Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Alexander_Greba

Alexander Greba The biography section of this article does not provide any sources; With the exception of the length of the subjects prison sentence. The linguistic characteristics suggest that the origin of the article is not a person who understands the English language. The talk page sates that part of the article was translated from the Russian Wikipedia page but it is not reasonable for contemporary translation software to lack proficiency to such a severe degree. The information provided sounds as though it was either; made up, or learnt from gossip. The entire biography needs to be deleted or rewritten.

Brent McIntosh

Hi, I am requesting your help with some minor edits to this article, noting that I work with Brent McIntosh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) at Citi. We posted this request on the Talk page about a month ago with no response yet.

1) We noticed the information about his job title at Citi is outdated. His current title is Chief Legal Officer & Corporate Secretary. This is reflected in his biography on Citi’s corporate website and also in this Bloomberg profile.

2) The mention of his previous membership with the Council on Foreign Relations is inaccurate. He is a current member of the Council on Foreign Relations. I’m including here the membership roster of the Council as well as another source that references his current membership. A logical edit here would be to move the Council reference to serve as the first sentence of that paragraph: “McIntosh is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, …”.

I appreciate your time and consideration of these suggestions. LowneyJen (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@LowneyJen: Both fixed (the CoFR was in fact listed twice; I have removed the incorrect duplicate). Thank you for bringing this to our attention here. Please see also WP:About you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing Thank you for your help! LowneyJen (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing Thank you again for your help. I should point out that Brent is no longer a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, but a regular member. If that sentence is removed, you could simply note him as a member of the CoFR within the first sentence of the “Civil Society” section instead.

Also for your consideration, Brent served at the U.S. Department of Treasury in another role prior to his Under Secretary role in 2019. In March 2017, Brent was nominated to be the General Counsel of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. He was confirmed by the Senate in August 2017 and served in that role until September 2019. You could also use this as the source for the article’s second sentence where it’s noted that a citation is needed. LowneyJen (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

sean omalley biography

it says he has a daughter but it has been confirmed the child isnt his. please correct page 73.37.229.140 (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

See WP:BLP and bring an excellent source for this. Not Reddit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Also I removed a related item based on WP:BLPGOSSIP grounds.[1] I really question the reliability of these niche MMA sources if they are going to be focusing on that type of crap. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if it's still a problem, but there have been problems before where editors familiar with the area have insisted that Sherdog (and maybe one or two other questionable sources?) is the best source especially for anything about a fight but also IIRC for basic biodata (like height) despite community consensus being against that per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. It didn't help that a anyone in the area pushing back seemed to have equal problems e.g. socking making the whole thing an awful mess. Perhaps things have calmed down, I don't recall a recent ANI thread, or maybe just no one is paying attention any more. BTW, someone can have a daughter even if "the child isnt his" assuming you just mean it's not his biological child. So even if for some reason there's a public paternity test, this does not tell us whether he has a daughter or not. Nil Einne (talk) 09:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The Sherdog database itself should not be seen as controversial, but I am not clear on how reliable their news reporting is nor whether their reporting panders to sensationalism. I just know that a lot of niche sites, whether gaming, wrestling, comic book, or mma, tends to pander to the clicks. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know much about Sherdog, but there have definitely been cases where editors have been trying to go with what Sherdog says about the outcome of a fight even when ESPN said something different. (I found evidence of this yesterday when searching to refresh my memory in particular Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive437#User:NEDOCHAN reported by User:FormalDude (Result: 1 week partial block).) I also think there have been cases where editor's wanted to put the Sherdog height for someone only even when ESPN or something had another height; but I'm going just by memory so could be wrong. At the very least, I'm fairly sure there was opposition to any attempts to use ESPN or I think other better sources to replace Sherdog even when the biodata was the same. (I mean heights are always problematic anyway, but the consensus seems to be per RSPS that we should either prefer the ESPN height or report both.) From what I saw, a big issue at least in the past is that although the community felt different, regular editors in the area seemed to feel that Sherdog was the ultimate source for anything MMA and was always right and should be preferred, going against the communities view that some other sources ESPN being the most prominent, were better and should be preferred and probably deferred to when there was dispute. Nil Einne (talk) 10:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Had another look and actually the discussion that lead to the RSPS note, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 318#Sherdog.com, especially the discussion before the RfC is an example of what I'm talking about height etc. Obviously at that stage there wasn't a clear community consensus, although I think there had already been several small discussions calling Sherdog into question and especially pointing out there was zero policy allowing one source to be the ultimate source for details. However I did see some evidence e.g. that result dispute, that initially at least there was reluctance among regulars to accept the result of the RfC and instead there was a desire to still treat Sherdog as the ultimate source. As I mentioned, it didn't help that anyone in the area who seemed to pushing back against this trend was a sock or otherwise problematic, and I won't bother to link to this but did find strong evidence of this in my review. Notablt, the editor who started that RfC is an example of this User:Lordpermaximum. And yeah, while these sort of details about heights and technicalities of fight results might not be really what you're worried about, my concern is that editors still feel that way about Sherdog, there's a good chance that any news reported on Sherdog is going to be similar treated as highly significant and correct even when contentious although the current consensus is it should be used with caution on a case by case basis suggestion it should never be used for anything contentious. (And we also shouldn't ignore the possible importance of such technicalities. I mean probably not in a case like this when it comes to talking about someone's child but I suspect with some of the more gossipy stuff e.g. details of a relationship or breakdown, it might matter more to a MMA fighter that we get their fight details right than we report something misleading about some relationship.) P.S. I should mention for fairness that while some editors seem to think Sherdog was mostly likely to be correct even when disputed by ESPN etc and so were IMO treating it as the ultimate source for anything MMA, others seemed to just want to standardise on using Sherdog for everything for consistency. While the latter isn't so bad and makes it far less likely they're going to use it for something contentious just because it's Sherdog, it's still IMO a concern since it's not how the English Wikipedia is supposed to work. Nil Einne (talk) 11:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Roberta Flack

I would appreciate additional eyes on this BLP. Take a look, please at the Roberta Flack#Critical reputation section, which begins with criticizing her for breaking free of established genres of that era, which ought to be considered a good thing, immediately followed by five quoted and unreferenced insults of her work. I might delve into it myself, but it is St. Patrick's Day, and being 3/8 Irish, I have had a few drinks and do not want to edit the article in indignation. I am not even a "big fan" of hers, though I have listened to and respected her work for 55 years. It looks pretty likely to me that some editor has a grudge against this highly notable musical artist who is now 87 years old, and has set out to besmirch her reputation by cherry-picking or not bothering to provide sources, breaching WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. According to what I have read elsewhere, she is widely respected in the music industry to this day, and is described as having influenced other artists like Luther Vandross. I can return to this conversation tomorrow. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 06:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The citation was misplaced but the critic is acknowledging past criticism of Flack's work. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know whether the criticism of Flack in our article is fairly representative of the opinions out there. But I don't t find it surprising that breaking with the norms of a genre is not always viewed as a positive thing. A famous example might be Kenny G#Criticism who is controversial enough that I think we still have to indefinitely semi-protect his article. Nil Einne (talk) 09:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

BTW, to be clear, I'm not saying what Flack did is similar to what Kenny G does. Just that I don't see it automatically follows she did things different from what people normally do in the genre or people expect from the genre so that's a good thing. Being different doesn't mean it's groundbreaking or revolutionary, and people might easily think the stuff the person did different is negative or crap rather than positive or good. What matters to our article is whether those opinions are common enough that they should be mentioned, and whether we are fairly representing other significant opinions. For example, our Kenny G article seems to do an okay job of this from my understanding of his reception. Nil Einne (talk) 09:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I put it on the bottom of the reception section to make the section chronological. Thriley (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that is appropriate since Jason King is reviewing past criticism of her career as a historical review and those two other paragraphs reinforces his comments. Checking the sources, he himself views her contributions as being positive and ahead of its time. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

This is unrelated to any BLP issue, but any article that has multiple conseutive sentences of the structure: "On Month Day Year, something happened..." is generally a poorly written article. See WP:PROSELINE and work on writing better. On March 19, 2024, Animalparty again pointed out the pervasive mediocrity of Wikipedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Chris Noel

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

It states that Vietnam Veterans of America joined "other groups" to petition for her for receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

"the Vietnam Veterans of America joined with other groups and individuals to petition for Chris Noel to be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.[37]"

This is not true. The link shows an entry in the organization's Arts of War on the web page that simply reports that an effort is under way but does not say the organization "petitioned" for it, as that is not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdgarBedden (talk • contribs) 18:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks like you've edited the BLP to reflect the source more accurately, and nobody has disputed your edit. You've opened and shut your own case here. Please follow up if there's a content issue that requires a notice board. JFHJr (㊟) 01:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Sam Kerr

The top female Australian soccer player has charged with racially aggravated harassment of a police officer in London. Editors on the talk page have been going back and forth over inclusion of the incident in the lead.

Those in favor of inclusion argue that the incident has received extensive coverage by the media. Editors opposed argue that the coverage is not particularly deep (see Sam Kerr#Personal life for basically everything that has come out with sources) and the case won't go to trial for months. Given this, I think there are significant differences in how we're applying BLP and making presumptions about how this will or will not become a major part of her life. See Talk:Sam Kerr#Lede and the shorter discussion immediately following. I'm asking for some second opinions about how to apply BLP in this situation. Alyo (chat·edits) 02:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• My opinion is that it is WP:DUE; there are hundreds of articles in reliable sources about this incident, and stories continue to be published. This has quickly become a very significant part of the coverage of Sam Kerr, and it would be an NPOV issue to exclude it from the lede. BilledMammal (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• Apart from her game, it does not appear that she leads any sort of very public life. The best BLP policies I can point to are WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NPF. If a conviction results in a professional impact, it'll have been biographically noteworthy. Otherwise, it probably doesn't belong at all despite her own notability. Unfortunately, my best practical answers are "talk page" and "only time will tell." Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

PS. I forgot WP:NOTNEWS. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think any of those apply here. Kerr is a public figure, the article makes it clear that this is still just an accusation, and none of the four WP:NOTNEWS points appear to apply. BilledMammal (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

" Also, while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." It can be argued that putting this January-thing in the WP:LEAD is "emphasized". Per current article content, having it in the WP:LEAD would also fail WP:LEAD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

• I believe this is not appropriate for the lead. The lead is meant to be a quick summary of the entire article, and the incidence's importance to her notability is not high. The reporting of this incidence even if by RS borders on sensationalism. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I agree with Morbidthoughts and especially JFHJr. IMO this suffers greatly from our problem with recent news namely it's actually often very difficult to evaluate the WP:10YT when it's something happening right now. Especially when the consequences are not clear as is often the case with minor charges. (I mean this applies to major charges as well to an extent, but often if a person is charged with e.g. rape, they might be suspended or otherwise have their career significantly affected even before any trial.) In theory the charge could significantly hamper their career, but in practice it often doesn't, so the charge might not have long term significance. It's also possible even without direct significance on someone's career, the charge could be something that is nearly always mentioned in the future in relation to the person making it something that probably belongs in the lead, but again we can't know that so early on. I'm thoroughly unconvinced by any arguments on the talk page we should go by any maximum possible penalties. Many offences carry quite a wide range of maximum penalties. The media likes to talk about maximum penalties for shock value even in cases where there's no chance the maximum penalty will be imposed. (I mean even drink-driving carries a maximum penalty of 6 months which is long enough to have a significant effect on someone's career yet we aren't adding all drink-driving charges to the leads of articles.) Note that often and especially in countries like the UK with decent legal systems, this isn't even up to an individual judge. Even if the judge did decide to do it, if it's so egregiously out of step with the norms or any sentencing guidelines it will be reduced on appeal. Nil Einne (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion here. As I commented early on in the tp discussion, I don't believe it belongs in the lead, which gives it undue prominence. Mention in the body is clearly warranted, but not in the lead, IMO. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

So far, uninvolved BLPN contributors seem to have reached that consensus. I'd only emphasize, in my own opinion, that any mention in the body be just one line or so of text. Especially before there's even any outcome or substantial professional impact implicating her central notability, the legal proceeding needs to be minimally weighted. JFHJr (㊟) 01:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• I agree that BLPCRIME is an issue here, doubly so for the lead of the article. If she is convicted then this potentially will merit such mention, but if she is not then it almost certainly will not, probably not even in the body at that point. And when we depend on an "if" for a BLP we should be taking the least potentially damaging route, and that means keeping it out. Im barely ok with including the detail in the body, but definitely not in the lead. nableezy - 01:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  This. Exactly this. Thank you nableezy. JFHJr (㊟) 01:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Martin Lewis (financial journalist)

Hello,

I am a representative of the British financial journalist Martin Lewis.

His page contains a number of factual errors and is in many instances very out of date.

There are several changes we have identified and many sections we would like to update, especially in regards to his campaigning work and awards.

We would like to work with the Wikipedia community to rectify the above, so I'm trying to make contact with relevant editors who would be willing to help us to achieve this.

We have citations from credible sources on everything we would like to include, but want to do so in a transparent and honest manner.

If this message is not the correct approach, my apologies.

But if it is, I would appreciate the help from the wikipedia community in starting to update his page.

Very best,

Elliott Haworth

I'll try to help. I've now watchlisted the page. The recommended practice is to post proposed edits on the article talk-page. I (and no doubt other editors) will evaluate what you propose, on the basis of the sources you offer. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Kate Middleton

The gossip and conspiracy theories regarding Catherine, Princess of Wales (commonly known by her maiden name Catherine "Kate" Middleton) recent absence from public life following surgery has been spun off into its own article with the (rather questionable) title Where is Kate?. This article has already been taken to AFD and kept, but I think the article needs to be carefully looked over by editors experienced in BLP to make sure that it complies with BLP policy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

"rather questionable" ← I lol'd at the understatement. It's one of those articles that makes you think Wikipedia might not be a good idea after all. Bon courage (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It just seems to me to be totally out of proportion. Compared to something like the Royal baccarat scandal, the long-term lasting significance of this seems minor. If we were writing about this decades on, this whole brouhaha would be summarised in a few sentences in Kate's bio rather than an entire article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

As we know WP:NOTGOSSIP goes out the window when ... there's some juicy gossip. Also, basic standards on written English judging by the opening sentence. I mean, shit:

In early 2024, speculation which asked "Where is Kate?" surrounded the health and absence of Catherine ...

Bon courage (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, what do you think? Was that Windsor Farm Shopper a body double, or not?? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I tried removing that, but the new user who totally dominates editing of that article (and who coincidentally has never edited an article unrelated to Kate in their 250+ edits) keeps edit warring it back in, clearly not understanding If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the first sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding unnecessary redundancy. As outlined in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

"Who is Kate – What is she, that all the swains commend her..."(?) Martinevans123 (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

As far as I saw, all you did was unbold "Where is Kate?", which suggests the article title can still lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the first sentence, in which case, why shouldn't we bold it? MOS:BOLDAVOID doesn't apply here, and I think the underlying issue is a valid disagreement about the article title. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 00:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello all, involved editor here – I created the article and sent it to AfD. I've taken a step back in recent days due to off-wiki commitments but wanted to second Hemiauchenia's sentiment: the AfD clearly highlighted that editors disagree on Wikipedia's scope for this topic, but identified consensus to keep, and the (ridiculously) sustained coverage is inviting, as you might imagine, quite a lot of updates as the story evolves. Until my offwiki commitments (and a lot has been added since then!), editors were taking good care only to go off sources approved at WP:RSP, but of course there is a lot more to BLP policy than that, so experienced editors' oversight is very much welcome. I think the whole "Where is Kate?" question should, as suggested at the AfD and on the talk page, be taken to a proposed page move; it's just not clear quite what alternative title is better. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 00:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Her name is not "Kate Middleton" & hasn't been since she married Prince William. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Are there actually any reliable sources about whether or not she took a married name, let alone which of the possible choices from her husband (Windsor, Mountbatten, Mountbatten-Windsor, Cambridge, Wales) she made? A quick Google search has some speculation sourced to UK tabloids like The Sun, Daily Express, and Daily Mail, but nothing that seems actually reliable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

"Kate Middleton" was never her name. She was "Catherine Middleton" prior to her wedding and has been "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge" and "Catherine, Princess of Wales" since. Even the Prince of Wales, her spouse, refers to her as Catherine so does His Majesty the King Charles III. Further, reputable news outlets like BBC, ITV News, the Guardian, etc. also refer to her as "Catherine" in most of their articles. Regards MSincccc (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• I've made a tweak[2] to WP:NOTNEWS in a (probably vain) attempt to tamp down on this sort of embarrassment in future. See what you think. Bon courage (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
• "Where is Kate?" the article is 100% against NOTNEWS. The discussion of the photo and brief concern of her whereabouts is appropriate in Middleton's article, but that article is far far too detailed and given that the situation has blown over, its all gossipmongering at this point. BLP needs to weigh in a lot more than what the AFD !keeps states. --Masem (t) 12:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  It's also against WP:NOR, since articles should be based on secondary sources while this article is based on primary news reporting, so in effect it's a reflection of (mere) Wikipedia editors deciding among themselves some gossipy trash in the news is of enyclopedic worth. Who the hell closed the AfD? Bon courage (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, editors at Catherine, Princess of Wales were censoring any mention of the speculation, which is what prompted me to write the article. They were pursuing FA status and didn't want the "trivial" news story, so they were closing discussions on the talk page requesting more coverage of the speculation with less than 24 hours' uptime. Once the article was live, I added a sentence mentioning the speculation; that sentence was reverted within a day, and any mention of the speculation again disappeared from the article.

  I wasn't really expecting Where is Kate? to survive AfD, and expect it will eventually be merged, as many on the AfD suggested with reference to WP:10YT. But for what it's worth, I think WP:GNG has been established, and some of the sources likely count as secondary for the analyses they provide. To that extent, I think it passes WP:NOTNEWS even in the updated wording; it's just that editors disagree, validly, on the scope of Wikipedia. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  As WP:N says, the GNG is not a guarantee that a standalone article is required and other P&G may apply to deny a standalone. The combination of BLP, NOT, and NOR here would reacily override the GNG. — Masem (t) 13:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  I must say, the reasoning that some content is so poor it would prevent an WP:FA and needs to be hived off elsewhere means a new kind of fork has been discovered. A WP:CRAPFORK maybe? Bon courage (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  WP:DISAPPEARINGFORK Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'll have you know that Catherine, Princess of Wales is meant to be a concise outline of her accomplishments (source). God bless MSincccc, who's in middle school! IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  Well, you actually mention only that which is significant in the amin article. For this reason, one might start adding the fact that she made an appearance at a charity event or Prince William opened a new youth centre this past week. That will unnecessarily expand the article. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  The idea that an encyclopedia article is a hagiography to some person is as much an issue as a news cycle is an appropriate subject of an article. nableezy - 14:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think what you did was perfectly reasonable, in the circumstances. But I can see why some readers might think they were reading a centre-page special in OK! magazine (but without all the pictures, of course) Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  I've been WP:BOLD and converted the page to a redirect to Kate Middleton. Simonm223 (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  LOL and it's already been reverted. This is silly. Simonm223 (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  Renominate at AfD? IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps we should create a wiki page every time a minor celebrity doesn't appear in photos for a few months. Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  The AfD closed as keep two days ago with extensive participation (something like 40+ !votes). I'm all for WP:BOLD, but I just don't think it squares with collaboration to overturn an AfD so soon without discussion at DRV or AFD. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  I simply don't think it's encyclopaedic to have a page devoted to idle gossip about the idle rich. You know WP:NOTGOSSIP. Simonm223 (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  That's a deletion rationale – take it to AfD. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 14:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  How long before we can renominate the article? WP:RENOM specifically WP:6MONTHS says that we shouldn’t renominate until six months has passed if it was previously closed as ‘keep’, unless there is something new to say. The argument of this being tabloid gossip was discussed in the original AfD. TheSpacebook (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  The correct route would be to initiate a review of the AfD close. Bon courage (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  Of the five reasons in WP:DRV, which one(s) should we put forward for the review? TheSpacebook (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'd say #1. The consensus wasn't divined correctly because arguments not in accord with the WP:PAGs were overweighted. Bon courage (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, that’s for a deletion review, not a AfD close review! Is there any pages for the process of an AfD close review? TheSpacebook (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, it would be a deletion review. Bon courage (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for informing me, I’m still a newcomer! Do we notify the admin who closed it about this discussion? TheSpacebook (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  I've never actually initiated that before. Simonm223 (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  WP:RENOM is just an essay, and in my limited experience, it's not unusual for no-consensus closures to reappear at AfD not long afterwards. A recent precedent with high participation would be Qatari soft power. I've been told off before for improper AfD closures and clearly do not have an impartial view, but I was somewhat surprised the AfD closed as Keep rather than No Consensus. There might be not much point taking it to DRV when no consensus defaults to keep as status quo, unless the pursued outcome would be relisting or a new AfD, but all this is to say that in this case, I don't think we need to wait six months. But it won't be a good look for it to return to AfD two days after the previous one closed as Keep without DRV. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 14:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  She's not wholly idle. Quite keen on photoshop. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  WP:POINT seems an understatement for redirecting a page with the edit summary "Come on this page should just be a redirect to the page for Kate Middleton. Let's not be silly." 2 days after an unchallenged "keep" admin close of a 66 participant AfD. DeCausa (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  Reading/scanning the AFD, there is very little mention of BLP concerns, and certainly not addressed by the keep! Votes. Also, both NOT News and the GNG stress that bursts if news coverage are not reasons to keep an article. The AFD should be rerun but standing by the fact the is against BLP, effectively celebrity gossip taken up to 11 due to ties with the Royal family. If in a year there is still coverage of this in the news then maybe an article makes sense, but right now the standalone article is a mockery of WP' BLP concerns, which pretty much override everything. — Masem (t) 16:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  At least Russian media haven't announced that she's dead (yet). Martinevans123 (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Xymmax was the admin who closed the AfD. This is to notify them about this noticeboard. TheSpacebook (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hey. I wanted to just comment as I’m new to editing. My amount of edits on the article is because I wanted to keep this well sourced, and not promote conspiracies etc. I kept most of the sources to be RS, and I’m not too well versed on policies such as NOTNEWS. I tried to keep it concise, by removing unnecessary detail. It did get worldwide coverage beyond news, and I cited the reaction and wider impact. Also any disagreements I had, I opened up a discussion on the talk page to build a consensus. Should we open up an AfD after she has returned to public duties when the dust settles? TheSpacebook (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I can see why the title seems questionable, but given that the coverage of it seems to be primarily as an internet fad/meme perhaps its appropriate that its title be meme like. It brings to mind Luiza que está no Canadá which also involved a living person but with the added twist that they were a minor. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Random memes should not get distinct pages unless they can pass WP:10YT and, in this case, no page should have been created until after the dust settled. As it is we do, now, have a page dedicated to gossip about a WP:BLP - and a very badly closed AfD. Simonm223 (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

And both of them "pass" WP:10YT so what is your point? The idea that "no page should have been created until after the dust settled" is just preposterous, it should not be taken seriously for even a second. Imagine if we tried to apply that standard to the Russo-Ukrainian War. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

We can't stop editors from creating articles on breaking news events (though we should be aiming to have editors consider holding off until it's clear NEVENTS and other policies are passed, and using Wikinews if they want to report news as it happens), but we can assess articles within a few days of their creation to make sure the news topic is not just a burst if coverage, has encyclopedic significance, and isn't violating any policies. That is what is being begged here, because it is a glaring BLP issue. — Masem (t) 16:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

AfD is not cleanup, there are not BLP issues here which require or even suggest deletion. Whatever you want to call it there is a notable topic here, I know that because CNN keeps pushing notifications about it to my phone... And I don't live in the UK. Whatever this is will be in the history books they write in ten or twenty years. Also not only can we not stop it, we actually encourage it. In fact its rushing to deletion which is discouraged, see Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Don't rush to delete articles. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Just because the media has latched onto it doesn't mean it is an encyclopedic topic. And the overtly in depth fascination with Middleton's life *is* a BLP issue that we should be extremely careful around, not simply parroting the media's cover just because its there. — Masem (t) 16:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

"Just because the media has latched onto it doesn't mean it is an encyclopedic topic." these complaints sound more like snobbery than anything that has to do with policy or guideline. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

That's the entire principle of not only NOT News but NOT#IInfo. Mere publication of material in verified sources doesn't mean WP should include it. We summarize events, not document events every hour, even if there, 's news about it every hour. It's why we function far different from a newspaper. — Masem (t) 16:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be the opposite of the principle of WP:NOTNEWS unless I'm missing something. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are apparently. We can include current events and there is no question that a brief summary of this can be made on the bio page. But we should be including every single news report about this in a seperate article, nor write articles as news reports. And that's before applying the stronger requirements for BLP GOSSIP. The excessive detailed coverage is one of many many exples of NOT News not being followed, a lot which has stemmed from how topics in the AP2 area have been covered since 2016, coupled with COVID and the Ukraine war, and it's something we need to correct. — Masem (t) 17:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The article does not seem to include every single news report and an article being written as a news report wouldn't be a reason to delete it (this one doesn't seem to be either). NOTNEWS actually says "Editors are encouraged ... to develop stand-alone articles on the most significant current events." but you're saying it actually says that developing stand-alone articles on the most significant current events is discouraged? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The brief absence of a media celebrity from public appears and rampent speculation of that absence is not necessarily a most significant current event, when compared to things like the Ukraine war, or events in the Gaza strip. There is a hell if a lot of systematic media bias on this story to make it seem more important than it is, but when one steps back and frames the question as a BLP concern, it's clear this should not be treated as a significant news event. — Masem (t) 17:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

If that were clear we wouldn't be having this conversation. I find the efforts to frame the subject as some sort of puff celebrity rather than a political figure rather interesting, but then again my primary interest is politics so my bias is to see everything from that angle. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Coming soon: Trump's bond and McConnell's glitch and Biden's stutter ... Bon courage (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

... Mark Sanford extramarital affair and Disappearance of Peng Shuai ... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd point to WP:OSE here except it's a black mark upon Wikipedia that either of those pages exist too. Particularly the Sanford one which is, again, little more than and amusing anecdote about a minor politician. Simonm223 (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Well that and that this isn't a deletion discussion and OSE is only about deletion discussions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

No, this is what happens when a deletion discussion is mishandled. Simonm223 (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The author of the article Where is Kate? expressed a desire to incorporate some of its information into the main article. As speculation expanded, a new article was subsequently created. Recently, there have been users advocating for the inclusion of the name "Kate Middleton" in the main article. I maintain an assumption of good faith and am keen to ascertain the community's perspective on this matter. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that a celebrity not appearing on camera for a couple of months has equivalent notability to a major war? I've put forward a deletion review. Simonm223 (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I am suggesting that "no page should have been created until after the dust settled" is a stupid standard which should never be applied because it goes against commons sense as well as established policy and guideline. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you are reading overly broadly into some ambiguity in my initial sentence so let me clarify: no page should be created about internet gossip regarding a celebrity until such time as some sort of encyclopedic significance is established. Furthermore Wikipedia should be far more patient to list topics related to current news cycles per WP:NOTNEWS, especially when those news cycles are principally from the entertainment section and involve living people. Simonm223 (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The encyclopedic significance has been established. NOTNEWS says "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on the most significant current events." Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Don't rush to delete articles says we should be patient with deletion not creation. Also looking around I'm not seeing support for your assertion that "principally from the entertainment section" I'm seeing most reliable sources handle this as hard news (which to be fair is interesting). That makes sense though as Middleton is not an entertainer, they are primarily notable for holding a political position. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe that NOTNEWS may apply here, but I don’t think WP:GOSSIP does. I’ve kept it mostly cited with RS, and removed trivia such as an airport making a joke tweet about it. The article mainly focuses on the commentary, so isnt just internet gossip. TheSpacebook (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Again I would ask whether a celebrity failing to do photo ops for a few months constitutes "the most significant current events". Simonm223 (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

When top tier papers around the world are running feature stories on it yeah it does... I would also note that the event (notable topic) is the controversy around the political figure failing to do photo ops for a few months, not the failure itself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Given their rarity, maybe the agency kill orders provide encyclopedic significance. Perhaps the article would seem more encyclopedic if it was refocused on the kill orders as the subject. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

But the kill notices aren't what secondary sources are discussing. We're not seeing dozens of articles and commentary about the kill notices: we're seeing dozens upon dozens of articles and commentary discussing the photograph and the surrounding speculation, both the speculation that preceded the photograph's publication and the speculation that succeeded it. As one Delete-!voting editor said in the AfD, this is what makes the choice of article title so tricky. One issue is that we can't really sever photograph from speculation; another issue is that it's perhaps increasingly unclear to what extent the photograph even is the primary topic here. Many of us were expecting the news to move on after the photograph and...it hasn't; it's moved on to the farm shop video, and goodness knows what else before the Princess of Wales returns to public duties. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 20:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• This entire side article seems like a major BLP violation, particularly of WP:GOSSIP. It doesn't really matter that top level news sources are promulgating the gossip, it still remains essentially celebrity gossip regardless. And not even on something with evidence, but just speculation with no basis. The worst kind of gossip. The people arguing to keep it seem like gossip mongers themselves, wanting an article only because they support the gossip itself. Silverseren^C 20:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
• I'm no fan of the royal family, but that is one of the worst articles I've ever seen and should have been nuked without prejudice. The AfD is a disgrace. Black Kite (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• I fully agree with Black and Silver here. I mean, seriously, when an article title consists of a question you know it's going to be bad. Encyclopedia articles are about things, and this is not a thing. As suspected, it reads just like a tabloid rather than an encyclopedia article, and I mean bad. It's full of rumor mongering and even innuendo. This definitely should not have been kept for even a second. Zaereth (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: It may be missed in the chatter above, so may I highlight, without wishing to canvass, that Where is Kate? is undergoing deletion review (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 March 21#Where is Kate?). I don't think continuing the pile-on against the AfD closure or the article is really helpful on this noticeboard; the discussion should be taken there. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think there's a point in the Deletion Review, since clearly the close with that AfD was really no other way to go with how the discussion itself played out. No consensus at worst. But the problem is that all the editors who voted Keep in said discussion, especially with their extremely poor reasoning, should be ashamed of themselves. Silverseren^C 21:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• I agree. I haven't read the AFD discussion because I didn't see it linked anywhere, but in general one of the big problems I've seen at AFD is that it tends to become a haven for article saviors, that is, those who believe it's somehow necessary or beneficial to save articles at all cost, no matter how terribly written, poorly sourced, or unencyclopedic they are. Inclusionism for inclusionist's sake. Regardless of AFD, though, the article is just awful. Quantity is no substitute for quality. Zaereth (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

It's so good to see that there are still users on Wikipedia who possess common sense and see this article as a violation of WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:BLP. I always maintained the position that what we had in the main article was enough. Now we have a page with running commentary about every move she makes. The AfD was dominated to an extent by relatively new users (some had joined within the past two years) so l'd understand if they were not fully familiar with the policies. Now that the article has been kept for the time being, the text needs to be polished. All references to primary sources and any questionable/speculative info should be removed. Keivan.f^Talk 01:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break (Catherine, Princess of Wales)

There is now a move request at Talk:Where_is_Kate?#Requested_move_21_March_2024. Please participate if interested. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Arbitary Break? Well deserved, I say. These Royals work jolly hard, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah, a "give a bazillion options so there'll be no consensus for change" RfC. It's almost like this whole episode is some kind of elaborate trolling to test how ridiculous Wikipedia can be made to look (and if so, fair play, it's knocked it for six!) Bon courage (talk) 10:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

If it wasn't so tragic it would be amusing. The only thing that article should be moved to is a redirect to the main article. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

And now it turns out the PoW is/was being treated for cancer, the media harassment comes into relief for what it was, and Wikipedia as a gleeful fellow traveller. I hope people feel suitably ashamed. Bon courage (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bon courage: I am genuinely ashamed for all the people who took part in the witch hunt; not in the press and on social media, but here on Wikipedia as well. We now have an article dedicated to analyzing the movements of a person who has been diagnosed with cancer during the period of her treatment. This is clearly a WP:BLP issue. Keivan.f^Talk 19:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, this was a shameful violation of BLP. The entire article should be deleted ASAP and everyone involved in writing it should take a good long look at themselves. The world was watching while we invaded the privacy of someone with cancer. Pinguinn 🐧 00:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Don't be dramatic... We didn't invade anyone's privacy, we just documented it. If the world was watching then surely you can link to the coverage of wikipedia's handling of the issue in RS, I haven't seen any. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. These type of responses, ironically, are better suited to tabloid headlines than Wikipedia. I !voted in the first AfD, but not for keep, but people who write that sort of hyperbole and use absurd terms like "witch hunt" are the ones who need to take a long look at themselves. DeCausa (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Even if the NYTimes went to cover the gossip and speculation to that much depth, we as both a summary work and with a strict BLP policy that errs on protecting the individual, we would not include that much depth. We do not follow the example set by the media blindly and are not bound to having to consider the same topics as important as they do when that attention violates core content policies. Masem (t) 00:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Well if we aren't going to follow the behavior policies sure lets at least follow the content ones... None of that excuses the hyperbole, dramatization, and/or personal attacks on editors over a content dispute. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is an opinion whether it "violated core content policies". The nonsense about "shame", "witch hunts", "gleefulness" and "blindly" doing xyz is kneejerk tabloidese at its worst. DeCausa (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that people seem to be letting their emotions run amok. I don't follow the royal family nor do I care to. There are a lot of poorly thought and logically flawed arguments being tossed about, and using words like DeCausa is describing is one of them, called appeal to emotion. Likewise, arguments of privacy are also mostly appeals to emotion, and while I am all for respecting people's privacy, this is rarely the case with very high-profile public figures. Royalty is one of the few cases where notability is indeed inherited. There was a time when they were the only celebrities, and we're not that far removed from the age of Henry VIII when people would even pay to watch them eat or sleep or have sex. The laws don't protect their privacy as they would a private individual, so the privacy argument is more of an ethical question. Not that it should be ignored, but it should be treated as a matter of ethics rather than a BLP policy issue.

That said, BLP policy is not really where the problems lie. Despite its rapid expansion, the article is still very unencyclopedic in nature. It still reads very much like a tabloid than an encyclopedia article. By that, I mean it's written in a narrative style rather than expository style, as sort of a blow by blow account. It's sensationalistic to the Nth degree. It's mostly rumor and speculation and just as fringe as any pseudoscientific article I've ever seen. It's not really about any particular thing that would deserve a standalone article (such as her political stances or anything of that nature) and thus is giving undue weight to sources because we're not weighing them in proportion to all other sources about the subject, like we would if this were a part of the main article. In short, it is just a really poorly crafted article, and to call it anything else is merely fooling oneself. It certainly won't fool the average reader. Zaereth (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

This, for the most part. As we now know several of the issues around her absence is related to this diagonsis for cancer, there's still some details to explain that while she was getting this, she was scarce from public appears and led to this weird photo issue. But for WP, at this point, that's all we can summarize in a short paragraph in talking about her cancer diagonsis. It no longer needs the blow-by-blow that the article was written in.
Stepping back from this specific case, we do have problems with editors writing in newspaper style, updating details but without summarization in many breaking and ongoing news articles. That leaves for massive cleanup issues down the road. For example, most of our articles related to how COVID was handled by various countries or states or the like are beyond excessive in the level of detail that WP should be written in. Normally that's not a pressing matter, but when BLP or other higher level content policies become involved, then we have course correct and rather quickly. — Masem (t) 02:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Up for deletion again

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (2nd nomination). Participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Now been procedurally closed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Tee hee. Just like when someone appeals and then refiles in real life. JFHJr (㊟) 04:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Bruce Lipton

Bruce Lipton

According to the Biographies of Living Persons Policy, libelous information (such as calling someone 'pseudoscience') must be kept out of such biographies unless very well-referenced. The first sentence, "Bruce Harold Lipton is an American writer and lecturer who advocates various pseudosciences, including vaccine misinformation." violates this policy.

In addition, the entry author states, "He often uses the naturalistic fallacy." but gives no citations.

Also, the article devolves into a discussion about vaccines rather than a biography of Bruce Lipton. From the article, "Lipton has been known to express opposition to vaccinations, specifically with regard to a supposed association between vaccines and autism that has been firmly discredited:[9][10]." The citations in this sentence are in support of the author's argument about vaccines rather than about the statement about Lipton's beliefs. Also in the article, "These anti-vaccine viewpoints contradict the overwhelming scientific consensus, which firmly establishes the safety and effectiveness of vaccines in preventing various diseases."

The wording and sentence structure throughout the article reveal a clear bias. The author cites quotes by people that denigrate Lipton, which have no place in a Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Student2067 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I have added a source which states, in part, "Dismissed for years as a pseudo-scientist, Dr Bruce Lipton has fought to have his theories accepted". GiantSnowman 20:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The negativity in the article seems to reflect what reliable sources have said about Lipton. Like Andrew Tate and Alex Jones, an article being mostly negative does not mean the article is biased. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Spot on. JFHJr (㊟) 01:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Tim Hunt

A consensus has emerged to devote more than 20% of the article on the Nobel laureate Tim Hunt to an allegation that, after five decades of distinguished service to science, he inadvertently said something sexist during a three-minute impromptu toast in 2015. This is a substantial expansion of the previous account of the event; for the past five years, it has taken up less than 5% of the article.

• Previous version: [3]
• Current consensus: [4]

Since the allegation led to an intense online shaming campaign that upended Hunt's life,[5] I believe that the expansion violates WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Wikipedia has decided to permanently enshrine other people's recollections (and interpretations) of the most illconsidered thing an otherwise completely uncontroversial scientist may (or may not) ever have said.

The expansion is also counter to the guidance provided by User:S Marshall about WP:PROPORTION when he closed the RfC on the subject.[6]

For (somewhat doggedly) insisting on this, I have been indefinitely blocked from editing the page myself. I bring it here in the hope that others will take a look.--Thomas B (talk) 06:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• Note this is being discussed at WP:ANI#Inappropriate removal of NPOV tag by JayBeeEll. Bon courage (talk) 07:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  It's my view that there was consensus for the expansion, and therefore the solution is to expand the sections on Sir Tim's scientific achievements. In particular the discovery of cyclin that earned him a share in a Nobel Prize. This can be achieved by reading sources and writing content, which is what we're all here to do. Nothing about the situation necessitates posting long screeds on noticeboards.—S Marshall T/C 08:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  Just to be clear: Is the current version (no significant expansion on his scientific achievements and a 600% expansion on the controversy) what you had in mind? As I read your close, the right way forward would have been to leave the short version in place for now and begin to expand the rest of the article. When it reaches about 5000 words, there will be room for 250 words about the controversy, tempered by 250 words about his documentable views on women in science, which are altogether positive, the controversy notwithstanding. I would have no objections to that. Thomas B (talk) 08:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  I said that WP:PROPORTION should be respected and this could be achieved by expanding the other parts of the article. I did not say that the controversy section is capped at 5% of the article.—S Marshall T/C 08:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  There is probably more peer-reviewed scholarship discussing the 'sexism' episode than discussing Hunt's science achievements. Bon courage (talk) 08:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  But that shouldn't matter, should it? You decide how much coverage to give something by reading the sources, not by putting them in piles and seeing which pile is highest.—S Marshall T/C 08:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  It's not a word count thing; coverage in high-quality sources (e.g. WP:SCHOLARSHIP counts most, natch. NPOV is best achieved by leaning on the WP:BESTSOURCES. Bon courage (talk) 09:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think that's the right way to follow NPOV in this particular sitution. Unfortunately, 20-odd years after Wikipeia's founding, WP:EDITORIALJUDGEMENT is still a redlink, but where one reliable source says he won the 2001 Nobel Prize in Biology for helping us understand how the cell cycle works, and another reliable source says he's a rotten misogynist because of something he said at a conference in 2015, I don't think our reaction should be to try to work out which source is "best".—S Marshall T/C 09:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'm also very baffled by Bon's suggestion. The original 1983 article in Cell about the discovery of cyclin alone has over 1200 citations in the scientific literature. Thomas B (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  An approximately zero of those will be relevant to TH's biography. So for example, I looked at the first 'cited by' article in Pubmed, PMID:38140403, and the 1983 paper is citedonly to support the claim "CYCB1;1 is synthesised during the G2 phase, peaks during the prometaphase, and disappears at early anaphase". Bon courage (talk) 12:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  The relevant biographical information is that Sir Tim's 1983 paper is widely cited in scientific literature.—S Marshall T/C 13:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, and Evans et al. (1983) has been referred to as a seminal research paper. But researchers into proteins cite the paper to discuss cyclin, not discuss the person who discovered it. And that doesn't generate much usable biographical sourcing for us. (There are a few exceptions, like PMID:18662532, which is already cited on Wikipedia.) Bon courage (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think you'll find that the scholarship on the controversy says very little about Hunt and much more about sexism in science generally, social shaming, etc. This is one the things some of us have been saying: it's not about Hunt at all. Thomas B (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, quite a lot is about the whole context. Bon courage (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The main problwm I have with the earlier status quo ("previous version") is that it puts the "online shaming" in wikivoice, which is not the way I think the RS on the "shaming" and the backlash to it ought to be read, re: WP:NPOV. Newimpartial (talk) 09:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The problems with the earlier version were what got this whole drama going in the first place. It really shouldn't require further discussion. Bon courage (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Based on my recent efforts to catch up with this drama, you appear to be right. Newimpartial (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

One sub-sub-section that takes up less screen estate than the "Awards and honors" section hardly seems disproportionate. XOR'easter (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Thomas, do you realize why it's problematic for you to bring changes in an article you've been page-banned from to a noticeboard? Especially when those consensus were the direct result of a well-attended RFC? Loki (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I looked it up before doing it. Because I'm blocked (not topic banned), this is actually perfectly fine. Thomas B (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I was not saying it was against the rules, per se. That doesn't make it "perfectly fine". It's quite clear evidence of heavily tendentious editing and a total inability to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Loki (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I have concerns about the proposed solution in the RfC to expand the other sections given WP:BLPBALANCE. Who's going to do it? Are they going to do it? It is not "okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape". The weight of this biography should be pointed towards peer-reviewed books and journals not news sites like WP:DAILYBEAST. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

With good reason, [7], it seems that the group seeking to expand this section don't feel it is necessary. WCM_email 13:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Firetangledfeathers has stripped down the controversy section to about as minimal as it can get really. I've spent time expanding the cyclins section, but the blunt truth is that basically no detailed biographical accounts of Hunt other than his Nobel prize autobiography exist, and I am unsure how appopriate it is to lean on that account to expand the article, given its lack of independence from Hunt. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Books and articles about the impact of his work and how he got there are more critical to his biography than random items about what he did throughout his life.[8][9] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

As usual, we follow the sources, and there's quite a lot of sources about this particular controversy. The RFC close was to follow WP:PROPORTION but I'm frankly not convinced that's meaningful here or that expanding the rest of the article follows. As far as I can tell, if we were to just go by quantity of reliable sources about each subtopic, the controversy section would be significantly longer. Loki (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Basically, should Wikipedia be mansplaining to readers that the sexism stuff is NBD so "look over there!" at the science (despite the balance of sourcing). Bon courage (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the question I'm asking editors to consider is: How big a deal is Tim Hunt's sexism? My reading of the sources says, precisely, that it's not big. The big deal that he was made to symbolize was sexism in science. Since it has been decided to make a big deal out of his toast in his biography (not just in articles on sexism in science or social shaming), it is our obligation (to both Hunt and the readers of WP) to clarify that he is highly respected among his colleagues (of all genders) and nobody who knows him thinks he is a chauvinist. There are plenty of sources that say this. Thomas B (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

That is simply untrue. Sometime colleague David Colquhoun was for example scathing. Bon courage (talk) 12:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The two men did not know each other (just worked at the same institution). And Colquhoun's evidence was risible. But it's clarifying that you actually think it is "simply untrue" that Hunt is not a sexist. That's also the impression I get from many of the people who are pushing for the expansion: they want to paint Hunt as a sexist. I don't. And I hope someone will eventually see that doing so is in fact a violation of WP:BLP given the facts and sources available to us. Thomas B (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, you're twisting my words now as everybody will see. Look, you've been busted on this and your dodgy campaign, on- and off-wiki, has hit the buffers. The matter is settled and it's time to move on. Bon courage (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not interested in debating. I'm only saying what my impressions are and what my goals are with this posting to the noticeboard. If it's so obvious that I'm twisting your words, I hope anyone will read us both charitably enough not make this more dramatic than need be. I really wish you well and hope thing go well with the article (it has already improved since I posted). I'm in no position to disrupt anything. Cheers. Thomas B (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:BESTSOURCES > WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The perennial problem with this article is that the reporting in Wikipedia's voice isn't presenting a neutral summary of what happened. There is a disconnect between what actually happened and what was reported to have happened. The controversy arose not because the remarks were sexist, its because the remarks were taken out of context, then embellished with statements that were simply untrue. At the moment what is in the article is in conflict with our WP:BLP policy because it doesn't reflect accurately what the individual's actions were but mixes the fake news reporting and any attempt to address this is being reverted. Further, if you tag for neutrality, the tags are removed and outside commentary deterred by what is a toxic editing environment. WCM_email 12:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Biographical facts: Hunt was falsely accused of sexism and it almost ruined his life. WP's BLP: Hunt said he had "trouble with girls" in the lab and people got mad. Thomas B (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources for, Hunt was falsely accused of sexism and it almost ruined his life? This appears to be something you strongly believe, but I haven't seen sourcing that is both relevant to and supportive of that claim. Newimpartial (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The Fiona Fox chapter is probably the most comprehensive source for that. I mentioned it on the talk page [10]. Which part of the claim do you think it doesn't support? Thomas B (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

At least as paraphrased in the review, this source does not appear to support falsely accused. Newimpartial (talk) 10:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Which part do you think is wrong: "falsely" or "accused"? Fiona Fox documents both that he was accused of being a sexist and that he is not a sexist. Thomas B (talk) 10:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Fox's book supports Hunt was accused of sexism but does not clearly support Hunt is not sexist - at least, not going by the account presented in the review. Newimpartial (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

"[Female scientists who knew him] insisted that he was not sexist." That's quoted in the review. The chapter brings together such testimony and behavioral evidence and absence of evidence. Not sure what more you'd want. Thomas B (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Fox reports that scientists who knew Hunt insisted that he was not sexist. That is very different from sourcing in Fox's own voice that he is not sexist (which in turn, in the presence of competing RS statments, would still fall below the threshold for Wikipedia to state in its own voice that Hunt "is not sexist").

In the current article version - and all recent versions that I checked - no statement is made, in Wikivoice or otherwise, about Hunt being or not being sexist. The only reference I see in the current version is to the perceived sexist nature of the 2015 remarks. In this context, treating the claim that "Hunt is not sexist" as, in your words, a "biographical fact" is unsupported by RS and it would be a violation of WP:V and WP:NPOV to include such a statement in the article. Newimpartial (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Have you read Fox's chapter? Thomas B (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

No; I have only read the review that you linked as evidence in the prior discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I guess that's par for the course. You didn't even read Zanahary's quotations immediately after? It's been a while, but I don't think I can do much better to convince you that Fox makes a convincing case that Hunt is not a sexist. Literally no one who has ever worked with him says he is, on the contrary, they say he's not. She did a pretty thorough job. Thomas B (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Consider: it's been almost a decade since Hunt was accused of (and widely shamed for) being a "sexist scientist". What evidence exists today that he has ever hindered a female scientist in her career? Literally, none. Thomas B (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

We've been over this, but let's circle back:

The important question regarding this controversy is not whether Hunt is or is not in his heart a sexist. It's not really even whether his prior behavior is sexist. The controversy is about a particular comment at a particular conference.

I also would oppose a statement in Wikivoice saying "Tim Hunt is sexist", but you'll notice that the current version does not say that or anything like that. What it says is that Parts of the remarks were widely publicised on social media due to their perceived sexist nature. It's easily sourceable that the comments were perceived as sexist, so that's what we get to say in Wikivoice.

If female colleagues of Tim Hunt say he wasn't a sexist, that's only relevant to the article insofar as the sources think it's relevant. Because that section of the article is about a particular event and not about trying to look inside Hunt's heart or pick over every decision he's made in his life, it's not obviously or directly relevant. Loki (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Thomas. I can see you are having a lot of difficulties convincing people here, so I'm going to offer some advice in the hopes it will help. The reason you're not convincing anyone is because your arguments are logically flawed. For example, your comment directly above is a logically fallacy called appeal to ignorance, which is why it fails to convince anyone. Likewise, your main argument here is based on a false premise, that "sexist" is a thing that someone either is or isn't. It's not. It's an opinion that others either have or they don't. Unfortunately for the subject, the price of fame is getting judged by the world, and Wikipedia notes significant opinions their words or actions incur, whether those are good or bad.

Now, assuming for argument's sake that his remarks were indeed meant to be a joke, that's why jokes are better left to comedians, because even with the best of intentions it's very easy to fall flat on your face, and things like that can stick around for the rest of one's life, especially if they're notable and generated a lot of public backlash. I don't foresee this as ever being something that will just go away, but the article, as currently written, looks to me to be very neutral and fair about it all. It doesn't make the false conclusion that he is a sexist, just that his remarks were seen as sexist by some yet not by others, which seems perfectly fine and balanced to me. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thomas B., you haven't produced any support for your opinion that "Hunt is not sexist" beyond your own interpretation of primary source opinions quoted by Fox. That simply isn't a reason to insert any such statment in the article, which appears to be your goal here.

I know you believe that Hunt is not sexist, but that opinion simply is not relevant to article content which must be based on independent, secondary sources to the greatest extent possoble. What is more, you insert into your latest comment the straw goat question whether Hunt has "hindered any female scientist in her career" - which isn't really relevant to this article or even the controversy, as far as I can tell.

Inserting editors' opinions into article text is a violation of WP:NPOV and also WP:BLP. Contrary to the impression some editors seem to hold, BLP policies do not encourage a treatment of living people that says the nicest thing possible about them, but rather they must be treated according to the WP:BALANCE of WP:HQRS, and the current article appears to so so. Newimpartial (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Jonah Paffhausen

Some anonymous IP added defamatory materials about Metropolitan Jonah Paffhausen six months ago. I suspect it's a disgruntled former associate with a personal grievance. I think the editor was banned since they stopped for a while, but now it's started back up. Please assist. Nepsis2 (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

This is the second BLPN post for this article, but the talk page has never been edited to discuss this now perennial content dispute. I've re-watched the article. I'll also open a talk page section about the content in question. I do not plan to edit the article significantly, though. JFHJr (㊟) 22:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

And I left the IP a message. Even an IP can help build a consensus. JFHJr (㊟) 22:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Ruby Barnhill

Eyes would be appreciated on this article - there's been repeated addition of unreliable sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article for two weeks per repeated violations of WP:DAILYMAIL. Cullen328 (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Larry P. Arnn

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

---

This article shows a clear leftist bias in whom ever wrote it. There is no mention of Dr. Arnn's participation in the official biography of Winston Churchill. It lacks description of what type of education Hillsdale College supplies. It is just a left leaning hit piece. Please have someone edit the article so it is fair. I hope there is still a concern for justice and just reporting ALL of the facts about someone. Signed, Gregory Joseph Lashley March 22, 2024 TheMadLasher (talk) 11:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

As a graduate student in England, Arnn was the research director for Sir Martin Gilbert, the official biographer of Winston Churchill, editing the final six document volumes of the Churchill biography.. Generally speaking, criticism of an article works best if you read it first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

If any reader is interested in the college's educational philosophy, all they need to do is click the wikilink Hillsdale College. You have a strange definition of left leaning hit piece, TheMadLasher. Cullen328 (talk) 17:23, 22 March 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.

Max Lugavere

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.

---

Experienced editors' input would be welcome at Talk:Max Lugavere. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Vinestreet97 (talk) 21:27, 22 March 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.

Michael Pena was a actor in gone in 60 seconds it's not found on Wikipedia please put it up and edit it thank you.

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.

---

Please edit Michael Pena wiki page he acted on in gone in 60 seconds its not on there please edit...he acted in it and got paid for it please put it up thanks..... Michael Pena fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.231.22.186 (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Minor roles, as a rule, generally get skipped over when we discuss an actor's resume. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 16:06, 24 March 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.

John Duarte (politician)

This biography of a living person violates Wikipedia policies.

The page omits discussion of Duarte's violation of the Clean Water Act by plowing wetlands located on his property. In 2016, a federal court found Duarte and and Duarte Nursery Inc. liable for the violation. Duarte settled the claim by paying $1.1 million in civil penalties, providing mitigation for 22 acres of disturbed streams and wetlands, and agreeing to permanently protect creeks that are connected to the Sacramento River.

The Political Positions section does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy. For example, on Abortion and LGBT+ rights, the section only mentions that Duarte voted against three bills supported by most other Republicans concerning abortion and LGBT+, giving the impression that Duarte is a moderate on these issues. The paragraphs omit to mention that Duarte has voted with the Republicans on eight other bills touching on abortion and LGBT rights, scores 18% on the Planned Parenthood Congressional Scorecard, and is endorsed by the anti-abortion group Californians for Life. Duarte has donated money to Sen. Tommy Tuberville.

These "political positions" do not address or deemphasize the issues that appear on Duarte's official website, which stresses the economy, water, crime, and education. The section references a minor matter (the Confederate Naming Commission) while omitting major matters such as the environment, the right to vote, military support for Ukraine, and support for Donald Trump (to whom Duarte has contributed).

Edits intended to conform the discussion to the NPOV policy have been promptly deleted with minimal or no explanation. Attempts to discuss the concerns have been ignored.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NDC3 (talk • contribs) 16:32, March 24, 2024 (UTC)

Um, your Edits intended to conform the discussion to the NPOV policy were deleting the entire "Political positions" section, twice. Of course you were reverted both times. I see no attempt at discussion on the article's talk page. WP:BEBOLD in adding content that is missing or open a discussion on the talk page about collaboration with other editors. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Please at least try talkpaging this. Edit summaries don't substitute well for actual content discussion. Adding the content you think necessary and removing other content are different discussions. You'll need to achieve a consensus on either. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 00:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Bianca de la Garza

LTA Eostrix/Icewhiz added content to this article that appeared to be problematic according to WP:BLP policy, including WP:BLPBALANCE. I eventually removed the contentious content after becoming more familiar with BLP policy and the sourcing standards. Recently, over my good-faith WP:BLP objections and request for talk page discussion per WP:BLPUNDEL [11] [12], Heroeswithmetaphors has continued to add similar content into the article [13]. Assistance would be appreciated. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

It looks to me like some inclusion is due -- The Boston Globe, Boston Herald, and Esquire are quality sources. However, we should avoid an outside's party claims about the subject's presumed knowledge; something more along the lines of "Whatever Shoe Company included de la Garza in a lawsuit where they were seeking to recover money that had been embezzled by their then-chief financial officer, alleging that some of those funds had been used to support de la Garza's businesses." -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

fyi, there is a discussion started at the article talk page; from my view, a lot of sensationalism and allegations seem to have driven coverage around an otherwise routine recovery action; WP:NOTSCANDAL applies, and while some sources may be generally reliable, I think it would be helpful for editors to review what Nat Gertler is looking at, e.g. how much of those sources are repeating claims, allegations, gossip, etc, and whether fair and balanced content can be developed for a BLP. Beccaynr (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the article as a whole, the section on the legal case was basically the best sourced section of the whole article. Much is unsourced, much that shows a source fails verification. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate you cleaning up the article; it is important to get the article right - in the article talk page discussion, I alluded to how the one source not included in the recent addition is a later source that seems to indicate the earlier coverage is sensationalism [14]. There does not seem to be much left after the tabloid aspect is removed - that there are sources reporting allegations and gossip does not necessarily support inclusion in a BLP. Beccaynr (talk) 05:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

There are sources reporting a lawsuit. That's not an allegation, that is a genuine situation that she is in, being sued. It's a civil matter, so this is not a WP:BLPCRIME situation. The in-depth Boston Magazine source hardly shows that the rest was sensationalism; indeed it shows that the funding for much of what is covered in our article on her came from the man who would be convicted for embezzlement. That article also indicates that she settled on the lawsuit. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Lex Fridman

Some editors have removed content critical of Lex Fridman from reliable sources. The quote in question is from an article which was evaluated and deemed reliable on the RSN by 5 editors, given it is written by a senior correspondent at Business Insider who sought out expert commentary on Fridman.

The quote reads: "Though Fridman has touted affiliations with MIT and Google, AI and machine-learning experts who spoke with Insider said Fridman lacks the publications, citations, and conference appearances required to be taken seriously in the hypercompetitive world of academia", attributed to Julia Black.

A number of editors have long had an issue with any critical commentary of him on the page. Chase Kanipe removed this quote which unfolded into an argument on the talk page, with Kanipe claiming this violates WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, and claiming it is an "anonymous quote" (it isn't, it can be attributed to Julia Black). Jtbobwaysf has also been arguing on the talk page for months (see archives) to remove any critique and calling the black piece a "junk source".

Can we get some independent input here to address this? How do we determine which quotes to include/exclude? Cheers.

Zenomonoz (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Captain's name on Ever Given article

In the lead section the captain is named in connection with an accident. Is that appropriate? 78.149.135.163 (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems odd that he is not named here but not at 2021 Suez Canal obstruction. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Jeremy Soule

The original article accusing Soule has been taken by the original journalist with the following explanation - (https://web.archive.org/web/20200603181625/https://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sr4erf?new_posdown) Furthermore no investigation, charges or civili proceedings were made against Soule. This section is therefore in violation of a living person's biography and unnecessarily defaming the subject of this wiki article without a qualifying source.

Additional eyes needed on contentious article Martin Kulldorff

There has been tremendous discussion on this article around a specific paragraph and source, specifically one sentence. Looking at the wording and citations, it appears to me to not be presented in a neutral manner. I reworded this to maintain the same content while separating the fact an essay was published from the criticism of the essay, and clearly noted the source of the criticism to make it clear that it was not the opinion of the editors (which is how it appeared to me on first reading). See talk:Martin Kulldorff for my discussion, as well as other heated ones about this topic. The source used for criticism of the article is a reliable one, but reading it appears to not be ideal in terms of NPOV in my opinion, specifically:"Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial, formal tone." My revision attempts to summarize the article in a more formal and impartial tone.

Reviewing previous discussion on the talk page, I feel it's necessary to seek outside perspectives. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)