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.

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)

@Zaereth: Thank you for the response! You are correct in your reading of this section.

In my original request I thought it best to remove this section in its entirety rather than rename it. This is because the information itself does not seem appropriate for a biography about Šolak because it is about a business he owns as a minority shareholder, that owns the media that broke the story about the investigation. Also because he is not the main target or focus but one of many in this alleged corruption scandal. To put it simply, the misconduct is not about Šolak.

Please let me know if I can provide further clarity. AlexforUnited (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I can see a good argument for removing it entirely, as it seems to be solely about the company and doesn't really mention the subject's involvement in any way. Of course, the section also isn't in any way negative towards the subject but more so toward the government agency, so a little rephrasing and a new title could make that more clear as well. I could see it going either way. Zaereth (talk) 04:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zaereth: I see what you are saying about rewording. I am currently presenting deletion over rewording because even if the language was different, the content is still not pertinent to Dragan Šolak. However, if you think rewording might be better perhaps I can present some language for you to review. Other editors can weigh in here but I maintain deletion is the most appropriate option and I would need other editors to do it on my behalf due to my conflict of interest

Please let me know if you have any more thoughts. AlexforUnited (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm teetering on the fence, so I don't have much of an opinion either way. This answer is going to be a little long, so bear with me here. I can't read the sources in question, so it's really hard for me to speak on the specifics. This should be discussed by people who can read the sources fluently and properly judge their reliability and weight.

WP:Due weight and WP:BALANCE are probably the two main things I see as a possible issue right off the bat. We should apportion information in the article by the same prominence they have in reliable sources. It's sort of like if we weigh all the sources on a scale, with sources containing this particular information on the other side of the scale. How much space in the article does it deserve. Right now, we're at over 40% of the article devoted to this one thing.

Is that fair? I don't know. We have quite a large selection of sources for a very small article, which seems fishy to me. (Not that it means something's wrong, but begs the question of why we need so many to support so few words.) But how do they compare to those sources used for this one section? We have to measure not only the length of each article, but how much of that article is devoted to any info it's supporting in our article. We also have to factor in the weight given by the source itself, because all sources are not equal. (For example, a book by a reputable publisher on astrophysics would carry more weight for info about supernovas than a pop-culture magazine or a newspaper.)

See what I mean? It needs to be determined by people who can fluently read the sources. Does it deserve almost 50% of the article? 20%? 10%? Anything less would be smaller than a single sentence, so maybe it doesn't deserve to be in the article at all? I could see easily summarizing it down to a sentence or two. There's really no point in having a section that's less that three paragraphs long, so all of this could easily be worked into the timeline of the "career" section without subdividing it into subsections, and that would eliminate the section title. Sometimes breaking things into sections can create an imbalance in and of itself, because it gives it more prominence than it deserves by walling it off under a catchy headline. Those are the things I suggest you look into and focus on, but it really has to be decided by people who can read and are familiar with all the sources. For the original question you asked here, however, yes, I think the section title is misleading and should be dealt with one way or the other. Zaereth (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zaereth: Thank you for this very well thought out explanation! It is very helpful. AlexforUnited (talk) 06:20, 16 May 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)

You could always drop nationality / citizenship from the first sentence, does it have to be shoehorned into the first sentence of every BLP? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. Some editors seem obsessed with pinning national labels onto people and it's often not simple or significant. In this case, she has Belorussian, English, Scottish and Polish heritage but the main adjective I would attach to her off the top of my head is Jewish. See this recent Vogue profile which variously describes her as a "British eccentric ... Jewish lesbian ... illustrious thespian ... raunchy raconteur". Australia doesn't come into it and that seems more a connection of her partner. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

She's an Australian citizen and resident. BoldGnome (talk) 02:35, 16 May 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.[1] [2] [3] 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)

I've stricken the sockupppet OP. The socks edited living academics' articles. Any additional eyes to review and revert the socks' edit histories would be greatly helpful. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 21:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The socks created Conrad Hughes – are either Conrad or Michael's articles encyclopedic? I think they don't look it, and I know this isn't AfD. But both look like a BLP sock turd to me. Anyone here into academiacs have an opinion? JFHJr (㊟) 21:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

If sock-puppets and non-existent or unreliable citations are necessary to establish the pages, then the subjects, by definition, are not notable. 174.197.71.135 (talk) 06:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The Hughes page was created shortly after the two subjects participated in a symposium together. Like Aeschliman, there do not appear to be any reliable secondary sources for Hughes. Both pages reply on the same group of socks. 174.197.71.135 (talk) 06:54, 15 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 – [4], [5] – 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.[6][7] 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)

My problem with the current (locked) edition of the lead persists because of the hyphenation in particular. To call him British-Yemeni in WP's voice indicates to the reader that he is a citizen of both, even though "Including parentage in the lede is unusual" per User:JFHJr. Granted, we're going case by case, but is this case really that much of an outlier that we break with WP convention? Again, I bring up my seven RS provided above, which overwhelmingly describe him as British. His Yemeni heritage obviously need not be diminished, which is what Early life is for—just not the lead. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

He should be described as "British" only, per MOS:ETHNICITY. GiantSnowman 14:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

If he was born in the United Kingdom & has lived 'only' in the United Kingdom. Then, use "British". Otherwise, we'd be saying he lives in Yemen. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Whoever has responded, please weigh in at the article talk page so that a consensus can be formed. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Simon_Ekpa#Nationalist_or_Separatist_in_Wiki-voice

Somewhat confused discussion about calling a living person separatist, nationalist, or both. If you can help, please do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Does any RS say "nationalist"? If so, does the implicit "nation" exist in a way that enjoys international recognition? If not, the subject is a separatist, as RS appear to state currently. The TP comment and line of reasoning only predecessors were separatist, considering the separation a fait accompli and subsequent activists "nationalist", either refers some wonderful unshared RS, or reflects a heaping spoonful of original research. JFHJr (㊟) 17:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting! I intended this post as a WP:APPNOTE, hoping for people to join the existing discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Fine, I'll port my comment. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 17:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

The same POV editing is occurring on the Biafra page regarding living person Simon Ekpa and the organization he founded and merely named "government in exile," and himself the org's "prime minister." WP:BLP content fork against consensus on Talk:Simon Ekpa. Any additional eyes on both articles would be appreciated! JFHJr (㊟) 20:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Operation Trojan Shield

Not sure about this, but as I have a COI anyway I thought it would be better to raise it here. At Operation Trojan Shield in the "see also" section we have a link to courtlistener.com, which lists details regarding cases of a small number of people accused through Operation Trojan Shield. It is only US cases, of which there were comparatively few, but it has the names of the accused in those cases. I don't know about where we sit with linking to court records, especially where the cases themselves are not discussed, although either way it shouldn't really be under "see also". I raised it on talk here. Any thoughts? - Bilby (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed all the court docs from the article per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Such sources should be removed on sight, regardless of any COI. Zaereth (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

That article is NOT a Biography, it is about a police operation. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLP policies and guidelines and even humor pages all apply wherever a living person is named. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 01:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. See the previous discussion here. (Different operation but same principles apply.) Zaereth (talk) 04:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Michael Meldman

Hi - I'm looking for help updating the Michael Meldman article. Mr. Meldman is now the Founder and Chairman (not CEO) as Brett White was appointed CEO in early 2022. Also the article repeatedly refers to "Casamigos tequila" but the company name is "Casamigos Tequila" (upper case "T"). Finally, based on the IRS 990 forms the Discovery Land Foundation has contributed over $30 Million since 2007, which may be material to that section of the article.

Disclosure - I am a paid contractor for the Discovery Land Company, and would greatly appreciate any help in getting the article updated. If there is another forum or format that would work better, please let me know.

Scoot Henderson

The sentence "Henderson has achieved two of the three worst single-game plus-minus totals (-56 & -58) in NBA history." is very negative but I think it would be appropriate to add it to the WP:LEAD of this WP:BLP. It should be noted that this statistic has only been fully tracked since 1996, so maybe the phrase NBA history should be tweaked. Advice?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Currently the body of the article doesn't even say that. And judging by the cited source it would be at best misleading: Henderson's -56 is not outright the third-worst plus-minus total in NBA history; it is matched by Miles Bridges. So he really has two out of the four worst. I don't know enough about basketball to have an opinion on whether this is an important statistic to include in the lead, but if you do, I suggest you phrase it as something like "In March 2024, Henderson broke the record for the lowest single-game plus-minus total in NBA history". Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Also matched by Jeremiah Robinson-Earl according to Basketnews.com (Not related to Basket News, aka Basketnews.net).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Do the weight of the sources justify its inclusion in the lead or do you just think it's important? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)]]

Reviewing the sources, Yardbarker and Defector Media, I'm not sure if these sports blog support inclusion in the article much less the lead. Where is the mention in mainstream sports sites like ESPN and SI or newspapers? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• plus-minus is an unusual statistic for basketball. In other sports (especially hockey) it is a widely respected statistic. For basketball it is an important enough statistic that it became a part of official box scores in 2007. However, for most basketball experts, adjusted plus-minus statistics like real plus-minus, box plus-minus or estimated plus-minus are considered more indicative of individual performance. However, raw plus-minus is the one in box scores. The statistic does not get a lot of press, so his record is not covered in mainstream sports sites. Other less important sports sites cover these stories such as ClutchPoints does here, where they are kind enough to note that "single game plus-minus is not indicative of a player's talent level or their impact on the floor for the long-term". NBC Sports rushed the story without the correct numbers. Above I mentioned Basketnews.com.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I realize I am talking about 2 different performances as "the story". Both events had additional press is the point.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
• P.S. the reason that other forms of plus-minus are viewed as better is that they isolate the player from other players that he often plays with. Draymond Green set the single-season all-time record in a season where Steph Curry and Klay Thompson also had among the all time best season totals. Plus-minus evaluates scoring differential at times when you are playing, but does not account for the fact that often times the certain players often play with other players. E.g., starters often play together so their own plus-minus might actually reflect the abilities of other starters as much as their own. However, no one really makes this point about other statistics. No one says a guy who gets a lot of assists did so because he had a lot of great shooters and we should adjust his stats or a great shooter got a lot of points because he had a great point guard (e.g. John Stockton and Karl Malone). Food for thought.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand the statistics. However, is it WP:DUE to report? The sources are not significant. NBC Sports presented it as a roto note while basketnews is a little known site out of Lithuania. Clutchpoint is a clickbait sports site. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't each of those count as an WP:RS.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes for NBC Sports, but you also have to consider the WP:WEIGHT of what is presented. Clutchpoints is not RS while basketnews's reliablity is unknown but its significance is little. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

What about the original sources Yardbarker and Defector Media?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I already mentioned they were sports blogs. Also.[8][9] Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

A related guideline is MOS:BLPLEAD:

The lead section should summarise with due weight the life and works of the person

Generally single-game stats don't define a player, short of record that you'd reasonably expect to see in one's obituary, like Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game. Moreover, +/- is a recent advanced statistic for the NBA. And this hasn't even touched on that this is a negative portrayal of Henderson. —Bagumba (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

What about its removal entirely from the article?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

While it was on NBCSports, it was from their fantasy pages. Im ok if its not mentioned. —Bagumba (talk) 12:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Let me clarify here. Above we are discussing two events.

Henderson posted a -56 on January 11 (a 3-way tie for 2nd worst all-time at the time)

1. https://defector.com/the-nba-is-the-best-at-showing-us-the-worst
2. https://clutchpoints.com/blazers-news-the-mind-blowing-scoot-henderson-stat-from-62-point-loss-to-thunder
3. https://basketnews.com/news-200121-scoot-henderson-ties-for-second-worst-plusminus-all-time-vs-thunder.html

Henderson posted a -58 on March 29 (a new all-time record)

1. https://www.yardbarker.com/nba/articles/blazers_rookie_sets_hideous_record_in_blowout_loss/s1_13132_40174214
2. https://www.nbcsports.com/fantasy/basketball/player-news?playerNewsId=0000018e-8d96-d14e-a9be-cf966edc0000 (wrong number -55 in article)

• I am hearing that current sourcing may not support inclusion. I am digging further into this issue. Here is what I have found. Personally, I consider SB Nation to be a very good source. I use it a lot often on a standalone basis as being sufficient without any other support. They cover the March game twice at least in the following stories [10] (also mentions the January game but incorrectly points to -57) and [11] (also discusses a derivative stat called cumulative plus/minus). I don't use Sportsnet a lot but they also mention the March fiasco [12]. I have never heard of Givemesport.com which notes that he is the only player with two game of -55 or worse in this, but they may very well be a WP:RS. Yahoo! Sports mentions the March game at [13]. I think Sportando.basketball is regarded as a RS and they mention the March event at [14]
• I don't usually include foreign language sources, but Henderson's P/M is an international story. The January event was covered in German. The March event was covered in Italian.
• There were also a bunch of social media mentions and memes of the stories Jan at [15] and March at [16], [17] and [18].
• I think if I kept digging I could find more sources as well-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Please review WP:SOURCES and WP:RSOPINION and explain why you believe those SB Nation articles are appropriate to establish facts and WEIGHT when they are littered with opinions and words like "ignominious", "underwhelmed", and "stupendous". Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Although SB Nation is a publisher of articles that might be classified as blogs, it has been a great basketball and football source for reliable facts for years for me. I have never really given much thought to the official policy guidelines. Their articles often have lots of facts that end up checking out. As a publisher, I find them to be among those "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Their articles seem to be prominent in search results, which likely speaks toward their reliability. A WP world in which they are not a valid WP:RS would surely be a world in which the quality of my articles is reduced because they often have the best coverage of certain types of fact. The consideration at issue here is an example of them having the best coverage of a fact.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Their articles seem to be prominent in search results, which likely speaks toward their reliability. Tony, come on. Wikipedia's articles are prominent in search results, and they certainly aren't reliable sources. "Prominent in search results" is a very bad proxy for reliability, and you have been on Wikipedia for long enough that you should be well aware of that fact. It increasingly sounds as though you have decided what you want the lead of Scoot Henderson to say and are just looking for sources which justifies you in doing the thing you have already decided you want, which is precisely the opposite of how we should be writing articles on Wikipedia, especially ones about living people. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Typically, when we have a questionable topic the instruction is to identify credible sources. I've been rying to say what sources say not what I want. User:Caeciliusinhorto, you seem to be making your determination of whether it is a reliable source based on whether I can describe it as one. I rely heavily on WP:RSN. Whether a source is an RS is not in my expertise. SB Nation seems to have the traditional editorial process for each franchise. What I mean by prominent in search results is that many people seem to regard them as credible. The fact that I don't know whether something is an RS is not a statement that it is not. Clearly, ranking in search results is not how we determine reliability/verifiability. We evaluate the editorial rigor and the credibility of the source. The point is not whether I can explain why I view SB Nation as an RS. The issue is whether they are one. You should stop trying to point out whether I have explained it and look to whether they are an RS, which has never been a problem in past use. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_410#SB_Nation-staffed_sports_editorial_blogs and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#Is_it_appropriate_to_use_SBNation_as_a_reference? seem to be indeterminate on the issue.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

You guys keep picking off sources as if they are in isolation. Here is what we have:

1. January 11 -56: Defector Media ([19]), ClutchPoints ([20]), Basketnews.com ([21]), Yardbarker ([22]), Sportsnet ([23]), SB Nation ([24], mentions -57), Sportando.basketball ([25]), Givemesport.com ([26]), German language spox.com/de ([27]), Italian language basketuniverso.it ([28])
2. March 29 -58: Yardbarker ([29]), NBC Sports ([30], mentions -55), Sportsnet ([31]), SB Nation ([32]), SB Nation ([33]), Yahoo! Sports ([34]), Sportando.basketball ([35]), Givemesport.com ([36]), Italian language basketuniverso.it ([37])-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• User:Morbidthoughts You never opined about this subject's coverage in Sportsnet ([38]), Yahoo! Sports ([39]), Sportando.basketball ([40]) and Givemesport.com (this).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Sportsnet is a WP:RSOPINION editorial article. Yahoo Sports is dependent on who they syndicate from. In that case it shows Rookie Wire which is part of USA Today so that should be okay. Givemesports is a sports tabloid. Don't know anything about Sportsnando, and that is a problem for WP:WEIGHT. It's not clear if they take user submissions for articles. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I do often rely on USA Today.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Do the two international sources merit discussion?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't follow much sports, and definitely not basketball, so I haven't really followed this discussion very much, but since it's still going on I decided to take a deeper look. I had to go do some serious research to find out what the hell plus/minus means, because it sounds so self-contradicting. In math, plus and minus are opposites and therefore cancel each other out, so it comes off to an outsider like me as gibberish. The article should not be written for just sports fans, so if included then we should explain what it means for the average reader.

But is it important? Simply relying on the number of sources for due weight can often come off as clumsy and lead to poor understanding for the reader. Quite often, a little editorial judgment needs to come into play when writing an article. Certain information is essential for the reader to understand a subject and other information is often mere trivia, and there's an entire spectrum in between. Due weight is more helpful for weeding out the good trivia from the bad, but the essentials are essential no matter what. For example, in an article about energy it's essential to explain force and work, because one cannot exist without the other two, but it's a far more trivial detail to include that energy is used to ride a bicycle. Summarizing something --by definition-- means cutting out trivial details and boiling it down to the essentials.

So, in researching just how important a plus/minus stat is, I found this source from ESPN which seems to explain it rather well. "Plus/minus looks at a team's point differential when a player is on the floor compared with when he's not. In theory, this is a clever way to measure not just a player's scoring but something media types love: the so-called intangibles.... So what's the issue? Well, a player's plus/minus score bounces around a lot from night to night, so you can't use it to evaluate a guy after just a few appearances. "You look at a partial season of plus/minus and you can't tell if a guy is Patrick Ewing or Keith Bogans," says one NBA GM. The stat is hugely influenced by other players on the court too. Chris Bosh plays with two future Hall of Famers, so his plus/minus looks great. John Wall's Wizards routinely get crushed, so his looks awful."

From that source, it seems the stat is rather meaningless when talking about an individual player over a single game, because it relies just as much on the team's performance as it does the player's. Where it becomes valuable is when players are evaluated against each other over an entire season; to determine which players work best when paired with other players. On its own, however, it's something the media types love because it gives something to cheer or boo about but in reality doesn't tell much about an individual player, especially over a single game, so it can also be rather misleading to those who don't know better.

Should it be in the article? Probably, but does that mean it should be in the lede? The lede should be a summary of the body, just touching on all the most important aspects of the subject. It's a summary of a summary. So, before even considering whether it should be in the lede, I would want to see it in the body first. From there it's fairly easy to determine, just by how prominently it stands out in the body, if it is important enough to summarize in the lede. Anyhow, that's the way I'd approach it, so I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• I am no longer trying to determine its suitability for the WP:LEAD. However, I am trying to confirm that it is appropriate to restore the content to the main body. If so, I am trying to understand what sources are most well regarded.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Cameron Stewart

Cameron Stewart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There was edit war which I thought was resolved (discussion at talk page along with posts at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring & Wikipedia:Requests for page protection resulting in 1 month of page protection) but an uninvolved editor who is also the manager of Multiversity Comics (industry outlet) posted an email they received which requests they take down an article for defamation reasons in part because the Cameron Stewart wiki article was using it as a source ("Your website continues to disseminate the defamatory statements which are false, malicious, and damaging. They have gained widespread exposure through a Wikipedia article citing your website as a source, exacerbating the harm caused by these falsehoods"). I'm not entirely sure if this is the right noticeboard to flag this but it seemed super sketchy (as if the edit war wasn't heading in the direction they wanted so now they're going after the sources directly). Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Peter Sotos

Peter Sotos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I came across this from the discussion above. The subject seems to have primarily come to attention because of his involvement in a shocking crime many years ago. Since then he's had a career in related areas which while not illegal where he lives (I assume), has garnered further controversy. Coverage of this sort of stuff seems the make up the majority of secondary sources yet the article has a long list of his works not all of which I think received such coverage. I'm also concerned about linking people to him [41] when there's no evidence these people's commentary of him received any secondary sources coverage. Some of this like the Bruce Benderson might be reliable secondary sources themselves so could perhaps be fine to use as sources on the subject and in that case it would probably be okay to mention Benderson, but not IMO when it's just Benderson analysed this person's work. While I'm sure these people willing associate with the subject or his works, it seems undue to mention it to me. I also wonder about the list of people who have described him as an influence which I did not remove. Do we really normally do that based only on primary sources? I just cannot imagine we'd say in the Taylor Swift article (notable) Youtuber X has described Swift as an influence based only on an interview. Perhaps it might be okay to include it in the article on Youtuber X. (Likewise I'm not so worried about people Sotos has called an influence in his article, I mean that is only a BLP issue for Sotos if anything.) Nil Einne (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

A quick note that this article has a lot to clean up for an editor in the mood to do so. POV, dead references, unreferenced material, and so forth. I whacked a couple things already, but life is full. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Chuck Blazer

Chuck Blazer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Eyes at this article welcome - @Szankoed: keeps changing the subject's wife's name from the name given in the source cited to her married name. I have reverted and explained why we follow the sources but they are edit warring. GiantSnowman 17:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The family is requesting anonymity. Hence the edits. Szankoed (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Is her name really important per WP:BLPNAME given the sourcing is WP:VICE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, her name is very important per WP:BLPNAME. There are only eight people with that surname in the entire world. Using the maiden name effectively violates the family's privacy and their desire to create distance and anonymity. They are a private, non public family. Given the uniqueness of the surname, using it doxes the family.

The sport he is associated with has millions of fans. A sizable amount of hold very strong feelings about what he did and the repercussions of his actions. The more prevalent the publishing of his ex-wife's surname, the more the family becomes publicly associated with him and that increases the risk to their safety.

Yes, the surname was published in WP:VICE, but Wikipedia has a greater reach and more eyes due to its mission. Efforts are ongoing to remove that surname anywhere it is published to maintain the family's privacy and safety. Szankoed (talk) 00:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

You're not understanding the reason behind my question. Is having the name of his ex-wife that important to the article? Should her name just be removed outright? Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I can see no reason to name her at all. Per BLPNAME we usually don't name spouses unless they're notable enough to have their own article, and this is a good example of why. I think BLPPRIVACY also applies. She's not at all notable, and it appears her only claim to fame is being the subjects former wife, and I can't see that it adds any value to the article whatsoever, so I'd just remove it entirely. Zaereth (talk) 04:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

My apologies, no I didn't understand your question correctly. I don't believe adding his ex-wife is important to the article. Yes, I believe it should be removed outright. Szankoed (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

If you are in contact with the family, you should not be editing per WP:COI. Why had it taken you until now to declare the connection? GiantSnowman 19:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

For reasons of their privacy. I'm not as familiar with all of these rules as others.

Based on the feedback from Morbidthoughts and Zaereth citing BLPNAME and BLPPRIVACY, I'm assuming her entry is cleared for removal. Szankoed (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

So now we have a valid source removed, as well as the fact that he was married - so a weaker biography. Well done everybody. GiantSnowman 18:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I removed the spouse line from the infobox. Per our infobox style guide, it should not have been there anyway, as it was not in the article; I also agree with comments of others about BLPPRIVACY. The Vice source looks possibly ok to me for adding depth elsewhere in the article, and you should feel free to use it for that. I think it would also be non-objectionable to add to the article that he was married (perhaps without the spouse's name, and perhaps not to the infobox) and later divorced; this is also in the source. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

...and yet you did not remove that he had 2 children even though that was not mentioned elsewhere in the article? GiantSnowman 20:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

You're right, I likely should've also removed the 2 children from infobox. Thanks for catching that. Your "Personal life" section looks reasonable to me, although I don't see the start/end dates for the marriage in the Vice source. (I see the end date is in a Guardian obit [42], FWIW.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Herschel Weingrod

There have been some allegations made based on a YouTube video. More eyes would be appreciated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

For context. (Redacted) Not verified by RS given WP:BLPCRIME. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

It only says to not include allegations if they are not a public figure. I believe that they are a public figure, based on the criteria given in WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Antny08 (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Allegations for WP:PUBLICFIGURE require multiple RSes. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we have to figure out which sources are reliable. There are many sources online about this incident, but most of them are not included on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. It would be appreciated for somebody to look through some of these sources to see if they are reliable or not. Antny08 (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Here are some sources here: <redacted> What do you think of any of these sources? Antny08 (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Garbage. There is absolutely no way we are going to include such content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

What is happening with your user page? What happened? Antny08 (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

My user page is of no consiquence here. Your behaviour may very well be if you persist in trying to cite grossly inappropriate sources for questionable content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not going to argue with you on here, I do not understand why you are being so rude. Antny08 (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

If you would prefer to argue at WP:ANI, that could be arranged. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

If such gross accusations are covered in RSes, then fine, but you're giving us gossip rags that are somehow worse than the Daily Fail. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Might as well cite InfoWars and Breitbart if we're gonna use garbage sources. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion civil, and help to find good sources. Antny08 (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The burden is on you to find good sources, since you're the one making the claims. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand why South Asian press is covering this. Are they prone to sensationalism or are the tabloids from there are really on the ball about optimising for searches? Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts, They tend to cover western Social media/YouTube drama more often than western outlets. I'm not sure why. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the others that these are inappropriate sources. We're looking for multiple top-tier, newspaper of record-type sources for claims like these. Woodroar (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand, thanks for the insight Antny08 (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

It looks like Antny08 got indeffed, the article got semi-protected, and there are not (yet) any other virulent proponents of the gross BLP violation that got not revdeld but WP:SUPPRESSed. I have watched the article. I hope others also do, for a while. But it might be alright to close this thread for now and re-post as necessary. WP:BOOMERANG got thrown hard at WP:ANI so it came back faster than you'd expect. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 05:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, at least one of the Youtubers behind this bit of drama presents himself as a "prank channel" so I'd suggest that these guys trying to... present someone in the way they did... being picked up by a press that likes to post Youtube drama does not meet the BLP bar. I've added the page to my watchlist. Simonm223 (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Alen Inoue has mixed blood or not?

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.

---

May I put Alen list of half Japanese people? Hariman Muhammad (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Given that we have no article on Inoue, and that you cite no source for it, no. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:56, 11 May 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.

Alexandre Pisano

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.

---

Does Alexandre Pisano has half or mixed blood (between Japanese and European blood)? Can you put his name or not? Hariman Muhammad (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

See my response to your previous question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:05, 11 May 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.

Emma D'Arcy - is the edit summary a violation of BLP?

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 edit itself changed their pronouns from they to she, which is in itself an issue I believe. The edit summary says "Fixed grammar - Gender dysphoria is a serious illness and no one should use pathologies for political purpose. News and opinion articles, as well as the entertainment industry, are not reliable sources for mental health issues." which seems to be questioning her mental health. Doug Weller talk 07:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

See also User:Reginus Paulius Gryphus for some background. Besides stating there are only two genders, it says Democrats are following a fascist methodology and that "This false encyclopedia is a cesspool of the lowest kind of humans, people without any principles, morals and faith." Doug Weller talk 07:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, re paragraph 1, diffs would help. It's arguable that news coverage is poor at stating science, but news may also present reliable secondary sources are valid for reference (more guidance at WP:RSN). Re paragraph 2, users are quite entitled to hold views that some or all other disagree with, but they get to enjoy WP:POV scrutiny as a result. A userpage like that is not a BLP problem but it is counterproductive; even when someone holds critical views (to include one's own colleagues who edit here), it's best for that someone not to give the impression those views might get in the way of editing neutrally. But when someone tells the world aggressively who they are, they're probably not lying, and we are all on notice for equally blatant POV edits. JFHJr (㊟) 19:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks like consensus might point to "they" per recent activity. Let's see if that consensus holds. JFHJr (㊟) 20:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the edit summary. The user said, "News and opinion articles, ... are not reliable sources for mental health issues". Well, neither is this user. They can debate gender and pronouns as they wish, or not as it happens, but IMO it crosses the line when they state that someone has a serious illness. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Best answer. Thank you! JFHJr (㊟) 21:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

What do you think of the history at Vaush, just below? JFHJr (㊟) 21:29, 12 May 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.

BLP violation on article Vaush

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.

---

here is the dif in question. User:Seth Rollins, Monday Night Messiah (there's no userpage, only talk page here) has done major BLP violation(s), citing twitter memes and drama youtube videos as sources. Looking at their user talk page, this seems to be a recurring issue with this user. A Socialist Trans Girl 07:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

When the page was reverted to the last change, I was asked to check the talk page. I did. And it seems like you (looking at the many conversations regarding this person) have an agenda not to list the various controversies this creator has been involved with, even with more appropriate/reliable sources. I wasn't even given a chance to find a new source (despite YOU saying that exactly in the talk page) and instead, outright locked the page. Wikipedia should be neutral and transparent. It has no obligation to shield people from accusations of bestiality, pedophilia and sexual assault, especially when those are relevant, and are still relevant talking points in their career. Seth Rollins, Monday Night Messiah (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

If you think that using a YouTube video to source claims of beastiality, etc in a WP:BLP article is fine, then Wikipedia isn't for you. Wikipedia DOES have an obligation to ensure we don't include information that is damaging to individuals unless it is carefully and reliably sourced, and that the information is relevant, leading to a better understanding of the individual. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Vaush is a perennial target for BLP violations. Seth Rollins' contributions, most of which have been reverted. Primefac has indefinitely ECP'd the article. Reported to AIV. SWinxy (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

This is on the order of what went on at Weingrod. That got WP:OS pretty quickly. I'm surprised the BLPSPS twitter link with the catchy tune is still unredacted, not even revdel. JFHJr (㊟) 19:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC) 【@ScottishFinnishRadish: Sorry this is random, but you're the last oversighter I walked past here. Please and thanks for any consideration for this one. JFHJr (㊟) 19:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)】

I've rev-deleted some edits. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Again! JFHJr (㊟) 23:05, 12 May 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.

Maia Bouchier Biography

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

I'd like to draw attention to the Personal Life section of Miss Bouchier's profile. Her representatives and the individual have themselves tried to remove the reference to her confirming herself as being 'Bisexual' - with a citation link to the following article.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/66464975

As you can see, the article simply references what Maia first said to her parents when trying to come out to them as homosexual for the first time. She finds the constant reinstatement of this citation baffling and would like it to be permanently removed from her profile.

Is this possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JA209 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I have edited the article. The BBC source cited is ambiguous about Bouchier's sexuality – it quotes her as saying "I think I might be bisexual" but elsewhere implies that she is gay – but the other cited source in the section, based on an interview with Bouchier and her partner, explicitly calls her gay.

The reason that your edit was reverted is explained in the edit summary to the revert: "Unexplained removal of content". Simply removing text without explaining why will often be reverted by editors; if you had explained this issue in the edit summary the text calling Bouchier bisexual may well not have been reinstated. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

John Ramirez (minister)

I'd be grateful if someone would check [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Ramirez_(minister)&action=history this revert], as I am concerned I may have been over-zealous. Thank you. -- Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 13:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I would have made the same revert if I'd seen that edit. (Article has since been nominated for A7 speedy.) Schazjmd (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 16:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

IP rape tagging

While patrolling for BLP violations, I noticed that an IP editor is tagging apparent perpetrators and victims of rape as such. I'm concerned that all sorts of policies may be being broken, especially over claims that have not been tested in law. I'd appreciate a view. [Special:Contributions/218.214.102.224] -- Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 14:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

There's some issues there, for sure. I've reverted one edit and left a BLP CTOP notice, but don't have the bandwidth to check all of the edits right now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I removed rape categories from 6 people, some of which had never been convicted of rape. Dougal18 (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Pepsi & Shirlie

Pepsi & Shirlie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

TheTechie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is insisting on adding and adding again an unsourced "in popular culture" section of trivial 'factoids' to Pepsi & Shirlie – a WP:BLP, reverting to their preferred version using automated tools and boasting of how their years of experience allows them to do this. I'd like a couple of second opinions, please. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why this is here. I already said "please continue editing" on the OP's talk page. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 16:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

So you no longer stand by these edits re-adding this material and retract your threat to report me for vandalism for removing them again, but won't revert yourself? Uh huh. I'm not going to give you the opportunity to throw a 3RR-warning template on to my talk page with your automated tools by reverting your poor editing again. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with you reverting me, but please understand that there are editors patrolling recent changes. I am one. You edit was tagged as "unexplained section blanking" and edits with that tag are usually meant to be reverted quickly. Sorry for the mishap though. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 16:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

And I have removed the warnings. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 16:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Please don't blank sections of my talk page again.

Additionally, whatever the 'tag' said, I gave a full edit summary, which you didn't read in your hurry to click a button on RedWarn and score internet points. This is a misuse of automated tools, as were your reverts. That's three times today in under 20 minutes. I hope your score is better with the rest of your edits. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I am sorry. You really don't need to be rude on your talk page. I retracted the warnings as I changed my mind on if they were appropriate or not. You may choose whether you wish to keep them or not. But I ask one thing: Please do not ever ping me again. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 16:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

And I don't understand how Sorry for the mishap though. is not apologizing. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 16:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

TheTechie's edit history doesn't seem to show recurring problems. This revert has been dealt with. I think further excoriation is unnecessary. Schazjmd (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Schazjmd: Not sure if I'd entirely agree. I've warned thetechie quite recently [43] for what seems to be similar reasons to here. They were doing RC patrolling and reverted when they shouldn't have [44]. I don't think this is quite enough for sanction hence I'm just leaving this at BLPN rather than opening an ANI thread, but it is concerning in both cases they reverted obviously problematic content in BLPs apparently based primarily on tags and where the deleting editor offered at least some explanation in the edit summary. The last case was much more severe then here (albeit the worse bit was buried but IMO sufficiently explained in the edit summary [45]). I think thetechie needs to take a lot more care with RC patrolling or at least stay away from doing it on BLPs. Nil Einne (talk) 04:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

And if I may make a  comment, this is why I almost never touch BLPs. Honestly this is becoming too much, I'm considering a wikibreak. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 16:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@TheTechie, on the IP's talk page, you wrote Please remember I am not the one adding it, I am reinstating it. "Reinstating" content means you're taking responsibility for it. There's no good justification for unsourced trivia remaining when it's been challenged. If you can't find a good ref for the "in popular culture" entries, you shouldn't add them. Schazjmd (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

81.187.192.168 was absolutely justified in removing the unsourced trivia. Per Wikipedia:POPCULTURE "In popular culture" sections should contain verifiable information with sources that establish its significance to the article's subject. Passing mentions, even if verifiable, aren't sufficient. See also this RfC: [46] AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Mandla Lamba

Mandla Lamba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a ton of libelous erroneous information on this page. It needs to be scrubbed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff7241968 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Help us out here. What's the issue? Woodroar (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Woodroar concerns. While there are certainly many negative and unflattering references in this biography, that is different than “libelous” and “erroneous” information. Can you cite some examples of which parts of the article can be documented to fit those descriptions? The article appears to be reasonably well sourced. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Charlene Amoia

I hope this is the right place for this, but the editor Dennis86Savanah persists on removing comments from the talk page of this actresses article.[47] Another editor has already warned them, but they seem to be ignoring it. This account was made nearly four years ago and the only edits they've ever made were on the actresses article with the last few removing talk page comments. So this may be Wikipedia:Conflict of interest Kcj5062 (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

EDIT: Looking more at the history, there was also an IP editor that had also removed talk page comments. I think it may have been the same person that removed them while not logged in.Kcj5062 (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It is weird but this is a user conduct issue. If it continues, report it to WP:ANI. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Lucy Letby

Lucy Letby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is a BLP minefield and a half. The subject is convicted of murders, but the appeal process seems to be pending and at least one RS has disputed their conviction. There was a recent RFC on the lede where nobody seemingly discussed BLP concerns. There may have been canvassing muddling the RFC as well, given this is a charged subject.

The overall article seems overly detailed and quite reliant on primary sources, particularly in timeline of cases section. I do not believe WP:BLPCRIME applies here, but it could still use extra eyes and clean up to make the article meet Wikipedia standards. I am not very well versed with this kind of article, but it does appear to violate NPOV at first glance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Soni (talk • contribs) 00:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewing the section, I don't see any obvious WP:BLPPRIMARY issues. If you see something solely sourced to government sources, you should remove them right away. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Elizabeth Salmón

I have raised an RFC regarding a BLP issue on Elizabeth Salmón. More information can be found on the talk page, but the executive summary is that it appears the subject would like her birth year removed from the article, citing privacy as a concern. This information is sourced at the UN. I do not think this is a BLP issue, but I am not an expert. Your comments would be welcome. Eniagrom (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Please let everyone here know if either the IP or the SPA announce they're (editing for or on behalf of) the subject. That changes a gear. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I did comment on sourcing at the talk page; it's a primary source containing a SPS. If that source is removed, there's not much to hang an encyclopedic biography on. What are your impressions as to this article's sourcing? JFHJr (㊟) 04:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I've nominated this article for deletion. See: WP:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Salmón JFHJr (㊟) 22:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Moira Deeming

OP blocked. Black Kite (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

There are blatantuntruths and false information in the biography of Moira Deeming Victorian politician. This is outrageous.She is accused of organising an “anti trans rally” when she did no such thing. She had organised a “Let Women Speak” rally, which was advocating for Women’s rights to have safe spaces and sport competitions for biological women. It was her right under the tenants of free speech to hold this rally. In addition Deeming is accused of enviting far right groups, to this rally. That is pertinently untrue. In fact these groups gatecrashed the event. This became a convenient aspect twisted and used to smeer Deeming. Wikipedia is spreading falsehoods and untruths in this biography of Deeming. Sources Australian Womens Forum, Moira Deeming herself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyfox Gazelle (talk • contribs) 06:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC) The proper place to discuss this issue is Talk:Moira Deeming, where several experienced editors are explaining the relevant policies and guidelines. Wikipedia cares about what sources independent of Deeming say about her, not what she and her associates say about her. Cullen328 (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC) the "anti-trans" characterisation is discussed on the talkpage Cullen points to, but re. "inviting far-right groups": the article says no such thing. It says that Neo-Nazis attended the rally, but as far as I can see makes no comment on who (if anyone) invited them. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC) This has been discussed many, many times in the articles talk. @Skyfox Gazelle you can expect a report on a noticeboard concerning your comments in the article's talk when I've put my children to bed later tonight. This project is no place for your transphobic comments. TarnishedPathtalk 07:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Bagrat Galstanyan

Hello. There is an ongoing disruption in Bagrat Galstanyan article who is a living person, a serious allegation was added about him on 11 May [48], then restored repeatedly by the user with no consensus. This despite my attempts to demonstrate that the allegation is in clear conflict with Wikipedia policies such as WP:BLP and WP:REDFLAG. The source in question for this serious claim is a newspaper PDF page of “The Armenian Mirror-Spectator” from 2013 [49]. This source is very little known, no actual established reliable sources confirmed this claim in 2013, and as I said the original source from 2013 isn't an established reliable source considering also the severe allegation it's making. All of this is in clear conflict with Wikipedia policies of WP:BLP and WP:REDFLAG and WP:ONUS. I think the noticeboard should be aware of the situation in the article and the libelous information should be removed until it is shown to be substantiated by a number of high quality sources, which is far from the case at the moment. AntEgo (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewing the Armenian Mirror Spectator pdf, the source seems reliable. However, the editors acknowledged that the article is just a republication of a statement of the accusers. That means there's no independent fact checking. I don't know anything about the reliability of the second source, civic.am but it reports or relies on the original AMS article and seems to be an editorial or opinion column in itself. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts "However, the editors acknowledged that the article is just a republication of a statement of the accusers. That means there's no independent fact checking." – Yes, you're right, this is one of the reasons why the accusation shouldn't be in a living person's wiki article, this allegation cannot be verified factually, it's just an uncorroborated accusation that no independent credible source confirms. Even more reason why it shouldn't be in a WP:BLP article, also in breach of WP:REDFLAG and WP:LIBEL which says to delete libelous material if it's been identified.

And if you look at the article, even more diabolical claims are being added based on that one 2013 newspaper [50], these are seriously concerning for a WP:BLP article: if we gave every unfounded accusation light on Wikipedia especially on living person articles, then Wikipedia is not Wikipedia anymore, that's why I believe we have many policies and specifically strict ones on living persons. The second source as you noted is an opinion piece and an unknown news website, this website might be government affiliated but I can't verify because it doesn't even have an "About Us" page. It basis the opinion piece on the same 2013 newspaper's unproven accusations.

In conclusion, the 2013 newspaper's serious accusations are not collaborated or fact-checked by independent reliable sources, therefore it's libelous and violates several wiki policies and should not be in an article about a living person. AntEgo (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

First, you should be careful throwing around words like libel, diabolical, unfounded, etc... It makes you come off as very emotionally invested in all of this, which in itself raises some red flags. That said, Morbidthoughts appears to be agreeing with you, so no need to argue with him.

I agree as well. This is all based on a statement by the church and handed out to its parishioners. There's no editorial oversite or fact checking, and, while the newspaper itself may be reliable, they take no ownership of the info and clearly say it's just the church's unedited rebuttal.

That means you have a green light to go ahead and remove the info from the article. Calmly and stoically explain to the user that they need very good sources, what's wrong with these sources, give them a link to this discussion, and if it continues report them at WP:ANI for repeatedly ignoring BLP policy after they've been warned sufficiently. Zaereth (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zaereth Thanks for your input. FYI, I do agree with Morbidthoughts and yourself, just tried to lay out my thoughts for last time in the previous comment and update what happened in the article, sorry if it came off as emotional but maybe that's because I got tired of users ignoring core wiki policies in the article and even further expanding based on that one 2013 newspaper claims that as you noted, isn't fact-checked, isn't collaborated by independent credible sources, and is just unfounded accusation to a living person which as far as I know and you also confirmed, are strictly not tolerated on Wikipedia. I will remove the section, and will link this discussion in my edit summary and will also restate the policies that are being violated in the summary. AntEgo (talk) 10:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The only problem is that his effort to mortgage off a church is public record. Scu ba (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

We can't use public records as sources. See WP:BLPPRIMARY. We need very reliable, WP:Secondary sources. And if he did anything illegal, then WP:BLPCRIME may also come into play, in which case he'd need to be convicted in a court of law before we could include it. We take WP:BLP policy very seriously, so I'd suggest reading it and understanding it before doing any edits to articles about living people. Zaereth (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zaereth Unfortunately Scuba restored their edit again, this time reverting user @Russ Woodroofe [51], [52]. Scuba supposedly added new sources, but completely ignored your comment about the importance of very reliable secondary sources. If you look at their added sources, in the first diff, they revert and restore the PDF 2013 newspaper that we discussed already (nothing new), and they cite this unknown website as source which is an opinion piece, link.

In their second diff, Scuba supposedly adds "more" sources which are the following: a primary source of the Canada church with no criticism of Galsytanyan (doesn't even mention his name) [53], and an additional source which is literally the same Mirror-Spectator but a different article [54], and this one doesn't mention any sort of criticism of Galstanyan either even tho it's cited as such in Scuba's edit. Scuba's basically claiming "more" sources which in reality are low-quality and even primary / opinion pieces in a BLP article they have been cautioned about several times already, and most importantly, these "more" sources don't even support Scuba's restored “criticisms” text. How is this type of behavior acceptable and could an administrator take a look at this already? AntEgo (talk) 10:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a great place for discussing editor behavior, and most of the regulars here aren't admins. This board is for discussing BLP policy. Unfortunately, I am rather busy in real life and don't have time to go through all the sources right now. If an editor is behaving badly, then the place to report it would be WP:ANI, because that's where all the admins hang out. Just be sure you've tried every other option first and go there with "clean hands", or it could turn around and bite you. Zaereth (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Martin Schlaff

I ask for help. I deleted wild accusations from 2004/10 that never have been proven (bribes of 4,5 million Dollars). I did so, because on the talk page is written: „Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately.“ Gidi Weitz from Haaretz is carrying out a crusade against Mr. Schlaff since more then 15 years. The Attorny General of Israel did not find any material to accuse him of a fellony. Nevertheless these allegations are popping up again and again. My edit was reverted, I do not want to go into EW.--185.104.138.50 (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Interesting claim. Can you actually prove Weitz has been trying to destroy Schlaff's reputation for 15 years? WP:BLP applies equally to claims such as the one you've made. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Is Schlaff a WP:PUBLICFIGURE? Even then, PUBLICFIGURE requires multiple RS reporting on the allegations, not just Haaretz. If he is not a public figure, then the section should be removed under WP:BLPCRIME. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

A look at the article shows poor sourcing for a biography of a still-living person overall, with or without the section the IPv4 is referring to. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Stockwell Day

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 have updated the Stockwell Day article from the opening line "...is a former Canadian politician..." to "...is a Canadian former politician..." a number of times over the past two days. Another user has reverted those changes. My reasoning is that he is not formerly Canadian; he's Canadian no matter what. He could change professions - he could become "...a Canadian journalist and former politician". When the article says "former Canadian", it reads like he gave up his Canadian citizenship. Any eyes appreciated. --164.64.118.102 (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

A recent (2022) discussion about MOS and "former" indicates that individual editors differ on the correct word order in such a case. Schazjmd (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It appears that discussion landed on Bruce Willis being described as American first, and a retired actor second. --164.64.118.102 (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Yep, that was the local consensus on that article. I wish that the MOS would address the nationality/former structure, as it seems to be a common point of disagreement, but multiple experienced editors argued on both sides of the question so I don't think there's community-wide consensus for a specific word order. Schazjmd (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no BLP policy issue here. This is entirely a matter of style. Cullen328 (talk) 04:33, 17 May 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.

Martin Nowak

In this edit the discussion of Martin Nowak was removed, I believe incorrectly. Can it be restored? Gumshoe2 (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It was archived by a bot because there had been no comments on the thread in nine days. You can unarchive it if you want, though given that nobody had previously commented on the thread in more than a week I don't know how much more engagement it's likely to get. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

How do I unarchive? This issue has come up before and will almost certainly come up again, so I think it is important to get some consensus. Is there a better venue than BLP noticeboard? Gumshoe2 (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

You asked the proponent of the controversial content whether there existed any reliable sources to back up the opinion piece upon which said content relied. Over a week went by, with no RS followup from the proponent. The consensus is therefore against the proponent's content ideas, based on the one source. Silence is sometimes meaningful. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 23:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Also... the wall of text from the proponent was probably a major factor in why regulars here read a little, skipped to the end, (agreed with you), and didn't feel compelled to comment. It's not you, it's the other guy. JFHJr (㊟) 23:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Uebert Angel

Please take a look at this edit request, I have requested some edits to the article because it seems like there are no reliable sources that support the claims, on the contrary it's supported by an unreliable source, and the Gistmania one which appears as a spam source per this spam report. Editor ZionniThePeruser accepted the edit request but LocomotiveEngine reverted the edits more than one time without any valid reason. It seems like LocomotiveEngine did the same before with spam links, please take a look at his edit here and unexplained content removal like this edit.

So, can you please handle the edit request, stop the edit warring between ZionniThePeruser and LocomotiveEngine, and notify LocomotiveEngine not to revert it again if I'm not mistaken? -- Exposstage (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the gistmania citation, but not the content because it is still apparently supported by another citation. The next easiest answer: a reasonable editor could be satisfied that template removal was appropriate because the issues had apparently been addressed. Removing a ref to aircargonews implies the editor did not see it as a fit WP:RS for a BLP. But no edit summary means you can only ask the editor for clarification. Otherwise, LocomotiveEngine appears to be addressing WP:POV issues which appear in versions preferred by ZionniThePeruser. If more reliable source discussion might be the key here, a better forum might be WP:RSN. There may be folks there inclined to scrub the article to remove non-RS. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 01:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I reviewed and removed the remaining source as well, because it simply repeated the allegation without attribution (and without citation to the actual alleged list), and it was supposed to support wikivoice stating it as fact. Both editors are POVing. JFHJr (㊟) 02:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me, but I already reverted the edit before I read the message. But your edit summary is quite misleading as you stated that "rm supporting cite to gistmania: not WP:RS for a BLP". You stated that you were removing only the unreliable source without touching the controversial line but you removed the same controversial line along with the source. I invite other "reasonable" editors since I am unreasonable according to your words. The article has been under sustained attack to remove anything they perceive as negative in the page LocomotiveEngine (talk) 11:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I made two edits (with two different summaries) and left two different comments here. Nothing I said was misleading. At no point did I imply you were not reasonable; I think you've misread me. But I do agree input from more editors would be helpful. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 17:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

For everyone's reference, the two citations I removed were to Gistmania and Zimbo, which were being used to state the unattributed reports as facts in wikivoice. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 18:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

David P. Weber

Recently, a posted added poorly sourced material of a libelous nature purporting to report on his resignation from University of Maryland. Two of the sources cited are the same article, just with different hyperlinks. The allegations of the sources are that the subject of the BLP supposedly discriminated against chinese students at UMD. Yet, none of the articles indicate that a finding of discrimination happened, and two other MD system universities hired him after the supposed discrimination. In other words, the inclusion of the material violates BLP standards, and is not relevant to what Weber is known for, which is being an american whistleblower, author and researcher in fraud and forensic accounting. Esvabird (talk) Esvabird (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewing the sources,[55][56] they are independent of each other. The allegations do not need to be proven true, they just need RS to verify that they exist. Student media WP:RSSM are reliable for their communities and this story was covered by a national higher education publication[57]. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

David P. Weber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Here is a diff of the contested material: Diff.

I am the one who added it. It was reverted by an anonymous editor who contends that it violates BLP as "unsourced or poorly sourced". In my view it does not violate BLP. The disputed text is neutrally phrased, without detail, and plainly tracks the three separate reliable sources that reported on the subject event on four occasions. The material is unflattering, and surely unwelcome to the article’s subject, but is uncontested beyond rote denials of wrongdoing by the subject and his attorney. Further, the subject article describes the subject’s university teaching activities in detail, in two separate sections. The inclusion of a single sentence reciting the reliably-sourced and contemporaneously reported circumstances of the subject’s resignation from one of those positions is entirely appropriate, and not a BLP violation.

The anon editor and I agreed that we weren't going to agree and rather than edit war we believed it best to bring the issue directly here. See the article talk page for that brief discussion as well as a broader history of the article. I'll make a note of this report on the article Talk page. Thanks for your views. JohnInDC (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Based on the common edits to the Weber article[58][59] and the Death of Jeffrey L. Smith,[60][61] the IP address and Esvabird are the same and have a conflict of interest with those articles. Morbidthoughts (talk) 09:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I have initiated an attempt[62] at a major cleanup of the article based on WP:NOTCV and also WP:BLPPRIMARY reliance of WP:BLPCRIME allegations of another person.[63][64] I haven't finished but I find the amount of detail and citation to primary sources reflect personal knowledge of the topic. Morbidthoughts (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Assuming that WP:PUBLICFIGURE - If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it - is the justification for inclusion of the content, it also says If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too. I'm wondering why Weber's comments/statements are deliberately being left out. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

When the allegations first surfaced, Weber and / or his attorney told WAMU the comments were being taken out of context and that the quotes were not his exact words. Following the resignation and the University's finding of his having violated the school's nondiscrimination policy, two articles reported that the attorney was "unable to comment" beyond confirming the resignation, and the third (Higher Ed) reported that several attempts to obtain comment from Weber or the attorney had been fruitless. It sounds to me like they denied (well, "explained") the allegations until they couldn't; then stopped. IMHO the most accurate statement would be, "Weber initially denied wrongdoing" (or whatever other words you like) and leave it at that. To my ears that sounds almost worse, but I don't know if the sources support more. All that said, I don't feel that strongly about it one way or the other, except that any new edits should mirror the sources. JohnInDC (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

It looks in any case as this material has (at least as of now) been removed altogether in the course of a broader cleanup of the article, perhaps mooting this discussion. JohnInDC (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The disputed material about his resignation was removed by the anonymous ip. It just has not been reinstated yet pending discussion. Whether it should be included (WP:DUE) needs to be considered in context after the removal of all the autobiographical CV cruft that was cited to much weaker sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it came out with this edit. I agree though that if the article winds up substantially streamlined and neutralized (as it were) then these reports may or may not warrant inclusion. Thanks for all your good efforts. JohnInDC (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn't realise his academic career was redundantly listed outside the "University teaching" subheader and that you had reinstated the disputed material there. Whatever items that are supported by secondary RS can be reinstated into that section. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

In reading the 3 reliable sources, the context is more important than whether there was a denial or not. He accused a group of Chinese students of cheating. They (with others?) in turn accused him of racism after he allegedly made several tirades about Chinese students and their culture. The incidents were investigated by the university and found in violation of their non-discrimination policies. He resigned afterwards complaining about the lack of support by the administrators against cheating. The denial is implicit. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Neil Young’s sons .

All throughout Neil Young’s Bio his son Ben is called Zeke in all photos and when referring to him. In the few photos you have put up he is called Zeke. Nothing is correct all false. It must sadden Ben to be improperly referenced. Both sons have cerebral policy and Ben has the milder case and did have a successful egg farm. It must be hard living in his father’s spot light and not being looked upon as his own self right down to being mixed up with his brother. Please correct this oversight . Sincerely , Lauren. 2601:189:4180:DA0:111E:3E3:7919:7284 (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Which article? I don't see any family pictures in Neil Young. --Onorem (talk) 03:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

There is one mention of Zeke and several of Ben in the article Neil Young; I am not seeing any places where Ben is incorrectly referred to as Zeke. The IP needs to be more specific about what they think needs changing and in which article. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 06:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

If you're talking about images that don't actually appear in this article, perhaps they are hosted locally at en.wiki or at commons. Please copy and paste the URL you're seeing "all photos" in. Otherwise I'm the third to confirm your concerns are not in the article itself. There's no conflation at all. JFHJr (㊟) 06:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I checked Commons and I didn't see anything obvious. I'm wondering if the complaint is about the cited sources themselves? Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I liked your idea so I looked into it. No sources that support mentions of the sons have images that jumped out at me. None confuse them, either. I did remove an apparent ref that looked like it failed WP:V/WP:NOR but supported other text in the paragraph. I think it's ok to close this BLPN post whenever anyone else is satisfied we looked and didn't find any problems the OP could have been describing. JFHJr (㊟) 22:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

It shouldn't be closed to allow follow-up by the IP address before the archive. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Richard Gadd date of birth

I am trying to gain consensus on how to best handle the date of birth in the "Richard Gadd" article. There are multiple sources stating different years, and there were frequent edits to the year of birth until yesterday, when I added hidden text asking that it not be changed until editors checked the talk page. On the talk page, I discussed a number of different sources and their reliability, none of which were "generally reliable" per the perennial sources noticeboard. All of them are in agreement that his month and day of birth are May 11, but they do not agree on the year (1989 or 1990). Eventually, since all the sources were in agreement that the year was either 1989 or 1990, I added this to the article, especially considering the WP:DOB policy. I was doing more research, and I was able to eventually find a "generally reliable source" (The Independent) that gave his age at the time of the interview (30 in October 2019), but no day or month of birth. Usually something like "Template:Birth based on age as of date" in a case like this, but there are so many different sources debating his year that I feel this case is unique. It still leaves the WP:DOB issue unresolved, as does whether WP:CALC with a large number of semi-reliable sources that agree on birth day and month, with one "generally reliable" source that gives an age, can be used to deduce a birth date of May 11, 1989. This page is currently a top 20 article and BLP and so far no one has added to the discussion on the talk page I started. If you are interested, please contribute at: Talk:Richard Gadd#Date of Birth again. Thanks Wikipedialuva (talk) 07:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Pornnappan Pornpenpipat

IP editor changed the birth year from 1997 to 1995. I'm not sure if this source consider to be reliable? But most of sources that she is born in 1997. - Jjpachano (talk) 10:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Debbie Currie

Could someone familiar with WP:BLP policy, along with WP:N and probably WP:NOT, please take a look at the Debbie Currie article? It seems problematic to me for multiple reasons that I hope should be self-evident, but due to external factors I'm reluctant to try to deal with it myself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Andy! I didn't aim for the jugular, but I used scalpel and some sutures. At least two other editors appear to have worked on this since your post. Commenting content-wise, I truly value your contributions here, and I hope you'll consider making any changes on the article or comments here that you think are helpful. If you'd like to discuss the value of any remaining sources/content without characterizing any editors, proponents even of nonsense, or their behavior, I would enjoy seeing your work or words. I'm all ears (eyes). JFHJr (㊟) 02:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, and thanks likewise to everyone who has helped to clean up the article. And having seen how much material has been removed, and what remains, I think I'm now justified in suggesting that the article now fails to demonstrate notability: essentially, we are in a WP:BLPIE situation, where the only significant coverage of Ms Currie beyond the tabloid-style gossip now (justly) removed concerns the 'You Can Do Magic' single, that Currie may or may not have sung on, apparently created for a Cook Report 'expose' that seems to have been something of a non-event, having failed to get the record anywhere of significance in the charts. If this episode needs coverage on Wikipedia at all, it is almost certainly in the Cook Report article, rather than in a single-episode 'biography'. The article describes Currie as a former journalist, but fails to provide evidence that her journalistic career as such attracted any real attention from independent sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you there. Biggest coatrack is mommy. There are probably more, but I found refs that failed V and couldn't even use them after trying. See the article talk page. LOTSOFSOURCES, and BLP1E, and sort of a biography of failure. JFHJr (㊟) 05:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)