Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive301

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 03:07, 17 April 2020 (Archiving 4 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.


Reliability of claims about oneself

A notable person has reported via social media that they "think" they came down with COVID-19 and they recovered. They were not tested, they did not mention consulting a health care professional, they simply made a prudential determination that they suffered from the coronavirus, and brought up the subject in public. This social media report has been carried by normally reliable news outlets. Is it prudent for us to mention this in their biography? What about categories, lists of people with COVID-19? How far can we stretch credulity of people making claims about themselves? Elizium23 (talk) 06:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest skipping it for a couple of weeks and then see if reliable sources are still talking about it. My guess is that by that time, succumbing to the pestilence will become even more commonplace than it is now. The effort put in to writing up relative trivia about individual celebs would be better spent on the members of Category:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory. (I've looked at a small number of these and have been very impressed by what I've seen there.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
No, not unless a secondary source has commented on the significance of the claim, that is, what real-world event was influenced by the claim. The person can (and apparently has) make claims on social media but an article is not another social media outlet. Johnuniq (talk) 06:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Secondary sources are few and far between in BLPs. Most BLPs are composed entirely of primary news reports. Elizium23 (talk) 06:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Primary sources are ok for core facts such as birth date, academic qualifications, employment, etc. When wondering about an issue like the one in question (should someone's thought bubble be added to the article?) a primary source is not adequate because not every factoid should be in an article and primary sources are obviously going to report any space-filler. Johnuniq (talk) 06:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Most commonly, we are getting details on a person's life because they have been interviewed by a reliable source and given that information to that source. This has been argued at other boards whether that interview (whether a Q/A format or a summary) is a primary or secondary, but I will argue it meets our secondary meaning given it is transformation - it is the BLP giving a summary of their life to the interviewer. We'd prefer this form as the interviewer will give focus on the most relevant details (eg they may skip over the half-year a person worked as a bagging clerk before college as irrelevant to being a politician for example). Where there are interesting non-subjective facts as Johnuniq points, then direct information from the BLP themselves is fine, but this should be seen as the glue to fill in spaces left by the secondary sources, not the foundation to build a BLP's biography on. If we're doing the latter, that begs the question if the person is really notable. --Masem (t) 18:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
My basic view is that this is too frivolous to include anywhere (WP:INDISCRIMINATE), and I suspect the RS coverage you mention probably consists of frivolous celeb-gossip level non-news. However I might reconsider if the coverage was big enough and serious enough, likely for some reason not included in the question here. And in that case 'claims about oneself' would be pretty much irrelevant, as we would be summarizing whatever significant things the sources were saying. Alsee (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Tjalf Sparnaay

I happened across this article on realist artist and painter Tjalf Sparnaay and was startled to read in the lede: "stripper"? The tense "is" does not support this term; and by all means I cannot find anything in the article or online to suggest the BLP to be a stripper. Is there something being "lost in translation"? Maineartists (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

It was vandalism so I've reverted it. Woodroar (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Woodroar. But now there seems to be 2 Early life sections? Maineartists (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
The text was identical so I removed one of them, too. Woodroar (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Joshua Ip

The subject's name has been repeatedly edited to his real name rather than their better known and more page-relevant pen name "Joshua Ip". This violates the following policy on privacy of living persons' names:

"Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desapar (talk • contribs) 07:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Jimmy_Dore

extremely biased defamatory comments https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Dore&type=revision&diff=947879083&oldid=947627022 SeventhHarmonic (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

This was vandalism which was quickly reverted by another editor. Feel free to revert this type of thing yourself. Neiltonks (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Dating material at the Raven Goodwin article

Some back and forth on dating stuff going on at Raven Goodwin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

This seems to be a case where IPs were probably improving the article, but unfortunately reverted. See talk. (The earlier edits were problematic since they were clearly unencyclopaedic but in some ways were also an improvement since it seems more likely they were correct about her fiancé's name.) Although to be clear, I'm not complaining about any editor's actions. I understand how easy it is to check one source and assume that the others say the same thing, especially since some of the edits were fairly poor and the IPs just said stuff like do a Google search etc rather than noting the source discrepancy. Nil Einne (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Elizabeth Tan (English actress)

Long term ownership by promotional accounts; at least one edit in the past was by an IP claiming to be the actor's agent, but it's fair to say that the COI involvement has been more widespread. I've cleaned this up a bit, but more eyes and critical faculties will be welcome. 2601:188:180:B8E0:DC8C:D31D:1DDB:9A1A (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I've edited it to cut back on the puffery and name-dropping, and watchlisted it. Neiltonks (talk) 12:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Neiltonks. JJMC89 also blocked the most recent disruptive account. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Gwenno Saunders

Small dispute with @Iridescent: - should Gwenno Saunders be described as 'Cornish' in the lede? I say no per WP:MOSETHNICITY - we do not describe people by their regional heritage/origin (she was born & raised in Wales but has Cornish heritage). Lots of people are famously associated with a city/region, that does not mean we describe them as such in the lede. GiantSnowman 20:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

No idea what this is doing here - this is just yet another case of GiantSnowman being disruptive for the sake of being disruptive - bus as I've already explained (and had ignored) WP:MOSETHNICITY doesn't say what GS thinks it says. "Unless it is relevant to the subject's notability" applies here; as I've already said on GS's talkpage, her notability derives almost entirely from Y Dydd Olaf (partly in Cornish) and Le Kov (all in Cornish), and she's almost certainly the most famous Cornish artist in any medium. If not for those two albums she'd just be "the one who was in a couple of incarnations of the Pipettes". Removing the fact that a Cornish artist famous for Cornish-language work is Cornish is straightforward tendentious editing. ‑ Iridescent 20:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I note the article was created on 26 November 2006 and didn't become "Cornish" until this edit on 18 October 2019. She was notable in 2006 as a musician; the fact she is now also known for recording music in Cornish language is irrelevant. GiantSnowman 20:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Oh and for the avoidance of doubt - I have nothing against mentioning her Cornish-language music in the lede. What I oppose is describing her as "Cornish" in the lede. GiantSnowman 20:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Barack Obama is notable for being the first African-American President. However, he is (rightly) described as "an American politician" in his lede - and his article is a Featured Article! GiantSnowman 20:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
He is also (rightly) described in the lede, in the very next sentence, as: A member of the Democratic Party, he was the first African-American president of the United States. Now what, GiantSnowman? Mr rnddude (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
'Gwenno Saunders is a Welsh/British musician, known for being a member of The Pipettes and for her Cornish-language solo albums' or similar would be appropriate, would it not @Mr rnddude:? Now some other questions to answer: If she is only notable for her Cornish, why did she have an article for 13 years before she was described as Cornish? How come she only 'became' Cornish in October 2019? What happened that month to change the situation? Did Cornwall gain independence from England? GiantSnowman 17:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Appropriateness of the redirect Barack Osama

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
WP:SNOW -- an obvious "no", via the discussion here in combination with the previous results. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The redirect Barack Osama and its lowercase form Barack osama were deleted 8 times in total, always per G10 or a similar rationale except for one G1 in May 2007, before being salted in June 2008 and March 2009, respectively.

On the other hand, this typo is common enough (example 1, example 2) that it may actually warrant a redirect despite this, like its counterpart Obama bin Laden/Obama Bin Laden/Obama bin laden that have been kept three times at RfD.

In brief: Should Barack Osama/Barack osama exist as a redirect to Barack Obama? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Absolutely not. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Seems like an effort to make a political point. At this point, people know his real name. The primary valid redirect would be a misspelling of Barack (like Barrack) or Obama and Osama is not a misspelling, it's pejorative. Liz Read! Talk! 05:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose even if we ignore political considerations the fact fact that it appears that after being salted no one contested either of the deletion for over 10 years strongly indicates that people aren’t misspelling Obamas name in that manner making the redirects pointless.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 05:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Please don't waste editor's time with nonsense like this. Johnuniq (talk) 06:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose How do you accidentally type that? “B” and “S” aren’t even close to one another on the keyboard. You know what I’m gonna have to call on this one. ~ HAL333 05:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
    "B" as in "B", "S" as in "S"? Elizium23 (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Nah, even if someone accidentally types Barack Osama into the search field, his name still appears in the search results, along with other results, let them choose the article they want based on the search results. And also, once you start to type in the name Barrack and the letter O...the first suggestion is Barrack Obama. And also agree with Johnuniq. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This strains credulity. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per HAL333. If a reader somehow managed to genuinely innocently confuse Obama's name as Osama, showing them the search results would do more to help them recognize their mistake than a redirect, so the lack of redirect would be doing them a favor. Sdkb (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Can't see how "Osama" could be anything other than a politically motivated nickname that we shouldn't recognize for Obama. There's no logic to consider it a type or a misunderstood/phonetic misspelling. --Masem (t) 18:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the above and it's time for a withdrawal of the proposal or a WP:SNOW close. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I tend to agree that this is probably just some politically motivated crap-slinging just to, I don't know, get a laugh, but I do seem to be missing one valuable bit of info that is actually factual, and that is just how many hits does this redirect get on any average day? I tried checking, just to satisfy my own curiosity, but apparently the new pageview tool doesn't allow me to check redlinks anymore. (The old one did.) That would seem helpful to know for a question like this. But that aside, it's really not necessary to have redirects for every possible misspelling of a word or name. I can see using them for commonly misspelled names, like Mississippi or Tennessee, but I wouldn't go out of my way to think of every possible typo, and on those grounds alone I also oppose. Zaereth (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Sdkb: if a reader genuinely confused the two, it would be much better for them to see it corrected in the search results than to assume that it was correct because of a redirect. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2020 (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.

Raquel Dancho

This is the Wikipedia page of a recently elected Canadian Member of Parliament, and it essentially reads like something out of her campaign ad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.170.219 (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. This article needs a lot of work to make it encyclopedic. It reads like an autobiography, with telltale signs that it was likely written by the subject or someone close to the subject. For example, most of it is unsourced, it contains info only the subject could possibly know, and is written from an egocentric spatial-perspective that turns it into a first-person narrative. The tables showing election stats are extraneous and should be cut. It focuses more on her personal life than on any political stuff. (Not too different from whatever that is someone posted one section above this, that I just deleted.)
I don't have time to fix these issues myself, but you most certainly can. Just find some good sources, add what relevant info you can, and whittle away everything that's not found in them anywhere. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 23:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
It's a copypaste of [1]. I've reverted and revdel'd it. Connormah (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Kit Harington

this page keeps being vandalized with gossip, defamatory, and unnecessary edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.54.252.192 (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Given Kit Harington's status, I suspect a request for indef semi-protection at WP:RFPP might be more constructive. The page has been subject to rumour-mongering and other BLP violations since at least 4 June 2017. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

See this edit. I am very tempted to simply blank the content: whoever wrote/updated it in 2013 (the access date) was apparently working under the assumption that such a situation would never change, which makes me skeptical enough to think they may not have even checked the content of the source but merely checked that the link was still live, which it is not anymore.

And yes, I know that a red notice is not the same as an arrest warrant, but as far as Wikipedia is concerned the issue of citing a primary source for such a claim is just as bad regardless of peripheral issues like how I word my BLPN comment.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

There's definitely better ways to source that there's an Interpol warrant out on him. At late as 2017 USA Today reports it was still there but I'm doing a bit more peaking to try to scope out when it was placed, whom, etc. as to avoid the use of the first-party Interpol source. --Masem (t) 15:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Even better found this Vanity Fair (French) from last month to confirm its still on, so no need to touch the 1st party source.
In generally, we want to avoid the use of court and police records like Interpol in the first place for BLP; the only time I would consider it acceptable is if there was notable 3rd discussion of legal action taken against the BLP, but after many many years, no followup to that from 3rd parties, and you would have expected some resolution by then. Then turning to court records to, say, find the person was proven innocent, or settled out of court, or matter resolved without incident would be fine. That's obviously not the case here: Polanski is still a major figure and the case from his past still haunts his present life. --Masem (t) 15:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
@Masem: Gee... thanks! I'm kinda disappointed that those sources appear to basically agree with the poorly sourced content I had tagged, but it's good for the encyclopedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't have the time or good knowledge (along with the language issue), but there's clearly more about Polanski's plight of late that could be written about, the fact the 2017 attempt to get rid of that Interpol warrant failed, etc. There's a sympathy out there among journalists that can be used to build upon neutrality/impartially. --Masem (t) 15:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

William A. Tomasso

William A. Tomasso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, I've submitted a request here to delete the William A. Tomasso Wikipedia article on his behalf. Would editors here be able to look and see what they think?

As an employee of the Tomasso Group, I'm aware I have a conflict of interest here and I've disclosed it on my profile page and within the deletion discussion. I've reviewed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and believe this pseudo-biography about a low-profile individual should be deleted per WP:BLP1E and limited secondary coverage. I know editors will make the final decision but I wanted to see if there was any input people here could provide since this noticeboard is about biographies.

I'd appreciate if editors here were able to review the article, reasons for deletion, and available sourcing. Thank you. SHtom5916 (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, I think people over at AFD are being a little rude in basing their answers on the "obvious COI". Of course it's obvious; you stated it directly, which is what a person is supposed to do in this type of situation. I thank you for taking steps to do this the right way. Part of the problem is that this case is involved in politics, and like all media Wikipedia is an extremely politically-motivated place, so getting this deleted is going to be very difficult at best.
I tend to agree that the sourcing is all about this one incident. There's really nothing much about him aside from a few personal details gleaned from primary sources. Mostly, the article reads like this hodgepodge collage of cherrypicked tidbits, but is missing any of the major details that would tie it all together into a coherent article. It almost looks like we're trying to create a false sense of balance. This case would obviously have a large impact on his life and career, but not so big as to be life altering and there is really nothing else about that life and career, so as a reader I'm left wondering "what the hell was that?" Zaereth (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I think at minimum the name is still a searchable term perhaps to John G. Rowland, as his white-collar crimes (tied to Rowland's chief of staff) were part of Rowland's reason for resignation and can be mentioned there. --Masem (t) 19:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Question about people whose existence is disputed

Quick question, hoping for some clarity. I was working to expand the category of "People whose existence is disputed" with more modern entries, and one of the first notable individuals that came to mind was Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of bitcoin. However, upon simply adding the category I was reverted, with the contention that it was not his existence that was in question, but his identity.

My question is, I'm completely off the mark on not seeing the difference here (and maybe I am)? If a particular person did not have a true, known identity (Satoshi has been posited to be an entire group of people, for instance) would that not be tantamount to having a disputed existence? This is the heart of my question, and to be perfectly clear, I am not trying to go behind anyone's back in asking this here. I don't care to "win" anything about this pretty trivial issue, I'm just very confused and want to be sure that I understand the issue properly before starting a potentially contentious talk section about any of this.

For further comparison, consider someone like Sun Tzu (who is in the "people whose existence is disputed" category). Clearly some real person created a work under that name (just like Satoshi did) and his actual existence is disputed (just like Satoshi). Is there meaningful difference here that I'm not seeing? Can anyone help me understand what I am missing about this that makes it potentially contentious? Thank you for any insight into this! Buddy23Lee (talk) 07:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

With traditional works like The Art of War (and perhaps more famously the Tao Te Ching) there's a not-insignificant possibility that they were not created by a single author but rather a composite of the work of multiple, mutually unrelated, authors over many years or even centuries. A lack of evidence for the existence of a specific individual, in such cases, is more likely to be taken as evidence that such a person never existed. If the assumption is generally that a single individual did the things attributed to Nakamoto, under an assumed name, that is, IMO, substantially different from a historical figure who may or may not have actually existed. If it the people who think that the inventor of Bitcoin was not named Satoshi Nakamoto universally, or almost universally, attribute the actions of Nakamoto to a specific named individual, such as (totally random name) Al Gore, then a case could be made that Nakamoto, like "Jeanna F. Gallo" was a person of disputed existence but since Gallo doesn't have a standalone article and we don't seem to have a generally-accepted "real" identity of Nakamoto, it would seem that that analogy of mine is irrelevant, but no more than the above Clearly some real person created a work under that name (just like Satoshi did) since the claim that "some real person" created The Art of War is not only not "clear" but it is rather very much in dispute. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
The description "People whose existence is disputed" is too ill defined. Anyone can dispute someone else's existence. Even if you restrict that to scholars, the list could include Shakespeare, Homer, Moses, Jesus, pretty much any biblical figure, and many others from antiquity. Categories like this can become a tool for expressing an opinion about the subject of an article without a mechanism for good sourcing and review.--agr (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I suppose I will just leave it alone. It sounds like its going to be a matter of opinion rather than something with a more clear/obvious criteria. Buddy23Lee (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Juan Branco

The page Juan Branco, equilibrated in its French version and consensual in its English version until mid-january, has been modified in the last weeks in the EN WP as to become libellous and not consensual by two contributors who have systematically been adding negative elements, including accusations of criminal behavior, distorting sources when needed to do so, and deleting anything that could be favorable to him. Juan Branco is implicated in heavy political wars in France, and there is clear suspiscion of bad faith in the behavior of an SPA contributor, with systematically negative modifications, deletion of factual elements and systematic addition of unilateral negative elements, sometimes accurate, sometimes through source manipulation. Basic biographical elements like studies or employement are being deleted with no reasons, as weel as primary legitimate sources (Reuters, AP, The Guardian), for no reason. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Juan_Branco&diff=947974881&oldid=947963474 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Juan_Branco&diff=944533150&oldid=944520998 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Juan_Branco&diff=943222267&oldid=943220163 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Juan_Branco&diff=943220163&oldid=943219147 (and so forth)

A single purport account defaming with (maybe) ingenious support of D.Lazard has been participating, and waging a systematic revert war in violation of WP rules. D.Lazard, an interesting contributor in the scientific era, has nonetheless in good or bad faith participated in this WP war, and proposed himself to serve as a sockpuppet to XInolanIX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:XInolanIX#Juan_Branco. Juan Branco has been a contributor in WP FR for 15 years, and participated on his own and other's pages, and has stopped since this happened, letting unilateral accusations be brought on him. This is a SPA too, as I want to remain anonymous. This is a sensitive subject Elahadji (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

This user seems to be the subject of the article himself. His habit of using Wikipedia as a PR-tool and to threaten and denigrate perceived enemies has been well documented by the press as can be seen in the article and it's French version (e.g.: he once wrote a threatening letter to the employer of another Wikipedian claiming to be a "Wikipedia administrator"). The self-congratulatory article was rewritten after the revelations by the French press. Last Sunday a number of SPAs and IPs started rewriting the article into a hagiography. Things have escalated from there and Elahadji has been flinging allegations and insults left and right. XInolanIX (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
References for further information: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Brancojuan and Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard#XInolanIX XInolanIX (talk) 11:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Telly Savalas

Question about date of birth: A recent edit by an IP broke the birth/death date templates by introducing "21 or 22" as the birth day. The references given are [2] and [3] which both look like dubious primary sources to my eye. Any thoughts on how to handle this? Normally I would remove the birth date as poorly referenced but maybe someone here can find a suitable reference for such a notable figure. Johnuniq (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Good catch. The birth year was wrong according to the reliable source I added. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Should this be buried? [4] (EDIT: The diff not the page) I'm not entirely sure about how or where to report... Carl Fredrik talk 19:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
    (Edit: Carl Fredrik talk 07:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC))

This seems like an article that is ripe for deletion. Springee (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
It could certainly stand some judicious pruning. - Ryk72 talk 21:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I think the media has blown this thing way out of proportion like they always do (but that's the problem with crying wolf all the time). Likewise, I tend to think they're the ones who keep fueling racism, because it just makes for good headlines and sells copies. In doing a quick read through, I can't tell if all of this is actually racism or xenophobism by the psychological definition, or simply germaphobism. I think it's way too soon to be putting together an article like this, because someone with a degree in psychology should be assembling all this info. For us to do that creates a false narrative that these incidents are all somehow linked as part of a larger conspiracy or something, when in fact in many cases it may just be that people are scared of getting sick, and when people are scared they often do irrational things. Therefore, I'm with Springee that we should probably delete it, and at least wait until reliable sources have time to study and print something more comprehensive about it. Zaereth (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
There is the whole mess around calling it the "Chinese virus" and implications of that which can be/should be documented somewhere, but I agree that documenting all these little crimes across the globe just because they are in the midst of this pandemic as being related to this is too far. That list needs to be focused on major stories and not the little cases like that Texas one --Masem (t) 22:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I think probably somewhere in the pandemic articles that can certainly be covered, but it's too soon to really know all the implications of that. One problem in reporting on other cultures is that we can't judge them by European/American ideologies. You really have to understand their culture and ideologies to be able to make an informed assessment.
For example, in the study of the history and development of steel, European's tend to impose their own ideologies onto Asian cultures when trying to understand just why their iron-making technology developed so differently. With very rare exceptions, European ideology was based on the notion of "purity" as being the greatest value, so when looking at things like Damascus swords or Japanese swords, it's natural to assume that creating a pure metal was their goal as well. But Asian ideology is based more on the idea that a combination of extrmes can work together to create a stronger whole. (This is even evident in other technologies such as the Mongolian bow, or religious concepts like chi (the combination of yin and yang) although it's unclear whether the ideology influenced the technology or the other way around.) The Japanese, for example, had the ability to fully homogenize their steel, but purposely chose not to, relying on the combined properties to increase strength.
Likewise, when it comes to racism in Asian cultures, that's a completely different thing than racism as we understand it by American or European ideology. It's actually central to the plot of just about every kung-fu movie ever made, but it's difficult to understand by our own ideology. Zaereth (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I meant the diff

I was concerned with the specific diff when I posted here. You're all very welcome though to take part in pruning the page, or creating an overarching non-list article, which I've suggested many times now. The list is in my view pointless, because it is indiscriminate and as has been said here includes trivial examples. But what is more egregious is that it include the trivialities, while missing really major things (due in part to anglophone bias). The presence of a list without an overarching article makes it out to be the defining list, i.e. if its not here it isn't notable – which it isn't and frankly goes against the notion of a Wikipedia list. It's mostly a random collection of primary sources. Carl Fredrik talk 07:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Yungchen Lhamo

A lot of unsourced and promotional content. Also wondering if most of this is a copyright violation of multiple sources, particularly [5]. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Mike Causey

The edits to this page on 3/31 and 4/1 are hitpieces. Causey participated in a sting operation resulting in the conviction of billionare Greg Lindberg for bribery. These edits appear to be based off a fake countersuit from Lindberg against Causey. Can we roll these back or apply an authentic biography? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:182:C900:D80:83F:B11D:6901:9C18 (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, the Biographies of Living persons policy says: All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. This means that negative information that is reliably sourced is acceptable. Whatever the merits of the countersuit, it has been reliably reported as has the campaign finance violations. There is other information that is not reliably sourced and I will be removing it shortly. I am not sure what you mean by "authentic biography" but I would be remiss if I did make you aware of the Conflict of Interest Policy; it is not up to an article subject, their organizations, or their supporters to decide what is "authentic" or not. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Looking further into the actual sources cited, the characterization of the edits by the anonymous IP editor were substantially correct. Sources were twisted and badly misrepresented. As just one example, an article in a RS that was quite laudatory about the subject was cited to support an accusation of minor agricultural good issues - an accusation that didn't appear in the cited article at all. I have removed the worst misrepresentations and added statements that more-closely match the sources that were already cited. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
And thank you to Indy beetle for picking up where I left off in removing the excesses from the article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
@Eggishorn: There has been a problem of paid editing at the Greg Lindberg article by attempting to minimize his bribery conviction. That editor was stopped, so I wouldn't be surprised if they (or someone related) were trying to evade me and other responsible editors by trashing the Causey page. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

John Merrill (American Politican)

John Merrill was the first married SGA President at The University of Alabama. This is very significant. Yet, despite my editing the wikipedia article with the correct date of his marriage, the admin reverted back to the incorrect date. The date currently listed on wikipedia is off by two years. And it makes it look like he got married after college, not during. So it is simply a sham for correct information to have been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belledoll (talk • contribs) 02:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

What's your WP:BLP-good source? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
@Belledoll:, as Gråbergs indicates, we need good quality sources for all significant claims in all biographies of living persons. You can find out about sourcing requirements at this link and about the Biographies of Living Persons Policy at this other link. All that said, the marital status of a politician during their student government career doesn't strike me as especially significant or important to understanding the article subject. I suggest that you use the talk page of the article to discuss the inclusion of this with other interested editors and what sources are acceptable for establishing this. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear Eggishors, no, your comment does not help. As if you had bothered to actually look at the sources I cited you would see that they were wedding announcements from newspapers of the time period. Which are considered valid research tools.

A wedding announcement would establish that he is married, but would not establish the significance of being the first married person to be SGA President at The University of Alabama. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Indy_beetle: The wedding announcement was to establish the date of the wedding as they were refusing to believe me when I said their wedding date was incorrect by two years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belledoll (talk • contribs) 23:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Controversial material?

What is the proper way to deal with an editor who appears to be the article subject removing a claim that they worked in the sex industry in the past? The claim is sourced by one item: an interview where the subject reveals this. Reposting this from WP:COIN. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The material should be left out, or a better source that actually mentions the subject should be found. The material seems to violate WP:BLP. - MrX 🖋 11:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Leave it out. What she said in an interview comes under Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves: unly unexceptional claims about which there is no doubt can be included. Even if a reliable secondary source can be found, WP:REDFLAG and WP:BALASP would favor exclusion, unless it was routinely mentioned in detailed accounts of her career. TFD (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Pinging Jooojay so that they can see this advice.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Just to clarify, this is not a self published source, it's a mainstream art magazine. Are you claiming that an interview with the subject Xandra Ibarra in a magazine is a "primary source"? Or somehow it is questionable source? Also what about the rest of the text that was removed by this editor - this went beyond the removal of "participation in the sex work community" and included information about education/training. I accept if we want to remove the sentence about any connection to sex work, esp if there is a controversy now. What I am confused about is if we are allowing possible COI users to edit their own articles and remove other content as well. Jooojay (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I think the overall point is that if you are going to say someone was a "sex worker", WP:BLP requires excellent sourcing, and the item needs to be widely reported. I see it widely reported that they worked for some sex industry organizations that helped sex worked, but only one source that says they were a sex worker. I'm not an expert in this area, but I think WP:BLP is there to point out that we are not here to promote potentially damaging stories (i.e. "she was a sex worker") based on a single source. If the story is out there in multiple reliable sources, then it is OK. Re: the COI issue, that is separate.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
The language used did not say anyone was a "sex worker" and neither did the citation - the citation used the term "participated in" and the WP edit read "active in the sex-worker industry". The artists entire career is built on exploring sex, queer sex work culture, and power around sex - I don't think there is anything controversial about her "participated in" but like I said earlier I understand the consensus here. This still doesn't answer the question about the other content removed. Jooojay (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I see now that this conversation about the other content removed is on the WP:COIN now, so I will use that to go forward. Thank you all for your time and feedback! Jooojay (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Heiko Julien

Heiko Julien article has been repeatedly vandalized since 2013. See talk page. False claims calling subject a "sex offender" are being repeatedly posted with no citation. Propose deletion of this poorly sourced article about little known, apparently inactive individual. Article does not meet notability standards and relies on minimal, insignificant sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Healthyjanitor (talk • contribs) 01:03, April 7, 2020 (UTC)

@Healthyjanitor:, I have restored to the last version before the addition of the BLP violations starting in September. Your last attempts to remove the contested material broke the page and removed most of the content, which I don't think was your attention. My revert has removed some data from the infobox but it looked similarly unsourced. If unsourced or poorly sourced allegations continue, then you can request page protection at WP:RFPP. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
The IP who added the content has been at it since 2018 so probably should be blocked if they try again. Frankly from the current sourcing the article should probably just be deleted. Nil Einne (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion after closer inspection. Courtesy pings to Healthyjanitor, John B123, Nil Einne Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Rick Harrison

Edit warring over place of birth, without a definitive WP:RELIABLE source. Needs more eyes, and better research. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Ezra Miller -- choking incident

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

Hi - at Ezra Miller, I just removed some content which said in Wikipedia's voice that the subject was the person in a currently-trending video, whereas the only supporting source said merely that it looked like Miller, but that this was not confirmed. There had also been some recent vandalism, presumably inspired by the video, so I have semi-protected the page for two days. Bringing it here for review, comments about level/duration of protection would be welcome. GirthSummit (blether) 15:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit:, semi-protect looks entirely justified but can I suggest that two days would be too short, based on our prior experience? Viral lynch-mobs rarely dissipate after just two days and that seems to be what's driving this. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Eggishorn, thanks - that was the Twinkle default setting, but I have no problem with extending it if others think necessary. GirthSummit (blether) 15:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I added "-- choking incident" to the heading above as to clarify what this matter is about and hopefully get the attention of more editors. I also added a link so that editors can easily click on the article history.
To anyone reading this, we need more opinions on this matter: Talk:Ezra Miller#Choking incident. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I would also think it should be extended, for the reasons Eggishorn gave. As for the editwarring at the article, I agre with Girth Summit (and Flyer22, over at the article talk page) that the sources do not demonstrate that the person is Miller, but simply say it looks like Miller, so per WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NOR, etc. we are not in a position to be reporting that it is Miller.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
OK - I've increased the protection level to Extended Confirmed, and extended the duration to two weeks. If decent sources emerge about this incident, a discussion should take place on the talk page about whether/how to cover it. If anyone thinks I'm over-stepping the mark here, please let me know. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 13:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

#wikipedia-en-revdel Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud

  1. wikipedia-en-revdel

Hi. I would like to delete the edit summary of the last two edits as they reveal personal information of the editor that I did not think would be published. (Redacted) Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Overlord1256 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Marie Lenotre

Linking Marie LeNôtre for reference. --GRuban (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

This article is negative and defamatory to Marie Lenotre. Please tell me how I can edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CIL Marketing (talk • contribs) 00:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks like some vandalism that for some reason was allowed to remain for way too long. We even have what appear to be good faith editors reverting the removal of the vandalism and even correcting spelling and capitalization, which seems odd to me. I have reverted the article back to the last good version. If the problem persists, I'd suggest your next stop be WP:ANI.Zaereth (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Zaereth, I was just going to do the same thing, but you were just a bit faster. @Minorax and Jeremydas: folks, I'm sure you meant well, but please be more careful and don't actually restore vandalism. This was not subtle, this stood out.--GRuban (talk) 00:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Meanwhile, to answer your question, User:CIL Marketing, in most cases, as a marketing company, where the edit you are asking for is a standard one - add some information, correct some information - you should ask someone else to edit the article for you, by placing a {{Request edit}} template on the article talk page, as described there and in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#COI editing, and someone should respond in a few days. This was a rather extreme case of vandalism, though, and posting at a high traffic noticeboard like this one is perfectly appropriate, and as here, you'll likely get a response in hours or minutes. Thank you. --GRuban (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry. It was a technical error, I'll be more careful.--Jeremydas (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Use of The Washington Free Beacon for what looks like a BLP violation on an article about a political candidate

Kimberly Dudik is a Democratic candidate for Montana's Attorney General. In August CharlesShirley (talk · contribs) added an article from the Free Beacon about a local Democratic committee member named McWilliams who offered a campaign tracker a free vibrator from his sex shop as a source for her being a candidate, which seems somewhat bizarre at best. Over time he's changed his use of the source so that it now sources this statement: "In August 2019, a local Democratic committee member and supporter of Dudik, Billy McWilliams, who owns a sex shop, was working a parade event for Dudik and started harassing a young, female tracker for America Rising, offering her a "free vibrator" and throwing her a kiss. Dudik claims McWilliams has no formal role with the Dudik Attorney General campaign.[1]" Note that the bit about "supporter of Dubik" was recently added.[7] Ah, the more I look at it the worse this is. What Charles Shirley has omitted (while calling McWilliams a supporter) is that he said "McWilliams also said he has no affiliation with Dudik. "I have no relationship at all with Kimberly Dudik, just saw her at the parade," he added. "Please don't make this a reflection on Ms. Dudik. That was my comment, and mine alone." It also doesn't say that he apologised for the comment. Note that I can only find this story on two sites, the Free Beacon and a site that links to it and includes a video. This seems both a BLP violating misrepresentation of a dubious source and of course WP:UNDUE. Doug Weller talk 09:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Removed. Bias in a source is not necessarily a problem, but that story is just ... well, a total non-story written to try and place Dudik in a poor light. It's the sort of thing we'd expect from some of our better known deprecated sources. I note that CharlesShirley has re-introduced that text at least twice now. Black Kite (talk) 13:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Scher, Brent (August 22, 2019). "Montana Democrat Offers Female Tracker a 'Free Vibrator,' Blows Her a Kiss". The Washington Free Beacon. Washington, DC. Retrieved August 22, 2019.

William A. Tomasso

William A. Tomasso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sorry, I was unable to reply here before the discussion was archived. Previously, I came to this noticeboard seeking feedback from editors familiar with biography guidelines after I nominated William A. Tomasso for deletion, which I argued is a pseudo-biography about a low-profile individual which should be deleted per WP:BLP1E and limited secondary coverage. I've been fully transparent about my conflict of interest as an employee of Tomasso Group. The result of the deletion discussion was to keep the article. I understand the community has made a decision here, but I'm hoping editors here could answer a few questions for me about what to do next.

@Zaereth and Masem: Thank you both for replying to my last post here. User:Zaereth agreed press coverage was about a single incident and User:Jonathan A Jones saw no evidence of Mr. Tomasso being a public figure, but other editors suggested there's sufficient media coverage and seemed bothered by my conflict of interest despite my public acknowledgement. I am curious, if editors believe this level of detail about Mr. Tomasso is appropriate for Wikipedia, but there's limited coverage and no content to add, is merging the content into an existing article possible? A couple of you had mentioned that option and I wondered if it's still possible at this point. Alternatively, if a merge is not possible and new media coverage becomes available, can I come back and ask for help adding neutral information? I want to understand all my options here without going against community decisions or standards. Thanks. SHtom5916 (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have weighed in over at AFD, but I rarely comment over there and I just had other things on my plate. This article is far more about an incident than it is about a single person. Just because a person is in the news doesn't necessarily make that person notable enough to have their own article, even if the incident was highly notable. For example, we have no article about Casey Anthony, even though she was the center of a high-profile murder trial. We do however have an article about the incident itself. If we removed all of the primary sources and left only the good secondary sources, all we would have in this article is a few paragraphs about this incident. To me, that just doesn't cut the mustard for a stand-alone article. There should at least be enough info out there to make a decent encyclopedia article, so if we keep the info then merging it someplace seems like the best alternative.
That's why I said it seems like we're creating a false balance. It's as if someone wanted to make an article about this incident, but didn't have enough info for it to stand on it's own, so starting digging for biographical info on this person from primary sources just to help fill it in. That's my impression from the way it's assembled.
COI is often one of those arguments that's in many cases a very valid concern, but too often it's also used as more of a distraction from the real points, or simply as a default because they couldn't think of anything better. I again thank you for doing this the right way. COI is important because you have an intrinsic bias that can't be helped, so we have to be wary of that, but it's no reason to dismiss a valid concern.
Consensus is not the end of the world. It just means your job isn't going to be as easy as all that. Consensus can always change, but you're going to have to garner support. The general process for you now would be to start a discussion on the article's talk page. There really no limit to how much we can discuss thing (although people will get worn out after a while if consensus can't be achieved, or if it continually goes one way and others just don't know when to drop it). If that doesn't help, then you can go to WP:RfC and try to get some comments from uninvolved people. The next step is mediation or even arbitration. But you have to try to get people to see things your way and agree with you, and in most cases that won't be those who've already made up their minds. This noticeboard is really for egregious BLP violation, which this doesn't really fall under. Zaereth (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I dont have anything substantive to add: Zaereth puts things well. Though I hope that Masem might say a bit more about why he commented the way he did. I have taken the liberty of fixing the piped link in your text above. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive301&oldid=951426849"