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.

British Members of Parliament - Date of Birth

Currently it appears that many articles about British Members of Parliament (MPs) contain dates of birth either unsourced or sourced to this raw data from the UK Parliament's official website, thought to be wrong in at least one case (Paul Maskey). Limited RSN discussion found issues with the reliability of the source. Users like Alex B4 and Opkiller82 have taken issue either by comment or by reverting with 2A02:C7F:B416:3000:406C:FFD7:660:B013, who rapidly removed many of the DOBs. A reminder that WP:BLP says: Contentious material about living persons [...] should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion (emphasis in the original). Per WP:BURDEN, if you revert then you must be able to explain why the information you are re-adding is true and justified by the reliability of the source, rather than justifying the action procedurally ("discussion was in the wrong forum", "more discussion needed"). Recall also that WP:BLPPRIVACY says that "many people regard their full names and dates of birth as private" and such information must be "widely published" for us to include it (which the raw data obviously and egregiously fails).

Opkiller82 says they emailed one MP to confirm their date of birth, which is fine as an extra precaution, but does not get around the fact that all sources we use must be published, and this information in particular needs to be widely published.

I suggest we treat this as a serious BLP issue and continue the IP's efforts by removing all dates of birth with no source or the raw data as source, and then manually on a case-by-case basis re-adding those for which we can find reliable sources (WP:SELFPUB included). Or, if someone can find an actually reliable list of all MPs DOBs then we could use that as a source (but every DOB will still need to be checked against that new source). I am aware that this is a huge pain that could take a lot of editors' time but it is important to take this seriously. — Bilorv (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Also discussed on this noticeboard at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive323#House of Parliament raw data for dates of birth of living people. I'd cleared out the dates of birth referenced by the whole list (see data.parliament.uk/membersdataplatform/services/mnis/members/query/House  ), I wasn't aware of the individual records search being used as well. Those results can (hopefully) be seen at data.parliament.uk/membersdataplatform/services/mnis/members/query  . FDW777 (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

For clarity, I agree with Bilorv and do not see it fit to revert until we have resolved this. My exact comment on the IP user's talk page was:

Hello. Having looked at the linked discussion in your edit summaries, it a. was held in the wrong forum and b. was only contributed to by four users with minimal policy referencing. I recommend re-instating the DOBs but with a Better source needed or Citation needed template, since the priority of including key facts such as DOBs in pages is why said templates exist. Thanks.

This remains my recommendation so that should be considered my contribution to the discussion. Alex (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The date of birth a British MP is rarely a particularly interesting part of their article. I contest the idea that it is a "key fact". At most, the year of birth is of some interest, but the exact day matters not one iota. We should err on the side of caution/WP:BLP and remove until we are confident the information is well sourced. Wikipedia is meant to be about good quality prose, not being an almanac of birthdays. Bondegezou (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Where does Wikidata fit into this? Right now, of course, a lot of its sourcing just scrapes from Wikipedia, which is not helpful. wikidata:Wikidata:WikiProject British Politicians might be where this is resolved? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata's "referencing" of other Wikimedia projects is horrendously circular and asks for trouble. Let's clear up our mess and leave them to theirs. — Bilorv (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure. So we should wipe the things completely until there's a reliable source -- which would consist simply of someone other than us making the proper query to that database, publishing it somewhere that satisfies WP:RS, and then all that now-questionable data is valid. This is solely a technicality; nobody is saying the data is per se unreliable, just that it doesn't meet our BLP standard to the letter. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 01:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

This is correct, I have contacted this person(s) using email. By no surprise I have not gotten any response back. Opkiller82 (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd recommend being very cautious in contacting subjects directly. Not only is it OR and presents COI issues, and a whole slew of problems one might not anticipate, but in many instances subjects can find it downright creepy. Might advice is just be very cautious. Zaereth (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. It's nice that we're all on the same page. DOBs are really trivial information in the scope of a person's entire life and career. It's nice to have them when readily available, but not at all necessary for understanding the subject any more than it would be for understanding, say ... lasers. If it was in even a government profile then I would probably say ok, but if you have to dig through lines of code to find it, then I would say the source fails all measure of BLP policy and is straying into OR territory. Zaereth (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not consider that someone else publishing the DOBs in bulk would meet WP:BLPDOB. Remember that especially for DOBs, although as for all areas of Wikipedia, the information being unreliable is not the only consideration. The information also needs to be sufficiently published in sources to merit inclusion on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, as I say nearly every time this comes up, we do have a lot of articles with DOBs where the sourcing clearly does not meet our standards. It doesn't help that a lot of people think of DOBs in a similar manner to Alex, important biographical information that must be included when policy says almost the opposite. We get similar problems with real names/birth names/full names as well as the names of childrenetc, although there's normally stronger push back against that. Nil Einne (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood, Jpgordon. The data is not necessarily accurate because we know it was wrong in the case of Paul Maskey and no-one has actually checked accuracy in other cases (that I can see). If another source just copied this data then I would be concerned of that source's reliability. It's also not a technicality that a source has to publish it because we need per WP:BLPPRIVACY the information to be widely published for safeguarding reasons. I'm not saying that data is wrong. I'm saying that data has not been proven to be correct, and that even if it were correctness would not be sufficient. — Bilorv (talk) 10:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jpgordon: Just spotted you referring to the Wikidata MPs project - from that side, I don't think we have an easy answer here, sorry. I've been mostly focused on validating the career data not the biographical data.

At the moment about 500 of the 650 sitting MPs have a date of birth sourced to the Parliament linked-data service (which has the same underlying data as this bulk source; report) - it looks like I added these sources at some time last year, as most were otherwise just "imported from Wikipedia". However, given the issues flagged up here I may have to look at this again... Andrew Gray (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

This again? Raw data is not a reliable source without informed interpretation and publication. WP:BLP requires adherance to reliability that in other areas is less problematic. Secondly, WP:DOB is very clear on the requirement for reliable sources. Lastly, a database provided by the Houses of Parliament containing data on its own members (MPs) is a primary source. And WP:BLPPRIMARY is also very clear on using primary sources for details like DOB's. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

In a strange turn of events, the current removal spree is by the same IP editor that caused the previous threads by insisting the raw data had to be used. FDW777 (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777:, As it happens, I am the same person who sparred with you on numerous occasions on this issue when I fought vehemently for the British Parliament website. It was upon your counsel and realising there was not just the one case in Paul Maskey, but in several cases upon checking more reliable secondary sources that I realised you were right and I was wrong, and I am delighted to say I totally agree with you now.

UK Parliament - Members' Names Data Platform

I note the above discussion. I don't see that anyone in the discussion has troubled to identify the source of the disputed data; it seems to be being discussed as "raw data" like some sort of weird alien.

The service under discussion is the Members' Names Data Platform. It is published by the UK Parliament. It is termed a beta service, and has been so termed for the last 7 years. Of the service, Parliament says: "Data stored on the platform will be correct to the best of our knowledge".

The service has been designed expressely by UK Parliament to disseminate data. The UK Parliament stands by the data it disseminates. The UK Parliament is a reliable source: its information is disseminated by a team of professional librarians.

I do not see that there is any good argument, given the credentials, the express purpose and the express undertaking of data quality, that wikipedia should treat this service as anything other than a reliable source. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

It may just be reliable, but that's not the only issue, not by a long shot. So would a birth certificate, yet those are not allowed. Tax records are probably reliable, or court documents (nobody ever lies at court, right?). The main issue is that this is a primary source, and BLP rules are very clear, and very strict about the use of such sources when it comes to birthdates. In most cases, there needs to be coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources. Zaereth (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

This is not a public document akin to a birth certificate or a court document. It is not, for me, settled that a publication of the UK Parliament Library & Information Service is not a secondary source - LIS is clearly distinct from the legislature as well as from the MPs. WP:BLPPRIMARY points to WP:PRIMARY which talks in terms of "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them". There is, per the discussion at that page, no original research being done here. No interpretation. "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." This is the case here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPDOB says Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. It's raw data, hidden away on an obscure part of the website that displays the data as an XML file, and I doubt many MPs are even aware it exists considering how many hoops need to be jumped through to even see the data. That's practically the opposite of "widely published". It isn't published on a page such as this which every MP has, or some similar profile page. FDW777 (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that unless there are multiple reliable sources, the dates of birth are not "widely published" and should generally not be included on BLPs. We should err on the side of privacy for the personal information of living individuals. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

If you're not seeing a good argument it's because you're not looking for one. I quoted WP:BLPPRIVACY, so that reliability is necessary but not sufficient for inclusion, and the case of one of the data (for Maskey) being incorrect. On the other hand, I was unable to identify how the data were gathered and "it's part of a beta service" (even though the UK government seems to describe almost all of its website this way sometimes) doesn't fill me with confidence. — Bilorv (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. In the case of politicians, if it were only found in a single government profile, which is easily accessible, then I would say go for it. Politicians have a measure of control over the information put in those, but a source like this is unacceptable, not necessarily for reliability reasons (those too), but for reasons of demonstrating that it's ok with the subject if we publish it. This is one of many reasons why we need to be careful with primary sources, and in reality, when using primary sources like this we're actually doing the work of investigative reporters, or secondary sources. In other words, original research, which can often lead to misinterpretations and even synth. There are larger issues at play when it comes to BLP rules. Zaereth (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv actually that’s where you were wrong because I noticed several of them were wrong for example even Keir Starmer himself had the 20th september (my birthday lol) instead of 2 September as his birthday. This source is totally unreliable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:B416:3000:2406:550A:518B:973D (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully this means case closed as we have conclusively decided it is not a reliable source. If you want my recommendation for better sources use their Twitter feeds if applicable and I know of a great source that’s a book called The Women MPs 1997-2019 by Iain Dale and Jacqui Smith about female MPs which of course is reliable, with one of them being a former MP herself, albeit an expense-grabbing one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:B416:3000:2406:550A:518B:973D (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Twitter is almost never a reliable source by itself, especially for DOBs. See, for example, the discussion two sections below. BLP rules are very clear, and very strict about the level of sourcing needed for DOBs. (ie: not just reliable, but multiple reliable sources). It's nice to have DOBs --when they are very readily available-- but they are really not necessary for understanding the subject. It's a special interest item, and as such there will always be people with special interest in them (numerologists for example), but in the grand scheme of things, like all special interest items, it's trivia. Great for questions on Jeopardy, but not really necessary to define the subject. Zaereth (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

This idea that dates of birth are "trivia" is such a bizarre argument to me. Just because some people are not interested in something does not make it trivia, and dates of birth are just as significant as places of birth, parents, spouses, etc. Those writing about public figures may well want to know the age when someone became, say, a member of parliament; without a DOB, that can only be an approximation. The vast majority of information included in articles is not strictly "necessary to define the subject". It is odd and rather disconcerting to see people treating a date of birth as some kind of ultra-private thing; I obviously agree that digging through birth certificates etc. would not be appropriate, but where the information is on an official parliamentary website, however out-of-the-way the section of the website may be, it's out there. A parliamentary website clearly does not come under the terms of WP:BLPPRIMARY.

That said, this particular source clearly has some issues. The difficulty of accessing it is a valid point, but I would say the official nature of it counterweighs that to a degree. The accuracy issues are concerning, and it seems obvious that a better source would override this one. I also note that the House of Commons profiles on their website appear to include no personal information whatsoever in any capacity, so that better option is not necessarily available. As for demonstrating that it's OK with the subjects that this information is out there, the fact that plenty of MPs' birthdates are not included in this data is a pretty clear sign that it's possible for them not to have this information listed if they prefer it that way, and consequently that the information is drawn from what they themselves have provided. Accordingly, "it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public" (WP:BLPPRIVACY). The source seems OK to me to be used, though with caution. If further clarification is needed, though, I wonder whether an email to the House of Commons website team may be useful. I'm sure they can clarify where they're drawing this data from.

I am glad to see agreement above, though, that a standard parliamentary profile would be sufficient here. I can see the arguments against this particular source; I can't see the argument requiring additional sources where a DOB is clearly published as part of a parliamentary profile. Frickeg (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The idea is that we need o be sure that it's fine with the subject if we publish the date. If it's in an official gov. profile, then that pretty well confirms that the subject is ok with it being made public. So, I see no problem with a gov. profile. For other types of sources, like magazines for example, it's not always so clear that it was published with the subject's approval. If, on the other hand, it's published in multiple RSs, then we can reasonably assume that it is ok, or else the subject would have complained and any RS would simply redact the info. That's why multiple RSs are needed, unless there is a clear indication of approval from just one source (like gov. profiles). And the only reason I find those acceptable is that politicians have less expectancy of privacy than your average citizen.

In the matter of what is trivia and what is not, well, that's a matter of information type rather than personal likes. The question I'd ask myself in this case is, does the information really tell us anything about who the subject is as a person? In other words, if we omit the information, will we still be able to understand the subject? Have we really lost anything of importance? I say that because it's not such a big deal if we can't find one. It's not worth going out a digging deep into primary sources just for a number. That's what makes it trivia, not much different from weight, height, favorite color, or other statistical data. Zaereth (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, 2A02:C7F:B416:3000:2406:550A:518B:973D, for your comment, which sheds more light onto how consistently unreliable the source is. I think you don't intend to @ me though, as I'm also arguing against use of the source. — Bilorv (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: The UK's Government Digital Service has a standard for developing a digital service that goes from discovery to alpha to private beta to public beta to live. There are formal procedures to go from one phase to the next. In practice, public beta is going to look a lot like live, so it is common for services to stay in public beta for a long time, possibly forever, to avoid having to jump that hurdle, and maybe also because of other advantages of not saying you've finished the work. There's also further complications with grey areas around whether something comes under this system or not, which can change as the service evolves. That's been my experience of working on a service like this. So that's why, as you say, a lot of UK government websites say they're in beta.

More broadly, I remain of the view that the exact day/month of birth is trivia. WP:BLPDOB is clear: we err on the side of caution with these things. Bondegezou (talk) 09:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Austin Theory

Austin Theory is a professional wrestler currently working for WWE who was accused of sexual assault as part of the "Speaking Out" movement that took place over a period of weeks and months in 2020 -- as tends to be the case with both accusations like these and accusations regarding celebrities, few actual facts are known and the most that should be said on the topic is that he was accused. As of right now, the only mention of this is a sentence attempting to draw a specific conclusion by referencing tweets from a completely anonymous account whose express intention seems to be to defame the accuser. Whether or not whomever is editing the page believes this is warranted or not, I don't believe the manner in which this topic is being referenced is at all appropriate for Wikipedia per WP:NPOV. They also seem to have repeatedly attempted to insert almost the same sentence and references into the Speaking Out movement page along with other equally as badly-sourced claims that seem to be in various states of removal from the page. The bit about Theory is still in there though.

For now, I've added a better source needed template following the aforementioned sentence and references both on Theory's page and the Speaking Out page.

--50.100.77.106 (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Austin Theory is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE so the proper analysis is determining whether the allegations are cited to reliable sources and presented neutrally rather than make a determination whether the accusation is true. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

that was how i was approaching this, and why i added the "better source needed" template! i definitely could've been more clear and concise in my original post, and for that i apologize -- the only reason i "coloured" the issue at all was to give context and back up my stance that the continued re-edits and their corresponding references weren't neutral per WP:NPOV. --50.100.77.106 (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Tulio Capriles Mendoza

In the article TULIO CAPRILES MENDOZA there are several incorrect references use as “realible public sources”. The books cited are not in ANY way related or mention the name TULIO CAPRILES MENDOZA. So by mistake they were use in this article as citations. Both text and citations should be removed.

The text says...”Tulio Mendoza is the publisher of the Spanish-language newspaper El Siglo, who formerly served as Venezuela's Minister of Public Information under the presidency of Hugo Chávez.[1] Reference #1 “ Carroll, Rory (25 February 2014). Comandante : myth and reality in Venezuela. New York, NY: Penguin. ISBN 978-0143124887”,

The reference is incorrect and misleading to the fact that the name TULIO CAPRILES MENDOZA is NEVER mention in this book. Mr. Rory Carrol never talks about newspaper EL SIGLO. Moreover, after carefullly reviwing the book, the name TULIO CAPRILES MENDOZA not only does never appears in the whole book but it never talks about a minister of public information at all or relating to HUGO CHAVEZ.

Moreover, the name Hugo Chavez is synonimous to dictatorship, criminal, and against human rights among many bad connotations to be related with. It can be libellous.

The text in the article TULIO CAPRILES MENDOZA says....”Unafraid to use the information if opponents didn’t back down or join the team, he became known in Venezuela’s political circles as a ruthless campaign operative. His feared techniques were often referred to as the “Tulio guillotine."[3] Another incorrect reference is #3 Young, Jeff C. (August 2007). Hugo Chavez : leader of Venezuela. Greensboro, NC: Morgan Reynolds Publishing. ISBN 978-1599350684.

After reviwing the book by Mr. Jeff Young, again the book NEVER mentions neither TULIO CAPRILES MENDOZA nor the term “Tulio Guillotine”. So again this reference is UNSOURCE by mistake.

According to this information provided, we suggest this ARTICLE MUST BE REVIEW INMEDIATELLY, if the reference are not confirmed by the author to mention TULIO CAPRILES MENDOZA the whole text is 100% unsource. In addition, due to the fact is relating a person to a very bad image of a politician as Hugo Chavez is also potentially libellous. According to the Wikipedia policies, unsource information should be removed immediately.

Please see my comment on the article talk page. GSS ^💬 16:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, yes. This is indeed distressing. As far as I can tell by searching google books, not one of the five sources even mention this person's name even once. I'm not sure about source 2, because it's a dead link, but none of the books do. Further more, a quick google search shows no reliable sources on this person. I don't know if blanking the entire article would be a good choice. Probably best to just put it up for deletion. Zaereth (talk) 06:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I left a message at the talk page as well. Although, according to our article, this person is long dead and is not subject to BLP, I still think another set of eyes would be helpful. Unless I'm missing something, this is a completely unsourced article making some very bold claims. That is, there are some good sources on Hugo Chavez yet not a single one mentions the subject's name. I'm not sure if this is for real, or a hoax, or just someone with a grudge, or maybe I'm missing something entirely. Zaereth (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems to have been created using falsified references in 2015 by User:Smatkinson721 (who stopped editing in 2016), and despite efforts to correct the record by users claiming to be the subject nobody tried to verify the sources until now. I've tagged it for speedy deletion as an attack page. Fences&Windows 16:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Fences and windows. I was beginning to wonder if it was just me, and if not, why wasn't anyone else seeing it? Good to know I'm not going out of my mind. Zaereth (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• I became aware of this as a result of seeing the speedy deletion nomination that Fences and windows made. My first thought was that this might be an attack page, but it wasn't immediately obvious, and since it had existed for over five years there was no hurry, and it should go to AfD. However, before declining the speedy deletion, I decided to search for relevant information. I was astonished at how little support I could find for any of the aspects of the article that I checked. Then, quite by accident, I discovered this discussion, which added more confirmation that the article largely consists of claims which are unverifiable. It is absolutely appalling that several times over the years one or more people have tried to get this problem dealt with, and their concerns have never been dealt with. Unfortunately, this is all too often the situation when victims of libel in Wikipedia try to get things put right: nobody takes their concerns seriously. I have deleted the article, having decided after all to accept the speedy nomination from Fences and windows. However, this raises the question of whether the rest of the editing from the creator of this article is to be trusted. I have briefly looked at a couple of edits from that editor, and I found two accusations of criminality in there, so checking for verifiability is really needed. However, I have to go offline very soon, so I won't be able to get onto it now. If anyone else reading this is willing to look into it, that will be great. JBW (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks JBW, I thought this discussion was linked to from the talk page: apologies for leaving you to find it. I wondered about the rest of their edits too and already checked several pages. One on a Saudi bank I tagged as needing verification of sources. Another large edit elsewhere was already reverted a couple of years ago as misuse of a primary source - they seemed keen on using US government documents. Their edits were mainly about perceived enemies of the US, especially allegations of terrorism, and they usually added several kbs at a time, unusual for a new editor. I will look again. Fences&Windows 22:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Robin Lane Fox

Hello, Regarding the entry concerning Robin Lane Fox, I do not understand the need to indicate at the end of the article about him that he is an atheist. I do not see any sort of similar description (of religious preference or lack of it) in the other biographical entries that I've read on Wikipedia (admittedly I have not read everyone of them). I do not see the importance or need for it here and if it's needed here then it's need in all bios. There is precious little in the article about him as it stands, it needs more but not that. If I knew more about him I would add it, but I don't that's why I looked him up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob em (talk • contribs) 20:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It's both relevant and uncontroversial, Bob em: "Robin Lane Fox is an ancient historian who once wrote a book (The Unauthorised Version, 1991) announcing his own atheism and his intention to expose the historical contradictions underlying the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament".[1] Fences&Windows 20:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Roger Friedman

Roger Friedman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'd appreciate an experienced pair of eyes on this article. To my way of thinking, it's somewhat relentless in its negative portrayal of the subject, especially with the level of detail and the quotes appearing in the "Fox News; termination" section. I realise that if coverage of the subject is uniformly bad, then the BLP will most likely mirror that; at the same time, I have to confess I usually write about dead musicians or defunct music acts so I've got very little experience with BLPs. I've added some details just now, so it's perhaps a slight improvement compared to a few edits back.

I was alerted to this issue by IP user edits at other articles, all zeroing in on Friedman or his (non-RS) Showbiz411 website, and labelling him a gossip blogger by profession (eg, at Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and the latter's talk page, and Knight and Day). Perhaps I'm wrong about the tone and detail at the BLP – again, my inexperience in this field – but if someone could look at it, that would be great. Many thanks, JG66 (talk) 05:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I looked at it. It’s not well written but is well sourced. The page does lean negative but it appears that is more a result of his checkered employment history than an organized campaign to weigh down his page with negative information. The solution to the balance issue would be to research and cite noteworthy positive references. I’m not going to take the time to do it, but interested parties are encouraged to see what more is out there that meets WP:NOTEWORTHY standards Go4thProsper (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Stacey Dooley

Stacey Dooley's birth name is not Anastacia. See below:

https://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&dbid=8782&h=11889319&tid=&pid=&queryId=ea6fd710323819750b9c3bf5193f228d&usePUB=true&_phsrc=Ibq75&_phstart=successSource

This was put about probably as a joke by Kevin Clifton, and has been inserted into this page when it is in fact incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissOwl1970 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) MissOwl1970, I did also not find any source for this name at all, every Biography is mentioning her as Jaclyn, I removed it.CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It's still incorrect. She was born Stacey Jaclyn Dooley as her birth entry shows. Unless she has changed it by deed poll to Anastacia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissOwl1970 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) MissOwl1970, well User @Darkglow: is by using a web cite to the yellow press of different opinion. See here: [2] CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the sourcing of her name as Anastasia is poor, relying on entertainment/gossip sources; perhaps we could add a footnote saying her partner said this was her name in an interview but this is unconfirmed? I can't see her birth certificate and we couldn't use it as a source in any case. Fences&Windows 20:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

This paywalled Telegraph profile says "Anastacia Jaclyn Dooley grew up with her mother Diane and stepfather Norman Niblock in Luton."[3] As she spoke to the journalist, that seems more reliable. Fences&Windows 20:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Interesting since indeed her birth certificate in Luton does not mention "Anastacia". I have access since yesterday on the db and the General Register Office; United Kingdom; Reference: Volume 9, Page 815 for Luton does not mention Anastacia. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The name Anastacia was included on her wiki biography for ages before the Telegraph article was published. Its probably a case of citogenesis. I would not use the Telegraph article as a source for this fact. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

2021 Ohio's 11th congressional district special election

There have been several instances of additions of political endorsements to this article cited only to a tweet or another flimsy source in direct violation of WP:ENDORSE, a policy which is in place to uphold BLP guidelines. The most egregious example just occurred, with Rtrivisonno going past WP:3RR to insert an endorsement cited only to a tweet by Nina Turner, one of the candidates in the election. (Note that I reverted these edits with respect to WP:EW exceptions on BLP-related content.) However, several other editors have been frequently adding loosely sourced or even unsourced items to this article. Bringing this to your attention for further action. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Please note that the named user has now deleted this section from this page. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This an example of when the process worked. Inappropriate material was added to the site and was called out on the Noticeboard. The material was removed in response. Go4thProsper (talk) 03:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Richard_Scott_Smith

IMO violation of WP:BLPCRIME, recently PRODed by me, shortly before end of time redirected to an article of a "True Crime" Documentary [4] Love Fraud which seem to cover this man. In the documentary various women make serious accusations against the man for alleged fraud. I did not find any conviction(s), "only" a warrant for Ident Theft (w/o conviction so far). CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

CommanderWaterford, I found the following:

"In 2018, Smith was arrested in Knoxville, TN, thanks to efforts depicted in Love Fraud. Smith was sentenced to prison, and was released in April, per the documentary." [5]

"In a Des Moines police report, the woman said Smith threw her to the ground, kicked her, and struck her in the head with an electronic device. Smith was arrested and put on probation, according to court records in Polk County, Iowa."[6]

Also see this article from 2017: https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article136374288.html Fences&Windows 13:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows, very interesting, thanks, don't tell me you just googled it ;-), I researched in newspapers. com etc. pp. ... The article from 2017 is "only" an accusation of a woman... and the first one tells that he was arrested but not whether he was convicted. And the police report... well... is a report of an interrogation, also no conviction at all. I surely agree that he is highly suspected (of course) but I do not see any conviction...what do you think? CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

He has been convicted: "Dunlap went to the police, and Smith was charged with identity theft and forgery in Johnson County in February 2017. The forgery charge was dropped, but Smith pleaded guilty to identity theft and was sentenced to 10 months in jail. Court records show that in April 2019 he violated his probation — failure to report and failure to pay are cited — so the probation was extended 18 months, until Oct. 29."[7] Fences&Windows 14:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows, good research, indeed - a conviction of identity theft but the forgery was dropped... and.. I am not able to access the case on the archived jococourts.org website ... did you? so formally we have a conviction of Ident Theft and nothing else. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows, fyi: @Rosguill: reverted the Redirect here [8], restoring the original version. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

CommanderWaterford, Rosguill, I think the best approach is to redirect and write about him in a neutral tone at Love Fraud. He is only notable in that context (otherwise only covered by Kansas local press) and his name and details of his conviction are relevant to the documentary and don't breach policy afaics. Fences&Windows 17:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows, I have no objection as long as a duly sourced mention can indeed be added at that target. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, done. Fences&Windows 21:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

p.s. An editor by the same name who uploaded pictures of bridges in Wales had his userpage edited in 2015 to make accusations against this other Smith, which I've belatedly revdelled. Fences&Windows 14:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Caesar DePaço

This was raised recently on this noticeboard, but I think we need more eyes on it. The article subject is a Portuguese businessman who is the subject of a political controversy involving alleged links to a far-right party and his appointment as a US consul for Cape Verde. I previously semi-protected the article. An account who on the Portuguese Wikipedia has identified as his lawyer has twice blanked content[9][10]; I've semi-protected again and asked them to discuss on the talk page and to not make legal threats, see User talk:Ruimbarreira1411. The article is up for deletion on the Portuguese Wikipedia. Fences&Windows 20:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows, "fight about references in wikipedia" already in the Portuguese media: https://www.asemana.publ.cv/Caso-de-extrema-direita-Consul-de-Cabo-Verde-Caesar-DePaco-briga-com-Wikipedia CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I have substantially improved this article in the Portuguese language wikipedia, only to receive more votes to delete, including one to nuke the article and start from zero. The process has become very political, unfortunately, and I can no longer explain the actions of some of those involved. I've received warnings for even discussing this in multiple places in portuguese wikipedia. I am likely to escalate this soon. Kranke133 (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Mindy Seu

Article has been previously flagged for not meeting Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. No new credible sources have been found or added since it was first flagged.Please remove the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jks144 (talk • contribs)

That tag was added last month. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This seems like a POINTY request given Draft:Keetra_Dean_Dixon. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Mikey Walsh

Anonymous and New accounts libellously & repeatedly changing the authors name & adding misinformation to the Authors page. a possible semi lock to prevent this constant would be a great help. thank you

(Non-administrator comment) There has already a request for Page Protection being placed. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for additional input: Andy Ngo - lead and criticism section

The Andy Ngo article seems to forever have an issue with balancing criticism of the subject. A criticism section was recently added and the last paragraph of the lead has significantly expanded with a long list of criticisms. Additional editor input with an eye towards neutrality would be helpful. [[11]] Springee (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Hi @Springee:, are those issues violations of the WP:BLP Policy ?! If not I think better place to discuss this would be over here WP:NPOVN, Best,CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Technically the disproportionate weight to the criticisms against Ngo in the lede violate the first two points on BLP policy (tone and balance). The lede cannot avoid some mention that Ngo is controversial and the body will of course explain this, but the lede is not the place to air out all the laundry if the article is to maintain a generally neutral tone and balanced approach. --Masem (t) 18:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Masem, totally agree on this. The lede is by far too unbalanced and also too long. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps this should have been posted there as well. I hadn't intended this to be a discussion here so much as a request for eyes on the article in question. Since Masem replied with specific advice here I may wait and see if more people comment here. If not I will post a notice as NPOVN as well. Springee (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. The lede is supposed to be just a brief summary of the article; a summary of a summary, meaning very sparse on details. In the lede, all we need is the very gist of it. Ngo seems to show up here enough that he might as well just set up permanent residence. Zaereth (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a case where it would be helpful if we could have something like a wiki court with a wiki judge who could help evaluate arguments on both sides. In theory RfC are just that but they work best when the question is relatively binary. In a case like this it seems numbers just swamp the discussion that is that. Still, if we had such a court would their wiki voluteer time be best invested in an article about someone like Ngo or fixing articles about more significant political figures or even topics that aren't political at all - we still have those right? Springee (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The wikicourt idea is an interesting one. I had to sleep on that. It seems that the only thing we have resembling a court is arbcom, whih is more like a supreme court. But, seeing how that works, I'd avoid that like the plague unless there is just no other option. It seems to me that, somewhere between here and there should be an intermediate step, which in the real world would typically be mediation. We have WP:Mediation, but that really set up to resolve user issues rather than content disputes, but I would agree that we probably could use something like that for circumstances such as this. Much beyond that, I think we'd have a hard time selling the concept of a wikijudge to the community, that has all out authority to make decisions in these cases. Might as well create another arbcom. Although ... a wikijury, maybe? Nahhhh. Probably wouldn't sell either. Still, I do think we'd benefit in having another step in the DS process, somewhere between DSN and arbitration, such as mediation. Just my 2 cents. (And by the way, I'm not trying to bag on the people at arbcom. It's just a rather screwed up process and they really have a limited number of options.) Zaereth (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Yeah, I was thinking about help in cases where Arbcom is way overkill. As an example, A source is added to an article in early Nov 2020. In late Nov the content is challenged. The discussions end with 4:2 in favor of inclusion but neither side convinced. Late Jan a new editor again challenges the text. More editors join in the discussion and now we are at 4:5 against inclusion. What happens to the text? If we decide the text became "status quo" then the current 4:5 is no consensus and the text stays. However, if we decide the less than 2 month window was just a pause in the discussion while waiting for more editors to weigh in, then the text never had consensus and should be removed per NOCON. Even with a RfC we have the same issue if the close is NOCON. If the time laps were 2 days we would all agree that was the same discussion. if the time laps were 2 years we would all agree the content became part of status quo. Which side of the line is "almost 2 months" on? This is a case where it would be helpful to have a core of editors who can help, consistently interpret the rules. Springee (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Criticism sections for biographies are very bad idea (see WP:CRIT). While such sections may make sense for a piece of art, a book, a play, or a movie, and such like -- for a person the DUE RS bad (and the good) belongs in the context of their life and work. (Does anyone know of any RS encyclopedic model, outside Wikipedia, that would have a whole section of biographical criticism?) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. There are rare (if any, I can't think of one) instances where a biography should have a whole section devoted to criticism. I agree with Jimbo's quote in the link your provided. Number 1.) it's just bad writing, 2.) it does become a troll magnet, without a doubt, and 3.) it creates an imbalance within the article itself, which is all kinds of NPOV problems.

On that third one, people may often have a hard time grasping how that can be, so I'll use the UPS model. When the workers at UPS load a plane, they have to carefully balance that load. Too much weight on one side or the other, and the whole plane can go down. So, they load their cargo into big, special, "plane-shaped" containers they call "igloos", but we can think of them as sections. They put these igloos on a scale, and fill it up until it hit's a certain mark, regardless of whether it's a thousand packages or just one. That way, when they load them on the plane everything is balanced and the plane can fly safely.

Criticism sections are like taking all the heavy packages and putting them into one igloo, without regard to weight. It throws the whole article off balance. And in most cases I will say the same for controversy sections as well. That is often used as a synonym for criticism, a space for dirty laundry, or any dispute a person might have no matter how small. (The word "controversy" actually has a very specific meaning, referring to a large public debate surrounding an issue ie: the Watergate scandal was not a controversy; the big public debate surrounding it was.) Criticism may very well be due in many instances, but lumping it all in one place creates an imbalance by giving undue weight to it. Zaereth (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Allen v. Farrow

Ongoing discussion on the talk page re inclusion of negative reviews.

This is a highly trafficked article on a controversial subject, and I think WP:BLPBALANCE mandates that we go to extra lengths to provide balance by including all perspectives on the documentary that are allowed by WP:V, and not use UNDUE to exclude negative critical reaction. So far there is only one negative review, but it is questionable for selfpub reasons. I wonder if perhaps we should include it anyway. Coretheapple (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Speaking generally, I'd keep in mind Okrent's Law. We have to be very careful when balancing things so as not to create a false balance. If a source is questionable, then it certainly doesn't deserve the same weight as more reliable sources. Zaereth (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

You have to be carefully here because BLPSPS also applies if those SPS sources are speaking negatively against Farrow (in their support of Allen). Technically, the only SPS sources for critical review of the work would be from Woody Allen or Mia Farrow (or any other real-life figures presented in the show) as being the central figures of the documentary to comment on their portrayal or the factual accuracy from their POV, and the article presently includes what I saw pass in the news about Allen's criticism of it (not requiring an SPS use). --Masem (t) 18:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Cristina Garcia (politician) lead claims she promotes violence against Asians

Is this sentence, " At one point, Garcia reportedly exclaimed, "This makes me feel like I want to punch the next Asian person I see in the face." Perez confirmed the incident did take place but that no formal action was ever taken against Garcia for her words.[39]" sufficient to support the following in the lead of the article, "She also supports discrimination against Asians, and has threatened to commit random acts of violence against Asians.". This was recently added by Shadyabs here [[12]] and restored by the same editor after an IP editor removed the statement. My feeling is this a significant BLP violation as the Politico source for the claim [[13]] reports it an unverified claim while the statement in the lead puts it in wikivoice and reads as a call to violence. Springee (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Springee, I have removed the statement and asked the Editor to provide a reliable source for it. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by "unverified claim"? According to that Politico article, "“This makes me feel like I want to punch the next Asian person I see in the face,” according to sources present at the meeting and other legislative sources who were told about the comments in the immediate aftermath." No where did that article say that her comment was unverified. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

"According to sources" means that Politico is trusting that those sources are correct. Note that Politico didn't put the claim in "Politico-voice", instead they say "according to sources". This is why I say it isn't verified. The way it's handled in the body of the Wiki-article is correct, "reportedly exclaimed". It was added to the lead as a statement of fact in wiki-voice. Questions of DUE weight for the lead aside, the statement in the lead is not supported by the source. I think CommanderWaterford's handling was correct. Springee (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

They attributed to their sources. More than one. That does not mean they are unverified. You do not know how they went about checking their sources to comment on that. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I can see why you feel my choice of words was poor. It is more than reasonable to say that if the report claims "sources" then, even if they don't say who the sources are, they feel it was corroborated. I probably should have said, unnamed sources or similar. Regardless, the big problem, the statement in Wikivoice was addressed. Springee (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Nikki Boyer

External Links Section -- It appears the link to Nikki Boyer's website is not accurate or her site is no longer active. Perhaps the author should verify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmcdowell53 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Pmcdowell53, the domain has been sold, the homepage indeed is not reachable, I have removed it. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Michael Che

Michael Che (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Michael Che of Weekend Update on SNL told a joke on this past week's show about Israel. The specific joke was "Israel is reporting that they’ve vaccinated half of their population, and I’m going to guess it’s the Jewish half." The American Jewish Committee is demanding an apology from SNL (though not Che). There is now considerable dispute about whether or not to include this on Che's page, and if so, how. There are accusations that Che is anti-Semitic the joke relied on anti-Semitic tropes. However, there is also context to consider. As JTA.org says, Israel has come under some criticism for refusing to extend its coronavirus vaccination program to West Bank Palestinians, for delaying the delivery of vaccines to Gaza Strip Palestinians and for not being as robust in its vaccination outreach to Arab Israelis as it is to Jewish Israelis. Given the sensitive Israeli/Palestinian issue in a BLP, I would appreciate more eyes and opinions on how to proceed. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I commented about the edit warring at the ANI report, but on the content, I strongly urge everyone to consider WP:RECENTISM. Unless the joke has caused an immediate impact on Che's career within the week or short term, this seems like UNDUE at this point. (This is part of the general tendancies of WPians to see one thing negative about a person in the news and rush to include it, forgetting that we are meant to be a summary of a person's career; particularly for comedians where offensive jokes tend to be part of their humor, this stuff happens all the time, and focusing on one-off incidents tend to water down these articles. In other words, barring any other coverage beyond this initial complaint, it is best to simply not include it. --Masem (t) 20:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I fully agree with Masem's rationale above for not including the material at this time.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree as well. This would, on its face, appear to fail WP:10YT. If he's fired for it or something, sure. But currently it's not notable for a biography. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Could you explain how this differs from a very similar criticism of him, regarding a transphobic joke he made on SNL, which is still in the article? He wasn't fired for that, either , nor faced any meaningful consequence (beyond the published criticism), yet we seem to be ok with that in his biography. Kenosha Forever (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

That should also be removed for the same reason, since it had no career impact. --Masem (t) 21:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Kenosha we have to set a single standard for all criticism. --Shrike (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

We have a standard. Setting it is not the problem. Enforcing it is. I thank Kenosha for pointing it out and also think it should be removed, per Masem's reasoning. If this was intended as an other stuff exists argument, then I'm sorry, but that's not a good excuse. Zaereth (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Not intended as an argument at all, I am just trying to understand what the standards are. Kenosha Forever (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Understood. And by "argument", I meant in the logical reasoning sense, not the overtly confrontational sense. Zaereth (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

One thing I want to clarify - the statement of the issue as presented by Muboshgu is, perhaps inadvertently, misleading. No one has accused Che of being an anti-semite, at least not that I have seen. He was accused of making a poor taste joke that perpetuates anti-semitic stereotypes. These are not the same things, and the nuance might be lost: The former might be a libelous issue, the second is not - it can be something done unknowingly (not being aware of the anti-semitic implications, as Omar Ilah for example claimed in her defense and apology when criticized for similar remarks)) or inadvertently (missing some key detail, as for example Richard Falk has said in defense of his dog-wearing-kippah cartoon). The reason I feel it is important to make this distinction is because some editors on that page seem to think that it is the former, giving them some sort of blank check to keep edit warring their version into the article. Kenosha Forever (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Kenosha Forever, inadvertent on my part. I amended the initial comment. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciated. Kenosha Forever (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

While I think it's important to be mindful of things like libel, most of us are not lawyers and Wikipedia policy does not really deal with things in those terms. We're an encyclopedia, which is distinct from things like books, magazines, newspapers, etc... We use a completely different writing style, different references, and we just provide a rather short synopsis on what are usually very large and complex subjects. The goal is to provide a brief summary of the sources; a short introduction to them, if you will. That's why our motto states "the sum of all knowledge, not all knowledge.

To summarize anything, you have to whittle it down to the basics --the nitty gritty. Doing that naturally means we need some measure of where to cut, and in cases like this, that measure is one of staying power. Is this something that really makes a difference in this persons life? Will it still be relevant 10, 50, 100 years from now? Or is it just the latest thing to fill space on a poor news day and will be forgotten by next week.

We have many measures of this. Recentism is one. Weight and Balance are some others. Both working with and overriding all of them is BLP. It's best to think of them all working in concert, like one giant equation on a chalkboard, where info must satisfy every part of that equation in order to be included. This particular info fails on many levels. Zaereth (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Understood and agreed. I think the source of my confusion was relying on the existing content (the transphobic joke), which it seems was not supposed to be there, either. Kenosha Forever (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm kind of late to all this but I also agree that absent some sort of long term impact this shouldn't be in Che's biography. If it is later shown that the joke did have a lasting impact future sources will say as much and it can be added to the article then. This sort of inclusion of "every ugly thing someone once said" is a real problem across Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Giovanni Niubo

SPA account User:Fabi121302, keeps pushing a POV and and pr polishing the tex, since he created the article about this person, like the manipulation of this person birthdate, as in the IMDB and Wikipedia his birthday is constantly changing, from 1996 to 1998, to change a second time from 1998 to 1999, and then from being born in 1999 on the 2017 IMDB page, to being born in 2000 in a change made by him in 2018 to his English Wikipedia bio, to be changed again from 2000 to 2002, and now in the IMDB his last birthday is 2004. The fact that this user User:Fabi121302 praticaly only edits this article leaves the change that he is either the person of the article or someone close to him. This fact is proven as User:Fabi121302 uploaded File:Giovanni Niubo Freak Night 2015.jpg claiming to be his work and that it "previously published (...) on my instagram, @GiovanniNiubo. As the file has OTRS permission id 2016010310011334, this is further proof of what i stated about the relationship of either the same subject or someone close to him. Tm (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Tm, looks like @Ohnoitsjamie: already does have an eye on it, he furthermore nominated it for WP:PROD CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, i´ve already seen that he made some of his edits, and i have to say that i´ve learned something new today, as i did not knew that IMDB is not considered a reliable source of BLP. Thank you again for the speedy answer and please excuse me if, unwillingly, i did something wrong as, albeit i have 16 years of edits in Wikimedia projects, english wikipedia is not my home wiki. Tm (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Tm, nothing wrong at it all, you are welcome. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Dhananjay Munde

There is not an intractable dispute at this time but I am not sure where else to seek guidance on this article.

A serious allegation was made against the subject and retracted over the last two months. A quick google search shows numerous articles, albeit cookie-cutter reporting on allegation and then subsequent retraction.

My reading of BLP is that since he is a public figure this allegation should be documented. However, I am not sure if sustained coverage exists and whether the lack of sustained coverage would mitigate inclusion. Slywriter (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, lack of sustained coverage by multiple, independent, reliable sources does indeed mitigate inclusion, as explained in WP:WELLKNOWN. Allegations like thi can have very serious real-world consequences, and we don't report them unless there is a conviction upheld in a court of law (see: WP:BLPCRIME), or the allegation has been so widely reported that there is just no point in trying to protect the subject's right to be innocent until proven guilty. I don't see that level of coverage here, so I removed it from the article. We don't report unsubstantiated allegations unless there is a compelling, overriding public-need to do so. Zaereth (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

It was widely reported in the Indian press, though the allegation was withdrawn on 22 January: [14]. However, since then the sister of the accuser, who is his partner with whom he has children, also raised charges against him [15] and is seeking custody of their children: [16]. It may not be such a flash-in-the-pan story, though I'm not sure it should yet be included. Fences&Windows 22:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd simply recommend proceeding carefully. Probably best to wait and see, but I'd also consider that our article, here on English Wikipedia, is very short. If included we need to give it the proper weight by a preponderance of all sources (not just what we have in our article), so that's the next hurdle we have to look forward to. Personally, I'd wait and see just how big it gets so we can make a good assessment. Zaereth (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

vernon coleman

I must agree with the comment *everything about this article is distastfull" it brings wikipeadia into disrepute and i will not again use wikipeadia. the writer obviously is not impartial. probably not bad enough for vernon to sue wikipeadia but id remove it if i were you and ban the writer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.28.42 (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

This is about Vernon Coleman. The article is semi-protected and describes him as an AIDS denier and conspiracy theorist. It survived AfD twice, last year as no consensus: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vernon Coleman (2nd nomination). There's a discussion on the talk page. Fences&Windows 22:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

It is constantly under pressure from his youtube viewers who think he is a nice chap, as he could be, but that us wikieds are a nasty spiteful bunch. If they only had any wp:rs reliable sources. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 22:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Murder of Ee Lee

In this new article two named people are identified as murderers but there is no mention of a competent verdict or even a trial having reached any conclusion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Dodger67, I removed the unsourced statement, one of the sources for the charges is furthermore a dead link. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid the article needs a complete rewrite. It is absolutely unacceptable to mention the suspects in a way that implies they are guilty before a proper trial has reached a verdict, and even more so to do it in "Wikipedia's voice". Some WP:REVDEL is also needed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Dodger67, I agree, I further modified the article but it needs definitely an eye of an experienced sysop and REVDEL. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

REVDEL done. Fences&Windows 14:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Fences and windows but please delete also [17] CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Also see the history of Murder of Vicha Ratanapakdee, also written by User:Juno. I've reminded them at their talk page about BLPCRIME. Fences&Windows 14:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Manzoor Pashteen

Manzoor Ahmad Pashteen or Manzoor Pashtun is a Pashtun human rights activist Funded by India from South Waziristan, Pakistan. There is baseless allegation written on this person's biography. A credible source/citation should be provided before alleging something like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.164.139.176 (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Lika Osipova

24.218.156.31 keeps adding dubious uncited information about a billionaire in the article about Lika Osipova — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy has a great username (talk • contribs) 17:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Tommy has a great username, I left him a message on his talk page - the IP had been blocked a couple of days ago for Vandalism. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

If she really did date someone wirth over 2 billion dollars it would have been easy to find a source covering that, obviously fake.--70.27.244.104 (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Masrat Zahra

Since the subject has been covered massively just for one event i-e Arrest of masrat zahra, It is a WP:BLP1E, i have had a edit war on this but in good faith until i realised that this is a WP:BLP1E. So before i nominate it for deletion, wanted to ask does it qualify as one? Should it be nominated or not because everyday in India many journalists get arrested doesn't mean everyone is put up on wikipedia. Also we can redirect it to- Arrest of masrat zahra. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 17:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

it is completely weird. She has two awards in her credit and you say it is BLP1E. Strange. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 18:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

she's no way notable because she was UAPA accused. She is notable as a notable photojournalist who has won multiple known awards, and received significant coverage in reliable independent sources, and thus managing to meet our GNG criteria. Get some facts dear. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 18:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@TheAafi: The reason i've posted it here is to seek comments from other's as well. why do you always come up on questions related to her? Also my reason to post it is mentioned there, there are several other journalists who have recieved awards. Moreover she hasn't recieved multiple major awards she's just recieved one (Anja Niedringhaus Photojournalism Award) which was primarily for the same event (arrest), Peter mackler one isn't notable. I firmly believe this is a BLP1E but still here to ask from other's, also why would you tag other's to come and defend is very interesting.-- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 18:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) AafiOnMobile, Jammumylove, this is the noticeboard for reporting possible violations of the BLP Policy (see header of the board) not for content disputes (see WP:DISPUTE) or reporting Edit-Wars. Where do you see this kind of violation, Jammumylove ? If you want to ask for Deletion you are of course free to do, please check WP:BEFORE and WP:AFDHOWTO. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

CommanderWaterford Thanks for the heads-up, but I just clarified that the editor has erred without noticing what this forum is meant for. Thanks anyways. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 18:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I always hate to just say, "This is not what this board is for" and leave it at that. My personal feeling is that people should feel welcome to bring issues here. Even if it's not the right place, we can at least point them in the right direction or, in simple questions like this, sometimes it's easy enough just to answer them.

To Jammumylove, the answer to your question is no, this is not a case of BLP1E. This article will easily survive a deletion request, so there is no point going over there and wasting their time. That she was arrested is just a small part of her career, as it is for many journalists even right here in the US. They often wear it as a badge of honor, showing that they are standing up for their belief in journalistic integrity in the face of oppression, and I think that's how it comes off here. Either way, though, this article doesn't have a WP:SNOWBALL's chance of getting deleted. Zaereth (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Zaereth: Understood. but what my main concern is that apart from the arrests she doesn't have any other notability(because there are many journalists in jammu and kashmir who get arrested daily because this is a disputed territory, does it mean everyone should have a standalone article), although my confusion is cleared on BLP1E one. The award ( anja niedringhaus) was offered for the same reason, she was arrested for the pictures and got this award for the same. so it is basically a single event. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 19:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

That may have been the catalyst that started it, but it has since bloomed beyond that arrest. She didn't win awards for being arrested, and really, the level of coverage she has gotten goes far beyond that single event. You are certainly welcome to nominate it for deletion if you want. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong, but having seen a lot of deletion discussions, I don't foresee this as getting deleted. Zaereth (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Alright, Thanks for the clarification. this is what i was looking out for. i didn't AfD this because i wanted to seek expert advice before doing this. Looks meeting WP:GNG. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 19:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Ray Stevens

Ray Stevens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User BarryRay2 appears to be very close to the subject, and is inserting original unsourced content.

I deleted that, boogidad, boogidad. (Sorry. A little Ray Stevens humor.) In situations like this it's ok to just delete it on sight, preferably giving a good explanation of why and the relevant policies. Zaereth (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

List of gender reveal party accidents

I saw that List of gender reveal party accidents was recently created via AfC. I'm somewhat concerned that this may run afoul of BLP1E, as most of the accidents tend to gain a short, intense flurry of coverage but without any long term coverage or other coverage that would establish notability. To an extent this can also be the case for the main gender reveal party, in the incidents and injuries section.

I'm just worried about this being similar to the Gorilla Glue incident, where the woman received a lot of coverage but there's not enough to justify covering it on Wikipedia. At present this article doesn't list every case that has received coverage, but I can see this going that way. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you make some very good points. On the bigger issue, I think, like the section below, this is another glaring instance of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. What's next, List of people who injured themselves while camping by trying to cook canned foods over a fire without opening them first? Why don't we just start cataloging youtube videos by type?

In my view, we're an encyclopedia, so any article, even a list article, should still be about a subject. This type of list, in my view, is completely opposite of encyclopedic writing. Here, we're not defining any thing. It's just a list of incidents and a title that in some arbitrary way ties them all together (ie: it could just as easily be a list of people killed by cannons during a party, or whatever). In my opinion, a good list article is about a subject that simply consists of multiple components. The subject is defined like any other article, and the list gives a good but quick summary of all the components, usually with "main article" link to their subordinate articles. A good example is Basic fighter maneuvers, or List of fallacies is not bad either.

I generally like to call these "parent articles". For example, Energy would be parent to kinetic energy and potential energy. Potential energy to all its different sub-articles. Luminescence to fluorescence and phosphorescence, etc... That seems like a more encyclopedic way to make a list. This just seems like a directory, not too different from a catalog, and for all the reasons you describe and a few more, a very bad directory that will become a magnet for BLP issues. Zaereth (talk) 03:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Include the names of members of an activist group?

I'm working on an article for a political group that has received a lot of RS over the past couple years. Many names of the group's members have been published. Should I include them in the article, for example in a section called "members"? At least one has a Wikipedia page. The government where they live is a bit unpredictable. I'm leaving out the name of the group for the moment. Possibly (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

That depends on a lot of factors. Number 1, I'd make sure the sources are of the utmost reliability. Nothing of even marginal quality. Then, I would only consider publishing names of people who are notable enough that they have their own article. We usually try to respect the privacy of otherwise private citizens, unless they are notable. (For example, we don't include the names of spouses and children of notable people, or non-notable victims of crimes, etc...) Above all, please see WP:NOTDIRECTORY. We're not a directory where people can go look up group members like a phone book. Information needs to be of an encyclopedic nature, meaning a section solely about members would seem highly inappropriate without some really good context to show the reader why this info is necessary to understand the subject. Zaereth (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm largely with Zaereth except that I could perhaps imagine including the name of non-notable leaders or founder, if there is no dispute over this role including by the people themselves, and it's well covered in secondary (not primary) sources. Especially in cases where this role is significant e.g. groups with a formal leadership structures or where the founder's story is seen as a significant part of the history. I don't think it's that important though so would also be fine with leaving them out, although it's not that uncommon we include the names of non notable CEOs and political party leaders and similar. The only real advantage is writing probably seems a little cleaner when we are mentioning these people e.g. it was founded by a member of the indigenous tribe C after she witnessed the destruction wrought by illegal loggers vs it was founded by A, a member of the..... Nil Einne (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)