Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
    Shortcuts

    This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

    Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

    Search this noticeboard & archives
    Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Additional notes:



    Ana Roš[edit]

    My name is Urban Stojan Roš (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UrbanStojan) and I am responsible to handle the information about Ana Roš (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ana_Ro%C5%A1).

    Our problem is, that a user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Launchballer is constantly publish false information about a living person Ana Roš Stojan. All information that we publish is supported by fact and edits by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Launchballer are false information and misleading. As such Ana Roš is suffering irreparable damage.

    We have contacted user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Launchballer but he refused to cooperate and is republishing false information.

    I kindly ask the community for help provide the facts to the Wikipedia users. This is the link to changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ana_Ro%C5%A1&oldid=prev&diff=1230545116

    Best regards, Urban

    The edits I am reverting are WP:BLP violations. See also User talk:UrbanStojan, where I have warned the user for making legal threats.--Launchballer 10:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Launchballer is publishing falls facts about Ana Roš and hurting her as she is sitting next to me as we speak. All the facts that i published are supported by proofs that I can provide if so needed. As I am not a skilled use, I kindly ask for help as Ana fells her identity to be taken hostage and her life work damaged. If there is a true mistake on the data I published I am more than willing to accept the change, but please restrain from publishing false and misleading information. Jus t for instance, Ana's full name is Ana Roš Stojan, she manages three project and not just Hiša Franko, Hiša Frnako has three Michelin stars and a green on, etc.) UrbanStojan (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Message typed by my wife, whos information you keep editing and replacing with false information:
    "Hi, my name is Ana Roš Stojan and not Ana Roš.
    I am a three Michelin star chef from Slovenia. I am also one of the two women in the world to hold three red stars and one green. I have been holding 3+1 stars since 2023, and I was confirmed 3+1 stars 10 days ago.
    You continue changing my Wikipedia profile which is correct to the last information and misleading people with fake information.
    This is fraud and I feel being stolen my personality and credits for my work.
    Just wondering who are you to continue doing it?" UrbanStojan (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a Wikipedian enforcing WP:BLP policy. Please read it.--Launchballer 11:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Any passing admin should please block both of these editors for their ridiculous edit war (6 or 7 reverts each in the past few hours). I notice Talk:Ana Roš is unused; shame on both of you. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reverting BLP violations does not count towards any revert limits. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Campbell Brown (journalist)[edit]

    I grew up watching Campbell Brown (journalist) so when I saw that her article had some tags on it, one of which was for UPE, I took it upon myself to clean it up. Ive now done this. Could someone please take a look at it and see if it's in a position for this tag to be removed. Thanks. If it's not ready, please let me know where it requires more work. Thank you. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Cullen328 (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Is amazon.com a reliable source for personal information?[edit]

    An editor added a date of birth and place of birth to Dana Barron with the edit summary, "Amazon is a reliable and reputable reference for date & city of birth of Dana".

    The "Dana Barron" page on amazon.com has a small "IMDb" logo under Barron's biographical data, which I take to mean that the content above the logo came from IMDb. The "Dana Barron biography" on IMDb contains the same biographical data as that on the amazon.com page.

    WP:IMDB is clear in stating that IMDb is not reliable. Should we say the same for amazon.com with regard to biographical data? Eddie Blick (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It is clearly from IMDB, so not a reliable source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Both Amazon and IMDB are a no. See WP:RSNP. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 02:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, under WP:DOB, dates of birth should really be "widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public". – notwally (talk) 02:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, @AndyTheGrump, @JFHJr, and @Notwally. I appreciate the feedback. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Ashley Gjøvik[edit]

    A request at WP:RPPI from an IP asks that this article be semi-protected. Another IP opposes the first. There is a storm of editing going on there and I'm hoping someone will work out what is going on and whether admin action is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a massive WP:BLPPRIMARY mine field with too many things cited solely to court documents. One IP had the nerve to revert and wikilawyer an administrator, Fences and windows.[1] I have a suspicion these ip addresses are PR-ing and litigating through wikipedia and the article needs an extensive clean-up. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For those that don't know there was some previous disputes that seemed to be going on on and off wiki that resulted in both the subject and someone they were in dispute with being blocked and banned respectively. See e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1100#Ban evasion, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13#Arbitration motion regarding HazelBasil and SquareInARoundHole and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 184#Cher Scarlett, Ashley Gjøvik, Ifeoma Ozoma, & Apple Worker Organizations. I have no idea if the other party is still socking if they are, perhaps longer term semi protection should be considered. While the subject remains blocked, I would suggest emailing about problems would be a better solution than posting about it on Twitter. Nil Einne (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a pattern of IP addresses that have never made edits to WP before making 1 or 2 edits and then disappearing. I suggest that the person doing this knows what they're doing and is doing this intentionally to evade a previous ban. See evidence from here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Single-edit_IPs_vandalizing_Ashley_Gjøvik_page and in particular, this section posted to another user's talk page from a throwaway IP accusing that editor of "casting aspersions" for making claims that this IP-hopper isn't (implausibly) a new person for every new IP they're using. I wasn't aware of the history of this page before the recent twitter threads, news articles etc., but based on what you have linked above, I think it's very plausible that this IP hopper is the same person as SquareInARoundHole. Note: I've only made a couple edits since my dynamic IP rotated last night, but I'm not intentionally changing my IP after every edit like this person or using proxies across many different ISPs. I am the same person that used Special:Contributions/76.6.213.65 for the past couple weeks. 76.6.210.82 (talk) 07:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did an extensive clean-up that addressed the BLPPRIMARY and ABOUTSELF concerns.[2] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's impressive work, Morbidthoughts, because that article was a mess. – notwally (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Question: I am not overly familiar with BLP policies. Is the reason that court documents are not allowed is that they become Original Research because they are easy to MIS-interpret? (I saw lots of those additions, but didn't know about the applicability of court documents as sources for what seemed to be simple statements like "lawsuit dismissed with/out prejudice").

    I understand WP:BLP : "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." - but I would think that would pertain to info like allegations of misconduct/criminal charges, not whether a lawsuit is active, dismissed, settled, or adjudicated. ---Avatar317(talk) 00:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I take a broad view of WP:BLPPRIMARY's prohibition. The need to complete a story is not a reason to start ignoring this policy. It is an argument that is against WP:WEIGHT if no secondary reliable sources report on the outcome. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think WP:PRIMARY as well is important regardless of BLP concerns, including its interaction with WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTEWORTHY. A missing detail that is truly important may be useful to pull from a primary source in certain circumstances (much less likely in a BLP given WP:BLPPRIMARY), but determining how much to include in an article is difficult enough using secondary sources, not to mention primary sources. – notwally (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Published case law (which is not court documents in the sense of public records) is used frequently on Wikipedia - quick search of Reuters casetext yields 1,100 results. Many are on BLPs. WP:RSLAW is worth a read. RICO is pretty much the most serious accusation someone can lodge and the only source of it is an Apple blog. If it's worth including, I can't see how published case law that it was dismissed (especially with prejudice) isn't also warranted. The fact it was adjudicated doesn't seem like a minor detail. Changed my mind on this because of Johnuniq's note below. Say ocean again (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Published case opinions are court documents and have to be handled the same way on Wikipedia because they implicate many of the same concerns with their usage, whether that is privacy of living people or the issues interpreting them by anyone who can edit here. Also, dismissal with prejudice is not necessarily an adjudication on the merits, and there are significantly more serious accusations than a RICO lawsuit filed by an employee for retaliation and fraud. Claiming that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a very persuasive argument, especially on this noticeboard dealing with the strict guidelines for BLPs. – notwally (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note this IP address has only ever made this one edit, to this talk page. See above about sockpuppeting on this article as this editor is almost certainly a known quantity; since they are no longer able to edit the article, they are now editing administrative threads trying to influence how it is being edited.
    I've only made a couple edits since my IP rotated last night, but I'm not intentionally changing my IP after every edit like this person. I am the same person that used Special:Contributions/76.6.213.65 for the past couple weeks. 76.6.210.82 (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't control my IP address and have never contributed in a way that wasn't clear I'm one person. I requested page protections for the very reason that you and unknown number of others were edit warring and the article itself was posted on as a community note from a Twitter thread with tens of thousands of retweets.
    I made an account to make it clear, even though I disagree with it on principle for the purpose of this BLPN conversation. Say ocean again (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was saying that they are Wikipedia:Published vs Wikipedia:Public records, not that they aren't court documents.
    My question is whether or not AppleInsider is a reliable source for inclusion on a BLP.
    A second question would be for lawsuits and legal complaints that are never reported on again, at what point should we remove them from a BLP as Wikipedia:Recentism, if we cannot include case law? Say ocean again (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue about AppleInsider should be up for discussion. Even if reliable, it and another source, Index on Censorship, definitely should not be given as much as weight as sources like Financial Times, The Verge, or New York Times. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion: Talk:Ashley Gjøvik#Inclusion of content and sources Say ocean again (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Using court documents and similar is very undesirable because their meaning can be misunderstood by onlookers, and because they can be contradicted in another document, and because an opponent of the subject can easily cherry-pick undue negativity from a laundry-list of assertions. Using a secondary source is supposed to shift the burden of deciding what reporting is appropriate from an anyone-can-edit contributor to the editorial team of the secondary source. Johnuniq (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, there's a related conversation happening at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Published judicial documents with good information on this topic. Say ocean again (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion about inclusion of content[edit]

    Content from Special:Diff/1231386224/1231391075

    Moved to: Talk:Ashley Gjøvik#Inclusion of content and sources Say ocean again (talk) 03:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Say ocean again (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This kind of extensive, detailed discussion is probably better had on the article's talk page. – notwally (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion at Kathleen Kennedy[edit]

    WP:NAC: TLDR has devolved into consistently non-WP:BLP discussion about user behavior. The talk page discussion is ongoing and remains the best forum; this forum has become an unproductive fork. Re-post succinctly as discrete TP WP:CONSENSUS failures arise. JFHJr (㊟) 05:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    There's currently a discussion about adding recent criticisms to the biography of Kathleen Kennedy. Any and all feedback is welcome. Thanks Nemov (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems pretty WP:UNDUE when nothing else about her role in the Star Wars franchise is even mentioned in the article body. I removed it for now and left a comment on the talk page with a more detailed explanation. – notwally (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary: Kathleen Kennedy (producer)'s article has, for years now, had many editors trying to add coverage regarding criticisms of leadership of the Star Wars franchise. It seems this stems from the modern culture wars in the US. One particular editor, User:Nemov, for years now has constantly reverted any and all negative references to Kennedy. Various editors have aired grievances in the Talk Page about the current state of the article reading like a press release, only focusing on accolades and non-noteworthy trivia, while having 0 criticisms about the subject allowed. I added recent paragraphs, in what I thought is a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view style, got reverted twice, User:Nemov posted on my Talk Page twice, and refused to discuss in good faith. This happened before with other editors and he has been subject to a Dispute Resolution before on this.

    More details:

    User:Nemov has constantly reverted any criticisms and referred to the need for anything to be newsworthy via reliable sources on the articles Talk Page. The above, taken at face value, might seem ok even though it violates Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". Instead of correcting or improving the additions, like finding RS+ to use, the article's history shows that of the last 100 edits, 24 were made by said user, usually reverting. The current sources accepted in the article before today, by the way, include: NY Post, Hollywood Daily, Yahoo!, MSN, Box Office Mojk, and Slashfilm.com. They are all, of course, used for positive statements on Kennedy. It seems like a double standard is being applied when a contentious or negative claim has been added by many other editors.

    Still, I decided to give a try today, and wrote 3 paragraphs condensing all the very recent criticisms published by RS using sources like NYT, Variety, Forbes, Deadline, Hollywood Reporter, and Vanity Fair. I made sure to reconfirm they are all good RS for media and entertainment, as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. In brief seconds after I posted the additions, which I strived for a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, User:Nemov reverted it and posted twice to my Talk Page, warning me on the topic. I posted on the Talk Page regarding this sub-section and User:Nemov was very aggressive and did not argue in good faith. He refused to even try and reach for consensus. Two other editors then chimed in and agreed that the criticisms of Kennedy should be featured in the article but in less words than what I had typed up. I welcomed it and asked for any editor to improve it. A few hours go by, and User:Notwally, who has never edited this article, reverted my addition, claiming Wikipedia:Verifiability (the same argument used by User:Nemov, and that 3 paragraphs was excessive. I want to reiterate that on that same talk page I had welcomed any improvement to the text, but this seems like plain censorship. Of note, User:Nemov and User:Notwally both have edited other articles together, like Pine Tree Flag. Moreover, User:Nemov has been a consistent editor and participant of very contentious articles frequently referenced in these modern culture wars in the US like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Hunter Biden, Andy Ngo, and others. This all leads me to believe there might be collusion between both editors and that User:Nemov is not editing within the non-negotiable Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

    Of note, I asked User:Nemov twice in the Talk Page, in a polite way, if he could confirm he had no Wikipedia:Conflict of interest on Kathleen Kennedy. He refused twice to answer said question. It is obvious Kennedy's public criticisms, which has been referenced for years and by many RS' merits inclusion in an article that currently includes factoids such as the first job Kennedy got out high school. One more contentious part of the history of this article is that User:Nemov was wholly responsible for "protecting" the article from having a single reference to the popular television special South Park: Joining the Panderverse which features this issue, criticisms of Kennedy's handling of IP like Star Wars, as its central point. That article references Kennedy 18 times and her own article has 0 references to this. User:Nemov argued in the Talk Page that South Park lampooned everybody and that this was trivial. This led to User:Xam2580 initiating a Dispute Resolution against User:Nemov which, sadly, fizzled out due to lack of participation. Link here.

    All of the above explains the current state of the article. I would ask for a non-involved experienced editor or two to take a look at the history and talk page of Kathleen Kennedy (producer), consider the above information and my recent addition, and edit it down to whatever seems due and NPOV for WP. User:Nemov has constantly reverted this article, for years, in what seems is a concerted effort to protect Kathleen Kennedy from any criticism, to the detriment of WP's NPOV and mission.

    2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A quick addition is that checking this Noticeboard's history I see a few minutes ago both User:Nemov and User:Notwally posted here regarding the above topic. A few sentences each. Oddly, a minute after I posted the above, User:Notwally deleted both their comments. It seems either they are communicating which other, some sort of collusion or possible Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry (I hope this is not true). I don't imagine how two wholly separate editors would delete each others Noticeboard comments unless it doesn't look good to them and they are indeed working together.
    2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from WP:AGF and WP:PA, I think it is important to note that many public figures are criticized throughout their life. That does not mean it is WP:DUE or relevant to include in an article about them. Also, you can ignore or misrepresent what other people have said, but it is not going to help your case. Four people on the article's talk page have all agreed that your addition is excessive. You need to use the article's talk page to reach a consensus on what to include, actually address what other editors have said there, and stop making baseless accusations against other editors. – notwally (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to verify a few things here:
    -did you revert my edit instead of fixing it or improving it?
    -did you consider the Talk Page where other experienced editors agreed that criticisms of Kathleen Kennedy should be included? (even if there is no consensus on the form/lenght)
    -did you then stated there was no consensus for your quick revert?
    -did you warn me on my talk page, same as User:Nemov, even though I had asked you on the talk page to not post on my talk page?
    -did you briefly post here, on this Noticeboard, then User:Nemov replied under you very quickly, and after I posted this you deleted your and User:Nemov's post? why delete another editor's?
    -assuming Wikipedia:GF, can you confirm here you are not User:Nemov, to dispel any worries of Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry?
    Thanks.
    2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a forum to discuss user behavior. It appears IP has a consensus that IP doesn't like. IP is no longer discussing any WP:BLP issues at this time. JFHJr (㊟) 02:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood. This is not the space for user behavior discussion. I do want to point out that there is consensus on including the information on the article's Talk Page. Thanks.
    2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 02:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another addition: my addition was reverted once more. I am not posting on the edit warring noticeboard since this is open. I took into consideration the suggestions of two other, un-involved editors on the Talk Page that it was too long and condensed it to half the words. It got immediately reverted with no explanation. There is a clear level of gatekeeping happening on this article where instead of fixing or editing, the idea is to revert and ignore consensus.
    2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for the length of this comment, but I didn't have time to write a short one. First, Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" is an essay not a policy, but WP:BLPRESTORE is a policy, and part of BLP policy to boot. It says if someone feels that this is a violation of BLP policy then no one should restore the information until consensus is achieved on the talk page to do so. BLP policy works with, but ultimately trumps all other policies because it is such an important policy. That means, if you want the info restored, you need to first hammer it all out on the talk page first.
    Next, accusations of censorship will almost always get you eye rolls from everyone who reads it. It comes from a misunderstanding of the definition of the word. It's not censorship to leave out info that is irrelevant, or possibly undue weight. Weight and balance is fairly simple in that it's a basic math problem (although the math itself can be quite complicated), it's basically figuring out how much space --if any-- it deserves in the article as a matter of percentages. Does it deserve an entire section, a single paragraph, or a single sentence? Or would even one sentence be too much? That is the main question that needs to be answered.
    Finally, as constructive criticism of your addition, it's rather verbose, including the title. I mean, for example, is it really necessary to name the article subject in the title of a section? The section uses a hell of a lot of WP:Weasel words, most of which are "critics". What critics? Do these people have names? If not, why should I care what they think? What does Elon Musk have to do with anything? He's not a movie critic. It seems like a lot of tacking-on for mere repetition, just to inflate the size. Then, it lacks any and all context for the average reader to understand. (Similar to many scientific articles on Wikipedia.) In other words, it's written for people who already know everything about it, not for the general reader who has none of the background info. For example, it keeps talking about a "woke agenda". What the hell does that even mean? (Seriously, I have never heard the jargon "woke agenda" before. What does it mean?) What does the subject actually have to do with Star Wars? Besides a short blurb in the lede, there is really no information on this in the body.
    An encyclopedia is a summary of the sources. That's what makes them so useful, they cut away all the boring, mind-numbing details and boil everything down to the nitty gritty. The bare bones. From what I can see those three paragraphs could easily be whittled down to a single sentence or two, and that would be far less boring and easier to comprehend. Writing is hard work. Say more with less, that's my advice. But what you need to do is work it all out on the talk page first. Hammer, cut, and wordsmith until you get a consensus, and then it can be put into the article. And try to do so with a friendly attitude, because a defensive one will only cause people to dig their heels in deeper. Not as easy as complaining about other editors, I know, but that's what needs to be done to achieve your goal. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 02:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How about we agree on at least one mention or one sentence that merely mentions the vast amounts of criticism Kennedy has received? Why don't we agree to start with that? Xam2580 (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree ^
    2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your reply. Lengthy replies can help to explain things. I am but an IP editor and will remain so. There are people who devote their lives to maneuvering the very intricate and regulated WP system of what is allowed when and how.
    If I understood correctly, any BLP can have any editor delete a sentence, paragraph or section they disagree with and it remains so, given Wikipedia:BLPRESTORE, until consensus has been reached on the Talk Page? Or does this only apply to recent additions?
    The above is a valid question since I could see easy abuse of said rules, say, assume an editor that mostly focuses on a few BLP articles, checks their watchlist and anything that gets added, even a sentence or a link, that they disagree with, they would immediately revert and this addition/modification would need consensus on the Talk Page, right? How about a possible editor that seeks new additions on any BLP just to delete them and, given the above, said additions are forced to go through a consensus stage on the Talk Page. Does this make sense or am I missing something?
    These questions are genuine and coming from a place of understanding. I strongly believe in WP's mission and from time to time try to improve things. On this article I noticed that for years no single controversy has been "allowed" on the article. Very rarely has consensus been solicited on the Talk Page either and not in a formal capacity. It seems one user (potentially two users but there is a request for Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry going on) has been directly responsible for enforcing the above rules and unquestionable reverts any and all criticism of the article's subject. I would implore you or an administrator to look through the Talk Page and see all the times, including archived posts, that criticisms have been suggested by many users and nothing has been added. I went to great pains to only include many RS, as per WP, but nothing comes out of it.
    Given the above, what is the best way to improve things? If I add anything right now, even if its the slightest sentence or two (because I tried), I will be reverted. Two other non-involved editors agreed on then Talk Page the criticisms need to be included. We have one of the older editors who tried, like me, to add a neutral POV criticism with sources here pleading the same case. All of this could easily make somebody see gatekeeping.
    On the contents, you mentioned you've never heard of "woke agenda" and that's fine. I would suggest Woke#2019–present: as a pejorative. "Woke agenda" actually redirects there on WP.
    I would request for you, for example, to help the article and provide that two sentence summary you proposed. As an un-involved editor, the warring editor(s) shouldn't have an issue with a proposal from you.
    Thanks for your time.
    2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 03:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's a matter of BLP policy, then yes. BLP policy is far too important that it needs to override everything else. If this means erring on the side of caution, then so be it. We need to be careful and take our time to get it right.
    The best way to improve things is like I said. Talk it out on the talk page. Copy-paste your addition there, and then work on it until it's just right. Aside from BLP policy, it's just better than warring about it on article space. For example, see this discussion on the Kelvin article.
    My critique was more about good writing versus bad writing, and to be perfectly blunt, the writing was bad. That's the thing about being a writer, you have to thrive on criticism. Want it. Need it. Learn from it. Don't just give me a link to "woke" I'll never click. Writing should never need wikilinks to explain what it's talking about. It should simply explain what it's talking about, as precisely yet concisely as possible. The question I asked you are the same questions the average reader will be asking. Try to predict those questions and answer them beforehand, right there in the text.
    I don't know anything about this subject, nor do I really care, and my time is very limited here in the summer. We got three months to get everything done, but luckily the sun never sets. Sorry, if you want this it's your burden to put in the effort necessary. I just monitor this board and give people helpful advice from time to time. Try to help explain why they're having the problems they encounter. Zaereth (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your history is accurate. I am just too busy lol. But I appreciate the mention.
    I will quickly add that all that I wanted was at least one (and only one minimum) mention of some criticism of this person. It could have been a sentence or, as I suggested, a neutral link in the "see also" page linking to the south park page for people to discover themselves. I had seen some of the extensive debates and thought this would be a neutral way to mention the criticism. But even that was too much for some users and I am just too busy these days to fight it. I personally think it is ridiculous and violative of NPOV to exclude all criticism from a public figure and I appreciate anyone pursuing this! Xam2580 (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for trying. For literal years a single editor has prevented proper and extensively covered RS from being included in this BLP. I even asked them twice if they had any conflicts of interest ands they refused to answer that.
    2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well this is why all I pushed for was a simple change. It seems 1 editor has had a massive impact of this page and cannot tolerate any criticism of Kathleen whatsoever, not even simple mentions that disagreement exists. Xam2580 (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, you'll never get anywhere if you make this about other editors. Those arguments only hurt your case, not help it. Zaereth (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, and am absolutely willing to objectively and neutrally resolve this issue. In fact, this is my preferred outcome. That being said, on some level, this issue pretty much is about one or two editors (I have never received such pushback from mere attempts at mentioning rampant criticism of a public figure). But your point is well taken and who knows; maybe people have changed their minds. I'll dispassionately approach this issue and will refrain from making further comments about past issues. Xam2580 (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry User:Zaereth, you are responding to another editor. An older one who went through the same issues on the same article as I did in the past.
    2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Requesting third opinions at Bronze Age Pervert[edit]

    @User:Секретное общество and I are going back on forth on this article and I'd appreciate if some other editors can step in to break one deadlock and resolve another longstanding issue. The longer-standing issue is Talk:Bronze_Age_Pervert#Inclusion_of_Jewishness, which has been a slow edit war going back and forth for months. I don't have strong feelings here, but IPs and SPAs do. The second is the inclusion of a couple of largely unsourced infoboxes on BAP's various media enterprises. See Talk:Bronze_Age_Pervert#Preferential_editing?. Any further reversions by me are effectively edit warring, so I'd appreciate some input. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    We normally don't Jew-tag people, especially not as part of nationality. MOS:NATIONALITY covers this. Is there anything in those book infoboxes that isn't covered in the sections on those books? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, in the sense that they have collected every piece of fancruft regarding the length, file type, and theme music for a podcast whose actual sourced prose section is only two lines long. The sources they added are just back to the podcast itself. Same idea for the book. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Global Witness[edit]

    Kirkylad, who has declared a Conflict of Interest with the NGO Global Witness, recently added a new section containing research and comments made by Global Witness to the article Sultan Al Jaber. As a note, I myself have made a COI edit request on behalf of COP28 on this article, which is currently still open on the Talk page.

    The third paragraph of this section[a] beginning "An investigation by Global Witness..."[b] appears to breach WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and I feel also resembles WP:ADVOCACY. The investigation mentioned is one which Global Witness themselves have carried out, and the content has been added by an editor linked to the organisation. Whilst the sources cited are from reliable third-party outlets, the claims are quoted from the Global Witness investigation, and as such require oversight from someone outside that group, especially to make sure the claims fully comply with WP:BLPPUBLIC.

    The second paragraph of the section beginning "BBC News reported ..." referencing an alleged increase in ADNOC's oil production is already a contested point under discussion in the currently live COI request,[c] and is an unnecessary duplication of content within the "Abu Dhabi National Oil Company" section of the page. It is also not strictly related to the topic of the newly created section, and as the claim is again based upon analysis by Global Witness, it is not appropriate for Kirkylad to add this information directly to the article given their COI.

    Could someone who does not have a conflict of interest please take a look at this contribution to check tone, source quality, undue emphasis etc. Thank you! Dedemocha (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    1. ^ A fourth paragraph was also added but was summarised and combined into the third paragraph on 26 June at 02:08
    2. ^ This was edited on 26 June at 02:08 to "According to an investigation by Global Witness ..."
    3. ^ ADNOC have countered within the same BBC article that the figures refer to "production capacity", not production

    Dedemocha (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:2023 Orchard Road rioting (2)[edit]

    Can people check the article and my actions please, and if necessary delete or revdel? I first moved 2023 Orchard Road rioting to draft space when it looked like this, with e.g. the long list of "criminal charges". I now moved the improved version back to draft space[3] because it still contains in my opinion way too many names of living people accused but not convicted of all kinds of things, from being part of criminal organisations to murder. Fram (talk) 08:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC regarding MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE at Steven van de Velde[edit]

    There's currently a discussion about the first sentence of the lead at Steven van de Velde. This could use some feedback from members with experience on BLP issues. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I really don't understand the obsession some editors have with poorly written lead sentences. It is possible to describe someone and summarize their notable aspects without merely a series of nouns. – notwally (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The MOS doesn't give a lot of guidance on this at all, but it's a matter of good writing versus bad writing. The lede should be written at a 6th grade level, but should not read like it was written by a 6th grader. I've had a lot of schooling, training, and real-life experience in this, so I could charge good money for what I'm giving here for free. Having an opening sentence like that comes off to the reader as childish and stupid, and is that truly what anybody wants? There's no way to sugarcoat it, but that's what it is.
    Good writing is idiomatic, meaning people know it when they see it, but can't usually tell you what makes it good. That's because so many of the principles are counterintuitive and must be learned. It needs context, coherence, and flow. The first sentence is important only for creating context. This is called the "topic sentence", and the only purpose is to provide context for the following sentences. But it's not the place to make any kind of point. The only thing it needs to do is tell us in very broad terms what the subject is.
    People never remember the first sentence, so it's not the most important one. People remember the last thing they see. By far, the most important sentence in the entire article is the last sentence of the first paragraph, which is called the "thesis sentence". This is where the point is laid out.
    For example, see the article on Adolph Hitler. That is a perfect example of what a well-written article looks like. We don't start off by saying he was a bigot and murderer. We start off by describing what he was, which was the chancellor of Germany and head of the Nazi Party, which provides context for the reader. We save the most important fact for the thesis sentence, which is his role in genocide. We don't call him names, but describe what he actually did. The same is true for this subject (or any other for that matter.) My advice is don't put so much emphasis on cramming everything into the first sentence, because that's actually counter to whatever goal people are trying to achieve. It's important, but not for the reasons most people think. Far more important is the thesis sentence, because that is the main point of the article. Zaereth (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jpatokal vs Michael Ezra[edit]

    WP:NAC: Behavior complaints do not go here. Re-post here as the correct forum for discrete WP:BLP issues. Behavior concerns can be addressed at WP:ANI. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 00:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I believe senior contributor, @jpatokal, has gone rogue. He has violated many of the norms of the WP:BLP with impunity.

    He was caught at it 11 years ago: Jpatokal The information you have posted is contentious and libelous. BLP editing rules state it must be removed immediately if unsourced or ‘poorly sourced’. There is no record of that article anywhere other than on the Ugandanet platform which is not a genuine newspaper archive. Please refer to the rules on NOR and Verifiability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prodigalson49 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

    He is at it again: @Jpatokal, you have violated almost every principle in BLP! Addressing the banner you placed on this page verbatim: This article needs to be updated... - with what? by whom? do you have new info? 90% of references used are dead links and story filled with Outdated Facts... - Wrong! Original links exist along with links to an archive of the original reference. How do "facts" become outdated? They could be disproved but not outdated! Subject reported as a Hoax... - your linked ref on "Hoax" seems contrary to what you are trying to convey in your banner as per its opening paragraph. So much for NPOV. ...with a multitude of Bankruptcy court cases - your linked webpage has no bearing to the sensational allegation of bankruptcy. ...involving many bouncing cheques... - another sensational reference to "many" but referencing just one case whose outcome is not even mentioned. ...among many others - yet another sensational reference to "many" with a singular citation of a tabloid news article. Cherry picking one of your edits: ...also known as Michael Ezra Kato - a senior contributor should know better than to provide an archived blog post as a reference. This was the balance you brought to the article to remove a NPOV banner you place on the article (could not help but take a negative shot at the man)? The subject of this page is known and dear to many. He might also have many enemies out there but Wikipedia should not be the place to settle such scores (going by their policies). This is not Michael! Please undo all your aggressive/ill-intended edits unless you have new FACTS to add to the article. 204.167.92.26 (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC) Every single edit I made is backed up by references. The one you "picked out" is not a blog post, but the text of an article published in the Sunday Vision in April 2004 and helpfully archived by somebody. Jpatokal (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

    I am following through with the recommended procedures of complaints but honestly have little hope for justice as he seems to enjoy the support of some of the other contributors/admins (and probably sits on the panel that reviews this escalation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.167.92.26 (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Uhh... I have no clue what you're asking for here. Are these quotes from talk page discussions or something? If so, what is the point you're trying to make? Is this in relation to some specific article? If so, which article? We don't deal in justice here, so if your complaint is about editor behavior, then you should take it to WP:ANI, but try to be more direct and provide diffs to support whatever it is you think this user did wrong. If it's about something that violates BLP policy, we'd need to know what you think those violations are and links to the article in question so we can investigate it ourselves. As is, I don't see anything here to really go on, so not sure what you want us to do. Zaereth (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    This section is obviously a request for additional participants in the discussion here. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Brigitte Macron[edit]

    The Brigitte Macron page appears to be going through multiple rounds of edits & reverts due to concerted efforts by some to add transgenderism claims without citing reliable sources for the living person. Admin action was taken on June 20th, but today the issue has resurfaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4001:85D0:14D4:9116:55B9:EA5F (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for pointing this out. I have semi-protected the article again, this time for three months. Let me know if any further nonsense arises. Johnuniq (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Julie Johnson (actress)[edit]

    Julie Johnson was married to David Lee Johnson from 1997-2002 and had one child, Trey in 1998.

    Julie’s father was named David Lee Johnson, so when she married my brother David it created a lot of confusion with the invitations. This is also why Julie’s son is called Trey, since both his father and grandfather were named David Lee (though not related).

    Source: I am David’s brother and Trey’s uncle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.248.1.244 (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sources based off of one's unpublished personal knowledge has a shelf life. Do you have a published third-party source that corroborates this? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't find any source for that marriage or the marriage to Dylan Paul Thomas that was in the article, and so I removed it for now. – notwally (talk) 05:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mohamed Ashmalee[edit]

    Mohamed Ashmalee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    The article about Mohamed Ashmalee was (or is) in a horrible state. A large section, restored by multiple experienced editors since 2022 turns out to be a verbatim copy of the cited non-free source, et cetera. Courtesy ping Suonii180, LizardJr8, Kleuske and Midori No Sora who could perhaps have noticed this when verifying whether the section restored by them is actually backed by the cited source. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I didn't notice that there was a copyvio involved. In hindsight I should have looked a little deeper into how much text was added for the corruption allegation; but I don't see anything that disqualifies the source itself.
    I was not sure of the motives behind repeatedly removing text with no explanation other than "wrong", "untrue" or "truth" when I engaged once. I would agree a deeper look is needed into the subject. LizardJr8 (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've reverted this only edit because I thought the IP address removed a large section of the article without giving a valid reason. I also didn't notice that section of the article was a copyright violation. Looking at the history, several IP addresses and users were indeed removing that section, but some weren't providing an edit summary or were explaining that it was "the truth" or simply: "yes", which sounded suspicious.
    I've also requested CSD of the image, as that portrait was taken from the person's Facebook account and was sourced as "Own work". 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've opened a discussion at the talk page to discuss content addition proposals. I've also edited the article to remove generic urls that failed WP:V, unarchived dead links, and lots of stray caps (copyediting). I tagged unreffed claims; this content currently is the majority of the article. I have not removed unreffed claims that touch on notability, but a few unrelated ones got the scalpel. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 01:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Olu Jacobs (Case of death and Disruptive editings on the article page)[edit]

    There are death rumors surrounding this person. See Talk:Olu Jacobs#Is Olu Jacobs dead? and the article page and help revert Vandalism Wår (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Family Tree templates and BLP[edit]

    I came across this family tree today, which includes the full names of living (and dead) people, some with articles and others who are apparently non-notable, and it's all entirely unsourced. WP:BLPNAME suggests that we remove the names of living persons who not notable public figures—but that defeats the purpose of a family tree. Maybe that's a good thing?

    Category:Family tree templates is filled with family trees, though many of them are for (long dead) historical figures, historical dynasties, animal groups, languages—those should all be fine. But is there a bigger problem with family trees that are unsourced and/or include the names of non-notable living persons? Woodroar (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The sourcing and whether filiation is contentious are the main concerns. But mere mentions of non-notables are less inherently problematic than they are a threshold determination for requiring sources and solid ones for contentious claims. JFHJr (㊟) 21:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the tree you linked, the forefathers and siblings of Naqi Ali appear irrelevant. So do Hasnain Raza and Faiz Raza; they could all probably be removed unless there's some kind of relevance to an article's content and it's supported by a reliable source. JFHJr (㊟) 21:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the lack of sourcing is an issue, and that some content (at least) should be removed. But doesn't WP:BLPNAME suggest that we remove every non-notable person? Should we replace removed names with any placeholder text?
    I also wonder what the point is. A family tree might be relevant in, say, articles about royal families where everyone is notable. But what use are they when only half of the people mentioned are notable—especially if we end up having to remove the names of non-notables? Woodroar (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Clementine Ford (writer)[edit]

    I wanted to get some input here from others before I take a large action, since I see from the talk page of Clementine Ford (writer) that, while there's a lot of separate sections and concerns raised, no one has done anything.

    The entirety of the rather lengthy "Social media" section should just be removed, right? Like, pretty much everything in it is a BLP violation using individual news articles to discuss individual tweets or things on Facebook or other nonsense, right? I'm trying to make sure I'm not missing something obvious here. SilverserenC 21:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You are correct. I'm handing you my cleaver while I step away for some time in the dirt. I'll check back in a few hours. JFHJr (㊟) 21:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first paragraph seemed ok to me, but maybe I'm missing something. VQuakr (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In my edit summary when I removed the section, I noted that some of the content could be potentially salvageable. But would need to be rewritten and reorganized. And probably shouldn't have its own section just for that. SilverserenC 00:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Silver seren: Great work, looks better! I agree with the WP:WEIGHT concerns: a separate social media section is probably not going to be up to snuff. With the same concerns, I've condensed sections for topical relevance and moved a glut of refs from the lede to the body (and removed one primary ref that served no purpose). Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 02:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    TESCREAL#Alleged TESCREALists[edit]

    I want some input. Following WP:BLP, @Avatar317 removed significant amounts of material from the TESCREAL article (See diff

    I'd argue material is fairly well sourced, and many of these figures are WP:PUBLICFIGURE (i.e. Elon Musk, SBF, Sam Altman, and various high level philosophers).

    As per WP:BLP, in cases of conflict, I was told to escalate here on noticeboard for suggestions from community.

    Some background:

    Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    From WP:PUBLICFIGURE:"If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." ---Avatar317(talk) 03:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Avatar317: Could you be more specific about which portion of this section is of concern for you? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Anything OTHER than self-described TECREALISTS. ---Avatar317(talk) 03:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide a reason why? We need specifics other than "I hate this article and will throw what I can as WP:WIKILAWYER".
    We addressed these are all public figures, that there is significant useful sourcing for most of these claims. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently, nearly all figures in the section have multiple sources.
    Maybe Peter Thiel could be removed for now, as well as Ray Kurzweil. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't read the FinancialTimes article, because it is behind a paywall. Can you please provide quotes, because the association to Musk via one quote where he said he liked the Russian guy well known as a Cosmist was used as the ultimate source for Musk's connection in the first deleted article, and that alleged connection was deemed to be WAY too weak of a connection. ---Avatar317(talk) 03:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    2 of the 9 paragraphs deal with Musk in this source. The formatting gets messed up on copy paste into here.
    """
    Tech luminaries certainly overlap in their interests. Elon Musk, who wants to colonise Mars, has expressed sympathy for longtermist thinking and owns Neuralink, essentially a transhumanist company. Peter Thiel, the PayPal co-founder, has backed anti-ageing technologies and has bankrolled a rival to Neuralink. Both Musk and Thiel invested in OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT. Like Thiel, Ray Kurzweil, the messiah of singularitarianism now employed by Google, wants to be cryogenically frozen and revived in a scientifically advanced future. Another influential figure is philosopher Nick Bostrom, a longtermist thinker. He directs Oxford university’s Future of Humanity Institute, whose funders include Musk. (Bostrom recently apologised for a historical racist email.) The institute works closely with the Centre for Effective Altruism, an Oxford-based charity. Some effective altruists have identified careers in AI safety as a smart gambit. There is, after all, no more effective way of doing good than saving our species from a robopocalypse.""" Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Singer Konshens first picture is a different person[edit]

    First picture on wiki site Konshens is not actually konshens, but someone else. 2A02:2454:E60:5700:3149:3B55:1E22:93DA (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed the image from the article ( Courtesy link: Konshens) because it was of a completely different artist named Tarik Davis that went by the name "Konshens the MC". Feel free to replace it with an appropriate image. Reconrabbit 13:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In vitro fertilisation[edit]

    In vitro fertilisation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    In this edit a previously uncited but vague mention of unprofessional conduct by unnamed doctors has become a direct accusation against a named person. It remains uncited. The editor who added the new sentence, who appears to have a conflict of interest, says they will edit war to keep the paragraph in place. Extra eyes would be useful. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed the paragraph consisting of BLP violations. While the information added is likely true, the burden is on the editor adding the information to provide a citation. The behavior of SuperinfoTU on their talk page is not encouraging. It suggests that they see no issues in their policy violations thus far and expect to continue violating myriad policies. An admin should consider a NOTHERE block. Toadspike [Talk] 14:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ken Hovind[edit]

    WP:NAC: Answered. JFHJr (㊟) 00:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Many of the “facts” in this page are inflammatory and overly biased. It makes accusations with zero evidence to back them up. It’s obvious to me that the person or persons who wrote this are seeking to use ad hominem attacks and straw-man arguments to summarily dismiss Ken Hovind’s views which are held by many credentialed scientists with PHD’s from state universities. It’s a lazy, shallow attempt to attack the historical position of Christians without actually producing any evidence to support their claims. I don’t personally know Mr.Hovind or even agree with many of his views. This is nothing more than a hit-piece by someone with obvious bias. Is this the standard that Wikipedia aspires to? 69.77.210.17 (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not that this is a particularly serious request that editors on this board need to respond to, but it's Kent Hovind. Alyo (chat·edits) 21:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A WP-article about a person is supposed to be a summary about independent WP:RS about that person. If that is what the article is, then that is what Wikipedia aspires to. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Revert off obvious flamebait. Do not reply to it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Jason Zadrozny[edit]

    Could someone double check and see if Jason Zadrozny#Personal life paragraphs one and three need to be there. This edit at Ashfield Independents is also relevant. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the child sex allegations would be appropriate to include if there is enduring coverage in multiple sources. Do news reports about the article subject still mention this, or was all the coverage from the year of the court proceedings? As for the fraud and election-related charges, those seem particularly relevant to a politician's biography since they relate directly to the reason he is notable. In general, I think privacy concerns have less weight for politicians than for other public figures and we should be more willing to include accusations in their biographies, although they still need to be noteworthy and reliably sourced. – notwally (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Graham E. Fuller[edit]

    I'm afraid I don't know much about BLP policies. Someone ought to look at this recent IP removal ([5] and the previous edit). The rationale is "Right to be forgotten, EU privacy" which I doubt has any standing over WP; to me the removal seems like an involved party removing cited information. But then again, I don't know the nuances of BLP, so if someone else could take a look, that would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aza24 (talk • contribs)

    I don't know that Wikipedia respects the EU right to be forgotten (and none of the individuals involved appear to be EU citizens anyway!) but "subject's non-notable daughter was married until 1999 to someone who was the uncle of someone else who wasn't notable at the time but now is" seems like a pretty tenuous link and I doubt it's worthy of inclusion in the article. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Controversial content on BLPs should have multiple high quality sources citing it. I agree the link seems pretty tenuous. – notwally (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Lea DeLaria[edit]

    More eyes would be appreciated at Lea DeLaria. She recently posted controversial comments on social media. We're getting BLP vio at the article and simultaneously trying to figure out the best way to cover the comments in this discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like a rush to include a statement only covered in a single reliable source from what I could find. My general opinion is that controversial statements should not be included in biographies unless there is enduring coverage in multiple reliable sources. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and a lot of notable people say a lot of stupid stuff. I also left a more detailed comment on the talk page. – notwally (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Emmanuel Mogenet[edit]

    (non-admin closure): COI issue, no admin action needed. Article has been sent to AfD. Toadspike [Talk] 14:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    No one thought it odd at the time that Emmanuel Mogenet was created by Emmanuel Mogenet? Anything to do about it now? MaskedSinger (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    After removal of WP:NOTCV info that was not supported by RS, this person's notability is unclear and may need an AfD discussion. I will prod it first. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since it was previously prodded, I sent it to AfD. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MaskedSinger Thanks for catching this. For next time, this kind of report is better suited to WP:COIN and requires no administrator action. Toadspike [Talk] 14:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=1232608531"