Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

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:

• Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
• For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
• Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Dean Henderson rumours

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)

• [1]. It’s started. starship.paint (exalt) 14:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  How many go arounds like that before we request semi for a bit? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  @ScottishFinnishRadish: - I'm guessing three instances of BLP-violating content. I expected more, actually, but thankfully it has been limited to one instance so far, and hopefully this has blown over. starship.paint (exalt) 06:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

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. Brandmeister^talk 15:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Benedict Gross

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)

I have removed that undue content. Cullen328 (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Jimmy Bower

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 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources for the information you'd like to add or change. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

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)

@Girth Summit okay, sorry about that. I should have examined the source more closely Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

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)

@Girth Summit okay, thanks for following up! (good admin) :) Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Bower, if interested. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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)

Please provide sources for your claim. We must follow what reliable sources say before adding or modifying content to wikipedia. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 02:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

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[2][3] 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)

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[4], and according to LobbyFacts, ISJ is a paid lobbying group[5]. 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)

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).

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)

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 (talk • contribs)

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)

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)

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[6] and The Federalist.[7] When 2075versant's edits were removed for that reason, 2075versant then used Fox News,[8] 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.[9]

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.[10] As explained here[11], 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)

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)

Siegfried Zielinski

 Courtesy link: Siegfried Zielinski A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Japkiw (talk • contribs) 10:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Japwik you can indicate that on articles using the template {{like resume}}. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

A._C._Santacruz I added it, thank you! Japkiw (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Japkiw, fantastic! I've left a message in your talk page with a number of helpful links for other contributions you might want to make to Wikipedia. Category:Cleanup templates has a list of other templates similar to {{like resume}} that you might find useful as well. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Sayani Gupta

 Courtesy link: Sayani GuptaFor those interested. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

If you hover over the name on any other Wikipedia article it shows a death threat instead of the usual page preview — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:ADA7:8300:4542:DF36:5075:B4A2 (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

This is true, but I don't know what template is being used to do this. Short description is normal. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm assuming it has something to do with the recent vandalism. I didn't see anything on Wikidata, or in the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, yeah. I've also gone through page information but I'm at a loss. I've requested permanent page protection as this page has been vandalized for over a year. I've never seen a page so heavily revdel'd without having protection. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I made a quick CE edit, and it seems to have resolved the issue. Must have been some weird caching between the revert, or possibly because of the revdel? Who the hell knows. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems like most likely issue. I'll see if there's some place where I can report this bug, as it certainly is a very harmful issue. That's such a weird fix tho. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:ADA7:8300:4542:DF36:5075:B4A2 (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Lexi Elisha

Anonymous user (possibly the subject of the article or someone working on her behalf) is trying to delete the "Early/Personal Life" section, likely because it contains unfavorable - yet accurate, newsworthy (inasmuch as the entire article is noteworthy), and sourced - information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:4850:2CD0:E109:BF9A:9BB2:FAF3 (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

You brought this to the scrutiny of the wrong noticeboard. What you consider as unfavorable but newsworthy is tabloid trash[12] failing several of our BLP policies (WP:BLPNAME, WP:WELLKNOWN or WP:NPF) with its inadequate sourcing. I also question the notability of this musician or playwright under WP:MUSICBIOWP:CREATIVE and have nominated it for deletion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Lelling

Hello - Starting 20 Jan 2022, this entry was intentionally revised from neutral to argumentative and biased against the subject. (Please note that I am the subject of the entry.) Obviously it need not be flattering but several revisions are poorly sourced and argumentative. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia editing - those who edited this will simply change back edits I figure out how to make. Specific concerns below, any help appreciated: Opening paragraph: 1. "widely criticized for being 'overzealous, grandstanding, and politically motivated'": source does not support this - the comment is in regard to a single matter (involving charges against a local trial judge). 2. "anti-immigration rhetoric in discussions with right-wing pundits": sources do not support this - the subject matter was legal criticism of the sanctuary city movement, which is not "anti-immigration rhetoric," but a policy position on an important current legal issue; Adriana Cohen is a reporter, not a "right-wing pundit." 3. "his partisan criticism of Presidents Biden and Obama while still serving in the role of US Attorney": - source does not support this - article is about drug enforcement policy. There is nothing "partisan" about disagreeing with the anticipated approach of the incoming administration on a policy issue. 4. "and his inappropriate statements such as a call for drug dealers to be "buried." - quote ("buried") is correct, but editorializing ("inappropriate statements") is improper and demonstrates the editor's bias.

In final section ("Indictment of MIT Professor"): 1. "The Department of Justice later announced that, after further investigation, there was no evidence that Dr. Chen violated the law" - this is factually incorrect and unsourced. More accurate: "after further investigation, the government could no longer prove an element of the offense." [see the government's own statement: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/statement-us-attorney-rachael-s-rollins-dismissal-gang-chen-case]

Thank you for whatever help you can provide on this. SMaturin99 (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

We do not rely government PR for statements about living persons (with the possible exception of very simple stuff like when Lelling resigned) noting that anything we say affects not only Lelling but Chen. Otherwise me might as well use Chen's lawyer

“came forward and told the government how badly they misunderstood the details surrounding scientific and academic collaboration,” saying that “without them this case would likely still be ongoing.”
Mr. Fisher, a partner at Nixon Peabody, said the scientist had “never lied to the government or anyone else.”
“Today is a great day,” he said. “The government finally acknowledged what we have said all along: Professor Gang Chen is an innocent man. Our defense was never based on any legal technicalities. Our defense was this: Gang did not commit any of the offenses he was charged with. Full stop.”

I've reworded the sentence to better match what the NYT says [13] which makes it clear that the prosecution fell apart because the Department of Energy themselves said they didn't think the connnections need to be declared, and they would not have made any difference to their funding decision. Even the U.S. Attorney said "said the decision to withdraw the case had been made after prosecutors obtained new information indicating that the Chinese affiliations at the center of the case were not of material importance to the funding agency" so whatever the DoJ may have said in their PR, it's clear that further investigation meant their case fell apart. Nil Einne (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

That said, on further examination I removed the Chen thing. The secondary sources (two NYT articles) make it clear the prosecution was controversial and as I said that it fell apart, but don't significantly link this controversy to Lelling. I also removed the entirety of the Biden and buried thing. You're right that while the source does mention Lelling making these statement, they don't say they were controversial let alone mention the partisan or inappropriate. I also removed the earlier part about anti-immigrant rheoteric since again you're right, the source doesn't mention any criticism. I left in the overzealous thing for now since it is mentioned in the source but removed the widely bit. Note that sources are what matter here. If we had sufficient sources saying he was criticised for his partisan statements or his inappropriate statements our article will reflect this no matter any editor's personal belief that his statements were not partisan or inappropriate. Nil Einne (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick and thoughtful reply - all makes sense. SMaturin99 (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Bibo Bergeron

Please take a look at the sources that have been added to this article on Bibo Bergeron: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibo_Bergeron#cite_ref-:0_4-0

the articles are all linked back to one article that contains unverifiable content. any article that relys on "unidentified sources" is misleading. only accredited news sources should be used. the type of information news reporting that has been added only encourages Media_bias|biased or emotionally loaded impressions of events rather than Journalistic_objectivity|neutrality and may cause a Media_manipulation to the truth of a story.

I am new to Wikipedia, trying to figure out how to do this properly. please help? it is not ok for an entertainment magazine to be used as a news source when it is clearly based on selling entertainment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonnchild (talk • contribs) 17:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dragonnchild: There is nothing we can do about the Spanish Wikipedia. Please take the discussion to Es:Talk:Bibo Bergeron or whatever dispute resolution boards they have, not here. Nil Einne (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Mercy Muroki

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

Persistent attempts to add an unreferenced date of birth, now culminating in an Instagram post saying "TWENTY SIX FEELS PRETTY GOOD" supposedly referencing a date of birth. FDW777 (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Looking into this, the Instagram does include a photo suggesting a celebration which although it's very ORy at least reduces my concerns that the specific comment could be something someone says weeks or even months later. However the account is unverified and I still have no idea why people always assume someone only ever celebrates their birthday on the exact date. (And while OR suggest it's unlikely in this case, why people assume someone's post is from something that happened on that exact date.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

This is one of those cases where there are lots of bad sources (Instagram, Companies House, Daily Mail) which tell a consistent story, which is also consistent with known dates when she achieved certain things. Personally I don't have the slightest doubt that that date being argued over is correct, but that doesn't mean that we can use it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Krystal Ball / Kyle Kulinski

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

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

Krystal Ball and Kyle Kulinski are the co-hosts on a political podcast. On Valentine's Day, Kulinski tweeted out this photo of them, which Ball retweeted. Trouble is, as far as the reliable sources know, Ball is legally married to someone else. The extent of the new sourcing is this and this, and I've reverted its addition on both pages per WP:BLPGOSSIP. In fact, I just put Ball on extended confirmed protection since autocomfirmed editors were still adding it while I had semi-protected it. Kulinski is permanently semi-protected with arbitration enforcement by El C. Thoughts and input are welcome. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify the reverted edit would have read as follows:

On February 14, 2022, Ball publicly confirmed she was in a relationship with co-host Kulinski in a photo of them embracing via Twitter. Author Marianne Williamson verified the post remarking, "The perfect Valentine's Day". There was no other information regarding the status of Ball's marriage at the time.[14] [15]

--NoMagicSpells^talk 06:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

(Involved). Initially I was against the revert since we have secondary sources, but after investigating, the secondary sources are based on a Twitter post, and that Twitter post is pretty meh. It doesn't actually say "we are in a relationship" or "we are dating". The viewer is left to synthesize that on their own by looking at a photo and some emojis. At this point I think it likely they are in a relationship, but to make sure we get it correct, I think it is reasonable to wait for better sources. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The previously cited secondary sources aren't exactly high quality RS either in speculating about their relationship. No better than TMZ. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with all the analysis so far. Saying they're in a relationship at this point strikes me, at best, as WP:SYNTH of sources, and not terribly high-quality sources. For me, this falls into the vast canyon of things that are almost certainly true but not appropriate for Wikipedia. Reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

It can't be a SYNTH because information is taken directly from the sources. None of the editors on this thread have proven the sources are unreliable with the information. In the meantime, the Wikipedia article can't say the individual is married or not when the current evidence clearly suggests there is no information to state either. POV remarks aside, is the information provided reliable and factually correct or not? --NoMagicSpells^talk 04:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, you should read WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:BURDEN, and WP:ONUS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Dr. Catherine L. Ross

Hello, full disclosure I am affiliated with the center run by Dr. Catherine L. Ross. Her Wikipedia has received an undisclosed paid editing tag 'requiring a thorough review ensuring notability, due weight, neutral language, and use of reliable sources before the tag is removed'. How would I go about getting that review on the way to get that tag removed? Thanks so much in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CQGRD (talk • contribs) 19:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Since your name presumably stands for "Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development" you should read WP:ISU and WP:NOSHARING. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Also see this thread from ^^^ SN54129 20:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@CQGRD, I suggest you might get a more sympathetic hearing for an article about a female professor by asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. They are working to increase Wikipedia's coverage of notable women. We are a volunteer organization that is inundated with paid PR people writing glowingly non-encyclopedic articles about topics which often don't meet our standards for inclusion. Lots of volunteer time is spent in cleanup. Catherine L. Ross is an article written by a now blocked user that had to be cleaned of copyright violation. There is little incentive for further help with such articles. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Respected Team! I think this bio was started in 2013 and in 2022 (14 years later), the page shows a warning that it has been written like an advertisement. I got interested in the page owing to the latest news flowing about Indian NSE fraud case. Naturally, I wanted to read the lady's Wikipedia. Is that a right page I am looking at? How do I know I am not being presented a wrong page and that the page I am looking at is at its best? I mean any indicator that says this page is 99% accurate or 30% accurate? I am knew to Wikipedia editing. Sorry if this is a repeat question. Thanks. Anastasius Hartmann — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnastasiusHartmann (talk • contribs) 12:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@AnastasiusHartmann Wikipedia:General disclaimer and Reliability of Wikipedia may have something helpful. IMO, if you're looking for any reason above personal curiosity, then you should not put your trust in WP-article text, but in the sources provided (if any), if you think they deserve it. WP has a lot of good stuff, a lot of crap, and quality can be very uneven even within a specific article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Pierre Poilievre

There is a sentence saying Poilievre supports defunding the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC). Two editors have supported its insertion. Two editors have supported its removal. Further input welcome here or on the talk page]. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

David Copperfield (illusionist)

As members of this noticeboard know, under WP:BLPBALANCE because of the potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. There are two statements in the article about David Copperfield (illusionist) that fail this test. I have a personal connection to Copperfield, so should not edit the page directly but I have researched the appropriate sources and policies.

1. In the section David Copperfield (illusionist)#Career and business interests, the following two sentences from the end of the sixteenth and final paragraph of the section should be removed:

“This approach, despite its obvious popularity with audiences, has its share of detractors within the profession. One magician has described Copperfield's stage presentations as ‘resembling entertainment the way Velveeta resembles cheese’.”

Here is the actual relevant excerpt of The New Yorker article used as the citation:

And, with that, David Copperfield—a man who owned neither a home nor an automobile but was reported to be looking for a warehouse; a man whose stage presentations were once described to me as “resembling entertainment the way Velveeta resembles cheese”—had bought the Mulholland Library for two million two hundred thousand dollars.

The Wikipedia statement is a WP:WEASEL creating a broad generalization about “some” magicians” (plural) that is based on a quote about one person, said to be a “friend of [rival magician Ricky] Jay’s.” The person is not even identified in the source as being a magician. Under MOS:QUOTEPOV, while direct quotes with emotive opinions can sometimes be used if relevant to the article, (e.g. from a professional critic), but only with an attribution. The attribution given here is false – there is no “magician” being quoted, merely a remembrance of off-hand snark from a person whose profession or relationship to the author isn’t even identified. There isn’t enough specificity in The New Yorker article to even come up with an attribution, which is perhaps why the editor falsified a weak one. Nor can this quote be paraphrased within policy (with or without an attribution) since it does not present a neutral fact, just an unattributed, anonymous malicious attack. See WP:BLPSTYLE for prohibitions against “contentious labels, loaded language…” and WP:BLPBALANCE for prohibitions against “biased, malicious… content.” The quote also arguably violates WP:BLPGOSSIP since it is a snarky anonymous quote. As a whole, this statement is a WP: NPOV violation manufactured to disparage a living person.

2. In the section David Copperfield (illusionist)#International Museum and Library of the Conjuring Arts, the third and fourth sentences of the first paragraph, should be removed

“Copperfield's 1991 Mulholland purchase, which formed the core of his collection, engendered criticism from some magicians. One told a reporter, ‘David Copperfield buying the Mulholland Library is like an Elvis impersonator winding up with Graceland.’”

Here is the actual relevant excerpt of The New Yorker article used as the citation:

A friend of Jay’s who also knew Copperfield said to me later, “David Copperfield buying the Mulholland Library is like an Elvis impersonator winding up with Graceland.”

This is a WP:WEASEL creating a broad generalization about “some magicians” (plural) that is based on a quote about one person, said to be a “friend of [rival magician Ricky] Jay’s.” The person is not identified in the source as being a magician. This could be anyone from the rival entertainer’s publicist to an insult comedian to his lawyer. Again, under MOS:QUOTEPOV direct quotes with emotive opinions can sometimes be used if relevant to the article, (e.g. from a professional critic), but only with an attribution. The author does not say that a “magician” is being quoted, He only says he is quoting an anonymous friend of a rival magician, Ricky Jay. The author pointedly does not say the person is a magician. Indeed, there isn’t enough specificity in The New Yorker article to even come up with a Wikipedia-acceptable non-anonymous attribution, which is perhaps why the editor falsified a weak one. Nor can this quote be paraphrased within policy (with or without an attribution) since it does not present a neutral fact or relevant opinion, just an unattributed, anonymous malicious attack. See WP:BLPSTYLE for prohibitions against “contentious labels, loaded language…” and WP:BLPBALANCE for prohibitions against “biased, malicious… content.” The quote also arguably violates WP:BLPGOSSIP since it is a snarky anonymous quote. As a whole, this statement is a WP: NPOV violation manufactured to disparage a living person.

Thank you for your consideration. MagicTech1902 (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Bruce George Peter Lee: Primary sources contain important updates

What should be done about the above article? Secondary coverage I can't seem to find anywhere. A fresh appeal has changed matters considerably and contradicts other older material;

• "11 of these were overturned on appeal." This number has increased substantially.
• "Lee was imprisoned for life" the primary source indicates he received a hospital order rather than a custodial sentence.
• The individual's name. The judgement refers to him merely as T, but does not clarify the reasons for this anonymity. It does note Bruce Lee as a name used previously; a BBC article cited once in the article suggests the name should be Peter Tredget. A piece this month from a law firm connected to the case also states Peter Tredget as the appropriate name.
• "arguing due to his physical disabilities he could not have committed the crimes and falsely confessed" is a somewhat misleadingly simplistic summary of the grounds of appeal, albeit an attractively succinct one. This is a complicated appeal heavy with, and revolving around, detailed analysis of a range of concepts and points.

The article also contains a lot of citation needed tags, many of which can be addressed by the primary source. Am I correct in thinking that the source is considered largely unuseable, though, without secondary coverage?

Judgement is here and it's lengthy. I spent much of yesterday and today reading it. Law firm article is here. The BAILII version of the judgement is here. It is the same document, but listed as between R and Tredget rather than simply T.

Any thoughts/advice? 79.71.44.32 (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)