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.
Additional notes:
| ||
Ashley Gjøvik
A request at WP:RPPI from an IP asks that this article be semi-protected. Another IP opposes the first. There is a storm of editing going on there and I'm hoping someone will work out what is going on and whether admin action is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- This is a massive WP:BLPPRIMARY mine field with too many things cited solely to court documents. One IP had the nerve to revert and wikilawyer an administrator, Fences and windows.[1] I have a suspicion these ip addresses are PR-ing and litigating through wikipedia and the article needs an extensive clean-up. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- For those that don't know there was some previous disputes that seemed to be going on on and off wiki that resulted in both the subject and someone they were in dispute with being blocked and banned respectively. See e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1100#Ban evasion, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13#Arbitration motion regarding HazelBasil and SquareInARoundHole and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 184#Cher Scarlett, Ashley Gjøvik, Ifeoma Ozoma, & Apple Worker Organizations. I have no idea if the other party is still socking if they are, perhaps longer term semi protection should be considered. While the subject remains blocked, I would suggest emailing about problems would be a better solution than posting about it on Twitter. Nil Einne (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- There is a pattern of IP addresses that have never made edits to WP before making 1 or 2 edits and then disappearing. I suggest that the person doing this knows what they're doing and is doing this intentionally to evade a previous ban. See evidence from here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Single-edit_IPs_vandalizing_Ashley_Gjøvik_page and in particular, this section posted to another user's talk page from a throwaway IP accusing that editor of "casting aspersions" for making claims that this IP-hopper isn't (implausibly) a new person for every new IP they're using. I wasn't aware of the history of this page before the recent twitter threads, news articles etc., but based on what you have linked above, I think it's very plausible that this IP hopper is the same person as SquareInARoundHole. Note: I've only made a couple edits since my dynamic IP rotated last night, but I'm not intentionally changing my IP after every edit like this person or using proxies across many different ISPs. I am the same person that used Special:Contributions/76.6.213.65 for the past couple weeks. 76.6.210.82 (talk) 07:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- For those that don't know there was some previous disputes that seemed to be going on on and off wiki that resulted in both the subject and someone they were in dispute with being blocked and banned respectively. See e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1100#Ban evasion, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13#Arbitration motion regarding HazelBasil and SquareInARoundHole and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 184#Cher Scarlett, Ashley Gjøvik, Ifeoma Ozoma, & Apple Worker Organizations. I have no idea if the other party is still socking if they are, perhaps longer term semi protection should be considered. While the subject remains blocked, I would suggest emailing about problems would be a better solution than posting about it on Twitter. Nil Einne (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- I did an extensive clean-up that addressed the BLPPRIMARY and ABOUTSELF concerns.[2] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- That's impressive work, Morbidthoughts, because that article was a mess. – notwally (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- It may be noted for the record that this article and Cher Scarlett were, some years ago, the subject of a protracted episode involving both of the articles' subjects themselves. jp×g🗯️ 23:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- See Special:Permalink/1071273528#Arbitration_motion_regarding_HazelBasil_and_SquareInARoundHole. I believe there was some big noticeboard kerfluffu as well, although I don't have a link on hand. jp×g🗯️ 23:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Question: I am not overly familiar with BLP policies. Is the reason that court documents are not allowed is that they become Original Research because they are easy to MIS-interpret? (I saw lots of those additions, but didn't know about the applicability of court documents as sources for what seemed to be simple statements like "lawsuit dismissed with/out prejudice").
I understand WP:BLP : "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." - but I would think that would pertain to info like allegations of misconduct/criminal charges, not whether a lawsuit is active, dismissed, settled, or adjudicated. ---Avatar317(talk) 00:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- I take a broad view of WP:BLPPRIMARY's prohibition. The need to complete a story is not a reason to start ignoring this policy. It is an argument that is against WP:WEIGHT if no secondary reliable sources report on the outcome. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think WP:PRIMARY as well is important regardless of BLP concerns, including its interaction with WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTEWORTHY. A missing detail that is truly important may be useful to pull from a primary source in certain circumstances (much less likely in a BLP given WP:BLPPRIMARY), but determining how much to include in an article is difficult enough using secondary sources, not to mention primary sources. – notwally (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Published case law (which is not court documents in the sense of public records) is used frequently on Wikipedia - quick search of Reuters casetext yields 1,100 results. Many are on BLPs. WP:RSLAW is worth a read. RICO is pretty much the most serious accusation someone can lodge and the only source of it is an Apple blog. If it's worth including, I can't see how published case law that it was dismissed (especially with prejudice) isn't also warranted. The fact it was adjudicated doesn't seem like a minor detail.Changed my mind on this because of Johnuniq's note below. Say ocean again (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)- Published case opinions are court documents and have to be handled the same way on Wikipedia because they implicate many of the same concerns with their usage, whether that is privacy of living people or the issues interpreting them by anyone who can edit here. Also, dismissal with prejudice is not necessarily an adjudication on the merits, and there are significantly more serious accusations than a RICO lawsuit filed by an employee for retaliation and fraud. Claiming that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a very persuasive argument, especially on this noticeboard dealing with the strict guidelines for BLPs. – notwally (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note this IP address has only ever made this one edit, to this talk page. See above about sockpuppeting on this article as this editor is almost certainly a known quantity; since they are no longer able to edit the article, they are now editing administrative threads trying to influence how it is being edited.
- I've only made a couple edits since my IP rotated last night, but I'm not intentionally changing my IP after every edit like this person. I am the same person that used Special:Contributions/76.6.213.65 for the past couple weeks. 76.6.210.82 (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't control my IP address and have never contributed in a way that wasn't clear I'm one person. I requested page protections for the very reason that you and unknown number of others were edit warring and the article itself was posted on as a community note from a Twitter thread with tens of thousands of retweets.
- I made an account to make it clear, even though I disagree with it on principle for the purpose of this BLPN conversation. Say ocean again (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- I was saying that they are Wikipedia:Published vs Wikipedia:Public records, not that they aren't court documents.
- My question is whether or not AppleInsider is a reliable source for inclusion on a BLP.
- A second question would be for lawsuits and legal complaints that are never reported on again, at what point should we remove them from a BLP as Wikipedia:Recentism, if we cannot include case law? Say ocean again (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- The issue about AppleInsider should be up for discussion. Even if reliable, it and another source, Index on Censorship, definitely should not be given as much as weight as sources like Financial Times, The Verge, or New York Times. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Published case opinions are court documents and have to be handled the same way on Wikipedia because they implicate many of the same concerns with their usage, whether that is privacy of living people or the issues interpreting them by anyone who can edit here. Also, dismissal with prejudice is not necessarily an adjudication on the merits, and there are significantly more serious accusations than a RICO lawsuit filed by an employee for retaliation and fraud. Claiming that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a very persuasive argument, especially on this noticeboard dealing with the strict guidelines for BLPs. – notwally (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think WP:PRIMARY as well is important regardless of BLP concerns, including its interaction with WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTEWORTHY. A missing detail that is truly important may be useful to pull from a primary source in certain circumstances (much less likely in a BLP given WP:BLPPRIMARY), but determining how much to include in an article is difficult enough using secondary sources, not to mention primary sources. – notwally (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Using court documents and similar is very undesirable because their meaning can be misunderstood by onlookers, and because they can be contradicted in another document, and because an opponent of the subject can easily cherry-pick undue negativity from a laundry-list of assertions. Using a secondary source is supposed to shift the burden of deciding what reporting is appropriate from an anyone-can-edit contributor to the editorial team of the secondary source. Johnuniq (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- FYI, I have semi-protected the article for 6 months. Lectonar (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- FYI, there's a related conversation happening at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Published judicial documents with good information on this topic. Say ocean again (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Discussion about inclusion of content
Content from Special:Diff/1231386224/1231391075
- Moved to: Talk:Ashley Gjøvik#Inclusion of content and sources Say ocean again (talk) 03:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Say ocean again (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- This kind of extensive, detailed discussion is probably better had on the article's talk page. – notwally (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Mohamed Ashmalee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article about Mohamed Ashmalee was (or is) in a horrible state. A large section, restored by multiple experienced editors since 2022 turns out to be a verbatim copy of the cited non-free source, et cetera. Courtesy ping Suonii180, LizardJr8, Kleuske and Midori No Sora who could perhaps have noticed this when verifying whether the section restored by them is actually backed by the cited source. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't notice that there was a copyvio involved. In hindsight I should have looked a little deeper into how much text was added for the corruption allegation; but I don't see anything that disqualifies the source itself.
- I was not sure of the motives behind repeatedly removing text with no explanation other than "wrong", "untrue" or "truth" when I engaged once. I would agree a deeper look is needed into the subject. LizardJr8 (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- I've reverted this only edit because I thought the IP address removed a large section of the article without giving a valid reason. I also didn't notice that section of the article was a copyright violation. Looking at the history, several IP addresses and users were indeed removing that section, but some weren't providing an edit summary or were explaining that it was "the truth" or simply: "yes", which sounded suspicious.
- I've also requested CSD of the image, as that portrait was taken from the person's Facebook account and was sourced as "Own work". 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've opened a discussion at the talk page to discuss content addition proposals. I've also edited the article to remove generic urls that failed WP:V, unarchived dead links, and lots of stray caps (copyediting). I tagged unreffed claims; this content currently is the majority of the article. I have not removed unreffed claims that touch on notability, but a few unrelated ones got the scalpel. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 01:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- This matter has been forwarded to WP:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Ashmalee. I did not mention the BLP violations, but IYKYK. Thanks to all for input anyone has at AfD. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
TESCREAL#Alleged TESCREALists
I want some input. Following WP:BLP, @Avatar317 removed significant amounts of material from the TESCREAL article (See diff
I'd argue material is fairly well sourced, and many of these figures are WP:PUBLICFIGURE (i.e. Elon Musk, SBF, Sam Altman, and various high level philosophers).
As per WP:BLP, in cases of conflict, I was told to escalate here on noticeboard for suggestions from community.
Some background:
- Admin Arbitrarily0 closed an AfD for TESCREAL with merge on December 2023. It was closed for lack of WP:N
- Multiple sources since December have used the term and analyzed it. I used Draftspace to improve and asked User_talk:Arbitrarily0#Draft:TESCREAL to see if it could be undeleted.
- It was undeleted today by admin. Avatar317 is upset and has also opposed Template:Did_you_know_nominations/TESCREAL
Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- From WP:PUBLICFIGURE:"If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." ---Avatar317(talk) 03:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Avatar317: Could you be more specific about which portion of this section is of concern for you? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Anything OTHER than self-described TECREALISTS. ---Avatar317(talk) 03:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Can you provide a reason why? We need specifics other than "I hate this article and will throw what I can as WP:WIKILAWYER".
- We addressed these are all public figures, that there is significant useful sourcing for most of these claims. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- We are describing this supposed philosophy as being akin to a secular religion. We would likely avoid branding anyone with a religion that they have not chosen to identify with. The claim that it is not a pejorative is at odds with the statement in the intro that "the acronym is sometimes used to criticize a perceived belief system associated with Big Tech". It is not a term developed by holders of the belief to identify themselves, and it is hard to see that it's something we should be using to label people any more than "woke" or "TERF". -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Anything OTHER than self-described TECREALISTS. ---Avatar317(talk) 03:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Currently, nearly all figures in the section have multiple sources.
- Maybe Peter Thiel could be removed for now, as well as Ray Kurzweil. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- I can't read the FinancialTimes article, because it is behind a paywall. Can you please provide quotes, because the association to Musk via one quote where he said he liked the Russian guy well known as a Cosmist was used as the ultimate source for Musk's connection in the first deleted article, and that alleged connection was deemed to be WAY too weak of a connection. ---Avatar317(talk) 03:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- 2 of the 9 paragraphs deal with Musk in this source. The formatting gets messed up on copy paste into here.
- """
- Tech luminaries certainly overlap in their interests. Elon Musk, who wants to colonise Mars, has expressed sympathy for longtermist thinking and owns Neuralink, essentially a transhumanist company. Peter Thiel, the PayPal co-founder, has backed anti-ageing technologies and has bankrolled a rival to Neuralink. Both Musk and Thiel invested in OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT. Like Thiel, Ray Kurzweil, the messiah of singularitarianism now employed by Google, wants to be cryogenically frozen and revived in a scientifically advanced future. Another influential figure is philosopher Nick Bostrom, a longtermist thinker. He directs Oxford university’s Future of Humanity Institute, whose funders include Musk. (Bostrom recently apologised for a historical racist email.) The institute works closely with the Centre for Effective Altruism, an Oxford-based charity. Some effective altruists have identified careers in AI safety as a smart gambit. There is, after all, no more effective way of doing good than saving our species from a robopocalypse.""" Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe this is an excerpt from a longer post, but this does not say that these people identify with a thing called "TESCREAL", rather it is a list of seemingly unrelated factoids. jp×g🗯️ 03:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. Read the article if you want.
- "People who are very rich or very clever, or both, sometimes believe weird things. Some of these beliefs are captured in the acronym Tescreal."
- ...
- "Repeated talk of a possible techno-apocalypse not only sets up these tech glitterati as guardians of humanity, it also implies an inevitability in the path we are taking." Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- This article quotes Gebru and Torres as having called these people "Tescreal". At no point does FT claim that they are "Tescreal", or even that this is a commonly-used term (the closest it gets is to say "
The label, coined by a former Google ethicist and a philosopher, is beginning to circulate online
"). The part you've quoted is vague innuendo. - "Newspaper X said that person Y said claim Z" is not the same thing as "newspaper X said claim Z" -- it's not even close.
- For a comparison, see the UFO stuff: there are plenty of reputable newspapers saying that David Grusch claimed he had proof of UFOs, but there are not reputable newspapers saying that there's proof of UFOs. jp×g🗯️ 00:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- This article quotes Gebru and Torres as having called these people "Tescreal". At no point does FT claim that they are "Tescreal", or even that this is a commonly-used term (the closest it gets is to say "
- Maybe this is an excerpt from a longer post, but this does not say that these people identify with a thing called "TESCREAL", rather it is a list of seemingly unrelated factoids. jp×g🗯️ 03:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I can't read the FinancialTimes article, because it is behind a paywall. Can you please provide quotes, because the association to Musk via one quote where he said he liked the Russian guy well known as a Cosmist was used as the ultimate source for Musk's connection in the first deleted article, and that alleged connection was deemed to be WAY too weak of a connection. ---Avatar317(talk) 03:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Avatar317: Could you be more specific about which portion of this section is of concern for you? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Including a list of specific people on an article about a pejorative political term seems to me like a quite obvious BLP violation -- would we have a list of pundits at feminazi, christofascist, SJW, et cetera, cited only to other pundits, who hate them? jp×g🗯️ 02:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- We have Big Tech, a "perjorative term" for big tech companies.
- There are some "perjorative" terms that occur on wikipedia that have allegations that public figures are them. They fall into the pattern you suggest "doesn't happen" on here. Many of these terms are far more perjorative than TESCREALists.
- Democrat in Name Only is a similarly "perjorative term" that alleged Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson as DINOs in the 200s.
- Republican_in_Name_Only alleges Brian Kemp and others.
- Cuckservative is thrown at Jeb Bush and John Mccain
- If we keep it in Wikivoice, and they are WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and there are multiple opinions alleging them as such, we should include it with the appropriate WP:WIKIVOICE Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'd also argue that "feminazi", etc. are internet jargon slurs used to demean. TESCREAL is originated by well published scientists and philosophers, i.e. Timnit Gebru, and Emile P Torres. Its roots are clearly scholarly and scholarly criticism of philosophies is generally not a perjorative political term right now.
- If you find a reliable source arguing otherwise (I've seen the rando medium post arguing TESCREAL is a conspiracy, its WP:SPS), then we should consider WP:BLP. It has no current perjorative connotation as it has not entered mainstream discourse, though it is useful enough of an organizing idea that multiple folks are now using it to describe current veins of thought regarding some AI leaders/philosophers. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- In general, it is clearly not the case that everything that comes out of the mouth of a credentialed scholar is a neutral, scientific claim based on pure apolitical reason. For example, Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Zizek are both very prestigious psychologists and university professors, who both hold all sorts of esteemed doctorates and professorships. However, obviously, neither of them are speaking as neutral scholars in magazine interviews about who's ruining society these days.
- I assume you mean this Medium article written by James Hughes, who is a sociologist and a research fellow at UMass Boston’s Center for Applied Ethics. I am not a huge fan of the academic micturation contest framing in the first place, but I don't think there is really a credible basis to say that Emile Torres is a "well-published philosopher" and this guy is a "rando". jp×g🗯️ 00:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. Emile P Torres and Timnit Gebru are not in the slight neutral, nor is James Hughes. And I'd argue that science often is not neutral and is often necessarily political. (see Climate Change or the "Do artifacts have politics?" paper)
- Apologies for suggesting that James Hughes is a nobody, I mean to say that he needs to publish in a source that can stand up. The article had previously been deleted for lack of WP:RELIABLE sources, and I took great pains to try to include all the reliable sources I could. I think including criticism of the term, especially while its new and highly fluid in every source I find, could improve the article more.
- I think this topic is highly political, and like any highly political topic, there are folks who use the most hyperbolic comments on both sides, whether characterizing everyone who is associated with even a single one of the movements as part of a larger eugenics conspiracy (bit of a stretch) or that TESCREAL is a slur invented by the left (also bit of a stretch).
- Currently, my opinion is its just an academic term for a phenomena of weird ideologies in Silicon Valley.
- We should use WP:OPINION on highly political topics. (I note that the Transhumanism article uses this significantly, as do many contemporary philosophy articles on Wikipedia). We should not consider deleting large portions of information stated in WP:OPINION just because we consider the politics to be particularly obnoxious (even possibly to ourselves as editors) or to the WP:PUBLICFIGURE that the politics criticizes.
- The plethora of opinion pieces, commentaries, scientific articles, and (Some) straight news pieces suggest that this political term has some notability. And that many of these sources suggest and argue that Elon Musk and others are examples suggests we should include them in a list of alleged "Tescrealists", as long as we use WP:OPINION. Alleging that Elon Musk and others participate in weird ideologies that happens to be described by some as TESCREAL is not something that should be contentious to point out either. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
In vitro fertilisation
In vitro fertilisation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In this edit a previously uncited but vague mention of unprofessional conduct by unnamed doctors has become a direct accusation against a named person. It remains uncited. The editor who added the new sentence, who appears to have a conflict of interest, says they will edit war to keep the paragraph in place. Extra eyes would be useful. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have removed the paragraph consisting of BLP violations. While the information added is likely true, the burden is on the editor adding the information to provide a citation. The behavior of SuperinfoTU on their talk page is not encouraging. It suggests that they see no issues in their policy violations thus far and expect to continue violating myriad policies. An admin should consider a NOTHERE block. Toadspike [Talk] 14:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- As I've explained before I respect the policy. You are bored going back and forth. SuperinfoTU (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the "Controversies" section of this article per WP:CSECTION and WP:BLP. Particularly concerning is the seven paragraph subsection on "Accusations of antisemitism". Note that this is not only a BLP but an active politician (not sure if that is relevant but it seems like it ought to be).
I'd be curious to hear what those more knowledgeable about our BLP policies think about this. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't speak French, but a search of "Jean-Luc Mélenchon" and "conspiracy theories" produces many results from newspapers I do recognize as reliable. The heading does seem to unduly suggest there are "controversies" instead of just criticism, so I'd suggest that should probably be changed. The criticism itself appears due based on my search. Say ocean again (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Could someone please look at Nina Power and especially Talk:Nina Power#She is a confirmed nazi now, where editors are seeking to include material about a libel case based solely on primary sources. I suspect that the core factual statements may well be correct, although the tone of the edits is quite lurid, but there's no secondary sourcing for anything beyond the initiation of the case. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've removed the stuff which were sourced to court documents and self published sources not from Nina Power. Possibly the best solution is just deletion though. From what I see, there are currently zero secondary sources about Nina Power in that article. Instead, it just seems to be sourced to what she has published in various UK papers etc. I haven't done WP:BEFORE so perhaps such sources exist, but definitely the article seems to be highly problematic as it stands. Nil Einne (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I agree that it's all pretty marginal. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nina Power for some previous discussion. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not clear what the actual problem is, folks. A look at the history shows that previously, secondary sources were removed (e.g. a pair of reviews of art shows mentioning her). And now, court findings cannot be included even when they bear directly on confirmed facts, or when they act as a secondary source confirming the subject's own words and actions?
- This is someone that's been a (generally minor, sector-specific less minor) public figure on a (public) political journey rightwards. The only edits I've seen in response to asking for tightening up the wording and sourcing has been over-broad and wholesale deletion of recent updates that form a part of that public political journey. Chaikney (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think court findings are WP:PRIMARY. We should probably wait for a secondary source, i.e. news media, to report, unfortunately. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Brief aside: It appears that she is known for her anti-trans advocacy (she has self identified as part of "TERF" island in one article). that's probably why there is a fair bit of interest on both sides now, and why many folks want to keep her article in the past AfD.
- I agree, starting an AfD may be best, there isn't enough independent sources about her. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- hmm, change my mind, I see some sourcing that is significant. Many of her book reviews also include criticisms of her past history. Should be correct to include the book reviews, and include attributed opinions around her politics in her bio. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing much on her, but plenty on her book. Seems that might be the better subject of an article? [3][4][5][6]
- The Nazi bit seems entirely undue from searches. Say ocean again (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- hmm, change my mind, I see some sourcing that is significant. Many of her book reviews also include criticisms of her past history. Should be correct to include the book reviews, and include attributed opinions around her politics in her bio. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
It appears that uncited material was removed from the article but the notice tag remains unchanged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:cd02:32b0:714d:c327:d7d0:c06e (talk • contribs)
- The article still needs improving, so the tags are valid IMHO. GiantSnowman 21:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
WP:BLPPRIMARY issue on John Leguizamo article
John Leguizamo appeared on a genealogy show called Finding Your Roots in 2022. Within a day of the airing, this edit changed the widely reported birth date, his name at birth, and a few other details related to his family based on the findings of the show. There seems to be several issues with this, as the details are shown for two brief seconds in a visual overview of a family tree and other editors have considered it 'confirmation of his actual birthdate'. Taking one conflicting date as fact when there are multiple RS pointing to a different date seems to be ignoring WP:DOB. This also draws into question if WP:BLPPRIMARY comes into play and how it should be applied with a brief 'blink-and-you-will-miss-it!' showing of primary details. Since the name listed in the show also is not reported elsewhere, it adds further conflict to how to report on that since it is based on a primary source. @TheSandDoctor: since you were the person who originally initiated the WP:DOB RfC regarding conflicting dates of birth, I wanted to request your opinion for cases like this in the future where multiple sources point to one year, and a solitary source points to another.
I have included the references I could find regarding his year of birth, including his About Me bio from his book. I also was unsure of if Copyright.gov is a reliable source since I know we consider the Library Of Congress reliable for years of birth, or have in the past, but I included it as well for the year of birth.
Copyright Office authorship query, "Leguizamo, John, 1964-"
Current biography yearbook (1998), page 368 "Leguizamo, John - July 22, 1964"
MacMillan Profiles Latino Americans (1999), page 197 "John Leguizamo, July 22, 1964"
Santa Ana Orange County Register Sunday Newspaper Archives July 25, 1999 Page 243 "Recalled John Leguizamo, 35"
The Oxford encyclopedia of Latinos and Latinas in the United States (2005), page 539 "Leguizamo was born in Bogata, Colombia, on July 22, 1964"
Latino Wisdom (2006), page 47 "Born in Bogata, Colombia, in 1964, Leguizamo"
Who : a directory of prominent people, 2nd Ed (2007), page 266 "Leguizamo, John (1964-)"
The works of John Leguizamo (2008), page 3 "Was born in Bogata, Colombia, in 1964" (About the author page from his book)
Time Almanac 2009, page 56 "Leguizamo ( 22 Jul 1964)"
Encyclopedia Britannica Almanac 2010, page 56 "John Leguizamo, 22 July, 1964"
CNN, Oct 3, 2014 "50 people turning 50 in 2014 — John Leguizamo had a milestone birthday on July 22 as he celebrated turning 50."
InterviewMagazine, May 31, 2016 "Now, at age 51, Leguizamo"
Vogue, Apr 6, 2017 "The 52-year-old actor was born in Colombia,"
GQ, Feb 28, 2018 "Yeah, something's definitely different about John Leguizamo. He thinks it might come down to his age—he's 53 now, over half a century"
NBC News, Apr 13, 2023 "Leguizamo, 62, has enjoyed"
Awshort (talk) 10:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- This should be reverted to the date in the majority of sources you've supplied and make a note about the discrepancy. Say ocean again (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Awshort: Thanks for the ping. I would agree with @Say ocean again: in saying that we should probably include it as a footnote but list the predominantly reported one. The case that spawned the DOB RfC was a bit unique in that literally no reliable sources can/could agree for some reason on Taylor Lorenz's age to the level that we have to include a 3 year gap as they all contradict each other...that doesn't happen very often, I would hope. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I do a lot of work in AFDLand and right now we have one, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aimee Knight where there might be BLP concerns. There has been some Twitter canvassing going on and lots of low edit, sporadically editing, accounts participating in the discussion who might not be that familiar with Wikipedia policies, like WP:BLP. I'd welcome some evaluation by editors knowledgeable about BLP concerns to state whether there are legitimate BLP issues or if there are not. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 23:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Ella Thomas
Page is currently being targeted with protracted effort to delete relevant and current as well as cited information.
Even citation links to verified information is being removed. Married with child is indisputable based on links that were erased. Average google search of interviews would verify articles and podcasts in actresses on voice.
Seeems to be an attempt to denounce her nationality as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erifanz (talk • contribs) 04:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- courtesy link: Ella Thomas Say ocean again (talk) 05:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Have you considered starting a discussion at Talk:Ella Thomas, which is the first place to discuss issues with that article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm been trying to figure how to go about starting a discussion which is why I was asking for assistance. Erifanz (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Erifanz, you seem to be saying [7] that you are Ella Thomas. Is that correct? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- No... I am her cousin Rusa. I manage the page with her sister. I never had an issue before so am confused why this started and why I'm being blocked when I asked for help. Please advise. Erifanz (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Erifanz Take the time to read
- This issue probably started because one or more Wikipedians noticed that the article didn't look like a WP:BLP should (WP has a lot of stuff like that, people only notice what they notice). That often happens when friends and relatives edit WP-articles about people, since they tend to do so from a "This person is AWESOME" perspective, whether they mean to or not. The purpose of a WP-article about Ella Thomas is to be a summary of independent WP:RS about Ella Thomas. Some WP:ABOUTSELF allowed, but still needs citing. Just because something is online doesn't mean it's useful as a source, especially for a WP:BLP. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for being so kind and taking the time to clarify.
- I'm still confused because I read through guidelines and there is no subjective context to her page. It's her early life, present life and catalog of work. When I look at similar pages of actresses... I followed the format almost identically. Even other actresses and actors repped at the agency have the same format.
- I understand that we don't own the page and appreciate the format correction. I also don't understand why an interview with her and her husband doesn't count as a citation.
- Again thank you for your patience with my questions. Erifanz (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Are we talking about [8]? If so, while it's possible that they say "yeah, we are married etc" somewhere in that 70 min podcast, the text on that page doesn't make that clear at all. So for an editor who looks at that cited page, it doesn't seem to say the are married or have a child together. This may be possible to improve with Template:Cite AV media, which has a parameter for time (like when in the podcast do they say this.) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- We're also very strict about copyright around here. At least when we notice we should be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- There is no copyright infringement... I literally manage her website. Those images are on my computer as press files for her. They are our images. Even the old one and the image you questioned are being used everywhere even by her modeling agency. The shots were done for PR. (I understand why it's a conflict of interest on the other issues of editing but that would cause half of the actors and actresses pages to be blocked.) Can you at least please reinstate the new image. Erifanz (talk) 09:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Then you need to prove that on Commons, guidance in the "possible copyright violation" template at [9]. The default assumption on WP and Commons for pics like these is that the copyright holder is the photographer. Note also, that when you upload a pic the way you did, you stated that the picture was free for anyone to use commercially, which is fine if that's what you want. More at Wikipedia:A picture of you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not when it's a paid shoot by the actress for PR and website... she retains rights tto the image for publicity. Thank you again for all your answers. I've learned a great deal tonight. Erifanz (talk) 10:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is what you need to prove on Commons. Follow the guidance there. User:Erifanz saying this is so is not enough. And again, you uploaded the pic as "under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license." That means free for commercial use. With attribution. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your help... I think I'm giving up and handing this off to someone else. Erifanz (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is what you need to prove on Commons. Follow the guidance there. User:Erifanz saying this is so is not enough. And again, you uploaded the pic as "under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license." That means free for commercial use. With attribution. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not when it's a paid shoot by the actress for PR and website... she retains rights tto the image for publicity. Thank you again for all your answers. I've learned a great deal tonight. Erifanz (talk) 10:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Then you need to prove that on Commons, guidance in the "possible copyright violation" template at [9]. The default assumption on WP and Commons for pics like these is that the copyright holder is the photographer. Note also, that when you upload a pic the way you did, you stated that the picture was free for anyone to use commercially, which is fine if that's what you want. More at Wikipedia:A picture of you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- There is no copyright infringement... I literally manage her website. Those images are on my computer as press files for her. They are our images. Even the old one and the image you questioned are being used everywhere even by her modeling agency. The shots were done for PR. (I understand why it's a conflict of interest on the other issues of editing but that would cause half of the actors and actresses pages to be blocked.) Can you at least please reinstate the new image. Erifanz (talk) 09:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- No... I am her cousin Rusa. I manage the page with her sister. I never had an issue before so am confused why this started and why I'm being blocked when I asked for help. Please advise. Erifanz (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Steve Darling has said "During his national campaign, he gained recognition when local Conservative Party campaigners falsely accused him of pretending to be blind for political gain, according to the charity Devon in Sight." The charity has no evidence that this happened. It seems to have been a political stunt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.13.54 (talk) 10:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Article now says "... allegedly falsely accused him..." which is supported by a Guardian article. I don't see an ongoing BLP issue here Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
There are frequent edits to this article on a living person, a politician with a "divisive" stance and is covered in international news. Many of the edits in my opinion do not provide a balanced narrative and do not introduce a neutral point of view. Asking for help to moderate this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.158.98.6 (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Greetings. The word you quoted does not presently appear in the live version of the article. Also, the article talk page is a live and active forum where you can bring such concerns. This forum is for when talk page discussions fail to produce a consensus. Please present your concerns at the active talk page. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 01:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Sorett is a dean at Columbia College who has recently been involved in some controversy around text messages for which three other deans were placed on leave. Sorett himself was not placed on leave, nor did he send any of the texts at issue, though he allegedly replied "lmao" to some of them (according to the Washington Free Beacon, but reprinted in higher-quality sources including the New York Times). Can we get some outside opinions on whether this controversy ought to be described on the biographical article about him? Discussion here: Talk:Josef Sorett#Texting controversy. Courtesy ping to Jjazz76. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
ANI thread with some BLP implications
Noting that people experienced with BLPs might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#84.206.11.96. I'm not sure what to do so input from others is welcome. Thanks. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- If it wasn't for her election to the European Parliament I'd be nominating the article for deletion per WP:BLP1E. Seems like a bit of an attack piece and needs some copyediting. TarnishedPathtalk 01:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I semi-protected the article for three months. Johnuniq (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Max Volume
Max Volume (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There is a lot of unreferenced content in this article, added by a user with a username similar to the article title. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- I removed a bunch of the unsourced content and added some page tags. Still a lot of unsourced information. I'm not sure if this article subject is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. – notwally (talk) 02:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've posted some potential sources on the article's talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
The Section that I have removed regarding the shooting at a weigh-in involving Daniel Kinahan is entirely inaccurate as it alleges Frank Warren as a co-promoter. In truth, his business was a broadcaster of the event via Boxnation with the event promoted by MGM.
As the fight poster shows: Fight Poster The event was an MGM event and not co-promoted by Mr. Warren but only associated. Mr. Warren had no involvement in the event or present at the shooting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stfen98 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Stfen98 Presumably you mean Frank Warren (promoter). Try starting a discussion with @ADifferentMan, who reverted you, at Talk:Frank Warren (promoter). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
John Ioannidis
In the wikipedia page on professor Ioannidis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ioannidis this claim features notably in the lead text:
"Ioannidis was a prominent opponent of lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic, and he has been accused of promoting conspiracy theories concerning COVID-19 policies and public health and safety measures.[5][6][7][8]"
The claim about conspiracy theories is misleading, uses poor sources (the opinion of one single writer that is even misrepresented), and, since it targets a notable living scientist, thus defamatory. The way it was constructed and added to the lead text is aggravating from a legal perspective and also indicative of a bias entirely orthogonal to Wikipedia's mission of objectivity.
1) The sentence applies misleading citation practises: Upon inspection only 1 of the 4 references actually implies a link to conspiracy theories (David Freedman). Honest editors would put the references to the particularly grave claim on conspiracy theories separately, after these words. This choice of citation method fakes a stronger evidence for the defamatory statement than actually exists (1, not 4).
2) The claim uses poor sources and the claim itself has low credibility: The actual claim turns out upon inspection to be this single (not four) personal witness account: "I saw it on the faces of those medical students. To them Ioannidis may always be the fringe scientist who pumped up a bad study that supported a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory in the middle of a massive health crisis."
So this is a single claim by a single writer (David Freedman) based on his personal reflection not in his own head, which would still not a be notable source, but how he interprets (!) the faces of a group of medical students (!). Aside from being impressed by Freedman's ability to deduce facial expressions at such precision and semantic detail, this is poor sourcing with libellous content, against WIkipedia policies. Noting also that this libbellous content has been repeatedly reintroduced by some actors.
3) Even the claim itself is misrepresented (actual misinformation). The wikipedia text introduced states that Prof. Ioannidis was "accused of promoting conspiracy theories". Beyond the low source quality noted above, the actual statement in the source is "To them Ioannidis may always be the fringe scientist who pumped up a bad study that supported a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory in the middle of a massive health crisis." So the accusation is that he made a study that supported conspiracy theories (a study that is now peer reviewed and published in a leading epidemiology journal, which is - interestingly - omitted, also suggesting lack of objective balance) - not that he promoted conspiracy theories himself, which is entirely different. This is misinformation, and by the way it targets a notable living scientist, thus also defamatory.
I think this case study of wikipedia defamation and multiple violations of good editing conduct is notable enough to be considered in a review on misinformation and biases in Wikipedia pages. It is an important topic both for science and for democracy.
PS - Note that Prof Ioannidis has published hundreds of papers with hundreds of coauthors the last few years - claiming him to be fringe as done elsewhere in the same article is directly disproven by his continued centrality in science publishing, and this claim is also purely opinion-based and fails source credibility, even if it had been true (it is, at the very best, highly debatable as evidenced by his scholar page:
https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=da&user=JiiMY_wAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.49.43.69 (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- There's a lengthy section on his COVID-19 positions later in the article, of which the line in the intro is a fair summary. That's how Wikipedia works. It's fine. XOR'easter (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Is this really ok?
- The section on his COVID-19 positions presents one source for the term "conspiracy theory". Quoting the source:
- "I saw it on the faces of those medical students. To them Ioannidis may always be the fringe scientist who pumped up a bad study that supported a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory in the middle of a massive health crisis."
- This is quoted in the Wiki page as:
- "Writing for Wired, David H. Freedman said that the Santa Clara study compromised Ioannidis's previously excellent reputation and meant that future generations of scientists may remember him as "the fringe scientist who pumped up a bad study that supported a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory in the middle of a massive health crisis."
- The lead section says:
- "Ioannidis was a prominent opponent of lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic, and he has been accused of promoting conspiracy theories concerning COVID-19 policies and public health and safety measures."
- This is referenced with four sources. The first source does not use the word "conspiracy theory". The third source does also not use the word "conspiracy theory". The second source is the article already mentioned. The fourth source says that "[f]or many of his colleagues, Ioannidis’ views could support conspiracy theories in the middle of the crisis" but concludes that his views were in the realm of reasonable scientific disagreement and should not be conflated with conspiracy theories or misinformation.
- My questions:
- 1. Does this fulfill NPOV and BLP rules for sourcing and neutrality ("the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each")?
- 2. Does this sourcing justifiy the claim of having "been accused of promoting conspiracy theories" in the lead section of a living person? 77.8.134.52 (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, seems like a fair – if anything quite mild – summary. Bon courage (talk) 05:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- 1. How do you conclude that placing the claim of having "been accused of promoting conspiracy theories" in the lead section represents a viewpoint in proportion to its prominence, as per RSUW?
- 2. Why do two sources, one of which concludes that Ioannidis is not guilty of having promoted conspiracy theories, justify the claim of having "been accused of promoting conspiracy theories" in the lead section of a living person? Is this really "well sourced," as per BLP? 77.1.184.13 (talk) 10:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, seems like a fair – if anything quite mild – summary. Bon courage (talk) 05:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
This discussion may be of interest to those who hang out at this noticeboard. XOR'easter (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Tommy Robinson (activist)
extremely concerning abuse of wikipedia rules, user 92.19.46.45 has committed blatant libel and argues they do not need to source their claims that mr robinson is an "international terrorist". as well as this, there are currently discussions in the talk page that the lead is also in violation of multiple rules based on ideological reasons. in lieu of this, an upgrade in protection status is not only warranted but urgently needed in my opinion. below are three of their statements:
Given that its crimes in multiple countries are considered terrorism, a better start to the article would be. <Convicted international terrorist Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon (born 27 November 1982), better known as Tommy Robinson, is a British anti-Islam campaigner and one of the UK’s most dangerous far-right terrorists.> We cannot deny that it has committed some serious offences. And even if a reliable source for its terrorist atrocities doesn't currently exist, then one can be made to cite the article after it is edited to make such a declaration. Then we'd have a reliable source to cite, improving the validity of the assertion. It's not like anyone can prove it isn't a terrorist, so that's good enough to strengthen the article. 92.19.46.45 (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
blatant defamation that is in violation of wikipedia rules, warranting the user being permanently banned
Is there any need to give far right conspiracy theories legitimacy while describing the behaviour of vermin? It's like one of its subhuman supporters got to this page and edited those in just to protect a fellow member of its kind. 92.19.46.45 (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
the user is clearly incapable of impartiality
Present any video evidence you have in your possession or sources that have indisputable proof, things that nobody could possibly argue were doctored, or stop spreading conspiracy theories as fact. 92.19.46.45 (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
this last statement is in regards to the user in violation believing that a UK court room finding dozens of men guilty of beating, drugging, and raping 1000s of working class girls not to be sufficient evidence to argue robinson exposed a crime (Telford child sexual exploitation scandal, the Rochdale child sex abuse ring and the Huddersfield grooming gang). they wish to instead remove it until they are (to my potentially and hopefully incorrect understanding) personally provided a video of a child being gangraped. i believe the user may have ulterior, and frankly illegal, motives and should be reported to the police. i would like to encourage moderators to review the discussion personally, as i fear i may have misinterpreted this, but i think it is quite clear what is being asked. if i have misread, i apologise.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by NotQualified (talk • contribs) 03:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- BLP applies to talk pages so the IP shouldn't have said that, and looking at their history Special:Contributions/92.19.46.45, I think someone who can deal with responses probably should have a stern word with them or frankly since they've already been told to cut it out, perhaps even a block might be already merited. But to suggest they need to reported to the police is seriously over the top, and violates WP:NLT to boot. Nil Einne (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well I said something to the IP even gave a CTOP alert given the IP seems to have been around for 3 months. However as implied by my first post, it's unlikely I can deal with any followups. Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Brendan DuBois
Brendan DuBois was very recently arrested and charged with possession of child pornography. Because he is a bestselling author, this has received lots of media coverage (although there's not much to report). Since this is a case of someone who is not a public figure being charged but not yet convicted, I have removed the information from DuBois's article, but perhaps others have different opinions about inclusion. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- if they have an article about them they are a "public figure". you are allowed to say he has allegations and has been arrested and charged but not convicted as that is objectively true NotQualified (talk) 07:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- The ABC or Wikipedia have an article on someone definitely does not make them a public figure. I'm unconvinced DuBois is a public figure, I don't think all notable authors are public figures, the nature of their work means they tend to have to be less self-promotional than actors and the like or musicians and there is often less focus on them as individuals. While he has won some awards and has a notable book, the sources on him seem fairly limited. I don't think his appearances on two game shows is enough self-promotion to make him a public figure. Nil Einne (talk) Nil Einne (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Having looked at the sources, note however that even if DuBois is not a public figure, I think we still have to mention something despite WP:BLPCRIME. Putting aside the severity of the accused crime, since at least one publisher has stopped sales of his books, it's the sort of career impacting accusation that IMO we still have to mention even after serious consideration of excluding. Nil Einne (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- The ABC or Wikipedia have an article on someone definitely does not make them a public figure. I'm unconvinced DuBois is a public figure, I don't think all notable authors are public figures, the nature of their work means they tend to have to be less self-promotional than actors and the like or musicians and there is often less focus on them as individuals. While he has won some awards and has a notable book, the sources on him seem fairly limited. I don't think his appearances on two game shows is enough self-promotion to make him a public figure. Nil Einne (talk) Nil Einne (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Piotr Glas
Possible BLP vio. Original post by two anons here 25 July 24. A third anon removed "fundamentalist", which has been their since the article's creation. A fourth anon edited / removed questionable content, plus more, giving the current state (diff). Bot and a registered made minor edits in that diff. The fourth anon, 03:24, made no edit summaries nor communicated on their talk page and was blocked 1 week by Drmies. I and Aintabli restored the original edits. Current state is without questionable content plus edits the fourth anon made.
Should this be on the article?
Sources. Not too many found that I thought RS. The first source (below) was added with the original post. I added the second. The third and fourth I found later but did not add.
- "Man charged with sexual offences". States of Jersey Police. Archived from the original on 20 June 2024. Retrieved 30 June 2024.</ref>
- "Former Jersey Catholic priest charged with 10 historic sexual offences against a child on island". ITV. 25 June 2024. Archived from the original on 25 June 2024. Retrieved 29 June 2024.
- "Polski ksiądz oskarżony o ataki seksualne na dzieci. Angielska diecezja potwierdza" [Polish priest in UK accused of sex crimes against minors]. Rzeczpospolita (in Polish). 24 June 2024. Archived from the original on 24 June 2024. Retrieved 11 July 2024.
- "Polish priest in UK accused of sex crimes against minors". Polskie Radio. 25 June 2024. Archived from the original on 11 July 2024. Retrieved 11 July 2024.
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Thank you Adakiko (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Steven Crowder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2601:602:A001:5750:9448:B651:4900:8688 (talk · contribs) made a possible BLP violation by writing about 'a false accusation made by the subject's opponents', which is sourced to Reddit.[10]Ae245 (talk) 06:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- I just protected the page and REVDELed those edits before seeing this post here on BLPN EvergreenFir (talk) 06:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Sam Neill
For the article on Sam Neill I have been quoting from his 2023 memoir “Did I ever tell you this”. This is in accord with the Policy page on “Biographies of Living People” which says only that material “challenged or likely to be challenged” shall be supported by neutral sources; but it does not say that quoting from memoirs is forbidden!
But (talk) is saying that this is forbidden. However his memoir would enable me to add (e.g) that he attended Cashmere and Medbury (primary) schools before attending Christs’ College. It would be difficult to find any primary sources for that.Hugo999 (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC) (see my talkpage0
- Sam Neill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- This concerns text in an article and should be discussed on the article talk page, not at a user talk page, and not here until after article talk. The comment you received was talking about what is WP:DUE to be mentioned in an article. For example, an autobiography might say that someone climbed a tree when they were five. Mentioning that in the article at Wikipedia would not be DUE, not unless something dramatic happened as a result of the climb. The thing that makes it DUE is when secondary sources describe the incident and its consequences. I don't have an opinion on the issue in this case, but what I have outlined is what needs to be considered. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- It was discussed on my talk page (originally) and the article talk page! Hugo999 (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- There is no relevant discussion on article talk apart from the comment you added an hour after my above post. Softlavender posted on your talk because their comment was advice related to your editing. You could get other opinions about that at WP:Teahouse but the issue of whether or not certain text should be added to the article should be discussed on article talk so others can easily see it now, and in the future if it arises again. Johnuniq (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- It was discussed on my talk page (originally) and the article talk page! Hugo999 (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hugo999, there is no reason to find WP:PRIMARY sources for anything. I'm not sure where you got that idea. What is desirable is sources that are independent of the subject; that is, not written by the subject himself. Please read WP:RS if you have not yet done so. Softlavender (talk) 05:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Donald Trump biography contains libel and slander
The biography page of Donald John Trump contains slanderous comments that are unsourced. This should not be allowed according to your own rules. Disturbing. 2605:A601:A908:6E00:B88F:2AA7:F368:C4BC (talk) 11:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Please take a look at the big blue box at the top of this page: matters raised at this noticeboard generally need to have been discussed on the article talkpage first, and be posted here with diffs making clear what the issue is. Unfortunately it's not really possible to address your concern if you haven't provided specifics on what it relates to. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Since you're not giving any specifics, there's nothing to act on, if that matters. However, WP:LEADCITE may be of interest to you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Update Needed: Link to Lenny Krayzelburg's Bio
Lenny_Krayzelburg
Dear Wikipedia Editors,
I hope this message finds you well.
The domain LennyKswim.com, previously associated with a swimming school, is now an online casino. The school has rebranded and moved to SwimRightAcademy.com.
Please update any links from LennyKswim.com to SwimRightAcademy.com to direct visitors to the correct site.
For example: http://www.lennykswim.com/about-lenny-krayzelburg.php to https://www.swimrightacademy.com/about-swim-right-academy/ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenny_Krayzelburg#cite_ref-10 )
Thank you for your assistance.
Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Андрей Злобин (talk • contribs) 18:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)