Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dipalig (talk | contribs) at 07:22, 6 January 2021 (→Niruben_Amin). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
    Shortcuts

    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:



    Nathan Larson (politician)

    Nathan Larson, failed political candidate and former Wikipedia editor, has been [accused of doing a bad thing][1][redaction by Herostratus (talk) per BLP, we usually should only publish convictions. Sorry, just business, no criticism intended] Although the article title calls him a politician, he has never held office or won an election. The WP:BLPCRIME section of our policy on biographies of living people suggests that care should be taken if including such things in biographies of non-public figures. Is Nathan Larson a public figure? Mo Billings (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Judging by the refs, it looks like his political attempts have made him notable. Much of the article seems undue though. --Hipal (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)--Hipal (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To some extent, perennial candidates are still public figures if their candidacies are for high enough office. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    He's a public figure in Wikipedia terms. He's not a deer in the headlights type case -- he's deliberately put himself in the public eye, indeed striven to, and gotten a certain amount of coverage just for that. Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual says that makes him a public figure, particularly if (as here) it's not one single event we're talking about:

    A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention... Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile... Need not be a 'household name', simply self-promotional.

    (According to our article Public figure, he's probably a "limited purpose public figure" for legal purposes. However, we go with our Wikipedia definitions of terms, usually.) Herostratus (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Herostratus: I do not believe that our BLP policy is intended to prevent us from openly discussing issues, especially if what we are discussing is including potentially damaging facts in a BLP. Nathan Larson has been [accused -- accused -- of doing a bad thing]. That is simply a fact. The question is whether or not that fact belongs in his article. Your redaction here is an over-reaction. Mo Billings (talk) 21:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I kind of agree that is is possibly a mediocre rule, but it is the rule, a policy rule -- and I'm particularly sensitive to it. For BLP purposes we treat article pages and all non-article pages exactly the same. Not sure if I agree we should, but we do. So....
    WP:BLP says -- indeed, leads with -- "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" [Emphasis in original, including emphasis of "any"]. WP:BLPTALK has more; my reading of it is that "accused of doing a bad thing" covers the question well enough without getting down into the particulars, which dissemination of that accusation would be harmful to the person's reputation. It'd be OK to point to the source without saying anything fraught here, I gather. In the case of your post, you would have to go dig up the ref and put it right there, or at least point to it, exactly the same as for an article. Sorry, but that is policy.
    And the person is not really very well-known. He does (easily) pass WP:GNG, and as having put himself in the public sphere he's probably no longer a private person. Still, he's not a United States Senator or anything. He's a guy who mostly nobody has heard of. That matters, I think. This article will probably rise to the top of his google results and thus present his main public face to the world... forever. A conviction, that'd be different -- maybe, depending on if it's central to his notability. If we change the lede to "is an American criminal..." it might be; otherwise, not to sure... I think his notability is around his political view and so forth.
    The Wikipedia has an enormous amount of power, and we want to be conservative about deploying it. Herostratus (talk) 23:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Herostratus: I suspect you and me probably feel the same about whether or not this gets included in the article, but we can't have that discussion if you're going to keep removing what we are discussing. Namely, the fact (not allegation) that Nathan Larson [redacted, accusation can be found at link]], as reported in many places, such as the NBC news link I supplied earlier. Please undo your redactions. I don't want this to end up at ANI, but that's our next stop. Mo Billings (talk) 23:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there isn't really any such thing as "we can't put such-and-such in an article, but we can do what we want here". WP:BLP makes this super clear. "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages" and "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts." and "The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages." and so on and so forth.
    WP:BLPTALK does say that you can say "This article [link] makes a pretty serious allegation about Dr Robert. Should we put it in the article?" and that's how you get around it. So do that, don't write things like what you wrote above because that puts it in our voice. And our stuff stays around a lot longer and is a lot more prominent than most sources. Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't. Maybe he'll be found innocent or maybe not. Maybe the charges will be dropped or maybe he'll plea bargain to a lesser offense. A lot of people get arrested who aren't actually guilty. But then it'd be too late wouldn't it.
    But whatever, if you feel strongly about it. I'm not going to redact what you wrote above, OK? I'm not going undo my earlier redactions, no, but if you want to, fine. If the, you know, 'BLP noticeboard doesn't care about this part of the policy, well, that's that I guess. =/ Herostratus (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have redacted, per WP:BLPTALK; the links are there for anyone who wants to know the matter at hand. -Nat Gertler (talk) 15:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLPTALK starts with "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced". This is neither unsourced nor poorly sourced. It continues "not related to making content choices". This is a discussion about making those content choices, and in the place to have that discussion with regard to our BLP policy. BLPTALK does not say what you want it to say. Mo Billings (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    He's a public figure, but wasn't well known before. He's a lot more well known now. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just adding this for the record. My original question was: Nathan Larson, failed political candidate and former Wikipedia editor, has been arrested for abducting a 12 year-old girl. Although the article title calls him a politician, he has never held office or won an election. The WP:BLPCRIME section of our policy on biographies of living people suggests that care should be taken if including such things in biographies of non-public figures. Is Nathan Larson a public figure? As agreed in this ANI discussion, the redactions by Herostratus and NatGertler were not based on policy. It is clear that editors believe Nathan Larson is a public figure, which addresses my initial concerns. Mo Billings (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Mo Billings, I think the confusion stems from the fact that, in law, you can be extremely famous, known to everyone, and your face a familiar sight worldwide, and not be a public figure. But, you can be entirely unknown and be a public figure. This is counterintuitive.
    If you regularly write letters to the editor and they're published, even if they're written in crayon and nobody much reads them and you live in box under the Santa Monica Freeway, you're a public figure or might be. Conversely, George Floyd is not a public figure (if he was alive) since he didn't want to enter the pubic arena and didn't try to, and didn't even commit any action (such as commit a crime or run around naked shrieking about UFOs) that would, as an effect of his own overt actions, thrust him into the public arena. (Both of these examples are debatable, but that's the general thrust of the law according to our article I think.) That's the law dictionary definition, the regular dictionary definition would reverse these: Merriam-Webster defines "public figure" as "a well-known person", period. Naturally, people in normal conversation use the regular dictionary definition.
    Of course the Wikipedia doesn't have to follow the law-dictionary definition -- we are not a court or law school class -- but we do anyway, because reasons. This engenders confusion, and also resistance (when it comes to people like me), because using the law-dictionary definition is narrow-minded, wrong, dangerous, and too easily weaponizable, and you end up with articles on the Star Wars Kid an so on. There's your problem I think. Herostratus (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but was there confusion over WP:BLPTALK since it made the redactions seem heavy handed? Lex specialis. The reasons behind the public figure analysis are derived from traditional legal principles of defamation, and there is no dispute that the man was arrested and charged with kidnapping. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Douglas Murray (author)

    Recently a large edit[[2]] was made to Douglas Murray (author). As this is a BLP several aspects of this edit concern me. First, is that I think two of the sources are very questionable, one appears to be academic but self published. The final is what appears to be a questionable use of a reliable news source. There are three blocks of edits in this one overall edit. The first block says the subject has been profiled as part of the Bridge Project out of Georgetown U. [[3]]. This appears to be self published and in the Murray article no secondary, RS is saying this is happening. The other source in the section is an Op-Ed published by Middle East Eye [[4]]. This appears to be a very small source so I'm not sure it could be used to establish WEIGHT for the claim. It also is an Op-Ed being used to say negative things about a BLP.

    The next edit block cites The Guardian but goes for a guilt by association angle. Effectively "Someone bad likes the BLP subject". My view is absent some sort of evidence the BLP is courting this "like" it should not be included. It is a guilt by association. A related claim sourced to IntelliNews is also included. Again, this looks like a question of DUE given the source as well as a question why this would be part of the Murray article vs some other article assuming IntelliNews is both reliable and can establish weight.

    The final block is sourced to Sludge [[5]]. Yet again I can't find good evidence this is a reliable source for negative claims about a BLP subject. The article in question is mostly not about Murray and relies extensively on appeals to emotion rather than simply reporting facts. It seems like a mix of facts with lots of commentary.

    I would like to get a few more eyes on this material. There may be some content worth saving but given this is a BLP it seems we need to err on the side of caution both in terms of source quality and DUE. Springee (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    As I explained on the talk page, the Bridge Project at Georgetown University is not meaningfully "self-published", and especially not a WP:SPS as the term is used on Wikipedia. The project's director is John Esposito, who appears to be a credible expert in the project's field, and its directory includes four fellowships and several additional associates. First the source was "primary", then it was "self-published". This seems like shifting goal posts to denigrate a source based on what it says, rather than whether or not it's reliable on its own merits.
    The Sludge article includes many specific financial figures with direct citations. Dismissing this as using "appeals to emotion" is subjective and unsupported, especially when evaluated in context.
    Murray's article is currently incomplete in its selective coverage of his views and career. Factual information cannot be simply dismissed as "negative claims". Using supposedly unflattering sources is not a BLP violation, because Wikipedia is not a platform for public relations. Grayfell (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The expertise of the project's director is not a factor on whether or not a source is self published. From the About us section the group does their own research and publishes their own findings. This is the definition of a self-published source. We would need independent sources covering their content to include it on BLP's.
    The Sludge appears to be a 2 man show, as such has questionable editorial oversight. This source is at best a questionable source if not completely unreliable. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this is factually incorrect. The project's director is presumed to have editorial oversight over what the project publishes, and this is also published through Georgetown University itself. Therefore, there is no indication that individuals are self-publishing their work through this project.
    WP:SPS is not the same as WP:PRIMARY, which is not the same issue as WP:IS, which is not the same as WP:RS. If you wish to argue that this is somehow unreliable, you would have to make that case based on its own merits, but the standard you are applying here would disqualify all think-tanks, research groups, or academic projects. Grayfell (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What's factually incorrect about it? Whether or not something is self-published has to deal with if there are independent fact checkers verifying information. A research group publishing it's own findings is not independent of itself. You need an independent source to provide the independent fact checkers. --Kyohyi (talk) 05:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Self-published" means individuals are publishing themselves. Conflating this with "independent fact checkers verifying information" is erroneous, because the claim is not that it's unreliable, it's that it's self-published. These are two entirely separate issues. In this case the project and the university are acting as the publisher. The project's director has editorial oversight. Therefore, nothing about this is self-published. You can argue that it lacks fact-checking, but you have not done this, and you would need some specific, policy-based reason to make this claim. Grayfell (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Self published is defined in policy. And it's defined as a lack of independent review, from WP: V "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of content". The material is research being published on a web page controlled by the research group. Any research group has an inherent conflict of interest with regards to their own research, so any internal review would not be sufficient. Self-published isn't just individuals publishing themselves, but also includes organizations publishing their own works. --Kyohyi (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Based in part on the feedback here I've removed the material in question. If nothing else this discussion establishes that there is not consensus for including the material after discussions with 4 editors. Springee (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Some eyes on this article would be helpful. The disputes related to these sources have not been resolved yet the they have been restored to the article. Springee (talk) 02:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Pardon my frankness, but from my perspective as a GA/FA reviewer, that BLP comes across as a political hit piece attempting to WP:RGW, and further denigrate one political party over the other. From what I've gathered, Murray has authored a Times and Sunday Times book of the year, titled "The Madness of Crowds"? I haven't read it, I don't know Murray or much about him, and what little I do know comes from glossing over his WP article. I noticed The Guardian labeled his book "a rightwing diatribe" in their clickbait headline, which automatically raised a red flag for me. After a bit more research, I came to the conclusion that I opened with above, and that is not how we want our readers to feel when they read one of our BLPs. I would have felt and done the same if the book had been labeled "a leftwing diatribe" because it speaks to the reviewer's political position rather than the contents of the book, much less the author. With regards to self-published sources, if the author is credible, use in-text attribution in compliance with PAGs. An encyclopedia should not appear to be a collection of opposing contentious opinions about a BLP, all of which resulted from opposition research, especially that which is non-compliant with NPOV. Such labels are clearly noncompliant with NPOV which is mandatory for all BLPs in our encyclopedia. The Guardian and other online publications can publish whatever they like or need to publish because they are selling to their demographics, and are highly dependent on clickbait. Fortunately, WP is not but we are dependent on maintaining our reputation as a neutral encyclopedia.
    The lead of this BLP is biased with its contentious label overkill, which makes it noncompliant with MOS:LABEL, MOS:BLPLEAD, and WP:BLP. It doesn't matter how many contentious opinions an editor gathers and cites to RS - they're still only contentious opinions, not statements of fact. The body text is where such material belongs and where most of the controversial views are customarily mentioned - but realistically, the argument about one's ideology belongs in the respective articles about ideologies, not in the BLP itself - see User talk:Atsme#BLP. We are not here to pass judgment on our BLPs because of their ideology or make it appear that we favor one ideology over the other. We allow our readers to make those decisions on their own by simply stating verifiable facts and also include a proper balance of controversial opinions, while avoiding contentious labels or at least limiting our use of them.
    MOS:LABEL clearly states (my bold underline) Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term. To reiterate, use in-text attribution, not a generalization of every lable one can cherrypick from RS, the selection of which must comply with NPOV, and of course, we should include the BLP's rebuttal/acceptance of such claim(s), if one exists. In a nutshell, our job as editors is to separate the wheat from the chaff, and that includes all 14 species of wheat, not just our favorites. Atsme 💬 📧 12:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • A few eyes on this page could be helpful. As a new editor I think Notebuck's good faith efforts are being tripped up by failing to understand sourcing and consensus policies. I think a bit of help in figuring out how to get content in without sourcing/BLP issues would be helpful. Springee (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Olivia Cooke

    181.169.227.109 (talk · contribs): This IP is repeatedly adding unsourced content to Olivia Cooke's article. Their talk page shows they have been warned about it multiple times before and already received a level 4 warning from another user in April. Their contribution history shows they almost exclusively provide edits to Cooke's article, and have repeatedly been adding unsourced content regarding who she is dating for months (diffs in April: 1, 2, 3, 4; in August: 5, 6; in September: 7, 8; in October: 9; in December: 10) and on one occasion with an unreliable source (diff 1). They have also occasionally added the content to two of the three alleged boyfriends' articles (diffs 1, 2, 3). Can they be blocked? Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 05:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have since noticed that the user Minniem16 (talk · contribs) has a history of doing the same thing to Cooke's article after they recently reincluded it (diff 1). Their contribution history shows they have repeatedly done this previously (diff in July 2019: 1; in April 2020: 2; in August 2020: 3; in December 2020: 4). Also at one of the alleged boyfriends' articles in July 2019 (diff 1). Should they also receive a (partial?) block? Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Park Yoo-chun

    Hi

    I would just like some editors to run through the talk pages that I have added 20footfish is me. I have done some edits based on being impartial. I had started as a wikipedia editor back in 2007 and did it for a few years but not for a while. I have run through terms and conditions and added new titles to this article, amended grammar and am looking at a couple more changes and I would love a second opinion, someone who would be able to confirm that I have done the right thing here. I am comparing material on Bios for other celebrities and ensuring that the uncited info like subheadings remain impartial and as fair. Consistency from Wikipedia is always good. Can anyone second on my talk that they are happy with my reasons for changes?20footfish (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Gunnar Kaiser

    person is object of permanent insult; some weeks ago he was described as "narcist" in the personal introduction; permanent try to put him in the right-winged corner - what is a bad joke for everyone who knows his work; permament try to brief against him by "guilt by association", with detailed descriptions of interview partners but ignoring the fact that he also works with the other edge of the political spectrum; seems that he won some enemies due to his own very independent political perspectives and that these people try to insult him in any way that is possible. Please keep a watch on this article for the sake of neutral reports on critical political minds - that especially we need in open and pluralistic democracies these days. Cheers! Prinzvonzavelstein (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Nico Tortorella

    Hello.

    User:Red Echidna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has persisted over multiple days in attempting to remove they/them pronouns from the Nico Tortorella article.

    Diffs here:

    Warnings:

    I've also tried to explain to them repeatedly that singular they is completely acceptable at Wikipedia (especially in terms of respecting BLP subjects' own pronoun choices) on my Talk page, but they persist in denying this to be the case.

    (another editor has since reverted their pronoun changes but I suspect the problem will remain unless Red Echidna has explained to them by someone more "official" than me) —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi there,

    User:Joeyconnick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has repeatedly changed and vandalized the Nico Tortorella article, utilizing a preference for slang words and incorrect usage of mechanics. The resulting errors are antecedent-pronoun disagreements.

    Objects

    Warnings

    We have tried to explain to him what the errors are, but JoeyConnick persists in the view of prioritizing slang use. The article clearly states and explains what the topic's favorite pronouns are. However, we have again tried to explain that for an encyclopedic entry slang is not appropriate, likening it to an opinion-piece, that impartiality is the priority, and that his grammar and mechanics have made the article appear informal, elementary, and riddled with errors. If someone else could perhaps explain or review from a neutral standpoint, as JoeyConnick has displayed a lot of hostility. I have also tried to be diplomatic by giving an option of correcting either the antecedent or the pronoun, explaining that the numbers cannot be mismatched, which is how it presently stands. Thank you. RedEchidna (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, I would just like to add that, in addition to the hostility displayed, JoeyConnick has repeatedly resorted to the use of aggression and anger in his responses and correspondence with me and the other editors. He continues to make use of ad hominem attacks, demeaning replies, and mocking my statements. I try to be as objective as possible. Please take this into consideration, as it is extremely difficult to work with someone who belittles another and resorts to injurious responses. Thank you. RedEchidna (talk) 07:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    MOS:GENDERID is unambiguous about using a subject’s self-stated pronouns. Is there any guideline or policy reason this article should be an exception? POLITANVM talk 07:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely. The consideration should be made that such an action is prioritizing subjectivity over objectivity. We should aim to be neutral and strive to remain a reliable source of information. Presenting information with errors in an encyclopedia brings our standards down and reduces the quality of our articles. It should also be stated that the subject's self-stated pronouns are in the entry itself. There are many reliable and validated guidelines on correcting pronoun-antecedent disagreement, such as https://leo.stcloudstate.edu/grammar/pronante.html https://webapps.towson.edu/ows/modulepaa.htm and http://depts.dyc.edu/learningcenter/owl/agreement_pa.htm Thank you. RedEchidna (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wikipedia Manual of Style would take precedence on Wikipedia, rather than other institutions’ guidelines. Nonetheless, it’s easy to find counterexamples that singular they is common, acceptable, and correct, including Merriam-Webster, the Chicago Manual of Style, and APA. If you believe the Wikipedia MOS should be changed to exclude singular they, it’s probably best to take that up on the MOS Talk, though I don’t think it would be fruitful. POLITANVM talk 08:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That is so bizarre. Britannica and other encyclopedias have put in place stringent standards that follow grammatical rules and mechanics. In addition, APA and MLA both lay out the proper formats for avoiding pronoun-antecedent disagreement, so I'm not sure where you're seeing that. Merriam-Webster only reflects the current trending use; it does not indicate correct mechanics. Are we to assume that Wikipedia doesn't follow English grammatical rules? For example, if pronoun-antecedent disagreement is acceptable, are things like double negatives, misplaced modifiers, fragmented sentences, or subject-verb disagreement also acceptable? Also, should we not have more editors who are unaffiliated and neutral weighing in on this? Thank you. RedEchidna (talk) 08:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Both APA and MLA explicitly support singular they for people who use it as their personal pronoun. While their style guides aren’t relevant to Wikipedia, perhaps their pages can help clarify how singular they is correct in this context. Additionally, I am neutral. All I’m referencing is Wikipedia’s Manual of Style. POLITANVM talk 08:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I just meant more neutral editors reviewing this instead of just one or two, those who are possibly third-party entities. Saying that it's following the Wikipedia Manual of Style is like referencing a tertiary source as a primary source. There's a systemic bias in that. Additionally, I have the APA manual, and in order to avoid pronoun-antecedent disagreement for a singular subject 'it' or 'he or she' are the appropriate terms. In addition to that, none of the scientific review boards who use APA style accept pronoun-antecedent disagreement, so another conflict. I appreciate your assistance and your willingness to help. Thank you again. RedEchidna (talk) 08:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:GENDERID is a manual of style guideline on Wikipedia and all editors are expected to follow it. Intentionally and repeatedly misgendering article subjects is a BLP violation as well. Woodroar (talk) 12:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Politanvm and Woodroar's comments above. I'd also like to flag another issue with the article which is of significant concern from a BLP perspective. Mixed in amongst the reverting over pronouns have been repeated edits to replace the term polyamorous with polygamous in the description of the subject's relationship. The source states they are in a polyamorous relationship, not a polygamous one.[6][7][8][9]--Trystan (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Nithyananda again

    After a year or so of comparative calm, the BLP Nithyananda has been re-invaded both by haters and by devotees. This week, it's mostly followers clearly working in concert to whitewash, last week or so it was mostly detractors trying to dwell on allegations. This article needs more experienced, neutral editorial eyes and brains on it. The WP:SPA tides are not relenting.

    PS: At this time, I'm just asking for additional watchlisting and input from WP:HERE editors, not seeking to open a BLPN thread about this (and someone else on the article's talk page has suggested opening such a thread at another noticeboard, I think WP:RSN, but I'm skeptical that would help much because the problem editors are basically all newly arrived "throw-away" accounts).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've had this on my watchlist for a while. I've upped the protection to ECP due to both the BLP issues and the disruptive editing. Doug Weller talk 19:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    See also followup discussion at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Nithyananda again.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Mindy Seu

    Mindy Seu

    This article reads like it was written for self-promotion. It lacks sufficient citation for most of its material, references predominantly coming from university profile pages that are given too all students and faculty. The rest of the cited sources do not establish notoriety. There is no evidence of established design practice nor significant new ideas presented in the field of graphic design.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jks144 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Biography on Aaron Coleman is overly hostile against him, giving massive amount of time on criminal allegations rather than his accomplishments or statements on them

    While the subject of this page, Aaron Coleman, is quite a controversial figure who has done questionable actions, this page has been written in a way that is clearly hostile to him. I do think the sources are legitimate, but mostly negative information taken out of the sources without the other parts. I believe that the rules of Wikipedia biographies are being violated in multiple parts:

    Balance

    The page mostly talks about recent scandals of Coleman, while neglecting anything positive about him. Three out of the five sections of his article talk about scandals, and have far more information attacking Aaron Coleman for them than the article discusses his life, political campaigns or his statements on them.

    Accusation of Crime

    Not only does the article take a negative tone regarding Coleman, but frequently neglects Coleman's denials, his reasoning for them and the lack of convictions in many cases. For example, "On December 8, 2020, Kathleen Lynch, a Wyandotte County, Kansas judge, issued an anti-stalking order against Coleman after Brandie Armstrong, the campaign manager for Frownfelter, accused Coleman of sending her harassing messages, showing up at her home uninvited twice, and attempted to get her evicted." there is no statement from Coleman, no information that states that it was temporary and clearly slanted against Coleman.

    Tone

    The article is clearly written in a passionate tone against Coleman, while using loaded language and giving undue weight to recent events. For example, "supporting abortion up to the moment of birth" is clearly loaded and could easily be made in a neutral tone of "supporting abortion". When attempts were made to fix loaded language like these, the user most active on this article replied, "Wikipedia is not whitewashed.".

    Overall, the article is improperly written in an inappropriate way toward Coleman. Almost none of the sources cited have a negative tone as dark as this article and this place seems to be more of a dark list of allegations than a biography about a person.

    Orange1861 (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Orange1861[reply]

    So... uhh what accomplishments has he had by the age of 20 besides running for state legislature and winning? How do the majority of reliable sources cover him? Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Rajendra Singh Rathore

    Please correct the name of the page. The page name is in correct. The correct name is Rajendra Rathore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VGAchuru (talk • contribs) 08:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Raphael Warnock - Democratic candidate for Senate in the Georgia election

    This is fairly prominent in his article, does it belong?

    In 2002, while senior pastor at Douglas Memorial Community Church in Baltimore, Maryland, Warnock and an assistant minister were arrested and charged with obstructing a police investigation into suspected child abuse at a church-run camp in Carroll County, Maryland. Warnock said the alleged abuse was not sexual and denied any wrongdoing in trying to prevent a state trooper from interviewing counselors. He said he was only asserting that lawyers should be present during the interviews.[10] Warnock said that he had intervened to ensure that an adult was present while a juvenile suspect was being questioned.[11] Prosecutors dropped the charges against Warnock, and the deputy state's attorney acknowledged that it had been a "miscommunication", adding that Warnock had aided the investigation and that prosecution would be a waste of resources.[12][13]

    It's most of the section on his religious work. Doug Weller talk 19:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems due. There is continuing coverage of this incident due to the current political theatre. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is the case, it would indeed be due, but aside from one "debunking," every citation in the relevant paragraph is from 2002. I am not finding a lot about it in recent news, but my search is certainly not exhaustive. Based upon cursory review, it seems undue to me given the age of the allegations and the apparent lack of coverage in intervening years. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Recent coverage [10][11][12][13][14] Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that. Definitely due for the article. I still think we could probably pare it down to one sentence. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Elliot Page

    Elliot Page (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    68.170.218.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Repeatedly vandalizing the article, misgendering the subject, adding nonsense and insulting things. Multiple warnings on talk page from myself and Cluebot. --Equivamp - talk 02:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Zara Kay

    Zara Kay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Nupur Mehta

    Can someone help Nupur Mehta? She is a Bollywood star and keeps inserting unsourced material in her article. I suspect most of it is true but don't really have time to track down all the necessary sources. My attempts to communicate have not been productive. GA-RT-22 (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Is including this person in this article potentially libel?

    Back here again with this woman, who until a few minutes ago was one of three images used at Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. I think the fact she was even included in the article may represent libel, so I've removed the section again, but there's a lot of pushback from other editors there, so I need other opinions. —valereee (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    There clearly was no libel. Libel is a false accusation published in a public place. Slander is similar, only there is no paper trail. The person in question is based on numerous news reports about an incident that caused tens of millions of dollars in damage to the incoming Biden transition and the nation as a whole.

    The person in question has stated that these reports are substantially correct, so there is no libel. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Please try to indent correctly at talk pages. By including something she did among "attempts to overturn the 2020 US presidential election", Wikipedia is saying that what she did was try to overturn the election. Without some extremely reliable source saying that's what her delayed issuance of a letter was in aid of, that is synth and arguably libel. —valereee (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    "Overturning an election" is a broad description of the series of events between Nov 4th and today to keep Trump in office, it is not a description of a crime, though there may be some criminal elements under the broad umbrella elsewhere in the article. Therefore, Emily W. Murphy is not being associated with a crime just because she is discussed and her image is used in the article. Whether there is a need for the image in this particular article, i.e. of what benefit is it to the reader to view this woman in the context of "Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election". ValarianB (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    How exactly does her face represent the context of attempts to overturn the presidential election ? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed there should be more pictures of other people. But I'm not sure that this is the place to have that discussion. Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't have to accuse her of an actual crime for an assertion to be libel. By including it in the list of "attempts" we are clearly implying that delaying the letter was part of an overall attempt to overturn the election and was one of the attempts. @Arglebargle79 even called it the Trump administration's "opening salvo", said she had been asked by Trump to delay the letter -- an allegation she's denied and the only evidence for which is an after-the-fact tweet by Trump -- and called her a criminal at the talk page. —valereee (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Which I didn't. However, her actions did do damage. Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That is your opinion, and until some RS says that, it is likely libellous. It belongs neither in the article nor on the talk page. You need to stop. —valereee (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe including her role in delaying the transition is WP:UNDUE in this article about attempts to overturn the election. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This, though certainly a see also link to an article about the delayed transition can be included in this article, since it is a related concept. --Masem (t) 20:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a see also would be fine. —valereee (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This entire website page is made up by followers of Danny Guba and all of the links are either expired or pages/PDFs created by his students. Needs better sources for accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filipinomartialarts (talk • contribs) 17:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Only a single sourced statement. Looks like an AfD candidate to me. GA-RT-22 (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Carol Moore

    Draft:Carol Moore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Deleted years ago as IAR for BLP issues, and at AfD over a decade ago. New draft seems like a negative coatrack as well, but not really to the level of G10. Can an admin please have a look and determine if it should be deleted immediately? VQuakr (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This appears to be a different person. But as it stands, it needs to be deleted as a hopeless NPOV attack page. DMacks (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Cindy_Stumpo

    Article reads like an advertisement for her, and her business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.245.54.193 (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Emanuel Cleaver II

    The article contains a contentious statement claiming Cleaver “misconstrued the meaning of the word Amen”. This is a presumption that goes contrary to his statement. It is hard to believe that a Methodist minister is unclear on the meaning of the word “Amen”.

    https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article248266055.html?fbclid=IwAR2-xZnAdg_J_QUJ80ybf1WiyK-isWutdn2YqKqiDHqYvb6TevWBaS7vYRA — Preceding unsigned comment added by CW1150n (talk • contribs) 04:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    links: Emanuel Cleaver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    This is being stated as fact but it's sourced to an opinion piece. At the very least this needs to be attributed as the author's opinion, not fact. GA-RT-22 (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two pertinent facts here, which have been widely reported: he did say "Amen and Awoman", and he doesn't know what he's taking about. Maybe a better reference is needed - there are plenty of them - but the current one does meet RS. I suppose in the interests of fairness and neutrality we could include mention of his claim that it was a pun, and perhaps use the above link as a reference?Arcturus (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    P Sainath

    Indian journalist P Sainath's WP article is being repeatedly vandalised by a redlinked editor who's clearly set up for this purpose (GreenBlueYellow) and a couple of IP accounts (potentially a case of sock puppetry). It's clever vandalism, in that it purportedly adds "facts", but that includes citing a book of fiction that doesn't seem material to the biography, and conveniently omitting actual facts that would make it a stronger article. Sainath is a Magsaysay award winner, for instance (the "Alternate Nobel"), and my adding that to establish notability and crisp up the lede was deleted and called "vandalism" in turn (the irony is deep).

    I would suggest page protection of some kind, and an investigation into some of the recent edits by IPs and new accounts. In India, P Sainath is the equivalent of a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist of the highest calibre, and whatever the personal opinions of editors, deserves a clear, credible, and reliably sourced biography. Many thanks, Anasuyas (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Tanya Roberts

    We have reliable sourcing that she has now died. No need to add onto this --Masem (t) 19:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This person is not dead, but is in the hospital being treated for an illness. This has been on the news on Monday early Monday morning. Many news stations and news internet sites have reported this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8803:E800:FB00:19CF:A992:635A:3443 (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    If you check the news, she was incorrectly reported dead, then the report was rescinded, and now it's been reported that she has actually died.[15] Schazjmd (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It was the weirdest thing I have seen in at least a couple days even with 2020 behind us now. But yeah NY Times confirms it as well. PackMecEng (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Tanya Roberts Blum (October 15, 1955 – January 4, 2021), known professionally as Tanya Roberts, was an American actress, producer, and model. She was best known for. This needs to be changed also — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8803:E800:FB00:19CF:A992:635A:3443 (talk)

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

    Rivera Case

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter_Stansberry#Rivera_case

    I don't really know how to submit this feedback, but the entry above is written in an editorial tone with some unclear language. It heavily implies the involvement of Stansberry in the case without much discussion of any other surrounding details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeefTiger (talk • contribs) 22:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Niruben_Amin

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

    On the Wikipedia page on Niruben Amin who seems to be a revered spiritual master, a couple of editors have made an attempt to remove two sentences mentioned in the Early Life section [[16]] & [[17]]. The links are just of two editors who have done the change although there are more who have done the same change. However, every time, the same editor has rollback these changes.

    Another editor has also tried to protect the page in March 2020 due to suspected vandalism [[18]] and [[19]], presuming that she or he has noted the repeated removal and rollback of these two statements.

    Both these statements are cited by giving an academic source whose author is Peter Flugel [[20]]. However, in the source itself, there are no citations or sources mentioned for these two statements. Surprisingly, these statements about a spiritual master, who has left the mortal body, are found no where else on the Web. Ideally, as these statements are about the personal life of a famous personality, there should be other reliable sources that state the same. However, there are no other reliable sources (other than those authored by Peter Flugel) stating the same.

    So, are they defaming the personality? So, what should be the resolution in this case?Dipalig (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=998622754"