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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:57, 9 December 2017

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.

Hannah Holborn Gray

In the body of the article about Hannah you mention that she was at Northwestern University, Evanston campus, however in the chronological listing you don't mention Northwestern Unversity!!!!!She was also Dean of Woman at NU. Please contact her office or Northwestern University and correct this omission. Much appreciated.......Quecumquae sunt veritas!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:b02b:848e:f936:e48c:c029:4e95 (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2017‎

Glenn R. Simpson

Glenn R. Simpson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"However the Republican donor soon dropped out of what Simpson and Fusion GPS were doing. The Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign for president picked up the deal with Fusion GPS and funded the remaining political assignation of Donald Trump before he was elected the 45th President of the United States"

There are so sources. This Fusion GPS ordeal is conspiratorial so keeping the pages as informative and perhaps unassuming seems important. Currently, the article does not source and does not seem to provide a verifiable, neutral point of view.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:547:901:6570:79dc:deea:ae1e:8a5e (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

'cosmo jarvis' wiki page

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

Hello,

The information presented here on Cosmo Jarvis is not up to date and ignores many developments in recent years. Especially in '2010 to present' section - here there are many informations which are lacking or which, if included while others are not, creates an article which requires more detail and overall context to shed light on his recent works (especially as an actor in theatre, TV and FILM)

(see here) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4008605/

His involvement with 'Hawke the movie' while correct information should not be featured at the expense of other, more notable, widely distributed and arguable more significant works.

I am suggesting the need for a revision/update on this page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.215.89 (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Rata

Could someone please check my new creation Elizabeth Rata please? This is a person who has taken a strong position on race relations in New Zealand and there many sources saying or implying that she's a racist. I've picked a single one, by another notable academic at the same university, and quoted an entire sentence to preserve context. Is this appropriate? (I wouldn't have written the article, but I made a foolish commitment to write articles on every female New Zealand professor, so I'm stuck with it.) Stuartyeates (talk) 08:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My two bits, Stuartyeates: I believe that incorporating a sentence from a notable person is appropriate, but if I were writing the article would probably use language such as you have in the lede ("polarising figure") in the body with a number of citations to reliable sources discussing her controversial works. Doing this demonstrates that Pihama's view is representative of a larger debate and that she is not "a small minority" (ala WP:BLP#Balance), but adding too much more content would likely throw the material out of balance. If possible, I would also include a very brief mention if Rata has responded to such statements or if any academically respected defenders do. You wouldn't want to bulk that discussion up much given the overall tone and length of the article, but being a polarising figure means you have defenders as well as detractors and right now the pro-Rata position is not reflected. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Rata? Collect (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nut sure the question, but I'll try to explain what I mean rather broadly to make sure I get at it. :) A polarizing figure is one that causes people to divide on opinion - to take two extremely divergent stances, or opposite poles. If there aren't two sides, she really isn't polarizing. An article on a polarizing figure can't really be balanced if it doesn't present both poles. If one extreme is calling her a racist and is opposed to her views, what does the other extreme say? Presumably they agree with her, but the article doesn't really demonstrate that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WIKT:pro rata Collect (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Yeah, I missed that completely. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedited to be as neutral as possible in wording. Collect (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Blagosklonny

Why did the discussion about Mikhail Blagosklonny on the BLP noticeboard get archived without consensus ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive261#Mikhail_Blagosklonny

On the BLP page:

(cur | prev) 13:40, 20 November 2017‎ Jytdog (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,666 bytes) (+2,052)‎ . . (Undid revision 811238984 by MakinaterJones (talk) Quite obvious edit warring from the IP. Please take it to talk. Thanks) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 10:45, 20 November 2017‎ MakinaterJones (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (9,614 bytes) (-2,052)‎ . . (This is an unacceptable and prima facia reckless addition to a BLP page - do not revert this without finding consensus on the BLP noticeboard - I will be removing beall from wiki and nominating his page for deletion) (undo) (cur | prev) 02:08, 20 November 2017‎ Jytdog (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,666 bytes) (+2,052)‎ . . (Undid revision 811167632 by 63.139.102.133 (talk) removal of sourced content) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 23:13, 19 November 2017‎ 63.139.102.133 (talk)‎ . . (9,614 bytes) (-2,052)‎ . . (Removed reckless off wiki dispute/gossip - misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself.) (undo) (Tag: Visual edit)

This content is contested - it should be removed from the BLP page while in discussion...I did not bring it to talk because there was already an issue created here.

I asked that it not be restored till we reached consensus on the BLP noticeboard - I will not revert myself - but I encourage an admin to do so - or even strip to basic version while we consider if this is RS for BLP

Can someone help me get an RFC?

MakinaterJones (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions are archived automatically after a few days of no activity. This is a very busy page watched by many people, so any lull in activity either means no one thinks it's a BLP issue, don't fully understand what the complaint is, don't want to get caught up in a long discussion, or were simply not persuaded. There are many great people here who take BLP very seriously, and are usually quick to speak up when they see a real issue.

I only had time to do a quick check of the sources and disputed paragraph. (I had to search the history for it, as no link is provided here.) While the information is indirectly negative toward the subject, it does not directly implicate him in anything. For this reason alone I don't think it falls into the realm of a BLPvio. It's basically a negative review of the magazines he edits, thus I think this puts it more into the realm of a content dispute of sourcing and relevance. Despite the fact that I don't think it's a BLP issue, I'll give a brief opinion of it:

The article never mentions who this Beall guy is, nor why I (the reader who has no background knowledge of any of this) should care what his opinion is. I shouldn't have to follow the link to his article for this article to make sense. As is, it leave me with the feeling of "why should I care?"

The sources are poorly written (in the second person even). Beall may be a well-known expert in the field, but I couldn't tell that from reading his blog. They read like flat-out opinion pieces written in persuasive rather than expository style. WP:RS/N would probably be the place to discuss the reliability of it.

Foremost, the information seems very relevant to articles about the journals, but looks extremely out of place in this article --for the same reason I don't think it's a BLP issue. It simply has no direct information about the subject. However, that is more an issue for the article's own talk page. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion of Beall and predatory publishing is entirely appropriate. The links to the articles on Beall himself and on Predatory open access publishing, give the information required to understand what is going on here. I wouldn't want to see that information repeated on Blagosklonny's article; it's sufficient that there are links for readers to follow. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that, because using links as a crutch to avoid a proper explanation is just poor writing and laziness. It's like reading an article on atoms and having to look up what a proton, electron, and neutron are before being able to finish reading the article. It doesn't take a lot of extra effort (or words) to define jargon in mid-sentence. To the reader, the reliance on links to define an article just becomes a nightmare of bouncing back and forth between articles when all they want is a simple answer to a question. Easy writing makes hard reading. Zaereth (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also in discussion on the BLP talk page[[1]]

MakinaterJones (talk) 05:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lacrim

I don't speak French, but I enjoy French music. I was looking at Lacrim's Wikipedia page to see his discography, but I stumbled across its biography. It does not make a great deal of sense to me (which might be just because I am moderately incompetent), so it may need review in that respect. It says he was "pretty much homeless," kicked out of school, and, from what I understand, was in jail for four years. It does not have any sources, and the claim that he was in jail for four years may be interpreted as libelous.

I don't often edit Wikipedia, so I may be entirely wrong here. I just thought I would bring it to attention in case it is a problem.

HarryOtter (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced contentious claims now removed unless someone re-adds them. Collect (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of poorly sourced claims re-added, using what might be construed as non-neutral language. I am possibly barred from making any further edits there per ArbCom, - so would some person fix this trash? Collect (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The claims are definitely written in a very French syntax. I removed the info that was not found in the cited source. I fixed a little, but not all of the syntax to sound more neutral in English.

I don't really speak French, but (etymologically speaking) it's nearly identical to English, so it's easy to parse through. I left the info that was in the cited source. However, I'm not sure about the reliability of that source (Purepeople.com). It looks very well-written and composed in really good journalistic style, and looks more like the French version of People magazine than some tabloid. Someone who speaks French fluently should evaluate it further. Likewise, the video sources are useless to me because I can't parse through spoken French.

I do question the balance that this info provides. The source describes his arrest as being due to his fingerprints being found on a weapon, which he says he borrowed to use in a rap video. It seems to me we shouldn't mention it at all without giving all sides of the story. Then there's the balance of the entire article, because the rest of the biography consists of one sentence, making it seem like the arrest is what he is notable for. In my opinion, it should all probably be deleted on those grounds until the bio contains enough info to properly balance this, but I wanted to get others' opinions before going any farther. Zaereth (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Gabeljić

User Rolejaran (talk · contribs) who claims to be the subject of this article has tried nominaing it for deletion twice [2], and [3]. The nominations are both malformed and I directed him to this board but seems he doesn't understand. In the latest AfDing attempt he he made this claim, so I think this should be brought here for OTRS verification of his identity and appropriate next action. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the things that he did not.--Auric talk 17:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he may not know that, but do you think that's the way of handling issues like this? What if people vote keep?, The BLP policy seems to be crafted in strong and clear-cut tone in dealing with isues with BLPs but this noticeboard is not lively to offer help. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A keep vote seems unlikely at this point.--Auric talk 00:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed this delete. I think the case for closure under SNOW is stronger than the case for holding on to the AfD a few more hours. --joe decker ^talk 19:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nursing Council of New Zealand

Could I get someone to have a look at Nursing Council of New Zealand please? It's horrid but I would might be perceived as a conflict of interest so I can't purge it. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's now on my watchlist, and I purged the BLP vio. Horrid is correct. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 15:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Hunthausen

Under the sections "Episcopal Career" and Church Investigation" there are newer insertions that seem ideologically driven rather than objective. The tone and content of this article are at considerable variance from previous versions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.164.62 (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the badly-written unsourced and poorly-sourced material cited to a non-WP:RS per WP:BLP. Almost all this material was sourced to The Wanderer, an online source that has a questionable editorial history and openly biased editorial policy. The editorial oversight and independence of this site are open to question and this material violated the WP:NPOV prong of the BLP policy. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jennell Jaquays

Editors are repeatedly deadnaming the subject of the article in the lede, and including unsourced claims about her birth name. The article already contains more than adequate information to identify her as the author of works written under her previous name, including an article redirect for that name. Pawsplay (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jennell Jaquays linked for convenience, first. Second, I don't know. She did have some notability within the gaming circles under her former name, and was on the main page of the Wikipedia under that name 8 years ago, Wikipedia:Recent_additions/2009/December#8_December_2009. Could we compromise and make the first mentin in the "Early life and education" section? TheValeyard (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we feel the need to delve so much into her early life? Is the mention in her works section not sufficient for encyclopedic purposes for a biography of a living person? Pawsplay (talk) 04:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sympathetic to the deadnaming concern, but she was known for something under her previous name, in fact it appears that the bulk of her most known work was done in the past. It seems unwieldy to not mention the name at all in the body of the article. Right ow it is just in the Works section, and as the title of several citations. Caitlyn Jenner was a prominent athlete under her previous name, for example. TheValeyard (talk) 05:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor made the change again, despite not sourcing the subject's name at birth. I have again removed the unsourced statements. Pawsplay (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My sympathy here is starting to wane. Are you now asserting that this person was not born "Paul Jaquays" ? TheValeyard (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asserting they are? If someone wishes to assert this person was born under a certain name, that is a factual claim, and must be sourced. For all you know they were born Samuel Clemens. Pawsplay (talk) 06:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pawsplay is risking WP:BOOMERANG at this point, as they have been edit-warring rather than trying to find a consensus in the talk page discussions. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:2DED:4B2B:9D14:7218 (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but when there's 25-30 years of sources that cover this individual's work, work performed a different name, that means something. We have to have a balance here between respecting a trans person's identity and accurately covering past events. TheValeyard (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum: put it in the "early life" section, but not in the lead or the infobox. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested that above but was rebuffed. TheValeyard (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence that she objects to it? I'd be sympathetic to that. If not, then it could be a reasonable compromise. Anyone who wants to go further could encourage her to make her views known via OTRS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the subject of this article does object to the deadnaming in the lede and mentioned it recently on Facebook. In any case, BLP quite clearly says that information must be clearly sourced, and there is no source given for the subject's birth name. Further, while public information can be used, BLP is also quite clear that editors should not go mining and otherwise engage in original research to publish biographic information that is not widely published. Edit-warring implies some kind of contention about the content of the article. There is already a consensus that unsourced information cannot be used in a Wikipedia article. I'm not sure how the concept of compromise applies to simply inserting assertions into an article because, first of all, you don't respect the privacy of a living person, and second of all, you don't care if the information is true. I don't know for a fact what her birth name was, and if you do, I'm asking you to show your sources. I feel like there is some kind of agenda here, like some people feel it's very important to deadname this individual, to the extent they are completely willing to ignore Wikipedia's fundamental commitment to sourcing information. This is ridiculous. Further, someone keeps removing the listed previous name from Works, which I can only describe as vandalism. While I don't have a crystal ball, it seems difficult not to infer that the usefulness of the article is being deliberately compromised in order to bolster the case for deadnaming the subject in the lede and in Early Life. I have been completely transparent about the process here, and active both on this page and on the article's talk page. If anyone should be sanctioned for edit-warring, it should be the editors who continue to restore unsourced statements about a living person to the article. Pawsplay (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me also note there is a section on the talk page titled Complaint of excessive focus on former gender by subject of this article dating from 2014. There is no question at all that the subject of this article's privacy and personal wishes are being disregarded, and have been for some time. Sangrolu reverted edits at that time and has done so again recently. I don't understand why exactly but there is a clear, longstanding agenda to deadname the subject of this article. Pawsplay (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please encourage her to make contact via WP:OTRS. That's the only way to put this issue to bed. I personally will support respecting her preferences, but this is the way to have a proper record of her preferences. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this happened, the fact we can readily document her original name as part of the reason why they are notable would seem to prevent us from wiping that name together. We have had plenty of past BLPs that have asked for some type of well-documented "negative" information removed from their article that we have refused to act on because that information is a fundamental part of their biography and/or notability; I can't see how this type of issue would be any different. I agree minimizing the use of the name is critical to respect the wishes and our own policy on such transitions, but we cannot outright eliminate it. --MASEM (t) 18:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't advocated completely removing the information. I'm not sure why you are raising such a point. I personally added the previously used name to the Works section. The issue I am focused on is the inclusion of the previous name in the infobox, lede, and early life, despite the lack of any source, of any quality specifying the subject's birth name. Of course that may be hard to obtain, but BLP specifically says that only widely, publicly available information should be included, so I don't see the objection. Pawsplay (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is common for us to include the "deadname" (god I hate that term, everything offends everybody, everytime, everywhere) of a person who is known famously under the former name. We do so for Caitlyn Jenner, and we should to for Jennell because there are still hundreds of publications and titles that this person contributed to and was credited with under the name "Paul". We are a factual encyclopedia, not GLAAD - the opinion of the subject is irrelevant. The solution to pawsplay's non-concern goal-post moving is to have the lede say "(formerly Paul Jaquays)," as we do with Jenner. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that view, and I don't think it should get in the way of encouraging her to use OTRS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you have stated you hate the term deadname, and by implication you don't accept that basic private personal concern, I have a concern you may struggle to maintain a neutral viewpoint and I am going to suggest you refrain from editing this article any further. Pawsplay (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If having a strong opinion on a topic is grounds for recusal, then you would be out the door as well, if I may be blunt. This person was born Paul Jaquays, and your pedantic meanderings to the contrary do not affect that. I am fully appreciative of the fact that Jennell Jaquays felt that that name and persona was a false front that she had to maintain back in the day due to societal norms, but that cannot send 2 decades of gaming work an accreditation down the memory hole. Keep in mind that this person was deemed notable by the Wikipedia before transitioning, not after; this is the state of the article in January 2012. If we don't want it in the opening, that's fine, but it should appear somewhere. At present, it does not appear until the "Works" section. TheValeyard (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything about strong opinions. The issue is hate. In any case, your frustration with my so-called pedantry does not change the fact that you may not insert unsourced information into a Wikipedia article, all the moreso in light of BLP. As for the Works section, I was the one who added it there, it is others who keep removing it. Pawsplay (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is the subject's previous name of any great encyclopedic value other than as a name of their previously published works, for which she is notable? I'm just curious why the previous name needs to be mentioned in any other context, unless you think this really is a famous biography. This isn't Bob Dylan, after all. Pawsplay (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because a change doesn't erase history. I dobn't care about the GLAAD guidelines, I care about our policies. Yes, she is now Jennell, yes, I will use female pronouns, NO, I will not disavow of the 55 odd years that this person became famous and was known by another name, which still exists on numerous publications. The name is factual, the change is personal. We stick with facts, not personal opinions. Paul Jaquays should be mentioned right off the hop, if not in the infobox as well. We make it clear this is a formal name, and we do not insinuate that this person continues to use that name, but we include that name. If this is hate, then call me a bigot and I will wear it as a badge of honour. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So if you believe in policy, then I assume you are ready to agree that listing a birth name requires a source that lists it as a birth name and not just a previously used name. Pawsplay (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

: The page has now been protected by an admin, and the present version includes mentions of birth name that do not meet WP:V.Pawsplay (talk) 04:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is under discretionary sanctions, so users should be warned to avoid active edit wars on live space or find themselves blocked for editing behavior, not for their positions. The state of the article under protection may not agree with Pawsplay's view, but this and the talk page discussions are ongoing to find a consensus which honors policy and best practice. I have every confidence that participants in these discussions are here to improve the pedia, and these discussions will soon conclude. BusterD (talk) 07:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We may actually not have 100% WP:V sourcing on the birth name, but we do know that she transitioned into her current name and what that prior name was, by reliable sources. Heck her website mentions it. ----Masem (t) 07:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the merits, I have to side with User:Pawsplay to the extent we need a source for "birth name". That's not unreasonable at all; IMHO we shouldn't calculate or infer birthname. Either we can source it, or we can choose not to assert it. And there's no deadline. However, like several editors commenting above, I feel we have an obligation to tell the whole story, no matter what the subject wishes. Some of the content is sourced through Jaquays' own writing (number 6 is Jaquays' Classmates page!), and that isn't an ideal situation. The subject has a different interest than ours: she'd prefer us to present her biography as she desires. Thusfar the subject has been respectful of the pedia, not editing the page herself or directly instructing minions to do so. As wikipedians, we wish to create the best online encyclopedia, using multiple reliable sources independent of the BLP subject. The vast majority of the sources, particularly those which assert the notablity of the subject, use the previous name. It's poor encyclopedic writing not to mention this in a significant way. If I wasn't already aware of the Jaquays story, and began my enquiry by reading the Pawsplay versions, I would find the article very confusing ("Why didn't they say this before?"). I believe we have a need to make the article more clear and factual with some reasonable use of the former name (which is well documented and not disputed). What are our options? BusterD (talk) 07:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An admin removed the name "Paul" entirely from the article, and asked us to discuss the suitability of the following references in establishing the birth name of the subject.

"Jennell Jaquays: The Reinvented Girl". Jaquays.com. Retrieved March 22, 2012.
"Paul Jaquays: What's the Story?". Jaquays.com. Archived from the original on October 10, 2009. Retrieved March 22, 2012. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Those sources, both written by (or at least attributed to) the subject of this article, claim many of the same things as each other, and therefore from my reading they appear to establish that "Paul Jaquays" and "Jennell Jaquays" are at least the same person. On the other hand, the admin removed the name Paul from the body of the article entirely, so unless we can accept that these two links establish them as the same person, how can we know that they actually are the same person? If we can't establish that Jennell used to be Paul, then we should remove everything from the article that can only be attributed to Paul, which is nearly everything in the article.

If the question is, do either of those sources establish Paul as the "birth name", then my question is, how do we actually establish what someone's birth name actually is? Do we need a birth certificate? Should we remove the birth name from all BLP articles that have not somehow established that through a reliable source? Should we not assume that the name a person has gone from my their childhood into their adulthood is not a name they were born with? Does a subject have to prove one way or another that the name they use is their actual name? Does the subject of this article actually dispute that her parents chose the name "Paul" for her when she was born? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement that we have no RS-based confirmation on the birthname. We do have confirmation that this person, presently known as Jennell Jaquays, had previously been known and published as "Paul Jaquays" from those sources and other RSes we see. We're making an improper assumption (though an easy mistake) that "Paul" might have been the birth name; there's nothing clear from before "Paul" was notable what the person's background was, so there could have been another name change we don't know about. So we should not say "Paul" is the birthname, but that Jennell was known as Paul before. Also, he's another RS [4] - it is going off a person (Ed Greenwood) who is an expert within the tabletop/computer RPG and would be considered an expert on Jaquays' contribution to the RPG field. --Masem (t) 17:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable to assert in the person life section that she was previously known as Paul Jaquays as she was notable as Paul Jaquays. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I'd prefer to use reliable sources independent of the subject. IMHO, the Varney interview is one such source. I'm good with the Greenwood quote as well. Since the subject's notability is almost entirely accrued prior to the name change, I'd prefer, in the lede "previously known as" or "previously published as" or perhaps "using Paul Jaquays as a pen name" although that last is a stretch. The mention should not appear in the Early life section; the name change didn't occur until 2012. At the very least the name change should be mentioned and explained under the LGBT advocacy section, where the documentation is strong. BusterD (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly omething like that. The lede sentence could include the statement "(previously published as Paul Jaquays)" (since that redirects here). The body, for all purposes should stay to "Jaquays" and use her/she pronouns. Only then in the Personal life section, we should state something like "Around 2012, she changed her name from Paul Jaquays to Jennell Jaquays", after the statement about her gender identification, using the mentioned sources. That way, outside of references, "Paul" is only used twice but sufficiently to establish that anyone researching this person further knows where to look for sources before 2012. We don't make any claim it is a birth name, simple that Jennell was known as Paul before. --Masem (t)

Seems reasonable enough. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty satisfied with Masem's wording. It's what I've suggested since the get-go. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding it a little frustrating, to be honest. This article was under one name until around 2012, there was no question raised at the time as to that name being the person's name at birth. Thousands of BLP articles will have the same presumption unless noted otherwise; the person's name is "John Doe" because they were born "John Doe", thus that is the article name. Now it is and issue because of gender transition, and someone suddenly insists that the birth name must be sourced? Again, I'm all for moving everything to a person's preferred pronouns and minimizing the deadnaming, but I'm concerned that history is being obliterated in the name of political correctness. TheValeyard (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is a problem with a loooongstanding presumption on WP that if no source mentions a change of name at any point in a person's life, that we have assumed that the earliest name we can find with a person is their birthname. That's a reasonable fair presumption - outside of marriage, very few people change their name - but the presumption is a sticking point when we talk a situation like "deadnaming" like here. That means its not so much this article being the problem, but the rest of our BLPs when we incorrectly make that presumption. --Masem (t) 23:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles don't list a "birth name" they just list one name, unless the subject changed their name, when a verifiable source will be used. The content of this article is only a problem because when it went from being a one-name article to being a two-name article, someone inserted the phrase "born as" without actually sourcing that claim. Pawsplay (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good with Masem's wording, it's what Floydian has been suggesting all along. BusterD (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So if we have an acceptable wording, can someone add that to the article? 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:F547:54CF:BB57:887D (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I challenge whether any mention of a previous name should be in the lede. Per BLP I think it's invasive, irrespective of whether it was previously a notable name. My suggestion is that it appear under Works as "previously written under" and it may be appropriate to mention it under Personal Life using the subject's page to identify a date at which she started using her new name. I reject the claim there is any difficulty in identifying who this is. Either a Wiki reader knows her by her current (notable) name, is searching under her previous name and will find the article, or is searching for her works and will still find this information (and more easily if the name is included as a previous professional name). A redirect is already in place, a mention under Personal Life will solve any lingering questions of legitimate biographic concern, and listing her previous name under Works will not only help address this issue but provide clarify what name goes with this body of work for all readers. Pawsplay (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. Christine Fair

Needs more watchers, someone keeps trying to add some rather contentious/silly stuff based (I think?) on a comment she made on facebook. Can't be sourced to a RS and quite unencyclopedic. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Samsara has applied pending changes protection. --joe decker ^talk 19:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Anthony Richardson

I would appreciate it if someone with more experience look into the Marc Anthony Richardson article. See also the discussion on the Talk page of Stream of consciousness (narrative mode) [5]. Rwood128 (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely a COI issue, but the content does not appear to be BLP issue. It's most likely someone writing on behalf of the subject of the article, using both user:Malaou and User:96.61.0.138 . I see no reason not to believe the explanation that the named account was shared and the subject himself made some of the edits. It's a common fake claim, but in this case there's no advantage to making up such a claim. Whether it's the author, the author's agent, or a combination of both makes no difference. The IP does not seem to realize that the COI is still present. I'll let them know and watch the article. Meters (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What EXACTLY do you need to resolve this issue, so that tag can be removed. What in this article needs verification? This is very confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malaou (talk • contribs) 00:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put it simply. Wikipedia does not publish autobiographies. In your own edit summaries, you admit to either being the subject or someone close to the subject. Aside from that, the article has all the signs of an autobiography, from style to narrative perspective. Thus it is obviously written by someone who either is, or is close to the subject. This is called a conflict of interest, because it is impossible for someone to write an unbiased autobiography. (Similarly, a judge couldn't preside over the trial of someone accused of killing their child, because, no matter how good a judge they are, it is impossible to be unbiased about themselves due to their conflict of interest.)

As long as the article is an obvious autobiography being edited by people with ties to the subject, the COI tag will remain. The way to remove it is to undo all your edits and never edit the article yourself again.

The way to verify information is to provide citations to reliable sources, which are things like books, news outlets, magazines, and things like that. (Not blogs, social media, youtube, or other things like that. Zaereth (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And using multiple IPs to make the same edits you have already been warned about, after youalready said you would stop editing the article is a very bad idea. Meters (talk) 01:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Miller (musician)

Steve Miller (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wiki page for him both describes him as the 'eldest son' and having taught his 'older brother' to play bass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.248.136 (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but which is true? MPS1992 (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources look very good, but as they are youtube I can't access then from this particular computer. However, see this interview from the Rock-n-Roll Hall of Fame, in which he says, "I had this band booked every Friday and Saturday night for the entire school year. I eventually taught my older brother how to play bass so that he could drive us." I don't have time to fix it myself, but that would probably be a better source than what we have. Zaereth (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Rosemond

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

Controversial figure as an advice columnist and author, with a history of edits by those who have bones to pick, as well as protective contributions by family members and associates of the subject. Could use clean-up re: legal history, as well as watchlisting and long term attention. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Chandrasekaran

This is a person non grata and should be removed because it is promoted by his PR agency from India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scalengineer (talk • contribs) 21:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where or to whom is he a "person (sic) non grata"? I have removed some promotional wording from the article. MPS1992 (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iain Lee

Your site says Iain Lee lives in slough Buckinghamshire. Slough is in Berkshire - has been since the boundary changes of 1996 when places like Milton Keynes left bucks to become a unitary authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:26C0:9F00:18AD:7B61:FBDD:ACF1 (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It says on his page that he was born in Slough in 1973... which would have been in Buckinghamshire? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Hallyday

Multiple editors have been changing Johnny Hallyday to say he's dead. This may be true, but no one has cited a source, and I can't find one. Update: found a BBC story [6]. Probably needs a "recent death" template and close watching in the next few days. He's not well known in the English speaking world but very popular among French speakers. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gayla Drake Paul

Hi, I am Gayla Drake, formerly Gayla Drake Paul, and I'd like to get my name corrected if possible. I can't seem to do it in the main title, though I have done some correcting and updating in the body. Can someone instruct me or do it for me? I would be happy to provide whatever documentation is needed, driver's license, divorce decree . . . My divorce became final in 2014 and I reverted to my maiden name.

Thank you. Gayla Drake — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaylaD (talk • contribs) 03:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've "moved" the article to rename it to Gayla Drake. --Bistropha (talk) 06:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Tucker

This biographical article, under the subheading "Alleged role in Ron Paul newsletters"[7], presents some unspecific claims about the subject of the article, suggesting that he helped to produce newsletters that contained racially offensive material. The three sources cited for this accusation seem weak. The first presents hearsay; the second quotes from a comment box at a magazine website; the third cites anonymous sources. Should some or all of this material be removed? The same controversy is discussed more extensively at the article Ron Paul newsletters.-- Bistropha (talk) 06:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admin help at Al Franken

Seems to me this edit summary is a BLP violation and the edit/summary should be revdel'd. Could editors/Admins please have a look? [8] SPECIFICO talk 18:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a BLP violation, no. Might not be accurate, but I don't think it rises to the level of needing WP:CFRD. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We now have the same editor repeatedly adding derogatory Categories to the page. The categories are not verified by RS and do not appear in the article text to describe Franken. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Me Too (hashtag)

There is currently a request for comment open in relation to the inclusion or exclusion of a list of public figures who have been named in sexual harassment/sexual assault allegations in connection with the #MeToo campaign. There is a lack of consensus as to whether the list meets the BLP requirements, and also as to whether it is a result of WP:SYNTH. There is currently a limited diversity of views amongst editors on the article's talk page, so some other opinions would be appreciated. Kb.au (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who knows me around here has heard my thoughts on this matter in general. Rather than repeat myself, I'll use someone else' words about the evils inherent in categorizing people and reducing them to mere groups or lists. From the book Psychology by David G Myers, from the chapter titled Cognitive Roots on Prejudice: "In categorizing people into groups, however, we often stereotype them. Stereotypes may contain a germ of truth, but they bias our perceptions." From The Communicated Stereotype: From Celebrity Vilification to Everyday Talk by Anastacia Kurylo: "Tajfel (1969) explains that people who are not prejudiced can become prejudiced if categorization is promoted in a particular circumstance, such as what occurred in Nazi Germany."

I could list source after source. The point is that categorization of people leads to prejudice (a term that means "prejudgment", or irrational conclusions based on the smallest of facts). For this reason I believe we should be very careful about making lists or categories of people, especially based on factors like race, religion, or even unproven allegations. People, their lives, and situations are far more complicated than any list or category can reveal, and therefore they are inherently biased and off-balance. It's one thing if talking about people convicted in a court of law, but something entirely different when convicting them in the court of public opinion. Categorization always seems innocent until it happens to you. Zaereth (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been bold and removed that list, despite the article being protected. There are massive inherent and unavoidable BLP issues in Wikipedians synthesizing a laundry list of perceived sexual offenders from a multitude of disparate sources. The RFC is heading in the direction of removal anyway, but if consensus does a 180° then the list can be reinstated, I guess. I would suggest that while discussing whether or not content violates BLP, it is always better to remove the offending content and potentially reinstate it if the RFC discussion reaches the conclusion that the content is acceptable. fish&karate 11:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Cerf (school politician and businessman)

Christopher Cerf (school politician and businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This ostensible biography of Christopher Cerf has strong flavors of a coatrack, essayism, and soapboxing, even after a section titled "Controversies, Scandals, and Connections to Billionaires" was removed (see discussions on Talk page). Some very non:RS sources were removed, but some existing sources have a clear slant, and even reliable news articles seem to be cherry-picked to support a narrative. There are a lot of issues, including potential WP:SYN (see Cerf once talked about "beloved" teachers,[67] but some evidence suggests... and also Cerf claimed that state control of Newark Public Schools was legitimate, a political arrangement that was partly justified by claims that Newark had too much nepotism.[32] However, in Class Clowns, author Jonathan Knee wrote that Cerf hired his brother, Monty Cerf, when he ran Edison Schools.) Myself, jcc, and Alansohn, have been trying to help Bellshook understand concepts of WP:DUE and WP:BLPSTYLE, among others, but I think we all agree that additional eyes and editorial scrutiny is needed. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Peftiev

Hello,

One of the editors of the article placed numerous pieces of possibly bias and detractive information, supported only by links to tabloid newspapers, some of which are not even written in English language. Statements of issue was marked by "unreliable source" template. One statement is exeptionally defamatory and was marked by "citation needed" template.

Due to the rules of living persons biography, those edits must be removed and editor's ability to edit pages must be limited, due to violation of mentioned rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.84.29.220 (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American people who have committed sexual harassment

This probably need some type of public evaluation, so I'm posting it here. Looks like today @JimmyJoe87: created this category and then added about two dozen BLPs to it, with most likely varying degrees of applicability. Round about a half dozen were contested, and it's unclear how many of the uncontested additions have been thoroughly evaluated for accuracy. Needless to say, this is a contentious label and needs to be applied carefully re BLP.

Also pinging involved editors @Objective3000: @Galobtter: GMG ^talk 15:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest listing at MfD where I'd !vote speedy delete. I'd argue it's a non-notable intersection ("Gosh, aren't a lot of Americans known for having committed sexual harassment?" said nobody, ever) and with the BLP concerns... it's potentially even a G10. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see someone has removed the Cat listings in the actual BLPs, which is good work. Still, it's impossible to police a Category like this, as Watchlisting it won't show you that an article has been tagged to appear in it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone interested: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 7 GMG ^talk 15:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I already proposed a CSD as an empty category. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joseph Don't work like that. WP:C1 requires a cat to be depopulated for seven days and doesn't apply for cats that have already been nominated for a deletion discussion. GMG ^talk 15:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I removed all of those as clear BLP vios. Mass rollback comes in handy :). Only one I saw had someone convicted, even then the conviction was being contested; others it was only allegations. I was going to nominate it for CfD; good to see it has been. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:ASSASSINOFYOUTH/sandbox

User:ASSASSINOFYOUTH/sandbox I’m just not sure about this. BLP applies everywhere, do others think this complies? Doug Weller talk 20:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well... there's this. GMG ^talk 20:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about many of the sources. I don't have time to go through them and see how reliable they are, or how accurate the info is, but I'd check first for possible copyvios. The individual writing-style, verb usage, etc., changes dramatically from one paragraph to the next, so that seems suspicious coming from a single user. However, most of it seems to be nearly a direct copy (or way too-close paraphrasing) of this from Pitchfork.com (who I would not consider reliable.) Perhaps someone more familiar with copyright (like perhaps Moonriddengirl) should take a look.

Lacking that, the information itself seems relevant to the subject, but I'd say requires some good sources. As written, it contains way too much commentary --in the second-person-- and rather gratuitous graphic-imagery. A simple summary of the disputes is sufficient; we don't need a blow-by-blow account, and it's not censorship to provide the information using a more clinical approach. Zaereth (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa:, do you see a copyright issue? I agree with Zaereth on how to describe the dispute. This is, after all, an encyclopedia, not a gossip column. If we have solid sources describing the dispute we can use them, but not soundbytes. Doug Weller talk 19:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at this content when he added it to Oasis (band). It's a collection of quotations, not copyvio per se. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

dennis toeppen article

blp violations have been reintroduced to this page after a ~18 month hiatus, it seems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.240.161.18 (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Augustus Sol Invictus

Calvin Cheng

Hi can some non-Singaporean editors look at this page and improve it? Please look at Talk Page and history too.

I have stopped editing it as I am a pro-establishment Singaporean. However this has not stopped anti-establishment editors from IMHO deviating from BLP policies and I don’t wish to engage in edit warring. I think both pro and anti Government editors have a COI, not only pro.

Historicalchild (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your former username "Juicebaby" (Calvin Cheng is the director of Juice magazine) and your pattern of editing reveals you are either Calvin Cheng himself or someone closely related to him. Conflict of interest on your part is clear. I am not sure what you mean by COI for other editors, who are not in anyway related to him. To assert COI on other editors and using politics as a bogeyman to prevent edits on a BLP is carrying it way too far. I wasn't even interested in the subject until some anonymous IP canvass for assistance on my talk page. Jane Dawson (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Walton

Alice Walton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I’d like to address the Automobile incidents portion of Alice Walton by bringing to your attention three points: 1) It details two car accidents that never resulted in charges, so I question their appropriateness in an encyclopedia; 2) The language used convicts Ms. Walton of a crime for which she was never charged nor convicted (and in fact, the arrest was expunged); and 3) It includes speculation.

For the sake of brevity here, more detail can be found at this edit request. I'm bringing this to the attention of this noticeboard as I believe this issue may fall under BLP guidelines, and I'm eager to get input from editors who are experienced in this area.

I will not direct edit the article because I have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest; I work with the Walton family office, as I disclosed on my user page and Talk:Alice Walton. Thanks, Kt2011 (Talk · COI:Walton family) 22:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kianoush Rostami

Kianoush Rostami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mobabansos (talk · contribs)

Persistent mention of ethnicity in opening. I've asked that the user--whose primary interest here is to add Kurdish identification to biographical ledes--be blocked. And I don't want to edit war over this. Page protection is probably necessary, as it has been in the past. Thanks, JNW (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JNW Probably should just report to ANI to be blocked as NOTHERE. AIV is not really appropriate for this. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going through some of his older contributions and fixing problems. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Galobtter. I see he's been blocked as a self-proclaimed sockpuppet. JNW (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dashni Morad may need some reversion, because the impetus there, too, has been to remove mention of Iraqui and Dutch ties in favor of Kurdish. JNW (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falen

The Falen supercar is a 2008 design that can be viewed on Google images, [Falen "Concept 17.1"]. No cars were produced as of 2017. In 2017, a sports writer called the designers' phone number and reported that one of the designers was upstairs in a bedroom, and that the woman who answered the phone was middle aged.

The deleted article had a link to a WayBack business webpage for the designers, who identified themselves as a "design consultancy".

This AfD page includes an uncited charge that the design consultancy was really a kid or kids who pranked sports writers in 2008 for the purpose of having a laugh. There are also repeated uncited claims of a hoax.

I have already made one BLP removal from this page. I have stated, "AfD does not create license for BLP violations, as talk page claims about living people require citations, and AfD is a talk page." This was my last edit to the page before the AfD was closed, whereafter the statement was made, "I don't know where all this nonsense about BLP violations preventing us from identifying a hoax came from but it is as I described it...nonsense." What is the point of having a BLP policy if editors can call it nonsense with impunity? Unscintillating (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a hoax. The fact that after an initial press release, nothing has happened over 9 years (and no evidence that a firm with the ability to produce cars was ever behind it) is enough to say it's a hoax. HOAX HOAX HOAX. There's no BLP violation in that. I doubt that summarizing an article published in a magazine would rise to the level of a BLP violation in a situation where no persons are named. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Giancarlo Stanton

Persistent addition of trade reports, before official confirmation. The article is already protected, so more eyes are needed here. JNW (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Tocchet

@@ Line 181: / Line 181: @@
 :::::::::I'm good with Masem's wording, it's what Floydian has been suggesting all along. [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 05:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 ::::::::::So if we have an acceptable wording, can someone add that to the article? [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:E820:1BA0:F547:54CF:BB57:887D|2600:1700:E820:1BA0:F547:54CF:BB57:887D]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:E820:1BA0:F547:54CF:BB57:887D|talk]]) 16:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
+:::::::::: I challenge whether any mention of a previous name should be in the lede. Per BLP I think it's invasive, irrespective of whether it was previously a notable name. My suggestion is that it appear under Works as "previously written under" and it may be appropriate to mention it under Personal Life using the subject's page to identify a date at which she started using her new name. I reject the claim there is any difficulty in identifying who this is. Either a Wiki reader knows her by her current (notable) name, is searching under her previous name and will find the article, or is searching for her works and will still find this information (and more easily if the name is included as a previous professional name). A redirect is already in place, a mention under Personal Life will solve any lingering questions of legitimate biographic concern, and listing her previous name under Works will not only help address this issue but provide clarify what name goes with this body of work for all readers. [[User:Pawsplay|Pawsplay]] ([[User talk:Pawsplay|talk]]) 23:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 ==C. Christine Fair==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards