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.

charles gasparino

Charlie Gasparino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

citing a dna report should not be in the bio describing ethnicity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.75.169.49 (talk)

Is this a BLP violation?

[1] It’s mentioned in Tracy Stone-Manning but I’m not sure it belongs in Eco_terrorism. Doug Weller talk 19:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Besides being a poor source for politics per WP:FOXNEWS, the cited article stops short of labeling Stone-Manning an eco-terrorist herself, so I'd say it's definitely inappropriate for a section titled "Individuals accused or convicted" of eco-terrorism. clpo13_(talk) 20:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes. The sources in Stone-Manning's article do not discuss the incident as a eco-terrorist accusation or conviction against her. The source used in the Eco terrorism article is Fox News, and it's not reliable for the claim. I haven't reviewed the list of "Individuals accused or convicted", but its title seems like a magnet for BLP violations. Firefangledfeathers 20:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

The editor User:Viktory02 who added the label keeps edit-warring the term eco-terrorist into the BLP even though the sourcing doesn't substantiate the term.[2] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi I've added additional sources as requested. Describing this as an "edit war" is disingenuous. Is Tracey Stone-Manning an Ecoterrorist? Well, she was never convicted so she would not be considered one. Has Tracey Stone-Manning been accused of being an Ecoterrorist? Yes. Viktory02 (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

An edit I have promptly undone as the sources are quotes from those upset with the subject's confirmation. Slywriter (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

That is the entire basis of an accusation. Also many of the same quotes are from individuals who opposed the nomination to begin with. Viktory02 (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The low bar of opponent's mudslingling should NEVER be the standard for a BLP article. Especially mudslinging covered in overtly partisan publications.Slywriter (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Tom Harrison (cricket)

I'm not sure what to make of Tom Harrison Is he notable? 100% But the page has one source, one which reads like a press release and thus the page reads like an ad. Any suggestions as how to fix it? Which tags to add to it? MaskedSinger (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The CEO of the England and Wales Cricket Board is notable. A duckduckgo search for "Tom Harrison cricket" brings up lots of sources. They just need to be added to the page. Burrobert (talk) 11:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Burrobert: Notability isn't the issue. I wrote he's notable. My issue with the page is that there are no sources and it reads like a resume. I've read up on this and will add tags to the page. MaskedSinger (talk) 13:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Valentin Katasonov

• Valentin Katasonov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I looked into this article because it referenced Michel Chossudovsky's "globalresearch.ca", calling it a "Canadian information resource", which is a bit of a stretch, as you'll see from the article on Chossudovsky.

The main issue seems to be, though, that the article relies heavily on affiliated sources, and the only mainstream sources (e.g. the US State Department report) barely rise above the level of namechecks.

It is clear that Katasonov is a conspiracy theorist and Russian state propaganda conduit, but it is not clear whether he is a notable one (in the Wikipedia sense - State clearly think he is), and I don't think it would be possible to tell without a good working knowledge of Russian since there are very few reliable English language sources that mention him.

Serena Auñón-Chancellor

There have been a number of reverts to include Russian allegations that Serena Auñón-Chancellor damaged the ISS into her biography [3]. These reports have been mentioned uncritically in the content, referring to the alleged act as "the crime." While there have been reports of the allegations in the Washington Post and the New York Times, the Times at least has called it "wild speculation." I am open to suggestions on how/whether it should be mentioned, but I don't see it as compliant in the form that people keep putting back in, both in terms of its weight and its framing. This was the subject of a complaint that I declined at AN3, where editors were reverting under the BLP exemption, and other editors were ignoring it and asking for sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I guess the question turns on whether she should be considered a WP:PUBLICFIGURE as a NASA astronaut. If she is, then the controversy, which is well covered[4][5], should be mentioned but it should not be described as a crime but "alleged crime" or act since there is no conviction. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Ryan's World

Some editors try to edit and add BLPVIO info about the mother's subject into the main article and usually these revisions get removed from the revision history. This time another editor added this info in the talk page, I've reverted it so I guess if an admin can help to remove it from the revision history -Gouleg🛋️ ^harass/_hound 19:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Antonia Murphy

The Wikipedia entry for Antonia Murphy refers to the Australian actress, however it is linked to photos of Antonia Murphy the author, in addition to the author's website. If you Google "Antonia Murphy" you will see that the Wikipedia link contains incorrect informatiom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoniadreamsup (talk • contribs) 01:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Antoniadreamsup! Unfortunately, this is a problem with Google's "Knowledge Panel", not Wikipedia. See WP:FIXGOOGLE for more information and steps on reporting the image problem to Google. Woodroar (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Mortimer J. Buckley

John D Clark 5678 has entered content 3 times indicating Mortimer J. Buckley was born into a Jewish family, without any supporting reference for verification. The existing reference for the statement he has edited indicates Buckley's father was descended from Irish parents, and I have reverted 3 time, indicating a reference needs to be supplied. The user's contribution history shows a pattern of adding similar unreferenced content to more than a dozen other articles. I warned him on his talk page twice. Please advise. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

You might do better to report this at WP:ANI. From looking at other edits by John D Clark 5678, this is almost certainly vandalism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Blackie (Musician)

This article for the rapper B L A C K I E has a link to a website blackieallcapswithspaces.com that redirects to some porn site. I'm 90% sure that the correct link would be blackieallcapswithspaces.bandcamp.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.216.172.210 (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Links on Blackie (musician) have been replaced with b-l-a-c-k-i-e.com. This is the site that blackieallcapswithspaces.bandcamp.com redirects to. – NJD-DE (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Vanessa O'Brien

Vanessa_O'Brien Section "Early Life": Two biographies seem to have been mixed up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CE:F70F:FA00:884E:496F:5D8C:E5CE (talk) 12:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

It's been reverted. Just regular old vandalism. Woodroar (talk) 13:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Ariel Fernandez

Ariel Fernandez here. In the last 48hs several colleagues alerted me to the vicious predatory editing of the BLP "Ariel Fernandez". The vandalism has apparently been going on for years and takes the form of gross misrepresentations of my credentials, where a blog gets profusely quoted while a Nobel laureate gets censored, and other predatory practices, including eliminating dissention, slander, etc. Three or four papers that were challenged but never retracted get profuse attention, while the remaining 400 or so get no mention at all (a predatory editor branded any such mention "promotional"). I was encouraged by Wikipedia to provide input to help improve the BLP. However, we need a way to keep slanderers and vilifiers at bay first. A permanent reversal of their predatory editing would be a good starting point. Ariel Fernandez Account (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Not really seeing an issue. Facts are cited, and the Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. We do not exist to promote you, only to reflect what is notable in reliable sources. What is the "blog" in question that you feel should not be used? ValarianB (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

If this account is who they say they are, then they are sock, and should be indeffed. If they are not who they say they are, then they should be indeffed for impersonation of a BLP subject. Either way admins? -Roxy the dog. wooF 13:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

This account has been blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arifer and the article talk page protected. They've been really active recently and I wouldn't be surprised if they show up here again. Feel free to block people making similar requests about the Ariel Fernandez article. --Trialpears (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe the blog in question is Retraction Watch, which is cited 5 times in the article. For any BLP, Wikipedians should first ask themselves not "is this fact verifiable" but "is it relevant and given appropriate weight?", with consideration of WP:PROPORTION, WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:VNOTSUFF, WP:RECENTISM, etc. Wikipedians are not robots who must insert a fact merely because it appears in a reliable source. The article currently devotes roughly half of the Career section to four delayed or 'concerning' papers and a retraction . Does this mean that roughly half of all significant coverage of Fernandez' career (after a diligent unbiased literature review) concerns such controversial papers? If not, then the article likely gives undue weight to the issue, and the controversial papers might best be consolidated to a sentence for now, until the point when the article is longer and more structured to allow more detail to relatively minor aspects, with every aspect given weight proportional to its coverage in secondary reliable sources, which is the heart of WP:NPOV. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Does this mean that roughly half of all significant coverage of Fernandez' career (after a diligent unbiased literature review) concerns such controversial papers? Yes. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

No, it doesn't and shouldn't. According to Google Scholar, Fernandez's work has been cited 10,477 times; the supermajority being reliable sources. Retraction watch is a blog that focuses on retractions and the underlying expression of concerns by 4 journals should not be given more weight than those other sources. Morbidthoughts (talk)

I have, of course, reverted your removal of the material in question. This article has had attention from established editors for many years, with support for the content you have deleted. If you want to make changes to it, we can use conventional processes for determining whether there is consensus to do that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Where is the consensus in this archive [6] ? Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I am in no mood to edit/wheel war over this, but consensus should be obtained before presenting this material over good faith BLP objections per WP:BLPUNDEL. What do established editors have against this professor? WP:DOLT? The history of BLP non-compliant POV pushing is concerning[7] Should a RfC be called? Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I am reminded of WP:GHITS, and the comment therein: the quality of the search engine results matters more than the raw number. The existence of 10,477 citations (ignoring, among other things, the likely high number of self-citations) might be a factor to support the subject's notability, but does not provide any support for removing the reliably-sourced passage in question. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

A review of the reliable sources that have written about him and his work is definitely relevant to a discussion of WP:BLPBALANCE. Let's take a look at some of his popularly cited publications.[8][9][10] How much self-citations do you see? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the self-citation stuff is incidental to JoJo Anthrax's view. When trying to pull together sources for a biographical article, what value is there in reading papers that cite Fernandez's work? There might be a subset of those papers that cite him and include some biographical detail, but I presume it's a rarity (though I'd be happy to be proven wrong). Firefangledfeathers 21:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

From reviewing the Talk page archives, BLPN archives (at least 12 previous discussions), and RSN archives, I get several impressions. First, that that RW is one of the few secondary reliable sources mentioning anything to do with challenged papers, and the Chronicle of Higher Education used one of their pieces on Fernandez in an article about RW. Second, the use of RW as a reliable source if passionately championed by some "it has parent company and a board of directors!" (none of whom edit RW, and the parent company appears virtually synonymous with RW, but legally different for tax reasons). Third: some users have frustration with Fernandez and apparent sockpuppets repeatedly raising the issues discussed here. I think, knowing a little bit about human psychology and online behavior, it's fair to ask whether some amount of frustration and spite is driving editors to keep status quo the level of detail, and circle the wagons around RW. (But it's true!) Consensus has not been been clearly reached regarding Retraction Watch as a reliable or self-published source. A statement can be true, verifiable, and still not worthy of inclusion in a biography. I hope this doesn't turn out to be a case of "We investigated ourselves, found ourselves to be without fault, and in fact totally awesome, and have sanctioned all who disagree with us. Great work boys!" --Animalparty! (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I've now removed it as well. At this point, if there is a demonstrable consensus to keep it, then leaving it out for a few days while there is discussion hurts no one. If there ends up being a consensus not to restore it, then we've preemptively improved a BLP. There's really no reason to rush to restore, and WP:BLPRESTORE is clear that, when challenged, the material needs consensus to reinsert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

And I have now restored the stable, long-lasting, reliably sourced version of the article. I suggest that the passage be discussed rationally here, and that pseudo-psychological, disparaging comments about editors' motives (e.g., some users have frustration and some amount of frustration and spite is driving editors) be immediately stopped. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

It's time for ANI then. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I can't help but feel that the only reason there is a stable, long-lasting version of the article is because we have repeatedly hit the article subject with a stick for not following our process whenever they try to raise their concerns. WP:BLPKIND says Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern. I think SFR and Animalparty both speak a lot of sense here that we should remove the disputed content and seek consensus for a duly weighted restoration. Darren-M talk 21:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Especially as the main source used is a blog, and WP:BLPSPS exists. Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Retraction Watch opens with Retraction Watch is a blog that reports on... Columbia Journalism Review calls them Retraction Watch, a new blog that should be required reading for anyone interested in scientific journalism or the issue of accuracy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Consensus here, and also here and here, supports Retraction Watch as being a reliable, independent secondary source suitable for BLPs. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

As AnimalParty! mentioned, I don't see consensus outside of the same group of editors beating Fernandez with the stick and rubber stamping their edits; hence the predatory accusations from Fernandez Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

To start with, and without commenting on the reliability of the source itself, I think there are some misunderstandings here about what constitutes a reliable source. Reliability is not a black and white thing. For one thing, a source that may be perfectly reliable for one type of info may be totally unreliable for another. A book on knitting may be for fine source for an article on needlepoint, but a poor one for an article on atomic physics. The point is, reliability must be considered not only by the source and it's nature, but by the specific info it is providing, and this can only be done on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, citing past consensuses as if it cites a "legal precedent" or something is more likely to be just irrelevant distractions than helpful in this particular case.

But more to the point, what is the purpose of adding this info? I read it and my eyes glaze over. It doesn't tell me a single damn thing. I mean, could it be anymore vague? What do we have? Unsettled anomalies? (I mean, WTF?) Expressions of concern? Duplicate publications? Really? What is the point of telling me this? What bearing does it have, and what am I, the reader, supposed to be gleaning from it?

It really just borders on patent nonsense, or at most some double talk the likes of which a politician would give. On those grounds alone I would recommend deleting it. Zaereth (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Let us put things in perspective: Fernandez authored and published 445 papers, plenty in top tier journals (ORCID), or 331 papers since 1993 (Scopus). All we learn from Wikipedia is that there are 3-4 expressions of concern (not retractions, but Expressions of Concern, Really!?). Kind of a drop in the bucket, and like many of us feel, who cares? Is that all that Wikipedia can say about Fernandez career? The 3-4 papers were not retracted in ten-twelve years or more, so there is no indication of misconduct. And, do we need to quote the blog Retraction Watch five (5) times to support this nonsense? Really?! Fernandez's latest book is forewarded by a Nobel laureate, but that is apparently of no notability to Wikipedia? What really matters is what the bloggers at Retraction Watch have to say. Someone has an ax to grind with Fernandez, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. LeonidJoJoSchneider (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Paul Frampton

The purpose of writing/editing is to raise concerns about the Wikipedia page/profile of Paul Frampton (PF) (the Profile).

There are elements of the Profile which should not form part of it, being a Biography of a Living Person (BLP), in accordance with the policies which are more particularly set out below to assist.

The objectionable content is that contained under the heading ‘Drug Smuggling Conviction’ (the Section). The concern is that it is not relevant to the Profile nor is it in in accordance with Wikipedia’s rules/policy surrounding BLPs.

There seems to have been previous comments on this subject with conflicting views. Those who believe that it should remain do so on the grounds that it is fact and reportage of the truth. Although that may (arguably) be correct in part, that appears to be the incorrect test to apply when determining if the Section should or can remain in the Profile as a BLP.

Wikipedia’s policy on BLPs (the Policy) states:

“Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.”

Those who may be interested in PF’s work are only solely and exclusively interested in his professional accomplishments as a physicist. The only reason to involve the Section is to be sensationalist.

This is further evidenced, for example, where the heading ‘Publications’ only refers to PF’s professional works and not to those relating to this minor incident in his life detailed in the Section. The correct reasoning for this is that the Section or the detail(s) of that event and therefore any publication(s) that followed bear(s) no relevance to a BLP.

The same entry would not be included in an encyclopaedia and there seems no reason why it should therefore exist on Wikipedia.

The Policy also states:

“Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion”

The Profile/Section states that PF had been diagnosed with a serious mental condition at the time of those events which one would expect to only limit his ability to deal with the proceedings against him at that time.

It is unclear what, if any, arrangements were made by the authorities or the court to accommodate PF’s condition or to assist in anyway. There is the very real concern that PF faced clear and obvious prejudices in that respect from the outset.

On that basis there is cause to question if the conviction can only be considered unsafe given the above and therefore the Section’s inclusion.

In furtherance, it would seem that the Profile falls under the definition of ‘People who are relatively unknown’. Although PF is renowned and respected within his own field, it is highly unlikely that those outside of that extremely limited sector would know of him.

That is of course an important point since the Policy states:

“Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability…Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care”

In accordance with the Policy and the definitions set out above, the Section should be removed leaving only the parts detailing PF’s professional achievements which go to the very heart of the reason the Profile exists.

It seems that the notability of PF has nothing to do with the events detailed within the Section but his professional accolades alone.

The Policy also places emphasis on material that may adversely affect a person’s reputation and that any such material needs to be treated with special care. Given the above points as to the unsafe nature of the conviction extreme caution must be exercised when considering if the Section has the ability to be included.

In the circumstances and for the reasons set out above, the Section should be removed in its entirety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EightfoldWay (talk • contribs) 12:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. It is well sourced and neutrally written. The coverage in multiple independent outlets shows that it is notable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. It is well sourced and neutrally written. The coverage in multiple independent outlets shows that it is notable. -Roxy the dog. wooF 12:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The events related to the drug conviction absolutely affected his life and career (like, being fired and the subsequently lawsuit). And the sourcing, while mostly local, seems to be reliable, so there's no issue with this under BLPCRIME. --Masem (t) 13:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Yup, the cocaine stuff seems fine. Would likely be undue in the lede, as the self-sourced sentence about where he is "currently" (WP:RELTIME yuck) affiliated, is. Alexbrn (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

FYI, going by the talk page, the article has a long history of editors with an apparent COI making requests like this. Nil Einne (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Franklin Aigbirhio

I recently draftified a userpage that looked like a salvageable article in progress about an academic. In corresponding with the creator, he revealed that he is the article's subject. While advising him about the pitfalls of writing autobiographies, I still believe that he is likely to pass WP:NPROF. A given source shows that he at the very least meets WP:NACADEMIC criterion #3.

I lack experience with the "professor test", so I was wondering if someone else could have a look at Draft:Franklin Aigbirhio to verify that this individual is notable enough for inclusion, style and POV issues notwithstanding. Thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Undoubtedly notable through at least NPROF C1 and C3. It looks ready for mainspace. JoelleJay (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)