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 Twistflam (talk | contribs) at 16:50, 23 November 2023 (→Sarah Jane Baker). 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:



    Assistance please

    Main page: Talk:Laurence D. Marks § Better sources needed

    I am requesting assistance with Laurence D. Marks, which happens to be me. This is disclosed on my page, and has been for years. For reasons that I suspect are due to my putting a discussion WP:AfD on a page of his interest, User:Rublamb decided to start changing things on Laurence D. Marks.

    Many of these edits were questionable and were reverted by User:StarryGrandma, but Rumblamd complained. What was extreme was that Rumblamd decided that it was appropriate to change my name to "Laurence Daniel Marks". I do not now and have never used the full version of my name. If Wikipedia does not have rules/suggestions about changing the name of living people without asking them first, it should. I invoked the exception in WP:COISELF, in particular:

    An exception to editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly.

    And reverted the edits. While Rumblamd did not corrupt my name a second time, he proceeded to make more questionable edits. For instance he reverted an addition of an official image of my birth certificate which I provided using the conventional "Request for edit" and was performed by User:Spintendo. Birth certificates, which in the UK are searchable, are not reliable? Further Rumblamd created a claim at WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Laurence D. Marks self-edits with some selective information.

    He then decided to call me "staff", which all faculty members consider somewhere between disagreable and insulting. I reverted that using the same exception, but I am now being attacked by User:Theroadislong with the accusation "subject appears to be incapable of NOT editing this page"

    • Beyond invoking the exception, I have not been editing the page
    • I am not the main editor of this page, and never have been

    I am requesting some assistance in defense. There must be some protection for living people when key points such as their name and position are being changed without asking them for input. Living people must have rights too. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • The fact that you find it disagreeable to be referred to as staff does not come close to meeting the COISELF threshold of "defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly". Wikipedia editors tend to take a very strict view of COI editing, and I would recommend against relying on that exception outside of very clear cases. You are much more likely to have people agree to change the wording here by discussing on the talkpage.
      As for the birth certificate, Rublamb explained in their edit summary why they removed it: because WP:BLPPRIMARY does not permit the use of public records in this way. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Referring to faculty of a US university as "staff" is in fact both a serious error and an insult. "Staff" is the term used at US universities for maintenance personnel, secretaries, etc. That word by itself does not and cannot refer to professors. Calling someone as staff could easily be interpreted as deliberately saying that they are too menial to be considered a scholar.
      That said, the word "staff" does appear to be used with other meanings in academia outside the US, so this could easily be a misunderstanding either by someone outside the US or someone in the US but outside the academic system. Ldm was correct to revert the change (it is the sort of false and defamatory statement on a BLP that the subject should be allowed to revert) but it does not necessarily indicate bad will. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Ok, I found it in Special:Diff/1184635131 by User:Rublamb. Rublamb, your user page looks US-based and claims many years of experience working in an academia-adjacent field. You should know better. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @David Eppstein, For the record, I wrote, "Laurence Daniel Marks is an American professor of materials science and engineering at Northwestern University, joining the staff in 1985." I meant no offense and clearly used “staff” to mean an employee of the university—another definition of this word. No one would have thought that Dr. Marks was anything other than a professor from that sentence, so there was no crisis. I or any other editor working on this article would have immediately changed "staff" to "faculty" if asked. However, the subject opted to edit himself within minutes of my changes. While I do not agree with how this change was made, I do believe that this edit made the lede more accurate. Rublamb (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's not let this get out of hand and sprawl across two noticeboards (here and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Laurence D. Marks self-edits) as well as the active talk page discussion. Uncle G (talk) 04:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Fan Xiaoqin

    There's a very complex and sensitive situation here. I'll copy my thoughts from the DYK nom:

    When reading the article, I noticed that buried in the middle was a mention of the subject being intellectually disabled. This is a hell of a thing to bury in the middle of an article, and many terms for intellectual and developmental disabilities translate poorly, so I checked the source to see if this was a mistranslation. My Chinese is very weak, but I was able to confirm that no, that's the correct translation/implication of the statement. The source specifically mentioned Fan being diagnosed with "intellectual disability level 2", which doesn't translate directly to English. Checking some Chinese sources, with again significant caveats, this seemingly translates to a severe intellectual disability -- corresponding to someone with very limited communication and self-care abilities who's unlikely to understand the consequences of being internet-famous. Descriptions of him in both Chinese and English sources agree that he has a very restricted vocabularly and doesn't seem to comprehend why people were paying attention to him.

    Looking at the longread article in Sixth Tone, there's a lot of detail on the context under which Fan became internet-famous. There's a fairly consistent narrative that the fame was mostly his father's doing. This is agreed with by The Paper and at least alluded to by a number of other sources I could access. In particular, the "begging" that the article focuses on is clearly not something Fan understood the implications of. This article really doesn't get any of this across -- like I said, the mention of intellectual disability is very buried. While there are good sources cited in the article, they're poorly utilized.

    The number of standalone biographical articles on intellectually disabled subjects is limited. I can't think of a single article that's had to have an "is this article hiding that the subject is severely intellectually disabled?" conversation, and I really can't think of one where that's combined with a high language barrier. It definitely needs, at bare minimum, serious revisions. I'm not convinced there's a good BLP case for this article existing -- it's a very sad and complex story about exploitation, for which the coverage is fairly limited.

    Any thoughts are valued. The subject is a young teenager who was famous as a child, the subject seemingly has severe cognitive impairments, and many of the sources are in a language extremely dissimilar to English. One of those alone would make things difficult. Vaticidalprophet 13:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Author of the article here; thanks for giving such a comprehensive overview of the situation. I'm way out of my depth here and I haven't handled something this complex before, but I'll gladly implement any of your suggestions. I'm still planning on getting it on DYK. Bremps... 16:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the article may need to be deleted and certainly not put on DYK. The article subject is a child with low cognitive ability who has been exploited by his family and an entertainment company. WP:AVOIDVICTIM says "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." BLP also says "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures." Fences&Windows 20:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of actual notability (which I haven't analysed), I would be very uncomfortable with this being showcased on the main page. Black Kite (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the sources, there seems to be enough there to pass notability (I've seen AfD Keep results with much less), but I certainly agree that this doesn't belong on the mainpage. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP is complicated. I've AfDed subjects with a reasonable case for notability on BLP privacy/sensitivity grounds and had delete closes. I'm contemplating whether that'd happen here. There's a big burst of international coverage during his peak of fame for "this boy looks like Jack Ma" (most of that is not in the article, because it's human interest stuff with little additional encyclopedic information), but children with standalone articles should really have sustained coverage. Then there's the recent stuff, like the Sixth Tone piece. Some of this is very good, but I'm not sure yet if it makes the case that he should have a standalone article, given the very particular connotation of "exploitation-driven 15 minutes of fame". Even without everything else here it's tricky to write standalones on very young subjects, given the difficulty with being confident about long-term coverage. Vaticidalprophet 15:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What would "special care" entail? I purposefully didn't emphasize his disabilites as it could be construed by some people to be negative information about him. Bremps... 21:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Disability studies is, in an interdisciplinary sense, an interest of mine. Something that comes up a lot is the issue that many people believe downplaying or ignoring disability is in some way necessary or important to respect disabled people, when it's very often a disservice or actively harmful. It's tricky, because people do things with the best of intentions, and the unique structure of disability advocacy (that it's so disproportionately done by abled people who may have different ideas to disabled people) means a lot of people end up with the received wisdom that downplaying disability is the (politically, morally) correct thing to do. It's not, and we can see exactly why here. Disability is not an inherently negative characteristic, but downplaying that a subject is severely disabled and undergoing exploitation he doesn't understand is. Vaticidalprophet 03:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you mean now. Thanks for the tip. Bremps... 04:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: The new revision of the article has a mention of intellectual disability placed far more prominently (in the lede). Bremps... 18:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading the article now, I actually feel more hesitant. The mention in the lead is very abrupt, and it highlights the very complex and sensitive exploitation going on in the subject's claim to notability. I feel inclined to AfD the article for wider thoughts -- the notability case is fairly borderline, and the complexity of the situation needs further attention. Vaticidalprophet 15:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm surprised to realise that WP:BLPPRIVACY doesn't mention anything about medical information. (Perhaps it should?) I would think that we generally shouldn't be labelling living people with diagnoses or disabilities without evidence that they have been willing to share that information about themselves. I think this even more so for children who may have been exploited.
    Also to note, there are three sources in the article for the statement He and his brother have intellectual disabilites. The only one of these that I can access is Sixth Tone. The only use of the phrase intellectual disability refers to the subject's mother, not to Fan Xiaoqin. He is described as having slower intellectual development. Regardless of whether the article is deleted, this needs to be carefully sources. Mgp28 (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree that the article should be deleted. This is one of those cases where editorial judgment must come into play, and not simply rely on blindly following policy. Policy doesn't do much to address children, but it should, because it comes up a lot. It's what first brought me to this noticeboard more than a decade ago, when people were going after Sarah Palin's kids during the presidential election. It's that mob-mentality that makes people think going after some kid is somehow justifiable. It happens with politician's children, celebrities, and now with social media, kids who are just too young to know any better or think about the long-term repercussions brought on by 15 minutes of fame. Mental disabilities aside, children really do not have the capacity to consent, and we need to use extreme caution to avoid joining in that mob-mentality of exploiting them. That's just basic human decency.
    That said, when it comes to any kind of mental defect, illness, or other such medical claims, I do believe we need to insist on MEDRS sources. This also comes up here a lot, especially with politicians, and even celebrities. For example, lots of people would like to label Donald Trump as mentally disabled or some such, and have tried in the past when random people in the media have discussed it, but to have that in his article we'd need very good, MEDRS sources, not just speculation by political pundits. Same with Hilary Clinton, and the list goes on. I don't see how some kid from China, whose only claim to fame is because he happens to look like someone famous, should be afforded any less. All in all, though, I'd say we should just delete the entire article just because it's the right thing to do. Zaereth (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This source describes him as having a mental disability: https://m.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_16903490 Bremps... 20:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a newspaper, not a reliable source for medical claims. For those we have exceedingly high standards. See: WP:MEDRS. Zaereth (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll admit I'm not terribly familiar with the guideline, but this isn't a broad medical claim (i.e. oranges have Vitamin C). This is just about this specific individual. Bremps... 00:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I only just noticed your comment above; the source in question interviewed Fan's family members on several occasions. It is highly unlikely for them to only be speculating. Bremps... 00:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But did the subject consent? That's a very important thing. Consent. The problem is, the subject can't give informed consent because no child can. Their brains are still developing, even without any mental disability. Medical info is considered very private information --by law-- which is why you won't find many MEDRS sources commenting on someone's mental health, unless the subject gives informed consent, and that's the way it should be. But this subject... I mean, he's just a kid for God's sake. Let him be a kid. Maybe when he's an adult he will want to share it all. Maybe he'll want it all to go away and be a private citizen, but everyone has the right to give informed consent. We don't have the right to take that away, and should definitely not aid in his exploitation. Zaereth (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, you definitely have a point there. Bremps... 15:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're right that consent is the key issue here, but I don't think that WP:MEDRS is the guideline that gets us there. I'm going to try to put my thoughts together on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons as a broader point beyond this article. Mgp28 (talk) 12:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Anna Oleksandrivna Katrulina

    After posting the article here, an attempt was made to publish it on the Russian-language Wikipedia. As a result, the author of the article was subjected to harassment, and the article became the target of attacks by citizens of the Russian Federation. The likely reason is the author's nationality (Ukrainian) and references in the article to sources from the federal authorities of the United States and Ukraine. There has been a shift in the focus of the discussion from constructive discourse to aggressive actions by users on the Russian Wikipedia. The persecution by them has also continued on other language versions of Wikipedia where the article was posted. Administrators of the Russian Wikipedia violate neutrality rules. There is an evident conflict of interest. The basis for the article is information from a scientific database, the texts of which are distributed under the CC0 license. It has been supplemented with references to reliable sources such as the United States Agency for International Development, universities, scientific journals, libraries, and media projects. More information is available in the article's discussion. I request that measures be taken to protect the article from attacks by Russian-speaking Wikipedia users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darya2023 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The English-language Wikipedia has no control over what goes on in the Russian-language one, and if there are specific issues with contributor behaviour here on English-language Wikipedia, they should probably be reported, with evidence directly supported by diffs. at WP:ANI. I would note however that your own behaviour in regard to the current AfD discussion [1] is likely to be taken into consideration, and would accordingly suggest that you let the discussion take its course. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If my actions have caused misunderstandings, I am willing to collaborate and make necessary adjustments to improve the article and comply with Wikipedia's rules. Darya2023 (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those who know me can confirm that I am among those administrators who oppose Kremlin propaganda on Russian-language Wikipedia. You made up a story about evil Russians out of nothing. I was only considering a request for recovery at all, and the article had been deleted several times before. Given your behavior in that discussion and your goals on Wikipedia (to promote one single persona in all languages), I blocked you. And anyway, don't you find it odd that everyone is against you? Khinkali (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I acknowledge your role in maintaining order on Wikipedia, and I understand that your actions are based on a commitment to uphold community standards. However, I would like to clarify that my goal was to provide information about innovative scientific discoveries, her social, and creative achievements based on publicly available information. I do not pursue political or propagandistic objectives. It is not me who pursues the author of the articles outside the Russian Wikipedia; it is you. You silently observed how your compatriots turned the discussion into harassment, after which you made your decision to delete, blocked, and then came here.
    For future reference, the generalization of "everyone is against you" can be perceived as manipulation in a specific context to create a negative perception. This form of exaggeration ignores variations and creates an impression that the entire world or community is opposed to a specific person or idea. In reality, there are usually multiple perspectives and relationships, and overly simplified generalizations can distort the true picture. Darya2023 (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Darya2023, you would be well advised to read Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and then concentrating your efforts on demonstrating at the AfD discussion, through citation of appropriate sources providing the necessary in-depth coverage, that Katrulina meets the necessary criteria. That is the only factor that will be taken into consideration - we aren't interested in what went on elsewhere. We aren't interested in your opinions regarding 'propaganda', or in claims of 'harassment'. And nor are we interested in your personal endorsements of the value of Katrulina's work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have doubts about whether your level of comprehension ability allows you to analyze and comprehend information, identify key ideas and catch generalizations in texts. Do you have any evidence that you have this ability at a high level or at least at a sufficient level? Darya2023 (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On Wikipedia, the assessment of source reliability is based on the principles of neutrality, credibility, and verifiability of information. Are you suggesting that I should stop substantiating information with well-established reliable sources that confirm its authenticity? What's the purpose? To further impose your subjective point of view? And to support discrimination? Regardless of that, Katrulina will continue making scientific discoveries, learning, and changing the world. However, your editorial work could easily be replaced by AI, which would be more objective and reliable (without conflicts of interest). Think about what you will do and whom you will appeal to when that moment comes. Who will be interested in your point of view in such a case. Darya2023 (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Joseph Massad (protected article)

    The section "On the Palestinian Authority and Hamas" cites editorial summary as fact, using tendentious and potentially libelous language not present in original source rather than quoting it directly. Specifically, the cited Jerusalem Post article characterizes a rote description of shock and awe as "praise", a misleading paraphrase which is not supported by the original text. The link to the Jerusalem Post summary should be replaced with a link to the original article on Electronic Intifada, and the tendentious paraphrase should be replaced with direct quotes.

    Note that the user who added the unreliable Jerusalem Post citation has already been flagged repeatedly for NPOV violations, so correcting this would not be unprecedented.

    Note also that Electronic Intifada has already described the Jerusalem Post summary in question as being related to a coordinated campaign by a former IDF spokesperson trying to convince Columbia University to revoke Massad's tenure. The ongoing conflict surrounding this campaign is noteworthy as it mirrors the previous campaign described under the Columbia Unbecoming section. However, any secondary sources (i.e. sources other than the original Electronic Intifada editorial written by Massad) should be carefully screened for NPOV, which would disqualify both the Jerusalem Post summary and the Electronic Intifada article about the campaign.

    Note finally that I deliberately logged out before posting this comment because I don't trust the sorts of people who post content in violation of Wikipedia's BLP policies. (Obviously, logging out before posting this means that I cannot subscribe to this page for updates.) — 68.199.153.120 (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Business Insider, New Arab, and the ADL also characterise his essay as praise for Hamas.[2][3] [4] We can attribute the characterisation to sources rather than using wikivoice. It is not good practice to use primary sources as you suggest we do here - we should use reliable secondary sources about what people say and do, not their own writings. Fences&Windows 00:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Venkataraman Thangadurai

    I am not really convinced this gentleman meets all of the criteria for a WP living biography - Venkataraman Thangadurai.

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

    My judgment is based on a detailed review of:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

    I did look at his research and contributions - I looked at the history and creation record for the article - being objective, I am not sure this article should be on Wikipedia - his work, awards and publication history is not that different than many hundreds of similar researchers.

    The FRSC award is common - I do not know this man, though I am involved in a research environment - more in the biomedical area -- his CV is not that different that many of my own peers.

    As a newer WP editor - I was presented with this article to edit - and as I started to review the item - I could not see why this was ever approved -

    I think this article should be removed. The original author is also not an established author on WP so it does look a little self-promoting IMHO - BeingObjective (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like the person has two elected fellowship status that might indicate notability per WP:NACADEMIC "#3 The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics)."
    [5] "Fellows of the RSC are peer-elected scholars who have made remarkable contributions in the arts, the humanities and the sciences, as well as in Canadian public life." Peer-elected at Royal Society of Canada.
    [6]"These members are recognized at the plenary session for their scientific achievements, leadership, and active participation in the affairs of ECS. Each year, up to 15 renowned scientists and engineers are chosen by their peers for this honor." Peer-elected at Electrochemical Society.
    The article will definitely benefit from some re-formating though. --PeaceNT (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated anon vandalism

    195.224.181.210 continues to vandalize Garron Noone, despite being reverted each time. They have made no other edits and are clearly WP:NOTHERE. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 05:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[[[reply]

    Slugger O'Toole, I have pageblocked that IP from Garron Noone for six months. Please let me know if disruption comes from somewhere else. Cullen328 (talk) 09:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Dominic Foppoli

    Resolved
     – Missvain unleashed the banhammer and Caeciliusinhorto-public made some edits - the article prob stills needs work if anyone is interested ... Mujinga (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Dominic Foppoli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was apparently Mayor of Windsor, California, until he resigned in controversial circumstances. There have been IP edits adding accusations and a new user called Windsor1992 sanitising the article. It's hard to work out what is going on BLP-wise and having intervened once already and been reverted I'd prefer it if other editors took a look. Thanks. Mujinga (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh dear, that looks like a complete mess. Windsor1992's edits, aside from flagrantly violating WP:NPOV (e.g. it includes five paragraphs refuting the allegations against Foppoli, but doesn't even say what the allegations are!) has just completely broken the formatting and removed nearly 50 sources. As he is a public figure who apparently had to resign from his political role due to the allegations against him, we should cover them properly. On the other hand, the previous version gives excessive detail about the allegations against Foppoli and should probably not, for instance, name seven apparently non-notable women who have alleged he assaulted them. I've partially restored the version from before Windsor1992's edits, trimming out some of the excessive detail though to be honest I think there's probably still plenty of work to do here. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking a look @Caeciliusinhorto-public. I was just reading further back in the page history than I did before (it's also a wild ride) and @Missvain: protected it in 2021, so alerting them as well. Mujinga (talk) 13:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Kurt Busch

    Kurt Busch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    I am involved in a content dispute with MadBlade 2 over material that I feel is a WP:SYNTH of individual sources (some of which are poor, redlisted sources) used to arrive at an original conclusion that the article subject is "controversial." They are repeatedly restoring over 32k bites of data which accounts for about half of the article's prose (WP:UNDUE) in a section titled "Controversy." I have stated that while a chunk of the content is likely fine to include in the article on its own, in the appropriate place in the "career" section (or even a "legal issues" for some of it), it should be vetted for sourcing and BLP issues before being done so (doing so is on my long list of "to-do's" but I have been working much more the last year and don't have as much time as I used to).

    They have asserted that I am "wrong" without any policy-based argument, and have now resorted to personal attacks[7] and assertions that they have "proved [me] a point"[8] to justify restoring the whole section.

    I first removed the offending section in May of this year[9] and the user MadBlade (as an IP) first asked me about this in June on my user talk page, to which I responded. The MadBlade account then first restored the content on August 29 without any edit summary[10]. After I reverted, citing, amongst other things, WP:BLP[11], MadBlade then returned to my user talk page and revealed themselves as the IP who initially contacted me. I have since moved that discussion to the article talk page after this recent flare-up, which started November 11. No other editors have involved themselves so far so even though I believe i would be in the right to revert again per BLP policy, I have not done so and asked them to self-revert.

    I'm honestly not sure to take this here or ANI, factoring the personal attack and the newness of the other editor. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Rick Alan Ross

    The subject of the article is again making requests for changes with similar complaints as in previous discussions, and similar problems in identifying BLP-appropriate references. Requesting help. --Hipal (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes this looks like a WP:LEAD POV issue. I've also commented there in case it's a third opinion they're after. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Historically cult members, later banned by Wikipedia, have edited my bio. Periodically, anonymous editors drop in to color and skew the bio negatively through their edits. I only am allowed to comment at the Talk page. I have posted some requests for editing and updates with detailed supporting citations deemed as reliable/credible sources by Wikipedia. My hope is that the editing process can lead to a fact based historical neutral point of view, as opposed to and editorial opinion driven point of view.2600:8800:7100:66:5764:F700:67C4:FD7A (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a look at the talk page, to see what all the hubbub was about, but within a minute my eyes began to glaze over and my head began to hurt. And I'm saying this as someone who generally give relatively long replies to better convey the meaning I intend. (Statements that are too short are very easy to misread.) But seriously, trying to follow all of that is a nightmare. My first suggestion is to first realize that you're dealing with volunteers here, so whatever you can do to make it easier on us, that will help you immensely in the long run. Try tackling the issues you see one at a time rather than all at once, then see them through to their conclusion before starting on the next problem. It's far less overwhelming that way, and you'll have much better luck.
    That said, reading some of what you wrote there, and what you wrote here, leads me to suspect that you may share some common misunderstandings about how this all works, and what is meant by "neutral point of view. An article based entirely on facts is just a list of facts, and facts by themselves are meaningless. Facts are observable and, therefore, recordable phenomena. But facts make up only a tiny portion of what we believe to be reality. As humans, we have an ability that all other animals seem to lack; the ability to reason, that is, to ask why. The sun rises everyday. But why? Everything falls downward, But why? (It's not that Eve ate the apple, but that she asked why, which led to our loss of ignorance and bliss.)
    Through reasoning, we come up with theories, which come under many names, such as ideas, notions, judgments, conclusions, or opinions. For example, the article on gravity would look pretty barren if all we gave were the facts about it. We need theories, such as the opinions of Einstein, or the opposing opinions of Newton. We don't settle on one opinion as being truth, because opinions by nature are operations of the mind and cannot be proven. We instead give a proportionate view of all relevant opinions and theories. This is not only the basis of journalism, or the foundation of all expository writing laid down by Pliny around 2000 years ago, but is also the very foundation of science. (For more, see for example: Philosophy of Scientific Method by John Stuart Mills, Reading and Writing: Nonfiction Genres by Kathleen Buss, Lee Karnowski, or Understanding Journalism by Lynette Sheridan Burns.)
    An article based solely on fact isn't an article at all. We need theories and opinions to tie all the fact into something meaningful. Facts themselves are inherently NPOV, because they either are correct or they are not. If all we had were facts we wouldn't need an NPOV policy. That policy is to cover all the opinions and theories that give reason for those facts. What the policy says is not that we should eliminate opinions, but give them fairly and proportionately to what is found out there in the world. We give Einstein pretty much equal say about gravity as we do Newton, yet we don't give that same prominence to all fringe theories that haven't been widely accepted by the scientific community yet.
    The same is really true with a person's bio. We give opinions and theories by prominent people who have some expertise in certain issues, but the goal is to present those with balance and fairness. The point is, your argument that the article should be totally factual and lack any opinions is logically flawed, and this is why it's not getting you anywhere. My advice is to try to formulate you arguments on sounder reasoning, and tackle them one at a time, and you'll have much better luck. I hope that helps, and good luck to you. Zaereth (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I get it. But the article has been used by cult members and others for personal attacks. This probably happens to quite a few biographies of living people on Wikipedia. That is, using Wikipedia bios to discredit someone in some way, shape or form. I realize that my situation is not unique.
    Opinions must be grounded in facts, not misleading, and whatever bias exists recognized and as you say "with balance and fairness." Editing outside those parameters becomes less about education an more about propaganda.
    I understand that my suggestions must be taken up over a period of time and I appreciate the volunteer time of those involved that sincerely want to make Wikipedia better.
    At times over the years dealing with what seem like malicious edits at this bio can be bit daunting.
    I have posted suggested edits, notable historical additions and raised questions concerning the balance, slant and context of some recent edits. Everything that I have suggested has been carefully cited with sources that are reliable and credible as determined by Wikipedia.
    Again, I have no expectation of immediate results and realize that people have lives to live and other things to do.
    Hopefully it can be handled in time.
    Thank you again and all the best.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Falun Gong

    Attention is requested towards claims[12] about Michael Pack made on the page Falun Gong. Pack's tenure as a federal appointee has been very justly criticized on a lot of grounds, but to my knowledge he has not been tried or convicted. Therefore it is contrary to WP:BLPCRIME to describe his activities as being criminal. This occurs against a backdrop of efforts to insinuate that the Falun Gong religion engaged in government conspiracies. Sennalen (talk) 06:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This framing is false. This user is referring to the article's coverage of this article and this article, which they want removed from Falun Gong.
    As the New York Times succinctly summarized the situation:
    A battle involving Michael Pack and a U.S.-funded tech group revolves around software from Falun Gong, the secretive, anti-Beijing spiritual movement with pro-Trump elements.
    The additions to the article contain quotes from the above articles discussing the role of the Falun Gong and the involvement of extensions it operates, like the the Epoch Times, known today for being a major source of conspiracy theories about especially Covid-19, climate change, and the January 6 US Capitol insurrection, among many other topics. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As a point of fact, I have not removed nor have I argued to remove any reliable source. I have however tried to correct undue weight and the aforementioned BLP violation. Sennalen (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is false. See for example this edit from this user, which they haven't disclosed. Note how the Falun Gong is treated in the article and then in these edits.
    Note that these proposed edits snip out the centrality of the Falun Gong in the matter, who received a quarter of a million dollars from the State Department for a highly controversial program that four people ended up using. It also entirely removes any mention of the Epoch Times.
    While we definitely need more eyes and ears over at Falun Gong, you should be aware that this is a content dispute from an extremely contentious corner of Wikipedia with a well-documented history of highly aggressive involvement from its subject, the Falun Gong. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The diff shows that I corrected undue weight and a BLP violation without removing any sources, as stated. Sennalen (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    GeorgeNotFound

    GeorgeNotFound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) may violate the BLP for the following reasons:
    His middle name may be doxxed information.

    • Neither sources that state his middle name state a source of their own.
    • Neither sources that state his middle name are "official", as in Davidson was not directly interviewed and did not assist with the articles' creation.
    • The two sources, comicbook.com and Tech Times often use incorrect or clickbait-y information, sometimes lifted directly from Reddit posts. ([1][2][3][4]).
    • Sites that "farm" articles by commentating on current gaming news have been known to use doxxed information accidentally. Davidson's coworker and roommate Dream had doxxed information published on Forbes' website before fans alerted Forbes and the information was removed.
    • Davidson's official interview with Variety does not state his middle name.

    With the community surrounding Davidson and his fellow Youtubers/Streamers constantly having doxxed information about the content creators leaked, it would be a good idea to either find concretely official information about Davidson's middle name that was willingly given by Davidson himself, or to remove his middle name entirely from the article.
    --- Sketchyswirl (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Wrt to content creators, I agree it might be useful to err on the side of caution and leave out information if it could be potentially doxxed info. In this case, it seems to be so (imo). Sohom (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://forums.macresource.com/read.php?1,2097473
    2. ^ https://www.reddit.com/r/StarWarsLeaks/comments/hiwi0h/is_comicbookcom_leaksnews_trash/
    3. ^ https://www.reddit.com/r/FlashTV/comments/9vrati/comicbookcom_is_pulling_its_articles_straight/
    4. ^ https://www.reddit.com/r/DC_Cinematic/comments/bsnlev/comment/eoooes2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

    Sam Altman

    Following his ousting from OpenAI, there is renewed attention to an allegation against him made by his sister, which is now discussed by some reliable sources. Should it be mentioned? Please discuss at Talk:Sam Altman. Fences&Windows 17:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    While we're at it, for admin attention: Should this be revdel'd? Fermiboson (talk) 12:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Bennett S. LeBow

    Algyx0262(talk) has undone the edits to the page Bennett S. LeBow which is accurately cited and concise. Please oversee this before Algyx0262 reverts the edits again. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by California4x4 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd stronlgly advise you to read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons before proceeding further. And note that 'concise' article that removes properly-cited content may not necessarily be seen as an improvement. Beyond that, I suggest you start by discussing any issues on the article talk page - we aren't going to enforce one preferred version over another just on your say-so. That isn't the purpose of this notice board. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    California4x4 has removed a properly cited factual article on Bennett Lebow which is the result of many people's work over many years and replaced it with their own version. Reversion to the previous version of the article is clearly warranted in this case Algyx0262 (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeffrey Toobin

    I just reverted 4 distinct BLP issues at Jeffrey Toobin. Of these 4, the question of including "masturbation" in a heading is borderline, more a matter of editorial discretion than of strict policy; but the other 3 were serious BLP issues, including one piece of vandalism that lasted 4 days and one overly confident representation of a source that had persisted since 2019, another since 2021admin only, sry. I would appreciate if others could take a look at whether there are any other BLPvios in this high-profile article, and would also appreciate if an uninvolved admin would consider a long-term or indefinite protection, perhaps under WP:NEWBLPBAN. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 13:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh and I'll note that someone claiming to be Toobin, Bookie87, has complained in the past about the article's handling of the paternity case, one of the details at issue here. While it's been over a decade, the account does have an email address, so I've sent an email his way, inviting him to comment and giving instructions on how to verify his identity with VRT. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 13:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added indefinite semi-protection - I can't see the issue going away any time soon. Fences&Windows 14:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Alan Bates

    There does seem confusion over his sexual desires. Would make sense to check with his family as the sources say two different things. Concerning whether he had a homosexual relationship. Unless it's been cleared up from my last enquiry on the matter in Feb 2023. Andrew Dock 65 (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Alan Bates died in 2003 and is thus out of scope of this board. There is some discussion of Bates' sexuality on the talkpage, I see, but nothing in that suggests that the sources say two different things. Nonetheless, if sources do in fact disagree on Bates' sexuality, we should deal with that through Wikipedia's normal processes, not by asking his family to make a ruling which is not at all how Wikipedia works. I suggest you try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies to bring attention to the discussion, and WP:RSP if there is dispute over which sources are reliable. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Sharon Douglas actress

    Wiki bio says her husband killed himself with a knife link to Daily Telegraph newspaper in the description says he shot himself. Please correct. Andrew Dock 65 (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Sharon Douglas died in 2016; Edward Nassour died in 1962. Neither is covered by our Biographies of Living People policy, and neither is relevant to this noticeboard.
    I note that the article on Nassour also says that he died from self-inflicted knife wounds, and cites some different sources. If different sources give different versions of events, it might be worth discussing at Edward Nassour. I have removed the discussion of the method from Sharon Douglas as it's not relevant to her biography particularly. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Susan Sarandon

    POV editing, sources. More eyes, please. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:D8E9:8F84:47A1:F1C1 (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the third or fourth 2601... mobile editor, I've seen in these last few days. The others have since been blocked per WP:EVADE & WP:SOCK. Is a range block going to be required? GoodDay (talk) 03:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    That's the IP range of the largest ISP in the United States. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wowsers. GoodDay (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Before you cast aspersions, this is my 'home' account [14]. Was there anything in this account's (thus far) brief history that merited suggestion of block evasion? And for what, opening a warranted thread here? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:D8E9:8F84:47A1:F1C1 (talk) 03:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies. GoodDay (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No harm done--I've been around too long to take much personally. FWIW, I look at edits, and find an awful lot of disruption by named accounts. Take care, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:D8E9:8F84:47A1:F1C1 (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be the case, but AFAICT all the recent account edits on Susan Sarandon have been appropriate, reverting additions lacking sufficient sourcing from IPs. There may have been one or two IPs reverting in there two but unfortunately the predominant changes have been inappropriate. Going by these edits, there's a reason for this blowup so I wonder if semiprotection until it dies down might be best. Note a lot of the stuff IPs have been trying to add they aren't allowed to even if they had sources anyway as I understand the current Israeli-Palestine conflict restrictions although some of the stuff hasn't been covered by that so I'm not suggesting ECP is necessary. (I'm generally tolerant of IPs editing but this is one area where dynamic IPs have an unfair advantage. If these were named accounts who didn't yet have EC we could warn them and if they do it on the Susan Sarandon page or anywhere else again, block them. It's not something really worth it with dynamic IPs.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I've semi-protected for a limited time. Almost the only edits to the article for the past 5 days have been back-and-forth over a single piece of content. Uncle G (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Francine Diaz

    This article of a Filipino celebrity, who has barely reached the age of majority, has been subject to unrelenting fancruft over the years that nobody seems to have had the energy to fix; moreover, the edits are broken up into 1000+ double digit byte changes making it close to impossible to track where the problems really began.

    There is an important legal concern to this. The article mentions the name of her siblings, many of which are still minors, as well as celebrity gossip of relationships and various influencer partnerships (as well as actual, literal ships by fans) while everyone involved was still a minor. This is of course not even beginning to touch on the general promotional tone the article is still in.

    I have done my best to fix the tone, but to me it still reads like fancruft, uses a lot of gossip rags as sources (much of which is in Tagalog, which I don't know so I can't judge the reliability of) and possibly carries a lot of undue mentions of awards, appearances, partnerships and such. More importantly, I believe there may be information previously included in the article that could require revdelling as it concerns minors, and I don't know which revision to point to because they are all so distributed. Fermiboson (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Some of the stuff removed was extremely silly. Like a fan complaints over the person she was in a fictional relationship with getting close to someone else on a reality show when there is no evidence she gave one iota (probably since they were both open that the relationship was fictional). Nil Einne (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    All of that stuff is in this one, too. Uncle G (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto

    [15] Does this addition violate BLP per WP:NOTSCANDAL? It is sourced to an interview from the 1990's with a Sikh separatist leader where he claims that the person in question helped escalate a separatist movement based in India because he wanted revenge for Pakistan's defeat in some war with India which is obvious gossip material. It is further being put on the lead as if its some key detail/summary of the body.

    Full discussion with another editor who doesn't agree at

    Talk:Khalistan_movement#November Kiu99 (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Not a BLP issue, since Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto has been dead since 1979. Kathleen's bike (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. But what is being claimed here is still a rumour and there is no proof he actually said these things. Is this allowed? Kiu99 (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Roger Woodward article

    Greetings. Apologies if this is not the most appropriate page to raise this matter, but I would appreciate other editors keeping an eye on this article because it has been the target of excessively detailed editing by an almost completely SPA editor (and possibly COI as well) for some time and who has managed to gradually re-add over recent months a considerable amount of excessive detail (and possibly added even more) and POV and peacockery comments which was removed last year when this problem was first noticed. I have rolled the article back to what seemed to be the last good version before the re-adding of the excessive detail. As the editor also has some article ownership issues, which are apparent from his/her comments on the article's talk page, I am expecting further problems due to this. With thanks. Yahboo (talk) 05:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. If there is a more appropriate noticeboard please advise and I will move things there. Thanks. Yahboo (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yahboo: WP:COIN is usually the best place for stuff like this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Sarah Jane Baker

    Template:Sarah Jane Baker

    Sarah Jane Baker's page has become a hotbed for T.E.R.F.'s and transphobes to write defamatory and potentially libellous comments about Baker and from poor sources.

    user Sweet6970 often misgenders Baker and should be banned from editing this page as they have been warned about their use of gender and commenting on contentious source.

    There have also used poor sources to write false information on Baker's page.

    This page needs monitoring to make sure information is as neutral as possible. Editors frequently use adjectives to hyperbolise her and her crimes.

    They are deleting her other known achievements that they view as positive despite them being relevant.

    The post above was by Twistflam. I have never misgendered Baker. I don’t know what Twistflam means by ‘using poor sources to write false information on Baker’s page’ and ‘deleting her other known achievements’. No diffs have been provided. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, not all of this refers to you, but there is parts of the talk where you have misgendered on the page but it has then been corrected. The they I have used is a general group of users who are editing the page. I have edited my post for clarity.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=1186507600"