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.

Kia Labeija

Kia LaBeija (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Original content rules The vast majority of the notes in this bio refer to comments previously made by the subject of the article. This is a thinly-disguised evasion of the rules against original content: the subject writes about the subject, then quotes his/her/themself as if this were not original content. Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research. This article fails that test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BGD808 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 26 Sep 2021 (UTC)

Joseph Minion

Joseph Minion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In this article on author Joseph Minion some outlandish claims (allegations, really) of plagiarism have found its way into the text, and they are based on the following sources, which I find extremely inadequate:

1. unsigned article on Gawker, website generally deemed unreliable in our project;
2. Andrew Hearst on his blog starts his polemics with: "(t)he bare details have been mentioned online, but only in passing, and as far as I know the scandal has never been officially reported anywhere";
3. self-published website spool.net, with article signed by Peter Sobczynski who base (and links) his mention on allegations put forward by Andrew Hearst at his blog, mostly recycling hearsay, as A.Hearst himself admittedly explains at the beginning of his own text in a manner we can read in bold quote from above;
4. Salon article does not say anything on the case;
5. book "Lost Souls of Horror and the Gothic: Fifty-Four Neglected Authors, Actors, Artists and Others.", chapter: "Joseph Minion", by Toles, George (2016). (ed. McCarthy, Elizabeth); McFarland. pp. 151–154; is refed with page range that encompasses entire chapter titled "Joseph Minion" and does not point to a specific claims, which can't be found in the chapter anyway;

so, these sources and their introduction on very controversial claims put forth in this article are all really concerning, and needs to be addressed before any repeated revert happened again - there was some reverting taking place in the last two to three days.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Some additional notes for BLP reviewers:

• The Salon article mentions the situation only obliquely: "Frank was ultimately paid handsomely by producers of a Hollywood film (which he won't name) that plagiarized his dialogue"
• The Lost Souls book says (p. 153): "details of the After Hours narrative "set up" were borrowed, without authorization, from an NPR Playhouse monologue by Joe Frank entitled "Lies"."
• A Slate article says "In a twist worthy of a Frank radio drama, the only feature film based on his work was made without his permission: Frank got some settlement money after the screenwriter Joseph Minion seemed to draw from his monologue “Lies” for Martin Scorsese’s After Hours."
• A New York Times article says "The script, by a Columbia student, Joseph Minion, apparently borrowed elements of a 1982 monologue about a hookup gone awry by the radio storyteller Joe Frank"

HTH, 66.31.23.79 (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Nothing of cited articles (Slate, Salon) can be used under strict BLP guidelines. Google Book preview, page 153, conveniently is unreachable after several IP changes, but even if someone could reach it for confirmation, it is still unusable for these claims, in all three related articles - Joseph Minion, Joe Frank, After Hours (film) - because those it is a hearsay, mentioned here and there as a sort of literary-cinema legend, and only in passing at best, never "officially reported anywhere", just like Hearst himself admittedly wrote in his blog.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• By the way, it's important to point that that one sentence in mentioned Slate article - the only sentence which mention this episode - is actually based and linked/referenced to a above mentioned Gawker unsigned short entry, which itself is based and linked/referenced on both Andrew Hearst blog piece and on our own Joseph Minion article. Talking about WP:CIRC & WP:SELFPUB!--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I think 66.31.23.79's sources are reliable, as are the original sources in the article. The fact that Santa99 even rejects the evidence of a book he hasn't read (I like the "conveniently", BTW--does he think I took down Google Books so that he couldn't check my reference?) shows that nothing would really convince him that these facts belong in the article.

Here's another reference which I would have added to the article had I known about it before: Joe Frank repeats the allegation in his forum.—Chowbok ☠ 23:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

One more thing: I know we can't include anything about this because of the OR rules, but if anyone who's seen Afterhours is curious to hear the Frank show, it's here. It should demonstrate that the allegations are true, at any rate.—Chowbok ☠ 23:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I actually adore Joe and have never took particular notice or interest in Minion's career (barely knew who he is, in case some start coming to a certain conclusion), but that's not the point, we are not a forum nor place for hearsay allegations - references we put in article can't be used in manner that goes against guidelines in WP:Original research and Synth, while WP:BLP is even more strict in regard of what constitute RS. I never implied anything of that sort with regard of that book, I was pretty clear what I meant, which is exactly what I wrote.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 10:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

To summarize after a commenting pause, there's a couple of us who think at least some of the sources are sufficiently reliable. Perhaps we could avoid the legal situation and include the relationship of the "Lies" and After Hours material, which are clearly derived, as the NYT and Lost Souls references state (by the way, Scorsese on Scorsese is a RS for the original title of the After Hours screenplay being "Lies" - p. 97.) Perhaps we could include a simple statement quoting the NYT with attribution rather than using WikiVoice, since even if there is an "official report" of this situation, it would be an ineligible primary source. Is there some way to request a BLP-specialist admin to weigh in? 66.31.23.79 (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Michael Shermer

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

Editors (with COI?) may be blocking references to controversy

I was researching this person having heard of his work for the first time today and, after reading the (very detailed and somewhat promotional) Wikipedia article, discovered elsewhere that he is the subject of fairly widely reported (especially given his relative obscurity) allegations about misogyny and worse, and that these controversies have spilled over into, for example, protests at some of his speaking engagements. There is no mention of this in the Wikipedia article, but on the talk page there are clear attempts by some editors to make mention of them, with lengthy and fairly aggressive rebuttals by others. The argument against including them in this article appears to be based on the claim that BLPs cannot mention Me Too allegations, and pejorative-heavy claims that the sources, which include a lengthy and apparently well documented Buzzfeed article, are not reliable. I was unable to find out what the BLP policy is regarding "Me Too" allegations, but the arguments on the talk page seem (a) specious—other BLPs on Wikipedia mention similar allegations— and (b) are so defensive and argumentative that the editors making them appear to have a COI or relationship with the subject. While Wikipedia articles cannot and should not try to adjudicate such claims, the total absence of them in the article seems like subject-serving omission, rather than good encylopedic practice, and did me a disservice when researching the subject. I would be grateful if someone who is expert in Wikipedia BLPs could take a look at this article and decide whether any edits are justified.

PS The article also seems to be bloated with far more detail than is merited by the subject's notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.182.114.79 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I think there is currently insufficient evidence of egregious COI (edit: there have been limited historical edits by Michael Shermer (talk · contribs)), but this article has some major issues. The article reads like a hagiography, or most charitably, a piece written by avid fans for avid fans ("college sweetheart...", "lifelong dog lover...", etc.). Excruciating detail on every media appearance is pure fluff, and if Shermer was almost anyone else than a primary figure in the Skepticism community would be trimmed as indiscriminate information. But this does not necessarily indicate conflict of interest editing (Pokémon fans really like writing about Pokémon, so non-Pokémon fans need to periodically rein in unchecked effusiveness). The single-most active contributor to the article in number of edits and amount of text added is User:Nightscream, who appears to be interested in Skepticism-related articles, but not exclusively so. I do see staunch opposition from several editors (including IP addresses) to include any mention of allegations, even though they have discussed prominently by several sources, e.g. Inside Higher Ed, Undark Magazine, the Santa Barbara Independent, and by Amanda Marcotte in Salon, and mentioned in passing by the likes of the Washington Post. For a biography that devotes nearly a full screen laptop screen of text to Shermer's bicycling activity, a mere sentence stating the reported allegations, and Shermer's denial, doesn't seem out of place.

Issues of COI aside, one major problem is that the majority of sources in the sections on early life, education, competitive cycling, and personal life are primary sources, coming from Shermer's own books, interviews, or CV. A good deal of the later article content is similarly self-sourced. While using self-published sources for the subject is allowed within reason per WP:SELFSOURCE, reasonable people can disagree as to relevance, appropriateness, and due weight given self-sourced content in the current article. When nearly all of the Personal life section consists solely of simply restating Shermer's views on guns, politics, etc., with no third-party sources to demonstrate context or relevance, then the article becomes less a encyclopedia article about Shermer, and more a platform showcasing the views of Shermer, as if his mere utterance alone is reason enough to include in an encyclopedia. This article would greatly benefit from shifting the balance towards unaffiliated third-party sources. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

"...the claim that BLPs cannot mention Me Too allegations..." Obviously, there is no such policy, as such a policy would be ridiculous on its face. The main criteria for inclusion are coverage, reliability of sources, and weight.

Regarding the sexual harassment allegations, those appear to have been removed by someone editing from an IP account a year ago here. It was not I, nor do I edit from IP accounts.

As for a promotional tone, if you want to point out which passages are worded or are by their very inclusion promotional or COI, I would interested to read and discuss them. :-) Nightscream (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I am not the original instigator of this discussion, although my previous edit to my edit might have appeared as such. I cannot speak for the IP, but share some concerns. Per WP:PRIMARY: Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Large passages are based on them. Per WP:BLPSELFPUB: Such material may be used as a source only if... the article is not based primarily on such sources. This article is based largely on them. I see more of an issue with a chummy, intimate tone, than outright promotion, which likely comes from drawing heavily from Shermer's own POV. But subtle promotion exists in the "show-and-tellism" of verifiable yet questionably relevant accomplishments soured only to affiliated/primary sources (if they are indeed due, then secondary sources are needed to demonstrate this). A laundry list of accomplishments is just showcasing (i.e. promotion), and giving disproportionate prominence to events or views than warranted by their prominence in secondary sources risks violating WP:NPOV, and turning this more into a memoirs of Michael Shermer than a neutral encyclopedic article. What independent reliable sources have written about Shermer should be weighed more heavily than what Shermer writes about himself or other topics. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that independent sources are preferable: they allow to determine what has catched public attention (an argument for if it's due) and may put things in context. I just checked the article and my impression is that the personal life section is not controversial but is somewhat verbose. An important question to ask when primary sources are used (WP:ABOUTSELF), is it self-serving? About the allegations, the WaPo source is probably acceptable for a mention. As for the original poster's claim about current COI editing, I think it's mistaken. —PaleoNeonate – 07:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Dethan Punalur

No References/Cites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.72.131.49 (talk) 13:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Submitted to AfD. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Richard Stanley (director)

Richard Stanley (director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A new editor (CHARLESLESORCIER777) has begun editing the article in order to add updated content regarding sourced controversies outlined in the article that have resulted in Stanley's project being dropped from production (also sourced). The content isn't being removed altogether, but the initial edits removed the allegation and fallout while adding the denial, which won't make any sense to the reader. The header continues to be modified to a less neutral version as well; the apparent POV nature of these edits give all appearances of CHARLESLESORCIER777 having a conflict of interest with this topic.

I'm hoping some editors here could review the material with an eye to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV and decide how the controversy and consequences of such should be addressed in the article, if at all.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Addendum - talk page consensus from March appears to lean towards inclusion of the material.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  I've done a bit of work on it, and added it to my watchlist. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'd appreciate some more eyes on it still, as a bit more npov editing has popped up. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Addendum 2: While I'm not new at writing, I am new to the wiki format. I didn't mean to erase the entire section on Richard Stanley's wikipedia entry. But wiki's interface was fighting with me. And suddenly the whole page was a mess because of one badly entered tag. Sorry, my bad. But that doesn't mean I have a conflict of interest. I think I've now succeeded in removing the part that wasn't referenced. And since someone else has gone in to made the section more wiki-compliant Also, if a person's name isn't to be mentioned in a section title, I understand that. But when I started editing that, there already was a name in there. The article I referenced made clear that name was an alias. I merely wanted to make the title factual and accurate. I had no bad intent. Hope all is good now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHARLESLESORCIER777 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  Also, keep in mind that if your edits are reverted you should discuss on the talk page. It's easy to escalate a situation when reverting and communicating through edit summaries. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you. -ClS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHARLESLESORCIER777 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Axos Financial

My name is Greg and I work for Axos Bank, a subsidiary of Axos Financial. In compliance with WP:COI, I have proposed various changes to the Axos page on Talk. I am posting at this noticeboard regarding a subset of those changes that involve BLP issues with uncited or imbalanced criticisms of the CEO. The areas I believe are BLP issues are as follows:

Extended content

The following italicized sentence infers the CEO was responsible for the failure of his prior employer. There is no citation and the relevance to Axos is unclear: "In October 2007, the company named Gregory Garrabrants as CEO, who was head of corporate development at IndyMac Bancorp at the time.[7] IndyMac failed the next year as the "fourth largest bank failure in the United States." Wikipedia's content focuses on inferring the CEO's compensation is excessive or unjustified, but the source material focuses mostly on his high compensation being earned through a performance-based compensation structure. I suggest adding something like the bolded sentence below to better balance this content: "In April 2019, it was reported that the Axos CEO, Greg Garrabrants, earned $34.5 million, making him the highest paid bank CEO of 2018, despite Axos being 250x smaller than banks such as JPMorgan. The CEO's compensation structure was tied to growth in Axos' share price, which grew 72% that year and 1,657% since Garrabrants became CEO." The italicized content below is not supported by the citation, which just says "no comment" on whether the CEO's computer was exempted: "In March 2020, the Axos CEO, Greg Garrabrants, emailed employees to let them know he had instructed his IT team to install spying software on everyone's computer (excluding his own)" References

Thank you in advance for your time and energy reviewing my points. Best regards. Gfrostaxos (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure you're reading those first two the same way I did, and perhaps the author wasn't trying to be offending. I mean, if a company folded just shortly after he left, it tells me he was a driving force that was holding it together. But I guess it's all in how you look at it. Either way, it was unsourced and irrelevant commentary so I went ahead and deleted it. Same with the second and third request. I don't think the added commentary you suggested, about why he got paid so much, is of anymore use than comparing company sizes. This article is not about him.

That said, the article is terrible. It's basically just what I'd call a timeline of events, which are very boring to read. (ie: At 7:30 I awoke and shut off my alarm. At 7:32 I brushed my teeth. At 7:35 I took a shower...") And there seems to be a weird thing where we just call it "the company" in every single sentence, as if we're talking in code for the CIA. I'm guessing someone came along and tried to simply cover up all traces of the old name, Bolf, or whatever it was, which we shouldn't. It comes off as a bit on the promotional side, and needs a lot of work to make it read like an encyclopedia article. Work which I don't have time to do myself. Zaereth (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Jim Jordan (American politician)

Jim Jordan (American politician)

Editors of the page, upon review of their profile and political views as a result, are introducing unnecessary and personal political biases into the nature and context of the article, affecting how it reads, therefore violating Wikipedia's NPOV policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afchlam (talk • contribs) 23:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Afchlam:, the page can be edited by people with any personal political beliefs. Do you have any specific examples to indicate where the article fails WP:NPOV? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I second that we need specifics.--67.70.100.169 (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Eben Alexander (author)

I appeal to fellow Wikipedians in an effort to clarify erroneous information on the page about me. Reference to the talk page covers the main issues in detail. The following falsehoods should be corrected:

"His book Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife (2012) describes his near-death experience that happened in 2008 under medically-induced coma when treated for meningitis. He asserts that the coma resulted in brain death, that consciousness is not only a product of the brain and that this permits access to an afterlife." is false, and should read:

"His book Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife (2012) describes his near-death experience that happened in 2008 during a coma due to bacterial meningoencephalitis. "His medical records suggest that his coma was not drug- induced, as his brain function and level of consciousness were clearly impaired and on a downward trajectory before sedation and started to improve before sedation was discontinued".

Another irrelevant addition that should simply be deleted (Alexander was never found guilty of malpractice, thus these distractional statements do not contribute to understanding the nuances of Alexander's medical case): "While practicing medicine in Lynchburg at the Lynchburg General Hospital, Alexander was reprimanded by the Virginia Board of Medicine for performing surgery at an incorrect surgical site, two times over the course of a month. In one instance, Alexander altered his operative report because he believed the surgery had diminished the patient's symptoms. He was sued by the patient for damages totaling $3 million in August 2008, but the case was dismissed by the plaintiff in 2009. As a result of the mishaps, Alexander lost his privileges at the hospital and was forced to pay a $3,500 fine to the Virginia Board of Medicine and complete ethics and professionalism training to maintain an unrestricted medical license in the state.[5] Following the release of his 2012 book Proof of Heaven, Esquire magazine reported that Alexander had been terminated or suspended from multiple hospital positions, and had been the subject of several malpractice lawsuits and that he settled five malpractice suits in Virginia within a period of ten years."

This allegation of Alexander's termination from multiple hospital positions is also false. There was never any termination "for cause". Please delete this libelous statement.

The extreme scrutiny involved in cases of alleged malpractice suggests that the absence of finding Alexander guilty in several attempts implies there was no malpractice. This red herring of missed attempts at proving malpractice was introduced in the defamatory arcticle by Luke Dittrich in Esquire in 2013, which should be deleted as a reference. It has been thoroughly debunked by researcher Robert Mays who found in his peer-reviewed report that:

"To me, the Dittrich article is shoddy and irresponsible journalism — shoddy because of Dittrich’s and his Esquire editors’ evident failures: • to consider alternate explanations (rainbow), • to check with the cited witnesses (Holley, Phyllis, and Betty Alexander and Sylvia White), • to verify information with additional witnesses (Holley Alexander, Michael Sullivan, and others), • to check with medical experts (on the likely cause of coma), • to check again on crucial testimony of the sole cited witness (Laura Potter), • to read the book carefully (Scott Wade’s statement about Alexander’s coma), • to exercise care in asserting erroneous “facts” (use of drugs was not mentioned in the book), • to exercise care in quoting and interpreting recorded remarks (Dalai Lama), • to exercise common sense in interpreting the meaning of statements (Dalai Lama), and • to respond when serious questions of accuracy were raised (interview request by Alex Tsakiris about Potter’s statement). And Dittrich’s article was irresponsible because of the impact— the real harm— that the resulting distortions have caused."

The following current statement should be modified to reflect a critique of one of its sources (Sam Harris's blog posting it references): "The book was a commercial success but also was the subject of scientific criticism in relation to misconceptions about neurology, such as conflating medically induced coma with brain death"

The relevant insightful commentary calling out Harris's errors are found in Bernardo Kastrup postings directly addressing the Harris statements:

"The more unfortunate aspect of Harris' criticism, which I personally believe is beneath him, is a subtle attempt to discredit Alexander's capacity to judge whether his NDE could be explained by traditional neuroscience. This is embedded in a quote Harris adds to his post; a quote from his UCLA thesis advisor. Here is the relevant part: Neurosurgeons, however, are rarely well-trained in brain function. Dr. Alexander cuts brains; he does not appear to study them. "Now pause for a moment and read this quote again. The notion here is that Alexander, a practicing neurosurgeon and Professor at Harvard Medical School (here is his resume and here his extensive list of academic papers), does not understand what part of the brain does what while he is hacking at people's brains every day."

Thank you in advance for trying to bring some factual balance to this article. Ealexander3 (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

See previous discussions at BLPN 1,BLPN 2, BLPN 3BLPN 4. This is all reliably sourced content, and we can't use self published blogs or other unreliable and involved sources such as the Journal of Near-Death Studies article to undercut the sources we have. - MrOllie (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

References

moyal-sharrock

This is a faulty entry about me. Kindly delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deletion12 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Daniele Moyal-Sharrock article? If so, see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion of biographies and BLPs. Wikipedia doesn't automatically delete biographical content on request, but it may take such a request into consideration - this will require verification that the request is coming from the individual concerned. Meanwhile, if the article is 'faulty', it would help considerably if you could give some indication as to why, given that it appears to cite appropriate sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Terminfo

Hi. The article Terminfo refers in a number of places the original author, Mary Horton. We are having a difficulty that a user (and it seems to be one user) insists on repeatedly violating MOS:DEADNAME. The page history shows a long history of changes to reinsert the deadname, sometimes spuriously justified with reference to WP:RS. Other editors come along and fix it, and this one person puts it back.

I am not familiar enough with Wikipedia's processes to know how best to resolve this. Please would someone help? Thanks.

Ijackson (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that this has been going this way for so long. However while you're right it seems to have been only one editor reverting all this time, it also seems to be the first time the relevant parts of our guidelines have been highlighted to the editor. In fact although their reply on the talk page suggests they still don't really understand the guideline, they haven't reverted since then (although it hasn't been that long). I've further highlighted the relevant portions of the MOS to them which hopefully will be enough to clear up any confusion and stop further reversions. Nil Einne (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Various American Celbrities

User:50.110.94.196 is causing issues by going around and adding "death" information where it is either complete and utter WP:BOLLOCKS or just downright misleading. They also edit existing refs to make their edits seem sourced, such as replacing one persons name with another in the URL [[1]]. They are good enough at it that they seem to be able to go unnoticed for a while. This IP needs an extended block, all they are doing so far is to waste everyone's time going back and reverting their changes, definitely WP:NOTHERE.The Alternate Mako (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Alternate Mako:, if this is still an ongoing issue, the Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents is a better place to get attention to behavior such as described. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Can this be closed off? I'll shift it to the correct venue. The Alternate Mako (talk) 11:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Corruption in Mauritius

• Corruption in Mauritius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The VRT team have been asked to look into this article for potentially arbitrary inclusion criteria on the list. Given that the majority of the cases listed involve individuals who are still alive, I figured this was the best place to ask for assistance in looking into whether there are sections to be trimmed or guidelines to be created. If it is not, feel free to move this entire thread wholesale to the best location. Primefac (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The majority of the text there was added by BerwickKent and Twofingered Typist, both of whom are apparently still active editors. I do not see any indication of what they consider criteria for inclusion and there are WP:BLPCRIME concerns because most of the incidents listed are only of arrests or other initial coverage. Also, the format of the article is a bit strange. Instead of discussing corruption generally and the responses, mechanisms, attempts to address, etc. that most other "Corruption in [X]" articles do, it just lists potential incidents. I was tempted to remove any listed incident without a resolution but since there are cites I'd like to hear from those two authors first. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 12:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I simply copy edited the article in response to a GOCE request. I have nothing to do with the content, which should be clear from the article's edit summary. Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Leslyn Lewis

On October 23 Canadian MP Leslyn Lewis made a tweet that included the words "... sit in the back of the bus." Ahunt on October 30 inserted that she compared herself to Rosa Parks, citing a local newspaper and not her tweet. I reverted, Ahunt re-inserted, I brought it to the talk page, nobody else joined in. My main argument is that she didn't mention Rosa Parks, so it can't be verified and in context a newspaper, when deciding what she meant, is opining rather than being a reliable source for a fact. So I claim that Ahunt has gone against WP:V, WP:RS/QUOTE, WP:RSCONTEXT, WP:BLPSOURCE, WP:BLPUNDEL. (It might be too early to add WP:DUE.) Who agrees or disagrees? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

This is kind of ridiculous to bring here, since it has already been adequately addressed on the article talk page. The information in the article is all sourced to a WP:RS and completely complies with both WP:V and WP:BLP. The source cited, a PostMedia chain newspaper and also carried in The Toronto Star, directly quoted, says: Lewis also likened herself to civil rights activist Rosa Parks for objecting to the recently announced mandatory vaccination policy for MPs. “The media and the power structure expect me to sit in the back of the bus. I won’t!” Lewis tweeted on Saturday. The media source was quite right to draw the line between Lewis' comment and her reference to Parks, as clearly that was what Lewis intended. Norfolk County Councillor Kim Huffman also drew that same conclusion in the article's quote: “You are no Rosa Parks,” tweeted Norfolk County Councillor Kim Huffman, who told The Spectator Lewis’s choice of language was “both inflammatory and completely reckless.” “The truth is out there in terms of vaccination and the research into vaccinations,” Huffman said, adding she was “very dismayed” to see Lewis casting aspersions on the vaccine. “We’ve spent a lot of time in getting people to be vaccinated, and to have someone tweet something so careless … it’s very disappointing,” said Huffman, who sits on the local board of health. We don't need to rely on WP:PRIMARY like Twitter and in fact do not rely on primary sources, when we have WP:RS. There is nothing to debate here, it is all properly sourced to reliable, independent, third party sources. - Ahunt (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

A single local news article about a tweet is probably not going to be WP:DUE. If it is, then the solution would be to simply include the actual phrase used in the tweet "expect me to sit in the back of the bus", rather than the interpretation of that tweet in a single article, given that the tweet did not make a direct comparison to any individual and we do in fact rely on primary sources for this type of context (see WP:BLPPRIMARY). The claim that the article subject "was criticized for her stand against vaccines in October 2021" also seems misleading, as the cited article only mentions the criticism of a county councillor, while claiming that Lewis is "raising eyebrows at home and on Twitter by using her online platform to question the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines". – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that this is not yet WP:DUE, but I confess I am a bit puzzled by the reference to WP:BLPPRIMARY. That policy says that "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source...." So, to my reading, if we're not using the secondary source, the primary source shouldn't come in. It is, however, entirely possible I am missing something or otherwise uninformed. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Dumuzid, my reference to that guideline was for if the content was found to be due. However, I agree with you that the content does appear to be due, at least not yet given the current sourcing. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

A single local news article about a tweet is probably not going to be WP:DUE. That is not the case. This story has been run in a number of media outlets including:

• Simcoe Reformer
• The Toronto Star
• Sarnia Observer
• Norfolk and Tillsonburg News.

How many news outlets are required for WP:BLP? - Ahunt (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

All of those are merely reprints of the same local article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, but the fact that it was picked up in The Star is, for me anyway, pretty impactful. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The Globe and Mail also mentions her opinions if that affects people's attitude about dueness, but it avoids speculation so cannot be useful to support Ahunt's editing. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Well that was my point, the story has received widespread coverage, including in the Toronto Star, which is national media level. We can cite all of those refs if that would show the national-level coverage of the story. - Ahunt (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the Globe and Mail ref shows the national scope of the story. - Ahunt (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Being reported outside local news is helpful in determining whether content is due, but that does not necessarily make content due, as Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree again! I just want to note that on first glance, this seemed an easy call as not WP:DUE. The inclusion of The Star among the sources makes this a much closer decision for me. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Ahunt, after I made my "The Globe And Mail" comment you interpolated your own comment before it and changed the indentation level of my comment making it appear I was replying to you. This is against WP:TALKO and misleads other editors, so I restored my comment's position and ask you not to interfere with my edits again. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Being a national story in a single outlet dos not in and of itself mean it's worthy of inclusion. What we want to see is something that has a lot of public interest, and some staying power. To call ourselves an encyclopedia we have to set much higher standards than the sources we use. That's why you find encyclopedias in the reference section of the library. See WP:RECENTISM for a broader description. As an example, imagine what any presidential candidates article would look like if we included every trivial thing someone made a fuss over. (Not to mention, I don't see what's wrong with wanting to emulate someone who did something great. People berated Rosa Parks at the time too.)

Here's the thing. This is all political spin. "It's good and righteous if our side does it, and horrible and evil if theirs does the exact same thing." When weighing sources, it's tricky business, because not all sources carry the same weight. A news article is a poor source for anatomy, but Greys Anatomy is probably one of the best you can get. You also can't really count sources that are all regurgitating the same story as separate from one another. When sources start independently reporting on it, then it shows some staying power. This is how we keep trivial nonsense out of articles on people, and especially people like celebrities and politicians. It's all a part of NPOV, and without it no one could ever take us seriously. Zaereth (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, the problem with that is manifold, so I will go through the two major ones. First, it is certainly a problem of due weight. The lede is merely a summary of the body, and it needs to be put into the proper proportion with in the scope of the body to be able to determine how much space (if any) it deserves in the lede. It's a rather short news article, and I doubt it alone carries a significant amount of weight in comparison to all the other sources, especially when put into proportion with the size of our article (it's a very short article with 35 sources).

Second, you're right. She never said it outright, and the author of the news article was taking a bit of liberty and connecting the dots. A newspaper can often get away with that, but it's poor writing and somewhat insulting to the reader's intelligence (and a good newspaper editor should have caught it). By "poor writing", I mean it's telling me, not showing me. By "insulting", I mean it's a glaringly obvious connection, and people find it condescending to be told the obvious. And if there is any ambiguity, it's cleared up in the next sentence or two, where someone from the medical industry is quoted as saying "You're not Rosa Parks", so it's redundant to boot. As an encyclopedia, we're a lot more formal than the sources we use. (As an analogy, it's like telling a child's joke like this: This is about a man named Bob. What do you call a man with no arm or legs floating in the water? Bob.)

So, the first thing I would do is determine space it deserves in the body --if any-- by weighing the sources against each other. Not just the sources in the article, but all sources out there. If it's like 25% this and 75% everything else, then the article should reflect that. If, on the other hand, it's more like 1% this and 99% everything else, then it probably doesn't deserve any space, given the small size of our article. It's all about putting everything into proportion, and in summarizing it's necessary to cut out the finer details.

When it comes to the lede, it's sort of the same thing. The lede is merely a summary of the body (a summary of a summary), and again we have to maintain the proper proportion, and decide what details to keep and which can be saved for later. These things should be worked out on the talk page before ever posting it on mainspace. Zaereth (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

You can note that it was recently moved to the main body of the article, before it was once again removed. - Ahunt (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Perfect. That's just what I said. It should be deleted and moved to the talk page until it all gets works out and hammered into shape. Zaereth (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any issues mentioning this as part of her position on vaccines since several of her political positions have also been mentioned. It's no less due and widely published even if the original was syndicated. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I think this is where I land as well; as a proportion of the coverage of her herself, it strikes me as significant. And while the matter of syndication can certainly be taken into account, I would agree it's not enough to disregard the coverage. So I believe a mention is probably appropriate. Then again, I am often wrong. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

But that's not what this conversation is about. It's about her comparing herself to Rosa Parks and portraying that in a "how dare you" way. In this discussion, the link to vaccinations, and in this case forced vaccination, has been absent. Her positions are definitely something we should cover, but not the political spin on her tweets. Either way, this is not NPOVN and discussions of what's due should take place at the talk page. Zaereth (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for my imprecision, but that's what I mean--I think the "Rosa Parks" moment is probably worthy of inclusion, though I would attribute it to The Star, I think. By my lights, that would not violate WP:BLP, but reasonable minds may certainly differ. A happy Tuesday to all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

It's a BLP issue only to the extent that it's an NPOV issue, which is what DUE is a part of. The thing about due weight is that it needs to be discussed among all the parties involved who have both access to and the inclination to go out and find all the sources, and do the extensive weighing needed to determine just how much space in the article it deserves. The best place to do that is on the talk page of the article, where all the involved editors are. It's best not to think of it in terms of whether it's worthy of inclusion (we've satisfied RS thus satisfying V; those were the easy parts of the equation) but rather, how much space should we allot for it? Given the small size of the article, does it deserve an entire section, a whole paragraph, or just a single sentence? Or maybe it only deserves a word or two. In such cases, the only way I would say do not include is if it deserves less than a sentence. Given the small size of the article and it's large number of sources, I'd say that gives a lot to talk about. Of course, a person could always make room by expanding the rest of the article, but that's a double-edged sword, because expanding the article will mean adding more sources. Zaereth (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually there's only one source, J.P.Antonacci, a Local Journalism Initiative reporter funded by the Canadian government. Maybe you could be more specific about what wording you'd favour? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the "Rosa Parks" moment is probably worthy of inclusion - is it really a piece of enduring coverage related to Lewis? This is really the type of problem endemic of why BLPs today are in such bad shape overall. Editors focus on these bursts of news but not on the big picture. If this fits into a broader section about Lewis and her COVID-19 stance (of which I would expect more about before this incident from 3rd party sources), that would make sense to integrate into that. But instead, this idea "oh, this got a burst of coverage, let's include" is why many BLPs are in poor shape because they focus on day-to-day and not career-spanning coverage. Omission until we know if it has a enduring factor on her career is the right solution, even if the sourcing to include is impeccable. --Masem (t) 15:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

It's nice to know my opinions are responsible for the terrible state of Wikipedia. I had no idea of the power I wield! Dumuzid (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not specifically blaming you, just that this statement is so very common what I've seen from editors when they rush to include information that was covered from a burst of news but without thinking of the big picture. Your statement just encapsulated the problem in this specific case pretty well. --Masem (t) 16:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Well then, good to know I have been decreed incorrect. Have a wonderful day, and if you could interact with me as little as possible, that would be swell. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Dude. No need to get all bent out of shape. Masem made some good points, and it was clear to the rest of us that aren't emotionally involved that he wasn't speaking about you specifically. You make some very good points as well, and you participation here is always welcome. In this case, Masem simply said what I was thinking, but rather was trying to show how it should work in a policy sense. The problem with relying on news outlets so much is that, on any given day, anywhere from 50 to 90% of it is just filler. They have space to fill --everyday-- and if they can't cram it with ads or real news, they just find whatever they can and try to put a spin on it that will stir people's emotions or make it seem interesting. Even that one sentence, the thing that started this all, as I described above that was just filler within filler, to take up space. We need to do better than that, and cut out all the filler and get down to the nitty gritty. That's all. Zaereth (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I think many people who frequently comment on this noticeboard have a concern with news-style content that is added to BLPs without any enduring coverage to show it is significant. Situations where content is not sourced to reliable sources or has other clear BLP violations are easier to handle, while issues over what is due in a BLP are a lot harder. Without taking into account some type of guidelines for what information is important enough to include, these discussions would become almost impossible. A single issue in one article is usually not going to be terrible, but it is part of an attitude that allows many less significant news topics to take up a lot of space in articles, especially articles on politicians. Without taking into consideration enduring coverage, many politicians could have dozens or even hundreds of one-line policy positions. Significance could also be shown by enduring coverage of similar aspects of the same issue, such as the suggestion of whether the article subject's previous stances on COVID-19 or involvement in the issue had been covered in sources. However, only having a few sources discuss a politician's opinion on a topic is related to political policies would be a very broad inclusion criteria. I don't think anyone means any offense by expressing that. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Well said. I don't mean to bash on news outlets, although I often do. (Ok. Maybe a little, but journalism today is not what it was when I was trained in it.) When evaluating any source, I think it's important to have a good understand of how they operate and how they make their money. Take Wikipedia, for instance. We'd lose massive credibility if we started selling ad space. News outlets make money by stirring emotion. Happy stories don't sell papers, and if they can put a racial spin on it, then they can sell even more. News outlets can be very reliable sources, but most of the time that only shows in hindsight. They are only focused on the news of the day --or sometimes up to the minute-- and tomorrow that news could change entirely 180 degrees. An encyclopedia shouldn't focus on day to day things, but focus on the long-term and historical perspective, as if what we write today will still be valid and important to people 10, 50, 100 years from now. The only way to do that with newspapers is to wait a spell and see what sticks. Zaereth (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I intend to put on the article's talk page "Rosa Parks" thread that "Most participants in the WP:BLPN discussion did not favour adding this to the article at this time". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Tynan Power

There are a couple of inaccuracies on a page that is about me: Tynan Power. Mainly these are things that were accurate when first published but are no longer true (like removing a past employer who is named as a current employer). I did not create the entry, but I've made some edits to the entry in the past, mainly to add sources and fix some awkward language. However, the entry now has a notice that says "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view." In light of that, I'd really prefer not to make content changes, myself, to avoid making it seem like the information is not neutral.

There are a total of six small content changes to make, and I can provide sources for all of them. I'm happy to spell them out for anyone interested.

I'm also interested in advice/help removing that warning re: contributor having a close connection. I completely understand why it's there, but believe that past edits were within the allowed parameters and didn't impact the neutrality of the entry. Again, I don't want to wade into murky ethical space by trying to remove it myself, but would appreciate suggestions on what to do about it. Tynan Power (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Your article is currently written like a resume and should be rewritten to focus on what independent academic sources and news organizations have written about you rather than what you or organizations you are affiliated have written. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Most of the content also appears to be unsourced or not supported from the citations provided. I removed a lot of that content, and tried to locate sources for other parts, but finding many sources has been difficult. For the article subject, you should try to provide on the article's talk page some links or descriptions of independent sources that discuss you and your life. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Julio_Licinio

Seems like puffery and there’s no mention of more recent like this: https://www.syracuse.com/schools/2019/09/upstate-abruptly-ousts-medical-school-dean.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatsRegrettable (talk • contribs) 02:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Sean Howard

"In 1992 he sold his publications business to Australian Consolidated Press but retained Microtex. Microtex then became Oz-E-Mail.[3]" Not true. Microtex was sold to Telecom Australia (now Telstra) as stated in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtex_666 . 180.150.37.108 (talk) 06:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Akinwale Arobieke

Akinwale Arobieke - I came across this page while patrolling recent pages changes. I think it's written with too negative a slant - the first sentence of the lead describes the subject as a convicted criminal, and there's stuff about what the Daily Mirror (an unreliable tabloid) has to say about him. It's quite a lengthy article though - does anyone have time to take a look? Best Girth Summit _(blether) 14:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Just a quick glance, but the BBC appears to have well-covered him, so nearly anything sourced to British tabloids can be nixed in favor of the BBC, but otherwise a quick read would appear to be correct to treat him primarily as a convicted criminal. --Masem (t) 14:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Amended post above - it was recent changes, not pages. I agree that there are workable sources there. My slight concern is that our lead is focusing too heavily on the 'convicted criminal' thing, and not enough on the 'had stuff overturned on appeal' aspect. BLPs aren't my usual bag, wanted to have more eyes on it. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Jamie Guy

Just a heads up that following discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Dennis_Greene_(footballer) I have commented out a "Personal life" section here, which consisted of nothing but three paragraphs of detail on convictions and allegations against the subject. It was all sourced, but my concern is that such material represents a lack of WP:BLPBALANCE, given that the guy is notable as a footballer and not as a criminal, and the "Personal life" section contained literally nothing else apart from three paragraphs of detail on violence and convictions. His convictions are irrelevant to his encyclopedic notability. Note that the subject himself had shown an interest in removing this content too, although obviously I'm unaffiliated with him in any way, so not endorsing his possible edits of his own article.

If anyone with experience in BLP matters thinks I've got the wrong end of the stick here, then please let me know.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

It is not a BLP violation to mention criminal convictions that are discussed in reliable sources, especially not for a public figure. Repeatedly pleading guilty to domestic violence charges that have been covered in reliable sources over a period of years is almost certainly appropriate to include. Whether some of the other convictions or allegations are due would depend on the type of coverage they received and whether they are significant to understanding the article subject based on how the sources discuss them. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

My point is that it's not just "mentioning" them, it's dedicating an entire section to the subject, dressed up as a "personal life" section. If this material was in proportion to the other things usually found in such sections, like family, partners, other careers etc, then it wouldn't be so stark. It's unclear to me what the encyclopedic interest is in including all this, based on what isn't a huge volume of RS coverage.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Two of the sources that you have hidden in the article from the Daily Gazette/Essex County Standard say that the article subject has "a history of violence against women", and all of the other convictions discussed are also for violent or threatening behavior. How is that not relevant to an encyclopedic biography? If that is the most common aspect of his personal life that is discussed in reliable sources, then that is how it should be presented on Wikipedia. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

improve the wording/re-arrange the article, rather than just deleting completely. GiantSnowman 19:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

You've got the wrong end of the stick. The section can be shortened and renamed but should not be excised. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Brent Coon

Brent Coon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The VRT team have been asked to bring this article for community discussion to see if the article complies with BLP and other community policies. The concerns / claims raised in the request include the following:

• The Controversies section is overreliant on sources that are biased and anti-plaintiff attorneys.
• The article is written to present the subject in the worst possible light, with all positive content that could make the article more balanced being removed.
• Some of the material in the Controversies section is only presenting one side by using references that speak to when a case is filed against Coon and not the resolution.

If there's a more appropriate venue for this discussion, please feel free to move the thread accordingly. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Good grief. The article should be renamed Brent Coon and Associates, because it is nowhere near a biography about the person. It starts off reading like an ad, and then is just a list of lawsuits they've been involved in. Now, these lawsuits are pretty notable themselves, but the tone in the article is definitely one of condemnation.

I'll give an example. I read through the article and many of the sources, so I'll pick one section at random. The section titled "Asbestos racketeering and claim fraud". First, the title itself makes it seem like a fraud was actually committed, and is a potential BLP vio. Now the section is not about a lawsuit filed against his firm, but against a doctor he and many other lawyers used in asbestos-related cases.

The first sentence begins, "Coon admits to having Dr. Jay T. Segarra, a controversial radiologist from Ocean Springs, Mississippi, screen potential clients for asbestos-related injury...." And then after admitting this is all speculation by Forbes, goes on to say, "Coon went so far as to publicly defend Segarra...." and, "Similar fraud has been described in detail in the papers of Lester Brickman, a law professor at Cardozo and an expert on fraud and misconduct in asbestos litigation."

In case it's not readily apparent, that's more persuasive writing than expository. Beginning with "Coon admits..." is establishing guilt before a crime has ever been described. "Went so far as..." is another instance where we're insinuating a negative connotation. "Similar fraud" is establishing that a fraud has indeed occured --all before a trial has even been announced!

The source gives an entirely different tone. ""We assume there are other people involved in the enterprise," said Marcy Croft, the Jackson, Miss., lawyer for NSI.... Potential defendants include some of the most prominent names in the plaintiffs' bar, such as Baron & Budd; Motley Rice; Reaud, Morgan & Quinn and Brent Coon.... The process generated a suspiciously high percentage of diagnoses of asbestosis and related injuries, said Lester Brickman, a professor at Cardozo University School of Law who has written extensively about asbestos litigation.... Coon, a Beaumont, Texas lawyer who represents asbestos claimants, said he's hired Segarra and believes the doctor is honest. "I'll vouch for him," Coon said. "I've had him look at a lot of cases and the majority of them come back negative.""

So, it's easy to see how different the tone of the story is from their article to ours. Theirs isn't really even about Coon whereas ours makes him a centerpiece in this lawsuit; a lawsuit that has only been filed and not yet even accepted. And that's just one paragraph. I suspect there are even more problems, but due to things going on in my personal life I don't have time to go through and fix it all. I can say that there is indeed a lot that needs fixing. Zaereth (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the article was created by a political undisclosed paid editing operation (Frost joyce SPI). Presumably as an attack piece by a political enemy. MarioGom (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Then perhaps this is a case where it would be best to WP:Blow it up and start over, being as that it is likely far more work to fix it than to begin again from scratch. I don't see much independent notability from most of these sources; he was just involved in these suits as either a defendant or a lawyer (or not at all) , and mentions of him or his firm are simply marginal, as described above. Many of the suits are very notable in their own right, and subsequently have their own articles. I don't see much independent notability of his firm, and almost nothing in the way of biographical information on the person. The article somehow reads as a very negative resume for his firm, as oxymoronic as that sounds. BIUSO. Zaereth (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. The Frost joyce sockfarm has a long history of editing against asbestos injury claims, and they created this article. The creator is not blocked because it was stale (inactive for a long time) by the time I reported it. The article was later edited with an attack POV by another UPE sockfarm, Classyklowngrasper who is also known for engaging in negative PR. Some COI editors (now blocked) tried to counter this, unsuccessfully. There are no significant contributions other than the UPE attackers and the COI editors. I think I have never done an AfD nomination purely based on WP:TNT, but I think this would be a good candidate. Nobody cared to fix the article over the years, and keeping it in its current form means that experienced UPE working for corporations in highly controversial areas get their way, in our face, promoting their clients and attacking their enemies. MarioGom (talk) 11:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I have had a look. In order to get to the point where it was approaching a normal biography, I would be removing at least 90% of the content. And what was left would not be much to build on. I say TNT it and let someone who thinks there is a decent chance of an article start with no existing issues. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Kathleen Stock RfC

Input is requested at an RfC at Kathleen Stock about how to word a matter in the lead of the article. The RfC is at Talk:Kathleen Stock#RFC: What should be in the lead? Crossroads ^-talk- 04:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for posting this here, User:Crossroads. Ha, it doesn't take much to become a darling of the alt-right--even feminist women can make the cut. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Ricardo Duchesne

This article is troubled. There's a couple of pro-subject IPs there, the 47 IPs I think, and the IPv6 seems to be critical of the subject. The article needs impartial editors to reach some sort of neutrality. Note that I already blocked one nest of socks. Your help is appreciated--I cannot sift through these edits at this time. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Stephen Marglin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Career section contains two paragraphs without any citations regarding the subject's most recent book, some of which seems to be a summary of said book, phrased not as a description of the book's contents or its arguments, but as fact. The Personal Life section contains no citations and lists the subject's children and their occupations, including a child who is listed as a recent high school graduate and another as a current college student. From the edit history, it appears that this article was edited several times by a Smarglin.