Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:42, 6 December 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.

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

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)

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

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.

Sarath Weerasekara

Wasantha Karannagoda

Roshan Goonetileke

Deletion request

I have reason to believe that this page was created in bad faith by an editor who has not disclosed a Conflict of Interest. In the interest of transparency, I am acting on behalf of Róbert Wessman, the article subject, which is why I have not nominated the page directly.

The article was created and substantially edited by Haeito1010 in August. The first thing that raised suspicion of COI is that this User has only created two articles, possibly making them a single purpose account. They have a rather basic User page too, avoiding revealing too much personal information, but also making significant use of templates.

They used their sandbox in an extremely unusual way, uploading a word at a time:

or a batch of characters at a time:

Their total edit count is 765, 742 of which are to the sandbox. I think it is not unreasonable to assume that this may have been an attempt to inflate the edit count and look artificially more proficient as an editor. It is also plausible to assume the editor was copying and pasting from a draft, given that in example 5 they uploaded a sequence of characters (%C3%ADa/oG49AQAAIAAJ?), which is not naturalistic.

On August 22nd Haeito1010 made an edit changing the content of their sandbox from a draft on the composer Juan María Guelbenzu Fernández to a draft on Wessman. This time they did not upload in small chunks, but as a long form page with an Infobox. This again suggests that the editor had a draft ready to upload: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AHaeito1010%2Fsandbox&type=revision&diff=1040091856&oldid=1031837718

After this, the draft was moved (again in chunks!) to mainspace, the sandbox was blanked, and Haeito1010 has not used their sandbox since. Indeed, they have not edited at all since 22 August, when they made 12 edits to the article on Róbert Wessman. This suggests to me that all of their activity was designed solely to create this page.

The only other pages they have worked on are Sociedad de Cuartetos and Alvogen, both of which have a connection to the pages this user has created. However, as Fernández died in 1886, it seems more likely that they would be paid to work on Wessman.

The article should be deleted as it imparts little information about Wessman himself that would be classed as encyclopaedic. References 1, 2, 6, and 8 are from primary sources, 7 is clearly biased, and references 12 and 14 are dead. There are also some nebulous statements which need sourcing and don’t have any: “The actual ownership of the company was somewhat unclear for around a decade's time”. This would be poor for an article which falls under WP:BLP in any case, but given the strange behaviour of the account creator, I would suggest that the page be deleted and created from scratch again, if Wessman is considered notable enough.

Noemimanical (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the contentious paragraph (I didn't read the above appeal!) it was far too much detail of accusations that were never upheld. I also agree he's probably not notable.JeffUK (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the content in that section as it appears to be reliably sourced and covered in major news outlets. Whether the article subject is notable, he appears to be a public figure, and these accusations would seem to be a fairly significant aspect of his life with coverage over a period of time. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I think there has been a misunderstanding based on another, separate thread about Wessman. Creating dedicated controversy sections - especially on a preprepared draft - can be a sign of bias, but wallyfromdilbert had already reviewed and merged this section to better comply with site guidelines, so it is not really the concern I wanted to raise. My worry is that the page creator acted duplicitously to get this article created in the first place. Their contributions are just too weird for me to believe that they are acting in good faith, and the article therefore can’t be said to meet NPOV. Ideally, someone without a motive should create the page, going through the proper Articles for Creation process. Noemimanical (talk) 09:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth nominating the page for deletion directly to see what the consensus is? The responses so far perhaps indicate that very few people are actually interested in the article contents, which again suggests to me that this article doesn’t pass notability criteria. Noemimanical (talk) 12:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on whether and how to cover J. K. Rowling's trans-related views in the lead of her article

FYI

– Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Talk:J. K. Rowling#RFC on how to include her trans-related views (and backlash) in the lead

I am "advertising" this RfC more broadly to relevant pages because someone selectively notified three socio-political wikiprojects that are likely to vote-stack the RfC with a single viewpoint, and the article already has a long history of factional PoV editwarring.

Central matters in this discussion and the threads leading up to it are labeling of Rowling, labeling of commenters on Rowling, why Rowling is notable, what is due or undue in the lead section, and whether quasi-numeric claims like "many", "a few", etc. in this context are legitimate or an OR/WEASEL issue. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that WikiProject Feminism and WikiProject Women Writers are likely to vote-stack the RfC with a single socio-political viewpoint suggests BLP issues on the part of the poster, more than anything else. But by all means, we do need fresh eyes on the lead of an article that had seen so much whitewashing and FALSEBALANCE POV-based editing. Newimpartial (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no harm in leaving a notification here whatever the reason since it's clearly relevant to this board. However the notification is clearly not neutral and so has a strong risk of being WP:Canvassing. Please ensure that neutral notifications are used in the future. There is a template that can be used. Hopefully with a neutral notification there will be no need to argue on this board about it, reducing neutrality even more. Nil Einne (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Skah

Khalid Skah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2a01:cb05:8ad0:3d00:b1d0:a805:72d0:2a5d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Various IPs from the range 2a01:cb05:8ad0:3d00:, not just the one listed above, have removed Khalid Skah's personal life and family sections several times since 11 October. They have put in their edit summaries, "I would like to keep my private life preserve [sic]", "Khalid Skah doesnt want his private life in wikipedia", and "stop publishing a bullshit stories [sic]". —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 14:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't just about 'Khalid Skah's personal life and family' though, is it? Not with custody battles, "off-duty naval rangers" and diplomatic disputes involved. Some of the sourcing looks questionable, and I'd have to question the balance too. And the section about Skah's sister is entirely unsourced, and doesn't belong in the article at all. Given that there is a WP:BLP exception to WP:3RR for removing policy-violating content, but not for restoring it, I'd caution against engaging in an edit war, leave it blanked for now, and then look to see if there is a balanced, policy-compliant way to resolve this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The majority of the sourcing are tabloids and shouldn't have been reinstated. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPCRIME and other issues at List of suspected perpetrators of crimes identified with GEDmatch

This list repeatedly uses names of suspects of serious crimes with no indication of conviction. Many of the sources are just republications of press releases and similar low quality sources. There's also a significantly promotional tone to the whole article, but that is a separate issue.

Unfortunately, I'm editing on mobile right now, so I cannot go at the article with a machete. If appreciate if anyone else could take a look at this and see if they agree with my BLP concerns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree, and I have started the process of going through and removing my concerns. I am quite a slow editor, however, and don't have great amounts of time today. More eyes would be welcome, first to make sure I am not simply wrong, but also to continue improving the article. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while the method used appears to be notable, I feel a list of every time it's used may be ripe for deletion. Unless we're maintaining lists of every time fingerprints are used I don't think it should really be a list article about "suspects." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated this for deletion pon those bases: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of suspected perpetrators of crimes identified with GEDmatch. Mangoe (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest renaming the article to "List of people convicted of crimes identified with GEDmatch". That takes care of the BLP problem if it's enforced, which should be the case for all articles. Sundayclose (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed most of the content from the article as way too much of it was WP:BLPCRIME violations. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Beschloss

I've never edited this article but it came to my attention when I gave someone a DS alert and noticed this (which has been slightly changed since added). "Beschloss has been characterized by some as a "left-wing historian" for bias in favor of the Democratic Party. ^[1]^[2]"

I've explained to the editor that "some" can be a problem and normally should be attributed. The "Elegant News" source is an anonymous story written in broken English on a site with no evident oversite. The Fox site has an author, but is that sufficient? There is also an SPA who has edited it and that of his wife for years, User:Wikillinois - the same state where the subjects live. I'm thinking of blocking that editor from the two articles, allowing them to use the talk page. I don't intend to edit the article myself. Doug Weller talk 16:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fox doesn't cut it for political commentary, per WP:RSP—particularly when the other source is of such poor quality. Seems like a topic for WP:RSN, though. To me, it feels like WP:PC would be appropriate for the two pages in question, given the nature of the disruption. You're uninvolved, so sanctions on the user are fine too. AlexEng^(TALK) 19:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the lefty label and give him hell for "the imperial presidency is back. We just saw it". fiveby(zero) 19:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Rutz, David (16 November 2021). "Joy Reid fumes over Biden approval rating, calls Americans ungrateful: 'I guess they spent the whole $2,000'".
^ "MSNBC historian makes use of 9/11 to marketing campaign towards Republicans". 12 September 2021.

Rachel Parris

Dear team, I think the photo on the Wiki page for Rachel Parris, British comedian, is not actually her? Having only just joined Wiki, I am unsure how to resolve this, other than informing you.

Many thanks Kenny61ag (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to raise this might be at Talk:Rachel Parris, though I think you'd need to be more specific as to why you think this isn't her. The photo apparently dates from 2008, and she probably looks a little different now. From a quick search for other photos/video of Parris, I can't really see any obvious reason for doubt. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be her, 13 years ago. The image is dated to November 2008. I looked at other images of her, and some look quite a bit more like that image. That said, I'm not certain. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely her. She appeared on an episode of Eggheads before she was famous and there are other images on the web showing her on that show with the same clothing. Black Kite (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Everett-Heath

The page on John Everett-Heath, who is presumably still living, does not give the place and date of birth (or only the year). I'm looking for those data, but can someone else try to find them? Thank you, --Gab.pr (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

owen benjamin

In the Owen Benjamin article, the Joe Rogan podcast is implied to be a far-right podcast where Benjamin stated alt-right views. If one watches the episode, it is instead a confrontation by Rogan to convince him to stop with far-right Twitter rants. ^[1] This article heavily implies that it was instead a place where he espoused such views, and I think the language used is loaded. I would agree that the views are indeed alt-right and may be classified as such, but I think the implications of the article are misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18e:c501:dad0:e4d0:c14e:d0e1:d1d8 (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Owen Benjamin hasn't been modified since October and I don't see where it does anything like what you claim. The only reference to the Joe Rogan podcast is:

Beginning in 2018, Benjamin appeared in several videos for conservative media company PragerU.[12][10][13] He also was a guest on several shows by The Daily Wire, and podcasts including those of Joe Rogan and Steven Crowder.[14][10] In September 2018, he appeared on the far-right InfoWars show, and in December was a guest on a show by Vox Day.[10]

There's no commentary on the views of the Daily Wire, Joe Rogan or Steven Crowder or Vox Day, nor on what Owen Benjamin did on them. There is only mention that PragerU is conservative and InfoWars and is far right. P.S. I should clarify I only checked that Joe Rogan wasn't mentioned elsewhere. I do not know if the views or what Owen Benjamin did on those other shows is elaborated elsewhere in our article on . Nil Einne (talk) 10:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fbxhl-qbT0. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

LaMarr Hoyt

Resolved – Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Earlier today (morning of November 30), Dan Evans, who worked for the Chicago White Sox during the 1980s, tweeted out condolences on the death of LaMarr Hoyt. He doesn't have a blue checkmark, but that probably is him. Lots of people have tweeted out condolences, including national baseball reporters with blue checkmarks, but the sourcing is weak. This article is the closest I see to confirmation, saying that Hoyt has "reportedly" died.

I've already semi-protected the article on BLP grounds. But, what gives? Don't you think that the Chicago Tribune would've written an obituary on a former Cy Young Award winner by now? The story hasn't been denied by anyone to this point, but of course that's not proof of anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Associated Press has now run his obit. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Professor Brian Cox

Hi - the listing for Professor Brian Cox is inaccurate. It lists Cox as a professor of particle physics in the School of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Manchester. He is actually listed as Royal Society Professor for Public Engagement in Science on the Departments website.

https://www.physics.manchester.ac.uk/about/people/academic-and-research-staff/

I have tried to amend it a couple of times, but have never done this before and it doesn't appear to have worked. Cox's title is an important distinction as he is relatively little published academically as a particle physicist.

I would love someone to help correct this error.

Thanks, Piers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:A32E:5E01:240B:9A82:E850:AE4D (talk) 06:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't an error, both statements are true, see the Royal Society's own website: "Brian Cox is Professor of Particle Physics at the University of Manchester and The Royal Society Professor for Public Engagement in Science..." [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Miller (sociologist)

There are a number of contentious discussions on the talk page of the above article, which would benefit from un-involved eyes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The usage of Electronic Intifada which is red in WP:RSP is quite troubling [2] someone should remove this Shrike (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. If it is WP:DUE, then it will be covered in other, more reliable, sources, just as his interview with Electronic Intifada is earlier in that section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a secondary source detailing the report's conclusions. The report itself is currently only available at the Electronic Intifada website and cannot be linked to in WP.Selfstudier (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The report has now been made available by Jewish Voice for Labour. So absent a challenge to these two sources, I think this issue is dealt with, at least ftb.Selfstudier (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that none of these sources have the reliability to state that the "leaked report" is in any way legitimate. We should be careful using leaked documents when independent reliable sources have not spoken to their veracity. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We've now got a link to the primary source as well. Not sure why we would flout rules on BLP like this... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A primary source of a leaked document, which no reliable source has said is real. I agree, the flouting of BLP policy here is sub-par. The article is under 1RR so I have not reverted, as the BLP issue is not bad enough where I am willing to invoke BLP to break 1RR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are several open contentious discussions on the talk page in addition to the question of sourcing this particular claim (I agree with ScottishFinnishRadish and Nomoskedasticity that current sourcing is problematic), so if that were resolved I would still invited un-involved eyes to help out. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes are always welcome. I have also suggested at RSN in response to your other post there that the simplest thing might be to initiate RSN discussions re MEMO and JVL specifically and what they are being used as sources for. It's a little confusing to have similar discussion at two different boards.Selfstudier (talk) 12:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BLPs should only have top notch sources, especially for controversial content (and controversial BLPs). If it's not academic or top-rated news, it's out. No MEMO, no EI, and no advocacy orgs or think tanks at all. If the thing you want to source is only available through of one these substandard sources, then it just doesn't get covered in a Wikipedia BLP. This question shouldn't even need to be asked, as global consensus is well established and it's a DS area several times over. Levivich 13:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would that include the Jewish Chronicle as well?Selfstudier (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly. I'm not familiar enough with it to know if that's considered by other RS to be actual journalism or advocacy-dressed-in-newsprint. Unless RSN has already tackled that one (I haven't checked), it might be worth an RSN thread. But IMO when the subject is a white western male professor, if it's not in like the New York Times or something like that, it's not even worth summarizing in the encyclopedia. This isn't an undercovered topic or something where we need to go any lower than the top shelf. This is the same way in which I feel that for PIA history (not current events), we shouldn't be looking at anything other than academia (no journalism at all, not even the New York Times). If top-shelf is available for a super-mainstream topic (like white men and white men's history) then don't go lower than top-shelf, is my view. Not talking about this specific article, but I find usually when people want to cite something below top shelf, it's to make a point that can't be found on the top shelf, but if it can't be found (like this leaked report), there's probably a good reason. Levivich 13:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify what you’re meaning by “top shelf”. I think there might be an ENGVAR confusion. In the UK it usually means porn magazines. I’m guess that’s not what you mean. DeCausa (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Highest quality". Oxford University Press, etc. See User:Levivich/Tiers of reliability. Levivich 13:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess top drawer. The "reason" atm is that it's all "recent" so yes, we could argue that we ought to wait until more sources are available (it is being actively discussed in the wild and by experts in the relevant area but there is objection to tweets and such even from experts). That's valid, however, this entire article has been the subject of rather controversial editing for some time now, at one point I stepped back from it entirely because of that. The current material goes some way to correcting the overall tenor of this article, which at one point read like one long unproven antisemitism allegation. If you put to me the proposition that only sources that are at RSP and are entirely green should be used, I would go along with that.Selfstudier (talk) 13:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My standard for controversial BLP recent events would be "paper-of-record". (So NYT, Le Monde, etc.). The problem with green at RSP is that the best sources aren't listed (academic journals, university presses, etc.). "Listed green or obviously would be green if listed" might be a workable standard? But yes that's what I mean by "top shelf" (funny, to these American ears, the "top drawer" is the sock drawer, which is definitely not where we want to look for sources! 😂) Levivich 13:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not as funny as getting your RS from the “top shelf” for British ears. someone needs to add to Top shelf. DeCausa (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the current discussion is "recent" but I don't think you mean that is OK to use less than top drawer if it is "not recent", or do you? The subject of the article is controversial, no question about that and so are the recent events around him. If we follow the proposition, it means all cites to the Jewish Chronicle are out, what do you say, Bob?Selfstudier (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've now looked at RSP and RSN and see that The Jewish Chronicle is listed green (with caveat about bias) at RSP based on a March 2021 RFC. So I think that consensus needs to be respected until/unless it changes. Whether it's "actual journalism or advocacy-dressed-in-newsprint" has been answered by the community, and the answer is green (actual journalism). Levivich 15:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recanting. There is a recent case where a very active editor at that article was sanctioned for breaching a topic ban (british politics) and this article clearly falls within the JC caveat on that basis so if all the non "top drawer" go out, so does that one. EDIT:I should give a link I guess Selfstudier (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't a QCs legal report commissioned by the University of Bristol as reliable as you can get? Unfortunately, this also makes it original, and there are only two secondary sources: the EI and Jewish Voice for Labour which have published it. I doubt if the BBC, Guardian or any of the MSM will publish because its findings may clash with their editorial stance on this subject. However, I'm aware of a FOI request for the QCs report to be officially released, but once again it might only get distributed in the alternative media.--Andromedean (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, as a leaked document only mentioned by unreliable sources, it is not reliable at all. There is no way to verify it is the actual document. If it is officially released and not covered in reliable, secondary sources, then it is not WP:DUE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, it is not verifiable by strict application of Wiki rules, I pointed that out myself previously and was careful to refer to it as "claimed" and drew no conclusions from it myself. However I have argued for WP:COMMON. IMO tweets by experts making reference to this report, experts who would have every reason to cast doubt on its authenticity along with the amount of off wiki debate, as well as the simple making available of the download, strongly suggests that the document is for real and imo is a necessary balance to all of the unproven antisemitism allegations constantly referred to in our article. Still, the wishes of the community are the final arbiter.Selfstudier (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the sourcing should be held to a much higher standard across the entire article. For instance Another of Miller's websites, Neocon Europe, hosted material written by Kevin MacDonald, an American evolutionary psychologist who appeared as a witness for David Irving in his unsuccessful libel claim against Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt. Miller said he removed MacDonald's statements in November 2009, "as soon as I became aware that they had been posted on the site". In December 2009, Miller said: "Macdonald has been repeatedly and rightly (in our view) accused of racism. Moreover, the statements expressed core essentialist anti-semitic/racist ideas. This material should not have been posted and is in no way endorsed by this site. I apologise for, and deeply regret, this error." is incredibly poorly sourced, to two blogs and an opinion piece. That whole paragraph should be dropped. Really, the article needs going over and sources need to be audited. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andromedean: Even if there wasn't questions over the authenticity of this document, it's not actually a great source. For BLPs, WP:BLPPRIMARY strongly discourages the use of primary sourcess like this. While it's not a court document, IMO it should be treated as one which means its use isn't just discouraged, its forbidden. As I understand it, the information of concern here arguably put the subject in a more positive light than what is already in our article and doesn't really concern other living persons but we shouldn't ignore BLP policy just because the information is positive about living persons. Even if we but aside the BLP issues, a WP:PRIMARY source still tends not to be the best source to use. We much prefer secondary source coverage of primary sources. It helps put the information in sufficient context, reduces the chance editor will misinterpret or misunderstand something or engage in WP:OR and also reduced WP:UNDUE weight concerns. This is especially the case for a primary source of the sort which was only intended for a specific audience and specific purpose. Nil Einne (talk) 06:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reluctance of the MSM to report on this second letter, reminds me of the time The Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations wrote a letter defending Jeremy Corbyn, and condemning other Jewish groups for their hostile view of him. This was a very important story which demonstrated there were some religious Jewish communities which held a completely different view to that being reported on the MSM. Only one media outlet initially reported this, which didn't have a good reputation for accuracy, and was perhaps rightly deemed unreliable on Wikipedia RSN. However another low circulation and very unreliable source, but one judged to be reliable to Wikipedia, attempted to denounce the letter; although, later they admitted it was genuine. No MSM to my knowledge covered this story, and I doubt if many people had heard of it, but this wasn't due to its lack of importance. The episode was repeated the following year in 2019 just before the general election, the MSM steered well away, again. The question is why did MSM ignore this? I have no doubt it would have countered the narrative they wanted to portray. --Andromedean (talk) 09:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a relevant question for WP per WP:RGW and WP:NOTAFORUM. We follow the WP:RS. That’s it. DeCausa (talk) 10:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are not any questions over authenticity outside of here, it is true that the document is technically unverifiable but there are two secondary sources summarizing the content and opinions about them are being sought in the RSN discussion of this, the primary in this case is for verification of the secondary if we can put it like that. As an aside, Byline Times is an OK source and the writer of the article mentioned is an expert academic in the subject matter but that's not the main issue here. Nor can we do much about the debatable behavior of the MSM.Selfstudier (talk) 10:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Rich has now written (rather than tweeted) about the leaked report but has unfortunately decided to do it in the JC. So there is now an expert opinion in a "reliable"source talking about the report.Selfstudier (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's an opinion piece though, clearly marked as such (even in the URL). Levivich 19:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I just said that, "expert opinion". I wl'd him. I can't bring myself to cite the JC, though. I'll leave that to someone else.Selfstudier (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think expert opinion is a good source for contentious claims in a BLP. I am enjoying the irony though :-) Levivich 20:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned it to reduce the concern about the leaked report verifiability. I doubt that fellow would be speaking about it if he didn't think it was for real. This one is going to run and run anyway. Papers will be written, demands will be made, petitions will fly.Selfstudier (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Rich says "This is the second QC’s report to be leaked and it exonerates Miller just as the first did" which is incorrect because the QC makes it clear that article 10(1) of the ECHR includes restrictions on expression, such as personal abuse for example. Andromedean (talk) 07:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that article, Dave Rich also implies that the Jerusalem Declaration doesn't allow for coded language, yet paragraph A4 covers this with examples "Antisemitism can be direct or indirect, explicit or coded. For example....". So he doesn't seem to be an 'antisemitism expert in my view.--Andromedean (talk) 08:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We can safely assume that he is on the other side of the fence (and he writes for the JC), nevertheless he is thought of as an expert so his opinions have a certain weight.Selfstudier (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Expert isn't a rank, though. He has a PhD in sociology so I could see his self-published blog counting as WP:EXPERTSPS for a sociology issue, but I don't understand how that applies to this opinion piece about another living person. What does this have to do with sociology? Levivich 15:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are talking at cross purposes. Dave Rich is the expert on antisemitism. Selfstudier (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rich is undoubtedly an expert in antisemitism. He works for the Community Security Trust, the main body monitoring and combating antisemitism in the UK, and has a PhD, in history, on British left-wing antisemitism. (His supervisor was one of the authors of the Jerusalem Declaration.) His opinion piece, used with attribution, might therefore be a good and due source on the question of Miller's antisemitism, but it is not a good source on the content and veracity of a leaked document or for facts about how universities process disciplinary issues. His opinion piece is primarily about the value of competing antisemitism definitions, rather than actually about Rich's case. I don't think it adds anything here, and I still think JVL and other sources proposed so far are unreliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only part of Rich that is of interest here is the fact he speaks about the report as a thing that's out there, no queries about authenticity. The best place to discuss reliability of specific sources is in the other discussion/RSN.Selfstudier (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Margot Black

User Wordie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wordie) is making malicious and libelous changes to Margot Black's page as part of a multi-platform continuing campaign to discredit and harass. This has resulted in employment implications and must stop.

Link to diff: [[3]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.96.2 (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those edits were made back in March, but I agree that they were poorly sourced. Two medium posts, which should never be used in a BLP, and this are not leadworthy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Kaminski (musician)

Atlanta (magazine) is a reliable source, and says that he was 39 years old in April 2016. I don't see any BLP concerns, and not sure what BLPPRIMARY has to do with anything here, and so I have restored the article subject's age. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for quickly resolving this dispute. To me it feels that this IP user is approaching harassment as they police my edits each day. Thrakkx (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thrakkx: but it's not likely a dispute, so this date of birth is likely unquestionable. --49.150.96.127 (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why the IP editor is repeatedly attempting to claim that the content in this article is not sourced or needs to be verified, but their WP:HOUNDING of the other editor needs to stop. I have also left a message on their talk page. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Green new deal insertions -- UNDUE?

Could editors have a look at Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, the BLPs of two Nobel Laureate economists, where isolated 2019 media mentions of their favorable comments about the Green New Deal have been added, reverted as UNDUE and then readded to their biographies?
The Green New Deal initiative failed to gain traction at the time of its introduction by a faction of the Democratic party, which is currently pursuing other environmental policy initiatives that do not use that name or all of the associated program. These BLP mentions appear to tag these two economists with undefined left-leaning agendas or biases related to the Green New Deal, which is currently used by right-wing media as pejorative tag on left-leaning public figures. The now-readded content received no support on the article talk page but was reinserted in the articles.There is no valid sourcing for article text that states they currently support the Green New Deal. SPECIFICO talk 18:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of these economists is particularly noted for work on environmental issues, and if they have written on the subject a more detailed or specific description of their work would be more appropriate. These mentions appear to be an effort to tag them as far-left ideologues whose more significant work should be deprecated. SPECIFICO talk 22:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's just your point of view (POV). Most Democratic voters support the Green New Deal.--[5],[6].

Paul Krugman--[7],[8], [9],[10].

Joseph Stiglitz--[11],[12],[13],[14]. --Tobby72 (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Green new deal is a specific legislative proposal that lived and died several years ago. General statements about "green" policies or related issues do not verify the insinuation of "green new deal", which has been used by right wing media and Republican politicians as a general term of disparagement. If there are sources that will support specific content about either of these economists' research or conclusions on environmental issues, that would be valid article content. But tagging them based on cherrypicked references out ot context is not valid BLP content. SPECIFICO talk 19:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Balaji

Date of birth : 8 April 1975 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishek1204 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhishek1204 But why have you posted that here? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 15:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DOB. What's your source? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Urbina

Ian Urbina Majority of sources in article are duplicate references to the website of the person in question, or articles written by the person in question. Other sources don't show or reflect the information implicated by the citation mark. Causing into question Wikipedia's three core content policies: NPOV, V, and NOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C03:3918:A200:D806:E266:9C0C:7244 (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really sure what this is saying. I'll say that a YouTube video critical of Urbina was just published and is getting a bit of internet attention, so some eyes on this article might be a good idea. Firefangledfeathers 22:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claims based on the YouTube video have been repeatedly added to the article; whether or not they are true, it's definitely not a suitable source for a BLP. XOR'easter (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page is now semi-protected for one week. XOR'easter (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Davidsson

Elias Davidsson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) The entry contains the defamatory claim that I, Elias Davidsson, am a "conspiracy theorist". This claim should be removed. I am a scholar and respectable author and have nothing to do with conspiracy theories. Please acknowledge the removal of this defamation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:F1:2F28:B086:50F7:1B16:3C64:3C5A (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that claim, as it was unsourced in the article. An (admittedly quick) review of sources does not show sourcing sufficient to make the claim of someone being a conspiracy theorist in a WP:BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman El Bahnasawy

There have been a flurry of POV edits by new editors at the article in recent weeks. I'm tempted to just cut it back to where it stood before the disruption (i.e. this version). Whatever the outcome, the lead is completely inappropriate.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Furedi

Should a quote from an op-ed piece in a deprecated source (RT) be used in this article about Frank Furedi? Seems to fail on both WP:RS and notability grounds. Another set of eyes would be appreciated. - Amigao (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mrtarkin edits to BLP pages

Mrtarkin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I wanted to draw the attention of editors here to User:Mrtarkin, whose edits are almost exclusively to BLP articles (particularly those relevant to US politics and media of the last 30 years). In my view, a great many of their edits have as sole purpose to bring emphasis to negative aspects of the subject's history, regardless of encyclopedic merit. Many (but not all) of the user's edits have been reverted, and there have been several messages left on their talk-page, but they haven't engaged in discussion. I am bringing this to the attention of this noticeboard in the hopes that people will check that my impression of their edits is accurate and, if so, for consideration of appropriate next steps. --JBL (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that they have now been blocked by Doug Weller. It might still be worthwhile for BLP-sensitive editors to look over their live edits to double-check. --JBL (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Chart Wikipedia

Another editor persistently inserts birth date for Justin Chart as 1959/1960. I spoke with Justin Chart he informed me that his date of birth is 1960. What do we need to provide to stop this? Mr. Chart knows when he was born.

Also, another editor removed discography from the page. Every item in the discography was linked to Spotify, where the items are clearly available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akooseo (talk • contribs) 17:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The age was sourced to a reliable source that only provided his age, but not his birth date or year. If you have a reliable source for the particular date or year, then you should provide that. Also, if you have some type of relation or connection to the article subject, then you need to follow the conflict of interest policies, and should probably not be editing the page at all, especially not to insert promotional edits such as this. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Akooseo, to add to this: Google search is not a reliable source. – NJD-DE (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Watsky

He also did a track with The Palmer Squares - I'm dope from their Album Planet of the Shapes whom are not among Watsky's associated acts on his wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.145.209.245 (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Denyer

Simon Denyer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
ParallaxVision222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a new, well-sourced, but very negative biography of a living person, and should be checked further. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Person is most notable for recent scandal and not much else is written about him. I only know of Denyer because of the scandal. I am hoping other people can expand that article over time.ParallaxVision222 (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta love Wikipedians, doing their damndest to ensure the world never forgets that a person was once accused of sexual misconduct, and once had a professional misstep regarding one article. You should all be very proud. And for people who have trouble recognizing, this is sarcasm. What is not sarcasm is that this is a terrible article unworthy of being in an encyclopedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Kemp – Attributed statement from a Yale University Press book

There is a dispute on the Brian Kemp article over whether the body of the article should include attributed statements from Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, and the Threat to American Democracy by Rick L. Hasen (Yale University Press, 2020):

Election law expert Rick L. Hasen described Kemp as "perhaps the most incompetent state chief elections officer" in the 2018 election year, pointing to a number of actions that jeopardized Georgia's election security and made it harder for eligible Georgia voters to vote. Hasen writes that it was "hard to tell" which of Kemp's "actions were due to incompetence and which were attempted suppression."

These two sentences were lodged in a section of Kemp's article on accusations that Kemp engaged in voter suppression in Georgia's gubernatorial election, as well as jeopardized the security of the election by among other things exposing the personal voter data of millions. It's been removed by another editor on the basis that the text above is a BLP violation. For what it's worth, the book is peer-reviewed, the author is a law professor who is known for his expertise in election law, and the book covers Georgia's gubernatorial election at great length in the book (the statements are not just off-hand remarks) alongside other problematic elections (overseen by both Democrats and Republicans). I do not see why this is a BLP violation. It's an attributed statement from one of the highest-quality sources (a peer-reviewed monograph authored by a recognized expert in a top tier press). It's the kind of content that Wikipedia articles should have more of. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It adds nothing to the article when exactly what how he is accused of suppressing voters is already described, therefore calling him "incompetent" two times in two sentences is unnecessary and the insult is just a BLP violation, because these claims of incompetence were not repeated in other reliable sources, and Hasen was not cited anywhere else for this quote. Two other political scientists were already cited in that paragraph, so adding a third for a contentious claim is not needed. Bill Williams 04:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds rather backward. SPECIFICO talk 04:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[15] the quote is cited literally no where else on google besides Wikipedia and his own book[16], so how is it notable for the article? Bill Williams 04:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think WEIGHT would have to come into play here. That one person said this doesn't mean much other than we can WP:V they said it. Is it due is quite another. How is this being used in the Wiki BLP? Is this material supporting a paragraph or is this included because it's a nice damning quote that is otherwise out of context? If it's due in context it would be better to summarize the intent rather than include the quote. If no other sources are quoting this then we shouldn't either. Springee (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it's an academic book by an expert, it seems worth citing in some fashion. There's room to tweak precisely what we say to get a concise summary of the book's main points about Kemp's actions (ie. we may not need to use that exact quote), but removing it entirely is too much. I'm seeing how the source itself can be considered undue. It's a peer-reviewed book, on the precise focus of the subsection, from an expert in the topic, discussing the topic of the article in that context at length, on a subject that many other sources plainly also consider broadly significant - if that is undue, what on earth would be due? It seems to me that the quote is what has people's hackles up, but the precise quote isn't really the point and can be reasonably paraphrased. The broad point that Kemp's competence has been questioned is certainly well-cited ([17][18]), and this is a reasonable source to paraphrase to cover that aspect - though you could also add additional sources to avoid the focus on one in particular, if you wanted. --Aquillion (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"if that is undue, what on earth would be due" this is clearly undue because nobody has used this quote across the entirety of Google besides the author himself and Wikipedia[19][20], showing how it is not at all notable. All of those articles accusing Kemp of being "incompetent" are opinion pieces or petitions, and you can find opinion pieces or petitions insulting every politician in existence, but that does not mean we should insult them on Wikipedia. "The broad point that Kemp's competence has been questioned" is not something reliable sources state most of the time, only a few occassional references like this one author, or opinion pieces that have no reason to be in the article. Bill Williams 06:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are two reasons an analysis can be WP:DUE: First, because it has wide secondary coverage; or second, because it is from a high-quality WP:RS written by an established expert and doesn't seem to be WP:EXCEPTIONAL or fringe. It isn't necessary for both to apply, especially since this is not a mere opinion source. Lots of politicians have people saying they're incompetent, surely; few of them have election law experts raising questions about their competence in a peer-reviewed work, and when that happens it's reasonable to give it at least a mention. Beyond that, as I said, we can paraphrase to avoid the quote if you don't feel the specific wording is noteworthy. But the book itself has reasonable amounts of secondary coverage for something so recent, eg [21] and there is substantial secondary non-opinion and high-quality coverage that the opinion that Kemp's handling of 2018 election security raises potential concerns about his competence is noteworthy, eg. [22][23][24][25], at least to the point where it's hard to argue that his opinion is so unusual or out-there as to be fringe. When a particular interpretation is widespread and has secondary coverage, it is reasonable to cite a high-quality source for it, with attribution; and this is a high-quality source. We're talking about a brief sentence or two in the body, not an entire paragraph - I think it's a hard push to argue that a source of this quality, saying something that many other sources have covered, is undue to mention at all. I can sympathize somewhat with your allergic reaction to such a sharply-worded quote; I do think that there is sometimes a problem with people pulling out the most "incisive" quotes from a source and using them for their sharpness rather than the precise significance of the words - see WP:QUOTES, which talks about the problem a bit. But the answer to that is to paraphrase the broadly-important points in a more neutral tone, not to try and remove the entire source (otherwise, what, is your argument that we can only use sources that have been quoted elsewhere, ever, fullstop?) Trying to entirely remove a reasonably high-quality source and the sentence or two summarizing it is an overreach, since at that point you can't just talk about the quote, you have to somehow argue that the entire source, and everything that Hasen has to say about Kemp's role in the election there, is useless, fringe-y, or undue. I'm not seeing any real argument for that. --Aquillion (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts to exclude material published in peer-reviewed academic work are highly damaging to the encyclopedia. This is of course exactly the kind of material we should be using. The idea that it's a BLP violation is preposterous and has no basis in our policies. The comment just above mine [26], referring to "opinion pieces or petitions", shows how unhinged some of the arguments in this section are; in case you missed it, the material in question isn't "opinion pieces or petitions" but rather peer-reviewed academic work. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Kent (author)

This article talk page could do with some input - the article is largely an autobiography (or written by someone with an admitted very close relationship to the subject) - they now wish to remove the tag which highlights this. ℕ ℱ 14:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Rutz, David (16 November 2021). "Joy Reid fumes over Biden approval rating, calls Americans ungrateful: 'I guess they spent the whole $2,000'".

[2] "MSNBC historian makes use of 9/11 to marketing campaign towards Republicans". 12 September 2021.

[3] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fbxhl-qbT0. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1]

[2]

[1]

@@ Line 313: / Line 313: @@
 :::There are two reasons an analysis can be [[WP:DUE]]:  First, because it has wide secondary coverage; or second, because it is from a high-quality [[WP:RS]] written by an established expert and doesn't seem to be [[WP:EXCEPTIONAL]] or fringe. It isn't necessary for both to apply, especially since this is not a mere opinion source. Lots of politicians have people saying they're incompetent, surely; few of them have election law experts raising questions about their competence in a peer-reviewed work, and when that happens it's reasonable to give it at least a mention. Beyond that, as I said, we can paraphrase to avoid the quote if you don't feel the specific wording is noteworthy. But the book itself has reasonable amounts of secondary coverage for something so recent, eg [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3945971] and there is substantial secondary non-opinion and high-quality coverage that the ''opinion'' that Kemp's handling of 2018 election security raises potential concerns about his competence is noteworthy, eg. [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/04/us/politics/georgia-elections-kemp-voters-hack.html][https://slate.com/technology/2017/10/georgia-destroyed-election-data-right-after-a-lawsuit-alleged-the-system-was-vulnerable.html][https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/fighting-voter-discrimination-not-undermining-democracy/576229/][https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article215586745.html], at least to the point where it's hard to argue that his opinion is so unusual or out-there as to be fringe. When a particular interpretation is widespread and has secondary coverage, it is reasonable to cite a high-quality source for it, with attribution; and this is a high-quality source. We're talking about a brief sentence or two in the body, not an entire paragraph - I think it's a hard push to argue that a source of this quality, saying something that many other sources have covered, is undue to mention ''at all''. I can sympathize somewhat with your allergic reaction to such a sharply-worded quote; I do think that there is sometimes a problem with people pulling out the most "incisive" quotes from a source and using them for their sharpness rather than the precise significance of the words - see [[WP:QUOTES]], which talks about the problem a bit. But the answer to that is to paraphrase the broadly-important points in a more neutral tone, not to try and remove the entire source (otherwise, what, is your argument that we can only use sources that have been quoted elsewhere, ever, fullstop?) Trying to entirely remove a reasonably high-quality source and the sentence or two summarizing it is an overreach, since at that point you can't just talk about the quote, you have to somehow argue that the ''entire source'', and everything that Hasen has to say about Kemp's role in the election there, is useless, fringe-y, or undue.  I'm not seeing any real argument for that. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 08:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 *Attempts to exclude material published in peer-reviewed academic work are highly damaging to the encyclopedia.  This is of course exactly the kind of material we ''should'' be using.  The idea that it's a BLP violation is preposterous and has no basis in our policies.  The comment just above mine [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=1058895847&oldid=1058889530], referring to "opinion pieces or petitions", shows how unhinged some of the arguments in this section are; in case you missed it, the material in question ''isn't'' "opinion pieces or petitions" but rather peer-reviewed academic work. [[User:Nomoskedasticity|Nomoskedasticity]] ([[User talk:Nomoskedasticity|talk]]) 08:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
+== Jeff Kent (author) ==
+This article talk page could do with some input - the article is largely an autobiography (or written by someone with an admitted very close relationship to the subject) - they now wish to remove the tag which highlights this. [[User:nonsenseferret|''<font color="green" size="3px">ℕ</font>'']]&nbsp;[[User talk:nonsenseferret|<font color="BF1BE0" size="3px">ℱ</font>]] 14:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards