Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive362

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons | Noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 16:48, 22 August 2024 (Archiving 7 discussion(s) from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Derek Blasberg

(non-admin closure) Content not appropriate and no longer in article. – notwally (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

There's been some edit warring in this article over whether an incident earlier this month where Blasberg had an explosive bowel movement in Gwyneth Paltrow's cottage should be mentioned in the article. I think there's reasonable reason to exclude per WP:GOSSIP, even though the incident has been covered by reliable sources like Variety, but @FeralOink: has been insistent on including it. I thought I would make a post here for wider input. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The Variety source is a gossip article, which sources the identification to the Daily Mail. I've accordingly removed its other use from the article. The incident appears to fall afoul of BLP sourcing requirements in addition to being trivial gossip content. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Hemiauchenia, I have not been insistent on including the bowel movement portion in the BLP of Derek Blasberg. Let's refer to it as the "incident" for brevity here. As one can see from the first of two discussions on the talk page, on 4 July, I inquired of other editors whether it was appropriate to include. Three editors discussed and the four of us decided that it was; no one objected. An IP editor provided a link to an article appearing in a trade journal (Variety) for the fashion and beauty industry (which meets criteria for WP:RS and WP:NPOV) that was lengthy and entirely devoted to the incident. ELLE magazine and Yahoo! Entertainment reported on the incident too. Further sources for the BLP subject's personal life were suggested by one of the three editors in the incident discussion, see this later subsection of the talk page, also on 6 July, including New York magazine and Women's Wear Daily, legitimate sources for the fashion industry; both provided extensive, specific coverage. I cleaned up the entire article, added updated and encyclopedic content, and sources throughout. I began my work on 9 July and completed it by adding a new section about the incident on July 11.
This morning, 23 July, I noticed that most of my edits, both the incident and my article updates, had been reverted. On 22 July, the IP editor who removed non-incident related content with edit summaries that it was not factual (despite being WP:NPOV and WP:RS sourced); IP editor provided no explanation on the talk page. Willthacheerleader18 made her edits on 16 July, removing 11 July incident content. I restored both today, 23 July, after leaving a message for Will on her talk page, in which I linked to the talk page section with editors concurring on inclusion of the incident. Will made no comments there.
This is hardly edit warring:
  • First a discussion on 4 July to 6 July, then edits on 9 July and completed on 11 July;
  • removal of incident content by Will on 16 July;
  • reverts by IP editor on 22 July of non-incident content;
  • restoration by me on 23 July,
  • then the following surprises today on 23 July.
  • Merely an hour and 30 minutes after my restorations, first Carrite removed the incident content & sources AND 30 minutes later, Yngvadottir removed/ truncated informative sourced content unrelated to the incident.
  • I have not made any further changes to the article. It remains as Carrite and Yngvadottir changed it, having reverted me.
Note that a COI, single purpose account, DBassistant (Derek Blasberg assistant?) made numerous contributions to the article in the past, so I was especially alert to IP edits with sus edit summaries.
Also, I was taken aback by edit summaries with this dismissive and unfriendly tone, when Carrite reverted me this morning: Personal life: Removes. Trivia on the one hand, BLP issue on the other. Feral Oink: stop edit warring to preserve this nor of judgements about what is gossip in the fashion and beauty industry, Yngvadottir: Removed earlier ref to Variety gossip column, the main part of which goes back to Daily Mail and social media posts; per BLPSOURCES. Friendship w/ Gwyneth Paltrow has already been reinstated w/ a different source. This edit is not an endorsement of the WMF.. Neither broached their changes on the talk page. The Variety article was a lengthy profile and analysis of Blasberg's career, of which the incident was a few paragraphs. It was not a "gossip column", and should not have been summarily removed.--FeralOink (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
FeralOink, here's that Variety link again: [1]. Yes, Variety is generally reliable for showbiz news, but that article is totally and openly gossip, and gives full credit to its sources; in particular, it traces the identification to the Daily Mail, which should be avoided when possible. This is a BLP. And as I noted in my edit summary, his being a friend of Paltrow was already in the article, with a different reference (you restored it). So despite being an extended treatment of the article subject, the Variety article that is primarily about the defecation incident is not needed to reference anything in the article, and its use cannot be defended. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Is the argument here really about whether a biography of a living person should go off at length about how he allegedly took a really bad dump once? In the primary document that appears when his name is searched on the Internet? I mean, this is really just a thing with absolutely zero encyclopedic interest at all, but beyond that, on a very basic common sense level: have we, at long last, no decency? How utterly embarrassing -- for us. jp×g🗯️ 01:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi FeralOink (talk · contribs), I am a woman and my pronouns are she/her (Will is short for Wilhelmina). I removed the edits on the Blasberg article, as I explained in my edit description, because it did not seem encyclopedic at best. Wikipedia is not a gossip column. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
JPxG you are grossly mischaracterizing the incident. The BLP subject did not "take a really bad dump". There were three sentences about the incident in the article, which is not "at length". This is the removed content: "On 6 July 2024, Variety reported that Blasberg had "an unseemly incident in (Paltrow's) guest cottage, involving an intense bowel movement which wrecked the place". Blasberg departed immediately, leaving some cash for Paltrow's housekeeping staff, rather than making any attempt to clean up after himself. The extent of the mishap was not limited to the bed, but rather (as detailed by Yahoo! Entertainment) fouled the walls, ceiling, and floor of the guest room as well." I agree, that the third sentence can be omitted. Also, notice that the article has received over 48,000 page views in the past 30 days so it clearly is of interest to some people. Finally, when one does a Google search on the BLP subject's name, three of the four "Top Stories" reference the incident. That is not due to the Wikipedia BLP as all three pre-date the changes I made on 12 July.--FeralOink (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I so very much apologize Willthacheerleader18 (talk · contribs)!!! I'm a woman too. I should have noticed that you were, and especially since you have "cheerleader" in your user name. (Yes, there are male cheerleaders, but still...!) I made several typos in what I wrote above. Yngvadottir is making a subjective judgement on what constitutes a "gossip column". Again, I will reiterate that there is a talk page discussion and that this should have been broached there first, rather than summarily reverting me and bringing it before a Noticeboard. I am particularly aggrieved at the lack of WP:Good faith by the initial Noticeboard entry by Hemiauchenia that characterizes me as "insisting" and then "edit warring"! I was merely restoring content that had been agreed to on the talk page. I even made inquiries myself about whether it was appropriate to include initially, per the talk page.
I am surprised that editors would use their personal judgement to determine which content from a WP:RS source is "gossip" and which is not. Perhaps that belongs at the sources noticeboard rather than BLP.--FeralOink (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I am surprised that editors would use their personal judgement to determine which content from a WP:RS source is "gossip" and which is not. Deciding what should be included in an article is a fundamental part of what we do here. Accepting for the sake of argument that nobody disputes the reliability of Variety as a source here, the fact that something is verified by a reliable source does not mean that we have to include it. This is supported by policy: see e.g. WP:ONUS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. In particular, our BLP policy says that Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, and the lead of that policy explicitly mentions exercising editorial judgment.
At any rate, regardless of what policy says: how can including this possibly be a good idea? What encyclopedic virtue does it have? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Okay, so I will disregard Wikipedia_Wonderful_698-D, GramercyGreats, and 98.248.161.240 on Talk:Derek Blasberg. My initial enquiry there was "This is all over the news although it hasn't made it to Page Six/NY Post... yet. Paltrow told Oprah what Blasberg did at her home. I added two sentences without mentioning the ghastly "incident" but sourced his close friendship with Paltrow using two WP:RS, WP:NPOV references that cover what happened. I have no idea whether something like this belongs in a BLP of a socialite or not." Responses by other editors included "It does." and "The story has been picked up by international outlets including Variety and the Daily Mail. I believe it does belong on the page." Just now, I checked the edit history of those users. They are scant, and in one case, has a disclaimer that they only edit occasionally. I apologize for my error in judgement about trusting the advice of the three editors on the talk page without further investigation. I was naive. I am unaccustomed to editing BLPs about people in the popular media. You were correct to revert me. JPxG, there is NO need to say I "have no decency"! If I had no decency, I wouldn't work on this project.--FeralOink (talk) 09:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS. Something being "all over the news" does not mean it is appropriate for an encyclopedic biography. I do not see any attempt to provide an argument for the long-term significance or noteworthiness of the content. – notwally (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Y'all gotta be shitting me that this is anything but WP:BLPGOSSIP. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Very much WP:GOSSIP, is not encyclopedic unless if it leads to something else. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I realize this now. The article does not include any content about the subject's incident at Paltrow's. Can we close this already? I don't think we need any more editors saying the same thing when it was already agreed upon unanimously by SIX editors to not include anything about the incident.--FeralOink (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
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.

Gavin Wood

Hi! In the article Gavin Wood, a founder of Etherium, there's a controversy section discussing a blog post he made in 2013 (which he acknowledged writing but claimed was fiction). One source is Buzzfeed News, which is fair enough, and another is Business Insider, but the rest are crytocurrency news sites which I have no idea how to evaluate in regard to BLPs. Thus I was wondering if there were any thoughts in regard to their use in the BLP. - Bilby (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

An 18yo guy wrote a fantasy blog involving sex with an underage girl. There is no suggestion it was anything more than bad-taste fiction, and the author deleted the blog post after internet outrage. Now enthusiasts can use Wikipedia to right great wrongs by keeping the outrage alive. An argument could be made for a very brief sentence with the 2018 BuzzFeed article as a reference. However, the current detail and Controversies section are totally WP:UNDUE. The issue might be DUE if a reliable source explained how the incident had a significant and long-lasting impact on the subject. At the moment, the issue is that a successful tech entrepreneur has made a lot of money in an area (cryptocurrency) where there are a lot of opponents who would like to amplify Gavin Wood's problem. Johnuniq (talk) 06:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't use any of those crytpo sources, BLP is very clear that we must be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. Those are not suitable for a BLP. And I wouldn't use WP:BUSINESSINSIDER in a BLP either, as I don't see it as a high-quality source, which only leaves WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS. So, with only one source remaining, I think it's reasonable to argue that an entire section is UNDUE as well.
And on another note, I am appalled by the personal attacks and aspersions against Bilby made by Lustigermutiger21, seen here, here, here and here. Granted, they have been warned, but I'm not convinced by any of their responses that they fully understand how totally unacceptable those comments are. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
The listed material seems more like cheap gossip to me and I'd agree their inclusion is undue, and I also think the insults levied against the editor above are completely unnecessary to the point of administrator involvement. Lostsandwich (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm not so worried about the comments, in that I would block if used against another editor, but I'm considering it closed in relation to me. If it starts again against anyone there is only one possible outcome.
I was unsure re WP:DUE, which is why I initially trimmed it back. [2] But once you start including some, you need to include a bit more - mostly that the post was rapidly taken down and that there was an apology. But if it is deemed undue I'm completely ok with that, and I'm ok with not covering it if the only viable source is buzzfeed news. Crypto isn;t an rea I usually touch in any regard. - Bilby (talk) 09:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
I understand your position, but I am worried they don't fully understand how totally inappropriate those comments are. They didn't even acknowledge those comments were personal attacks, apologize for them or retract them by striking them out. That is unacceptable. In my view, if they don't fully understand what they did was wrong, now, in the first instance, then they should be formally warned by an admin that they will be blocked if it happens again. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
The sources I have given are, in my opinion, reliable and the topic is relevant. I have acted in good faith to expand the article with a relevant event in Wood's life. My statements against @Bilby were not personal attacks but were made in the heat of the moment because the subject is very sensitive. The sensitive topic, the media interest, the publications and the outcry that followed in the crypto community are, in my opinion, reason enough for the controversial section. Lustigermutiger21 (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Lustigermutiger21 - No, your comments about Bilby were personal attacks; you made derogatory comments about an editor, as the diffs above clearly demonstrate. And the fact you don't fully understand that is problematic. You were advised to remove the attacks, and you haven't. Will you retract all of those attacks by striking them out? Isaidnoway (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
I had no intention of attacking anyone personally and I apologize to @Bilbyif it came across that way. Lustigermutiger21 (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Lustigermutiger21, those were definitely personal attacks, and you should strike them as has been recommended by other editors. – notwally (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
I think this material is probably undue if the only reliable source is BuzzFeed News. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE. – notwally (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
I consider BuzzFeed and Business Insider as reliable sources for the "Controversy" section and would like to highlight the fact, that the article has bunch of unreliable sources backing other sections. Lustigermutiger21 (talk) 06:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Matt Morgan

Details added to the Career/Radio section, citing an article from September 2023, regarding an ongoing legal issue involving Russell Brand should be removed as per this government guide advisory notice: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/media-advisory-notice-russell-brand 37.228.204.18 (talk) 11:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

You mean Matt Morgan (comedian)? Wikipedia is not subject to UK law but even so I can't see anything currently in that section of the article that is improperly sourced. Bon courage (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

A WikiProject people watching this page may be interested in

Hello folks. I'm trying to revive Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue. I started a recent discussion there as well. Given that this has implications for BLPs more broadly, I figured it wasn't entirely inappropriate to leave a comment here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:MrBeast

In the talk page there is frequent discussion of adding serious allegations to the article of criminal conduct without reliable sources based on the belief that the allegations are true, including through refrences to self-published youtube videos not made by the youtuber in question, analysis of primary sources and of poor secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Originalcola (talk • contribs) 17:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

all that is appropriate to add is that theres a controversy, not that mrbeast is somehow complicit beyond what is objectively true and reported NotQualified (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Tommy Robinson

92.233.82.113 is the forth troll account that has griefed his talk page / article this month. tommy has now been called, without proof, 'an international terrorist', 'self-proclaimed nazi', and more. someone even demanded publishing videos of child porn in order to confirm he combatted grooming gangs, which is obviously absurd and bad faith trolling. this repeated defamation in such a short notice mandates a raise in protection for his page. NotQualified (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Requests for page protection can be placed at WP:RPP. Note for any looking on, it's Tommy Robinson (activist) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
We don't usually protect talk pages (the article has been semi-protected for months). I hardly think that an IP describing a video that makes false allegations regarding a teenager, and which was screened in violation of a court order and means that Yaxley-Lennon* now has an arrest warrant out for him, as "shite" is a major issue. * "Robinson"'s real name Black Kite (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
it's the international terrorist, and nazi claims that mainly concern me. not 'shite' NotQualified (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but page protection will make it so all IP (and some non-IP) users cannot edit on Talk page, and some have been making honest attempts to contribute there. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
thats why we dont usuallt just make protections, this page is being griefed too much and tol badly NotQualified (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't sound like that much; you're saying four times in a month? And looking at the talk page in question, the "terrorist" claim wasn't this month, but last. If you wish to remove that from the discussion, that is something that can be deleted under WP:BLPTALK. I see that a few comments this month were deleted under WP:NOTAFORUM, which may apply to some (but only some) of what you're concerned about. In any case, this is not the page that can grant you page protection. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Imane Khelif

Imane Khelif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Imane Khelif is a woman by birth and chosen identity. People have edited her page to change pronouns to ‘he’ because they believe she is trans (she is not) and they are transphobic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:240:2C60:B54C:129F:5FFB:C570 (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

It looks like this is working itself out on the talk page and the current version of the article looks OK to me. The article is also semied. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
It has now been ECP'd because of speculation edit warring. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Taral Wayne

Many sources are adding content to Taral Wayne claiming the subject has died. However, I have yet to find a reliable source claiming as such. So far it's just social media posts or fan-created content. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Andrew McManus

I would appreciate it were an editor with experience in BLP issues to take a look at Andrew McManus, to which I was drawn by a reference error (now fixed). McManus is a music promoter, and I would judge is likely notable. A large part of the article comprises criticism of his business practices, based mostly on a single article published in The Sydney Morning Herald, an Australian tabloid, and I suspect that the article may have seen COI editing by people who have lost out as a consequence of the failure of McManus' companies. I am unsure how to proceed – probably some discussion of the legal issues is appropriate, but the article as it stands is close to being a candidate for G10. Thanks in advance, Wham2001 (talk) 08:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

While I have no comments on the article and deletion, just a note that The Sydney Morning Herald shouldn't be called a tabloid. Yes it publishes in tabloid format (nowadays?) but it's not tabloid journalism which is what matters to BLP. In fact, AFAIK despite suffering (as with many sources) from an increase in sensationalism and with more focus on entertainment as many news sources have done to try and survive in the modern media landscape it's still generally considered one of the best Australian news source considering the dominance of Murdoch media there. See WP:RSPS and previous WP:RSN discussions. Nil Einne (talk) 11:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Agree with the above. The Sydney Morning Herald is tabloid in size, not journalistic style (in common with many other newspapers in Australia / New Zealand which have changed from broadsheet to tabloid size in the last 20 years). It's Sydney's newspaper of record and up there with other former broadsheets such as (in NZ) the NZ Herald, the Post and the Press.
As for the content, it could do with a prune (we don't need to know about all the article subject's failed business ventures) maybe limit them to ones that have ended up in court. Daveosaurus (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
I've pruned a couple of sections of excessive trivia or peripheral involvement and will leave it to the BLP experts for further work. Daveosaurus (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Criticism and controversies should be summarized, we don't need to know insignificant details like the room number of the hotel or that it was a "5-star Hilton Hotel" or what Owen Hanson has been described as. In my view, it is wildly UNDUE and some sections also suffer from excessive bolding. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

List of intersex Olympians

There is no RS confirming that Imane Khelif is anything but a cisgendered woman. Including her in the article is highly misleading and inappropriate. It needs to be removed until we have consensus for otherwise

The referencing for at least one of the other entries is not what I would expect for a BLP matter. Red Fiona (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:DOB and Associated Press as a RS

Since it involves BLP policy, wanted to post a notice here as well for the discussion at RSN regarding the reliability of AP for famous birthdays.

Awshort (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Using names in 2024 Southport stabbing

Could those here familiar with WP:BLP policy please take a look at ongoing discussions at Talk:2024 Southport stabbing#Suspect's name, Talk:2024 Southport stabbing#Organisers' names, Talk:2024 Southport stabbing#Victims' names, and Talk:2024 Southport stabbing#Should we name the accused?, to help with policy guidance/arguments. Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Southasiapress

[3] What is the reliability of this source and the news site overall for exceptional claims being made about deaths squads and human rights violations? Other than being a non notable source, it also appears to be an op-ed and questionable source making claims about multiple living people allegedly running death squads Axedd (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The best place to post this inquiry is probably WP:RSN. Once a threshold determination is made on reliability, it's easier to apply that consensus to relevant WP:BLP content. JFHJr (㊟) 19:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Apostol Tnokovski

The page of Apostol Tnokovski should be deleted because:

  1. There isn't enough independent coverage to pass the General notability guideline.
  2. It is very poorly sourced. Some sources can't be verified, others are broken links, and the ones that work are from small blogs with no authority on the subject.

This is a self promotion page from an aspiring designer. A simple Google search shows that his designs have never been turned into products for him to be considered a Product Designer as the opening line suggest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morningstar.pm (talk • contribs) 03:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

This should probably be listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion rather than here, as this is a page for handling issues related to how to cover living persons, not whether to have articles on them at all. Wehpudicabok (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Sinfest

Sinfest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a comic strip that an editor User:Wehpudicabok is intent on repeatedly adding a paragraph[4] of negative opinions about the artist's mental health that is sourced to a single unreliable self-published blog. Talk page discussion I've started at [5] seems to be going nowhere and I'm about to hit my third revert. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. Elspea756 (talk) 03:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The section as it was written on Wikipedia was entirely about the comic, not its creator. Admittedly, part of it was sourced to Kleefeld talking about the artist, not the comic; I removed that portion. The portion that is about the comic itself should stay, as it's the result of community consensus, as I have repeatedly mentioned (and been persistently ignored about). Wehpudicabok (talk) 03:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
See here for some background and the consensus for the current (as I type this) version of the disputed text. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Good news: Talk page discussion has resulted in removal of about half of the BLP material sourced to a self-published blog,[6]. However, bad news, there is a continued effort to now take a portion of the blog post saying the artist is allegedly "on a downward spiral [from] nerd [to] extremist" and insert that in the article as instead a passage about the artist's work rather than the artist themself. I've just removed it again.[7] I'd rather be editing other things, so any help would be appreciated. Thank you. Elspea756 (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

You have put words in quotation marks that are not in the post being used as a source; it actually says "To quote Ryan Broderick, who wrote a summary of everything you need to know about Ishida and the downward spiral of Sinfest not long after Kaella's thread ...," which is unambiguously a statement about the downward spiral of the comic strip. I don't know where your not-a-quote comes from. --JBL (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
I finally figured it out: your "[from]" replaces one sentence of Kleefeld plus four sentences of something that Kleefeld is quoting; "nerd" and "extremist" are then words not of Kleefeld's but from the end of the quote. This is rather misleading! You are correct that Broderick's comments about Ishida, as quoted by Kleefeld are not usable in WP; luckily, no one seems to have been using them, and the assertion that Sinfest has experienced a downward spiral is manifestly not a comment about Ishida (neither in our article nor in Kleefeld's article). I see that at least four or five other people have made this point on the article talk-page. --JBL (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
I would encourage you to go to the article talk page and address the points made there that the contested content is a description of the comic's themes, not of the author (about whom little is known).Daveosaurus (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Herman Brusselmans

Belgian author Herman Brusselmans has made stupid comments in his most recent column (he has written satirical and willfully provocative columns for some 30 years now), which seem to be willfully spun in the worst possible light by some Jewish sources and some editors. I should probably refrain from editing this further, so uninvolved eyes on this article (and especially the section "Alleged call for violence against Jews" / "Call for violence against Jews") would be welcome. Fram (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Jason Momoa, Talk:Jason Momoa, Lisa Bonet, and possibly other pages

For some time now, a mostly dynamic IP user has been trying to add information about Jason Momoa having a new wife. I'm not sure how to describe this situation without violating WP:NPA. If this fantasy relationship exists, no reliable source has ever mentioned it. Page protection is simple, but what can we do about the multiple nonsense edit requests? --Onorem (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest taking this to WP:RFPP Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Jason Momoa is about 30 days into 90 day semi-protection. Where is the recent disruption occurring? Cullen328 (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Multiple edit requests/comments (4 at Talk:Adria Arjona and 13 at Talk:Jason Momoa yesterday) demanding that wikipedia be updated to say that Nicolle A. Morea is Momoa's wife. The attempts to add that name to Momoa's article began last September. This is the obsessive fantasy of a person in Germany. Her "source" is her post on Medium which explains the "sign" that Momoa has given in a photograph to validate her fantasy so that the "relationship" can be updated on wikipedia. Short of a project-wide edit filter blocking edits that include the name "Nicolle A. Morea", I don't know what else can be done to tamp this down. Schazjmd (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Since the person in question isn't notable, I don't see why that couldn't be done. Acroterion (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Started an SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moreamomoa. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

John Clauser

See also: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive 91 § CO2 Coalition, and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 94 § John Clauser

Rationale: I am submitting this BLP report based on an edit I've restored due to the use of WP:EXPERTSPS. See also: Talk:John Clauser#Recent deletion of Sabine Hossenfelder.

Summary: John Clauser is a Nobel prize-winning physicist who joined a leading climate denial organization shortly after winning the award, gaining some currency in right wing media circles for promoting climate denial. For what it's worth, Clauser's odd behavior is not entirely unexpected. People who win the Nobel prize are susceptible to Nobel disease, a common affliction.

Recently, fellow physicist and science communicator Sabine Hossenfelder evaluated Clauser's claims on her YouTube channel, stating "Clauser starts with a made-up definition, suggests that climate scientists miscalculate an uncertainty by forgetting to mention how it’s actually calculated, suggests that they lie about something that’s clearly stated in every single paper on the topic, presents a self-made hypothesis that climate scientists have told him since last year is trivially wrong, and to top things off calls everyone who has actually works on the topic 'dishonest'." Hossenfelder's opinion is considered the mainstream consensus viewpoint, so there's nothing controversial here.

Editorial behavior: User:Kbahey recently added Hossenfelder's analysis to Clauser's biography,[8] followed by User:Panian513 removing it based on WP:USERGENERATED,[9] and my subsequent restoration of the material.[10]

Question: Was I wrong to restore this material? Thanks in advance. Viriditas (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Hossenfelder's video[11] seems sane, rational and good, but it makes statements about a person. If we could use experts' Youtube videos to debunk nonsense, Wikipedia would be far too easy. BLP is clear-cut about not using self-published sources for content about a person. Bon courage (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I understand your position. But my position is that Hossenfelder is not commenting about Clauser, the person, but rather about Clauser's comments regarding climate denial, which are two different topics. Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
If that were true, you might (might) win a fight to keep it. But there are statements in the video describing him (e.g. as a 'climate changed denier') not just focussing on the bollocks he utters. Basically, this is clear-cut and bios are a WP:CTOP so trying to push it will just get you sanctioned. Bon courage (talk) 04:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not trying to "push" anything. I'm trying to understand if the material Kbahey was acceptable. I thought it was, which is why I restored it. Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to give a quick explanation - apologies if it isn't concise, as I'm just about to head to bed.
An important part was left out of your summary - I left a message on User talk:Kbahey explaining the policy reasons behind the removal. YouTube is not considered a reliable source. WP:UGC makes it clear, as video hosting services is defined as user-generated content. YouTube is especially perilous since it toes the line between a video hosting service and a social media site, which is another type of source which is generally unreliable. I do think that there should be mention of refutations of Clauser's claims, since they are considered fringe views, but as I explained on Kbahey's talk page, this should be a reliable source, such as a peer-reviewed article from a reliable science journal. As you said, Hossenfelder's views are the mainstream views, therefore, it shouldn't too hard to find a journal article specifically refuting Clauser's claims.
In sum, the medium of a claim is important. Certainly, Hossenfelder's views are mainstream, but a YouTube video can't be peer-reviewed - only a journal article or a book can. Panian513 04:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
My reading of it is that Hossenfelder views meet WP:EXPERTSPS. The question then becomes, can her analysis of climate denial be included in an article about a living person? Both you and Bon courage say it cannot, but I don't see any reason why it can't other than "Clauser is a living person and we can't use SPS" in a BLP. Viriditas (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
It's wrong to say Hossenfelder's views - it's more accurate to say Hossenfelder's medium of presenting her views. I'm not saying that her views are wrong, but that the medium of publishing the views isn't good enough for an article. Since YouTube is social media, by citing a YouTube video, it'll sound like the article is just commenting on Internet drama. If the article instead cited an article or another reliable source, then it'd qualify as a notable dispute in the scientific community. Panian513 04:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't see it that way. I see YouTube, as it is used in this case, as a distribution channel for Hossenfelder's show. YouTube is not being cited here, Hossenfelder's content is; nor are we citing the social media elements. I will revert my restoration as a show of good faith, but I hope this discussion continues. Viriditas (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
She's not a climate scientist, as she says; she relied on other people to pull the material together for her. Hossenfelder is a good egg, but pushing this is futile. Bon courage (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Again, that's the second time you've tried to say that I'm "pushing" something, when I'm not. I've already said I'm going to restore Panian513's version as a show of good faith. Clauser is not a climate scientist, he's a physicist, and his comments about climate science were rebuked by his peer. Viriditas (talk) 04:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, you should not have restored the material per WP:BLPSPS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree that the material should not be used in a BLP per WP:BLPSPS and WP:EXPERTSPS. Even for non-BLPs, the subject-matter expert exception can be difficult to determine when to use properly and the policy requires editors to "exercise caution when using such sources". Further, the self-published content does not seem to be adding much. Instead, I would suggest pulling addition criticism of his views from The Washington Post article. The article notes that Clauser "has never published a peer-reviewed paper on climate change" and then quotes two climate scientists. I would also suggest removing what Clauser "believes" and "has concluded" from the article, as there seems to be no reason to give fringe views more exposure. – notwally (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Your proposal has been discussed many times, and the community chose to include what Clauser believes due to reasons. I have linked to some of the previous discussions up above, but there are more on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it's that simple or that black and white. See this discussion, for example. My reading of that discussion is that 1) there is an unstated implication that there are legal considerations at work that override the use of a reliable source in some cases, and 2) we should avoid creating a "he said, she said" situation where certain claims about living people can't be properly vetted or substantiated. My argument up above is that Hossenfelder is attacking what the living person said, not who they are. Further, if as another editor said up above, Hossenfelder "relied on other people to pull the material together for her", that's another form of vetting at work. In any case, because the unstated implication is that this involves legal issues, it appears that I am being asked to no longer discuss it in this venue, so I will end my participation at this point. Viriditas (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
It's that black and white. So far, it looks like everyone you have asked here agrees that it's improper. Either the material isn't mean to say anything about the living person, in which case it doesn't belong in their biography; or it is meant to say something about them, and thus WP:BLPSPS applies. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
WP:EXPERTSPS can't be used in support of inclusion as it states Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer (bolding in original). Local consensus can't decide that doesn't apply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

anita vandenbald

Use of the word Hijacked in describing Status of Women committee actions is politically charged — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:8600:B850:748F:1115:87B8:551C (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Don Cherry

There is a discussion at Talk:Don_Cherry#Ron_MacLean_comments that would benefit from the experience of editors that follow this noticeboard. Andrew Englehart (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Helmuth Nyborg

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

There is currently a dispute as to whether the phrase "far-right politician" belongs in the opening sentence of this BLP. Experienced editors are invited to weigh in on the article talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Emma Barnett

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

Appreciate input to the thread I opened here: Talk:Emma Barnett#WP:BALASP. DeCausa (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Austin Lane

THE WIKI AGE FOR AUSTIN LANE IS NOT ACCURATE AND NEEDS TO BE REMOVED OR UPDATED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhoenixHouston (talk • contribs) 04:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You may be seeing a date when searching with Google, that date comes from Google not Wikipedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

BLP issue at History of violence against LGBT people in the United States

As happens with a lot of these lists of crime articles, there are some BLP issues with BLPCRIME and lack of sourcing for perpetrators. Additional eyes would be welcome. Currently there is an attempt to add a name without any evidence of conviction. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Only the perp's name needed removed (so I did that). EvergreenFir (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
This absolutely did not warrant a discussion about this, ScottishFinnishRadish. I have stated before and I will state again, you really should read LGBT and Wikipedia. Thank you, EvergreenFir. 9t5 (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
@9t5: While we have to ensure our coverage of LGBT issues is good, in no way shape or form can this override BLP. And sorry but any editor who thinks it does should voluntarily desist from editing anything concerning living persons or they should expect to be topic banned. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is not acceptable on the English wikipedia and it's especially not acceptable when it comes at the expense of BLP. Note while I won't give a formal alert for contentious topics, BLP and gender and sexuality are both contentious topic areas meaning editors need to be on their best behaviour. Treating BLP as being overriden by some desire to fix problems perceived with the world or wikipedia, is most definitely not that. Nil Einne (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
To be clear, while I'm not opposed to EvergreenFir's fix, BLP definitely means that if there are no or insufficient sources for any of the names, removing the entire entry is preferable to leaving it in. Any editor who reverts to keep the material without fixing it is solely at fault for the BLP violation that results. (To be clear, the editor who introduced this change is also at fault for their violation, but their violation doesn't excuse any editor also violating BLP by reverting an attempt to fix the problem.) While it might have been better ScottishFinnishRadish to implement the same fix, their actions were perfectly reasonable especially since such lists are always very tricky since it's unlikely that the list should have every single alleged act of violence that is reported in one or two sources so it's an open question what level of coverage we require before including an entry. (Frankly I hate lists of non notable cases.) This case happened long enough ago that sustained coverage should be demonstrable by now, so if it can't be, I think there's a good question if it belongs. Note that while removing the name reduces the harm to the perpetrator or alleged perpetrator, it doesn't actually eliminate it. Early reports can sometimes be misleading or incorrect, and of course the details of crimes can be disputed, and it is imperative we don't claim stuff happened in wikivoice when there is dispute. Note also we have to consider any living victims, which applies to the victim in this case. It seems the victim in this case voluntarily put their name out there which reduces concerns, still we need to remember victims may sometimes do stuff they later come to regret, so we do at a minimum need reliable secondary source coverage before including it and I only found this on IIRC the fourth source so it's easy to see it can be missed. More to the point, my earlier commentary comes into play, being fair to the alleged perpetrator means we may have to report any dispute over what happened, especially if it was never resolved e.g. via a legal case which can affect victims. Nil Einne (talk) 23:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
When editing via desktop-on-mobile it is difficult, sometimes impossible, to edit a large section in the source editor, so sometimes a revert is the best tool available to deal with blatant BLPvio. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
The current listing of every crime against LGBT ever done does not serve the purpose of being an encyclopedia. IDK about RIGHTGREATWRONGS, but listing like this makes the page less informative and likely buries the gist of info for folks looking into the history of LGBT violence. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
It took me about two minutes to spot a gross violation of WP:BLP policy in that list. [12] There are undoubtedly more... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
There's a lot sourced to a defunct LGBT hate crimes wiki, too. I spot checked a few, and luckily that wiki has decent sourcing. The whole thing needs a thorough check, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I found three more blatant violations, in less than 10 minutes. The article is a disgrace. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I've suggested on the talk page that the list be pruned down to Wikipedia-notable events and people. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I tend to agree. A list article full of non-notable examples of anything is mostly meaningless. Worse about people. Worst about crime. The article could benefit from either WP:TNT or a re-write with a more constrained scope. JFHJr (㊟) 00:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
There is a similar problem at List of people killed for being transgender, where it is common for additions to be made without any source saying that the victim was killed for being transgender, rather than being a transgender person who was killed. I don’t think that, even if accurate, this type of ‘list’ article serves any encyclopaedic purpose. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
It's an issue at every List of some sort of crime or victim or criminal. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
While I heartily agree that the list should be limited to hate crime cases (rather than simple murder cases lacking transness as a motive), that page is useful for anyone digging into transgender history. The history of trans people across the world includes the history of violence against them. The history of groups and the hate against them is fundamentally different than something trying to document the "history of murder" -- it is about the group being targeted. Is List of regicides also in your sights? List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots? These are useful pages. They should be well-maintained to improve quality, but Wikipedia stands to be a useful source of historical information for readers of a history of violence that is otherwise largely not compiled and remains underdocumented. AmityCity (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Except Wikipedia is not here to support the underdocumented. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that reports only well-documented topics. We are not a research repository of the non-notable. Especially when it comes to people and crimes. JFHJr (㊟) 00:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Of course -- and no entries should be added without multiple clear and reliable sources. These events are notable; my reference to an "underdocumented" part is the void of encyclopedic collection of these events were these pages to be removed. Absent a list like this, there would be no clear way for a user interested in learning about the topic to go from Chanelle Pickett to Murder of Shelby Tracy Tom -- despite the deep parallels between such events. AmityCity (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
And if said list remained congested with a collection of non-notable cruft like the amalgamation that presently exists, would that not hinder the casual user in seeing the relationship between notable events? And since this is still BLPN, I'll additionally ask how inclusion of names and events that apparently fall short of WP:BLP1E is justified on a scale that defies WP:WEIGHT as to notable or even noteworthy examples of the titled topic. Imagine for example Bhutanese refugees (or any other categorical victims) listing non-notable people in a separate section of the article. The long list of non-notables needs to go. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 02:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
For that purpose, I think it reasonable that the LGBT list take a similar bent as the transgender list -- and specifically limit to individuals targeted for their sexuality. I agree that the list would be more useful without random domestic murder cases. AmityCity (talk) 03:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
The problem is they never stay limited in any way. List articles like these become magnets for anyone who wants to add whatever they think fits the criteria of the title, no matter how remote the connection may be. We don't have enough people to police all these lists from here to eternity, so I think the benefits of having them are far outweighed by the potential harm they can and often do cause to living people. Zaereth (talk) 03:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
On the article talk page, so far it looks like 5 experienced editors (with the combined editing experience of several decades) have agreed that notability should be the bright line for inclusion. Others at BLPN might care to chime in there. JFHJr (㊟) 04:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Isn't the policy that these types of articles should have relevant blue links for each entry to show they are notable? – notwally (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
No, it’s that they should have clear inclusion criteria and be notable as a collection , see WP:NLIST. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 05:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Although the full policy details seem to be more complex than that, e.g., "While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, so common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list." I would argue that these crime lists are very broad subjects and that the BLPCRIME considerations warrant excluding non-notable entries. – notwally (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I agree -- but it's not as simple as "there's a policy that dictates this outcome". 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

EC Stilson

Requesting mediation on edit made 19:23, 6 August 2024 "Information not relevant to this page"

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=EC_Stilson&diff=prev&oldid=1238992728 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:200:5CC0:C989:200A:DF20:744E (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The removal is obviously correct, given the terrible sourcing. Please consult WP:BLP. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
You obviously haven't looked at the rest of this biography. All of it is terribly sourced and the entire bibliography is self-published. 2601:647:200:5CC0:C989:200A:DF20:744E (talk) 04:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
So propose it for deletion, then — the removal is appropriate regardless. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 05:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
It has been proposed for deletion since January 2024 with no progress. 2601:647:200:5CC0:C989:200A:DF20:744E (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Please see WP:AFDHOWTO. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Benji Krol

I'd appreciate more experienced eyes. I've noticed several issues with this article. It appears to divert attention from the sexual misconduct allegations to another individual, even though the sourcing doesn't do this. This has led me to suspect that the author may have a connection to the subject. The author, Joshbanana, is an almost-SPA for this individual and has confirmed some sort of connection with the management of the subject: its just that i was emailing with krol's manager and i wanted it to be perfect in this comment on their user talk page. I've discussed this with the author: User talk:Joshbanana#August_2024 but I don't know how to proceed. The AfD seems so strange to me Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benji Krol. How should I proceed? Svampesky (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:COIN should also be notified. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Is that too soon? That would mean having three discussions happening simultaneously: this BLPN, the user talk page, and now COIN as well. Svampesky (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Ah. probs.
I'm posting the appropriate template on the COI user's talk page to notify them of COI policies for now. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
If talk page resolution doesn't resolve and COI user does not abide by WP:COI policies, you can probs report them. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I've tried to find contact information for Benji Krol's management, and an email for his management isn't publicly available anywhere. @Joshbanana: how did you get this email? Svampesky (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
WP:AVOIDOUTING applies. Svampesky, you should not be interrogating Joshbanana about his email or email addresses he has access to unless if they disclose they do have the COI or if they continue to do suspected COI type edits.
Others can do the investigation if necessary. Just follow protocol and work on the page. :D Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, I wasn't aware of that particular guideline. I'm going to step back from my participation in this matter; and observe and make notes how more experienced users handle it. Svampesky (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
For the record, I don't actually think it's the subject writing the article himself. I was questioning the connection that the author has with the subject's management, per them confirming they have been in contact. Svampesky (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
You didn't think one COI notice was enough? You posted the exact same COI notice that had been posted by Svampeskly approximately 45 minutes earlier. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I was also confused about that. Svampesky (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Imane Khelif II

Talk:Imane_Khelif#2nd_lead_paragraph:_"public_scrutiny"_vs._"misinformation"

The main issue here is whether Khelif facing "public scrutiny" about her Olympic eligibility should be included in the lead. The term "scrutiny" is used in several reliable sources to describe the situation, but others have said the lead should only state that "misinformation" occurred (as it currently does).

I and supporters have argued that "misinformation" alone is not a balanced/complete description of the response to her participation, and that something like "public scrutiny... including misinformation" more closely aligns with sources. Opponents have argued that including the term "public scrutiny" is not appropriate because "scrutiny" would legitimize the misinformation or give it undue weight in a BLP.

The discussion is currently dominated by a small group of people – including myself :) – and consensus seems far, so I think it would be good for additional experienced users to weigh in. Thanks! JSwift49 (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Sharon Davies

AntiDionysius is making false claims about Sharon Davies over criticisms of two boxers in the Olympics, namely (1) that there is no evidence to support Davies complaints when they failed sex tests with the IBA and were not allowed to compete as women (2) (in the comment redoing the edit) that Sharon Davies claimed they were trans when neither article referenced mentions or suggests that.

Mentioning the controversy is fair, but the mischaracterization is potentially libelous. Davies is making claims about sex that are protected under British Law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorrectionsClerk (talk • contribs) 03:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

This quotes Davies as saying that the two female boxers are "male". GiantSnowman 09:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't see the problem in simply repeating what Davies says. She claimed (amongst all the other stuff she has spewed in the past) that the Olympics were "allowing women to get beaten up by men" [13]. Black Kite (talk) 09:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
There's no doubt she has described the two boxers as "male", but in the two sources provided there is no evidence that she has described them as "transgender". That's a quite separate matter from the question of evidence, but it's important to get these basics right. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Rene Gonzalez (politician)

I'm seeking clarification on whether the alleged/apparent paid editors of |Rene Gonzalez (politician) properly noted the public taxpayer funds used in the initial edits, per this https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2024/08/portland-commissioner-rene-gonzalez-spent-thousands-in-city-funds-to-polish-wikipedia-page.html -- I saw they went through the COI process, which is good, but I'm not seeing where the campaign listed its paid contributors and that they used taxpayer money. Thank you for your review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:4700:F8E0:E432:9F37:9EE8:B49A (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not sure what you're asking. The source you provided requires a subscription, so I can't read it nor assess its reliability. Are you asking if this info should be included in his article? That depends on the reliability of the source and the WP:Due weight, which is something that should be discussed on the article's talk page. Are you asking if the COI editor should be admonished for leaving out the fact that they were paid for their edits? I don't know what good it would do, but this is not the proper noticeboard for that. Maybe WP:COIN or WP:ANI, but I don't know what they could do after the fact. All in all, the discussion on the talk page shows that the editor made some rather simple and reasonable requests, some of which we accepted and many denied. (If that's worth $6400.00, then I'm in the wrong business!) None of it is really outlandish or white-washy, and the editor did declare their COI. Either way, this isn't something for this board to deal with, at least not this early in the news reporting. Zaereth (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
OregonLive is the website of the Portland Oregonian, the newspaper of record in our state. Carrite (talk) 02:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
It seems details have been added and removed from the article, but there's no discussion of the content on the article's talk page. I would suggest starting a discussion there on whether the content should be in the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
That does not seem to be a question for this noticeboard. Having said that, a clear COI was stated, including "I work with Commissioner Rene Gonzalez", which at least suggests the person is employed by the government. Even beyond that, the material was not actually posted by the firm that was the recipient of the government funds at issue in the newspaper article; they may have helped compose the edit request, but the request is the responsibility of the poster. Whether or not it was stated with perfect precision, it was clear enough to deal with the COI involved. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Jim Riswold

Two IPs edited Jim Riswold earlier today to claim that he died. Since there were no sources cited in support of these claims, I reverted them. I tried searching for sources myself, but so far have only found this. Is that good enough for Wikipedia's purposes or is a better source needed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It's a self-published source, so I don't think so. Lard Almighty (talk) 09:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Ad Age seems to be a trade publication so I'd suggest using with strong caution on anything BLP, but IMO it probably good enough for a death report [14]. Frankly though, we could likely also just wait. Riswold seems to have been active recently enough and their profile is sufficient that I suspect something better will emerge. Nil Einne (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Ad Age is a trade publication, but it's a very well-established one; basically, it's the paper of record for the advertising industry. For factual news related to the industry, it's definitely an RS. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who helped with this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

J.D. Vance Service Medals

Someone removed his medals from his profile. 63.131.188.140 (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Based on what I'm reading from the talk page archives, they were removed both because secondary sourcing of them wasn't shown and also because the extra ones were just general "served in a tour" type medals that literally all US soldiers received, which don't meet due weight considerations, particularly if they don't have significant coverage about them in sources to support their inclusion. SilverserenC 01:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
And now they appear to have been added back in by Avraham without talk page discussion and linking to a primary source regarding them. SilverserenC 01:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
And appears to have added them in with a reference to a Twitter post (complaining about their removal on Wikipedia) that Avraham then "fixed" with a removal just now. To cover up that that was the source and not an actual link to even the primary source in question. SilverserenC 01:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
The DD-214 is a reliable and verifiable source. Not every source needs to be on line. That is what {{cite document}} is for. -- Avi (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
It is a primary source that you aren't even linking properly anyways because the link you had added was to a political Twitter account. SilverserenC 01:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
We should not be using a public document to support claims about a living person. Woodroar (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia allows reliance on a primary source "to a lesser extent" (See first sentence of WP:PSTS). The reason we do not prefer primary sources is that they are "…close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." That does not apply here. The absolute authority on the awards a US veteran has received is the US Department of Defense which lists them on the DD Form 214. There is no possibility of "misinterpretation" or partiality. Furthermore, as per the continuation of the aforementioned paragraph, there is no interpretation being performed here. Merely transcription of the US DoD form. We are using it to make a "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Anyone can get the DD-214 with a properly filed FOIA claim, and many have. Requiring that some other source literally quote the DD-214 word for word just to make it secondary is solely bureaucratic in nature and not required as per our policies I just listed. -- Avi (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
WP:BLPPRIMARY: Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Woodroar (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The article is JD Vance and there are complaints at Talk:JD Vance. However, this is not a BLP issue. Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

This is neither a trial transcript nor a court record. Moreover, this is not an assertion about JD Vance. This is the absolutely most authoritative and least partial document listing the awards he received. We are not claiming he was guilty of X or innocent of Y or accused of Z. We are merely listing the awards that the US DoD has confirmed were given to Vance. Moreover, one may even consider the DD-214 to itself be a secondary source. The primary source would be the actual citations that were delivered with the awards, would they not? -- Avi (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't know why the link was changed to the Wikipedia article, but I've scan-backed his specific form and changed it into a cross-Wiki-link to that. As to the sourcing issue, this is not a prohibited source; it is not a "public document" as defined above because it is not a document filed in a court (which, while publicly available, do not reflect judicial determinations nor objective "facts" but instead merely reflective the subjective viewpoints of the participants in the lawsuit). There is nothing subjective in this document, nor is there anything which could bias the stance of the person writing the document. The document is, in fact, a neutral, non-political document which simply describes his term of service and the awards which he has received. It is the best source for such information. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't mean to be rude but why the fuck is anyone even thinking of using a primary source as the sole source of info for JD Vance? The dude is currently running to be vice president of the United States, on the ticket of one the major political parties. And even more than that, he's running with Donald Trump someone with an extraordinary high profile, during an extremely contentious election cycle. And he himself has significant attention due to the perception he's been a questionable choice as VP candidate which has harmed the chances of Trump winning for a variety of reasons including his public comments; and also questions over his past comments of Trump. To top it all, he has been the subject of significant shitposting memes. I'm 99% certain you can find many secondary sources for all I've said. All this is to say, if you cannot find secondary sources for whatever it is you're trying to add, then clearly it's irrelevant nonsense that none of the many many many thousands of sources out there talking about JD Vance thought was important enough to talk about so is so far into WP:UNDUE territory, it's not even funny. Nil Einne (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
See WP:PUFFERY. It's for cheap vainglory, nothing else. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
@Avraham did you actually see the Form 214, and not what some rando twitter account says is the Form 214? nableezy - 23:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Jahvillani

This article lacks notability, is almost entirely self-sourced or poorly sourced. Refs 15-50 are merely links to song promos on the same website. There is no page for the artist on All Music, the artists' official website is a parked domain on Wix, the artist page on the record label site is a photo, and nothing else; a mere 4 compilations appear from the same label on MusicBrainz and Discogs. I'm unsure how to tag the page for these things. Ebonyskye (talk) 06:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Geoffrey Kabat

An editor identifying as the subject of this bio has appeared on its Talk page to propose a rewrite as a "corrective" to the "egregious distortion" they say Wikipedia has in relation to an incident concerning the effect of the tobacco industry on a piece of published research they co-authored. Could use more eyes/opinions. Bon courage (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Eva Poumpouras (self-)promo vandalism

I have recently started adding content within the article about Evy Poumpouras, first under the IP address 80.187.66.38 and now under my newly registered account TRVTHSERVM. However, two users (not sure if they are actually the same person), one being 35.140.144.82 (a US IP) and now someone with the name Isabelle Belato, keep reverting those changes without giving any reason whatsoever as to why. I have given my reasons as to why I have made those changes on the talk page as well as in the "View history" page, but instead of replying those users just keep deleting those changes to "beautify" Ms. Poumpouras article of anything that is critical of her claims as well as the sources given. In fact all the sources in that article are tabloid papers using Poumpouras' own claims as a source, which would count as a questionable source. I have added the template "better source needed" as there are no official documents or independent, third party confirmations proving that Poumpouras actually worked as a so called "special agent". Same for the USSS Valor Award she supposedly received for being a 9/11 first responder. 9/11 first responders are one of the best documented people in recent US history, but her name cannot be found in association with that award.

So to summarize: the article in question is repeatedly getting purged by a certain individual, or individuals, from all indications of unproven claims made by Ms. Poumpouras and template inserts to use more objective, reliable sources. The article prior to my edits to which those individuals keep reverting is, as far as I can see, nothing but a promotional piece instead of an objective, critical list of facts about a living person. It is not using provable facts, but mere opinions made by Poumpouras herself. Wikipedia is not an "about me" page but an encyclopedia. I am writing this here in the hopes to prevent an unnecessary and infantile edit war, which the individual(s) in question seem to want to provoke. TRVTHSERVM (talk) 06:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The top of this page notes "Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. ". This issue started to arise less than 24 hours ago. Asking for help here is dramatically premature. Recommend archiving this and allowing discussion to continue at Talk:Evy Poumpouras. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
All right, I'll wait a couple of days then and reply here again if the edit war continues. TRVTHSERVM (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive362&oldid=1241693558"