Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Japkiw (talk | contribs)
Line 170: Line 170:
As an aside, I submit that the recent Fox News reporting should be evaluated at RSP for possible consideration to deprecate Fox News as a source for politics. Their reporting was the original source to fabricate yet another Hillary Clinton "scandal" now spreading like wildfire across right-wing media. [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 18:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
As an aside, I submit that the recent Fox News reporting should be evaluated at RSP for possible consideration to deprecate Fox News as a source for politics. Their reporting was the original source to fabricate yet another Hillary Clinton "scandal" now spreading like wildfire across right-wing media. [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 18:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
:Without consideration or opinion of larger issues, I have reverted as Fox news should not be used in a political BLP especially to paint someone in a negative light.[[User:Slywriter|Slywriter]] ([[User talk:Slywriter|talk]]) 18:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
:Without consideration or opinion of larger issues, I have reverted as Fox news should not be used in a political BLP especially to paint someone in a negative light.[[User:Slywriter|Slywriter]] ([[User talk:Slywriter|talk]]) 18:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

== Siegfried Zielinski ==

The page on Siegfried Zielinski reads like his LinkedIn page. The list of publications is overly long for what is supposed to be just a selection. Isn't too much weight being given to this one scholar?

Revision as of 10:45, 18 February 2022

    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

    This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

    Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.


    Search this noticeboard & archives
    Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Additional notes:



    Wilfred Reilly

    See these edits [1], the only edits made by User:Salukitruth. Notifying the editor now. The accusations of a assault and battery conviction when he was a student may be true, but I can't find other sources for it suggesting it belongs in his article. Doug Weller talk 10:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't find any secondary sources covering the plea, and the source given doesn't even show there was a plea. It shows guilty for a single misdemeanor. Per WP:BLPCRIME we shouldn't be including the allegations, as Reilly doesn't appear to be a public figure, although I'm not certain where exactly the line is drawn for that when someone has written books and taken part in a televised debate.
    Generally though, I don't think a misdemeanor conviction from a decade ago not covered in reliable sources, and with no indication of lasting significance, belongs in any BLP article. I've reverted those edits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He pled guilty to the misdemeanor battery charge while the felony restraint charge was dismissed. This was most likely a plea bargain, but all of this falls under improper WP:BLPPRIMARY. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Salukitruth restored this without discussion, and I've reverted again and opened a section on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Shane Ortega

    I am Shane Ortega and I request full removal of my Wikipedia. I never created one. Due to obsessive stalkers posting inflammatory information I request my page deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B077:392B:1C7B:28D2:8534:6D51 (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe the right route is to go to Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team so you can prove your identity, which makes it easier to delete the article, per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. I don't know if the article will be deleted however, since there is plenty of sourcing to show notability. [2][3][4][5]. That said, the article is pretty poorly written right now, and definitely needs some attention. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Ramón Jesurún

    I've no knowledge of Columbian sports politics but the recent activity on Ramón Jesurún looks suspicious. It looks like there are editors out there bigging him up and others wanting to incriminate him in various scandals. As my Spanish is very poor I can't read the sources to tell is the events are being stated fairly or not. Nthep (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Jonathan Wheatley

    Some parties are concerned whether or not Jonathan Wheatley#2021 Abu Dhabi last lap controversy belongs on Wikipedia. A review of the section to ensure there are no BLP violations would be appreciated. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I looked at this when there was an open edit request. At the time, it seemed a bit over written, and now there's probably still an issue with balance, although there should be some mention of it in the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional subproposals regarding notability of athletes

    Several subproposals have been added to the NSPORT RfC that would welcome input from the community.

    Subproposal 1: "All athlete biographies must demonstrate GNG when notability is challenged at AfD". Potential exceptions/clarifications/amendments are also offered.

    Subproposal 3: "Remove all simple or mere "participation" criteria in NSPORT, outside of ones related to Olympics and equivalent events. This would eliminate several sections on specific sports where this is the only type of criteria given (such as for NGRIDIRON), while merit-based ones, like several in NTRACK, would be left."

    Subproposal 4: "Modify all provisions of NSPORTS that provide that participation in "one" game/match such that the minimum participation level is increased to "three" games/matches. This raises the threshold for the presumption of notability to kick in."

    Subproposal 5: "All sports biographies and team/season articles must, from inception, include at least one example of actual SIGCOV from a reliable, independent source. Mere database entries would be insufficient for creation of a new biography article."

    Subproposal 6: "Conditional on Subproposal 5 passing, should a prod-variant be created, applicable to the articles covered by Subproposal 5, that would require the addition of one reference containing significant coverage to challenge the notice?"

    Subproposal 8: "Rewrite the introduction to clearly state that GNG is the applicable guideline, and articles may not be created or kept unless they meet GNG. Replace all instances of "presumed to be notable" with "significant coverage is likely to exist"."

    Subproposal 9: "Rewrite the lead of WP:NSPORTS to ... cut the confusing sentence in the middle which is at odds with the rest of the guideline and which leaves itself open to lots of wiki-lawyering." JoelleJay (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Murder of Billie-Jo Jenkins

    Good evening all from the UK. Some material (a rumour which was not heard by the trial jury) about a living person who was first convicted and then acquitted on appeal was removed, and then restored here: [[6]]. Further material not put before the courts is at the section Murder_of_Billie-Jo_Jenkins#Controversy_over_evidence_not_admitted. The material has a variety of RS, but it has not been tested in the courts. How much of this material about an innocent man do we keep? My concern is that we may seem to be second guessing the courts or even reproducing defamatory material. Springnuts (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    In my view we should never be including negative rumors about BLPs. It's not hard to find sources that outline rumors. It's almost never a good idea to include them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Recently The Sun reported of a domestic abuse case by an unnamed Premier League footballer. The identity of the footballer cannot be revealed due to legal reasons. There have been rumours on social media that the footballer is Dean Henderson, and we may see this added to his article without reliable sources. The content has not been added yet, but hopefully active editors can watch for it and request for page protection if necessary. starship.paint (exalt) 10:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Hajibala Abutalybov

    There seems to be a WP:BLPBALANCE and WP:BLPSTYLE issue at Hajibala Abutalybov, with repeated re-additions of "Abutalybov told a visiting German delegation from Bavaria concerning Armenians and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict: “Our goal is the complete elimination of Armenians. You, Nazis, already eliminated the Jews in the 1930s and 40s, right? You should be able to understand us.” While the cited sources do confirm it, the discussion about their reliability was inconclusive. In my opinion, even if they are considered reliable, the sentence should be dropped anyway as an isolated incident lacking wider impact, thus being a cherry-picked BLPBALANCE violation. Brandmeistertalk 15:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think that this article is reliably sourced for a BLP claim like that. I commented on each source at the talk of the article. Grandmaster 12:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please check the date of your linked diff. It's not really a "repeated re-addition" when the addition you talk about was done in 16 October 2020. At this point, it is the stable version and I restored it, as I don't understand what part of this you claimed violates BLP.
    Regarding the same quote of Hajibala Abutalybov being cited in Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan and your claim of it being an "isolated incident", I also don't think it is such. I already replied in talk but I'll reiterate here as well: It’s not isolated at all and is very consistent with the article. It would be isolated if it were a politician from a random country that Armenia has little relations with. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:STATUSQUO is not a reason to restore. You must obtain consensus to restore any material that is deleted on good faith BLP grounds. The sources that support its WP:DUE inclusion are poor. One is a US government document (See WP:BLPPRIMARY). Another is a commentary article written by a high school student! The last is a self-published paper which cannot be used to make assertions about a BLP per WP:BLPSPS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Dr. Catherine Ross (undisclosed paid editing tag)

    Hi, We recently got notification of a undisclosed paid editing tag on Dr Catherine L. Ross' page and would really appreciate any suggestions on how to edit the page to get rid of that tag. Thank so much in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CQGRD (talkcontribs) 19:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, CQGRD and welcome to Wikipedia. There's a note on the article's talk page—which if you are editing on a mobile device you might not be able to see, for your convenience—explaining that The article will need a thorough review ensuring notability, due weight, neutral language, and use of reliable sources before the tag is removed.
    Who, by the way, is the "We" you refer to? And do you (plural) have a connection to Catherine L. Ross, her department or institution? (Do not provide any personal or self-identifying information though.) SN54129 19:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It takes zero effort to add a {{undisclosed paid}} tag and compel other people do cleanup work. It takes actual effort to investigate and refute the claims. This is one reason Wikipedia is absolutely terrible for most biographies of living people. 63.155.109.204 (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Jose Gumbs

    There is no source for "history of abusing women..." and cannot be verified for Jose Gumbs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.200.127 (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reverted this, looks like run of the mill BLP vandalism. I've watchlisted it, in case it pops back up. If it becomes common, I'll request page protection. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    For full disclosure, I am a family member of Benedict Gross. My rough understanding is that trying to remove poorly sourced/inappropriate material from a BLP of a family member is not disallowed, but if so, apologies. In general, I appreciate any information folks can provide me as I try to learn more about what is/is not appropriate here.

    I recently came across this article and was surprised to find that ~60% of the section on his career is devoted to a somewhat tangential link to Jeffery Epstein. I attempted to remove the information (original diff is here), but my removal was reverted due to lack of consensus.

    My rough understanding is that this information should be removed due to running afoul of the BLP policy. I believe the most relevant issue is WP:NPF. Gross is a mathematician and his role in requesting funding while Chair is a VERY minor part of his career. There is one article (an op ed) in the Harvard Crimson that mentions this in passing. The diff linked above uses that article as the basis to cite a primary source, which I believe may cross the boundary into WP:OR.

    Ultimately though, I am just not really sure what policy may/may not be relevant here. Regardless, it seems VERY strange to me that this article has such a focus on a tangential connection to Jeffery Epstein. Especially given that that connection does not seem to be particularly notable. I am not a frequent editor of Wikipedia, so am mostly just looking for more understanding of if this is considered to be a reasonable inclusion on this page, and if not, what a path to removal may look like.

    Thank you for your attention and for any guidance you can provide me. 73.15.120.161 (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed that undue content. Cullen328 (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Cullen328, really appreciate your attention on this. Unfortunately someone seems to have put back essentially the same content. This time they only cite a primary source, so not sure if that makes it more clearly WP:OR. Am I correct that WP:NPF applies here? Adding content about Gross' attempts to fund mathematics research that got essentially no news coverage doesn't seem appropriate in an article about a mathematician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.15.120.161 (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed it again due to this policy language: WP:BLP#Avoid misuse of primary sources. An editorial in a student newspaper is also not an acceptable source for contentious material like this, even if the university is prestigious. In the case of Martin A. Nowak, his involvement with Epstein was deeper and was covered by reliable secondary sources, and his career was badly damaged as a result, so discussing the Epstein connection is appropriate in that article. Cullen328 (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with your removal. I didn't see any secondary sources aside from the opinion piece during my search. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    evelin banev

    I'm french so sorry for poor english : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelin_Banev

    This article looks to be written by people near Evelin Banev.

    Wathever, note number 12 and other doesnt' looks to confirm information in the summary. For exemple : the bulgarian article in note 12 doesn't show any confirmation about a lie of bulgarian procuror to switz procuror.

    On a other case : i dont seen confirmation about the fact that UE commission has publish not to say that bulgarian procuror act with excess of power.

    I let you verify. Traductor, etc, could product mistake in my read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:5D9:EB60:154B:66EE:A6A4:F06 (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Salut. J'ai regardé cet article, et j'ai découvert il y a une version ancienne comme ça. Dans le plus mauvais cas, on pourrait y revenir. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Please correct Jimmy Bower's Personal Information to being in a relationship with Victoria VanDoren since 2019. The current information is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyeh8gd (talkcontribs) 20:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Please provide reliable sources for the information you'd like to add or change. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone ahead and removed the information. The original assertion was supported by a passing mention in a... what shall I say... website of questionable reliability for BLP content. Girth Summit (blether) 20:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Girth Summit okay, sorry about that. I should have examined the source more closely Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem - I didn't mean to cast shade on you, unsourced changes are often problematic. Just in this case, a little bit of deeper digging made me think that the original content, while sourced, was not rock-solid. I'm actually looking for sources now, because I am not sure the artist is notable. I'll post here if I nominate at AfD. Cheers Girth Summit (blether) 21:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Girth Summit okay, thanks for following up! (good admin) :) Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Bower, if interested. Girth Summit (blether) 21:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Friedrich Kunath

    Similar to my previous section, Friedrich Kunath's article has a massive unformatted list with no citations that was entirely added by a single source. The user is almost guaranteed to be a conflict of interest and the edits should be reverted and list should be formatted properly. Seabass715 (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Seabass715[reply]

    Eva Gore-Booth

    I love Mary Dorcey's work, but I think there is an error in her information. Eva Gore-Booth, an early 20th century Irish poet, playwright, and essayist, was very outspoken on same sex unions and gender fluidity. I believe Gore-Booth was the first Irish poet to represent what we now call LGBTQIA+ rights under her own name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.221.219.108 (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Please provide sources for your claim. We must follow what reliable sources say before adding or modifying content to wikipedia. A. C. SantacruzPlease ping me! 02:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The BLP issue is whether Mary Dorcey is indeed the " first Irish woman to write and speak in support of gay rights in her own name in Ireland" or " first woman in Irish history (1974 to the present) to advocate for LGBTI rights, in person and print, throughout Ireland and internationally". The cited sources[8][9] do not directly support that, and my search of sources confirming this finds sources that mirror wikipedia. We may be dealing with some citogenesis puffery here. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Batool Soltani and Leo McCloskey

    Batoul Soltani is a woman who, in an interview with The Guardian, said she was forced to have sex with Massoud Rajavi starting in 1999 (at this time he was the leader of the People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK)).

    Recently Bahar1397 quoted a source on the talk page saying "Lt. Col. Leo McCloskey who served as part of the US protection force at Camp Ashraf, revealed how Ms Soltani had been recruited by Iran". Based on this quote Bahar had added to the article "...Col. Leo McCloskey (former JIATF commander at Camp Ashraf) have denied these claims saying they are part of a misinformation campaign by the Iranian regime." Both Soltani and McCloskey can be presumed to be alive as I could find no RS that say they're dead.

    The source Bahar provided is a report by a group that calls itself "International Committee In Search of Justice (ISJ)" lead by Alejo Vidal Quadras. Its not clear who authored the report, but Quadras wrote its introduction. Quadras has financial links to the MEK[10], and according to LobbyFacts, ISJ is a paid lobbying group[11]. Is this source reliable? If it is not, then I understand we'd need to remove this from mainspace. Should quotations of the source on talk pages (including what I wrote above) also be removed? Thanks, VR talk 04:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I suspect that all these sources are unreliable and are trying to spin the matter one way or another. Wait until the situation is reported by a source with a solid reputation for fact-checking like the New York Times or similar. (The Guardian is probably reliable in reporting what was allegedly said). Xxanthippe (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

    Philip Ewell

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

    Anonymous user at User:24.184.26.105 appears to have an ongoing interest in adding WP:UNDUE critical material to this page, in violation of WP:BLP. Refuses to address the actual Wikipedia policies at issue on the talk page. Attempted to litigate the discussion elsewhere at Talk:Heinrich Schenker. I suggest either a temporary cool-off period, or semi-protection for the page. PianoDan (talk) 06:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Hans Boersma

    Hans Boersma

    The Political Involvement section of this article is in violation of the biographies of living persons policy in that it references hacked materials. The link provided to back the claim is to a Vice article about the hacked material, but which does not mention the subject Hans Boersma by name in the article or describe him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshCan22 (talkcontribs)

    I removed that, as the source did not mention the BLP subject. Any inclusion like this should have a reliable secondary source discussing it to establish WP:DUE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pnade has restored this twice now, citing this blog post which does not mention the article subject, and merely links to a spreadsheet. Even if the article subject's name were on the spreadsheet, which I was unable find, we have no way of verifying that a googledocs spreadsheet is legitimate, or that any names on it are actually any particular person. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Joffe, Sussmann and Clinton

    I am aware of off-wiki misinformation about Rodney Joffe and Michael Sussmann that some have attempted to insinuate here in a manner that raises BLP concerns.

    The most recent example involves edits by 2075versant on the Joffe BLP, and on Neustar, his employer. 2075versant used two unreliable sources per RSP, The Daily Wire[12] and The Federalist.[13] When 2075versant's edits were removed for that reason, 2075versant then used Fox News,[14] which is an RSP yellow source for politics, with no corroborating source. This Fox News source states, without explicitly naming Sussmann, "a lawyer for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign," though this is an allegation John Durham has made rather than an established fact that Durham has proven in court, and which Sussmann denies. Sussmann allegedly representing the Clinton campaign is the linchpin of an emerging narrative (conspiracy theory, some might say) to connect Clinton to a scheme to spy on Trump. This linchpin was previously whispered about until Fox News explicitly fabricated it last Saturday.[15]

    2075versant also asserted in the Joffe BLP lead that "Durham charged Sussmann in September 2021 with lying to the FBI about his investigation of Trump." In fact, Sussmann was not charged with that, but rather he was charged for allegedly lying about not representing a client when he spoke with an FBI official. Durham alleges Sussmann was actually representing the Clinton campaign, but again, this is not established fact and Sussmann denies it. Let's see what surfaces in court later this year.

    This Fox News story was authored by the same individual who five days ago wrote a Fox News story that falsely asserted Durham had said the Clinton campaign, and/or lawyers for the Clinton campaign (read: Sussmann, Marc Elias), "paid" Joffe's company to "infiltrate" White House and Trump servers.[16] As explained here[17], Durham said no such things. He did not say the Clinton campaign was involved, or that any payments were made, or that Joffe's alleged activities were unlawful.

    On this basis, I suggest the edits 2075versant made about an hour after registering an account be removed. I also think some page protection is appropriate at this time as this narrative continues to go viral off-wiki. There's a smear campaign afoot. We should be more attuned to this and not be complicit in it.

    As an aside, I submit that the recent Fox News reporting should be evaluated at RSP for possible consideration to deprecate Fox News as a source for politics. Their reporting was the original source to fabricate yet another Hillary Clinton "scandal" now spreading like wildfire across right-wing media. soibangla (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Without consideration or opinion of larger issues, I have reverted as Fox news should not be used in a political BLP especially to paint someone in a negative light.Slywriter (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Siegfried Zielinski

    The page on Siegfried Zielinski reads like his LinkedIn page. The list of publications is overly long for what is supposed to be just a selection. Isn't too much weight being given to this one scholar?