she is taking legal action through French courts, I feel the 'potentially libellous' reason for removing the comment applies. I would appreciate this being looked at by other editors now. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

No one disputes that she is a woman and there was nothing "potentially libellous" in the removed comment. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The conditional statement "If P then Q" is not an assertion that P is true (neither that it is false). 100.36.106.199 (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I feel it's unnecessary to remove the comment. Whether or not DSD is mentioned, our article is likely to mention the claim she has XY chromosomes, and that some people have called her a man. Given the controversy there's no realistic way to exclude mention of those. Given that, I don't see see how the DSD stuff really introduces anything that would raise concerns. (I mean at the current time, there's even mention of DSD in a quote we give from one of the sources.) Note that this means I don't entirely agree with the comments above either. While I don't see see it raises BLP issues here given the situation, if this was just some random person without any similar content in the article, where it was perhaps only discussed in 4chan threads or something, I'd argue allowing such random unsourcable speculation is harmful. Likewise if the continued speculation goes past the point of it being a possibly productive attempt to improve the article, then it should be stopped although that's more of a behavioural issue than a must remove one. Nil Einne (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I've been indefinitely blocked from Khelif article and talk page by Valereee. I'm having a hard time understanding why. Any comments from uninvolved editors? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The blocking notice says it's for your speculation on an article subject's medical condition and links to that quote where it looks like that's what you were doing. So, I think that's your answer. You can always ask Valereee for more explanation, that's better than asking random editors for comments on an act they are uninvolved in. Go directly to the admin who imposed the block. You can disagree with it, and it seems that you do, but it seems self-explanatory to me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

“Links to that quote” does it? Edit: oh I see not the talk-page post but the block-log entry. The relevant comment does not contain any speculation, it contains a conditional argument that illustrates the possible negative consequences of asserting in Wikivoice that someone *does not have* a medical condition, without appropriate sourcing. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Re it looks like that's what you were doing. In what way would I be doing "speculation"? Speculation is the activity of guessing possible answers to a question without having enough information to be certain (Cambridge Dictionary) and is clearly different from a conditional statement that makes no claim about how things are. My comment does not make a medical claim - it does not state, suggest or imply that a living person has a medical condition - but is about the potential consequences of certain narratives that suggest that this person does not have a medical condition. It focuses on impact, not diagnosis, and contains the kind of considerations that WP editors should be free to make if we are to write verifiable and balanced BLPs. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

... and you probably shouldn't continue to discuss Kheif here or anywhere else until that block is lifted. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

A block is not a topic ban. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@Nil Einne, I don't think we mention anywhere that tons of people have speculated that Donald Trump has a personality disorder, do we? I would assume that's because BLP+MEDRS. Valereee (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

We should not extrapolate the consensus of this RfC about Trump and make it a general BLP+MEDRS rule that is not written anywhere. How do you explain that Vladimir Putin says In April 2022, tabloid newspaper The Sun reported that based on video footage Putin may have Parkinson's disease? I'm sure we have other BLPs that provide information and/or hypotheses about medical conditions without citing biomedical literature. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCONTENT is not a good argument. If other articles are making medical diagnosis or speculating about medical diagnosis without WP:MEDRS sourcing then that should be corrected. It doesn't mean you get to claim an exception. TarnishedPath^talk 12:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm not claiming an exception. I'm not sure that WP:MEDRS applies to medical information about individuals, such as diagnosis (some editors have ruled this out in recent discussions, see the Imane Khelif talk page here and the WP:MEDRS talk page here), but even if MEDRS does apply to individuals, it certainly doesn't preclude covering the existence of public debates about the health and medical conditions of public figures such as athletes. Since WP is supposed to cover these debates, editors should be allowed to address their topic in talk page discussions without waiting for MEDRS-compliant sources that will never arrive (a "review article" about Imane Khelif published in a "reputable medical journal"...?). Blocking an editor for merely mentioning (without advocating) a hypothesis that is stated and discussed by dozens of news organisations (e.g., Independent, NYT, DW, BBC), sport journalists (e.g., Barney Ronay, Alan Abrahamson, Martin Samuel), academics, experts and feminists (e.g., Doriane Lambelet Coleman, Colin Wright, Helen Lewis) is not OK. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gitz6666: Best thing to do, is walk away from the entire topic for six months. Then, request your page block be overturned. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Jonathan Prince

Jonathan Prince is sourced only to a web forum and a wedding announcement. He hosted one short-lived game show and supposedly created an NBC drama twelve years later. Besides IMDb, I've found no definitive proof that these are even the same guy -- "Jonathan Prince" + "Quiz Kids" + "American Dreams" turned up only IMDb and mirrors, with zero results on GBooks, GNews, or Newspapers.com. Sources about "American Dreams" only say "American Dreams creator Jonathan Prince said blah blah blah" and give zero detail on his career or involvement in the show. He supposedly had producer/writer credits on Blossom and a role in Throb, but again, I could find nothing other than IMDb linking these roles together. Given his relatively normal name, there's a non-zero chance that IMDb may have conflated a couple people. I find it very sus that we have literally nothing to prove all of this is even the same guy.

tl;dr: Seems to have had his fingers in a few pies but nothing passing WP:GNG. Strongly suggest prod or AFD. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jmg38:, @220 of Borg: Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The sources present in the article certainly don't establish notability. Is there any reason why aren't you submitting it to AfD yourself? NicolausPrime (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@NicolausPrime: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing is the reason "TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) is topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed" Nil Einne (talk) 05:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Broadly construed should include using WP:BLPN for WP:PROXYING. Reported to AE.[26] Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

You could have looked harder. I have added multiple sources based on an "American Dreams" search alone that discusses how he wrote branded content aka advertisements into the show. Searches on newspapers.com during the appropriate time periods discuss some of his tv roles. Unfortunately, I can not review them deeply enough due to the limits of my account. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Richard Sackler

Is calling someone "evil" in the lead section really appropriate for a living person?

Regardless of how we feel about a person, is it really appropriate to say that the Sackler family is "most evil family in America" in the LEAD section of a biography? Is this the right tone for Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.231.10.129 (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

as long as its wikivoice and its attributed to multiple sources (see wp:Attribution and wp:publicfigure ) then yeah

i mean maybe there is an argument for whethers its due in the lede… but he did start an opioid crisis that has killed hundreds of thousands of young and middle aged americans who had decades of life to live Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you really accusing someone of being responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths on the BLP/N noticeboard... Traumnovelle (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

It's inappropriate and has been removed from the article and the Purdue Pharma article. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it is not appropriate, and the quote refers to the "family", so it is inappropriate to use that quote to disparage an individual. Furthermore, if you look at the sources being used for the quote, the first one is only a headline, which is not a reliable source, and the remaining three sources are clearly referring to remarks made by one individual, congressman Jim Cooper of Tennessee. I agree with the removal from both articles. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Name suppression in New Zealand and BLP

In New Zealand law we have name suppression for defendants. This is almost always granted upon request and usually (due to appeals and other extensions) extends until around a conviction is secured. Sometimes a defendant may receive permanent name suppression and sometimes this name suppression is breached either locally or internationally. Internationally not much can be done but Members of Parliament have been fined for breach of name suppression before and the NZ media does not report these names. With the digital age there are many crimes where a defendant has a name suppression order beached by foreign media.

So if foreign media report were to report the name of someone with name suppress in NZ should the name be reported in an article related to the crime, or if the subject has an article should the charge/conviction be mentioned in their article? Traumnovelle (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Please review WP:BLPCRIME. If a person has been convicted and the conviction is reported by multiple RS (foreign or not), it can be reported on Wikipedia subject to discussion of course. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm aware of BLPCRIME, it doesn't address name suppression. 'For individuals who are not public figures editors must seriously consider not including material that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime.' could be construed as not reporting names of non-public figures who haven't been convicted although that is quite a stretch. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

It isn't a stretch. Non-public figures are not supposed to be identified on Wikipedia unless the notoriety of the accusation actually makes them public figures. In cases with name suppression, are they even a public figure without overwhelming (foreign) coverage? Now if they were already a public figure beforehand, then all bets are off. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh I see what you mean, how about following a conviction if name suppression is still granted, this usually happens when someone is appealing a decision but may just be a permanent suppression they've been granted. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The conviction can be noted but is subject to discussion on whether it's WP:DUE for inclusion. The only cases I can think of with post-conviction suppression is when the victim is related to the convicted. Factors for discussion would include impact on the victim WP:AVOIDVICTIM and the quality of the sources. It would take a high quality source to do independent verification of a conviction that is locally suppressed. Most foreign sources would just rely on repeating local sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Just for clarity, as noted below, permanent post-conviction name suppression can and has been granted in other cases, especially when the consequence of naming them is assessed as being seriously out of proportion to the offence, the legal requirement is "extreme hardship". Note also harm to the family or others is also considered. (I mean not because they are victims of the offender, but because of association between them and the offender.) Name suppression also often continued after conviction for various reasons including if the offender is trying to for permanent name suppression, to safeguard the appeals process, or if there are other offences before the courts. (Maybe I'm wrong, but my impression is it's actually rare in NZ for name suppression to lapse immediately following conviction, there's normally at least some period after since there needs to be time for any such applications. Sometimes name suppression will be granted early on but will be removed before trial. I.E. you generally either know the name before conviction, or you don't know until at least a short time after.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

You might find the discussion about Jesse Kempson of interest. The name was kept out of the article by the editing community (with a little help from some policies) for the seemingly eternal duration of its suppression. In short, this site is governed by US law, however in cases like this you need some solid sourcing, not the type of rumour mill where these names often appear. And you'll often need a consensus. Someone without a conviction is going to have a higher threshold to getting named. But at the end of the day, the community decides, usually starting from the most conservative approach. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Traumnovelle, the fundamental principle enshrined in policy is that Wikipedia is Not censored and that the primary servers and offices owned by the Wikimedia Foundation are located in the United States and that US First Amendment law applies in general and most broadly. But if an individual Wikipedia editor reveals personally identifying information and that editor violates the repressive laws of their own country, then nothing can protect them from retribution by a dictatorship. Decisions about inclusion or exclusion of contentious content should be made based on policy based arguments, not on any threats to throw a Wikipedia editor into jail, and anyone who makes such threats should be indefinitely blocked. I happen to be an editor who voluntarily discloses lots of personally identifying information because I am an American and consider myself a semi-public figure. I could list a dozen countries where I theoretically might live but don't, but I would not disclose my personal information because that might lead to genuine threats against me and my family. I have had several such threats and risks and do not want more of them. Cullen328 (talk) 08:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah it's more nuanced than I thought after reading that: I hadn't considered the angle of widespread breaches leading to an overturned conviction. I don't find the NOTCENSORED arguments too compelling when weighed against ethical and legal (if the conviction were to be overturned due to widespread breaches of a suppression order) considerations. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

To the other extreme, not NZ but in the case of Talk:George Pell/Archive 1#Conviction of Sexual Offences Against Children and Suppression Order in Victorian County Court his conviction was so widely reported that I don't think there was serious consideration of excluding it. [27]. It's actually mentioned at George Pell#Cathedral trial. A topical sort of related example might be 2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident where WP:BDP clearly applies. It's been claimed reporting the victim's name is illegal in India. However it's been widely used during protests including by her family, and widely covered in at least non Indian media so our article does mention it despite continued requests for us to exclude it to the extent there's a very big box at Talk:2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident to try and stop such requests. Nil Einne (talk) 11:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

BTW, while I didn't follow it that well, for the case of Grace Millane's murderer, I suspect it helped that the murder was primarily of interest in NZ and to a much less extent, the UK. While the UK isn't covered by NZ's laws, and doesn't have such a strong name suppression system, they do have a more similar understanding of subjudice etc to NZ so I think there was probably more willingness from the media there to not publish the name then there would be if it was something which was interest in the US where even naming minors is fairly common [28] (compared to the UK, for example 2024 Southport stabbing and Murder of Brianna Ghey). Nil Einne (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

One final example of how these things can get complicated, is with the Killing of Nahel Merzouk. The decedent is named (a minor at the time of his death), and allegation surrounding offences leading up to the killing and more historic ones also. However IIRC and also going by the talk page, I think it was common in France and even in some non French sources to just refer to him as Nahel M, and at least initially only a few sources published anything about allegations of historic offences. The police officer who killed Nahel Merzouk, is still only called Florian M in our article. It sounds like at least one French source did name him in full but I think very few French and other sources did. The protests etc means there was much more focus on Nahel Merzouk than there was on the police officer. I think this means even in France there's no legal requirement not to name either one, although I'm not sure, but instead it's been mostly a matter of cultural norms. Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Name suppression is normally temporary and intended to prevent interference with the judicial process. It's currently in the news because a temporary name suppression (due to expire in 14 days) has been applied to someone recently convicted of crimes against young people. In the (much less common) cases of permanent suppression it's intended to prevent identifications of the victims of the criminals. There is no deadline and editors can easily wait 14 days (or however long) until suppression is lifted and the details published. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

That's not true. Permanent name suppression can be granted for multiple reasons, here is one example: [29] Traumnovelle (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Janek Rubeš

User:GamerPooper is adding the claim that Janek Rubeš is married to his colleague and friend Honza Mikulka (diff). There is no source for the claim.

Part of the edits is an image that could look like their marriage, but in the YouTube video where it is from, it is described as "Honza had his wedding", not as "our wedding". I also requested the deletion of the image on copyright grounds but I believe that is a separate issue. If the clip was determined to be a valuable source, it can be properly linked.

I tried discussing this on the article talk page but so far I don't believe this has been successful in resolving the issue, even though the article is currently in its original state. — Marvin ^talk 17:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Irene Vaz

I had some questions about the use of primary sources like birth certificates/records or marrage certificates/records which are publically accessible via a state government (Government of Goa) website called "Goa Online" [30]. Another editor placed the non-primary source needed tags [31] [32]. I had removed them emphasizing on WP: PRIMARY, more details can be read at the talk page Talk:Irene Vaz#Non primary source needed tag (Please do note that I personally found records such as these more reliable than secondary or primary sources.) Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 14:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Have you read through WP:BLPPRIMARY? I'd be very cautious about using primary sources like this. First issue is how to confirm the record is for this person, not someone else named Irene Vaz? Using good secondary sources that will have done that vetting via an editor is far, far safer and reduces the amount of personal details potentially exposed. Ravensfire (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ravensfire I have confirmed the birth name and dates via a different secondary source like books, publications etc. Hence I'm 100% sure that they both it belongs to the same person. Also added to this the source isn't that easy to access since it requires all the personal details of the person first, not to forget you need registration to access this site. The problem here is also not the birth dates or birth place which have been confirmed via a secondary source. It is more of use of such these source for BLPs Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 14:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any secondary sources discussing these primary sources, or supporting the underlying claims, in the article. WP:BLPPRIMARY is clear that public documents like these should not be used, except when discussed by secondary sources. If you're intending to use the primary sources as supplementary documents, than you need to include the secondary sources that discuss them. Woodroar (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Woodroar Hi, I have added the source at the end of the paragraph. I'm afraid it's an offline citation so you won't be able to verify it yourself. However leaving that aside, if we see BLP:PRIMARY it does also state that Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.. So to summarise, have I verified the subject's birth names dates etc via a secondary source? yes. Am I using this source as an additional reference to provide more details about the person? Yes. Does this primary source whatsoever comprises the privacy of the subject? No, (Why? because you need registration and have to be a sound educated person who knows to how to use this website and service.) This comes back to WP:PRIMARY, which actually does support my argument. So do you think it is okay to use this source as for additional context keeping in mind there's are/is secondary sources that back the reliability of the subject's birth or other details? Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 15:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you referring to "Mazarello, Wilson (10 March 2018). Konkani Khell Tiatr. Panaji, Goa: Dalgado Konknni Akademi. pp. 124–125, 127." Can you provide more information about this source? How does it discuss the primary source ("Registration of birth") being used? Woodroar (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I won't go completely in detail, but in a nutshell it provides biographical information about the person. It tells the birth dates of the person, their parents name which I cross verified and only then I used the primary source. To be honest, I have been using the above mentioned website personally for several years, it is quite reliable I'd say. I'd use it for independent research for my personal work. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 16:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

As JustAnotherCompanion just said, I think there's a misunderstanding here. We can't cite personal details about living persons to a "Registration of birth" (birth certificate). That's WP:BLP policy. However, if reliable, secondary sources discuss that primary document (the birth certificate) itself, then we can include the birth certificate only to supplement the secondary sources. For example, plenty of secondary sources discuss Barack Obama's birth certificate at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Because Obama is a living person, we should not cite any information to the birth certificate. But we do include the birth certificate because it may help our readers understand more as they read the article and secondary sources.

So I have to ask again: does the "Konkani Khell Tiatr" source discuss Irene Vaz's birth certificate? Or are you using it to support claims like Vaz's birth date? Woodroar (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

If the source does discuss the birth certificate, could you briefly summarize the context of that? Is there something odd or unusual there? Same for the marriage certificate. If all that's needed there is that they were married and to whom, a secondary source is more than adequate and preferred. Ravensfire (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

It looks like you've used the goaonline Birth/Death certificate lookup in multiple articles - [33], they made need to be reviewed as well and the primary sources considered for removal. Even if the person has died, birth and death dates are best suited for secondary sources. Ravensfire (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

If the person has died, WP:BLPPRIMARY doesn't apply. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 18:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

And nevertheless it is still better to use secondary sources in that case. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention her death, but if it was recent (the last year or so) then BLP policies still apply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Woodroar It is only birth dates, birth names, parents detals that have been mentioned. I have then verified it with the the birth record, since I found the same parents and other information of the person leaving no room for duplicate persons. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 18:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

If all of that information is in a reliable, secondary source, then just use the secondary source. Woodroar (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to WP:AGF here, because I don't think you realise you have been talking at cross-purposes with other editors in the discussion so far. I can understand how this can happen - the brain sees what it expects to see when things are similar. In this case the policy they are asking you to look at is not the policy you are quoting back at them. Therefore I am taking the opportunity to invite you, clearly and unambiguously, to look at WP:BLPPRIMARY - note the extra three letters, BLP - and see how it applies to the edits you wish to make. I hope once you have looked at the right policy you will have a better understanding of what to do next. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@JustAnotherCompanion Uh I think there might have been a confusion, but I can't use WP:Primary as you've said because of BLP reasons, I get that now. I was looking for a "loophole" or anything sort if any such primary sources can be included. As the policy says it's okay to use as a "supplement to the secondary source", otherwise than this I guess it's not really appreciated to use such sources. If I'm getting this right? Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 18:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

There are no loopholes, I'm afraid. WP:BLPPRIMARY is clear. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth. Regarding using them as a supplement, I see this has already been explained by another editor earlier.

Consider this - how do you know that the birth certificate you have found is the right one for the right person? If it's because you have a secondary source stating this information, then just use the secondary source. If it's because you have done your own research, then you cannot use it as a source because that is a WP:NOR breach. (And if you take a little from column A and a little from column B by saying "I have found a source that provides [information] about the person, and I have looked at the public records and [information] matches, so I now have their DOB and can use it in an article-" you can't, because this would be WP:SYNTH.

The long and short of it is that a high bar is set for BLP articles, and if you can't clear that bar, that's it. The editor who merely flagged your reference was actually being kind; other editors would remove the suspect source (citing BLPPRIMARY) and unless there are other sources, they would also remove the birthday (citing WP:DOB). JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. We should really never be using birth certificates unless they have been widely discussed in secondary sources, particularly for high-profile public figures such as the Obama example given above. In addition to BLPPRIMARY, there are other concerns such as WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:NPOV to think of. Many people consider their date of birth to be private info, and we should respect that, always erring on the side of caution. Details such as the street they were born on also seems to cross the line into privacy concerns. Likewise, many private individuals don't want their name published on Wikipedia, so we need to respect that as well. This includes parents, siblings, friends and other relatives. Unless these people are notable enough to have their own article we really need to avoid naming them in the subject's, even if those names are found in secondary sources but especially if they come from primary sources only. (See: WP:BLPNAME.) Primary sources like birth records are what secondary sources use, and for the most part when we use them we're no longer doing the work of an encyclopedic researcher but that of a newspaper reporter, which is crossing the line into original research. It's the same reason we don't use tax records or phone books. We should really avoid using those kinds of sources unless there is a real overriding need. In most cases if secondary sources don't report the info then neither should we, and if they do then we don't need the primary sources. Zaereth (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

What about the use of Facebook sources? The article now uses her own Facebook post as a citation to the date of her wedding anniversary. Do WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:RSPFB apply here, too? SerChevalerie (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:ABOUTSELF, we can use the subject's own social media to support some content—but never when it involves third parties, which this does. I've removed that content, along with some other poorly-sourced claims. Woodroar (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Does WP:MEDRS apply to medical information about individuals?

The discussion is at WT:MEDRS here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Context: Gitz got blocked from Imane Khelif article for continued medical speculation. See User_talk:Gitz6666#August_2024_2. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and the reviewing admin suggested to open a thread at WT:MEDRS to clarify the policy issue, which I just did. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

context: they declined your appeal of your page block because your arguments did not convince them to unblock you. Elinruby (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The answer is going to be "it depends" but I would note that BLP is not an area to mess around in, when in doubt attribute or exclude. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Shitposts in biographies

A suggestion at Talk:Tim Walz#Inclusion of Horse S*men Controversy? says that Tim Walz should include a section balancing one at JD Vance#Public reactions. The Vance article promotes a shitpost against Vance saying he fucked a couch, while the Walz suggestion is that he had his stomach pumped after drinking horse semen. I would just delete the Vance nonsense and fully protect the article but there is a massive discussion at Talk:JD Vance#The couch thing. Thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 05:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The "couch thing" send to have gotten more notice than the equine emissions, but neither belong in the BLPs imo. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the whole point of BLP is to avoid this sort of rubbish from being included in BLPs based off of contemporary coverage designed to cash in with outrageous headlines. Secondary sources are what we should use to determine content and this kind of garbage isn't going to be included in a biography/memoir/retrospective. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The sources that currently back up that section (newspaper articles) are secondary sources. Cortador (talk) 09:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Newspaper articles are not secondary sources typically and in this instance they are primary sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

No, a newspaper aricle about people’s responses to something is a secondary source; the tweets themselves that it discusses are primary. (It might be primary for small parts like quotes from individuals given directly to the reporter.) But this is just not the important question at all. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

A newspaper article providing a quote by a person made in response to something is still a primary source, it validates what that person said but makes no transformative claims around it. Masem (t) 12:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is over there. We don't edit articles out of a desire for subjective "parity", precisely because it introduces bias. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Good, but what should happen at the Vance article? Johnuniq (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we should stop WP:FORUMSHOPing the discussion and use the talk page which already has a lengthy discussion on this very topic? —Locke Cole • t • c 14:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The lengthy discussion which has been dragged out and deliberately stalled for two months now while the ridiculous nonsense remains on the page bringing disgrace to Wikipedia, you mean? 2601:600:817F:16F0:9DB3:A3E3:5972:3194 (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I would oppose mention per RECENT. I doubt it will endure a year after the election. Cheers. DN (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

This reminds me of the whole Piggate story. A total fabrication that many chose to believe as true. Personally, I do think it should be removed from both because I think its a BLP concern and that its just being used for political gain in the election campaign. And I don't think we want Wikipedia to demean itself by posting every lowbrow political rumour or allegation that comes out, there's enough mudslinging around in my view. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

We don't remove or include content in articles based on whether or not someone politically benefits from it. We remove or include content based on its coverage in RS. Cortador (talk) 06:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

If an incident is notable (per WP:N), there should be an article on it. If no article is justifiable, mentioning a shitpost is merely an ILIKEIT amplification of the original attack. Johnuniq (talk) 06:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

We aren't talking about having a standalone article for the couch thing. We are talking about its inclusion in an already existing article. Cortador (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

True, but we also look at DUE. DN (talk) 06:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Which reliable sources do you think justify it's inclusion? Traumnovelle (talk) 08:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The ones in the article. Cortador (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Those aren't applicable here, clearly. Did you read the discussion, because those have already been brought up over there. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Those are primary sources, bar two which are just trivial/primary mentions of the incident but give deep coverage of other events. WP:RSPRIMARY Traumnovelle (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you again for confirming your misunderstanding of sources. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Neither claim is WP:DUE and so both should be excluded. Simple as. Curbon7 (talk) 07:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Both stories are fake news (Walz - Snopes Vance - Snopes, it's just that the Vance one took off a lot more, probably because of the since withdrawn AP story which was supposed to be a fact-check.... Black Kite (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely undue in both articles and reflects poorly on the choices of editors who push to include either hoax. Yes, in a few cases false stories may be due but these are not those few cases. Are either of these stores substantive about the person? Would a summary of the person be lacking for missing these stores? Are we potentially perpetuating a harm be including them (note that do no harm is a critical BLP ARBCOM finding). Springee (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the prose per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP among other things. I suggest editors open an RfC per WP:ONUS and WP:BLPRESTORE since it's pretty clear this is a contentious topic and there is no clear consensus on inclusion. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems premature, there was longstanding consensus for inclusion on the talk page. Consensus can change, perhaps your should demonstrate that it has before removing something that has been supported this long? —Locke Cole • t • c 14:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

If the hoax is removed while clearly labeled as such, Vance's Stolen Valor accusations should likely be removed from Walz's page due to the serious nature of the (currently unfounded) allegations. According to Wikipedia’s BLP policy: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with respect for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not Wikipedia's role to sensationalize or to be the primary vehicle for spreading provocative claims about people's lives. The potential for harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Although sources have been added to the Stolen Valor (a crime punishable under federal law) comments, there is no consensus among newspapers on whether a crime was committed. Currently, the Stolen Valor claims are presented as fact without acknowledging they may be untrue. There is nothing that makes that comment more newsworthy than the dozen's of other statements he's made; nor have we ever covered the equivalent of attacks on political opponents within their BLP.

Currently, the main differences between the two pages is in regards to one being labeled clearly that it's the media attention (not the hoax itself) in why the Hoax is being covered, where as the "Stolen Valor" comments are being left as if it's a matter of fact; when it hasn't. Per the Guardian, Walz does not meet the definition of Stolen Valor, as written about here and ABC has also reported there is no evidence of such as can be seen here. The Hoax currently has Wikipedia:Consensus while the other is unclear if it does; however both articles likely have to be examined to ensure that wikipedia remains true to its guidelines and presents information as accurately as possible. Wozal (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding, The Hoax currently has Wikipedia:Consensus, can you point to me where it has consensus? Because I can point to no less than ten editors opposing inclusion and multiple editors attempting to remove the content over the past 2 months. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

As I'm sure you've read then within the discussions and within Wikipedia:Consensus, consensus is gained through the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. It is not determined by Votes, A large portion of the conversations on why to exclude revolved around one user's confusion on what constitutes a secondary vs primary source, what a reliable source was, the misuse of Wikipedia:GOSSIP (this wasn't covered because of its face value; it was covered due to the wide coverage by the media and impacted discourse on his candidacy.)(This user does a better job at explaining it than I do) It would be a completely different story if it were written using a different lens.

In the case of the hoax, the claims for it were never about the hoax itself, but rather the attention it received while being clearly labeled as such. In the case of stolen valor, those comments were presented as facts, when they shouldn't be based on reporting.

While consensus (this flowchart shows a simplified version of consensus) can change for any article (we must remember to base it solely on policies and not just because x amount of people say x if it does not relate to policy), we must ensure we are covering things as accurately as we can portray them and ensure that anything that isn't true is either explained or noted as being untrue especially with material like the two here.

In both cases, they contain contentious material which are sourced; how they're presented to the reader is what makes them differ them. One indicates clearly that it is a hoax; the other does so as if it's fact. Both are covered because of the attention they received; even though the latter does not indicate the comments hold no merit based on other sources. Wozal (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I concur. All this political mudslinging is just that, and should not be included as WP:UNDUE. Perhaps some of it (such as the "stolen valor" allegation, not the semen hoaxes) may be worth covering briefly at the campaign articles, but broadly I do not think any of these should be included in the subjects's main articles. Curbon7 (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Tsumyoki

Tsumyoki is the subject's professional name; his real name is Nathan Joseph Mendes. The article body refers to him as "Mendes" throughout. However, I notice that Lady Gaga refers to her as Gaga in most of the article (with the exception of Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta was born into...). Which Wikipedia policy applies here? SerChevalerie (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

MOS:SURNAME would be the guide you're looking for here, I believe. For the record, I looked up a few other musicians and Lady Gaga appeared to be the exception, as the ones I looked up - Avicii for example - all used the real surname in prose throughout. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @JustAnotherCompanion, thanks. MOS:SURNAME says: When a majority of reliable secondary sources refer to persons by a pseudonym, they should be subsequently referred to by their pseudonymous surnames, unless they do not include a recognizable surname in the pseudonym (e.g. Sting, Snoop Dogg, the Edge), in which case the whole pseudonym is used. They are citing the example of Sting, which applies the closest in this case. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Barbara O'Neill Page full of slander

It is impossible to add information to the page as it has been locked, and what is there is full of false information and slander. One such claim is that every single scientist disagrees with her. Another false claim is that she "failed" nursing school. It also tries to paint her as a religious nutjob by immediately mentioning that she teaches at a seven-day Adventist church. She has taught at one in the past and has discussions with other members of the church as she does attend it. She is not a function of the church. Barbara O'Neill was a practitioner in childhood medicine in Australia, but also, over 22,000 of her patients have signed a petition to repeal the Wales decision on her not being allowed to practice medicine. This is significant, but not mentioned once on Wikipedia as the information on her was written with prejudice and bias. 2600:1700:3AE7:5000:79E3:1FC0:F2D9:3DAA (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The article's talk page is not locked. You can post evidence-based suggestions for edits there. Before you do so, it is best to do some due diligence by checking what the article's cited sources say. If they are incorrect or have been misrepresented in some way, you will need to provide evidence to that effect, by supplying reliable sources that support your points for example. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Noting that it has been locked in the past:[34] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I did change the one bit about "failing" nursing training, which was not quite supported by the source. Otherwise, I second Sean.hoyland's advice. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Just a note that petitions are generally a dime a dozen. Internet petitions even more so. They are almost never worth of mentioning even if there is limited reliable secondary source coverage of them. Nil Einne (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Tim Peters

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tim_Peters_(software_engineer)&diff=1241938157&oldid=1240716626

They seem to misinterpret the source, and add a lot of... opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EsotericImplications (talk • contribs) 23:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Paging @Algr:, who inserted the specific two alleged violations from a laundry list of them. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

After reading the cited article and its supporting links, the SNL allegation or "cited objection" by the Python Steering Council seems to misrepresent his comments. I'm not sure if the suspension should even be mentioned in the article due to WP:NPF, and I don't see multiple RS reporting on the suspension. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Luis Elizondo labeled a "conspiracy theorist" repeatedly without citation, page locked

Luis Elizondo is currently in the news as a former Pentagon director who wrote a book about UFOs. Apparently several users have added uncited negative material calling the individual a conspiracy theorist with no mainstream or apparently any sourcing actually calling them a "conspiracy theorist", leading to editing fights and the page being protected:

1. User:MrOllie here: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=prev&oldid=1242115774
2. User:Sgerbic here: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=next&oldid=1242107345
3. User:Sgerbic here (again): https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=prev&oldid=1242101175
4. User:MrOllie here (again): https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=prev&oldid=1242094480
5. User:Ixocactus here: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=prev&oldid=1242046430
6. User:MrOllie here (again): https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=prev&oldid=1242007549
7. User:MrOllie here (again): https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=prev&oldid=1242005341
8. User:2A02:B023:15:A31E:5061:2FDA:8471:5900 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=prev&oldid=1241987543
9. User:2A02:B023:15:A31E:5061:2FDA:8471:5900 here (again): https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=prev&oldid=1241976670

There may be more but I stopped looking there. On the article talk page, User:Einheit947 posted about that "conspiracy theorist" removal here asking who removed that uncited material. I noticed it yesterday and flagged it as needing citation.

Additionally, User:Einheit947 noted that this apparent BLP violation was highlighted on a Reddit post that claims in their comments to have 100,000+ views already:

https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1f1lxhq/when_you_google_lue_elizondo_the_first_thing_it

Just sharing here so you all can do whatever is necessary with the article under the BLP policy, and because the labeling of Elizondo as a "conspiracy theorist" has apparently reached media levels of attention. I will assume I should leave a quick note to notify the listed people here on the various talk pages, so I will do that. Good luck with this mess. -- Very Polite Person (talk • contribs) 15:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Reddit is not 'media levels of attention'. Re: 'conspiracy theorist', This is a person who is currently on a book tour, promoting a book in which he alleges that the US government is in possession of advanced technology made off-world by non-human intelligence and is covering it up. MrOllie (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Still not appropriate at all to label the person as a conspiracy theorist without many reliable sources to back that claim up. We here may all agree that claim about UFO is bonkers, but it is our responsibility to avoid describing ppl in labels not used in RSes — Masem (t) 20:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

MrOllie, you've been editing Wikipedia for well over a decade. There is no excuse for you to not be familiar with WP:OR and WP:BLP. As far as I'm concerned, adding unsourced contentious labels to a BLP is worse than vandalism. Likewise to Sgerbic and Ixocactus. You'd be completely in the right here if you only held off long enough to find multiple high quality sources explicitly describing him as a conspiracy theorist in those words. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The talk page for the article in question has resolved this issue. Please see that discussion. Sgerbic (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The underlying behaviour is still problematic in regards to not understanding BLP and OR. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The edit warring to restore the label is troubling especially given one user has an Arbcom warning/sanction and the other thinks his own original research based on the subject's biography is appropriate for the label. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I done only one revert because I trusted in MrOllie edits before me. My bad. This is a serious claim and I supposed it's on sources. But after revert I checked the last sources (NYTimes and NewsAu) and realize that conspiracy theory is not mentioned. Then I stoped. Now waiting for allien technology for a better world. Ixocactus (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

:The job description of U.S. intelligence officers is to spread conspiracy theories and misinformation. However, unless reliable sources routinely refer to him as a conspiracy theorist, then it violates BLP to call him one. Also, if any sources are found that refer to him as one, they should only be presented as the opinions of the people who made them, unless there is consensus in the sources he meets the description. ~~~~ TFD (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to briefly chime in and concur with TFD and what seems to be the developing consensus--while I personally have no qualms with the label, this doesn't seem to be a common descriptor in reliable sources, even those of a more skeptical bent. As ever, best to hew to the wording in the sources. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Whilst it is fairly obvious that his book does espouse conspiracy theories - there are even more outlandish ones than the one mentioned, judging by the book's precis, we still cannot call him one in Wikivoice without those RS. Black Kite (talk) 08:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

As stewards of one of the world’s most influential information platforms, it is our shared duty to ensure that the content we provide is balanced, accurate, and upholds the highest standards of integrity. I need to draw attention to a troubling pattern of coordinated editing behavior that is undermining the quality and neutrality of a particular high-profile article and backup what I have seen by OP.

A group of editors has been systematically inserting unsupported and potentially defamatory information while masking these changes as minor or grammatical edits. This tactic is a deliberate attempt to bypass scrutiny and violates our core policies on Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) and Neutral Point of View (NPOV). The insidious nature of these edits, disguised as routine corrections, is eroding the credibility that our readers rightfully expect from us.

Even more concerning is the targeted removal or weakening of well-sourced positive information from reputable publications like The New York Times. These edits do more than mislead; they distort the reader's perception and compromise the integrity of the article. The subtle manipulation of sentence structure and the strategic removal of key citations have turned this piece into a tool for misinformation rather than an accurate reflection of the subject.

This matter demands immediate and thorough intervention and supervision. I strongly urge the community to review and, if necessary, completely overhaul of the article to restore its integrity. The stakes are significant—not just for this article, but for the trust that millions of readers place in Wikipedia as a reliable and neutral resource.

Let’s act decisively to correct these issues and reaffirm our commitment to maintaining Wikipedia as a global standard for truth and accuracy. ObjectiveWheel (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

... That's a fair bit of proselytizing there, but I don't see much specifics.

Please use wikipedia policies and specific diffs of edits to point out issues. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=prev&oldid=1242007549

For example, if you look at the links the poster added above, you can clearly see it. The edit note is "grammar" change where he really added "conspiracy theorist" an unsupported claim, above of and beyond all the information detailed in various mainstream sources about his career. ObjectiveWheel (talk) 01:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a revert. I did not originally add the text in question. I was putting the article back to a previous state because someone (you) had turned a sentence into ungrammatical mush. MrOllie (talk) 01:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I attempted to address the issue by requesting the removal of the "conspiracy theorist" label, as it clearly violates both BLP (Biographies of Living Persons) and NPOV (Neutral Point of View) policies. This label is misleading, not supported by reliable sources, and gives undue weight to a contentious characterization. According to Wikipedia’s guidelines, content about living persons must avoid defamatory language. Furthermore, prioritizing a disputed label over Luis Elizondo's verified career accomplishments is improper and goes against Wikipedia’s standards.

I myself was fixing this revision of your own:

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=prev&oldid=1242094480 (edit summary: : rv unsourced claims, disputed claims, and a reinsertion of grammatical errors)

But as you say you were not the original person who added this ? I'm not sure who did only that you "revised it"., But whatever the sequence of events ? I noticed the issue and took action because it was leading to widespread misinformation. As discussed on the talk page, this edit led to Google labeling Luis Elizondo as a "conspiracy theorist," as his main job role, which then became trending on Reddit ("Google calls lue elizondo a conspiracy theroist") and now Wikipedia and Google both look bad. Unfortunately, whoever added the label achieved the disruption they intended. ObjectiveWheel (talk) 01:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Mukesh (actor)

• Mukesh (actor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Recent poor quality edits to the controversies section about accusations - even before that the section was poorly done. I'm placing this here, despite having edited 2 years as IPs, due to inexperience with editing contentious materials that actually have sources for them. – 2804:F1...E1:EACF (talk) 04:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Pablo Marçal edit war

User:gregoriosev reverts anyone who removes his assertion without direct citations that Pablo Marcal, a candidate in the Mayoral Race in Sao Paulo, Brazil. It seems he is willing to engage in an edit war. I have not reverted his edit yet, as it could possibly implicate me for edit warring as well (despite exception #7 to the edit war rules). I will note that Marcal was convicted of a financial scam in 2010, as is also mentioned in the article, however his sentence was annulled. Therefore, it can be considered libelous to call him a scammer in the title sentence of the article. The Portuguese wikipedia version of the article does not list him as a scammer. I also request that this page be protected from users with less than 500 edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamjamguy (talk • contribs) 18:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I removed the contentious label from the lead sentence per BLP. As for the rest of the article, it looks like editors are copying over the "bad stuff" about Marcal from the Portuguese article, which there is quite a bit of, while leaving out the rest. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Garry Nolan -- similar to Luis Elizondo issues other day. Anonymous users are adding without sourcing conspiracy theorist.

Hello,

Similar to this the other day: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Luis_Elizondo_labeled_a_"conspiracy_theorist"_repeatedly_without_citation,_page_locked, a user on Garry Nolan is now doing the same thing, repeatedly assigning the text "conspiracy theorist" to the article of this doctor. This has now spread to Google search results for this living person.

Edit 1:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.179.35.181
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Garry_Nolan&diff=1242359083&oldid=1241922071

Edit 2:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:245:8201:9100:ECBC:D50B:767B:E791
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Garry_Nolan&diff=next&oldid=1242905728

Similar behavior from anonymous on Luis Elizondo:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:B023:15:A31E:5061:2FDA:8471:5900
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=prev&oldid=1241987543

Can we please get Garry Nolan protected? Thank you. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

It's been temporarily protected, and a discussion has been opened on the talk page about it. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Sean Ludwick

• Sean Ludwick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Following several attempts by 69.123.211.73 to remove substantial portions of the article, a new account, PamelaHarrLud, appeared at the help desk claiming to be Pamela Harrison Ludwick. PamelaHarrLud says that she is no longer married to Sean Ludwick. According to the sources used in the article, Sean Ludwick is married to Pamela Harrison Ludwick.

I reverted an edit by zzuuzz removing Pamela Harrison Ludwick from the infobox and changing "Ludwick is married to" to "Ludwick married" not because I am unsympathetic to PamelaHarrLud's claim, but because we haven't yet established if PamelaHarrLud really is Pamela Harrison Ludwick or if the couple is divorced. I asked Zzuzz to start a discussion on the talk page but instead they reverted me with an edit summary of "no, BLP is policy; get it right and relevant, or choose not to".

Is this a BLP issue? I'm sure this isn't the first time this has happened, how is it usually dealt with? Is it customary to remove spouses from the infobox in the event of a divorce? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

See WP:BLPNAME. Notability is not inherited nor passed on through matrimony. Private individuals have a right to retain their privacy. The general practice is to not name spouses, children, family or friends unless they themselves are notable enough to have their own articles. To the average reader, the name means nothing unless there is an article we can link to; it's just a name without a face, so removing it or replacing with a generic descriptor does not alter the reader's understanding of the subject. But to the private individual it is often a very big deal and we usually respect their right to remain private. In this case, she never should have been named at all, so removing it was the right thing to do. Zaereth (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank YOU ! PamelaHarrLud (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Also from this 2015 source[35] that was in the article, "A number of Hansen’s relatives and friends attended the hearing. So did Ludwick’s wife, Pamela Ludwick. The two are apparently still together even though she initiated divorce proceedings last year." The source also discusses the subject beating his girlfriend (another woman). I wonder why the wife doesn't want to be associated with him anymore. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

This article you reference is from 2015 and I became officially divorced in 2022. Check court records please. I am remarried and could not get remarried without getting divorced.

Thank you. PamelaHarrLud (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, but per WP:BLPPRIMARY we do not use court records. In this case there is no need to anyhow. Your name should have never been in the article in the first place, so hopefully simply removing it should resolve any issue you have. Zaereth (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I can understand you challenging the removal Counterfeit Purses, I think though that in this case the wife's name and the children's details don't add anything to the article. Removing them isn't going to make any difference to the article. Knitsey (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank You for your consideration and understanding,

Pam PamelaHarrLud (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

This does not require a complaint; we should generally be cautious particularly in associating an unnotable name of a living person with negative events, of which there are plenty in the article. The name of unnotable people does not add useful information. I have removed the name from the article body. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so very much for your attention and understanding.

Kindly,

Pam PamelaHarrLud (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@NatGertler Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that Ludwick's wife's name necessarily needs to be included in the article, but I am not sure that she is not relevant to the overall case. One of the sources says Records show that on September 9, 2015, just 10 days after the crash, his Brick Kiln Road property, as well as his townhouse on Sutton Place, were put into the names of limited liability corporations. I assume this was intended to shield the properties from future lawsuits. The source continues His wife, Pamela Harrison Ludwick, sold the Sutton Place townhouse for $5.6 million in August 2021, records show.

I will go along with whatever consensus forms here, but it seems like this decision has been made on "vibes" rather than following any kind of process. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Nothing seems to be based on "vibes". If the process is to "be cautious particularly in associating an unnamable name of a living person with negative events (of which there are plenty in the article). The name of unnotable people does not add useful information."

Why is it relevant that the house was sold in August 2021, to his case ? His civil suit was settled many years before house was sold. None of the information is relevant and all it does is compromise the unnotable person, who is myself. PamelaHarrLud (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@PamelaHarrLud My comment was not directed at you. We have no way of knowing if you are who you say you are or if what you are saying about a divorce is correct. It would be nice if these cases were dealt with consistently instead of an ad hoc fumbling. In this case, you will likely get what you want, but not because we followed any kind of process designed to help you (or to help us to help you). That was what I meant by "vibes".

Can I ask why you were removing material about your ex-husband's crimes here, here, and here if it was just the name you wanted removed? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

It does seem you have a consistent standard of practice - referred to under BLPNAME - and it seems as if it does indeed apply to my situation.

Yes, I can explain . Firstly, I had no idea there was a wikipedia page for my ex husband. My first instinct was to protect my sons, upon seeing this page. I don't want their ages in the write up; but I was informed thereafter that the ages are for Paul Hansen's sons.

The rest I attempted to remove was based on hearsay. None of what I attempted to edit was ever proven and as this is the father of my sons, who are online, I would prefer only facts be in an online encyclopedia for all to have access to, including my sons. There is much information that is misreported; based on sources that are salacious, such as Daily Mail and East Hampton Star. Not reliable news sources.

I hope this helps explain. PamelaHarrLud (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

It does, thank you. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

But what further information does the name give us that just saying "his wife" does not? It doesn't connect to anything beyond this article. If his wife was Queen Elizabeth, that would be a different matter. It's not just "vibes", it's very much in WP:BLPNAME territory. Things like "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects". "The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." No one has made a claim of any way in which the individual's name signifies anything needed for compete understanding. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes and to your point, Nat Gentler, his mistresses name at the time is not noted in any of the Wikipedia entry and she filed multiple suits against my ex husband. Yet, never once is her first or last name listed in Wikipedia and she is in all of the sources used to create Wikipedia entry.

Thank you again for your time,

Pam PamelaHarrLud (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me, Nat Gertler. Auto spell corrected. PamelaHarrLud (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I am fine with just using the "Ludwick's wife" as the identifier. My point was that we might not want to trim too much to avoid mention of her at all. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

It's fine to use generic descriptors. "Wife". "Kids". "Coworkers". Etc. Whatever tells the story. In most cases the person's name isn't necessary for that. For example, in the case of things like rape we will often avoid naming the victim and simply use a generic descriptor, to avoid victimizing them even more. Often times spouses don't want to be named, and special care needs to be given to children who are not even old enough to give informed consent (even if their parents don't mind naming them, the child might grow up wishing they hadn't and we have no right to take that away from them). We have much higher standards than newspapers, where info changes daily. Encyclopedias tend to last a long time so we need to be more careful. The flip-side of this is when a subject is married to a notable spouse who does have their own article, because we're not facebook and don't keep up-to-date relationship statuses, and unless their divorce is publicized they may remain married on Wikipedia forever. Non-notable people don't have to worry about that. Zaereth (talk) 03:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing as Nat. By removing the name and simply saying "his wife", the meaning of the sentence doesn't change at all. The name is just that, a name. Faceless. A shadow void of substance. This actually comes up here a lot, which is why we have BLPNAME. The whole point of BLP policy is to protect the rights of the people we write about. Much of it is about ethics. Unless there is some overriding need to know, for example if the story wouldn't make sense without the name, we should simply omit it. Zaereth (talk) 03:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I am happy to know of the BLPNAME policy in order to help to protect those that have been collateral damage in these situations, in any small way possible. As you say, it is an ethical decision but equally as important to your standards, does not change the context of the information by changing the name to a reference. PamelaHarrLud (talk) 03:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Joan Palmiter Bajorek

Hi All, Please guide me or provide me assistance with determining notability of this Tech Women's page: User:Techy.Sap/sandbox or Draft:Joan Palmiter Bajorek Techy.Sap (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Notability (people). Spamming an article with passing mentions and promotional content will achieve absolutely nothing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Dispute on characterisation of BLP subject's wife's actions following convictions

I could do with a more experienced and diplomatic pair of eyes on Talk:Adam Britton. I feel like I'm not communicating well. The dispute revolves around how much detail to include on his wife's actions following his high-profile convictions, and how to frame that detail if indeed it is to be included. Thanks. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The wording was sensational, which isn't terribly surprising when you check the supporting source and see that all its substantive content was attributed to the Daily Mail. I've removed it again. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I feel silly having not noticed that, somehow. Thanks for removing it, we shouldn't (obviously) be sourcing BLP stuff to that. Or anything else. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Had another editor try to add it today (in good faith, might I add). I undid that, pointed them to talk, and removed the wife's name entirely per WP:BLPNAME. Still a little concerned about the attention this aspect is getting, but I may be grumbling into the void here: Not sure there's much further to be done. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME for wife of Prime Minister

The wife of Christopher Luxon has her name mentioned twice in the article. I removed her name as it adds nothing in the article per WP:BLPNAME but have been reverted twice. Even more worrying is the mention of her former name based on original research in the talk page, I think I should remove it but BLPNAME suggests it only applies to articles even if BLP is supposed to apply to all pages. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

While I'm generally supportive of removing the names of non-notable spouses, I think the wives of heads of state and government are an exception given that they tend to receive a fair amount of media attention. I mean they can sometimes even travel on official visits, and be involved in welcoming and hosting on official visits. And we even have an article Spouse of the prime minister of New Zealand. The OR thing is more concerning. The general discussion is fine IMO given that it helps explain why we don't list any names, but perhaps removing the names are best if the state of the sources is still correct. Also that means that the spouse article needs to be fixed. Nil Einne (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll remove alleged maiden names due to OR. I don't believe her name contributes anything to the article as it is only mentioned twice and having a name adds nothing to the article, even if not BLP it is plainly trivial to include.

The spouse article is quite problematic given the unsourced relationship claims and I am going to remove those. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh the relationship split is sourced, to an article titled: 'Incoming prime minister Chris Hipkins wants to keep his family out of the spotlight and has asked for privacy for his children.', I feel this shouldn't be included and I don't think we should even have an article, there's hardly any notability for spouses of the PM. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

As someone who is generally a supporter of BLPNAME, I can't get exited about it when it's the wife of a PM. Her name is certainly widely disseminated. It may not be equal or whatever, but there it is. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Tasha K article filled with claims presented as facts

Tasha K (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article, created by a sockpuppeteer, is riddled with unverified claims presented as facts, inappropriate language, and unnecessary fluff:

1. "It was Tasha K's show that it was revealed that Will Smith have had gay sex with his fellow Bel-Air actor Duane Martin"

2. "Tasha K also disclosed the three-year clandestine relationship between August Alsina and Jada Pinkett Smith"

3. It describes Dennis McKinley's alleged "cocaine use and infidelity" as "[t]hese vices of his"

4. "It was Tasha K who unraveled that Wendy Williams' ex husband Kevin Hunter had a love child with Sharing Hudson"

5. "Her take on Keke Palmer during the actress' separation from her former husband, Darius Jackson, implied that Palmer allowed the public to believe her ex husband was abusive because he no longer wanted to be with her."

6. "Tasha K gave a congratulatory message to Ice Cube and spouse about their long-lasting marriage and compared Ice Cube to Denzel Washington, another actor known for a long-lasting marriage." <-- absolutely unnecessary

I don't think I need to show more examples; the article's in a bad state and I unfortunately don't have the time to clean it up. I'd appreciate if someone removes at least the blatant BLP violations and fluff for now. Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• I've removed the whole of that section for the time being, we can't have "claims" and "alleged" issues in Wikivoice and the sources are universally terrible anyway. Black Kite (talk) 05:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• I'm also unconvinced that the image is the author own work (Tineye is not a lot of help though, as it's heavily cropped). Black Kite (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• A BLP article packed with so many sordid assertions should be checked out in depth by a neutral editor thoroughly familiar with reliable sources in the rap/hip hop topic area. I lack the expertise, the motivation and the stomach to do that work. Cullen328 (talk) 06:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

All this WP:BLPGOSSIP trash came in with the creator of this article. It should be wiped out and recreated at a later time with actual sourcing to RS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Robby Starbuck

Similar to Garry Nolan and Luis Elizondo, several dynamic ips and newer users have reinserted the contentious WP:LABEL of "conspiracy theorist" to the lead of Robby Starbuck. He has produced a documentary film that promotes conspiracy theories,[36] but Starbuck is not widely labeled as a CT by RSes. He is in the news recently for his anti-DEI activism against companies popular with conservative voters so his article has attracted drive-by edits. The article is semi-protected for 3 months, but more eyes on this would be appreciated. I also started a discussion on the talk page. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Using loaded language found in a small minority of partisan outlets violates WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:PROPORTION, WP:LABEL and probably several other PAGs. I also removed {{pseudoscience}} (which formerly, improperly, included Starbuck) per WP:BLPCAT. Using the loudest critics or most extreme opinions to describe, label, and categorize biographical subjects reeks of POV promotion, even if it's broadly considered a "good" POV by Wikipedians. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I've added my own concerns on the talk page and have commented to others, I'm familiar with this individual and I can see how his recent activism would attract some editors who are keen on WP:POVPUSH (in either direction, just to be clear). Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

An edit war has arisen over User:Biohistorian15 attempting to transclude The War on Children onto the Starbuck article. I had raised WP:BLPBALANCE objections which was ignored.[37][38] Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Your objection was not ignored, I directly answered it in my edit summary. If you have extremely specific ideas about what "balance" means in this context, please specify them. Biohistorian15 (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Starbuck's notoriety is his social media campaigns that have made companies roll back on their DEI initiatives. Transcluding The War on Children onto his biography expands the article inappropriately giving more WP:WEIGHT to assertions sourced to WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS which AnimalParty first raised,[39] but also WP:DAILYDOT. The biography and movie pages are standalone pages for a reason. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I see. But then, there's multiple editors involved with this article and you would absolutely not have had to use three reverts within just a few hours; my edit was not vandalism. Biohistorian15 (talk) 10:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes! Magazine

A source was added to Screams Without Words with insinuations that several witnesses provided false testimony. The source, Yes! (U.S. magazine), hasn't been discussed on RSN yet AFAIK. There are no red flags in terms of reliability, though there is a transparent agenda, in the magazine and especially the (freelance) author of the particular piece. Could an uninvolved editor weigh in on discussion of whether this is okay for BLP? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Flagging this again before auto-archived. There is no consensus at RSN or the article talk page as to reliability of this source, used a couple of times in relation to truthfulness of witnesses to alleged sexual crimes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Rabi Lamichhane

I'm not sure about the legal case information at Rabi Lamichhane#Legal issues#Financial Disputes and Allegations. My guess is that the statement in the article, Notably, some of these cases remain open, drawing significant attention and criticism, is not well-enough supported by the three references and the list of cases, but would like someone with a better understanding of US legal procedures to have a look. The references are a case listing on unicourt.com, a case search at Maryland Judiciary which tells me I have been blocked (?geoblocked), and a YouTube video - this one clearly not a reliable source. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the section. Per WP:BLPPRIMARY we are not allowed to use court documents to support any allegations against a living person. Youtube is also not considered a reliable source, and is also a primary source to boot. Information like this needs to come from reliable WP:Secondary sources. Zaereth (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Zaereth. Tacyarg (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. Court docs, and any info supported by them, should be removed on sight without the need for discussion, so if you ever see them feel free to do so yourself. Zaereth (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@Zaereth: Please be more cautious in providing advice to other editors. It's not true that "Youtube is also not considered a reliable source, and is also a primary source." YouTube is just a video hosting site. There are many publishers and authors (creators, producers, etc.) who use YouTube to host videos that we consider to be reliable and there are many videos on YouTube that are secondary or even tertiary sources. And we do not have a blanket ban on the use of court documents. They are used infrequently and are almost always treated as primary sources but there are still situations in which it is appropriate to cite them in a Wikipedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

However, for court documents in BLPs, there are almost nearly no situations we allow for those, so Zaereth is absolutely correct. And YouTube sources require that the video is posted directly by an organization we consider reliable to avoid WP:BLPSPS issues with individual contributors making controversial claims towards a BLP. Masem (t) 14:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Zaereth is not "absolutely correct" and your own statements align with my own. Your assertion that "there are almost nearly no situations we allow for [court documents in BLPs]" is obviously not the same as Zaereth's assertion that "we are not allowed to use court documents to support any allegations against a living person." And your assertion that "YouTube sources require that the video is posted directly by an organization we consider reliable" also directly refutes Zaereth's statement that "Youtube is also not considered a reliable source." You and I are in agreement that Zaereth's statements were wrong so I'm not sure why you're saying that we're not in agreement. ElKevbo (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

It's far better to stick to the line that YouTube/court documents are never allowed on BLP as to say they may be allowed within certain exceptions, when explaining these policies to newer users. Certainly they can be used but they need utmost care and I would not be encouraging users to consider that there are possible uses, rather than there are reasonable exceptions that require careful consideration. So I fully agree with the side that Zaereth falls on here when we talk about BLP articles. Masem (t) 15:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

It's very disturbing that an administrator supports providing advice to editors that flatly contradicts policy and practice. ElKevbo (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

No comment on the Youtube issue. But the court documents one is fine. I mean yes, it might sometimes be okay to use court documents for stuff about living persons provided that they only an additional source and all the claims we make are also present in a reliable secondary source; but ultimately since the court document can be removed without issue since it isn't the only source, it's not really supporting anything. In many ways it's more of a cross between an external link and source. Nil Einne (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Let's put it a different way, is Zaereth's comment really that different from what BLPPRIMARY says "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person."? I'd say not. Yes they didn't mention the additional "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." part but they did link to BLPPRIMARY. Nil Einne (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Also a reminder that the most recent discussion over this was fairly recent Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Published judicial documents. At the time I was more successful at avoiding Wikipedia than I am now so didn't participate, however I'm please to see the results IMO are not that bad. While we didn't quite get a consensus to completely ban court documents, it seems clear even in the fairly simple case of reporting the end result, something not mentioned in reliable secondary sources, of a case we do mention from reliable secondary sources there was fairly strong opposition to doing so. (Personally that's the only case I've ever contemplated relaxing BLPPRIMARY and I do wonder if the examples given didn't help.) Nil Einne (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Mister Organ

Mister Organ is a negative documentary about a private individual. Previously the article stated in wikivoice that Michael Organ had 'victims' (people who had their cars clamped for illegal parking on private property) and that he had engaged in psychological warfare. I removed that for obvious reasons but I still wonder about how an article about a documentary that is basically a hit piece on a private individual can exist and comply with BLP, would it be appropriate to redact the name? Should emphasis be put on the fact that everything in the article is just David Farrier's opinion/beliefs rather than factual information? Traumnovelle (talk) 03:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Any comment about Organ himself should be from a high-quality source, as should any comment about Farrier.

Describing the film as a "hit piece" without reliable sourcing also isn't acceptable.

The film is sufficiently notable that AFD isn't an option so your best option is to summarise what reliable sources say about the film. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

The documentary is focused on Farrier's feud with an individual and portraying him in a negative light, I'm not sure how else you would describe that. You can't describe the film without describing Organ and the sources for the film are interviews or just repeating Farrier's statements. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you just don't know what a hit piece is? Because what you just described isn't a hit piece, its just a documentary which portrays its subject more or less accurately (Tiger King isn't a hit piece because it portrays its subjects in a negative light). A hit piece is when the main point of the thing is to destroy someone for reasons unconnected to the actual piece itself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I thought a hit piece was just something that is just negative on someone, wasn't aware of the connotations of falsehoods and lying. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Usually something called that has an ulterior motive, like animosity or greed or politics or anything really. Even if everything negative in it is true. JFHJr (㊟) 03:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I guess it wasn't the correct choice of words. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

It's ok. Common mistake. Think of it like this: an article on Adolph Hitler is going to naturally be all negative, yet that in itself doesn't make it a hit piece. Likewise, an article on Mother Teresa is going to be nearly all positive and that doesn't make it a hagiography. If we strove for equal measures of positive or negative we would be creating a false balance. Balance actually means proportioning the +'s and -'s in the same measure as found in reliable sources.

The other issue, which is what I think actually brought you here, is that the documentary is about a person who never sought fame or recognition and now they're thrust into the spotlight. Unfortunately, that can happen. Some people seek fame and others have it thrust upon them, and there's nothing we can do about that. For example, Mary Kay Letourneau never sought fame but became famous anyhow due to massive public interest in her case. This is something similar, although this Mr. Organ hasn't come close to reaching that level of infamy, the documentary is clearly notable enough to have an article on it, and as you said, we can't discuss the documentary without discussing this Mr. Organ. Even if it does cast him in a negative light.

Of course, I don't know if it's actually necessary to use his full name in our article. We could simply stick to calling him Mr. Organ, or simply Organ after the first mention, as is common in most other articles. I don't know that using his full name provides any more of a benefit to the reader.

Beyond that, I agree with 100... below that the legal dispute section is confusing at best. For example, why is it discussing lawsuits against people who weren't involved in the film? What's the connection? Also we could do a better job of explaining what "car clamping" is, for people like me who've never heard of it, since it's kind of essential to understanding the film. (They don't do that where I'm from. I thought it was talking about some kind of antique.) As written, the entire article is kinda hard to follow and creates more questions than it gives answers. Zaereth (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The legal section is a hodge-podge of two issues. Someone issued a restraining order against David Farrier, presumably it was Mr Organ who issued it but this isn't confirmed and should not be included in article without any independent source on it. The restraining order was posted online and this led to a court case. The other issue is Farrier taking a sign from Bashford Antiques, he was unable to return it and was thus required to pay damages, although I'm not sure whether these should be included or not. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Hodge podge is a good description. I don't know if any of that should be kept either. I can foresee arguments both for and against. which should be discussed on the talk page. So, without commenting on that, I will say the article is missing a lot of the information needed to make it coherent. A ten-word parenthetical could easily explain what car clamping is. Another sentence on why it's done and how exactly it was allegedly misused would help a ton. Many Wikipedia articles have this problem, though, none more-so than scientific and mathematics articles. They're written like a puzzle of connect the dots, leaving the reader to fill in all the blanks. Not done consciously, of course, but it's difficult and takes a great deal of metaperceptional skills to be able to put oneself in the reader's shoes. The legal section has the same problem. Too many dots are in need of connecting. Zaereth (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I've redacted his name. One problem with sourcing is almost every source relating to this involves Farrier himself. The NZ journalism profession is quite small and it's hard to find actual sources that aren't simply reporting Farrier's description of events. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I don’t see any obvious BLP problems with this version (following your removal). The Legal Disputes section is almost totally incomprehensible, though. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Mana Tapu

I need to sort my identity and wish wikipedia to help me with updating my biography.

Jorge Bo Smid 10.07.1981 Founder and Owner of Trademark ManaTapu and mastermind of the movement and artist development. https://www.manatapu.ie/ https://www.manatapu.com/category/announcement/ https://www.tmdn.org/tmview/ https://timesofmalta.com/article/earth-garden-social-media-goes-dark-malicious-copyright-claim.1093726

Until now these wrong entries have created a damage of over million of euro and needs to be solved and updated. Furthermore I am writing as Jorge Bo Smid and the Owner and Founder of the artist band. I wanna make clear I am the only band member and rightful copy and trademark rights holder in Europe.

Please be aware that my image and also trading and identity is infringed as much as my moral integrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:8080:3900:6CB6:B61C:D3C3:341B (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

It is unclear what you are asking. You should begin by making a clearly worded, formal edit request at Talk:ManaTapu. Wikipedia articles summarize what published reliable sources say about a topic. Cullen328 (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be asking Wikipedia to take sides in a trademark dispute, according to this source: former member of the band Manatapu, who has an ongoing dispute with his former bandmates about some use of the band’s licensing. Like Cullen328 says above, we just summarize what published reliable sources say about a topic. Wikipedia doesn't take sides. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)