Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions
→Roshan Goonetileke: new section |
→Parakrama Pannipitiya: new section |
||
Line 188: | Line 188: | ||
{{la|Roshan Goonetileke}} This article contains a large amount of unsourced content. Pls, help to remove this unsourced content. |
{{la|Roshan Goonetileke}} This article contains a large amount of unsourced content. Pls, help to remove this unsourced content. |
||
== Parakrama Pannipitiya == |
|||
{{la|Parakrama Pannipitiya}}This article contains a large amount of unsourced content. Pls, help to remove this unsourced content. |
Revision as of 15:20, 15 November 2021
Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here. | ||
---|---|---|
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.
Additional notes:
| ||
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)
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)
- Besides WP:DUE, we also have to consider WP:BLPCRIME. Anyway about the COI thing I agree I see no evidence of a COI. I'd note that when the issue was first brought up in 2014, the sources mentions are very poor. There was Salon and BuzzFeed (not BuzzFeed News) but both are sources which lack any consensus for reliability (see WP:RSP) and so are unlikely to be suitable to make contentious claims about a living person. Daily Dot is reliable for internet culture but again is unlikely to be suitable to make contentious claims about a living person. The blogs are unlikely to be reliable sources mostly point blank. Quartz first mention on the talk page in 2018 was maybe the first source good enough that we could consider including content IMO. And with Washington Post the threshold for inclusion is probably met. That said, previous attempts for inclusion seem to have also been poorly handled with one suggestion on the talk page "appropriate to include in this article a section on this wider conversation about sexism in the skeptical movement". And this inclusion which cited the Washington Post but using a weird quote [1]. So I'm not particularly surprised attempts at inclusion have failed until now. Nil Einne (talk) 13:18, 7 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)
- 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)
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)
- Note that the UPE editors used Southeast Texas Record (setexasrecord.com) by Locality Labs. This is a company operating +1,000 shady local news websites that publish paid stories for companies, election campaigns, etc. This is obviously an unreliable source. The sockfarm in question uses Locality Labs websites as sources extensively. MarioGom (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Nominated it for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brent Coon (2nd nomination). MarioGom (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Note that the UPE editors used Southeast Texas Record (setexasrecord.com) by Locality Labs. This is a company operating +1,000 shady local news websites that publish paid stories for companies, election campaigns, etc. This is obviously an unreliable source. The sockfarm in question uses Locality Labs websites as sources extensively. MarioGom (talk) 14:34, 9 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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.
James Deen RfC
There is a RfC about the level of detail of the 2015 allegations against James Deen that is appropriate for his article given BLP considerations.[2] The history of this dispute can be seen at [3]. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- For the benefit of anyone who may be confused like me, note this is James Deen a pornographic actor and director, not James Dean who is indeed long dead. Nil Einne (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Was I being too overzealous here with my application/enforcement of BLP? A week ago, I reverted some category additions from the previous few days which had made assertions unverified in the body of the article. At the time, I believed the additions to be BLP violations, but now I'm not so sure — the subject is an avowed member of the KKK, and therefore the added categories could conceivably apply to the subject; a couple of them could've been suggested by a quote from the subject in the article. However, I felt uncomfortable with most of the new categories remaining in the article because they were not directly referenced to any sources. Admittedly, I neither checked the sources already present, nor looked for any new sources myself. At the time, I felt that — and please correct me if I'm wrong — my not doing so did not matter because none of the sources had been used to reference the specific claims in question, one major example being the alleged ANP membership; the article made no mention of the ANP. Also, maybe I'm being arrogant, but frankly there are many things I would rather do, on Wikipedia and in general, than work on an article about a white supremacist. I meant to write this post several days ago but have been very busy IRL. Thank you for any constructive feedback, Dylan620 (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Jason S. Miyares
I am the communications director for Jason Miyares, Attorney General -elect of Virignia. I have his official headshot, which is used on our social media, and would like it to be his Wikipedia picture, but users keep changing it. Can I please give you this headshot, which matches his twitter and facebook, and then have it locked?
- Hello Vlacivita. There are a few things you need to do to make this happen. Since you work for an attorney, you should be familiar with many of the terms I'm about to use. The first thing is to get the owner of the picture to release the copyright so it can be published under our copyright policy. We can't just go to facebook and pull his pic without the owner's consent. See WP:COPYRIGHT for more on our policy. (
An official government photo would be good, as anything government like that is already in public domain, butsocial media pics need a copyright release.)
- Next, you need to go Wikimedia Commons and upload the photo --only after copyright problems have been resolved. At that point, since you have a conflict of interest, you need to show good faith by not editing the article yourself. (See: WP:COI) Instead, go to the talk page of the article (you'll find a link at the top), and post the picture there with a nice request that people change it for you. Give some reasons why it should be changed (better pic, old one too blurry, not up to date, etc...). Don't just say your boss wants it, because that is not a valid reason under our policy. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- A quick note here. Official federal government photos are in the public domain, but that is not automatically the case with works of state governments. A quick search indicates that Virginia official works should be in a free license (public domain or Creative Commons), but this is not guaranteed to be the case. —C.Fred (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks! Good to know. I'm nowhere near an attorney, so I just take my own pics and avoid any hassle. Zaereth (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Aseem Malhotra
Aseem Malhotra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Greetings. I have some serious concerns about the article at hand. Dr. Malhotra's page has recently been expanded significantly by a Viv Hamilton (talk · contribs), who has returned to Wikipedia after about a ten years' hiatus, and now evidently has a chip on their shoulder wrt. to Dr. Malhotra. I don't maintain privately a strong position on Dr. Malhotra, but I do believe that our biography ought to be neutral and dispassionate. It now almost reads as a RationalWiki entry, replete with invective and ridicule. Take for instance the detailed descriptions of his parents, and how their dietary considerations may or may not have impacted their longevity:
Malhotra was born in New Delhi in India in October 1977, the younger son of two doctors: Kailash Chand and Anisha Malhotra. The family moved to Britain in 1978 when his father had a clinical attachment at Alder Hey Hospital and was studying for a Diploma in Tropical Medicine at Liverpool University Both parents became General Practitioners in Ashton-under-Lyme, Greater Manchester. In 1988, Malhotra's brother Amit, who was two year's older than Malhotra, and had been born with Down's Syndrome died of heart failure aged thirteen. This inspired Malhotra with the ambition to become a cardiologist. Malhotra was educated at Manchester Grammar School. Malhotra's father went on to become the first Asian to be elected as honorary vice-president and deputy chair of the council of the British Medical Association and received an O.B.E for long-standing service to the NHS. Malhotra has said that he had a unique relationship with his father, who was his best friend and the most loving and amazing father. Malhotra's mother's religious faith was important to her and Malhotra observed that she fasted weekly by only consuming one meal on a fast day. She died in 2018 aged 68 after several years of illness when she was cared for by her husband. Three months later, Malhotra who blamed her obesity, years of illness and premature death on her vegetarian diet that he said was high in sugar and ultra-processed foods and low in protein said "I very much hope that her premature and painful death was not in vain and we can learn that much of these ills are preventable." Malhotra's father died suddenly in 2021 after suffering a cardiac arrest.
As you can see, this paragraph is barely grammatical, and indicative of the entire article's many problems. I suggest that the entire article be rewritten, observing English grammatical norms and our BLP policy. Note that the page has been increased from roughly 16k bytes to 40k in a couple months. I seriously doubt that Viv Hamilton is the correct custodian for this particular biography. Thank you. Nutez (talk) 07:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Joseph Kallarangatt
Joseph Kallarangatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Defamatory statements are made against Bishop Joseph Kallarangatt. Vandalism is felt: "During the police investigation, he was brought in for questioning and stated that the nun had only made a verbal complaint with him and not a written one" (footnote 19). The bishop, who belongs to Palai diocese of the Syro Malabar Church, is not the proper authority of the nun who works in the Latin Diocese of Jalandar, Punjab. Again the bishop has stated that the nun hasn't referred anything to rape or sexual harassment she faced from bishop Franco mulackal. The trial of the case is going on. And the name of Bishop Kallarangatt is not at all in the charge sheet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunmathewleo (talk • contribs) 17:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
He is not charged with covering up. The source article from the Hindu does not make any mention of such an allegation. As part of the investigation, he was asked to testify as a witness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.89.74.184 (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Anuna de Wever
Can some people please have look at the edit war + edit summaries at Anuna De Wever, and to a lesser degree at Christine Lagarde. In both cases, it is about sourced but WP:UNDUE negative issues (for De Wever a stupid tweet for which she received some backlash, for Lagarde a conviction for negligence for which she didn't even receive a penalty) and how and where in the article to report them. Fram (talk) 10:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- I've blocked JustinPurple for 24 hours from Anuna De Wever for obvious edit warring; hopefully that'll give them the cue to use the talk page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- As suggested, I've started a talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anuna_De_Wever JustinPurple (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- The content in the De Wever article looks entirely undue, especially given its low quality sourcing. In the Lagarde article, I am assuming the issue is about the content being in the lead. I would agree that it does not seem due, and certainly not enough to be in the lead twice (as it was before the recent edit). The current heading for the section in the article also seems excessive and undue. The content should be incorporated into her career sections rather than being a separate "controversy" section as per WP:CSECTION. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- As suggested, I've started a talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anuna_De_Wever JustinPurple (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Róbert Wessman
Róbert Wessman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
While I was working on the IRC helpdesk a user reported this, claiming it was defamatory: The article implies that the CEO of an pharmaceutical company may have been guilty of criminal acts. According to the sources he may have been cleared of these crimes. I have not had time to fully review this article. I advised the user to make an edit request, but in the meantime it may help if expert eyes can review the current state of the article. Salimfadhley (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- The article subject looks like they are a public figure, and the allegations appear to have received a significant amount of coverage. Looking through the sources (using Google translate for the non-English sources), the current article text seems to accurately reflect the information in them, including making clear that the allegations/accusations are only that. The language may be able to be improved and tightened up, but if someone has an issue, then they would probably need to be more specific as to the particular concerns. I removed the "controversy" section and merged the material into the career section, as per the guidance at WP:CSECTION. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Defamatory statements are included: "Kallarangatt is involved in a number of controversies over covering up of a sexual assault allegation in the Church laid against another bishop..." (para 2; footnotes 3 and 4). No such allegation is against the bishop in the court where the trial of the case is going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomytomthomas (talk • contribs) 09:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, the citations don’t support that. I’ve taken that out of the lead. However. There seems to be quite a lot of lurid allegations similarly weakly sourced in the body of the article that someone needs to comb through. DeCausa (talk) 13:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Can someone explain the BLP policy on "contentious" unsourced material to me? I haven't found any definition of what "contentious" means in a WP context. Disagreements between editors? Between public figures? Something else?
This question is prompted by the article linked in this section header, which has no inline citations whatsoever (all footnotes are to the list items from "awards" and below). My understanding was that the general policy is "when in doubt, remove it", but pretty extensive copy edits have been done on this and no citations added or talk page remarks to that effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asilvering (talk • contribs) 00:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of the word contentious having a special meaning on Wikipedia. It's something that could be controversial or cause a disagreement. I would suggest that using the talk page would be the most appropriate place for your to take your concerns, as it is doubtful that the few editors who have worked on that article are watching this noticeboard. You could ping them in your talk page discussion if you want to make it more likely they are aware of it. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- I've added need for sources to the template at the top of the article. From a quick search, it seems that the claims to notability - as a writer and regarding her academic career - are genuine enough, but I'd certainly expect a lot more in the way of verification. As the existing template noted, the tone isn't really what we'd expect either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- "When in doubt, remove it" has some value, but mostly if you actually made an effort to look for sources. WP:PRESERVE is a thing too. That said, that BLP is in awful shape. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Neutrality dispute at Talk:Sarah-Lee Heinrich
There is a dispute about the neutrality of the biography about Sarah-Lee Heinrich that led to full-protection of the page and a discussion at ANI (permanent link). You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sarah-Lee Heinrich. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Chanda Prescod-Weinstein
More eyes would be appreciated at Chanda Prescod-Weinstein, where a few IPs have been pushing some negatively-slanted original synthesis about what how the subject's h-index compares to others in physics based on the distributions reported in an unrelated arXiv paper for a few months now. (The sources cited in past edits include a link to a video by YouTube commentator Gad Saad where he expresses dislike of CPW, so I presume that's what's driving people.) There seem to me to be obvious BLP concerns w/ using poorly-sourced cite stats without any actual coverage in secondary RS anyway; we certainly don't do this for comparable bios like Katie Mack (astrophysicist) or Neil deGrasse Tyson and it can be confusing to interpret for different subfields of physics/differing career lengths, between databases etc. so it's not clear it adds anything but confusion. —0xf8e8 💿 (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Corey Benjamin
Corey Benjamin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Corey Benjamin, a retired basketball player, has been in the news lately since a video of his daughter became viral. Multiple ip addresses have inserted the incident and his alleged history of domestic violence into his biography afterwards. I have removed the incident with his daughter under WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPCRIME and also the domestic violence allegations due to poor sourcing.[4] Even though the page is now semi-protected, please keep an eye on the article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Daniel Tesfaye
I do not see the "move" button as an anonymous user. Please help to edit this page [Tesfaye|here]. The page title should be Danial Fesshaye - NOT Daniel Tesfaye. The URL should also reflect the new name. This page is semi-protected but I have a picture of the official IOC Card with the correct name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyimam (talk • contribs) 04:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Hyimam: unfortunately a picture of an official IOC card is unlikely to be suitable WP:reliable source for a different name and all 3 sources in the article are Tesfaye. And I had a quick look and didn't find any sources with Fesshaye either. If you have some connection to the IOC then please ask them to correct their database, or better yet, put out a press release apologising for their mistake. If you have some connection to the olympian, then you could considering asking them to request the sources correct their name. BTW your link doesn't work because you made it an external link but included a space. Try Daniel Tesfaye instead. Nil Einne (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Sarath Weerasekara
Sarath Weerasekara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): This article is mainly based on unsourced content. Pls, help to improve this article or remove unsourced sourced content.
Joseph Kallarangatt
Defamatory statement and Vandalism are evident in the second paragraph of the article: "Kallarangatt has been accused of using the love and narcotics jihad controversy as a distraction from the sexual assault and corruption allegations surrounding the Church and to forge an alliance with the Hindutva movement in India, in an effort to prevent corruption investigations from agencies under the Narendra Modi government"
1. The footnotes 3,4 and 5 speaks of another bishop 2. Footnote 3 is a tabloid article from The News Minute refers to sexual allegation against another bishop (Bishop Franco) and also claims that Church tries to hide illegal wealth through political coalition. Both these observations are used indiscriminately against Joseph Kallarangatt. 3. Footnote 4 from The Telegraph Online is all about declining population of Christians in Kerala and its electoral impact 4. Footnote 5 has nothing to say about sexual assault and corruption. 5. In short, the tabloid, one sided articles are used to create a gossip trio: "sexual assault-corruption allegation-Hindutva movement" in the very opening of the article. 6. In fact, the themes love jihad and narco jihad are added in the article at the right place as the article proceeds — Preceding unsigned comment added by Straightwrite (talk • contribs) 13:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Wasantha Karannagoda
Wasantha Karannagoda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article contains a large amount of unsourced content. Pls, help to remove this unsourced content.
Roshan Goonetileke
Roshan Goonetileke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article contains a large amount of unsourced content. Pls, help to remove this unsourced content.
Parakrama Pannipitiya
Parakrama Pannipitiya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)This article contains a large amount of unsourced content. Pls, help to remove this unsourced content.