Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

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

Bryan Freedman

I'm reaching out for assistance regarding an ongoing edit war and potential BLP violation on Bryan Freedman. Despite clear resolution on the talk page there's been persistent reverting and re-adding of contentious content.

Here is a specific diff highlighting the issue: BLP violation

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadianthe (talk • contribs)

Walter Rhodes (murderer)

I've twice restored the redirect at Walter Rhodes (murderer), following serious unsourced claims by editor User:WalterRhodesJr. A third revert would probably be allowable as a potential WP:BLP violation under WP:3RRNO, but taking it here seemed a better idea. Discussion at the editor's user talk is not currently making progress, and the article can't remain in its present state. The claims made are in direct contradiction to the sourced statement at target Jesse Tafero, which the same editor has also tried a few times to alter against the sources cited, in an apparently straightforward case of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Wikishovel (talk) 08:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Is this individual of enough notoriety to warrant their own dedicated wiki page? Lostsandwich (talk) 04:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Should have updated this thread: the redirect was restored by another editor, and there's a discussion about whether to keep the redirect at WP:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024 April 22#Walter Rhodes (murderer). Expanding the redirect into an article is an alternative, but so far it looks like per WP:PERP, there's not yet sufficient coverage or significance for a separate article. Wikishovel (talk) 07:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

So tired of all the comments since they make no sense. None of your replies are accurate. You cannot name a person as "murderer" when Walter Rhodes never killed anyone. He was forced to plead guilty "self´convict" so that he could testify in court and had nothing to gain from testifying. You should edit Michael Satz WP and add corruption, judicial misconduct ets. The investigation about him has proved that he had control over a judicial network that he did what ever he wanted to. Satz himself was corrupt and dangerous. WalterRhodesJr (talk) 07:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

If Rhodes pled guilty to second degree murder and the court accepted his plea, then there is no policy violation in calling him a murderer unless a later court overturned that verdict. If reliable sources report that someone called "Satz" was corrupt and dangerous, then we can take a close look at that. But it can't be based on an unreferenced assertion by a family member. Cullen328 (talk) 07:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

WalterRhodesJr, please also understand that Wikipedia has policies about WP:Biographies of living persons, and to stick to those policies we have to be very careful about what we write. So it's no use for us to argue here about whether or not we believe evidence for one conclusion or another: we have to WP:Verify what we write, using WP:Reliable sources. Wikipedia also doesn't allow WP:Original research. Wikishovel (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Rhodes did´t kill anyone and was forced to take the plea. He had to self-convict in order to testify about the real killers. Thus, you cannot call him murderer. WalterRhodesJr (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

You might well be right. But to write about that on Wikipedia, we need to WP:Verify it, using WP:Reliable sources. Otherwise it's WP:Original research. Wikishovel (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The argument that he's not a murderer because he pled out amounts to an argument-by-bizarre-definition if murder is what he pled to. It'd be akin to arguing that Ichiro Suzuki isn't a baseball player, he just hits balls with a stick and runs around a diamond-shaped field.

For another example of the argument you're making, Dog Chapman isn't a murderer, by your logic, since he was merely an unwitting getaway driver. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{AE thread summaries} 15:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I am right and there are so many court filings since the trial in 1976 that are factual and that proves he never killed anyone. That is why he cannot be called a murderer. The facts about gun residue at Taferos WP is wrong. The officers who investigated the gun powder residue concluded that Walter had gun residue from being fired at the road block, on the upper left hand, not on his right hand and Rhodes is right handed, so that information put on Tafero´s WP is misleading and wrong. I would like the link deleted and Walter Rhodes should not be refered to. Keep what ever you want on Tafero´s WP, exclude the Walter Rhodes (murderer) It need to be deleted. WalterRhodesJr (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

oscar isaac

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.

---

Hey! Hope this is the right spot ... Seeking to make simple reference to a publicly-available document, signed by Oscar Isaac, in the profile of Oscar Isaac. No socks here ... but getting bulldozed + threatened by an 'editor'.

Here's the 1-liner, available from any corner of the internet - it makes no accusation or claim for any side, only stating what is publicly known - he signed a letter, for a desired outcome, on a particular subject, due to specific events :

  In October 2023, Isaac signed an open letter for the "Artists4Ceasefire" campaign alongside other artists, urging President Joe Biden to push for a ceasefire and an end to the killing of civilians amid the 2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip

NB: The references - aside from the letter, which is NPR - to 'Artist4Ceasefire', 'Joe Biden', and the '2023 invasion of the Gaza Strip' all link within WIKI itself on their own / are held by WIKI.

Was immediately threatened by an editor claiming ownership of the profile (by tone + outright threat to permaban me), who said the sentence above is "contentious", that Wiki's "an encyclopedia, not FB or a news site".

It's a public document that was purposefully sent to the White House/President. Yet this editor immediately threatened me with a permanent block just for *this single citation* - and I'm brand new, so there's no possiblity of "past differences".

Aggressive threatening of noobs aside, the challenge with their claim, is that tens of thousands of other WIKI profiles have the same/similar poli-social content with no hinderance ... permitting only what specific editor may prefer in a given page, on a platform that supposed to be "open, factual", an "encyclopedia of knowledge", is well, troublesome.

If it's not permitted to plainly reference actions they've chosen to publicly support - and do so with no ill inent/malice - then all public figures would need to have their profiles reduced to Name, DOB, Work history only:

 Michael Moore's profile must be emptied, and Mark Ruffalo, Michael Stipe, Bassem Youssef, Jon Stewart, Jimmy Carter, Nelson Mandela, Jon Oliver, George Galloway, Amy Schumer, Angelina Jolie, Michael Rapaport, Cate Blanchett, Ben Affleck, Chelsea Handler, Bradley Cooper, Bob Odenkirk, Bret Gelman, Debra Messing, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Sharon Osbourne, Chris Pine, Jerry Seinfeld, Sinead O'Connor ... and so on, and so on. 

Countless other WIKIs, artist/non-artist alike, reference social & policital efforts ... if a public person (Hollywood A/B lister, no less) has of their own accord chosen to put their name publicly on X document, it should not be prohibited from mere mention, since it's already on record with the rest of the world. Hiding it from Wiki could imply preferential treatment one way or another, no?

Sorry for the ramble I'm still getting used to this space, and am very confused by a person gatekeeping a stranger's own previously published actions being cited with zero harmful content & zero intent to harm.

Thanks for your patience!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Discourseofcourse (talk • contribs) 05:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

You were reverted by an administrator about this as WP:NOTNEWS. Please discuss this at Talk:Oscar Isaac and try to gain consensus whether this item is WP:DUE for inclusion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a routine content disagreement, Discourseofcourse. I see no violation of WP:BLP policy here. There is certainly no need for a lengthy screed full of axe grinding and hyperbolic assertions. Your first step is to discuss the matter calmly with the editor who disagreed with you. This is a collaborative project. Have you tried that? Please remember that advocacy is not permitted on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 07:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted that some of the claims being made here reflect not the Oscar Isaac article in particular, but responses Drmies gave on the user's talk page. Drmies was undoing the same flooding insertion on a number of pages, such as Rooney Mara and Rosario Dawson. Whether that qualifies for a "vandalism" warning is a separate question, but not a BLP one. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

That's a lot of accusations and claims of harassment and whatnot. I asked them to stop, a few times. I remember being a new person in a new place, and I remember paying attention to what people were telling me and asking me, and not running around like a bull in a china shop. Drmies (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

You have been adding basically the same text to the pages of a whole bunch of the signers of that one petition. While there are a few signers who are separately called out in the NPR article, many are just listed among a mass of signers at the end. The source is not trying to tell us that this is a significant fact about the person, and generally an article about the person would not include that fact. We do not need a list of every document a person has signed. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

References

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.

Dragan Šolak (businessman)

Dragan Šolak (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please see this edit request about this article's Money laundering investigations section. The name of the section is misleading, as it could imply Šolak was involved in money laundering investigations, which he was not. This section is not about Dragan Šolak directly but rather a media company owned by him and its reporting into Slovenian government misconduct. Disclosure: I am employed by United Group and Dragan Šolak, which is why I am seeking review by others. AlexforUnited (talk) 08:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I took a look, and I agree with you. If the info provided is correct, then it appears the subject was alleging harassment by the authorities, and the head of those authorities was later arrested for doing some illegal investigations. Do I have that right? (The section is a little hard to read, like the syntax of the translations was a bit off or something, so I had to read it a few times to be sure what it said.)

The section title does indirectly imply some wrongdoing on the subject's part, so it makes sense to change it to a more neutral title. But what? I don't know. What would you suggest would be a better title? Zaereth (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography has an RfC

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Nambaryn Enkhbayar

• Nambaryn Enkhbayar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Edits on this page are repeatedly violating BLP policies. The last sentence in the introductory paragraph, "Due to his corruption scandal he is regarded as the godfather of corruption in Mongolian politics by the public media" is repeatedly inserted and is poorly sourced as well as potentially libelous.

Source 1 for the aformentioned sentence is an article titled "Enkhbayar is not the ONLY godfather of corruption in Mongolia" yet the contents of the article itself fail to provide any tangible and fact-based evidence for the claim. In fact, the article's contents do not discuss Enkhbayar at all, until in the first sentence of the last paragraph which simply repeats the title. This is misleading and biased.

Source 2 is a translated article from an original Russian newsite that discusses Enkhbayar's political career (albeit titled towards more allegedly controversial parts), but does not claim that he is the godfather of corruption. The source is also unreliable given it's a foreign news agency with no reputable and presence in Mongolia.

Both sources seem to be cherry-picked in an attempt to provide a biased and/or misleading narrative and detracts from objective information. The page includes a section "Conviction of Corruption" which discusses in detail the relevant facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.42.196.255 (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Hrm. Looking at one of the sources, it flat-out says, " N. Enkhbayar was given the nickname 'Godfather of Corruption' because of such actions."[1] The Business New Europe article does not immediately seem to be unreliable. —C.Fred (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

You mean looking at that one particular source (i.e., singular). The other source is highly misleading (as I have explained in my initial post) which should already indicate it is a possible attempt to sway objectivity. I don't think an obscure Russian newssite should be a source to make such a sweeping statement about a living individual in another country. If the same was reported by the largest Mongolian media outlets (24tsag.mn; shuurhai.mn; gogo.mn; or official, state-funded broadcaster of Mongolia MNB), then this claim might have some credence. Again, I have visited this page periodically and this particular sentence was never there until about last month which conveniently coincides with the upcoming parliamentary elections in June (if that helps to understand the context). 38.42.196.255 (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Tim Davis (baseball)

Timmyd47 is editing the article Tim Davis (baseball) by removing some negative information. I warned him of the issue of an involved person editing the page, but he edited it again, stating that the information was not true. I do not have knowledge as to whether the references that were supporting the allegations are correct or not, and am uncertain as to whether the allegations are important enough to be a part of the article, so I am bringing this discussion here for more knowledgable people to weigh in. I have notified TImmyd47 of this discussion and have left his latest edits on the page stand pending any decision here. --— rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks like alleged WP:BLPCRIME to me. Does it not to you? Assault, child abuse, what have you? Accusations of "corporal punishment" without parental permission looks like that to me. JFHJr (㊟) 23:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Very much agree with the WP:BLPCRIME take. These are allegations against a person no longer in the public eye and entirely unrelated to the source of his Wikipedia notability. Definitely should not be in the article at this point, by my lights. Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Dumuzid I've left an explanation on the article talk page. This discussion already existed there when this OP posted. Hopefully that's enough to discourage an edit war/3RR problem. But in that case, OP should take himself to WP:ANI. The user OP complained of is at 2R today. JFHJr (㊟) 00:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, so he allegedly assaulted an 18 year old woman in the name of education and discipline. He was also a public figure for 3 years. Does that publicity go away if RSes still mention him as the former baseball player? The wikipedia article and the RSes didn't go away. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

He plays professionally for 3 years and is forever a public figure? That's rough. I don't see any indication he led a public life or sought publicity even during those 3 years. RS will of course mention his past. Does the accusation have anything to do with that notable past or his encyclopedic biography? Is the allegation of enduring biographical significance? Or is this WP:NOTNEWS? Does the coverage go beyond local? JFHJr (㊟) 01:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Yes, current job reported by multiple RSes so that's part of his encyclopedic biography. Who knows per WP:CRYSTAL. This is not routine news. Coverage went beyond local given that it was reported by a national education news site (The 74) that ended up being syndicated by Yahoo News.[2] Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly disagree that this person is a public figure at this point in time. I would exclude per WP:BLPCRIME unless coverage became overwhelming, as in, for instance, substantial coverage in papers of record. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

One of the sources referenced says state lawmakers debate the fate of rules that have long permitted teachers to spank students as a disciplinary measure. In other words, the incident seems to have complied with the Florida regulations. Personally, I oppose school officials carrying out corporal punishment. But this content violates WP:UNDUE and WP:BLPCRIME. At this time, he is convicted of nothing. Cullen328 (talk) 04:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Nationality of Miriam Margolyes

We have reached a fairly amicable impasse on Miriam Margolyes's talk page regarding her nationality. As a result, we have compromised with the description "Miriam Margolyes OBE (/ˈmɑːrɡəliːz/ MAR-gə-leez; born 18 May 1941) is an actress holding both British and Australian citizenship". Prior to that the fist sentence read "Miriam Margolyes OBE (/ˈmɑːrɡəliːz/ MAR-gə-leez; born 18 May 1941) is an English and Australian actress". Extra input from editors who have experience with resolving nationality would be helpful. The discussion is at Talk:Miriam_Margolyes#Nationality_redux and a prior discussion in which I was talking to myself is at Talk:Miriam_Margolyes#Nationality. The issue seems to arise regularly on Miriam's bio for some reason. The reference I have used is the Arnold Schwarzenegger example under "Nationality examples" at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Context. Regarding "English" as a nationality there is a footnote from the above policy stating "There is no categorical preference between describing a person as British rather than as English, Scottish, or Welsh. Decisions on which label to use should be determined through discussions and consensus. The label must not be changed arbitrarily. To come to a consensus, editors should consider how reliable sources refer to the subject, particularly UK reliable sources, and whether the subject has a preferred nationality by which they identify". Burrobert (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, perhaps more Peter Lorre than Arnold Schwarzenegger. No political confusion of an "Austrian-American" order. But yes, same result, use the conjunction. Chronological order around the and is best, unless dual-citizenship born (maybe subject's preference, nation of birth, nation relating most to notability, per consensus). Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Abdulla Bin Mohamed Bin Butti Al Hamed

As the subject of the information, I believe that certain details disclosed about me on Wikipedia infringe upon my privacy rights and may pose a risk to my personal safety. Furthermore, the information provided may be outdated, inaccurate, or irrelevant to the subject's notability. I respectfully request a discussion regarding the deletion or revision of this information to ensure that Wikipedia maintains its standards of accuracy, neutrality, and respect for individuals' privacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmaddarwish74 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

That discussion ultimately starts and ends with "Got any third-party, non-routine, independent-of-you news/scholarly stories that discuss you at length, are written by identifiable authors, and are subject to rigourous editorial processes, including fact-checking?" The only way to get the information changed - especially if it's sourced - is to provide good sources to support those edits. We aren't otherwise going to change the article just because the subject tells us to, other than to remove unsourced content. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{AE thread summaries} 16:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the page, I believe the subject has asked for a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. I don't know how significant the head of the Dept of Health is in Abu Dhabi. It looks like a bureaucrat position in a country that is smaller than many states in the United States. The problematic information he is referring to is a Voice of America report that references some Azerbaijani report. Given that it is a BLPCRIME/PUBLICFIGURE accusation it needs more than one reliable source, and I'm not sure VOA, the propaganda mouthpiece of the United States is one. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the content about the Azerbaijan hunting incident because the implication of criminal misconduct does not seem to be backed up by reliable sources and the matter appears to have been resolved promptly by someone paying a small fine. Cullen328 (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The four sockpuppets claiming variously to represent and to be the subject have been blocked. Meanwhile, the AfD for this subject could use some WP:SNOW from an uninvolved admin or non-admin with credible permissions/experience. I'd do it, but I !voted. Thanks and cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 21:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Vaughan Gething

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.

---

At Vaughan Gething, I changed the sentence "...first Black leader of any European country" to "...first Black leader in Europe" & then "...first Black leader within the United Kingdom". My reasons? it's best we not create the false impression that Wales is on equal footing with (for examples) Portugal, Spain, France, Romania, etc. Myself & @Sionk: are kinda in disagreement on this, due to the definition of country. IMHO, if we're going to keep the old sentence? Then we should (to avoid confusion with sovereign states) at least add a footnote, pointing out that Wales is within the UK. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see what this has to do with the BLP noticeboard, which is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Instead, perhaps start an RfC at Talk:Vaughan Gething. Curbon7 (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Vaughan Gething is a living person. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

And? This is a grammatical dispute. Curbon7 (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

The wording seemed simplest and most accurate before you touched it. Wales is not a sovereign nation, but it is a country in Europe. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

PS. In case it helps to change a few parameters to see how it sticks, how would it do with "x^th Hindustani leader of a European y" if it were Scotland? Wouldn't the y be country (but definitely not today "nation" or "member state" of such and such)? JFHJr (㊟) 05:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Before I touched it, the sentence suggested that Wales was equal to France, Greece, Croatia, etc. Again, just because Wales (or Scotland, England, Northern Ireland) is called a country. That doesn't put it on equal footing with other countries outside the UK, in Europe. There's a difference. GoodDay (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Since we mention Wales in that very sentence, I don't see how it is likely to cause particular confusion. There's a difference between a Chihuahua and a St Bernard, but we don't need to footnote that every time we refer to either as a dog. Original wording is fine. (And in any case, this dispute is not tied to the living person-ness of the subject.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The canine comparison doesn't work, fwiw. Again, a footnote would be helpful, concerning the type of country Wales is. GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Wayans Family

The article includes personal information about a group of people from a family, some of whom are famous, with barely any source citrd supporting that information. This is especially problematic since some the people listed are minors. I’m very suspicious that not all of the information is even accurate. I already edit the article to remove a pair of siblings who allegedly were born just four months apart.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvx1 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

This is definitely a WP:BLPNAME problem with the unnotable members. I looked around for other famous families and found the Barrymore family which is in the same state. Unclear why these articles shouldn't be deleted. Wikipedia isn't ancestry.com. Compare the state of these articles to the The Osmonds, who were notable as a group. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I've just removed all the non-notables from the Wayans family. DuncanHill (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I support removing the not-yet-notable people from the article, but would oppose deleting the article. Cullen328 (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Cullen328 on this one. Families can indeed be notable by having enough notable members. Notable members get included. Non-notable members may merit a single mention in the main member's article as WP:WEIGHT permits. Family articles should just exclude them. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 06:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I've made similar modifications to the Barrymore family article including removing the family tree since I haven't figured out how to make individual edits without breaking the tree. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Those family trees are a nightmare to edit. There's a tool at User:Daduxing/familytree.js which makes it somewhat easier Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Prime Minister or not

There's an ongoing discussion going on talk page with editors Reading Beans and Gråbergs Gråa Sång calling me a Wikipedia:Advocacy editor without me having done any thing to be called that and I consider it offensive. I have tried to edit base on Wikipedia:Libel and Wikipedia:Censorship and I made sure I followed the rules guiding Wikipedia:Neutral point of view on the Lead of the article on whether Simon Ekpa is a Prime Minister or not.

If you check the history of the discussion, you would notice how it all started. They were the ones that started the talk discussion but later deviated. I as an editor after a while saw the topic and decided to contribute but they ended up biting me. I edited based on information found on Finnish Wikipedia and Finnish Newspaper that rightly called Ekpa the "Prime Minister" but ended up being bitten by them and their intentions is probably to scare me away from contributing for them continue with their libelous editing by putting "Self-declared" Prime Minister on the Lead. It will be a pleasure to go ahead and provide evidences of them calling me WP:ADVOCACY editor without prior evidence. It's painful! I am by this bringing to your attention the Libelous content found on the Lead. Thanks Fugabus (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I can see nothing libellous in the lede. Biafra is not an independent state. It has no independent government. It holds no independent elections. Neither Ekpa calling himself a 'prime minister' nor his own supporters describing him thus makes him one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

For the interested, related discussion: User_talk:Gråbergs_Gråa_Sång#Attention_please. As I stated in my OP at Talk:Simon_Ekpa#Calling_Ekpa_Prime_Minister_in_wiki-voice, I pretty much agree with ATG, but as I also stated further down in that thread, I can live with the current version "He is the self-declared prime minister of a government-in-exile, the Biafra Republic Government in Exile (BRGIE), which was founded in 2023." if I must. Somewhat surprisingly, at least according to WP, the bar to being a government-in-exile is saying you are a government-in-exile. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Ping to @Reading Beans, since they're mentioned. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

There has been accusations here of impartiality by @Fugabus. My view is that Fugabus miss-translates some key finnish vocabulary, another examples is here about the use of the term lawyer, when finnish sources don't support the term. Fugabus also repetedly claim they have translated finnish terms, but never provide evidence for their work, while when I check the Yle, Kuvalehti sources myself the sources actually say something different. The finnish source material such as Yle and Kuvalehti never treat Ekpa as an prime minister, but rather that the term is controversial pointing this out by the fact that he calls himself prime minister such as here. Despite these things being made clear, Fugabus often cites wiki rules and has even thrown around that some of these Finnish sources having been clickbait. Which is not true, Yle has for several years been the most trusted and popular news source in the Finnish language. Yle even did a reportage in the territory in question where they interviewed people there.

This leads me to suspect that Fugabus is the biased one, based on above, it seems like they employ selective translating or confirmation bias. Accuracy should be maintained. Kennet.mattfolk (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello @AndyTheGrump and ping to all editors.

May I say you may be breft of the rights of government-in-exile per your submission.

Kindly read Government-in-exile#Activities (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-in-exile#Activities) for clear understanding of this very dispute.

They have rights to hold elections or amend or revise its own constitution under international law. Read also past and present Exile governments. Ojukwu was their first president and later fled to Exile with his government. Please, first familiarize yourself with the topic before contributing. Read the Finnish Wikipedia. which I failed to properly wikilink in the above submission from me. One of the template tag on Simon Ekpa article page clearly stated that editors can help translate the corresponding Finnish Wikipedia to the English one and I seek to apply it judiciously.

For @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, the Exile government is headquartered the US according to report. What makes you feel they are not a government-in-exile and that they are just claiming to be?

That Finnish Wikipedia evaluated him being a "Prime Minof Biafra in exile ister" is highly interesting to note for every editor on the English Wikipedia.

Familiarize with government-in-exile and their activities as we reach a conclusive consensus here.

.

Sincerely,

Fugabus (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Per your source "The Biafra Republic Government in Exile says it has opened an administrative office in Maryland Baltimore, USA." The org/Ekpa says that. It has all the value of WP:ABOUTSELF. And I just said above, that at least according to WP, anything that says it is a gie, is a gie. That's why I can live with the current WP-version as I said above, since, at least according to WP, it's technically correct regarding gie [insert quote from Futurama]. And here we see the interesting effect of the name Ekpa choose for his org: every time a source mentions it by name, it sort of "affirms" it is what it says it is. Possibly rather clever. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The kuvalehti source actually covers this, their 'finance minister' lives there. Kennet.mattfolk (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

[3] "A two-story house from the suburbs of Maryland in the United States has been purchased as the actual central office. The Minister of Finance of the Refugee Board lives there." per GT? I'll take your word for it. The org has a US-office. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, but not ... 'of the refugee board' but 'of the government of exile', the word for refugee, asylum seeker and exile is the same in finnish :D Kennet.mattfolk (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

That was what I assumed, and why we need people like you to watch how GT is used on WP. I used GT on a Romanian source for an article about a dog, and was told that the dog used to be a chicken. It was fairly clear chicken meant puppy in context, but things can be trickier than that. Like the Swedish word "val" can mean election, choice or whale. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The word used to mean what 'ed' or 'svära ed' means today, or what finniah 'vala' means ;). Though this is probably getting off topic now haha Kennet.mattfolk (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I suggest @Kennet.mattfolk should stay neutral on this dispute resolution and allow uninvolved editors except Reading Beans and Gråbergs Gråa Sång to contribute as you were never pinged and you never called me WP:ADVOCACY editor per the main dispute submission. Meanwhile I have replied to your unfounded accusations here on your talk as I don't wish to deviate from the ongoing discussion like you just did and other editors should take not of it. Fugabus (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Fugabus

Ok, again, accusations, your 'reply' here weren't about the topic at hand, even there your wrongly cited information from finnish wiki in your attempt, only looking at the lead and not body. Now here, your telling me to frack off, this doesn't concern me, even though I keep telling you, your getting finnish language things wrong. Thus you 'translating' the meaning of prime minister without actually checking what the source states about the term, hence you seem to employ confirmation bias. Which I also showed in my original post in this dispute above. You show no evidence of my bias, you just level the accusations, when confronted you try to distract me away (like you posted on my talk page, to go read govt in exile) or directly telling me to leave now.

Now you just went and copy pasted the stuff that you originally posted at my talk page.. spamming pings to people to several talk pages but with the same post. Kennet.mattfolk (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Fugabus, you seem to have a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of this noticeboard. Along, apparently with multiple core Wikipedia policies. What Wikipedia's article has to say on the subject of governments in exile has no bearing whatsoever on whether the disputed content in the Ekpa biography is libellous or not. That depends solely on what independent published sources directly discussing Ekpa have to say on him. And we don't cite Finnish Wikipedia as a source, either, read WP:RS. And no, you don't get to decide who comments here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Please, @Kennet.mattfolk I offended you and I apologize by pasting that mess on your talk page. It was a technical error from my end. Not intentional! Per your submission that the Finance minister lives in the US, Here's another secondary source coverage of their Chief of Staff.

Fugabus (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

This source may be more reliable than the previous. People's daily

Sincerely,

Fugabus (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Um what's the purpose of that source? Clearly what amounts to a press release by the Biafra Republic is not reliable for anything but their views. Nil Einne (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Surely the purpose is obvious. It's to expose the "irresponsible and rascality" nature of the "Biafra Republic's" enemies. Wonderful. I do love it when Wikipedia exposes a bit of rascality.DeCausa (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I have no further comment rather than the one submitted by Kenneth and Grab. I want only add that Biafra does not, cannot and have not conducted any election nor any activity done by an independent or semi independent country. If they do, then, Fugabus should provide a reliable source stating so. Best, Reading Beans 20:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Babu Singh Kushwaha

I'd be grateful if uninvolved editors with a familiarity of Indian news sources would be willing to take a look at recent editing at Babu Singh Kushwaha. There has been a spate of edit warring involving sockpuppetry there recently; the article is now protected, but the existing article makes some fairly major claims about the subject being responsible for some killings, and all based on a single source (the Indian Express). A second source is cited, but it doesn't support the assertion about the killings. WP:RSP has the Indian Express as generally reliable, so the content is probably legit, but I had to change the wording a bit (from 'he was alleged to have killed' to 'he was alleged to have been responsible for the killings') to make it align with the source, and I'd like more eyes on it. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Michael D. Aeschliman

The subject of this article is persistently being misrepresented by 174.208.235.142 as a "Teacher, Innkeeper and B&B owner", without any valid supporting citations. 174.208.235.142 adds statements about Aeschliman's alleged occupation and about how he inherited certain buildings, again without providing evidence.

The obvious purpose is to mischaracterise Aeschliman. In fact, as all the evidence shows, the subject of the article is an eminent, well-known university professor, writer, scholar and literary critic.

The subject's biography section has also been deleted by 174.208.235.142 without good reason.

Moreover, 174.208.235.142 has gratuitously attached warnings to the article about a "major contributor" having a "close connection" with the subject, and that some of the article's sources may not be reliable. No evidence of this has been provided on the article's "Talk" page. There is a fair range of contributors to the article; its citations are numerous and, as far as one can tell, legitimate.

There is no evidence of serious, bona fide editing by 174.208.235.142. On the contrary, there is reason to believe that this is a case of vandalism by 174.208.235.142, seeking to ridicule Aeschliman, possibly for personal or ideological reasons.

Please take measures to prevent this recurrent behaviour by 174.208.235.142.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamara Santerra (talk • contribs) 18:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Scintillating edit history there. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A. Roderick-Grove for more. 'S all from me for now. JFHJr (㊟) 20:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The following account appears to be sock-puppets and should be added to the investigation:

A. Roderick-Grove

Coriakin the Wise

Tamara Santerra  

Lexical Paws

WoollyBear

Chuzzlewit23

Tiltonalum

There could be more. 174.197.69.37 (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Tamara Santerra (who left the above comment but didn't sign it) is almost certainly the biographical subject and a Sockpuppet account. The notability of Michael D. Aeschliman is questionable. Many references go to blank pages or dead links and appear to be almost entirely authored by sock-puppet accounts (several of which have already been cited for COI issues) and connected contributors listed on the subject's talk page. The sources either don't cite the subject or don't say what's claimed in the article. The subject appears to have authored a few introductions to obscure and unknown works by other authors, for which there are no reliable sources. In terms of the subject's work as an innkeeper (which might be notable), there are references that are easy to find online.[4] [5] [6] 174.197.69.37 (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

If you've found blank refs, first consult an internet archive website or two. If no good archive, or if the archived version is clearly not a WP:RS, then remove if they fail WP:V. JFHJr (㊟) 02:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Masayoshi Son

I have flagged the article on Masayoshi Son because it does not appear to offer a NPOV. My concern is that statements in the summary section and in the section on the Vision Fund are unbalanced and potentially libelous, as they overwhelmingly contain negative opinions on the subject's character. These editorialized, sometimes hyperbolic characterizations are restated verbatim to paint an overall negative picture of his reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farmlandsavannahpuck (talk • contribs) 00:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Uzair Shah

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.

---

The article about Uzair Shah consists of two sentences but four photographs. I suggest to delete it, poor quality.--Crosji (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Wonderful idea! WP:Articles for deletion is where you want to be. JFHJr (㊟) 03:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The new discussion is here. Closing... JFHJr (㊟) 04:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Snezhana Abarzhi

Despite repeated requests not to do that, Snezhana Abarzhi continues to push claims of scientific priority in her article, through a proxy editor (an employee of the American Physical Society), sourced only to her own publications; see recent edits. The subject is notable but the recent edits are I think promotional and not good. I wish to disengage with this subject despite creating the article as she has been antagonistic by email and I have weak evidence that she has engaged in off-wiki harassment of me. Perhaps more eyes on the article would help? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not an experienced Wikipedian like most of the others who answer questions here but I am a scientist and from my vantage this page now reads more like a CV than a Wikipedia page other than the top level description. The "Selected publications" section should be removed IMO. Nnev66 (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The main point of concern I have here is the lead section. Otherwise this looks like a fairly standard article on a contemporary researcher with a modest amount of citations and recognitions (which perhaps speaks to the poor quality of many other articles...). @Nnev66, the Selected publications are fairly standard - maybe it would be worthwhile to keep those that have been cited more and cut out the rest, but selected or influential publications are always helpful for articles like these to give readers an idea of what kind of specific research someone has published. This article has very little visibility but it did draw some attention to the absurd list of "influential people" on outline of fluid dynamics. Reconrabbit 15:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment that an editor paid by the APS probably falls under WP:PAID. I don't see any disclosure. The Selected Pubs does look overlong to me (though I agree a short section should be in the paper); it also looks like it might be skewed towards recent papers. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The article Snezhana Abarzhi is weak on independent sources. There are papers by her, articles based on what she's said, and sources with no discussion of her. Maproom (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Marjorie Taylor Greene

Marjorie Taylor Greene Biography says she is far right. If you click on the highlighted term far right you get the wiki reference that shows a picture of people holding Nazi flags and Confederate flags. There is no evidence of any kind that Marjorie Taylor Greene is, or was at any time, a supporter of Nazism or the Confederacy. This is misleading to the point of being libelous and has no place in a work intended to be a factual on-line encyclopedia. Simply change the term far right with the word conservative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnus gold key (talk • contribs) 00:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

We have a large number of sources identifying Marjorie Taylor Greene as far right. The far-right politics article itself offers a range of far right groups, of which confederate fans and Nazis are only a portion. Her support for such things as the White genocide theory makes the descriptor seem not unreasonable. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Can I just say that this probably wins the prize for most unnecessarily long topic header of the day. But, no, Marjorie Taylor Greene is definitely a far-right politician according to reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I reduced the header for practical navigation reasons; it was the same material as the body text. Robot fighters are not known for their subtlety. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• You seem to be complaining that the article Far-right politics has some example imagery that you don't like, rather than providing a sound argument that MTG isn't far-right. The sources bear out that she is far right, by her own admission. Her article doesn't say she supported Nazism or the Confederacy directly. I don't see a problem with her article, as even she calls herself far right. You can always go to the article on Far-right politics and start a discussion about removing the image with the flags, but I doubt it would reach consensus, as the sources seem to support the idea that Confederate-ism and Nazism are clearly examples of, and common ones at that. In short, I don't see a valid reason for this report to be on this particular administrative board. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  That's what I am thinking. She's not even mentioned in the far-right article. OP's beef is with the WL itself. JFHJr (㊟) 01:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

This article seems no different than others, but maybe the general phenomenon is worth a thread here. jp×g🗯️ 19:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, another editor has a very similar concern, on this page right now. Try searching for "jackoffs" and pick up the torch there. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 02:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

That's not another editor. That's the same editor. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I was winking discreetly at "I must confess I've forgotten which articles specifically" ...WINK! JFHJr (㊟) 04:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, let me wink at the BADSITE: I figured it would be blindingly obvious, from the context, that this was one of several, and that I remembered noticing this same thing on a couple other articles some months ago.

I did not mention this politician by name in the other section, because I am not really interested in this politician specifically, or her article, or what it says in the lead, and especially not interested in chimpanzee shitflinging over whether I am sufficiently explicit in saying that I don't support her, et cetera.

I was more interested in getting people's opinions on the general issue of the potential for wikilinks to make implications that plain text does not, and whether this is something that falls under the purview of Wikipedia policy on the biographies of living persons, using hypothetical examples. jp×g🗯️ 05:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

But is this really a systemic issue that needs policy change, or a rare thing that can be handled on a case by case basis? All we can do is apply WP:NPOV in each instance. I don't see how any blanket rule is going to change that. If there is a question to be asked, it would be: Does the lead image in the far-right politics page factually and neutrally represent the topic, and I don't see why that discussion can't happen on that talk page first. If you call yourself "far right" and some "bad" people are called "far right" by the sources, and we cover each topic neutrally, then we have done our job. I'm not sure a hypothetical discussion is helpful when we already have real examples. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the other photographs on the Far-right politics page - would it do any harm to move the Charlottesville photograph down to the United States section and replace it with the photograph of G. H. W. Bush shaking hands with Pinochet? Daveosaurus (talk) 11:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean there's few far-right figures from the second half of the 20th century more notable than Pinochet. Simonm223 (talk) 11:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, these are decisions to be made on that article talk page, not BLPN. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Giulia Jones

• Giulia Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm looking for opinions on recent edits at this article. Am I out of touch with current standards or are the edits by LocalCbrHero1988 (talk · contribs) undue attacks? Johnuniq (talk) 04:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree the additions were probably inappropriate. One does not cite a BLP article to facebook, for one. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

(same person as the 2804:.. IPv6s who edited that article) The facebook-cited sentence was already in the article, they didn't add that. Their additions were <these> – 143.208.236.229 (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

As Johnuniq knows, there was even worse stuff from the same editor at Peter Cain (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [7]. And generally, we should expect some nonsense for ACT politicians given the 2024 Australian Capital Territory general election will be happening sometime in the next few months so might be good for editors to keep an eye on their articles. Nil Einne (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Cynthia Moss

The Wikipedia page for Cynthia J. Moss incorrectly shows my photo (Cynthia F. Moss), which should be replaced with a photo of Cynthia J. Moss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:4A86:CFC0:99CF:381E:4420:F706 (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I have removed the image from Cynthia Moss as it's clearly incorrect. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The essay Wikipedia:Don't build the Frankenstein is applicable to this situation, and is somewhat humorous. Wikipedia editors need to be very careful to avoid inflating different people who share the same or similar names. Cullen328 (talk) 04:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Anton Kikaš

As a casual wikipedia user i came across this article: Anton Kikaš. From my non-expert perspective, this article appears to be in violation of BPL (but will defer to this group who may know better). I've added comments to the talk page (section "Required Factual Corrections") about some factual correction and have made one obvious correction to the article myself.

Looking at the original talk comments by creator I wonder:

• whether this article should exist in the first place considering how poorly it is researched. Right now it does not serve as an accurate representation of what happened and is quite inaccurate.
• if there is a valid reason for it to exist, I question the label "Known for Arms smuggling" and other references throughout the article without supporting citations. Original author made conclusions regarding embargo based on a general sentence in a book which I corrected. Considering this is a BPL topic I'd like to bring to your attention that content as is may be libelous.

Sharing this information here so that a competent editor may consider the issue and address in accordance with wikipedia's practices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.188.131.251 (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Martin Nowak

Martin Nowak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a dispute at Martin Nowak over his widely reported relation with Jeffrey Epstein. Over the last year, all of the previous content on their relationship was steadily removed from the wikipage.

I recently restored it, and someone is removing it again, claiming BLP violations. I think the material is well sourced, easily verifiable, and appropriate for inclusion. It would be good to have extra viewpoints. Gumshoe2 (talk) 05:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it might be helpful if someone knowledgeable on BLP policy would comment on the talk page, the content remover seems to be awaiting direct feedback. Gumshoe2 (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The question may be, does that belong in the lede of the article, or in the body? Is the association so strong that the lede is diminished by it being moved to the body? I'm not sure, but at first glance, it seems including some of the material (but not in a stand alone header) would make sense. Based on his own book, I can see why referencing Epstein *might* make sense, but it is still a consensus issue. Getting consensus in the body is easier than the lead. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikilinks that make people look like jackoffs

I've seen a few people bring this sort of thing up over the last while -- I must confess I've forgotten which articles specifically, but it's happened enough times that I will just speak of it in a general sense.

What do we all think about the following phenomenon? Note that each individual step of this is compliant with all relevant policies.

1. Joe Smith is a politician/historian/commentator/pundit/activist/etc. This is cited to reliable sources.
2. Joe Smith is described, in the Wikipedia article, as "neo-purplist" or "far-mauve" or "forward-wing" or whatever. These labels are cited to reliable sources, which really do call him that thing.
3. The terms are wikilinked to their respective articles.
4. The articles about the terms ("neo-purplists" or "far-mauveism" or "up-wing politics") describe, broadly, the overall nature and activities of these ideologies and movements.

Again -- each of these steps is policy-compliant. However, they combine to produce a somewhat nasty result:

• Anybody who mouses over the word "up-wing politics" on Joe Smith's article gets a popup with a photo of up-wingers setting a pergola on fire.
• Anybody who decides to figure out what "neo-purplism" refers to will follow that link and read that neo-purplists believe in the transubstantiation of the Holy Pentinity etc etc.

This seems, to me, like the wikilinks cause our article to make (or at least heavily imply) all sorts of claims about Joe Smith that aren't supported by the sources. For all we know, Joe Smith is the bastion of the neo-purplist assembly's anti-Pentinitarian column, and he's the founder of the Up-Winger Pergola Respecters' Caucus.

Basically, our articles are written to describe central examples of a thing, rather than peripheral examples. To illustrate what I mean: Jesus of Nazareth, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Martin Luther were all outlaws (i.e. they all did things that were illegal, and were proscribed by the law as a result). But an article about outlaws, I hope you will agree, does not accurately convey information about what kind of guy Martin Luther was.

Is there anything we can do about this? To a first approximation, the most obvious thing would just be to avoid linking to labels like these in the leads of articles, although I'm not sure that this is the most effective strat. jp×g🗯️ 19:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, not anyone who mouses over -- I don't know whether it's a matter of platform or settings, but when I mouse over a wikilink, I don't get any picture in my pop-up, just the name of the page being linked to. And if such pictures are truly judged to be the problem, then I would prefer to eliminate pictures from pop-ups than to eliminate wikilinks. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like a visual preview feature. Safari has it on iOS (iPhone default). Other browsers may make it available by just hovering the mouse. Disabling the preview option would impact lots more than just a mouse hover. I use the iOS visual preview feature a lot for articles that I'm not sure if I want to bother opening. It's a time-saver. JFHJr (㊟) 22:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a similar discussion on the MOS:BIO page related to terms like "convicted felon" that I think is related here. In my opinion while there may be labels that are well supported by sources, we should never use those labels out of context, and instead to make sure we explain why said labels apply (briefly in the lede, expanded in the body). For example it should be sufficient to just say a politician is far right in the lede without any support (as to the point above, the far right page implies violence), but instead should be stated that the politician is characterized as far right for supporting segregation, anti immigrant, anti abortion, and pro gun rights (for example) as a quick summary in the lede. That way the reader should not necessary have to check the wiki link, and even if they do the short context gives them ideas what to read on that page. — Masem (t) 20:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

We have good guidance at WP:LABEL. It would be nice if editors adhered to it. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Two further thoughts:

1. We should consider the guidance at WP:NONDEF. It is written for categories, but since terms in the lead serve to define the subject, we should ensure they really are defining terms. It’s not enough that several sources call a subject neo-purplist, they should be commonly and consistently labelled as such.

2. Some terms serving as condemnatory labels have been so politically useful as weapons that their wielders have sought to creep the definition wider and wider so as to capture more rhetorical ground. The result is that the terms become less and less meaningful. Our article on far-right tells us that all you need to be far-right is to hold “aspects of … reactionary views”, which covers a vast spectrum. Terms like this are semantically dead, worn out from overuse, which is a shame because they used to mean something. When everybody is far-right, nobody is. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

It is more important to be accurate than to be nice. If reliable sources predominantly describe X as Y, then so should we. Zaathras (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you Masem. An article should be written like wikilinks didn't exist. It's so frustrating when you come across a word, and all you want to know is what it means, yet no article you come across will give a straight answer without clicking more links. You just fall down the rabbit hole never to return, and never to learn anything. That's especially a problem in technical and scientific articles. Any article should be able to define its own subject without disrupting the cohesion or flow, and without needing to click on a link to find out what the hell its talking about.

The same is true with a bio. Masem's way defines the term with context, whereas relying on the link is really giving the reader no information at all, unless they decide to click on the link. We didn't have anything like that back in the day, so that's one of those new problems introduced by technology. Zaereth (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zaathras: I would appreciate if you read the post before responding to it. Nowhere did I come even remotely close to proposing or claiming that labels in BLPs should be removed -- literally the only issue I have raised is whether they should be wikilinked (i.e. the section title is "wikilinks that make people look like jackoffs", not "words that make people look like jackoffs"). jp×g🗯️ 03:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Never said labels should be removed. If the label is absolutely called for by reliable sources as an oft-way to describe the person, and the body goes into significant detail with sourcing about that, then its likely appropriate for the lede. Just that is needs to be given context, and not simply laid bare with nothing else around it. That typically means how to write the lede appropriately but certainly not eliminating labels that belong in the lede. Masem (t) 03:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if you're replying to me, Masem, but if so, neither did I. My point is similar to one I made just moments earlier at the Kelvin article, where the definition was basically, "A temperature scale based on absolute zero" followed by a lot of very technical jargon. What if the reader doesn't know what absolute zero is? Poof, we've lost them down the rabbit hole. And if they have to click another link to find out what that means, they may never find their way back. Terminology and jargon are very useful if properly used, but there's no reason we can't give a brief explanation of the term right there in mid-sentence, or, alternatively, make the definition of the term evident through context. The latter is basically what you did in your comment above, which works beautifully, especially since "far right" is a term that has no clear-cut meaning, thus context is everything. I'm not advocating eliminating all labels from the lede, nor even eliminating wikilinks, but in that wikilinks should not be used as a crutch to avoid a little hard work. The lede, and hell, even the entire article, but especially the lede should be readable --in it's entirety-- to the general reader without ever having to click on a link. Zaereth (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

There was just previously a discussion about MTG along this line. The discussion is still visible and live on this page. How would you apply your position to that example? De-wl "right-wing" because the target is overbroad and presents undue weight by its mere linking? I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but a concrete example of applying your ideas would be helpful to me. JFHJr (㊟) 21:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a "position" and I do not really care about the specific politician in question, who seems like some kind of unremarkable whackadoodle.

I figured I would open a thread and see what people thought about the general thing, because I remember a similar complaint being made a while ago (about a different person, and -- if this helps calm everybody's indigestion -- I believe they were a lefty).

Maybe it is just unavoidable, or it's not that big of a deal, or maybe somebody has a clever idea that avoids the issue altogether (suppressing the page image in the popup may be such a clever idea). jp×g🗯️ 03:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it's unavoidable. What's sad is far-left politics lacks any images at all to get angry over previews. The mouseover > the Mao'sover. Perhaps someone should just add a few blood pressure raising images near the lede there for balance. JFHJr (㊟) 03:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't really help with the central issue, but I added |class=notpageimage to the lede image at far-right politics, which should (in theory) hide it from the WP:PAGEPREVIEWS popup. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

That's a good idea. It hasn't immediately worked. Maybe it takes time? If any technically able admin is able to provide a fix, I can provide screenshots from 4 operating systems with different browsers, by email. If someone is savvy enough to fix preview displays, they might not need them though. JFHJr (㊟) 02:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, this won't change the WP:POPUPS preview, only the mw:Page Previews that are shown by default. WP:POPUPS is used by "power users" who have some understanding about how the Wikipedia sausage is made, and anyway the image is tiny, so I don't think it's a problem. Are you still seeing the preview image while logged out? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

No difference logged in or out. On the mobile preview, the image is actually quite clear, centered. The desktop preview on mobile, and my actual desktop both show the image off-center and only partially visible. I'm amenable to considering this a non-issue at BLPN and let any sausage-savvy admins who care to take this up have at it. JFHJr (㊟) 04:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Curbon7 (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Clyde Drexler Gramatical Error

Clyde Drexler

Potential error in the opening section of Drexler's biography. Cites Drexler as a varsity baseball player as a sophomore, with an additional clause attached explaining he tried out for varsity yet missed the cut. This, to me, is misleading as it practically contradicts what was explained within the same sentence. I would edit it myself, but I don't have access to the referenced text and do not want to mislead readers by correcting a grammatical error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeppiK (talk • contribs) 20:40 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Here is the quote from the article, in the "early years" section at the top of his page: "As a sophomore, he made the varsity baseball team, and tried out for the basketball team but failed to make the cut."

There's no issue here. The sentence talks about two different sports: it says that he was on the varsity baseball team, but not the basketball team. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear when he made his high school varsity basketball debut or if he only played for them his senior year. I should try to look this up. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Naseem Hamed

No solutions either at EWN or ANI, so my next avenue is to bring this dispute here because it concerns BLP and RS.

User:ActionHeroesAreReal mistakenly insists on Naseem Hamed being labelled as British-Yemeni. Hamed was born in the UK, is a British national, has never lived in Yemen (from where his parents hail), is not notable for his ethnicity, and has only ever competed under a British boxing licence. User chooses to ignore all the relevant BLP lead section guidelines including MOS:ETHNICITY, MOS:IDENTITY, and MOS:FIRSTBIO. If Hamed is to be labelled as British-Yemeni, then by the same logic G Hannelius should be American-Swedish, Rishi Sunak should be British-Indian, and Humza Yousaf should be Scottish-Pakistani. We know it just doesn't work like that on WP.

User has brought up entertainment sites as sources – [8], [9] – but the inclusion of those fails NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, as there are numerous RS of actual boxing expertise which correctly label him as solely British: "Few British boxers", "first British fighter", "British boxing legend", "British fighter's career", "most successful British boxer of all time", "British boxing prince", "the Brit".

I don't believe DR is necessary because rather than a content dispute, this is a clearcut case of a user not understanding the above guidelines as it relates to BLP. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

From memory, these disputes have traditionally been resolved through discussion or RFC on the talk page. MOS:ETHNICITY does control the discussion, but neither version would be BLP violations. Is he a Yemeni citizen? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

He appears to have been born a citizen of Yemen (unofficial translation for reader convenience. It adheres well to the original Arabic, IMO). In cases like this, where nationality actually is incident parents' nationality, it's important to reflect reliable sources' terming, as well as the subject's own (if any can be found). Neutrally, he's a British citizen of Yemeni parentage. Including parentage in the lede is unusual. His ethnicity is unstated (Yemen is multi-ethnic). JFHJr (㊟) 22:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the subject clearly prefers both nationalities, per non-self-serving Instagram imagery. See the article talk page for details. JFHJr (㊟) 22:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Variety is not a reliable source for BLPs and should be removed. I'd do it, but the page is locked for now. JFHJr (㊟) 22:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I've reminded of the case of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive355#Laufey (singer). MOS:ETHNICITY does suggest it should be British etc in such cases, but I do wonder whether we should really go against most sources and the subject's apparent preferences. That said, I'm not sure whether this is the case for Naseem Hamed. Nil Einne (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Then there is also the Rina Sawayama example which showed how convoluted this is.[10][11] RSes continue to call her British even though she did not hold UK citizenship. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources can indeed say/repeat errors. That's not the only factor in separating them from sources that just are not reliable. Editorial oversight, independence, and the like are just as important. And your point is a good topic for WP:RSN. But at BLPN we get to weigh how important article content is, biographically speaking. And we get to remove WP:UNDUE text for being factually incorrect or presented without accurate context, regardless of whether the source is reliable. The source can be reliable while editorial consensus casts doubt on any particular prose as undue. JFHJr (㊟) 01:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I find it questionable to say it's an error. I mean some of the sources may very well incorrectly think she's a UK citizen which would be an error. But in the case of Rina Sawayama, it's such a big deal, that it seems clear many sources continue to call her British despite being fully aware she is not a citizen. Heck I'm sure you can find sources that said something like "A hashtag in support of British singer Rina Sawayama who is ineligible for the BRIT award as she is not a citizen" or otherwise called her British while saying she was not a citizen in the exact same article. In which case the only way you can say the source was confused about her citizenship is if you can think their editors and writers are so crap they didn't notice they were talking about her not being a citizen which frankly is nonsense. The source was clearly aware that she wasn't a citizen and made the conscious choice to call her British despite that. I mean the whole point of the #SawayamaIsBritish hashtag is surely because most of these people are aware that she's not a citizen, otherwise the hashtag would have been something like #StopBeingRacist (since if she was a UK citizen but still excluded from the BRIT Awards for not being British, the exclusion would have a much different vibe). I don't see why we as editors get to accuse sources of errors just because we disagree with their definition of nationality or in particular, "Britishness". Even if we want to use a different definition on Wikipedia, that doesn't make other definitions "errors" but simply other definitions that seem perfectly reasonable in the wider spectrum of how you define nationality, or "Britishness" in particular. (And of course we know complicated British can be since some people reject that label despite being UK citizens and only UK citizens in terms of places with independent statehood. These people may instead call themselves Scottish etc. Some people will insist they must be called British despite this but it's fairly common that sources will again consciously support their decision to reject that label and not label them as such.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

IMO, the case of Shamima Begum presents a bright line for disregarding the views of the subject on this matter: a citable juridical or administrative decision that denies said nationality. Then they're only X-born, for example. Otherwise, the views and statements of subjects about their own nationality or ethnicity should take top order. Reliable sources help, but WP:BLPSPS are non-self-serving in matters of such basic nature. It's in the same bucket with birthdays. JFHJr (㊟) 01:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

To summarise, does self-identification via social media always trump secondary sources—even if numerous—or is it case by case? In the case of Hamed, we have two unreliable sources in the form of entertainment publications with no expertise in the subject's field (boxing), plus him self-identifying as British-Yemeni on social media. That stands in contrast to the seven secondary sources I provided above which label him solely as British, all of which can be considered reliable as it relates to boxing. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Case by case, mostly. What's important for the reader to understand the subject? There's a big difference between citizenship, nationality, and ethnicity. Sometimes they overlap, but there are significant distinctions. A citizen is part of a particular country. A national belongs to a particular nation, which is different from the country. For example, I have friends who are American citizens, but their nationality is Inupiaq or Athabaskan. Those nations are within the US, but separate from it. Ethnicity is more related to family lineage or where your DNA came from. The US is both my nation and country, yet my ancestors came from Britain, but the only ethnic British are the Britons (today called the Welsh). My ethnicity is actually Viking, who partly colonized Britain. Ethnicity itself seems like an unnecessary thing for the lede is most instances, unless there's some reason for it to be mentioned that early on. Nationality is similar, albeit maybe a little higher on the list of things that may be necessary. Citizenship is the really important thing, as in, where is this person from? But that differs from person to person so it has to be on a case by case basis. In this particular case, what benefit for the reader does one choice provide over the other? Or why is one worse than the other? Zaereth (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Case by case in every case. Find how a subject's own statements square with RS, and make an editorial decision. They're not always mutually exclusive even if they say different nationalities (eg, additional ones, only one, or only the most relevant). JFHJr (㊟) 01:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

How, then, does this tally up with MOS:ETHNICITY, specifically: "... country, region, or territory where the person is currently a national or permanent resident" and "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability." I maintain he is notable primarily for his boxing career contested almost entirely in the UK, and not his Yemeni heritage. It absolutely has its place in Early life, but should not in the lead any more than Stipe Miocic should be labelled as American-Croatian. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

That is true of the lede. The wider BLP discussion has been regarding how to factually state his nationality at all. But for the lede, yes, what you just referred to is correct. JFHJr (㊟) 02:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

One problem is that people tend to conflate the nation with the state (see Nationalism), and the policy doesn't get that deep into the distinctions. The country or state is the land controlled by a particular government. A nation is "a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory." A great example is Palestine and Israel. Two nations in one state. What the policy is saying as that the most important thing we can tell the reader is where the hell on Earth is Waldo. Whether he's Irish or not is a far lesser concern... in his case at least. For Martin Luther King Jr., ethnicity is an important factor because it's very much central to understanding him and his struggle. For my Alaska Native friends, nationality is far more important to understanding their subsistence lifestyles, but nationality and ethnicity overlap greatly in their case whereas in my case they don't. (As a nation, the US is united only by common language and territory, not religion or ethnicity.) So the real conundrum is trying to answer the question of how it helps or hurts the reader's understanding, because both are reliably sourced. Zaereth (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Elliott Broidy

I changed the opening lead sentence from "Elliott B. Broidy... is a disgraced former American lobbyist..." to "Elliott B. Broidy... is an American former lobbyist..." to comply with (my understanding of) WP:BLP. Editor @Mereutza: reverted that change with the edit summary "revert UPE". I manually reverted to the neutral language opening again. FWIW, I'm not a UPE, but even if I was, this POV and disparaging description in a BLP is not appropriate. I'd like a few eyes on this, because in my mind "disgraced" is completely POV. --164.64.118.99 (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

It is never appropriate to lead a BLP with a loaded POV term like "disgraced". It's also inappropriate to accuse someone of UPE without some evidence. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Hmm perhaps this is a pattern. Yesterday they removed 5,735 bytes from Yodo1 with the summary "UPE". Perhaps they are unaware of what UPE means? --164.64.118.99 (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that as well. It appears that the content that was removed from Yodo1 was put there by a confirmed sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sjutt. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Mohammed Elshamy

May I submit a piece of information about this individual? He resigned from CNN because of anti-Semitic tweets. https://nypost.com/2019/07/26/cnn-photo-editor-resigns-after-anti-semitic-tweets-unearthed/ I am simply making a report. I leave it to the editors whether they want to add this to Mohammed Elshamy's page. Garyfreedman1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyfreedman1 (talk • contribs) 15:46 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Probably not with that source, see WP:NYPOST. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Our page on Mohammed Elshamy makes no mention of CNN. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Barry Trachtenberg

I am wondering why there is a page for this person. The only thing listed is that he ac history professor at wake forest and once testified to congress. Many other professors at this school are far more accomplished (more important scholars, government service, multiple patents) and to not have a Wikipedia page. In what way is this an important person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.138.197.172 (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Greetings. It sounds like you're looking for Articles for Deletion. We don't delete things here. Please also see our general notability guidelines as well as WP:SCHOLAR, which apply to academics and the like. JFHJr (㊟) 21:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

As for why other professors, possibly more accomplished, do not have Wikipedia biographies. that is because nobody has yet volunteered to write those articles. You could be the one. Please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress. Cullen328 (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)