Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive325

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Michael Che

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

Michael Che of Weekend Update on SNL told a joke on this past week's show about Israel. The specific joke was "Israel is reporting that they’ve vaccinated half of their population, and I’m going to guess it’s the Jewish half." The American Jewish Committee is demanding an apology from SNL (though not Che). There is now considerable dispute about whether or not to include this on Che's page, and if so, how. There are accusations that Che is anti-Semitic the joke relied on anti-Semitic tropes. However, there is also context to consider. As JTA.org says, Israel has come under some criticism for refusing to extend its coronavirus vaccination program to West Bank Palestinians, for delaying the delivery of vaccines to Gaza Strip Palestinians and for not being as robust in its vaccination outreach to Arab Israelis as it is to Jewish Israelis. Given the sensitive Israeli/Palestinian issue in a BLP, I would appreciate more eyes and opinions on how to proceed. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

This "joke" had nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are not part of Israel's "population". Under the Oslo accords, responsibility for their health care was transferred from Israel to the Palestinian Authority! The "joke" was that Israel is only vaccinating it's own Jewish citizens. That is a lie! The source of the JTA article you quoted was an article in the Forward which clearly says that "23% of Arab-Israelis had received at least one dose of the Pfizer vaccine, compared to 33% of Haredi Jews....". Not a huge difference! Even more importantly, the article says that the vaccines were available to it's Arab citizens but that many didn't take advantage of it because of "widespread distrust of the government among Palestinian citizens of Israel". The article also quotes Rashdi Jasser who said that "many of his fellow [Arab] construction workers have dismissed government warnings about the dangers of coronavirus, calling it nonsense and refusing to wear masks."--Steamboat2020 (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I commented about the edit warring at the ANI report, but on the content, I strongly urge everyone to consider WP:RECENTISM. Unless the joke has caused an immediate impact on Che's career within the week or short term, this seems like UNDUE at this point. (This is part of the general tendancies of WPians to see one thing negative about a person in the news and rush to include it, forgetting that we are meant to be a summary of a person's career; particularly for comedians where offensive jokes tend to be part of their humor, this stuff happens all the time, and focusing on one-off incidents tend to water down these articles. In other words, barring any other coverage beyond this initial complaint, it is best to simply not include it. --Masem (t) 20:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I fully agree with Masem's rationale above for not including the material at this time.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree as well. This would, on its face, appear to fail WP:10YT. If he's fired for it or something, sure. But currently it's not notable for a biography. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Could you explain how this differs from a very similar criticism of him, regarding a transphobic joke he made on SNL, which is still in the article? He wasn't fired for that, either , nor faced any meaningful consequence (beyond the published criticism), yet we seem to be ok with that in his biography. Kenosha Forever (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
That should also be removed for the same reason, since it had no career impact. --Masem (t) 21:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Kenosha we have to set a single standard for all criticism. --Shrike (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
We have a standard. Setting it is not the problem. Enforcing it is. I thank Kenosha for pointing it out and also think it should be removed, per Masem's reasoning. If this was intended as an other stuff exists argument, then I'm sorry, but that's not a good excuse. Zaereth (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Not intended as an argument at all, I am just trying to understand what the standards are. Kenosha Forever (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Understood. And by "argument", I meant in the logical reasoning sense, not the overtly confrontational sense. Zaereth (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

One thing I want to clarify - the statement of the issue as presented by Muboshgu is, perhaps inadvertently, misleading. No one has accused Che of being an anti-semite, at least not that I have seen. He was accused of making a poor taste joke that perpetuates anti-semitic stereotypes. These are not the same things, and the nuance might be lost: The former might be a libelous issue, the second is not - it can be something done unknowingly (not being aware of the anti-semitic implications, as Omar Ilah for example claimed in her defense and apology when criticized for similar remarks)) or inadvertently (missing some key detail, as for example Richard Falk has said in defense of his dog-wearing-kippah cartoon). The reason I feel it is important to make this distinction is because some editors on that page seem to think that it is the former, giving them some sort of blank check to keep edit warring their version into the article. Kenosha Forever (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Kenosha Forever, inadvertent on my part. I amended the initial comment. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, appreciated. Kenosha Forever (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
While I think it's important to be mindful of things like libel, most of us are not lawyers and Wikipedia policy does not really deal with things in those terms. We're an encyclopedia, which is distinct from things like books, magazines, newspapers, etc... We use a completely different writing style, different references, and we just provide a rather short synopsis on what are usually very large and complex subjects. The goal is to provide a brief summary of the sources; a short introduction to them, if you will. That's why our motto states "the sum of all knowledge, not all knowledge.
To summarize anything, you have to whittle it down to the basics --the nitty gritty. Doing that naturally means we need some measure of where to cut, and in cases like this, that measure is one of staying power. Is this something that really makes a difference in this persons life? Will it still be relevant 10, 50, 100 years from now? Or is it just the latest thing to fill space on a poor news day and will be forgotten by next week.
We have many measures of this. Recentism is one. Weight and Balance are some others. Both working with and overriding all of them is BLP. It's best to think of them all working in concert, like one giant equation on a chalkboard, where info must satisfy every part of that equation in order to be included. This particular info fails on many levels. Zaereth (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Understood and agreed. I think the source of my confusion was relying on the existing content (the transphobic joke), which it seems was not supposed to be there, either. Kenosha Forever (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm kind of late to all this but I also agree that absent some sort of long term impact this shouldn't be in Che's biography. If it is later shown that the joke did have a lasting impact future sources will say as much and it can be added to the article then. This sort of inclusion of "every ugly thing someone once said" is a real problem across Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Fox News is reporting that a protest outside NBC Studios against 'SNL' star Michael Che's 'anti-Semitic' joke is now being planned--Steamboat2020 (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Again, nothing yet has affected Che's career. We're not a newspaper and need to see if this has a more significant impact than just people stating they were upset over a joke. --Masem (t) 02:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Mikey Walsh

Anonymous and New accounts libellously & repeatedly changing the authors name & adding misinformation to the Authors page. a possible semi lock to prevent this constant would be a great help. thank you

(Non-administrator comment) There has already a request for Page Protection being placed. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Efi Thodi

Categorizing by non-notable place of birth.

  • WP:COP-PLACE: The place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual.
  • WP:CATNAME#Residence: People are sometimes categorized by notable residence.... The place of birth is rarely notable.

More than 3 reverts, spaced out over months, reverting 4 different editors:

We have prohibited categorizing by place of birth for over a decade, unless it is both WP:DEFINING and WP:NOTABLE. There is no significant coverage of this person's place of birth, and her career did not take place in the same location as her birth. Not all sources are WP:RELIABLE (a gossip site), and merely mentioning in passing is not notable. The government documents are prohibited Original Research.

We've already had two WP:ANI about this contentious user.

Some quotes:

  • Recent discussions on Antondimak's talkpage about related categorization issues show a advanced case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This is a long-term behavior pattern, and together with the outrageous creation of fake categories as reported here, and the way he's been doubling down about them, warrants a block, or topic ban under WP:ARBMAC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It appears to me that Antondimak is unable to accept that he could ever be wrong and has some fairly fundamental misunderstanding of how categorisation works. Rathfelder (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment (as CFD participant) Recreating categories that had Os with omicron symbols is pretty egregious. Obviously Antondimak has experience using Greek alphabet so I wanted to somehow say the substitution was accidental but the timing makes it far fetched to assume good faith. I don't think most the discussion above is relevant: the editor created look alike categories to subvert CFD and should be sanctioned. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

What should be done? Can this be a precedent template for many other such place of birth edits, or should we have hundreds (maybe thousands) of individual article noticeboard entries for these Greek articles?
William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Murder of Ee Lee

In this new article two named people are identified as murderers but there is no mention of a competent verdict or even a trial having reached any conclusion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Dodger67, I removed the unsourced statement, one of the sources for the charges is furthermore a dead link. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm afraid the article needs a complete rewrite. It is absolutely unacceptable to mention the suspects in a way that implies they are guilty before a proper trial has reached a verdict, and even more so to do it in "Wikipedia's voice". Some WP:REVDEL is also needed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Dodger67, I agree, I further modified the article but it needs definitely an eye of an experienced sysop and REVDEL. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
REVDEL done. Fences&Windows 14:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Fences and windows but please delete also [3] CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Also see the history of Murder of Vicha Ratanapakdee, also written by User:Juno. I've reminded them at their talk page about BLPCRIME. Fences&Windows 14:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
The "See also" links on these pages seem irrelevant. I see no clear common factor between these articles except that they are homicides that occurred in the US. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Roger (Dodger67), they are all murders of Asian-Americans, which this user is highlighting with their editing. Fences&Windows 21:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Actually this highlights another problem, a classic problem we have when it comes to BLPs. Are they all murders? I can see a good argument for the Ee Lee article title although I know from previous discussions some would disagree and I see their point. For Vicha Ratanapakdee, while murder was one of the charges the possibility there will be no conviction for murder seems to be there, not because the perpetrator hasn't been identified but because the jury or prosecutor feels the evidence isn't sufficient to establish a murder conviction, i.e. the killing even if horrific wasn't a murder by legal standards. Nil Einne (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Austin Theory

Austin Theory is a professional wrestler currently working for WWE who was accused of sexual assault as part of the "Speaking Out" movement that took place over a period of weeks and months in 2020 -- as tends to be the case with both accusations like these and accusations regarding celebrities, few actual facts are known and the most that should be said on the topic is that he was accused. As of right now, the only mention of this is a sentence attempting to draw a specific conclusion by referencing tweets from a completely anonymous account whose express intention seems to be to defame the accuser. Whether or not whomever is editing the page believes this is warranted or not, I don't believe the manner in which this topic is being referenced is at all appropriate for Wikipedia per WP:NPOV. They also seem to have repeatedly attempted to insert almost the same sentence and references into the Speaking Out movement page along with other equally as badly-sourced claims that seem to be in various states of removal from the page. The bit about Theory is still in there though.

For now, I've added a better source needed template following the aforementioned sentence and references both on Theory's page and the Speaking Out page.

--50.100.77.106 (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Austin Theory is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE so the proper analysis is determining whether the allegations are cited to reliable sources and presented neutrally rather than make a determination whether the accusation is true. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
that was how i was approaching this, and why i added the "better source needed" template! i definitely could've been more clear and concise in my original post, and for that i apologize -- the only reason i "coloured" the issue at all was to give context and back up my stance that the continued re-edits and their corresponding references weren't neutral per WP:NPOV. --50.100.77.106 (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
For what it's worth, it doesn't appear to be prominently displayed on the page right now. I believe the proper policy is just wp:BLP, in particular, wp:BLPCRIME anyways, not NPOV. Warmly, BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 04:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Manzoor Pashteen

Manzoor Ahmad Pashteen or Manzoor Pashtun is a Pashtun human rights activist Funded by India from South Waziristan, Pakistan. There is baseless allegation written on this person's biography. A credible source/citation should be provided before alleging something like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.164.139.176 (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done - thanks for catching that. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 05:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Keira Alfred

Article has no sources whatsoever. In addition it might be an autobiography, since it was created by User:Keira(guyanese). A quick Google search suggests the subject of the article may not be notable. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Jc3s5h, another editor has already requested a speedy deletion. No need for action right now. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Fiona Graham

The editors on the page are basically preserving an unflatteringly biased article using an Extended Users block, reverting any additions to the Japanese version as well. They are not helping construct a good article, focusing on two controversial issues (explained further below) and not adding any new relavent information about her life, especially positive information.

  • Problems
    • The prominence of the Wanaka Gym case, which should be a sentence or paragraph in a history/biography/other activities section, not an entire section itself.
    • The inability to add further information to the article. The editors on that page who I constantly argue against have added very little information about her more recent life, and most of the information on that page concerns two controversial issues (Her departure from the Asakusa Geisha community and the Wanaka Gym case).
    • Several editors on that page, including Ravensfire, Ineffablebookkeeper and several IP addresses (note all of them are English speaking accounts based in the West) keep reverting/vanadalising the Japanese wikipedia and English wikipedia pages on Fiona Graham, adding unflattering information and removing more flattering information.
  • Solutions
    • I wrote a section in the Fukagawa Geisha article under "Geisha Mother" because I was not able to edit the Fiona Graham article myself. I think that section is a bit more thorough and detailed about her history and life. There needs to be far more information added to the Fiona Graham article, even if it is just copied from the Fukagawa Geisha page.
    • The Wanaka Gym section should be replaced with an Other Activities section, and the information about the Wanaka Gym should be moved to a History, Biography or Other Activities section.
    • The page needs to be unblocked because the block is mostly acting to preserve unflattering information about Fiona Graham, acting as a gatehouse to the vanadals. A lot of the various users causing problems on the English and Japanese pages needs to be told to stay away, make constructive edits, or simply be blocked.

Geicraftor (talk) 07:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Geicraftor - I'd appreciate if you'd ping me when mentioning both myself and Ravensfire, though I don't think it's a requirement for this Noticeboard, as far as I know. Please use this template: {{u|username}} when mentioning users, as otherwise, I'm not going to be notified that I'm part of a discussion on any Wikipedia noticeboard.
Also - please use proper subheadings, such as ===Problems===, instead of bolding the text as a false heading; for users who use screenreaders, bold text commonly doesn't encode as emphasis, whereas a subheading will.
As for the accusations - I've been over the same thing many different times before, and later on, rather than repeat myself, I'll add a comment linking previous sockpuppet investigations and comments I've made, in regards to the constant, blatant COI editing conducted on Graham's article. It's pretty obvious, based on language - that the content is "unflattering", as previous sockpuppets led with language in exactly this vein - that this is more of the same.
I'm honestly disappointed, as I thought that with the last instance of COI editing to Graham's BLP, we'd hopefully moved past this. Details on how COI editors can edit Graham's article - and have those edits stay there, as you can edit a BLP if you're connected to the subject themselves, so long as you follow the correct steps - have been laid out on the Talk page previously, step-by-step, and I'd hoped that they would have been heeded, maybe changed some behaviour, even. It doesn't seem like it has, and here we are again.
I genuinely don't know what higher steps can be taken at this point; I think everyone involved is sick of playing whack-a-mole on this article, every four months for the past 11 years. If anyone can rub two braincells together and come up with an idea, I'd be grateful. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I should also add - this is English Wikipedia; we have no jurisdiction or control over its Japanese language sister project. If you have a problem with the Japanese article's editors, take it up with them, as no-one here can do anything. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure what exactly the problem is, because the OPs post is rather vague on exactly what they find as a problem and what they are trying to accomplish. If the linked article, Fukagawa Geisha, is any indication, well, that article reads like an advertisement, and needs some serious trimming and work to make it encyclopedic. Some of their solutions are contrary, such as "unblock the article and block everyone from editing it". Huh!?! Getting to the bottom of this looks like it's going to take some serious digging through article history and the long list of discussions linked by Grabergs Graa Sang. I don't have time for that at the moment, but if anyone does, this looks like something we should take a deeper look into, albeit that likely won't turn out in the way the OP had hoped. Zaereth (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Zaereth - no need to dig; there are discussions linking to the previous times this has happened in the Talk page's archive that detail diffs anyway, as well as the previous two sockpuppet investigations, the lattermost of which I spent way too much time digging out diffs for.
As is evident, the responses follow the same lines - this is defamation, it's unflattering, people have it out for Graham, "An investigation whether or not the editor in question is related to the subject...a direct competitor in the same field as graham, and whether or not said editor stands to gain materially from graham's disadvantage", yada yada yada.
If it helps, the only thing I stand to gain from this being resolved is the ability to go back to editing the other articles on my watchlist. Hope this saves you some time. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 11:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Christian Porter, member of Australian Cabinet

Mr Porter's page is being frequently edited as a result of an accusation of a crime involving an unnamed person, who is a member of the current Australian federal Cabinet, in 1988. The crime took place in Sydney in 1988 before he became a politician, but as he was not a Sydney resident at the time, the question whether or not he travelled to Sydney during 1988 for a particular event has attracted a lot of interest. I believe the page may need protection at some level.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christian_Porter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Porter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambrosechapel (talk • contribs) 07:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Yes, so there’s a story in the Australian media about an unnamed current Cabinet Minister and an allegation of rape in Sydney in 1988, and people are trying to show that Porter was in Sydney for a debating competition in 1988. It’s terribly poorly sourced - one source (Four Corners) says nothing about Porter being in Sydney in 1988 and the other (Hale School Magazine) is dated 1987 so is useless for that purpose. A few eyes on this would not go amiss. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
@Malcolmxl5: I've removed a long section at his talkpage (some of it only a problem in context, but enough of the section needs to go) and a minor bit at the AG page. Could you please revdel these too. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 10:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
FWIW, the original issue is now a dead one as Christian Porter held a press conference confirming he was the unnamed person who had been accused. This does mean there are new issues surrounding what we should mention and maybe also where, but possibly it doesn't need BLPN attention any more. Nil Einne (talk) 12:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Richard_Scott_Smith

Resolved
 – Concerns removed CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

IMO violation of WP:BLPCRIME, recently PRODed by me, shortly before end of time redirected to an article of a "True Crime" Documentary [5] Love Fraud which seem to cover this man. In the documentary various women make serious accusations against the man for alleged fraud. I did not find any conviction(s), "only" a warrant for Ident Theft (w/o conviction so far). CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

CommanderWaterford, I found the following:
"In 2018, Smith was arrested in Knoxville, TN, thanks to efforts depicted in Love Fraud. Smith was sentenced to prison, and was released in April, per the documentary." [6]
"In a Des Moines police report, the woman said Smith threw her to the ground, kicked her, and struck her in the head with an electronic device. Smith was arrested and put on probation, according to court records in Polk County, Iowa."[7]
Also see this article from 2017: https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article136374288.html Fences&Windows 13:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Fences and windows, very interesting, thanks, don't tell me you just googled it ;-), I researched in newspapers. com etc. pp. ... The article from 2017 is "only" an accusation of a woman... and the first one tells that he was arrested but not whether he was convicted. And the police report... well... is a report of an interrogation, also no conviction at all. I surely agree that he is highly suspected (of course) but I do not see any conviction...what do you think? CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
He has been convicted: "Dunlap went to the police, and Smith was charged with identity theft and forgery in Johnson County in February 2017. The forgery charge was dropped, but Smith pleaded guilty to identity theft and was sentenced to 10 months in jail. Court records show that in April 2019 he violated his probation — failure to report and failure to pay are cited — so the probation was extended 18 months, until Oct. 29."[8] Fences&Windows 14:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Fences and windows, good research, indeed - a conviction of identity theft but the forgery was dropped... and.. I am not able to access the case on the archived jococourts.org website ... did you? so formally we have a conviction of Ident Theft and nothing else. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Fences and windows, fyi: @Rosguill: reverted the Redirect here [9], restoring the original version. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
CommanderWaterford, Rosguill, I think the best approach is to redirect and write about him in a neutral tone at Love Fraud. He is only notable in that context (otherwise only covered by Kansas local press) and his name and details of his conviction are relevant to the documentary and don't breach policy afaics. Fences&Windows 17:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Fences and windows, I have no objection as long as a duly sourced mention can indeed be added at that target. signed, Rosguill talk 17:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
OK, done. Fences&Windows 21:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
p.s. An editor by the same name who uploaded pictures of bridges in Wales had his userpage edited in 2015 to make accusations against this other Smith, which I've belatedly revdelled. Fences&Windows 14:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Gregory Montanaro

Resolved
 – Page had been drafted CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

A puff piece/resume. I've started cleanup, but this is so deeply steeped in public relations patois, I don't know how to proceed without cutting it to a stub. More eyes appreciated. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Oy vey it's bad. It looks like someone's already marked it for deletion and that seems like the right idea... —Wingedserif (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes. I might have proposed it for speedy deletion as spam, but odds are good the sheer volume of sources would have been misinterpreted. Maybe still....2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
fyi: Page has been moved into Draft. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Tariq Nasheed

We have heavy BLP issues at Tariq Nasheed [10] and its talk page[11][12]. The subject is controversial but the content and comments are beyond the pail. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Horse Eye's Back, indeed the comments of the Editor User:Stonksboi are beyond any good - somebody should evaluate a WP:REVDEL on the last diffs at Talk:Tariq Nasheed and this one [13] - thank you. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
(A tad dramatic to refer to my comment as "beyond the pale", and I don't think anyone here was accusing Nasheed of a crime! - I also feel coming to this board right away was unnecessary, but as I am also here now...) I would like to draw attention to the section "Use of term "bed wench" on the article in question, and how there is now criticism directed at Nasheed's use of the term "bed wench". The two sources presented in the rebuttal are Ebony & RollingOut, which come off as mass media/opinion pieces. The criticism is sincere and I appreciate the effort of whomever added it, but the wording as it currently stands doesn't seem to be of an acceptable standard/format. Many regards, --Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Billy Morrison

I again am acting on behalf of Billy Morrison himself, whose year of birth has been repeatedly edited, to show him older than he is, which has shown up in Google searches and ultimately on TV news -- this is very upsetting to Billy, and recently repeatedly the work of one editor: 2601:19d:303:7a20:f177:2066:3a1d:9128

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Billy_Morrison&action=history

I made my initial correction, at Billy's request, on 01:31, 6 November 2020‎ -- adding his birth year, of 1969

That edit was reverted, removing the year and leaving the birth day, on 10:01, 6 November 2020‎ -- the editor said a reliable source was needed.

Before that came to Billy's attention, or mine, the editor 2601:19d:303:7a20:f177:2066:3a1d:9128 made the addition of an incorrect birth year: 18:16, 9 February 2021‎ -- note his sarcastic comment: "Billy Morrison is 65 1955 not 51 lol"

That edit was undone by another editor, who inserted a more nearly correct but still incorrect birth year (1967): 21:21, 21 February 2021‎

All that later came to Billy's attention and he re-contacted me, so I corrected the birth year and, as previously told to do, added a source (Billy's official Facebook account, https://www.facebook.com/BillyMorrison/about_contact_and_basic_info, where he added his birth year, to substantiate this correction in Wikipedia, which I made): 14:46, 22 February 2021

Days later, 2601:19d:303:7a20:f177:2066:3a1d:9128 undid my edit and put back the erroneous birth year of 1955: 18:24, 26 February 2021‎

Later that very day, another editor, UW Dawgs, undid 2601's erroneous edit and restored the correct birth year: 18:31, 26 February 2021‎ -- I believe his note there cited 2601's edit as vandalization: "rvt vandal, tag re non-WP:RS"

Shortly thereafter that day, another editor, AnomieBOT, added a "dating maintenance" tag (Dating maintenance tags: [citation needed]) but did not edit the then-correct birth year: 18:56, 26 February 2021‎

But then again, that same day, 2601 came back and again changed the correct birth year (1969), previously verified by the official Facebook account, to the incorrect birth year (1955): 19:31, 26 February 2021‎

And someone -- I believe 2601 -- added an insulting comment, all in CAPS, to my Talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dougdrenkow -- "GIVE IT A REST AND STOP PUTTING FALSE INFO ABPUT HIS AGE JESUS ARE YOU DELUSIONAL"

Billy and I are very upset that his birth date is continually being changed, even though we have supplied evidence from his official Facebook Account of his correct age. And we are especially upset that recently Editor 2601:19d:303:7a20:f177:2066:3a1d:9128 has repeatedly undone corrections, and apparently left insulting comments.

Like millions of others, we respect Wikipedia as perhaps the most authoritative source of information on the Internet -- that is why Google and that TV News story cited Wikipedia to report Billy's age, incorrectly.

In order to prevent this from continually happening, there are two things that should be done:

His birth date should be made non-editable. Obviously, it will never change. We don't know how you can do that, and we've been told that Wikipedia's policies do not allow items to be made uneditable unless there is evidence of repeated vandalism -- as you can see in the History I cited above, there is in this case.

And Editor 2601:19d:303:7a20:f177:2066:3a1d:9128 in particular needs to be prevented from making any more erroneous edits -- obviously intentionally -- or making any insulting comments.

Wikipedia is much better than all that.

Thank you for any and all help. We are very sorry to have to bother you with all this, but we need to set the record straight -- for Billy's good reputation and Wikipedia's.

Doug - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougdrenkow (talk • contribs)

I'll protect the page with the 1969 date based on the Facebook page, but I would suggest that you follow the advice at Wikipedia:Contact us/Article subjects and send an email via your official representation of Morrison to info-en-q@wikimedia.org explaining who you are, your relation to Morrison, and that you are confirming this information on his biography page here. That will create a confidential Open Ticket Request (seen only by a selected, vetted subset of volunteers) that will verify your information and that then can be used as affirming that you are who are say you are and thus this is the correct date. (I have found a LA Weekly article that has Morrison saying he was "three years old" in the 70s, so that's going to help a lot to affirm). --Masem (t) 17:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Bill Ward (musician)

The one in the second photo (1973) should be the bassist, Geezer Butler, and not Bill Ward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zois Gasp (talk • contribs) 04:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

No, that's Bill Ward with a mustache. While he was usually clean shaven, and Butler often wore a mustache, but as you can see from the full picture here, for a time in 1973, both Butler and Ward wore mustaches. From left to right, that is Osborne, Butler, Iommi, and Ward. I could see, however, that one could confuse Ward and Butler given that with similar hair styles and facial hair, they do resemble each other, at least until you see them in the same photo. --Jayron32 18:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Bringing Up Bates

I thought 19 Kids and Counting and Counting On were bad enough, but here's the next one. Another article full of BLP violations, the most overt of which I'm about to remove: the grandchildren, who never asked to be in anything, and the freaking pink and blue colors, which violate the MOS and everything we've learned about gender in the last decades are so. I'd appreciate y'all helping me to keep an eye on this kind of editing in these reality-TV show articles. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Drmies, if not already noticed you might want to have a look at the latest diffs tonight from the editor. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks CommanderWaterford. These kinds of articles are gifts that keep on giving. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Why do we have birthdates for minors in these articles? Or birthdates for anyone, really? Woodroar (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
People like birthdates, for some reason. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång like those colors, and like the model numbers of guns and shit in all those other articles, it's a fetish. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Drmies, time for Pedagogical measures ... reverted once again. CommanderWaterford (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I deleted the whole table of kids. No reason I can see to include (poorly-sourced) bios of each. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
User:BubbaJoe123456, User:CommanderWaterford, User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång, User:Woodroar, I really appreciate y'all's help. I've often felt like I was the only one with these concerns, rolling a rock uphill. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Looks like you are right Drmies, here we go again, reminds me of Groundhog Day... new User:Gigismommy added the names again, KeithD made some additions afterwards without removing the previous one ... CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I've fully protected the article. I considered ECP, but it looks like several of the more ardent edit warriors here would be able to bypass that. I've left a note in the protection log requesting that discussion happen on the talk page before further additions are made. If I can help any other way, please let me know. --Jayron32 18:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

List of gender reveal party accidents

I saw that List of gender reveal party accidents was recently created via AfC. I'm somewhat concerned that this may run afoul of BLP1E, as most of the accidents tend to gain a short, intense flurry of coverage but without any long term coverage or other coverage that would establish notability. To an extent this can also be the case for the main gender reveal party, in the incidents and injuries section.

I'm just worried about this being similar to the Gorilla Glue incident, where the woman received a lot of coverage but there's not enough to justify covering it on Wikipedia. At present this article doesn't list every case that has received coverage, but I can see this going that way. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you make some very good points. On the bigger issue, I think, like the section below, this is another glaring instance of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. What's next, List of people who injured themselves while camping by trying to cook canned foods over a fire without opening them first? Why don't we just start cataloging youtube videos by type?
In my view, we're an encyclopedia, so any article, even a list article, should still be about a subject. This type of list, in my view, is completely opposite of encyclopedic writing. Here, we're not defining any thing. It's just a list of incidents and a title that in some arbitrary way ties them all together (ie: it could just as easily be a list of people killed by cannons during a party, or whatever). In my opinion, a good list article is about a subject that simply consists of multiple components. The subject is defined like any other article, and the list gives a good but quick summary of all the components, usually with "main article" link to their subordinate articles. A good example is Basic fighter maneuvers, or List of fallacies is not bad either.
I generally like to call these "parent articles". For example, Energy would be parent to kinetic energy and potential energy. Potential energy to all its different sub-articles. Luminescence to fluorescence and phosphorescence, etc... That seems like a more encyclopedic way to make a list. This just seems like a directory, not too different from a catalog, and for all the reasons you describe and a few more, a very bad directory that will become a magnet for BLP issues. Zaereth (talk) 03:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
The list has been nominated for deletion. Fences&Windows 20:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • BLP1E only applies to articles about specific individuals (its scope is "presuming this event is notable, should we have an article about this person involved in it, or just mention them in the context of an article about the event?") Unlike most other parts of BLP, it doesn't apply anywhere else. The question of whether we should include someone's name and other information in a list like this falls under WP:BLPNAME or WP:NPF instead, which have very different standards. The question of "is this broad event noteworthy?" is not directly a BLP issue at all (after all, if it is notable but BLPNAME / NPF is not satisfied, everything on that list could be covered without naming any individuals.) --Aquillion (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Anatoliy Shariy - Article being constantly bloated with heavy POV

A Ukrainian Wikipedian by the name of EricLewan who apparently doesn't like Anatoliy Shariy's political participation is constantly trying to label him as a "pro-Russian propagandist" without providing concrete evidence besides various biased oligarch- or state controlled media. EricLewan https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1009015451&oldid=1009013114&title=Anatoly_Shariy

The mentioned user also constantly removes any other part of the text where Anatoliy Shariy is not labeled a pro-russian propagandist like the part where he rejects allegations and calls them politically motivated (source provided).

If you take a look at his contributions you will see that he also vandalised the Borscht article, changing the soup's place of origin to Ukraine instead of Russia, further evidencing POV pushing behaviour of this user. ValterUdarnik (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I've already reverted the article to its state as of February 20, but maybe there's more to revert. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

POV pushing and diffamation is again perpetrated by several Ukrainian Wikipedians. This time by the users AndriiDr and 62.216.38.50. I suggest introducing pending protection since there seem to be coordinated manipulation efforts. ValterUdarnik (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
@ValterUdarnik: Respectfully, please narrow down what specifically you consider vandalism. POV pushing is definitely present, but I'd just cautiously point out that saying Shariy has pro-Russian views is not that, especially when a quick Google search will reveal dozens of diverse sources that back that claim up. Cran32 (talk | contributions) 18:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
@Cran32: Excuse me, but what constitutes his "pro-Russianism"? The fact that he advocates a neutral Ukraine which will cooperate both with Russia and the EU? Is Merkel "pro-Russian" because Germany cooperates on North-Stream 2? I doubt. "Pro-Russianism" nowadays was turned into a battle term to denounce and attack people who don't seek conflict with Russia, labeling them as some kind of traitors. ValterUdarnik (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. Best, Cran32 (talk | contributions) 19:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
That's a nice collection of Ukrainian propaganda websites. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Can anything be done, please? I haven't done anything for some time, cause I'm afraid to forget when I reverted the last time and go over 3 reverts in 24 hours. There's also a user who changed "Kiev" to "Kyiv" everywhere, even in URLs. (Some URLs are broken now.)
It looks like an attack from Ukrainian accounts and IPs. That's just crazy. I haven't followed Shariy for a long time now, but he basically just laughs at the Ukrainian authorities, trolls them a little bit. And he's very polite. What's going on? Who would care about his English Wikipedia article that much? --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The newest addition is "Covers events in Ukraine from the standpoint of Russian interests. He is one of the closest associates of Viktor Medvedchuk, whom Ukraine's special services suspect of financing terrorism." :-) "Terrorism" is probably a reference to the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Could some please look after this article as well →→→ "Party of Shariy"? A user named Cran32 made an attack page out of it. His version read:

The Party of Shariy (Ukrainian: Партiя Шарiя, Russian: Партия Шария) is a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine founded by political blogger Anatoly Shariy, who fled Ukraine in 2012 after shooting a patron in a Kyiv McDonald's and attempting to fake an assassination attempt. Most recently known to be residing in Spain, he gained fame via his YouTube channel, on which he discusses Ukrainian politics and expresses pro-Russian, Ukrainophobic sentiment. The party's official goals claim to be the protection of democracy, the creation of a middle class, and preservation of freedom of expression; in practice, however, it mainly acts as a proponent of pro-Russian positions and ideas, often directly mimicking Kremlin propaganda.

--Moscow Connection (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference 24 канал 2.07.2019. ЦВК зареєструвала кандидатами в депутати одіозних Клюєва та Шарія was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "Клюєв і Шарій ідуть в Раду: чим відомі ці скандальні мисливці за мандатом". ТСН. 2019-07-02. «У Верховну Раду йдуть скандальний проросійський блогер Анатолій Шарій та колишній глава адміністрації Януковича Андрій Клюєв <…> Шарія називають українофобом, він відомий розповсюдженням антиукраїнських фейків та просуванням проросійських ідеологем. Ось, наприклад, його думка про мешканців Західної України. „Я украинец, а вы не украинцы. Вы второй сорт. Нет, вы просто полукровки. Вы наполовину … поляки, наполовину венгры…“, — казав якось він.»
  3. ^ "Хто такий Анатолій Шарій і чому йде в Раду". Факти (ICTV). 2019-07-03.
  4. ^ А будущее у территории, именуемой «Украиной», обещает быть просто чудным. Сказочным. И ко всем прелестям этого фантастического будущего, ко всем мини-чернобылям, голоду, болезням и деградации будет добавлен еще один размашистый штрих — гомодиктатура. — Анатолій Шарій // Обозреватель, 22 марта 2010.
  5. ^ «Похищенная» в Киеве журналистка оказалась помощницей пророссийского блогера Шария // Факти (ICTV), 5 сентября 2017.
  6. ^ Порошенко відзначився дивною поведінкою // Gazeta.ua, 28 лютого 2019.
  7. ^ СЕСТРА ПРОПАГАНДИСТА-УКРАИНОФОБА ШАРИЯ ОБВИНИЛА ЕГО В ПЕДОФИЛИИ // Деловая столица, 26 Марта 2018.
  8. ^ СБУ провела воспитательную беседу с помощницей Шария (обновлено) // Лівий берег, 5 сентября 2017.
  9. ^ Українофоб Шарій розкрутив скандал з антисемітизмом «закарпатського» консула в Гамбурзі (ФОТО, ВІДЕО) // Закарпаття онлайн, 14 травня 2018.
  10. ^ "Диванный антипатриот: как Анатолий Шарий превратился в медиа-изгоя". Політека. 2018-08-03. Retrieved 2019-07-06.
  11. ^ "СБУ підтвердила, що Шарій та Клюєв не перебували в Україні останні 5 років". 24 (телеканал). Retrieved 2019-07-03.
  12. ^ «Кнут для украинского быка» — Оборзреватель, Архівні копії [1], [2]
  13. ^ "Толя, ты обычный балабол. Шария уличили в распространении антиукраинского ролика". Деловая столица. 2019-07-03.

OK, this is rather fascinating. Where I live, we have a lot of Russian immigrants, and I have and have had a lot of Russian friends. Google translate must be getting better, because it did a pretty good job of translating these sources. (I mean, it's always been good for French, but if you can read English then you can read French.) This was good enough that I could even hear the Russian accent in the idioms, word choice, and sentence structure.

It looks like this person is notable, and I did find what look like some very good news articles; not all of them flattering yet not all bad. A good mix. Whether this is all state-run propaganda or not, I don't know. I'm judging solely by the quality of journalism that I have read in these articles.

Mostly, however, what I see are unacceptable sources. Blogs, for example, are not good sources for a BLP. Neither are opinion/editorial (op/ed) columns, and this article uses lot of those. This includes the writings of the subject, which, from what I've read, is the type of articles this guy writes. Of course, I haven't read all hundred and some odd sources. Even the one that exposed the orphanage (and I'm a staunch advocate of protecting children), even that is an op/ed column in the form of a documentary rather than a piece of true journalism. So I think this article is highly bloated and highly puffed up (for both good and bad), and it reads like this weird combination of promotion and a hit-piece. I think it needs a huge trimming and maybe toned down toward the middle quite a bit, and maybe cut down a little on that Russian accent. But it really needs to be done by someone who can read Russian fluently. Zaereth (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Donald DeGrood

On Donald DeGrood's page, it displays his Coat of Arms with the motto "DEUS CARITAS EST". His motto has never been rendered this way, and is not rendered this was in the source given for the Coat of Arms. "DEUS CARITAS EST" should be changed to "GOD IS LOVE" to properly reflect the original source.

Source given for the image for the Coat of Arms: http://www.sfcatholic.org/bishop-degrood/bishop-degrood-coat-of-arms/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.151.166.26 (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC) I researched this and changed the coat of arms displayed on the page to the one representing DeGrood. The previous coat of arms was representative of a different bishop. Go4thProsper (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Roger Bonair-Agard and Kevin Coval

BLP / crime issues at Roger Bonair-Agard (starting at this edit, see e.g. the edit summary and the section header), and at Kevin Coval (starting here), where it causes an edit war (added 5 times, removed 4 times). Fram (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie:dealt with the Kevin Coval article (thanks!), perhaps a similar intervention for the Bonair-Agard one may be warranted? Fram (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Done; also revdel'd some material at Malcolm London, though at that article, earlier material seemed to have sufficient sources, so I've left that for now. I've given the user who added most of the poorly-sourced material a final warning. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Fram (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

DrWitnesser

DrWitnesser is a born-again evangelist eSports streamer, who recently got banned from Twitch after an altercation with a Muslim child. Conservative Designer, a single-purpose account who seems to have been created solely for the purpose of editing the DrWitnesser page, has made a number of edits to the page. Some of these were constructive, but mostly seemed to be about promoting a POV in favour of DrWitnesser.

While I'm aware that a lot of the sources used in the article are biased and sensationalist, I think they are adequate to note the basic facts of the situation. Even so, I think this article could do with a once-over to make sure that either overly-promotional or possible defamatory information is removed from the article.

Thank you --Bangalamania (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Given the situation, and the sourcing, this seems like a WP:BLP1E situation and that the article should be deleted. The only sign of notability for this person is the altercation and subsequent results, there's no sign they were notable before this event. --Masem (t) 17:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
As the creator, if editors wish to list the article for deletion I will not oppose. --Bangalamania (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

French speaking editor needed to look at possible BLP issues

To me, something seems off -- possibly tabloidish -- about the tenacious efforts to get this into Wikipedia, Alas, I cannot tell if WP:BLPPUBLIC is being followed because I am unable to read most of the sources (despite my name, my family is from England.) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

It was discussed in many major english and french newspapers, and Olivier Duhamel is a well known public figure in France, so I would say that BLPPUBLIC is satisfied. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Then it definitely should be covered on the Olivier Duhamel page. Should it take up such a large part of the Sciences Po page?
Consider Elon Musk#Tham Luang cave rescue and defamation case. It isn't mentioned at all at SpaceX or Tesla, Inc.
Or Bill Cosby#Sexual assault cases and conviction. Not mentioned at Temple University.
We don't, as a rule, create huge sections about accusations on pages of organizations associated with the accused.
It just seems tabloidish to devote such a huge section of Sciences Po to something that belongs in the Olivier Duhamel page. Alas, I can't address this problem because so many of the sources are in French. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree, its probably not due as massive section on the Sciences Po article. Google translate or DeepL work well to translate french language source texts. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Paul Zimmer (Internet personality)

Troy Becker (formerly known as Paul Zimmer), has been seemingly trying to re-write/re-create his own articles to claim that he is younger than he is, and has claimed the current article is libellous. It's really the latter point that I want people to address here, but I thought I'd give an exposition of events:

  • 3 January: IP editor 2603:8001:7501:1e6b:a48c:50fe:ad41:29fe, claiming to be subject of the article, made a number of edits to his own Wikipedia page. These included changing his date of birth from 1995 (which is supported by the sources used in the article) to 2000, claiming himself to be a "fictional character" (to make the distinction between his online persona and himself), and other promotional content. These edits were quickly reverted ([14], [15], [16]), and a warning against article hijacking was placed on their userpage by Rdp060707 (who possibly thought that the user was talking about a different individual) and advises them to use the Article Wizard to create another article (talk page).
  • 20 January: Draft:Troy Becker, a short promotional article, is submitted to AfC, created by Thetroybecker. This also includes a false date of birth. It was declined on 26 February by KylieTastic for improper sourcing. I don't believe the user should be reprimanded for this, as they were encouraged to use the Article Wizard to create a new article.
However, this draft also includes an image, File:Facetune 23-02-2021-23-47-32.jpg. Given the image name, it seems likely that this was edited by Facetune software – possibly to give Becker a younger look (although this is speculation on my part). Either way, I'm not sure what the copyright situation is with Facetuned images. If this is deemed appropriate, it should be included in the main article; if not, then it should be deleted from Wikipedia.
  • 3 March: Thetroybecker puts a delete notice on the original article and issues legal threats against Wikipedia, saying: My lawyer states that, this is against the law to pass on false information about me. I want this page deleted now or I will be facing legal action. and I would like this Wikipedia page deleted immediately, I am Troy Becker/Paul Zimmer. This is inaccurate information on me, and my lawyer says this is grounds for decimation against me. I would like this page deleted now or I will be facing legal action.
I highly doubt this threat is genuine. However, on the off-chance that there is defamatory content within the article, I would appreciate if editors could give the article a one-over check. (I am also aware that some Wikipedians take a dim view of Insider sources being used in BLPs. However I think the general consensus is that they are reliable for content such as dates of birth, especially when these are supported by other sources such as the New Statesman).

In short: If editors could give the article a once-over check to see that it is BLP-worthy and that there is no defamatory content in the article, I would very much appreciate it. --Bangalamania (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Nothing wrong with the article as regards sourcing, only the issue of whether he's notable - however, knowing the usual arguments at AfD, I suspect the sources such as the New Statesman and the sttempt to resurface as someone else (which may well take it out of WP:BLP1E territory) might mean it is kept. Anyway, you're right about the legal threats, so blocked and article semi-protected (since they tried previously to delete content as an IP). Black Kite (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • KylieTastic, I honestly think that the article in its current should be deleted - there are several accusations listed which are only sourced by two magazines and one of them cites the other. Beside these accusations I barely can see any notability of this subject. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah - there are plenty of sources, i.e. The Independent although they all, apart from one, quote the New Statesman. This isn't unusual with this type of pop culture story, to be honest; often a mainstream source doesn't pick it up, but this time one did, and it spread from there. I can find odd bits about him from when his story surfaced the first time, but not a lot, and most of it's unsurprisingly on YouTube. Black Kite (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I've also deleted the draft as a hoax. I can't find reliable sourcing for the earlier Musical.ly debacle, so though adequately sourced this is really a BLP1E about the renaming. Fences&Windows 17:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Ahmed Johnson

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

Slam say "Johnson went to college at the University of Tennesee, which led to two seasons -- 1990, 1991 -- kicking around the Dallas Cowboys squad as a middle linebacker." This is confirmed by page 230 of John Grasso's Historical Dictionary of Wrestling. Rowman and Littlefield (ISBN 0810879255), which says he was released by the Cowboys without playing a regular season game. Despite this the article contains blatant original research added here saying "Tennessee has no record of anybody named Norris ever having played football at the university, and the NFL has no record of Norris ever playing for any team", sourced only by searches of this database and this database. 92.40.188.82 (talk) 08:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It may all be kayfabe. No idea how much fact checking these wrestling sites actually do. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

John Mark Ramseyer

This BLP on a relatively obscure Harvard legal scholar, John Mark Ramseyer — who has written a few dozen journal articles — sat as an almost untouched stub until a month and a half ago when he published a journal article that has attracted quite a bit of scrutiny. Since then, it's tripled in size, 60% of the body prose is now occupied by a new "Controversy" section that's been slapped up, and half the lead is now dedicated to said journal article. I'm afraid I don't have time at the moment to look into it but, at first glance, this seems to have a variety of issues related to WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:UNDUE, and WP:MOSLEAD going on. But maybe it doesn't; like I said, I haven't looked at it closely. Just an FYI if anyone has the time or inclination to glance at it. Chetsford (talk) 07:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Ross Nicholson

This article is currently mostly a hoax being circulated fairly widely on social media. It has been used to get a persons's name added to the betting odds for the next Aberdeen FC manager. --ℕ ℱ 12:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Reverted and semi-protected. Thanks, nonsenseferret. Fences&Windows 13:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Steven Kunes

I am the subject of this Wikipedia article and have not logged in to check it for over a year. I would like an uninvolved senior editor to take a look at this article about me and then try to think whether or not you've ever seen an article (BLP) like this one. I doubt that Robert Downey and Martha Stewart are listed for their criminal offenses at the top of their articles. While it's true that I've gotten myself into trouble over the years, one need only to read the editors' comments to conclude that they ganged up on me and shut down the voices of dissenting editors. I am not an American conman and former screenwriter. I currently have a comedy series on Amazon Prime called "Over My Dead Body" that I created, write and produce. I've published 6 books in the last four years, including one last month. I can provide links all day long that demonstrate that I'm very much an active writer and producer. For the last two years, I've been on the episodic comedy panel of judges for the WGA Awards. I've been a member of the Writers Guild of America, the Authors Guild and the Dramatists Guild since 1982 and remain current and in good standing. I'm also a member of PEN (upon their invitation two years ago.) I am very embarrassed over my past actions but they certainly don't warrant top-billing on Wikipedia. I am kindly requesting that a senior Wikipedia editor review the BLP about me and format the article like every other BLP, no better, no worse. Thank you very much for your help. -- Steven Kunes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.35.86 (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

"I can provide links all day long that demonstrate that I'm very much an active writer and producer." I would suggest you provide those links on the article Talk page, making sure that the links are to Reliable Sources.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, we need to be very careful about this. While Kunes' Over My Dead Body exists[17] and is posted on Amazon Prime,[18] it is low budget and low production value (Prime Video is largely a self-publishing platform [19]), is not available in the UK (I don't know about elsewhere), and shares a name with another 2015 TV real-crime series featuring Linda Hamilton.[20] It is also the same title Kunes incorrectly claimed was on Netflix a few years ago.[21] Because of the history of this article, self-published and other less reliable or non-independent sources should not be used. There is ongoing discussion on the talk page. Fences&Windows 16:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Loretta Preska

There has been a brouhaha at Loretta Preska, a little visited backwater which I stumbled upon while editing Steven Donziger and noticed had a few glaring omissions. Unfortunately my irresistible arguments were met by an immoveable editor and the discussion has reached a standstill. Half of the involved editors have withdrawn from the discussion which means the rest of us have no one to argue with. It would be helpful if someone would visit and provide an opinion on two issues which are:

Burrobert (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Burrobert, I would suggest using the procedure listed at Wikipedia:Third opinion. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Commander. That process does fit this situation quite well. I was hoping that there would be an avalanche of tourists willing to visit Preska's remote village. I will leave it a few days to see if anyone's interest has been piqued before advertising for a lone referee. Burrobert (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Shelly Flagel

Nothing noticeable about this person, there are millions of professors in the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelly_Flagel. Same editor created several biographical pages about members of the same group, of minimal noticeability. Editor for hire? Please check.Norm21 (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has notoriously lax rules when it comes to the notability of certain special groups, like professors. (Too lax in my opinion.) However, we still need some reliable, secondary sources. All this article has are primary sources in the form of profiles and course schedules from the university where she works. I recommend taking this to WP:Articles for deletion, and following the instructions on the page before nominating it there. Zaereth (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Zaereth :) Norm21 (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Norm21,Zaereth Please notice: This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period - this is not the case in the article you mentioned. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks CommanderWaterford, but I've been working this page for over a decade. I'm very familiar with what it's for, which is why I recommended that this be taken to AFD. Which it was. Zaereth (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Alexander Bock

Link is not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.191.148.5 (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Wrong Redirect created by a 2011 blocked User. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Village Pump discussion on a "probably unreviewed Recent Changes" feature

Hi everyone. FYI I've started a discussion on a feature to surface edits that are likely to have taken place when nobody was patrolling for vandalism. I'm hoping it will help us more thoroughly review edits to BLPs that have few active watchers. Please comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Best, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Lawrence W. Jones

Lawrence W. Jones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A dispute has arisen on the Lawrence W. Jones page.

  • I added his full date of birth, using two reliable sources from the public domain (one a Google book with its page cited, the other a biography page from a university web page). My edit can be viewed in the history here. The dispute can be viewed on the talk page of the bio itself.
  • The user cited "identity theft concerns" for them wishing to omit the DOB. The user has a distinctive style of writing for the BLPs which they contribute to (examples: Judson A. Brewer, Barbara Corrado Pope, Mortimer J. Buckley) whereby they choose not to include a DOB. They are consistent with this in all the BLPs they write, and whilst there is nothing wrong with this IMO, if another user finds a birthdate in the public domain using reliable sources, that user should respect that it is sound content.
  • I tried to stress that identity fraud using just a name and a date of birth would be very difficult, and that this was a silly reason to omit it (particularly when you can find it easily with a quick Google search).
  • The user then claimed they had contacted Jones to ask him, and supposedly got in touch with his daughter who supposedly acts as a conservator. The user has presented no evidence of this correspondence. I am not saying that I do not believe them – what I am saying is it is entirely inappropriate to email a 95 year old man and scare his family with the idea that his identity is about to be stolen because his DOB is on his Wikipedia page, in order for that user to have their preferred content style favoured on the page. I would like to see evidence of this supposed conversation, but I'd also welcome the input from other members. The idea that a DOB cannot be used on a page when it is already featured in several places widely available reliable sources is quite frankly silly and petty. If Jones's family had raised this, I would understand but I feel this user simply has an agenda to get their own way. Before they cited this supposed email, they manually deconstructed my edit, rather than reverting, presumably so that I wouldn't receive a notification to say it had been reverted.

It is standard to include a DOB in a BLP when it is available via an RS. I believe that omitting DOBs without a valid reason, in this case evidence of actual representation from the subject against it, sets a dangerous precedent on here. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIVACY is clear that we only include full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources. There have two sources: a Who's Who book—a mixed bag of reliable, unreliable, puffery, and outright scams—and a page for his papers at a university library. I certainly wouldn't call that "widely published by reliable sources". On top of this, his legal guardian is specifically requesting that we not publish his full date of birth. Sounds like a slam dunk "no way in hell we include this" to me. Woodroar (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
His alleged legal guardian is allegedly asking for it to be omitted. I've not seen this representation. Have you? I thought we work on the basis of evidence on here? --Jkaharper (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
We do work on "evidence", with evidence being reliable, secondary sources. Not to be confused with "evidence" as in OR. However, we also take the privacy concerns of living persons very seriously, and thus we err on the side of caution in cases like this. Whether this "alleged" person is for real or not doesn't seem to matter much at this point. We can take for granted and assume that they are, because policy is in their favor at this point. We only publish full birthdates in cases where it has been widely published; not just in a few sources, but in multiple RSs such that we can infer that the subject doesn't mind. (If they did, then they would've complained and any good RS will happily redact such info, because privacy concerns are also a big part of journalistic ethics, see the Society of Professional Journalists.)
At the end of the day, a full birthdate is trivia, meaning that it just isn't necessary for the reader to understand the subject. Thus, it's no big loss if we don't have one. Nothing to get upset over. It's statistical data, not much different from weight, height, favorite color, etc... If we can, great. If we can't no big deal. Better to err on the side of caution. Zaereth (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Pinging @Robert McClenon: for courtesy. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Disagree. The editor in question has an academic background. In academia it is often standard to only include only the year when referring to someone. They've adopted that style in their editing but Wikipedia is not a journal, it's an encyclopedia. I raised this because it seems like a case of an editor stomping their feet because they didn't get their own way on editing style, rather than a genuine case of an identity fraud scare. With regards to your "a full birthdate is trivia" comment – it really isn't. On the contrary I'd say it's a key component of a BLP for two reasons 1) It distinguishes the individual from any others with a similar or the same name. On Wikipedia there are at least nine people called Lawrence Jones. That's not to say there won't be more in the future. 2) I've found that a DOB has been the key piece to locating death information in the past. Often academics die off radar, and in some cases you don't get an obituary or even a Legacy page but just a death notice with DOB/DOD listed. This really helps match the information. Anyway, I can see no users are willing to side with me on this so might as well leave it be. Really doesn't look good when established users are siding with hearsay and making a decision based on an "identity theft" problem which doesn't even exist. --Jkaharper (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Sounds like you have a cogent argument to make against WP:BLPPRIVACY... which, if you want to make it, is what you should do, argue for a change in policy. Arguing for it to be ignored in this particular case, not because this case proves some sort of exception, but because you do not like it in general is placing the argument in the wrong place. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm NOT arguing against the existence of the policy. I'm arguing against its use in this example. I believe the user is being disingenuous in referring to it, and I think it's barmy to impose a policy when no evidence exists to call upon it. --Jkaharper (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Given that you're poo-poohing the concern about identity theft and ignoring those questioning whether the sources you have really meet the listed guidelines for inclusion are, yes, it comes across like you arguing against WP:BLPPRIVACY. And also like, if I may quote, "a case of an editor stomping their feet because they didn't get their own way on editing style". So far, you seem to have gained no traction. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Well I suppose if that's your take then there's 100,000s of BLPs with DOBs that you best go scrub off then. Reliable sources or not, they're all at "risk of identity fraud". Care to cite me a single example of a case of identity fraud ever being committed against a living individual from just using a name and a DOB from their Wiki article? I'll go boil the kettle. --Jkaharper (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
So yes, again, you are argue that the logic of WP:BLPPRIVACY is incorrect. That may be doable, but trying to do it by arguing for this one specific article to be an exception is not the way to do it. For the discussion of an individual article, the discussion should focus on how WP:BLPPRIVACY applies in this particular instance, or whether there are unique aspects of this that overtake WP:BLPPRIVACY concers. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
The question here is if there is any legal representation of the subject - any editor can tell that they are the legal representation of XYZ, indeed they need to provide evidence of it (which in the current case not happened so far, as far as I see). So best would be to ask for providing this evidence. Afterwards there are 2 options per WP:BLPPRIVACY: 1. If he can prove representing the subject we only accept the year of birth 2. if not it should be ok to insert the DOB. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you @CommanderWaterford:. I too was of the understanding that they would surely need to provide some kind of proof of representation/correspondence. A small point – I think the user may be a "she"! Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
CommanderWaterford, Not really. The legal representation issue really doesn't matter because the sourcing is awful. Two questionable sources is in no way "widely published by reliable sources". Woodroar (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Woodroar, Why is the sourcing awful in your opinion? First is a book by the subject itself, hold at the Bentley Historical Library citing and the second is a book from the University of California. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
CommanderWaterford: What are these new sources? I'm aware of the questionable Who's Who book and the questionable online university bio with unknown or unclear authorship. Woodroar (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
This has all come up here before many times. To some, birthdates are incredibly important pieces of info. But that's the nature of trivia. And when I use the word "trivia", I mean it is not really necessary in defining the subject to the reader. The article will still read the same without it, and we have other ways of distinguishing between people. Is it useful info to have? Absolutely. (Perhaps a little too useful.) Will the world come to an end without it. I highly doubt it. In most cases simply listing the year (if sourced) is enough. This policy formed after long debates over issues just like this. If it were in multiple, independent RSs, then I would have another take on the issue. Then I would worry more about the "alleged" person's concern and if they really are who they say. But, unless I'm missing something, that doesn't seem to be the case here.
In most cases, it really doesn't matter what the true identity of an editor is, because we do deal in sources, so, regardless of who they really are, the way we handle it is still the same. And it is true, we do have a huge number of articles with poorly sourced BDs, but that's an other stuff exists argument, and not a good excuse. We can only deal with this problem 1 article at a time. Zaereth (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to be late to the party! IRL, I had to deal with dental appointment this morning. Below I have added text from emails I received from Jones' children, sans some identifying info. To maintain my privacy and that of the Jones family, I will happily forward the originals to an admin for verification. Here's the text, chronologically from the bottom up:

Reply ----------

(Redacted) ― Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. For us to really consider that we need be able to identify their true identity, which usually means having them go through the ORTS process. That's what we usually do when there is a need to verify someone's ID for purposes such as this. In this case, however, I don't think we're at the point where we need to do that. There just isn't enough quality sourcing on this, and Who's Who is indeed a vanity publisher, so we can judge this solely on the merits of policy. If it were widely published in RSs, then we would have to verify ID and all that, and then still we would likely delete the date, that is, if the person requesting it is the right person. I just don't think that it's necessary to go that far in this case with what we have. This is one that is fairly easy to answer just under policy. Zaereth (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I might add (to get up on my soapbox for a moment) that there often seems to be two different schools of thought when it comes to article subjects, in that either 1.) they're the enemy, or 2.) anyone who comes here claiming to be one or a representative of one is a liar. We have to try to look at how that comes off to people who really are who they say. While we're not just going to believe them, in many cases they do in fact have a valid concern, and we shouldn't negate that simply because of who they say they are. Subjects very often come here, and I've found it very rare that it turns out to be for some nefarious reason. When it does, it's more often than not some kid trying to amuse themselves or some jolted friend or family member trying to get revenge. Either way, those reveal themselves quickly enough it you give them enough slack. In most cases, I've always found it more productive to simply play along whether I believe them or not, because in most cases it turn out to be the real thing.
Like I say, you have to look at it from their point of view. When most subjects come here, they are trying to resolve something that may be a very real and serious problem ... or at least very serious in their eyes. Whether or not we can help them, we should at least try to treat them with respect and dignity, and we have several great essays and guidelines on just this circumstance. We're often dealing with people on what they perceive as the worst day of their lives. Zaereth (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I thank User:CommanderWaterford above for the courtesy notice. My involvement is that I closed a thread at DRN due to lack of talk page discussion, and offered a procedural suggestion and a third opinion. The procedural suggestion was to come to this noticeboard rather than DRN. The third opinion was that this guideline appeared to be applicable, that Wikipedia should err on the side of caution in these cases. I didn't want to name the guideline, out of sensitivity for an individual and their family. On the one hand, if a con person wants to commit identity theft fraud, they are likely to search both for reliable sources and for unreliable sources, but even usually unreliable sources will typically report a birth date correctly. On the other hand, if an old man's family requests that his date of birth not be published, is there any strong reason why we need to publish it? I know that there are reasons, but are they strong reasons? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm with Zaereth et al here. While this DOB does at least have some sourcing, it doesn't seem to be the strong BLP requirements. (If this "book by the subject itself, hold at the Bentley Historical Library citing and the second is a book from the University of California" are shown, I might change my mind. At the moment, as with others all I've seen are a Who's Who and a university bio.) Yeah there are a lot of similarly crap sourced dates of birth which is unfortunate, but per WP:Other that's not an argument to go against WP:BLPPRIVACY. This is the sort of stuff we deal with all the time. Whether it's a request from a subject, a family member, someone who is probably one of those, just some random person, or even if there is no request at all but 2 editors get into a dispute over which DOB when there are multiple, we should follow BLPPRVACY when it comes up. Likewise if an editor happens to see a poorly sourced date of birth, they should fix it. Long term, we need to try and find some way to better enforce BLPPRIVACY and stop poorly sourced dates of birth being added, but that's a discussion for another time IMO. If editors disagree with BLPPRIVACY, they're welcome to try and get it changed, but until then, we follow it. Also it's very normal for us to ignore any OTRS identity verification requirements when it doesn't matter. If someone says I'm the subject of article X, here are some problems, the best response is normally to look and see if those problems are indeed problems under our policies and guidelines. It's not to say "I'm going to ignore your request until you verify your identity". Since we should do the former when some random editor also points out problems. (I think plenty of us do deal with such stuff with more urgency when it comes from a subject or family member which could be abused, but asking for identity confirmation before deciding whether there's urgency seems pointless.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree. If there's no reason to put them through the unnecessary hassle and bureaucratic nightmare, then we shouldn't. In the great majority of cases, it doesn't matter if the person claiming to be the subject is for real or not, because it doesn't really change how we deal with it under policy. So why not just give them the benefit of the doubt, and take them just as seriously as if they were an anonymous editor. A valid concern cannot be held responsible for the people who believe in it. It's really rare we need to actually verify anyone's ID, and subjects can often be wonderful help in finding good, quality sources, so it doesn't hurt to be nice.
My personal opinion is that anyone should feel welcome to bring any issues with a BLP here. I know this page has a specific purpose, which is to deal with BLP vios and help with BLP policy-based questions, and people are often quick to point that out. But, in a similar vein, that tends to scare people off (sometimes to the point they may never come back) or give a frustrating sense of red-tape, when in most cases it's easy enough to answer their question or send them to the correct noticeboard. This is the big link you see at the top of any bio's talk page, saying, 'Come here if there is a problem', so it's just my feeling that people should feel welcome to come here. Not so many are really familiar with how this all works, and sometimes just need a helping hand. Zaereth (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Are there historical reasons for the extremely narrow purpose of this page? In comparison, fringe noticeboard has a more expansive purpose.
When I come across concerning BLP issues, I do not wait for them to become repeated, instead I come here and seek assistance from editors with more experience in the area. By the page's rules, I should have gone elsewhere,though no clue where that would be ... quiet talk page and talk to myself? editor assistance? Village pump? Slywriter (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, on the flip side of the coin, this page does get a lot of traffic, and quite often it's just spill-over from the talk page of whichever article. (Or the edit summaries is some cases.) People get tired of fighting over there so they quite often bring it over here. Many times people think that BLP policy is the only policy that applies to bios, and where they really need to go is RSN or NPOVN, etc. There are reasons to try and narrow the scope the scope of this page, because the true BLP vios are the most pressing issues and the ones that really need our attention. Still, it doesn't hurt to be nice, courteous, and maybe even a little helpful. (And that's coming from me, who has a tendency to be quite blunt.) The best way to find problems is when people bring them here, and more often than not the problems we find were not what the OP was expecting. Zaereth (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Challenge to non-admin closure of RfC to include BLP-contested material

Some BLP-sensitive eyes would be welcome at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Challenge_to_non-admin_closure_of_RfC_at_BLP_article_Emanuel_Cleaver. Neutralitytalk 01:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Olivier Hinnekens

Olivier Hinnekens for deletion: individual is not a person of notable societal interest. Article is personal advertising.

Please use WP:AFD rather than blanking the article. GiantSnowman 11:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
It is now at AfD.[22] Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Joaquin Phoenix wiki page, Thanks Jeody

Joaquin Phoenix wiki page has in correct relationship info. Please report the correct notes and the correct facts should be consider important, not vandalism for posting. [Redacted defamatory content]. It has been a few days and the post should be remove with the huge threat. We are not the same person.Please contact the officials FBI and lawyer for our true information.

Sincerely, Jody — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:3942:B300:8FD:4196:27C3:8881 (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

2603:8000:3942:B300:FDB5:867A:FD33:98A0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked for legal threats and Disruptive editing on Joaquin Phoenix for 31 hours on the 10th. This is the same editor. I've semi-protected the page for two weeks and I've given the latest IP a warning about making legal threats and defamatory comments. Fences&Windows 01:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I've also redacted and revdelled the defamatory comment made here. A NOTHERE rangeblock might be appropriate. Fences&Windows 01:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I've rangeblocked 2603:8000:3942:B300:0:0:0:0/64 for one week, there's no collateral edits. Fences&Windows 01:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Nightingale College

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

The section Nightingale College#Current president's last college was closed by the US Department of Education, part of the Criticism section of this article, is a synthesis of different pieces of information that are individually verified but which do not contain a criticism of the president (who is named in the Wikipedia article). As this appears to be a beach of the BLP policy of strictly adhering to No Original Research, I deleted the material,[23] noting in the edit summary and on the talk page that this was a BLP issue.[24] The material has since been restored by another editor (I believe the one who originally added it) without any discussion on the talk page.[25]. The material has previously been removed by a third editor[26][27] as being poorly sourced, although without explicit mention of BLP, and has been restored by the same editor each time. Robminchin (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your take and have issued an OR warning, advising them to obtain consensus on the talk page, and removed it again. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I received a weird warning about WP:BLANKING and WP:EDITWAR and a misguided spelling lesson.[28] Not sure if this needs an administrator intervention yet. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
After seeing the disruption of this thread and Talk:Nightingale College, I reported this to ANI.[29] Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Infinitepeace has been blocked.[30] I took liberty of the pause in disruption to clean up the non-BLP REDFLAG NPOV and OR issues of that article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Here is the full section Morbidthoughts, please explain how these 10 edits are Original Resaerch. (since you deleted it twice on the article page User:Morbidthoughts, and then warned me if I added it back you would have me blocked).

=== Current president's last college was closed by the US Department of Education ===

The current Nightingale President is Mikhail Shneyder.[1][2][3][4][5]

From 2009 to approximately 2012, Mikhail Shneyder worked at California's Heald College as the Vice President. Due to findings by the Department of Education of misrepresented job placement rates at certain programs of Heald College from July 2010–2015, the department made students eligible to have their debts canceled. Because of a lawsuit alleging that "Heald College...misrepresented job placement rates for certain programs".[6] Heald College was shut down on April 27, 2015.[7][8][9][10]

  1. ^ (October 29, 2013), ABC 4 news interviews nightingale’s CEO Mikhail Schneider, nursing college Utah, ABC.
  2. ^ Becoming a Nurse, ABC.
  3. ^ (April 5, 2012), Minutes Utah Education Committee Board of Nursing.
  4. ^ (November 6, 2014), Studio 5 with Brooke Walker, NBC.
  5. ^ Nightingale College Offers New Nursing Education Program
  6. ^ How to Apply for Student Loan Forgiveness if You Attended Heald College, United States Department of Education.
  7. ^ Jill Tucker Corinthian, Heald colleges shut down abruptly, San Francisco Chronicle. April 26, 2015.
  8. ^ Information About Debt Relief for Corinthian Colleges Students
  9. ^ Education/Licensing Committee Meeting, State of California, Department of Consumer Affairs, (March 10, 2011) - "Heald College Baccalaureate Degree Nursing Program, Fresno Campus Representing Heald College were Mikhail Shneyder, RN, is Vice President of Allied Health Programs at Heald College Central Administrative Office"
  10. ^ Minutes Utah Education Committee Board of Nursing, (April 5, 2012 - in which Shneyder explains he started working at Nightingale in March, 2012).

Infinitepeace (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I have already told you why your post is synthesis.[31] You need one reliable source that says Schneider is CEO of Nightingale AND that he presided over the previous failed schools. This information needs to be in the same source. You have not provided this. You can dispute this on the article's talk page, but you should not re-add this information. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree. This is 100% synthesis. Also note that Infinitepeace started another discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Is this Wikipedia:Original Research ?. Woodroar (talk) 02:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


NUMBER one: You need one reliable source that says Schneider is CEO of Nightingale.


The current Nightingale President is Mikhail Shneyder.

(October 29, 2013), ABC 4 news interviews nightingale’s CEO Mikhail Schneider, nursing college Utah, ABC.

Becoming a Nurse, ABC.

(April 5, 2012), Minutes Utah Education Committee Board of Nursing.

(November 6, 2014), Studio 5 with Brooke Walker, NBC. Nightingale College Offers New Nursing Education Program</ref>

AND


NUMBER TWO: that he presided over the previous failed schools.


Education/Licensing Committee Meeting, State of California, Department of Consumer Affairs, (March 10, 2011) - "Heald College Baccalaureate Degree Nursing Program, Fresno Campus Representing Heald College were Mikhail Shneyder, RN, is Vice President of Allied Health Programs at Heald College Central Administrative Office"


Minutes Utah Education Committee Board of Nursing, (April 5, 2012 - in which Shneyder explains he started working at Nightingale in March, 2012).


Again, I am concerned about your history of WP:Edit Warring, and how you delete criticisms on your talk page.

I am also concerned that the talk page has a history of paid editors for this college. `Infinitepeace (talk)

Wow, you really don't see it, do you? You're trying to reach a conclusion that is not found in any of these sources. This person was the vice president (one of many I'm sure; it's not like VP of the US), and during his term the college closed. It's not hard to see the connection implied, even if not directly stated. A, then B. Therefore A caused B. Even if not directly stated, that is the clear implication, although anyone with half a wit can see it for the fallacy that it is.
It's not just that the info needs to all come from one source. The sources (at least one of them) needs to come to the same conclusion. For example, I can read the Bible, and write down all the dates and people's ages, and come to a calculation that the world is 4000-some odd years old. But that is a conclusion on my part, because nowhere in the Bible does it say that, nor does it ever say that everything is in a perfect timeline of events. It never said Earth was the center of the universe either. Drawing a conclusion --whether stated or implied-- not explicitly stated in the sources is synthesis, and this is such a good example we should use it on the policy page.
Not only that, we need secondary sources, and most of these are primary sources, and many of which run afoul of WP:BLPPRIMARY. Zaereth (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


I one hundred percent understand your flawed argument Zaereth.
I got a great idea guys, why not use Archive.org and help me edit the page.
OR
Google Mikhail Shneyder Nightingale college. Let me help: [32]
  1. 1 is clearly knocked out. He is president of Nighitngale College
Agreed User:Zaereth? If so, you are contradicting User:Morbidthoughts and User:Woodroar.
At least User:Morbidthoughts added something to the article before he deleted the entire section.
  1. 2 - I will look into in more depth. Your wrong on this count also Zaereth Archive.org is great.
Take just a couple of minutes to add information to a Wikipedia page, instead of making Good faith editors jump through hoops.
Although I am not a newbie, WP:BITE comes to mind. This is a fundamental problem i have seen with wikipedia, people not helping each other, especially newbies.
I feel like a monkey being told by 5 grown men to jump. Very depressing. Infinitepeace (talk) 04:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh please. Spare me the "woe is me" routine. This is a glaring example of synthesis, and it has been explained to you multiple times in many different ways, all saying the same thing. Zaereth (talk) 04:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
There's no reason why anyone needs to help you add something that doesn't belong. As it stands, I've seen no indication you are trying to add belongs. Given the sourcing, it's not even clear it belongs in an article on Mikhail Shneyder. It definitely doesn't seem to belong in the article on Nighitngale College. There is a lot of information that is true or probably true that will simply never be added to articles because it's not covered in reliable secondary sources, or because it's information not sufficiently relevant (WP:DUE etc) to any article we do have. The best help I can offer you is to move on and work on something else. Maybe start with something where BLP doesn't come into play. Nil Einne (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I didn't notice the timestamps so didn't realise the block is current. But since it's only for 7 days I guess it's still useful to point out archive.org is useful, but it's not a source. Archive.org simply archives content on the web. The reliability of the source still matters, and we also have to take care that the material wasn't intentionally removed due to questions over its accuracy. Nil Einne (talk) 12:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Ahmad Zahir

Ahmad Zahir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Editor User:Tajik.Arya has continually made edits to the Ahmad Zahir page, replacing neutral terms and cultural references with ones that seem to accord with the user's preference, though no explanation or citation has ever been provided. The editor has received several warnings on their talk page, but they have paid them no heed. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Since this is a problem of user conduct, you really need an admin to intervene. Some admins patrol this page, but most of us are not admins, so you'll likely get a quicker reply at WP:ANI. Otherwise, all we can do from here is keep reverting. If the info we have is good, sourced info, and the user is changing it to unsourced stuff, then these kind of reverts are not subject to WP:3RR (but be careful when employing that clause of the BLP policy). Zaereth (talk) 06:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I've blocked User:Tajik.Arya for 48 hours for edit warring and unsourced additions to a BLP, and I've semi-protected the article for two weeks. Fences&Windows 14:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Rick Bright

Rick Bright (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is a sentence in the biography of Rick Bright regarding which is incorrect.

Under CAREER for Rick Bright:

The end of this sentence is incorrect:

"...In his complaint, Bright asked to be reinstated as director at BARDA, accusing the Trump administration of removing him from his position and demoting him to an NIH post in retaliation for his warnings about the virus and his opposition to off-label use of hydroxychloroquine, an antimalarial drug that was promoted by President Donald Trump and his supporters as a potential miracle drug for COVID-19, but which increased mortality in subjects.[25]..."

16:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)16:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)16:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)16:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)16:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)~

It is the very last part "increased mortality in subjects" that is incorrect. This sentence falsely connects two separate points of the article making one incorrect statement of fact.

In the referenced VOX article titled "The HHS official overseeing coronavirus vaccine development says he was ousted after his objections to hydroxychloroquine" it says:

POINT ONE “These drugs have potentially serious risks associated with them, including increased mortality observed in some recent studies in patients with Covid-19,” Bright writes.

specifically, Bright says mortality was observed in recent studies specific to Covid-19 he is not saying hydroxychloroquine used for its original purpose caused increased mortality he could not say that bkz it would not be true the wikipedia article cannot imply that hydroxychloroquine causes increased mortality when used for its original purpose

POINT TWO The article states: "...Bright was alluding to efforts President Donald Trump and a number of his supporters in government and the media have made in recent weeks to promote hydroxychloroquine as a potential coronavirus miracle drug."

Notice the sentence above ends at the word "miracle." it does not continue on to discus mortality.

The mortality quote again was specific to hydroxychloroquine in some unknow study for Covid-19

This mistake in the Wikipedia article is quite serious as it implies something the article did not imply meanwhile this terrible false idea prevented millions of people from getting early treatment for Covid. You do not have to believe hydroxychloroquine helps treat Covid but you do have keep the facts of the article in their proper perspectives: 1. Trump touted hydroxychloroquine as a miracle drug against Covid 2. Hydroxychloroquine is a well tolerated medication for Malaria (as per CDC) -also it won a Nobel prize for its efficacy. 3. Bright stated that in studies where hydroxychloroquine was used to treat Covid there was "some" observed mortality -this article was publized one month after Covid was announced as a concern

This is largely incomprehensible but the article's point stands - hydroxychloroquine does literally nothing against COVID-19 and no one was "prevented" from getting any treatment which actually worked. If you are arguing that we should pretend there isn't an overwhelming body of WP:MEDRS which support this statement, you will get nowhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Moravcsik

Some attention needed perhaps, notable, but based on prose/MOS issues, possible COI, made some starting changes, someone with more experience might like to assess.Acousmana (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

This article definitely needs work. It is much too long and reads like the academic CV of this professor. The page was created by an obvious WP:COI account, which has since been deleted. The account that created and provided most of the edits to the page has only edited 2 people’s pages among their 78 edits. Both are political scientists and both were added to the Wiki page “List of Political Scientists” by the same COI editor. Interested parties should take a close look at this page, which is in need of a complete makeover. Go4thProsper (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Nimisha Madhvani

This biography of Nimisha Madhvani has been constantly edited by user:Wayale to remove updates to the page made in light of recent facts that have occurred in the Living Person’s life.

These recent facts relate to Nimisha Madhvani’s involvement in a Zoom theft scandal. Another removal by user:Wayale concerns information relating to Nimisha Madhvani being recalled. Now, the page is factually incorrect, giving the reader the impression that Nimisha Madhvani is an actively serving ambassador whereas she is not, she has been recalled. As can be seen in the page history, these new facts may cast the biography in a lesser light, and therefore user:Wayale may deliberately be attempting to hide the facts that were earlier updated in order to better-suit Nimisha Madhvani.

Please may you review this page to determine what, if any, edits can be restored. Given that these updates have been removed several times, please may you consider protecting the recent updates made prior to 14 days ago and warning user:Wayale .

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.232.50 (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Göran Lambertz

Göran Lambertz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) [Redacted]

In unrelated news, the material added in this edit may need to be oversighted. I don't know what else needs to be done at this stage - please protect/tag as ongoing event as you feel appropriate (or remove/scrub this comment for that matter). EditorInTheRye (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Fences and windows: - absolute clear case for WP:REVDEL indeed ... I left the editor already a warning that he cannot add stuff like this without references but REVDEL needs also to be done CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I've revdelled, thank you CommanderWaterford. I will also protect the article. Next time, EditorInTheRye, please go via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Oversight. I've also removed the first part of your comment as it serves to associate the name and allegation - which we must not do absent explicit mention in a reliable source. Fences&Windows 00:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Patrice Donnelly

Patrice Donnelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've come across serious libel from IP user. I've reverted it and requested oversight of the revision. However, seems that another IP user, who is only one IP number off, was oversighted recently. Given the serious nature of the libel, and persistence over time, could an admin please review the revision history and consider perhaps a short term rangeblock or some other measure to dissuade the IP user from reintroducing the libellous claims? Melmann 21:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't semi-protection have the same effect? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, I think so. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Robert McClenon Indeed it would, I don't know why that did not occur to me. I don't really have any preference on the method, I just think something should be done because the libellous allegations were quite serious in nature. Melmann 13:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. That oughta do it. --Jayron32 17:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
    @Jayron32: unfortunately I'm not so sure. If you look back, there were 4 now deleted edits in 2018. I don't know the content of the recent edits, but the edit summaries were similar. While these weren't enough for suppression (I did ask), they (well 3) were still serious BLPvios. Should we just hope the year is enough or is this one of those few cases where indef is justified? Nil Einne (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
    Reinstating semiprotection once per year is not an undue burden on the administrative staff. --Jayron32 11:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

andy palmer

Andy Palmer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Just reviewing this bio page and it seems very carefully curated and inbalanced. Understood consensus was Andy Palmer effectively left Aston Martin under a cloud following an effective collapse in its value?

see e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52804705

Apologies I don't really know how Wikipedia works but this is the first time reading a page that it seemed more a self-serving advert than a neutral bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.88.112.66 (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, 45.88.112.66, I've tagged it as a non-neutral advert, it reads as a hagiography. The article was started and mostly written by BsBsBs from 2013 on; I wondered if this were paid editing, but I think it's just over-enthusiasm for the subject getting in the way of neutral editing. Fences&Windows 23:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I'm new to Wikipedia, but have an interest in Aston Martin so had a go at tidying this up today. Have made less self-serving and curated some additional third-party citations. JoinFluffy250 (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

G.N. Saibaba

G.N. Saibaba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The editor Vincentvikram is continously unanimously editing the article to avoid the alledged naxalite maoist link reference to the article. Dr. G. N. Saibaba Was Convicted By The Session Court Under UAPA for life imprisonment for his alleged naxalite maoist links as can be seen here [33] [34] [35]. The editor has been continously trying to exclude the term [36] . As the [WP:BLPCRIME] it can be mentioned to use the term "alledged naxalite maoist link" once the author is convicted. I Request The Editors and Administrators to check and provide their opinion in this regards [37]. Pranhita (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Editor Pranhita was edit warring with an IP to insert the word "naxalite" into the lead for which they were warned. A discussion was initiated and in the meantime Pranhita has been POV pushing on the page of Saibaba. From the links presented above, 'The Hindu' makes no mention of the word "naxalite"; the heading says "Ex-DU professor Saibaba sentenced to life for Maoist links". The 'Financial express' says "Maoist links: DU professor GN Saibaba, JNU student and three others get life imprisonment". The Wire writes, "..who is serving a life sentence in a prison over charges of allegedly having Maoist links." None of the sources use the word naxalite. Pranhita needs to be warned from POV pushing and possible violation of rules on WP:DSTOPICS related to biographies and pages related to India. Thanks Vikram Vincent 14:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
DS/alert for biographies and India related topics placed on user talk page of Pranhita Vikram Vincent 14:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
The User Vincentvikram has added edit warring charges without even checking whether the ip has put any reason behind removal of the word. Since the user is an ip which have just been used to remove the reference, thereby the changes has been reverted by me. Also, in various articles [38] , [39] naxalite reference is clearly mentioned. Also, the selective article mentioned also clearly indicates Maoist links, thereby adding the term alledged Naxalite maoist to the intro along with being arrested under uapa seems correct. The same editor has added the same while editing another article Umar_Khalid, but might be due to some WP:COI the author prevents the same to be done while the person is only known because of his arrested under UAPA for Alledged Naxalite-Maoist Link. Pranhita (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Repeatedly adding the word "naxalite" without a reliable source (please don't again point to any Times group article as they are WP:TOI and unreliable for biographies) to support your claim is problematic. It does not matter that the IP did not add an edit summary. You need to WP:LISTEN cause your edits are bordering on being sanctionable. Also understand that accusing someone of WP:COI without proof compounds your problem since you are a nine day account with 59 edits at this exact point. Vikram Vincent 16:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Further, from WP:ARBBLP, In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached. Hence the WP:ONUS is on you since your edit has been challenged per WP:BRD. Vikram Vincent 16:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
You've conveniently ignored the hindu link also in the article. Yes it doesn't matter the IP has an edit history but reverting of an edit without specifying any reason does. I am just trying to have a constructive talks about the term being added, which meant to only improve the quality of article. Specifying account creation days or no of edits doesn't seem to prove a point here but the quality of argument does. I have already fulfilled the WP:ONUS and was requesting other editors and administrators to comment. Since I being a new user than Vincentvikram and you've already guided that any disputes between two editor should be handled with WP:DRR/3O . I am requesting the same. Pranhita (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Pranhita, I don't know if you missed this from the conversation on the article talk page or you are intentionally omitting it. There is only so much space that can be given with the baseless accusation you have made regarding me having COI etc Vikram Vincent 17:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I'll give a third opinion. First, the article is practically incoherent. It's filled with so many grammatical and syntax errors that it's difficult to read through and very hard at times to tell what it's even talking about. What is readily apparent is that the writing is as emotionally charged as this discussion, and is neither neutral in tone or in information. It's very choppy, like reading a literal timeline in many places. It's filled with words and phrases that may be familiar in India, but which most English speaking countries may not understand, and none of these terms are defined to the reader. For example, I have no clue what a "maoist" or a "naxalite" is, and that makes much of this incomprehensible. All in all, it needs a complete rewrite by someone who is fluent in English.
Likewise, this discussion between you both is largely incoherent. I will say that Vincent seems to be right, in that many of the sources posted by Pranhita never once use the word "naxalite" (whatever that is), and we can't use a label that is not explicitly stated in the sources. I do get the sense by the emotion involved that this may have to do with a bit of WP:Righting great wrongs, as seen in other such emotionally charged topics (for example, anything Kurdish, or Croatian, Ukrainian, etc.). The sources that I've read are in very good English, so I see no need for an Indian speaker to translate, so if anyone has some spare time this is probably worth looking into deeper. But this article is in really bad shape, and you both need to calm down and talk to each other, not just right past each other. Zaereth (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
copy edit  Done Vikram Vincent 09:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Categorisations as having personality disorders

I reverted[40] an edit adding Category:People with narcissistic personality disorder to Michael Shrimpton as not founded in RS, found two more poorly-founded additions of that category by the same IP and reverted those too,[41][42] but left some that seemed to have some basis in RS. The IP's now added Category:People with borderline personality disorder to several BLPs,[43] some with clearly inadequate sources. I fear I might send the wrong message if I only revert those and advise the IP to pay attention to sources. Are the other additions breaches of WP:BLPCAT too? (Also, if anyone else would like to deal with this, I'd be grateful - I've only just returned and I was never expert in this area anyway.) NebY (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, NebY. I've blocked the IP address for two weeks for block evasion. Some of their reversions were correct as the articles do support the category with sourced content, so while we can mass revert under policy we don't need to necessarily. Fences&Windows 13:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, User:Fences and windows, for dealing with it and for the clarification too. NebY (talk)

Colin Stagg

Colin Stagg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This file exists only as a redirect to an article about a murder. Mr Stagg was the victim of a malicious attempt by the Police to frame him for the murder and when the case reached court, the judge had the case thrown out. The current situation is a BLP violation. Either there should be an article about Mr Stagg and the outrageous treatment he received from the Police and the CPS or the whole entry should be removed. The current redirect of the entry might lead people who do not investigate closely to wrongly believe that Mr Stagg was the murderer. After all there are plenty of redirects to murders and other crimes which are redirects from the person convicted of the crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.26.100 (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

He isn't notable but for this one huge event in his life, but the police treatment of him, and their tactics, were unconsionable entrapment. Setting a hot undercover policewoman onto him was particularly nasty. If we have an article on him, it should begin as follows ... "Colin Stagg is an innocent man suspected of the murder etc. etc." -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
And Wikipedia is doing it again at Harry_Ognall where the phrase "the Colin Stagg murder trial" appears without any mention of the fact that Mr Stagg was innocent.
This person is hardly central to the story; a brief detour along the way. (Not to belittle what he went though, but to the entire story, this is just a piece.) I see no reason to name him whatsoever. We can simply call him a man walking his dog, and it will read just the same. So, I'd do that and delete the redirect, citing AVOIDVICTIM or BLPNAME.
If he was central to the story, I'd have a different take. For example, at first I thought this might be similar to Casey Anthony, which redirects to the well known murder trial. This person is not notable enough of her own accord to have her own article, but she was central to the story and worthy of a redirect to the murder article. I don't believe that is the same case here, and this article could simply use generic descriptors and it would read just the same. And a redirect with his name that says "murder trial" is just wrong. He never went to trial. A judge threw it out before it ever went. Zaereth (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I disagree. That would be simply "airbrushing out of history" his name and the injustice he suffered. Maybe he should be deemed notable, in his own right, because of his mistreatment. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Indeed the redirect should be deleted and the article Murder of Rachel Nickell needs to be heavily rewritten - his name is mentioned 30 (!) times in this article. IMHO it should only be mentioned in a 1-2 sentence section that there had been this honeytrap operation summarising consequences without mentioning his name at all. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I've revised the mention in Harry Ognall to remove his name. I'm not sure how far we should remove it in Murder of Rachel Nickell, because this was a well-known example of police and prosecutor misconduct and Stagg himself wrote three books about it. I couldn't find a policy based reason for deletion of the redirect, but you may take the redirect to WP:RFD. Maybe it should redirect to the section #Investigation? Fences&Windows 01:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Putting aside Ognall, why is the article called 'murder of' and talk extensively about a murder, when the only perpetrator pled guilty to manslaughter? While the perpetrator Robert Napper is a murderer (per that article and the article on him), the specific crime that article covers has effectively been adjudged to be not a murder by the plea, however unfortunate that may be for the victim and their family and friends. Nil Einne (talk) 11:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Nil Einne, agree on that, needs to be renamed. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Wholly agree. And also with your comment Nil Einne. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
We should open an RM discussion to move to Killing of Rachel Nickell. That is correct according to policy, but may be contentious because many reliable sources refer to this as a murder. Fences&Windows 14:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the lead section says "The murderer, Robert Napper, was identified by a later police investigation and convicted in 2008." But of course he was the murderer of Samantha Bisset and her daughter Jazmine. No-one would suggest the title Manslaughtering of Rachel Nickell. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Murder of Rachel Nickell#Requested move 16 March 2021. Fences&Windows 22:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

bert campaneris

Bert Campaneris has a daughter, Polita Campaneris and a granddaughter, Gabriela Kreszchuk and a grandson, JunoGiovanni Zivenallen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcampaneris (talk • contribs) 20:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Without a reliable source, this cannot be included. I could find reporting (behind paywalls) of the 1967 paternity claim, but that is not sufficient sourcing. Fences&Windows 16:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Agree. See WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. --Hipal (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed

Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There are questions as to whether this article violates the biographies of living persons policies. I am being accused of biased editing and deny it. I believe those who are accusing me may be trying to whitewash the article. Either way, would be happy for other editors to take a look at it, give their opinions and make edits if they wish. Current editors may be bias toward or against the subject of the article and it would help to get editors involved who are completely neutral.

When I first started editing the article it had not been updated since the beginning of the subject's presidential term. As elections were coming up I felt it was contention that there was positive information about the subject with dead links and I removed this along with a paragraph about the subjects achievements which had been sourced to his own words. Other editors reinstated the paragraph and also corrected the citations and reinstated the other material I had removed. I started a paragraph on the current presidential term and did Google searches for sources. I did not find anything positive at all myself, and there is much very well sourced negative information in the media.

Since November 2020 an admin has been accusing me of bias editing and is now accusing me of ownership issues of the article. I have been editing Wikipedia for over five years and always try to follow any guidelines I am aware of. I have always worked alone and my editing has not been challenged until this started in November when he challenged an addition I had made to the intro paragraph of this article. After some discussion on the talk page I accepted his decision to delete the edit. He then went on to accuse me of biased editing on the article. He got another editor involved who accused me of writing a 'laundry list' under the presidential term. I felt these accusations were rude and unfair and still feel that my editing is a fair reflection of reliable media coverage on the subject.

Although he is making these accusations he appears to be very reluctant to make additions to the article himself other than maintenance tags. He did add three lines at the start of the section for the Presidential Term (2017-2021) which he said I had missed in a cited source, outlining support and praise which the subject received at the very start of his term.

He has made me feel with his criticism that I daren't add anything negative to the article or if I do I must dread the repercussions. Meanwhile he has been contacting other editors asking them to counter my supposed bias. I recently left a message on his talk page saying that I had done a couple of edits and was open for discussion about them if he had any problem with it. He accused me once again and said he did not wish to have any more discussion with me at all about the article. I said I was still willing to communicate with him if he changed his mind.

Since the admin put editing restrictions on the article, new editors have also added comments to the talk page asking to take out negative material. They have read his accusations against me and are holding me responsible for the negativity of the article accusing me of a smear campaign and a political 'hitjob'. The definition of a 'hitjob' is murder and whether it is meant literally or not the comment should not have been made about me. The admin has also had discussions with this new editor on his own talk page. While editing in a subject area in which there are freedom of the press issues, I feel that the endorsement of such remarks about me is extremely inflammatory. Also, when he's had discussions concerning me with other editors, he hasn't informed me that he's having the discussion, so I don't know how much more is being said about me behind my back. I've had to do detective work in order to find these discussions.

I opened an RFC on the article and the admin immediately commented on it himself, with links to previous discussions in which he was accusing me of bias. I reminded him that the purpose of an RFC is to get comments from editors who have not already been involved in the dispute and that it should be presented in a neutral manner. Surely uninvolved editors could judge for themselves if they thought the article was biased, by reading the article and checking sources. Repeating his accusations against me there was trying to prejudice them against me before they had a chance to do that. He then went on to message editors who he has been working with himself in the past, and ask them to get involved in the RFC. One editor said he had contacted her and asked her to get involved, another came in on it explicitly stating that he had come across the article by chance, but I could see he had been working with the admin already by the admin's talk page.

This editor made comments on the RFC saying he had found two sources that had positive information about the subject and therefore the article was not neutral. I had never come across either of these sources myself. I went through the information topic by topic and did Google search for news on it. For each topic I found several reliable sources which countered the positive information or said that the achievements would be wasted due to election delays which the subject was responsible for. I had been asked by the other editor to step back from editing the article, but I left discussions on the talk page about how the positive information should be added to the article seeing as it may well attract more negative criticism too. The editor also made a number of deletions to my edits, some of which I challenged on the talk page but accepted his insistence. He did not make any attempt to add the positive material which he had sourced on the talk page to the article itself.

He split the section on presidential term in an odd place, altering a sub-heading to a heading and another tag saying that the section may be biased. It was odd because the place he split it was before the end of the presidential term. I reverted this saying in my edit summary that there was already a tag at the top of the section. The admin reverted it back with the edit summary: you don't get to remove the tag, especially given that you are primarily responsible for the imbalance.

To be honest I have added more positive material to the article than he has. I have added a link to the subjects university thesis and I have also added a section at the bottom of the page on Awards and Honours, with a source stating that the subject had been presented with an award. I feel that the admin is unjustly accusing me of bias and is instructing other editors to counter that supposed bias in order to 'balance' the article as he keeps putting it, but this will not produce an article which accurately reflects the tone of the media, while he has made me feel that I daren't add any negative material to the article however well sourced or that I should dread his reaction if I do. He has shown unwillingness to communicate with me and when he has communicated with me he has done so in a consistently confrontational manner never assuming good faith. Although he is now saying I have ownership issues, I have invited fresh editors to work on the article myself. Not editors I know personally and who I know will back me up as he has done himself, but by actions such as the RFC which could bring any neutral new editor, and I am doing the same by posting this here.

I am concerned for this article because I feel there are attempts being made by a group of people to control the content of the article and the admin who is contacting them and asking them to do so is at the center of it.

The article in question is: Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed

Amirah talk 03:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy Ping for @Ohnoitsjamie: and @Yeenosaurus: . CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
You do not singularly WP:OWN the article, and it's clear looking at your edits across various politicians that you have a bias against the current Somali president. It's understandable and expected that many people have strong opinions regarding the leadership of countries they are citizens or current/former residents of, but in most cases, there are already enough editors with an interest in the topic that we end up with a reasonably balanced article. Unfortunately, there historically weren't that many editors besides you editing this article, so we've ended up with a rather lopsided article. Looking at the edit history of the article, you can see that I've tried to pare down the criticism, you've reverted most of my attempts, and you seem unwilling to acknowledge your bias or the issues with that article when compared to articles of other Somali politicians and past presidents; those concerns are recently addressed on this RFC on the talk page. It's entirely appropriate to solicit input from other uninvolved editors. I pinged two editors (DRMIES on 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63) here, where I asked for there second opinions regarding the WP:WEIGHT and WP:OWN issues of the article. I'm glad that you've brought it to this noticeboard, as we clearly need more editors weighing in on the topic. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't know what on earth you think you are talking about Ohnoitsjamie. Where have you got this information about me, it is entirely incorrect. I am neither a citizen of nor a current or former resident of Somalia. These personal things you are saying about me are entirely untrue. I live in the UK, and the only two countries I have citizenship of are UK and Ireland. I have never even been to Somalia and nobody, either on my mother's or my father's side of the family is Somali or has ever even visited the country. You are giving people false and misleading information about me. You have endorsed another editor for saying I have committed a 'hitjob'. Do you realize how serious that is? When you are accusing someone of politically motivated murder (or any kind of murder come to that) you should at least get your facts straight. If you are going to endorse such serious allegations against me, then at least try to get the most basic and fundamental information about me correct, such as my nationality and citizenship. These assumptions you are making about my nationality are entirely unfounded, just as your assumptions that my editing must be biased is, because practically all that is in the news about the subject of the article is negative. Amirah talk 19:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
"You make your own position seem worse than it actually is when you mischaracterize the position of your opponents." --Jimbo Wales This statement by the founder of Wikipedia is very true. Jamie never said you, specifically, are from Somalia, nor any of the other things you mention as far as I can tell. Balance means to report negative/positive info in the same proportion as is found in sources, but if that's your position, it is greatly masked by your misrepresentation of Jamie's statements, thus it doesn't help you much. Zaereth (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
The point I was trying to make was that it's expected for people to have strong opinions about elected officials, with current and former citizens being examples. In any case, your location/citizenship is irrelevant here; what's relevant is that you've made the article very unbalanced in terms of criticism when compared with articles about other world leaders, including Somali leaders. It's basically a small biography followed by a lengthy list of grievances. A reader should be able to rely on Wikipedia to provide a neutral and balanced article about a political subject; that's not what they're getting with this article, hence the "unbalanced" tag. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
The article is neutral. It is a fair and accurate reflection of the media coverage about the man using reliable sources. If any of the sources are not reliable then point out which, but stop accusing me of bias when you have no grounds for it. I have reported negative/positive info in the proportion as is found in the sources. If not point this out to me or edit the article yourself to balance this, but stop accusing me of bias and ownership issues, you have no grounds. I have said this so many times, I am sick of repeating myself. But Jamie keeps, over and over, accusing me of the same things which are untrue. He does not listen when I say these things. He has implied that I am Somali in his statement above. If he meant it as an example then he could have added 'for example' to avoid ambiguity. He has endorsed the editors p.o.v. who accused me of a 'hit job' (ie. murder) when that editor left comments on his talk page, he implicitly agreed with her comments left on the article talk page and encouraged her to take her argument further, rather than advising her that her use of such strong language was unhelpful, whether or not she had meant it literally. Amirah talk 00:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Listen, just calm down. I think you're being far too literal in your interpretations of these things. Most native speakers of English speak very figuratively, which can be hard for non-native speakers to grasp. And I'm not calling you a non-native speaker. I don't know, or want to know anything about you, to be frank. I'm just saying I think you're taking things too literally. Just take some deep breaths and calm down for a moment. If what you're saying is true, that it should be easy to demonstrate using sources, so that's what I suggest focusing on. "Hit job" or "Hit piece" is a rather common term for referring to writing that is meant to attack the subject. Nobody ever uses the term to refer to murder, although the term has it's roots from the term "hit", which is an old mobster's term from the 1920s. But nobody ever says "hit job" unless they're referring to a piece meant to attack the subject with words.
The point is, if you stop getting all hung up on semantics and give a precise and concise picture of the situation, as you see it, the rest of us might be able to see it too. But we need sources and diffs, and a very good and preferrably short summary of the situation from your point of view. Personally, I can't read Somalian, so I doubt I can help. I'm just saying that you'd be better off focusing on the sources and don't get distracted by taking thing too literally. I hope that helps Zaereth (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Again, you have implied that perhaps I am not a native speaker of the English language, as you have noticed I have taken something literally which was meant as an idiom. You have followed up by saying that you are not implying that I am not a native speaker of English, but you are implying that I may not be, or else why would you have said it? In my experience most non native English speakers are taught about idioms in their language classes and have a good command of them. Having implied that I may be a non native speaker of English, you go on to say you are not interested what I am, but whether you are interested or not, you have implied I may be a non native speaker of English, despite the fact I have clearly said above that I am.
Of course I am being literal, I am autistic, autistic people do take things literally, an estimated 1 in 68 people in USA are autistic. It is not a rare conditions. Most Wikipedia editors should have some understanding of how autism effects people, and when someone has already said in an argument that they are autistic they should make an effort to adjust their language accordingly to avoid the use of ambiguities, rather than accusing me of taking things too literally, it is like accusing a person who doesn't have legs of not being able to walk. The part of your brain that tells you something is not to be taken literally is quite different to mine. Although I can understand from an analytical point of view, that someone is using an idiom, the emotional part of my brain may be repeatedly taking it literally and repeatedly telling me that I have been accused of murder.
I object to the use of the term 'hitjob' whether it is meant literally or not and as far as I am concerned it is a word which is defined as an act of murder, and it is a verbal attack on me. Your telling me to take deep breaths and calm down is really patronising. I am calm. You are not here with me, you cannot see whether I am calm or not. I am completely 100% calm as I am writing this. So you shouldn't assume I need to take deep breaths and calm down. Yes, people do use the term 'hitjob' to refer to murder. It is in the dictionary as meaning murder. As for my situation, I have given a precise picture. If you would like me to be concise I can say it in six words 'the admin has been bullying me'. I fail to understand why you think you would need to be able to read Somali to be able to help. I don't read Somali either. Amirah talk 01:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way. I really am. But the language doesn't change because you want it to. When I said "I don't read Somalian", that was also a figure of speech, meaning "Other than offering you some helpful advice, which I sincerely hope you consider, I don't really care much about this subject nor do I want to get dragged into the middle of it, because I can foresee that it is going to go nowhere, so I will just leave you with this advice to consider so that maybe you can reformulate your arguments and other people may then decide to jump in and help, because the way this is going that's not too likely, so having said my peace, I bid you adieu." But, it seemed simpler to just use the figure of speech. Zaereth (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
As I have already said, the use of idioms or figures of speech is unhelpful for me. The argument is quite simple, the admin is repeatedly accusing me of bias. My editing is not bias. He is also accusing me of ownership issues. I do not have owner ship issues. He is enlisting his friends to gang up against me and support his views. I am inviting previously uninvolved editors who have not already developed views on the subject to take part in editing this article if they wish. The reason the course of this discussion has been diverted from my original request is because the admin in question sees this as an excuse to jump in and divert the conversation to reiterate his unfounded accusations, which is all part of his bullying tactics. Amirah talk 09:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Then please allow me to explain. Very few of us here are mind readers. In fact, I have yet to meet one. People talk the way people talk, and you cannot fault them for that, or else you will get nowhere. If it's explained to you that it is a figure of speech, then you should accept it and learn from it. I know many and even have family members who are autistic, and "autistic" does not mean unable to learn. The sentences "I put out a hit on so-and-so" means a completely different thing than "I put out a hit job on so-and-so". The first is a murder. The second is an article meant to attack someone. That's what it means to most of the population. It just does. Likewise, alloy steel is made by mixing steel with other elements, even though steel itself is an alloy. People drive on parkways and park in driveways. Tidal waves have nothing to do with the tide. All examples of common everyday speech that doesn't make sense in literal terms, and no encyclopedia or dictionary has ever been able to control the changing language. (If they did, we'd still be speaking Old English today.) You can't change it either, so you have to deal with it like the rest of us. You have to make allowances for the way other people commonly speak or you'll get nowhere.

Having said that, I hope a literal explanation has helped, because nobody else sees it that way. It's ok to let it go. As for your other issues, what you are talking about is issues of user conduct. In literal terms, "behavioral problems", which is best handled by an administrator. This noticeboard is for reporting violations of WP:BLP policy, which this is not a matter of. At best, it's a WP:NPOV issue, but your specific complaint is one of behavioral issues, so the place you should go is WP:ANI (or "Annie" as we lovingly call it). That's where these kinds of problems are handled. But first, I highly suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG. I sincerely hope that helps, but, since "I don't read Somalian..."(do you get it now?) Zaereth (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

You are like a dog with a bone, you will not let it go. I have already said above that I can understand that the word 'hitjob' is not meant literally, although I cannot find any dictionary definition which refers to a hitjob as an article or the act of editing one. You are making an enormous issue of the fact I object to the word being used to describe my editing. You are detracting people from the reason I have made this request and I am asking you to stop. I still object to the use of a term which literally means I have murdered someone to describe my editing. You are also being quite rude to me, insinuating that I am unable to learn and that I am treating others as if they should be mind readers. In what way have I treated others as if they should be mind readers? Yes, of course I can fault people for the way they talk if they are rude and insulting. You are being rude to me too now. Obviously, I understand what you mean now when you say you 'don't read Somali', because you explained it to me. Saying I am unable to learn is something you have assumed about me for some reason. It is a very insulting assumption. Nevertheless, I still think that saying you are unable to help because you don't read Somali, could lead other people into thinking that you need to read Somali to be able to help in this case, and it would be better not to say it. There are NPOV issues on this BLP, because one admin who himself has has ownership issues, will not accept that the article is a fair reflection of the media coverage. He is challenging negative material and removing it under any reason he can find, or getting others to do so. At the same time he is encouraging others to look for any positive material they can find. A news article may be 99% negative and 1% positive. In such a case he will take the one positive statement from the news article, ignoring any negative news, and use it as grounds to push his NPOV case. I agree there should be positive material in the article. I have added positive material myself. But the article should be a fair reflection of media coverage, and this particular admin is trying to make it not so. I have posted here to try to encourage other editors who are interested in BLP issues to help. If the admin's behaviour doesn't improve I will take it to WP:ANI. I will probably find that the case I am trying to put forward there will be sabotaged by idiots too. Amirah talk 09:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
It's not just the admin that believes you've shown ownership behavior and are intentionally including only negative information to portray the subject in the worst light possible. Additionally as far as "hit job" goes, this, this, and this should cover the fact that "hit job" is in common use as a piece of writing crafted to attack a subject. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it is the admin and the editors he has asked to join in with his accusations, as well as other editors who have been unable to edit the article themselves because of protection which the admin in question placed on the article. Together, they are behaving like a pack of hounds attacking a fox. It is inevitable that those who support Farmaajo will latch on to these accusations in their attempts to whitewash the article. (I would like to make it clear that the term 'whitewash' is not meant as a racist slur). As far as I am aware there is only one admin involved so far whose actions appear to be neutral. I have posted this here to encourage editors who are neutral and have not been previously involved to review the article. I still object to the term 'hit job' being used to describe my edits on the article, firstly because it is a term which in it's literal sense is associated with violence and organised crime and secondly because my edits to the article are not a 'hitjob' either literally or figuratively. Now, you have taken the proverbial bone, and you are continuing to attempt to teach me something I am already aware of. Figuratively, you are also behaving like a dog, but you should not be offended at being compared to 'a dog' because it is meant figuratively. I did not literally mean that you are a dog. Amirah talk 11:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Has it occurred to you that if a group of unrelated editors are saying the same things about the article and your editing that you're possibly incorrect? I saw the article at first while patrolling requested edits and it immediately looked to me that it was unbalanced, exceedingly negative and over detailed. No one requested that I look at the article, no one solicited my opinion other than yourself with the request for comment. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
You should not jump to conclusions when you look at an article in this way. Yes, the article is exceedingly negative and may at first sight appear to be unbalanced, but if you check the citations and the general tone of the media, you will also find that it is exceedingly negative. You have done some constructive edits on the article. You have altered some of the sub-paragraph headings to be more neutral. I have realised by checking Wikipedia guidelines on neutrality in BLP's that the headings should be neutral, even if the paragraph under the heading is negative. I have not contested these edits and I thank you for them. Other edits which you have made I have contested on the talk page, but I have accepted your point of view and I have not reverted them. And yet you are still accusing me of ownership issues, you have no grounds for this. I can see by a cursory glance at Jamie's talk page that you have been involved with him in editing other articles, so I have no reason to believe that you are not working with him here too. I have also set up discussions on the talk page of your suggested additions to the article. In most cases you have not responded. Amirah talk 12:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
You should look at the diffs rather than assume that I was involved with them in editing other articles. I made 6 edits total to their talk page dealing with a serious BLP violation that needed to be revdel'd and some IPs that were posting email logs on their talk pages. They responded to my original post at WP:RFPP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I am not concerned with what you were doing on the other article, only in the fact that you were already working with the admin who has ownership issues on the article I am discussing. Ownership issues can also pertain to a group of editors who are working together like a pack. Amirah talk 13:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
A group of editors who all agree one something is called a consensus, not a pack. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I am using the term 'pack' figuratively, I hope you understand that. If you have followed the conversation above you should realise that you have jumped to certain conclusions after a cursory glance at the article. You then commenced with deletions, against Wikipedia guidelines. When I thanked you for your edits on your talk page and drew your attention to the 3RR asking you to slow down with your deletions, you bit my head off for saying it. You became very defensive. A good analogy is one which continues to apply as the situation progresses. If you say 'the editors are behaving like a pack of dogs pulling the article to pieces' then you should be able to see dog like behaviour in them when you look deeper into the issue. Under certain circumstances a group of editors who agree with each other may be called a consensus, but whether their consensus is valid or not also depends on other issues, for example, the whole group may be bias or have ownership issues as a group. In a pack of dogs the dogs' instinct comes out, and dogs tend to become territorial and defensive. If you are dealing with only one dog, it behaves differently, as the pack instinct is not activated. Jamie has said himself that he has contacted editors he knows to support his opinions. I am not in a position to do that, as I have worked on Wikipedia alone and not had cause to build associations with other editors up until now, as I have explained above. He is using his connections to support his opinions and undermine my work and my reputation. I am asking for editors who have not been involved, either in the article itself or working together with the admin who is doing this, to review the article and to add their input. You are trying to subvert this my honest appeal to other editors, with your petty arguments over analogies and figurative speech which I have objected to. Now you are objecting to my figurative speech. If I have to repeat the same thing over and over 5,000 times per day then I will do so. Insah'allah you will get the gist of what I am saying eventually, or someone will come to help. Amirah talk 13:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
You know, I always find it incredibly amusing when someone comes here for advice, and then tries their best to insult anyone that comes to help, but they always do using insults that describe themselves rather than the other person. As my dad would say, "You're letting everybody know." It's a lot like yodeling, though, in that it's only amusing for about 2 seconds, then it just get tiresome. I'll give you this one last piece of advice, and then I'M out. No one is going to come help as long as you try to drive everyone off and make enemies out of them. So good luck, because I don't really care anymore. The amusement is gone. And, by the way, eventually you have to undent this, because for people with smaller screens everything is pushed off to the right and this isn't even on them anymore. Zaereth (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Third party here.
I have to say that I don't see the merit of this complaint, at least not yet. Looking through the article's editing history and Talk page, there are negative sources getting added and then removed for (seemingly) valid, BLP-compliant reasons—sources being questionable, primary, and so on. If we're to include negative claims about living persons, they must be reliably sourced, period. Of course, there could be issues with whitewashing or balance, but that needs to be proven, not only asserted. When requesting feedback about these issues from third-party editors, it may help to compile a list of available sources, something akin to {{Source assess table}} and {{Source assess}}. That makes it easy to see if the article contains, for example, 1 negative claim for every 3 positive claims, when the available sourcing is more like 1 to 1. (That example is completely hypothetical. I am unfamiliar with the article subject, the sourcing, and this dispute.)
What I do see is a great deal of bludgeoning from AmirahBreen: multiple sequential sections on the article Talk page and walls of text along with 30+ minutes of copyedits here on BLPN. (This has been on my Watchlist nonstop for a day now.) Then there's conduct issues like lecturing and personalizing this dispute. AmirahBreen, as far as I can tell, you hadn't mentioned autism here, on the article Talk page, or on your User page, so it's out of line to criticize other editors for not "mak[ing] an effort to adjust their language accordingly". (I can only assume that's what Zaereth meant with their "mind readers" comment.) I also understand that you don't appreciate the phrase "hitjob" because of its literal meaning, so please reconsider extended metaphors about other editors being dogs—even with clarification that you don't mean it literally. You can't have it both ways. Now I'm not sure this rises to an ANI-worthy behavioral problem, but I suggest taking a step back before it gets there. Take however long you need to build a case with reliable sources, do whatever proofreading/copyediting you need offline or via "Show preview", and also make sure to focus on content, not on contributors.
In fact, this dispute could probably use a whole lot more FOC from everyone involved. Woodroar (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for these suggestions Woodroar and for you carefully considered analysis of the article, talk page and this discussion. Amirah talk 17:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Keisha Blain

Keisha N. Blain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This article seems to have been edited extensively by the subject of it, though I cannot say that with certainty. In short, it seems to be based nearly entirely on praise-laden articles and the language throughout is not particularly subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jw88p (talk • contribs) 18:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Jasmin Bhasin and Aly Goni

Could use other eyes re: this edit and this edit at Jasmin Bhasin and Aly Goni respectively. The issue is about whether or not to indicate that they are in a relationship. Apparently these two were reality show contestants. They are long time best friends who "fell in love". The sources[44][45] are a bit nebulous as they suggest that the two are in a relationship, but apparently they haven't started dating yet. So, an odd situation. Would appreciate more experienced BLPers to take a look. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I think they are already going on dates but it's on hiatus, or was, because of the show filming? Or maybe they were friends and became a couple during the show? The sources do refer to them as a couple, and they are both speaking of marriage. I agree it's pretty nebulous, but the added text seems to match the sources reasonably well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Indian celebrity news is hopelessly sensationalist and full of gossip; the current bland statement of how they met and that they are dating seems sufficient without going into pointless detail and speculation and those sources will do. There's no dispute in sources I can find that they're in a relationship. Fences&Windows 21:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Nelson Agholor

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

A user keeps adding back an criminal allegation to the Nelson Agholor page that resulted in no charges being filed by police or any other notable fallout: [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]. I reverted one of the edits as a BLP violation, but the user reverted it back and disputed my analysis. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I've given them a stern warning and referred them to the edit warring policy, as well as WP:BURDEN. If they add it back again, ping me and I'll take care of it. If I'm not responding quickly, try WP:ANEW or leave another note here, and hopefully another admin will deal with the matter. --Jayron32 18:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
This reporting helps further explain why this shouldn't be included: [51]. Fences&Windows 22:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Zak Bagans - accusations of plagiarism

This article contains accusations of plagiarism sourced to Skeptical Inquirer magazine. Is this single source sufficient for those claims? I've removed one claim based on an edit request, but others remain in the article. Thanks for any input. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I removed the accusations fully for now, pending more advice here. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
What Morbisthoughts said, but I'll also add that much of the article reads like an episode of Mythbusters rather than an encyclopedic article about a person. For example, it spends a lot of time in the books section describing --in wikivoice-- opinions on why this guy is wrong about energy. I know it's sort of tongue-in-cheek attributed to someone, but it reads like an opinion in wikivoice. And there are many instances like that throughout the article, thus it reads like an op/ed column rather than an encyclopedia article. Zaereth (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I cut out most of that as well when I removed the accusations. The whole article could probably use a nice tidying up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I cut a bit more out since it was all sourced to one author from Skeptical Inquirer. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
The subject does promote pseudoscience (ghosts exist, can be detected by gadgets, interacted with, etc.), so per WP:FRINGE it would be good to find sources for criticism. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Right now each section has a piece of criticism, so I don't think I went as far as to whitewash it. I'm open to opinions though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
It's the kind of article that fans are constantly watering down criticism — which results in WP:GEVAL. Like I said, it could use RS sources that help distinguish reality from fantasy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I didn't necessarily mean cut it all out, and we should have sources of criticism, but what we shouldn't do is give that criticism in wikivoice. Does that make sense? I mean, this subject deals with ghosts, so if you believe then no reasoning is going to make you change your mind, and visa versa. You might as well try to disprove the existance of God. While I am not a believer myself, I can acknowledge that, in reality, there are some questions science has yet to answer, and this deals with two of the biggest: energy and consciousness. To quote two of my favorites, ""It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way." --Richard Feynman. And, "The biggest, most important mystery in science today is, what is consciousness?" --Eric Kandel. I also like this one very much, "It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible." --Richard Feynman. At the end of the day, this article is not about ghosts, theories about ghosts, energy, or consciousness. This article is about a person. So, while I think criticism is appropriate, we should not go to extreme lengths to make this article more about his theories than it is about him, and we should not be giving any criticism in wikivoice whatsoever.
Now, I'm not sure if the Skeptical Inquirer is a reliable source or not. Usually, it depends more on the specific article as much as the particular publisher, because even the most reliabe sources have their op/ed colums and other non-reliabe items. Zaereth (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I understood Skeptical Inquirer to be reliable, its articles are cited in the scholarly literature: [52]. I found two prior discussions at RSN: [53][54].
I also found a piece by the Society for Psychical Research that independently raises "either a remarkable, even paranormal degree of synchronicity or just plain old plagiarism" in Bagans' book: [55]. A brief attributed and neutrally worded sentence should cover it: "The Skeptical Inquirer and the Society for Psychical Research noted similarities between several passages in the book and those by other writers." Fences&Windows 21:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I went back through the article history, and took a look at the sources in question. One was a book review, and although book reviews are editorials, they are reliable for the author's opinion, and this person seems qualified enough to speak on the matter. In another source, however, he goes into a bit of a tirade about some twitter post he "suspected" was about him, and I wouldn't count that as reliable. All in all, I would say that the author's opinion that is is plagiarism can be reported, but like most book reviews I would attribute this to the author rather than the publisher. Plus I would make an effort to find other reviews to see if there is something to balance it with. Zaereth (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I added that prose with that source. I think the article is in decent shape now. Thanks! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Joanna Lumley

Abusive spam added at beginning of biography of Joanna Lumley. I don't know how to remove it - please help! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanna_Lumley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.32.77 (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Someone removed it, but it could definitely use a quick revdel. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I requested a Revdel. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Bikram malati (film director)

Bikram malati (film director) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Bikram malati Indian Nepalese actor film director — Preceding unsigned comment added by MahankGjkm (talk • contribs) 03:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC) 

Bikram malati Nepalese Indian Actor Film director founder about to biographical living person don't delete and moved this project on Wikipedia page

signed

Martyn Percy

Martyn Percy is Dean of Christ Church, Oxford. I removed content sourced to the college website (not independent) and Surviving Church blog (not a reliable source) from the "2020 Accusation of sexual harassment and 2021 investigation" subsection following WP:BLPSOURCE, which says "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion" and explained my reasoning on the article talk page. The material from the college website was then added back by a new account User:MV79. Was I correct to remove the material from the college website? TSventon (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

It depends on if the specific material removed is contentious. The college website is appropriate to report on their official positions or actions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Morbidthoughts the diff is this There are three references to the college website. The first says that Percy has not resigned from the post, but "stepped back from his duties", which is fine, but the previous sentence says "it was announced that Percy had voluntarily withdrawn from his duties", which is similar. The other two are about reports commissioned by the college to justify investigating the allegations, obviously from the college's point of view, so I didn't think they needed to be mentioned until they were covered in independent media with a more neutral point of view. This is my first visit to BLPN so I am happy to be told that I am right or wrong to remove the material or indeed that it doesn't matter much either way. TSventon (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Even though the fact that they did investigate hom is not disputed, the info can be replaced by whatever reliable sources report like [56]. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
The most controversial text I removed was about Wyn Williams' report, which was published on 10 March and had not been reported on when I removed it, so I would like to know if I was right to remove it. There is now an article in the Church Times, so that it now probably should be possible to replace the college statements. There is also a Times article, but it is paywalled so I can't read it. TSventon (talk) 04:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Dealing with names in titles of citations that are purposely being avoided in WP article bodies

Specific instance here is 2020 Twitter bitcoin scam. One of the perps was a 17-year old minor at the time (but now is 18, and they have just plea bargained). At the time they were arrested, we opted to suppress the name (despite the media having used it frequently) because of them being a minor and only arrested, not convicted, per a couple of key BLP policies. Now while the situation has changed, and there could be reasons to include the name now (now an adult and effectively convicted), let's assume we still wanted to suppress the name. One recent article just added, fully appropriate to the topic, goes into how the attack was likely pulled, but the article's headline includes the minor's name right there. If we were still attempting to keep that minor's name out of the article, do we have a way to change the title of that citation to do so? --Masem (t) 14:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Did the plea bargain include an allocution or what have you? If they, as an adult, admitted the wrong-doing I see no reason to continue suppressing the name. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
The plea bargain was made when they were an adult, though they got a deal to serve time as a youthful offender, so there is a matter of "will this be on their record" under certain laws, even though the press obviously doesn't care. That said, I'm thinking of a more generic situation, where our BLP policies take more care with names of minors or non-public persons yet convicted of a crime while the press blabs those names left and right, and what we should do with names embedded in headlines. --Masem (t) 16:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
That is a much more difficult question. Personally I'd think that not putting something in our prose is the best we can do, we shouldn't be in the habit of censoring sources we're citing, even if its just the URL or headline. If it's reliable enough for us to cite and the best source of information then we have to accept their editorial choices. If there was a reasonable replacement source using that would work as well, but if we have one good option for sourcing we should leave it as is. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I tend to lean toward Scot's way of thinking. (I hope you don't mind if I just call you Scot. That's a long name to spell out.) I mean, it makes little sense in my view to ty to hide the very sources we are using, but then again, those are way down at the bottom and most viewers don't bother to look at them. The good majority of people who view an article don't even bother to read the whole thing at all. But just because we can't really hide the sources, that doesn't mean we need to make it obvious by putting it in the text, so I would just opt to leave it out of the prose. Zaereth (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
There was a slightly related issue with Slate Star Codex. In that case, the author of the blog stated they did not wish their full real name to be widely published. There weren't really any great sources mentioning their name, and so ?consensus was reached to keep it out. However one of the sources used in the article was an article or maybe it was book chapter published under their full real name so the question arose how to handle this. We ended up just putting an initial for their family name. (This problem resolved itself when the author chose to publicise their full real name after they made some changes.) Handling it in titles is more tricky but I wouldn't be opposed to hiding it in some way, even though from the SSC experience some will be unhappy. Nil Einne (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I remember that. As I recall, I had the same opinion back then, but was fine with the way it turned out. But that was an author's name. What do we do if the name is in the headline of a news article or the title of a book? Can we start altering those? I'm not sure. I mean, I don't think it would be illegal, but common practice I guess would be to put something in brackets to replace the altered name, even if it's just "[Redacted]". Of course, things like that can often stir people's curiosity too and even lead to a bit of the Streisand effect, so it could have the opposite effect as intended. I don't know. I'll have to think on it a little longer. Zaereth (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

A not dissimilar situation has recently arisen with the name of the accused party at Death of Sarah Everard, as no-one has yet closed the Talk page discussion as to whether he (and also perhaps his wife) should be named. He has not even entered a formal plea yet. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

While I don't think we ever had to deal with article titles or anything, I'm reminded of 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder, there was and I think remains great dispute whether to name the juvenile perpetrator. As a juvenile at the time of offending, many sources did not name him but some did. The name was I think mostly kept out until it was recently added. There doesn't seem to be much discussion on adding it recently, but I'm also not sure there was ever clear consensus to keep it out so I probably won't be removing it myself. Additional factors that may come into play are that the perpetrator appears to no longer use that name, the other perpetrators were all executed except for one who died probably of suicide beforehand (i.e. BLP isn't a long term problem for any of them) and how horrific the crime was. I've also seen some suggestion that the juvenile appeared to have acted the worst during the crime, but I'm not sure how well this is grounded in sources. In that case, there is also dispute whether to name the surviving male victim. I sort of think that could point towards another case where this issue could arise. Maybe not quite the same, since I'm not sure that any reliable source will ever put the victim's name in the title with something like that unless it's an interview or something. And if it is an interview or whatever where the victim is speaking out and wants their name known, I'm not sure we'd exclude it. But in a rape case or something where there is some dispute over what happened, I could imagine it's possible it would arise. Nil Einne (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Ethan Nordean

Ethan Nordean (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

They say he is a member of a white nationalist organization based on some very poor articles. Many other articles from mainstream media describe the Proud Boys as far right or conservative, but they cherry pick a few articles that call them white nationalists without any basis in reality. The Proud Boys themselves do not claim to be white nationalist.

Even the FBI doesn't make this characterization: https://www.justice.gov/opa/page/file/1364196/download Why is a wikipedia article trying to paint this man as a member of a white nationalist organization with no proof? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:9640:B661:7CAC:B9BF:E19B:CE7F (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Also they say he led 100 Proud Boys during the January 6th Stop the Steal protest. They have no valid source for this. If the FBI cannot identify who is in the crowd how can anyone else?

Says he played a "prominent" role in storming the US Capitol with no source cited.

A previous version of the article called him an insurrectionist, without any conviction. Proves that the authors of this article are biased, but they reverted any corrections I tried to made.

Also complains about a private Facebook group.

Cites Devin Burghart, some no-name researcher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:9640:B661:7CAC:B9BF:E19B:CE7F (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The references for him "leading" the group are [57] and [58] (the second explicitly supporting the "over 100" number.) Both The Seattle Times and The New York Times are reliable sources, so I see no issue there. In the case of "white nationalist", that is supported by ample source material in the Proud Boys article which explicitly confirms that characterization, so I don't see an issue there either. The word "insurrectionist" does not appear in the article, so if it ever did, that is now moot. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
The Proud Boys article cites 3 articles to support the white nationalist statement. The NBC article just says that they "are a key player in the U.S. white supremacist movement" without any backing information or evidence. The mainstream media has been wrong on a lot of counts recently and has had to retract statements just like today... Sadly you are not doing your due diligence about the articles cited. And isn't each Wikipedia page supposed to be self sufficient and not rely on the research done on other pages? Why go with an NBC article instead of the FBI statement? Which is a more reputable source?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/16/washington-post-correction-trump-call-georgia-investigator/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:9640:B661:7CAC:B9BF:E19B:CE7F (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Also you seem to mix and match the articles in order to defame the Proud Boys. Please paste the text from a reliable source where Nordean is leading a "group of 100 Proud Boys." Neither the FBI allegations or the Seattle Times article make such a claim. If the New York Times does, remember that it is extremely left-wing biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:9640:B661:7CAC:B9BF:E19B:CE7F (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Update. I can confirm that the authors are biased and locking the article to preserve the defamation of this man. None of the sources supplied say that Nordean led a group of 100 proud boys. Even the left-wing New York Times calls it a "mob," and in no way suggests that it was a group of Proud Boys. The biased leftist authors completely fabricated this detail to defame Nordean. "Prosecutors say that Mr. Nordean, carrying a bullhorn, led a 100-person mob and entered the Capitol with another top-ranking Proud Boys leader, Joseph Biggs, who is also facing charges in connection with the attack." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:9640:B661:7CAC:B9BF:E19B:CE7F (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
They reversed my corrections of this false detail about "100 Proud Boys" that the leftist Wikipedia editor made up. Then they even had the gall to lock the article completely from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:9640:B661:7CAC:B9BF:E19B:CE7F (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
IP editor, The New York Times article [59] listed by User Seraphimblade above states that "Ethan Nordean, the self-described “sergeant of arms” of the Seattle chapter of the Proud Boys, was arrested on Wednesday morning, federal prosecutors said. He had been under investigation for more than a week after prosecutors named him in court papers as a chief organizer of a mob of about 100 other members of the group that marched through Washington on Jan. 6, ending at the Capitol building." Please consider those words carefully. The NYT did not say other member of a group but other members of the group which indicates they meant a specific group, the one just referred to in the preceding sentence - the Proud Boys.
The most recent NYT article [60] (from March 14) also makes this connection clear by stating "Now, Mr. Biggs, 37, and Mr. Nordean, 30, are major targets in a federal investigation that prosecutors on Thursday said could be “one of the largest in American history.” They face some of the most serious charges stemming from the attack on the U.S. Capitol in January: leading a mob of about 100 Proud Boys in a coordinated plan to disrupt the certification of President Donald J. Trump’s electoral defeat." The detail is not false as you have claimed, but I do hear your concern that the source could be clearer in the article and have made an edit to clarify that.
The page was semi-protected by an administrator to prevent vandalism after a large amount of content was quickly deleted and requests to discuss on talk before reverting went unheeded. Anyone can still make comments that will appear on the talk page by submitting an edit request. If you have further concerns about the article please submit an edit request at the article as that option remains open. Kind Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
[He had been under investigation for more than a week after prosecutors named him in court papers as a chief organizer of a mob of about 100 other members of the group that marched through Washington on Jan. 6, ending at the Capitol building."] The New York Times is just incorrectly citing the court papers that I linked. It is not a high quality news source and is leftist biased. https://www.justice.gov/opa/page/file/1364196/download — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:9640:B661:7CAC:B9BF:E19B:CE7F (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
again you write "Nordean was accused of being "a chief organizer" and leader of "a mob of about 100 Proud Boys"[10] that marched through Washington before the breach of the Capitol.[22]" why not use the legal document instead of the New York TImes' interpretation of it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:9640:B661:7CAC:B9BF:E19B:CE7F (talk) 03:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Because we use reliable secondary sources, not our own interpretations of primary documents. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Then why do you only use left-wing interpretations of the primary source? Why not an article from Breitbart, the Epoch Times or Fox News? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.144.101 (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I did not say "left-wing interpretations of the primary source". I said reliable sources. The ones you mentioned are not reliable, as they do not have a good track record of factual accuracy. You can see discussions of various sources and their reliability in the archives of the reliable sources noticeboard. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

To the IP, ideally, we'd use neutral news-outlets, but of course, that's a bit of an oxymoron anymore. News quality and standards that existed back in the 1980s and '90s are gone. What we have now are more reminiscent of news from the 1600s and 1700s, shortly after the invention of the printing press, which were no more than blogs and gossip magazines.
But, why do you keep saying "you", as if any one person had anything to do with this. This is a community thing, and if you want sources included, what you should do is go to the article's talk page and discuss it. Try to convince others that these sources need to be included. That's how this all works, and you are welcome to participate. We do need people here with differing viewpoints, but just be careful because consensus means getting people to agree with you, and that rarely works combatively. Zaereth (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Well there was one user who kept reverting my changes after I fixed the article by removing the white nationalist tag. Your own standards say "Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources." So you assign a contentious label in his bio and it is not even one that is commonly used.

I do not care what your consensus is. None of you have provided any evidence as to why Ethan Nordean is a white nationalist or a member of a white nationalist group. He simply is not and there is a mob on this website calling him that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.144.101 (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

We don't care what your beliefs are on the matter. We deal in sources, and we decide which sources to use, and how to best convey that info as fairly and as accurately as possible, through consensus. If you're not interesting is gaining consensus (for whatever it is you want), then you're just wasting your time. You'd be better off going to some other forum where people can argue politics to their heart's content. Zaereth (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
It's not my belief. It's a fact that there is no evidence provided that the Proud Boys are a white nationalist organization, yet you label Ethan Nordean with this contentious label, which smacks in the face of Wikipedia's own rules. Also, please be civil during this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.144.101 (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Luke Pearce

Luke Pearce (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 'Romain's bum' appears as place of birth on page; should be Pontypool?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisIfould (talk • contribs) 20:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The article is attracting vandalism at the moment for some reason. It’s all been reverted pretty quickly so far. I’ve watchlisted it, as another pair of eyes never hurts. Neiltonks (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Simcha Shirman

Simcha Shirman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
At Simcha Shirman very serious criminal allegations are stated as factual based on a post at this site, that was posted today. I did not find other sources covering this. BLP expert opinion needed.--Mvqr (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

this is not a "post" but an investigative article written by one of Israel's most respected journalist. The article brings multiple evidence and despite the overwhelming evidence the words I used were "accusations". An allegation or accusation is not a conviction. The accusations are well documented and supported by evidence and the website is a reputable source like any other professional media outlet with responsible editorial board of professional journalists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoprod (talk • contribs) 13:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed there is some attention necessary and some Revdel @Fences and windows:. Is this Hamakom Magazine even a WP:RS ? - never seen this before. CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
1. I don't believe it should be in the lede
2. A single source does not meet the standard that a criminal accusation be widely reported with sustained coverage. WP:NOTNEWS may apply beyond the WP:BLPCRIME concerns. Slywriter (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I removed that as a clear violation of BLPCRIME. This obviously doesn't pass WELLKNOWN by a long shot, and the one source was an op/ed style documentary, similar to a Chris Hansen style, To Catch a Predator reporting. We need much better sources than that, and a whole lot more of them. To Infoprod, we don't report criminal accusations or allegations about someone unless/until a conviction is secured in a court of law. Zaereth (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I missed the ping, CommanderWaterford. I've revdelled those edits - wikivoice endorsing the allegations is a step too far. A discussion of the sourcing and whether and how to include it can be had here and/or at the article talk page. Fences&Windows 01:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
The allegation is included at Hebrew Wikipedia with no discussion on the talk page: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/שמחה_שירמן. Fences&Windows 01:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, I don't know what the BLP rules are like over at Hebrew Wikipedia, but it's a completely different entity that English Wikipedia. What I will say --and I think a lot of people have a hard time understanding this-- is that a documentary is not a reliable source for these types of allegations. Really, they're not true journalism (as many believe) and are not reliable for any information. Here's why:
Documentaries use a style called "literary journalism". This is where they build a story around factual information using fictional style and fictional elements. I'll give an example that comes to mind. I was recently watching the show American Greed, and they did an episode on these two, elderly ladies who would take in homeless guys, give them a job and a place to live, take out a life insurance policy on him, and then kill the poor guy. Mind you, the show is called American Greed, so they did a good job of portraying these ladies as evil, greedy, horrible people who yell and scream and slam doors in people's faces. Then, I'm watching Bizarre Murders, and they do the same story. Except this is Bizarre Murders, so they portray these women as being the nicest, sweetest, little old ladies you ever saw. It was a completely different story; I didn't even recognize it until more than halfway through!
Now, don't get me wrong, because documentaries are wonderful things. I have nothing but the utmost respect for people like Ken Burns, because they make history interesting. But you can't ignore the liberties they take when giving those facts, because they are giving a narrative (a fiction story) that is simply built around true events. This is why we don't use those as RSs, and that includes things like Dateline, Forensic Files, and Profile of a Serial Killer. That's what this Hebrew documentary is. If it's picked up by RSs, then that's a different matter, but in this case we'd need a hell of a lot of them for this to pass WELLKNOWN. Zaereth (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting we should follow Hebrew Wikipedia, just that they are dealing with the same issue.
Ha-makom (meaning "the place", short for "the hottest place in hell") is an investigative news site so I don't think a comparison to "true crime" documentaries is apt. We don't have an article on it, but there's one on Hebrew Wikipedia: he:המקום הכי חם בגיהנום. The journalist is Sharon Shpurer (he:שרון שפורר). Ha-makom received an award in 2014 for their reporting,[61] and Jerusalem Post recently reported on another of their investigations. [62]. I agree the sourcing is insufficient to include any allegations (their report on Shirman is referred to very briefly in https://m.calcalist.co.il/Article.aspx?guid=38990000 and I cannot find other reliable sources reporting on the allegations), but we don't need to discredit sources.
Zaereth, this is not entirely true: "we don't report criminal accusations or allegations about someone unless/until a conviction is secured in a court of law". WP:BLPCRIME reminds us of the presumption of innocence and advises us to generally not name non-public figures as suspects, but it is not a blanket ban on reporting well-sourced allegations or criminal proceedings about living people without a conviction. Fences&Windows 15:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
All you have to do is read the source, and you can easily tell what kind of journalism it is. That's not a knock against the site or the reporter. It's basically the difference between a news report and an op/ed. Of course, not everybody has knowledge or experience in these things, so I'd be more than happy to recommend some books. For example, see: On writing well: The classical guide to writing non-fiction by William Zinsser, Understanding journalism by Lynette Sheridan Burns, or Literary Journalism in the Twentieth Century by Norman Sims. Are you saying this single source is enough to make this pass WELLKNOWN? Zaereth (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I said "I agree the sourcing is insufficient to include any allegations", but WP:USEBYOTHERS would indicate Ha-Makom isn't gutter journalism. [63][64][65][66] This is plainly investigative reporting (even if you don't personally like its style) and not an op/ed; I don't understand how you can confuse it with the latter as it's original reporting and not an opinion piece. Fences&Windows 22:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The piece on Hamakom is not even close to an op-ed - it is based on dozens of interviews, Shirman can sue for libel but he won't since the site already won to many libel suits and is very meticulous in it's investigative journalism and collection of evidence. Also, the comment on "literary journalism" is not in place. History is also emplotment of real facts into a story - as Hayden White said: Historical facts are true, but stories are fiction. In this case, we have facts woven into a narrative of serial abuse by Shirman. The site won a few awards and is probably just as reliable as Haaretz or any other site. I think there is definitely a place to mention the allegations in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoprod (talk • contribs) 08:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I think this should be left out of the article until more sources cover it. All we have is one.--Mvqr (talk) 11:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
The allegations, and this is how it is supposed to be mentioned were also noted in [67]. Calcalist is the one of the most respectable newspapers in Israel. So, I am not sure, it's one source, despite Hamakom being very respectable journalist source by itself. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Jozo Zovko

A living person and I brought in excellent sources and cleared out sources used for contentious statements. The other editor reverted all my edits and because he is a living person, I had to revert it back. This page needs help.Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Alex de Waal

Alex de Waal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Seyoum Mesfin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): The recent edits are sort of borderline of BLP violations, with an apparent aim to state that (1) de Waal, a Horn of Africa expert, is biased or unreliable as a source because he's associated in some way with the Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF), the political party that overthrew a dictatorship in Ethiopia and then ran Ethiopia in a quite authoritarian way for nearly three decades, with a fair share of human rights violations; and (2) therefore de Waal's version of how the former Ethiopian foreign minister, Seyoum Mesfin, was killed in January 2021 should be dismissed. I've been editing Eritrea/Ethiopia articles quite a lot recently, so it would be good if someone previously uninvolved in the topic could tidy up. I don't think it should be difficult. Both articles have fewer than 30 watchers. Boud (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Uyghur genocide

On the talk page for the article on the Uyghur genocide, there has been a pattern of users posting defamatory comments about Adrian Zenz. Many of these users have been failing to cite sources or citing information from highly dubious sources, such as The Grayzone, the Global Times, and Mint Press News, to support false claims that Zenz is engaging in malfeasance, bigoted, or is a conspiracy theorist. Two of these three sources are deprecated, while the other appears to be heavily unreliable and seems to be treating The Grayzone as factual. Since WP:BLP applies to all pages, I am posting this here, in the hopes that individuals could take a look at the situation to suggest next steps.

Adrian Zenz is a scholar with a Ph.D. in Social Anthropology from the University of Cambridge. He has written extensively on issues in Western China, and his work has been referenced by a number of reliable sources in their reporting on Tibet and Xinjiang. According to Foreign Policy, Chinese media has "singled out Zenz in a series of personal attacks" aimed at discrediting his work. Axios notes that The Grayzone (which is deprecated) has been attempting to discredit Zenz, drawing "the attention of Chinese diplomats and state media" starting in late 2019.

Perennial reliable sources, such as the Wall Street Journal, have referred to Zenz's work as "groundbreaking, empirical work" in their news reporting (their editorial board also notes elsewhere that, Reuters "has independently corroborated the Zenz documents and evidence" regarding labor camps in Tibet). His work in the Journal of Political Risk has been cited to back up facts in a paper published in Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, which is a peer-reviewed academic journal, editorials from The Washington Post (1 2 3 4), as well as other reports from reliable news organizations (including The Independent and the BBC). His other work has been explicitly cited or positively described countless times by a plethora of reliable news organizations, including The Washington Post (1 2 3 4 5 6), The New York Times (1 2 3), The Wall Street Journal (1 2), Reuters (1 2 3 4 5 6), ABC News , the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1 2 3 4 5 6 7), the Associated Press (1 2 3 4 5 ), the CBC, Axios, Fox News (1 2 3), NBC News, NPR (1 2), Bloomberg, The Globe and Mail, and many others.

A number of edits over the past month have been made in this vein and attempt to be oriented towards discrediting Zenz on an extremely bizarre basis that appears to cross the line into defamation, or that simply seem like shots taken at a person without any corroborating sources provided. A short list is below, and I will tag editors who have made them so that they can respond (if they have not already been blocked):

@Scottandrewhutchins:

  1. On March 16, an edit edit(fixed link at 06:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)) was made to the talk page that accused Zenz of various sorts of bigotry. The source provided to back the claim was Mint Press News, which was citing reporting from The Grayzone, a source which has been deprecated for use in articles.

@AmericanPropagandaHunter: (Blocked for WP:NOTHERE, a block later upgraded for WP:SOCK)

  1. On March 11, an edit to the talk was made that edit that attacked Zenz's reputation.
  2. In a follow-up edit on the same day, the user made another similar edit that attacked Zenz's reputation.

@Psydonk:

  1. On February 24, an edit to the talk was made (in which no sources were provided) that attacked Zenz's credibility.


I am not exactly sure how to proceed; if this were in an article, I would remove these sorts of things immediately for lack of verifiability (and deprecated sources can be yanked out of articles pretty quick), but I am not sure of what to do because these comments (and references to deprecated sourcesd) are on talk pages. What do experienced editors here recommend? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

If you don't want people to make jokes about Zenz, check his math, and/or suggest that his claims be taken with a grain of salt, maybe Zenz should take it down a notch with his end-times s***. Saying stuff like "I feel very clearly led by God to do this" (directly from the CCP rag that is the Wall Street Journal) doesn't exactly lend creedence either.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand how "I feel very clearly led by God to do this" has anything to do with "end-times s***". Nil Einne (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Like Nil Einne I don’t think I understand the point you’re trying to make. You also seem to be underselling the BLP issues in the diffs provided. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Writing a book titled "Worthy to Escape: Why All Believers Will Not Be Raptured Before the Tribulation" has everything to do with "end times s***" and is reasonable grounds for questioning a writer's cred. After all, the issue of birth control comes up in Xinjiang articles, and he's clearly a staunch opponent of it for religious reasons. All the more reason to take his works with a heaping grain of salt.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Just FYI eschatology is a real field of academic study, repeatedly referring to it as "end times s***” really isn’t appropriate. I see no evidence that Zenz mixes eschatology with the other fields they practice, do you have any? In no way does doing eschatology diminish someone’s credibility in another field, that would be like saying we cant use a physicist as an expert on physics because they also publish in Tolkien Studies. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Some users have expressed concerns that the article titled "Uyghur genocide" relies extremely heavily on allegations made by a small number of people and organizations, which have close ties to the US government. Adrian Zenz and Ethan Gutmann work for a think tank created by the US government, the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. From that organization's own "About" page:

Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation envisions a world free from the false hope of Marxism and safe from the tyranny of communism. The real examples of socialism today are China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, Vietnam, and now Venezuela. We must contend with these regimes and the threats they pose to free people—and we must struggle for the freedom of the more than one billion people held captive by these regimes.

It's obvious that claims made by this organization have to be attributed in-line, with a clear explanation of the nature of the organization, and that this organization's claims cannot be presented in a one-sided manner. In the case of Zenz, there has been criticism of his religious views (and their relation to his writings on China, which Zenz has acknowledged) in both left-wing and Chinese media. These are issues that have to be discussed, in order to determine how much weight to give to Zenz and his employer, the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, whether and how to attribute their claims, what criticisms of their claims to include, etc. Of course, it's important to remain factual throughout these discussions and observe BLP. Raising these issues, however, is not in itself a BLP violation. These are important questions of sourcing, weight and neutrality. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: It's not a BLP issue to talk about sourcing and reliability when users bring sufficiently reliable sources to the table to establish facts about a living person. It looks like there might be BLP issues with using sources that are deprecated for use in articles in order to post defamatory claims about individuals on a talk page. Some of the discussion above is about how Zenz should be attributed in-text, or what information is due or undue in the article, though I was hoping that we could have a discussion regarding the talk page itself (including specific diffs I had provided and what should be done to them, since some of them have remained on the talk page at the time I posted the notice on this noticeboard). If other users have an additional issue with other unsourced or poorly sourced postings, I would kindly ask them to raise them specifically, with diffs, so that we can have a discussion about specific potential BLP issues. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Sayragul Sauytbay

@PlanespotterA320: do not restore violations of WP:BLP to Talk:Sayragul Sauytbay again, it is shocking behavior given your participation in a discussion about the overall topic here at RSN. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I can’t believe you restored it again [68]. Please explain yourself→. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back: DO NOT attempt to remove my note about timeline issues again. If you want to remove the note by the other using citing CGTN, go ahead, but DON'T use that as pretext to remove my justifiable comments. Yes, I reverted again, I hadn't seen your note yet, and you have NOT right to remove my verifiable note about inconsistency citing bogus BLP grounds. Noting a mere inconsistency isn't a MLP violation! I found a timeline issue and mentioned it on the talkpage to see if we could develop consensus about mentioning it or figure out a logical explanation (mistranslation? did she go to Xinjiang again between 2018-2021?) I did not engage in ANY kind of BLP violation. Mentioning inconsistencies on talkpages is NOT a BLP violation. Outright calling somebody a fraud? Yes. Wondering why 2018 and 2021 statements differ? Not at all. Heck, in one of my other article-writing fields, pointing out inconsistences on talkpages is an SOP (ex, noting on talkpage that a particular flying ace is credited with X numbers of shootdowns by historians A, B, C, credited with Y number of shootdowns by historians D & E, and Z number of shootdowns by historians F, G, and as claimed themselves in their memior). It's not an attack - it's noticing of inconsistencies that should be noted and accounted for. The fact that you are jumping to censorship and trying to bury the information isn't looking good on your part. If you believe in seeking the truth, why not have a note about an incosistency on the talkpage?--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
PlanespotterA320 I have rev-deleted those sections. We don't place BLP violations about an anti-Chinese whistleblower on any page when they're sourced to Chinese sources. That's not happening, sorry. If you want to re-introduce only your concerns about the 2018 v 2021 statements in a neutral manner, then please do so. Black Kite (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
@Black Kite: I do wish to re-introduce my concerns about 2018 vs 2021 statements, they weren't dependent on Chinese sources and contained NO BLP violations. The suggestion from Horse Eye Jack that I first find "consensus" to add my brief note is silly - consensus if for the main page, and acheived by DISCUSSION on the talkpage in the first place, and such consensus can never be occured without talk page discussion first. Requiring discussion to get something on a talkpage is an infinite-loop catch-22. I expect that my comments be allowed to remain once I add them again.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
That's fine. Do it in a neutral manner this time, without the snarky "Hmm, something's fishy here", and we're all good. Black Kite (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

How does one establish consensus to post something on a talk page? Is there a meta-talk page? Are you able to post your talk page comments here so that we can see them? Burrobert (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

You don't "establish consensus" to reinstate BLP violations. Black Kite (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
"The suggestion from Horse Eye Jack that I first find "consensus" to add my brief note is silly". Burrobert (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
That is silly, but I don't see where you get that from what Jack said. I can't see what this is all about, since it's been revdelled, but if it helps explain in a general sense: you can say almost anything on a talk page, but you have to be careful just how you say it. Don't directly state nor imply anything that would constitute a BLP violation, or it'll get revdelled. But we can ask question and discuss things without directly stating the subject "did it" (for example), or even imply the same without directly stating it. Use words like "alleged" if appropriate, even on talk, and just be careful to wtch how you say things. Most people instinctively have a good idea when they've crossed the line. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I can't see the material in question, because it's been revdel'ed, so I can't directly judge whether or not it was a BLP violation. However, in general, the views of Chinese media are relevant in articles about China. Ruling out all media from one country, particularly in articles about that country, will lead to severely biased articles. This is particularly true at the present moment, as there has been a huge escalation in tensions between the US and China over the past few years. This escalation has been reflected in media coverage of China as well. Systematically removing Chinese responses to accusations will leave us with highly POV articles. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

This is how WP:RS characterize the situation:
"China, under growing global pressure over its treatment of minority Muslim Uighurs in far west Xinjiang, is mounting an unprecedented and aggressive campaign to push back, including explicit attacks on women who have made claims of abuse.
As allegations of human rights violations in Xinjiang mount, with a growing number of Western lawmakers accusing China of genocide, Beijing is focusing on discrediting the female Uighur witnesses behind recent reports of abuse.
Chinese officials have named women, disclosed what they say is private medical data and information on the women’s fertility, and accused some of having affairs and one of having a sexually transmitted disease. The officials said the information was evidence of bad character, invalidating the women’s accounts of abuse in Xinjiang."[69]
Per WP:BLP that would seem to directly disqualify any direct use of Chinese state sources on the biography of one of the women who have made claims of abuse. Generally when the alleged rapist (in this case the state) says the alleged victims aren’t to be believed because they’re of "bad character" and then doxes them wikipedia does not treat the claims of the alleged rapist as credible unless WP:RS also do so. The policy on this one, BLP, NPOV (Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies) etc, seems solid. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
@Thucydides411: Obviously we cannot remove the views of Chinese media purely because they are Chinese. However, we obviously need to be careful in cases such as these; this was a BLP violation that was purely sourced to Chinese state media which was clearly aimed at discrediting witnesses. Black Kite (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
The fact that Chinese media is interested in discrediting the claims of Sautbay and others is not a reason to not include the claims of Chinese media. They're also an important part of the story. This is a highly politically charged issue, and it's important to include the claims of all the major relevant parties, including the Uyghur exile groups, the Chinese state, and Chinese media. If Chinese media claims that witness testimony has dramatically changed over time, or that it's contradicted by other evidence, then it's important to note that Chinese media has said that. It's also important to properly attribute all these claims from all sides, and not to presume that we know a priori which claims are true and which are false. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
That is also correct, and if the talkpage remarks had merely said "Chinese sources say X about her, is this usable in the article?" we would not be having this conversation. However it didn't say that, it said "Sauytbay is (personal attack) and here's the proof (Chinese state sources)". Black Kite (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, then that's obviously unacceptable. Talk-page discussions should remain factual and focused on content. I just wanted to clarify the question of usability of sources. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: or other admin, I think we need another revdel on Talk:Sayragul Sauytbay [70] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Doug Barrowman

Single-purpose user SeonaMillar continually engaging in disruptive editing by adding their content back into the lead paragraph of this BLP. Content dispute has been going on since last September despite the input of other editors on Talk. The user's material is poorly referenced (uses tabloid newspapers and parliamentary records) and some of their citations do not even mention the subject.

Appears as though the user is engaging in WP:ADVOCACY and their lead paragraph violates NPOV by giving undue weight to a specific controversy, especially as this content already appears on the page in more neutral wording. That's without mentioning the lead is very long, poorly worded and doesn't summarise the article well.

Does the earlier revision here violate BLP?

ScepticalChymist (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hamza Ibrahim Umar Wikipedia

he was born on (march, 1, 1997) in Naraguta village, in jos north local government. his father Ibrahim Umar is from Hashidu ward, Dukku local government area in Gombe state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.120.229 (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Duncan Paveling

Duncan Paveling has an article by virtue of WP:NCRIC. However evidence seems to suggest the same person is the writer of My Feral Heart. Key indicators are the same Year and month of birth (June 1977) [71] which matches the details of the cricketer; and both reference to Leigh-on-sea/Westcliff-on-sea areas. The evidence is fairly conclusive. Would it be a WP:BLP problem to add information about writing/film activity to the Duncan Paveling article? (Djm-Leighpark) Djm-mobile (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC) ( I also just noticed the article and the reference both give a second name of "Ashley" which is further evidence). Djm-mobile (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Definitely the same person. I found this account of an interview with him where his cricket activities are mentioned. It's a primary source but there's no reason to disbelieve what's said. Neiltonks (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the confirmation! That reference really provides the missing link I was looking for!  Done Djm-mobile (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Todd Herman

Please add a picture of Todd Herman.

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

There are multiple public figures with the name "Todd Herman" who fall on VERY different ends of the political spectrum. Todd Herman Radio host is being confused with Todd Herman, Peak Performance Coach and WSJ best selling author, and this confusion is causing Todd Herman, author, harm.

2 possible solutions: 1. Adding a picture of Radio Host could help.

2. Adding a biography of Todd Herman Peak Performance coach and author of best-selling book, The Alter Ego Effect, would help as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.150.132 (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello 66.222. Both these solutions are theoretically possible, but:
  • 1. Per WP-policies, we can't rip an image from wherever on the web, since such images are very likely under some form of copyright. Someone who took a pic of him themselves can "donate" it, this happens sometimes.
  • 2. Your hurdle here is WP:BASIC. You need a few sources that are at the same time reliably published, independent of the subject and about the subject. Based on a quick googling, I didn't find any. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Victor Lewis-Smith

I just posted the following alert on the Talk page for Victor Lewis-Smith and copy it here so as to invite editors to monitor the article.

Here we go again. This person is clearly controversial, strong views in favour, strong views against. The edit history of this article is bumpy.

He’s also a known hoaxer with a history of false names (nothing controversial here, he boasts repeatedly of this throughout his career). He has a notable interest in Wikipedia, both in terms of mucking about (sockpuppets, “funny” edits) and of course he’s particularly intetested in this article.

If Gavelboy - who mainly edits this article - is getting busy with new material, we can expect more disruption as this triggers responses. Admins might like to keep an eye on this and I’ll try and copy this alert on an appropriate noticeboard. 95.146.83.181 (talk) 11:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

So says possible sock puppet. Don't insult our intelligence Schitterend (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Jeremy Rifkin

Hello,

I have some concerns about the Jeremy Rifkin Wikipedia page. I would really appreciate your help in cleaning this up or helping

This line should NOT be included in the Jeremy Rifkin Wikipedia entry:

"Algeny" has been quoted by supporters of pseudo-scientific "Intelligent design" movement and highlighted as one of the books that help "dismantle Darwinism".[52]

--- If you follow the source, it leads to a user comment on a blog. This is not a rigorous source. I have never seen another Wikipedia entry that quotes a user comment on a blog. This seems to fall below the accepted standards for Wikipedia sourcing.

This line should be rewritten or removed:

Rifkin's work is controversial due to lack of scientific rigor in his claims as well as some of the tactics he has used to promote his views, such as claims that theory of evolution is a product of "19th century industrial capitalism" as well as frequent use of strawman fallacy.[51]

--- If you follow the source, it is indeed critical of Mr. Rifkin's scientific rigor. However, there is no mention of strawman fallacy. Moreover, the wording of this particular sentence is very broad stroke. The author of the cited article is critical of Mr. Rifkin, but the way that this sentence is written implies that Mr. Rifkin's work is generally accepted as controversial.

This should be looked at:

I regard Algeny as a cleverly constructed tract of anti-intellectual propaganda masquerading as scholarship. Among books promoted as serious intellectual statements by important thinkers, I don't think I have ever read a shoddier work. Damned shame, too, because the deep issue is troubling and I do not disagree with Rifkin's basic pleas for respecting the integrity of evolutionary lineages. But devious means compromise good ends, and we shall have to save Rifkin's humane conclusion from his own lamentable tactics.

— Stephen Jay Gould, "Integrity and Mr. Rifkin", Discover Magazine, January 1985; reprinted in Gould's essay collection An Urchin in the Storm, 1987, Penguin Books, p. 230

--- I do not disagree with including criticism in the criticism section. However, this seems really out of place for a Wikipedia entry. This is a prolonged and lengthy quote about an individual's personal feelings about Jeremy Rifkin's work. This is not reflective of Mr. Rifkin's wider body of work. If you want to include Gould's critique of Jeremy Rifkin, perhaps we should find a way to make this more in line with Wikipedia standards. If the moderators insist on keeping this prolonged quote, I would request that the following be added at the end of the Reception category on Wikipedia:

Jeremy Rifkin has written a most remarkable book on the coming Biotech Century, full of information that, as far as I know, has for the first time been collected in such completeness. It deserves to be read by everybody, be he or she optimist or pessimist." - Erwin Chargaff

In its review of the book, the journal Nature observed that "Rifkin does his best work in drawing attention to the growing inventory of real and potential dangers and the ethical conundrums raised by genetic technologies... At a time when scientific institutions are struggling with the public understanding of science, there is much they can learn from Rifkin's success as a public communicator of scientific and technological trends."[27] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dc4110 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It would be good to get some admin eyeballs on this article. For as long as it has existed it has been plagued with a stream of persistent SPAs seeking to promote the subject either by singing his praises or by simply removing coverage of criticism and I'm getting rather fed up with it. I can't tell if it is people with a genuine COI or just over-invested fans but the former is definitely a possibility. Recently the article got semi-protected and that seems to have moved the SPAs on to other venues, such as this one, although the blanking of content started up again the moment the protection expired.
Maybe we need some more permanent protection or some other measures here because this has been going on for ages and it is disruptive?
BTW, I take no stand on the correctness of the TL;DR block of text above. I have reverted the latest content removal simply because there was no consensus for it on the article's Talk page. The same block of text was posted there (as well as on various people's User Talk pages) and, as far as I can tell, nobody has been able to engage with its actual contents. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Michael Bloomberg

User User:Therazzors has added unsourced and potentially libelous material to the Michael Bloomberg article. After being reverted by another editor, Therazzors inserted substantially the same material. Because a one-revert rule is in effect on that page, I do not feel comfortable reverting the edits. This editor's edit history shows that they repeatedly engage in this type of behavior. I respectfully request that the matter be reviewed and handled as appropriate. Thank you for your attention. Dndlp (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dndlp: Thank you for the report. I have reverted the unsourced material per WP:BLP, and based on prior warnings left at their user page, I have blocked Therazzors for one week. —C.Fred (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I appreciate your prompt response and help. Dndlp (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Rupi Kaur's wikipedia page

Rupi Kaur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Someone has added a false statement saying "However, Kaur has stated she takes inspiration from Waheed."When I go to the resource link it sends me to https://cassiuslife.com/90693/blackipedia-who-is-nayyirah-waheed/ which sends me to https://www.vibe.com/features/editorial/afeni-shakur-mothers-day-poem-420884/ which mentions nothing about Rupi Kaur saying it. Instead it is a Thomas that says this. Someone purposely put this link here and Cassius life has cited a fake article with fake allegations for views. This is very problematic as Rupi Kaur has been trending today, and people keep using this false narrative of her plagiarizing. This false statement of "However, Kaur has stated she takes inspiration from Waheed." has been removed. But the user, Victoriaatfraser put this false information and must be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CheckingFacts520 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

You may want to have another look...the source https://cassiuslife.com/90693/blackipedia-who-is-nayyirah-waheed/ quotes a Buzzfeed News article "Kaur has stated in interviews that she takes inspiration from Waheed and Shire, but Kaur works within a subgenre predicated on minimalist style..." and links to that article ( https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/chiaragiovanni/the-problem-with-rupi-kaurs-poetry) which says exactly that. They also quote and link to the vibe article for something else altogether. So no faked articles or false information etc. That quote was also in our article before Victoriaatfraser edited it. Kaur does appear to have stated she took inspiration from Waheed- its mentioned in several other magazine articles as well. Being inspired by someone doesnt mean you have plagiarised them, so its hardly a BLP violation. Don't agree with the multiple "controversy" section addition though; literary criticism yes, twitter spats roundup no. Curdle (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:bikram malati (film director)

WP:BLP

Editor refers obviously to his draft article, Draft:Bikram Malati, no action here needed CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Tomislav Vlašić

I fixed this page of a living person and another editor reverted the edits. I then reverted it back. There were primary sources trying to back up contentious material of a living person. The page needs help. Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Please help - we have an editor that doesn't understand that his sources are not independent, nor reliable, are original research and are self-published. We have been editing waring about whether to leave the full birth date of a living person. I don't think we should because of the identity issues going on today. #2 He shouldn't be using his Kutlesa source because it is prepared for the office of Bishop and they are self publishing their own research and using it as a reference. The other source Peric - is Bishop Peric the same Bishop that is overseeing Kutlesa's work. Thank you! He is also using the same sources on other pages of living and non-living people.Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Amelia Vega

Has been edited for ten years by a WP:COI account. I'm not sure that we need to include the children's names here. Could use more eyes, and likely a block of Ameliavegaofficial (talk · contribs). 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

If it is indeed her, she has been complaining about errors in the article impacting her life.[72] A block would be inappropriate. I have cleaned up the article of all uncited items. Many cite needed tags are from years ago. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Morbidthoughts. A block wouldn't be inappropriate, given not only conflict of interest but repeated claims that the account is used by Ms. Vega's 'team' [73]. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Nice job in adding the COI tag Morbidthoughts. I completely agree. Infinitepeace (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Sasha Grey

Sasha Grey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hipal has been continually removing Sasha Grey's post-porn career labels [74][75] from the lead, arguing that it violates BLP with the POV since it deemphasises her previous porn career. These labels are supported by her projects described in the rest of the article, and I have concerns that they are substituting their subjective analysis[76] over what RS report on. I need others to weigh in. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to revert what you like, but make sure that BLP-quality refs support it. I don't expect any such source will not mention her adult film background, so that background should be given emphasis above all else.
Note that I think there are fans and anti-fans overwhelming this article. I'm certainly not going to carefully review 174 references when at a glance they all look poor and promotional. We've made no progress in the past year. --Hipal (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Even though you've asserted BLP, you have made 3 or more revert, including partial, on this today. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
FOC. I will revert to whatever version you like if that will help, if editors can point to BLP-quality sources. --Hipal (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
If it wasn't obvious, I'm not interested in refining content through reverts. The lead summarises the later sourced content, and you weren't interested in wading through them. The examples that were given in the article talk page,[77] you dismissed. That's why I am asking others to review them. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. For ease of review I'm linking the discussion and potential refs below: --Hipal (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I concur with the concerns that Hipal is using broad innovations of policy to support what appears to be their own subjective analysis. When I apply my own understanding of the invoked policies to the situation at hand I come up with significantly different conclusions, especially after the most recent sources provided. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
WP:FOC. --Hipal (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
That policy really refers to focusing on content rather than conduct during a dispute resolution. It's really an extension of the NPA policy, but that's not what I see going on here. It's not a personal attack to look at another editors arguments: their logic and reasoning, and in fact that is a very important part of any dispute resolution and one you should respond to. Although I'm on the road and don't have time to get into the meat and potatoes of this, I see nobody here focusing on conduct. Zaereth (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Concerns for her music career seem to be misplaced considering she's referred to as a musician by a leading music publication (who mentions her music career) here [78]; her acting career is seemingly obvious, acting in The Girlfriend Experience (a film by Steven Soderbergh, who has a academy award for best director); as reviewed by the NYT [79]. There's also plenty of sources in music publications for a "musician" label, [80], [81], [82], [83], [84] - even in many languages - including Indonesian here [85]. (there's also some in Russian/Spanish or in faraway places like Australia [86], any basic search in google news could bring this up, which makes one wonder if a WP:BEFORE search inquiry was done). Removing "author" when someone has clearly published a novel is seemingly odd, the fact that sources refer to her writing novels even moreso, quality of books does not disqualify her from being a author, so it beggars belief to why there is dispute she is one as she's published, other than the personal opinion of the editor who removes that label. Anything else seems like conjecture by the editor involved and deletion of the labels as unjustified and based on what appears to be a subjective analysis of the sources rather than a real survey of any results; people can do multiple things and this should be obvious. (even if attempted and failed). GuzzyG (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the refs. BLP requires them as we all know. You didn't address the weight aspects at all. --Hipal (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
"I'm certainly not going to carefully review 174 references". If you're not going to consider the sources, then you can hardly make arguments about due weight. You cannot use BLP as a reason to keep reverting - it is uncontroversial that she is an actress, model, and writer. It was over a decade ago that she left the adult film industry, but she has continued to receive coverage for her other activities. Those sources mentioning her past does not mean they are irrelevant for the intervening years and today. The Guardian covered her as a musician,[87], Esquire specifically discussed her as a DJ and author in their preamble to an interview, [88] CNBC profiled her as a DJ, author, and actress,[89] The Independent called her a "mainstream actress"[90] and profiled her as an author,[91] Document Journal discusses her "success across a variety of creative mediums",[92] Daily Dot said "she made other names for herself—photographer, author, musician."[93] Fences&Windows 23:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
You have it backwards or are intentionally misrepresenting my position. Please refactor.
To clarify, I'm not going to carefully review 174 references when they appear to have been added without regard to our policies.
I see no evidence at all that she has notability not tied to her adult film work, and so am concerned about any efforts to make it appear otherwise.
At-the-time news about her other endeavors and celeb puff pieces don't change anything. I believe that describes those refs you've pointed out. This is the problem that I'm concerned about. BLP-quality references are being overwhelmed by poor references. --Hipal (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
You're going to have to point directly to what specific wording in our policies and guidelines requires someone's later activities to be only be discussed entirely separately from their earlier activities in reliable sources for those later activities to be included in the lead, and what wording supports not using coverage from media sources generally regarded as reliable in a biography. These are not tabloids, they are not "breaking news" or gossip, they are not covered by WP:BLPPRIMARY, and "at the time" news is allowed to be used; we don't need to wait for obituaries or career retrospectives.
You appear to be mixing up concepts - someone doesn't need to be individually notable for particular aspects of their life and works in order for us to include those aspects: notability is a judgement about whether to include a subject/topic and then the independent reliable sources on that topic guide us as to what to say, with the detail in proportion to the coverage. If the more recent sources for Sasha Grey cover her other activities then so must we, and we must fairly summarise someone's whole career and not just focus on the most sensational parts [edit: this is not Hipal's intent, just what I see as a consequence] - it is hardly in keeping with BLP's instruction that "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment" to insist that once a pornstar, always and only a pornstar [edit: to downplay someone's career that has been documented in reliable sources for the past 12 years]. Fences&Windows 16:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not arguing for either, so please drop it.
I didn't say they are tabloids, so please drop that too.
Yes, they're breaking news, announcements, interviews, and other basic publicity surrounding an event. I don't believe I've overlooked anything, but then I already said I see no reason to look closer when no one is able to identify any refs that demonstrate otherwise. --Hipal (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I've been watching this for a while, and I'm sorry, to have to say this Hipal, but I have absolutely no idea what you're arguing for. I mean, the edit history shows the changes you want, but for the life of me I do not see your reasoning as to why. All I've seen so far is mostly argument from silence, which is similar to argument from ignorance, plus quite a bit of argument from repetition thrown in. These are fallacious arguments, but really I don't see what logic it is you're trying to follow. What are you arguing for? This is not meant to be mean or insulting, but quite the opposite, I hope it can help you see why others are having a difficult time trying to see your point, so maybe we can resole this one way or the other. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
It's insulting. Try again. --Hipal (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Hmm. That explains something. Yet, I still have no idea what your point is. Believe it or not, I'm trying to see things your way. I fail to see how deflection is going to help your case. Zaereth (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Please stop with the harassment. --Hipal (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Harrassment? Is that what you call trying to help? This is the BLP noticeboard, remember? I still fail to see how any of this is helping your case.
Look, so far, only one side of this disagreement is making any kind of valid point and giving their reasoning for me see it their way. I'm an outsider, who really doesn't give a rat's ass about this subject, but I'm willing to look at both side's arguments and give a neutral, outside opinion on what I think is the best course of action. That's why people come here, right? So here's my question, how can I give any thought and consideration to both sides when only one side is talking? How is this stance helping your case? Please take me from here to there on a journey through your own path of logic. Maybe I'll agree, maybe I won't, but you gotta at least give people a reason or no one will. Zaereth (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
WP:DTS. --Hipal (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Are you trying to convince me, or yourself? Just remember, you came here, not th other way around. I'm just trying to figure out what's going on, but so far I have no choice but to agree with Morbidthoughts and Fences&Windows by default. Zaereth (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

After a productive discussion with Fences and windows, I want to clarify a few things. First, I think this specific dispute was ended with my initial reply and Morbidthoughts' subsequent edit to the article. There are bigger problems that I hoped would be addressed, but the only pressing one was solved by putting the article under partial protection. Thank you Morbidthoughts and Fences and windows. --Hipal (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC) I agree 100% with fences and windows. Reverting for the sake of BLP only is fallacious. Just my two cents. Sorry I dont quote any acronyms. I hope my opinion carries weight. Infinitepeace (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive325&oldid=1084322813"