How am I supposed to get rid of these warnings and ensure it adheres to Wiki's guidelines if I cannot pay someone to change it? I totally respect that it should be neutral and am very happy for it simply to contain facts. But if I can't remove these arbitrary warnings is there a way to just delete the page entirely? I feel this is most unfair as it has a direct impact on my career when potential employers search for details on me and find a messy page like this. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:TheTypistTypes|TheTypistTypes]] ([[User talk:TheTypistTypes#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheTypistTypes|contribs]]) 13:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
How am I supposed to get rid of these warnings and ensure it adheres to Wiki's guidelines if I cannot pay someone to change it? I totally respect that it should be neutral and am very happy for it simply to contain facts. But if I can't remove these arbitrary warnings is there a way to just delete the page entirely? I feel this is most unfair as it has a direct impact on my career when potential employers search for details on me and find a messy page like this. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:TheTypistTypes|TheTypistTypes]] ([[User talk:TheTypistTypes#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheTypistTypes|contribs]]) 13:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:You could use the Talk page perhaps? request an edit sorta thing. -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' <small> the dog</small>.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''wooF''']] 14:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
:You could use the Talk page perhaps? request an edit sorta thing. -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' <small> the dog</small>.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''wooF''']] 14:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
== George Kurtz ==
The article about [[George Kurtz]] mentions two children by name. Since the children are minors, are not notable, add no value to the article, and are not covered themselves in any reliable high-quality secondary sources, could an editor:
*Change the first sentence of the [[George_Kurtz#Personal_life|Personal life section]] to simply read as "Kurtz is married to his wife, Annamaria."
*Remove the children number from the infobox
[[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_names|WP:BLPNAME]] notes that ''"The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons"'' and the subject of this article would prefer that these non-notable minors are not mentioned in this article. I would make these two edits myself but I have a financial conflict of interest related to the subject of this article, which is why I am raising this for other editors to evaluate and implement as you see fit. Thanks, [[User:JeffreyArthurVA|JeffreyArthurVA]] ([[User talk:JeffreyArthurVA|talk]]) 01:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Revision as of 01:50, 23 December 2021
Wikipedia noticeboard for discussion of biographies of living people
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.
Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.
Notes for volunteers
How do I mark an incident as resolved or addressed?
You can use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section containing the report. At least leave a comment about a BLP report, if doing so might spare other editors the task of needlessly repeating some of what you have done.
Manually search BLPs for violations by using advanced search parameters. This link will search for X in the category of BLPs. Change X in the URL to the keyword you are looking for; alternatively, type X incategory: Living_people (the underscore is necessary) in the search bar.
A Paris based IP user is edit warring to change the birthdate of Christian Rosa. Their Artnet profile says they were born in September 12, 1982 [1]. While their FBI indictment says they were 43 as of October 2021 [2], putting their birthdate as c. 1978. The IP is edit warring to solely include the 1978 date. Given that the sources conflict, shouldn't both be included? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not widely covered in reliable secondary sources it should likely just be removed. We shouldn't be using the primary source for a DOB, and a single mention of birthday on an artnet profile isn't enough coverage to keep the birthdate in. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The big problem with "43 year old" is not necessarily ambiguity, as a little amibguity is often unavoidable or even favorable. The bigger problem is that it is written in a present temporal-perspective (related to, but not to be confused with verb tense), meaning that it's written like a newspaper would write it. Newspapers can do that, and for them it's actually better to write from a present perspective, because news changes on a daily basis. But is someone actually going to monitor this article and change his age every year? When writing books or encyclopedia, it's better to write from a perfect or "timeless' perspective, as if "outside of time looking in". In other words, we should avoid adverbs like "today", or "yesterday" and it's always better to use dates than ages.
When it comes to DOBs, however, this is interesting but ultimately useless information when it comes to defining the subject. It's just statistical data, not much different from height or weight, and just like them, it's not really necessary info in most cases. It's trivia, in the sense that the story would read just the same without it. If the year is published in an RS, that would usually be acceptable, but for the full date we really need multiple RSs. If there is any question at all then it should probably just be removed altogether. In most cases we don't really lose anything by omitting the DOB, so erring on the side of caution is definitely the better choice. Zaereth (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The IP user, apparently socking under the username Beuys Joseph has now added a source addressing the contradiction, a comment by the staff of Austria's Der Standard made in the comments section of one of their articles about Rosa [3] the text is as follows: (in translation}
To explain, Rosa used the birth year of 82 ', which is why it was mentioned in numerous reports until recently (only last week in profile, for example). In fact, it is wrong. Whatever the reason why he made himself younger: 78' is his actual birth year ...
No. The article says ""Bad boy" attitude - At the same time, Rosa, born in 1978, was staged as a shooting star on the Viennese scene with the support of business-minded curators and gallery owners. His "bad boy" attitude, which he brutally cultivated - sometimes to the chagrin of those affected - secured him an attention of a questionable nature. Money and fame were what drove him. No matter what the cost." The comments section was the author explaining why her article doesn't match other sources. The problem here is that, regardless of whether Der Standard is a reliable source or not (I don't know if they're news or more tabloid), this particular article is an op/ed column, so I would not use it as one. Have you asked the IP why it is so important to them? There has to be a reason that is very deeply personal to them, and more often than not simply confronting them with it is a way to give them pause for thought. Zaereth (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The IP/Beuys Joseph is the silent type. It's difficult to communicate with those. I agree with your assessment that a comment is probably not a good enough BLP source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. It was just a suggestion, because, in my experience, most people have no clue what drives them, and when asked about it, they find themselves at a total loss, and suddenly it doesn't seem worth it anymore. At least, sometimes it works. Zaereth (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am taking the liberty of changing the title of this thread to invite a broader discussion.
I am sure that unlikely we would get enough editors to cleanup the frequent problems created by you or any other editors on these lists. I am now failing to see if these lists are encyclopedic at all because of the highly dubious criteria which are never set, and if we were to stick only WP:BLPCAT (for living people) and WP:V for both dead and alive, then still religious conversion seems to be a private issue and most of the people who have converted from one religion to another would avoid being explicit about it. But due to reports in mass media, people will still click on these lists to find the name or include the names they believe we have missed. I think it is best to get rid of all these lists per WP:LISTCRUFT. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a noticeboard and not your talkpage for ranting. Several editors are already dealing with your disruptive edits[6][7] etc. so if you do not have any postive contributions to make then you can spare us of your POV here. If you think my edis violates any Wikipedia Policy then open a talk page discussion on that article's talk page. --Bringtar (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it necessary to point out BLP violations committed by you especially when you are falsely accusing others of BLP violation right above? You don't understand the point of this noticeboard, just like you don't understand what is WP:V and WP:BLP. I see those "several editors" dealing with you though,[8][9] and telling you that you are wrong with your poor sourcing. I have already refuted each of your points there on talk pages.
Why making a fool out of yourself, brother? Both the diffs you provided against me are part of engaing me in the discussion and this is how this community works and not by 'trolling'[10][11]. And FYI, I have not made any BLP violations. Both my entries to List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism are well sourced and self-admission required by BLPCAT so please make sure you check the sources or at least discuss with the concerned editor. --Bringtar (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tombs is the editor of History Reclaimed,[1] a website created by a "group of anti-woke scholars" including Nigel Biggar, Zareer Masani, and Andrew Roberts, among others.[2] The website describes itself as "an independent and non-partisan academic organisation ... composed of historians ... dedicated to historical research to expand knowledge and understanding about the fundamental changes surrounding our country."[3]
Reception has been mixed, with right-wing tabloids such as the Daily Express supporting this retaliation by those academics against the perceived wokeism of Black Lives Matter and anti-racist movements. University professor of history Alan Lester commented that while activists may get details wrong, they get the bigger picture right,[4] and Reclaiming History "believe themselves to be marginalised and gagged", despite including at least one CBE. Carlos Conde Solares, a senior lecturer in Spanish history at Northumbria University, wrote that it "purports to defend the positive legacies of colonialism whilst ignoring the contributions to civilisation made by European nations other than Britain."[5]
Everything is properly attributed and written by two university professors of history. It is not coatracky because Tombs is the main figure behind the website as editor, and if we are going to have a section about it and include the POV of the website, we should also include its reception and the views of Lester and Solares, who gives secondary coverage for Lester and the Daily Express. They should be removed,1 however, if they are self-published because they cannot be used in BLPs, even if written by experts, per WP:SPS.
Thank you for the ping, Davide King. I'm fine acknowledging that Tombs is a member of History Reclaimed but adding an entire paragraph on the reception of a topic thats tangentially related to the subject seems like a pretty standard case of COATRACK to me. This is especially true considering the fact that the 3 sources include 1) the WP:DAILYEXPRESS 2) A blog on a university site (While Lester may be a subject-matter expert, WP:BLPSPS still applies), and 3) A single, passing mention of Tombs on something called North East Bylines.Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to your for you response and respectful tone. Just to make one thing clear, I am not not actually using the Daily Express as source but Solares did mention it and summarized the website's reception as mixed. I added a direct reference to Lester for context and verification for the quote but all of that is supported by Solares, so I think the self-published claim no longer stands. It may mention Tombs directly only once, like the other scholars, but I think it is still clearly relevant if we are going to discuss briefly Tombs' project. I think it would be better if we could get thoughts from other users, or admins, which is why I took it here. Davide King (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No one is going to posit or comment on this? I do not doubt that Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d may well be right, and their arguments are good and can certainly respect them, but it would be good to hear more analysis, thoughts, and achieve some consensus. Davide King (talk) 11:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello I tried making a BOLD edit by removing the following lines on Binn's page but it got replaced by User:Hipal
Binn's ex-girlfriend Amy Dorris says that they attended the U.S. Open in 1997 with Donald Trump, who Binn had described as his best friend. At the event she alleges that Donald Trump sexually assaulted her.[1]
From my understanding, I believe the lines are funny. 1. Both dudes attended a U.S Open event as claimed by the ex-girl. This has nothing to do with Binn's page. 2. Donald Trump is being accused of assaulting Binn's ex-girlfriend. The sexual assault is a mere allegation that is not proven. It's against WP:CRIME. If at all it must be allowed, it should be on Donald Trump's page not on Binn's.
I believe the entire lines shouldn't be on that page. I strongly believe the entire content ought to be removed. It makes no sense. This is biography of a Living person.
I don't recall seeing these types of images used like this before. I'm not particularly familiar with image policy, so I'm just seeking feedback. Any editors that are versed in image use, and of course BLPs, if they could take a look at these articles and post some insight, it would be appreciated. They're all from the same account on Commons. I posted an ANI there similar to this one, and of course notified them of the ANI there. They don't appear to have an account here (on en.wiki), but I will add a note of this report to the Commons ANI report. Thanks - wolf07:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jeff G, these images were drawn by independant artist to illustrate articles lacking an illustration. They have been advised about the copyright issues and have published their original work with a creative commons license. @Ohocelot: is a french contributor. I cannot remember if he speaks English. @Alacoolwiki: and @Rosiestep and Anthere:. Nattes à chat (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the images are not based directly on any copyrighted photographs, this can be suitable replacements, but editors offering them should make sure with other editors that the image is a fair and not unflattering representation of the BLP (I don't have any comment to that for these examples though initially they don't seem to be unflattering). That is of course assuming that these were released under a free license themselves. --Masem (t) 13:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jeff G, yes, it is part of the project Les sans images, on a voluntary basis. The drawing technique is very much used in the press and on publications in general. It is a way for illustrators to contribute without writing. --Alacoolwiki (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having just checked all of the above against pictures of the subjects, they are certainly not BLP violations for being unflattering - they are rather good likenesses compared to say the more common 'caricature' which exaggerates features for comic effect. The Tess Asplund one is particularly useful to illustrate the subject as it shows her in the pose for which she is recognised, and we couldnt use any of the actual photos of her doing that. So I dont personally have any issues with this style of picture where no free picture is available. However Cathleen Morawetz for example has been dead for quite a few years, and by our implementation of NFCC we could use a non-free photo (as no free equiv could be created and one hasnt been sourced by now) and there is probably one somewhere that is suitable. I would say if this project is to go ahead, to first limit it to subjects who are alive with no image, but identify those who are dead who we want an image for and pass it on to someone to do the requisite checking. I say this only because it would be more efficient (and less likely to cause bad feeling) for the artists to spend their creative time on something that may not be immediately replaced. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping Pinging @Jeff G., much has already been said by my fellows from les sans pagEs. I would just like to add to the last comment from Pinging @Only in death that the pictures are made from the point of view of the French-speaking wikipedia, where no fair use is in place, that's why the artist are covering both living and dead women. I have added the illustrations to the English speaking wikipedia pages (when it was not made automatically by wikidata-linked infobox), when I have seen there was no illustration. Of course if you can find available photos, we would understand if you prefer to use photos instead of drawings. --Celinea33 (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thanks Celinea33, that makes more sense. I was worried they were being done specifically for ENWP and that the hard work would be in vain (due to NFCC), as long as everyone involved in the creation is aware that on ENWP deceased subjects are likely to be replaced (at some future time) then I have no objections from a BLP standpoint. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Thewolfchild: I am satisfied from the responses above that this is the best way to illustrate articles here and on French Wikipedia for those individuals (until free photos can supplant the drawings). What do you think? — JeffG. ツ02:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An artist's rendition of Libralces gallicus There has been a lot of discussion in the past about user-generated pics, from glass atomic-structures that are more understandable in a two-dimensional drawing, even though not perfectly accurate, than they would be if drawn more-accurately in three dimensions, to pictures of train engines. Or even pictures of prehistoric animals which can only be reconstructed out of fossil records, a good understanding of animal anatomy, and a lot of imagination, like those made by our very own Mr. Fink. (I thought the pic to the right was a great one for the moose article, just to give the reader something to visualize.) I would say that in all cases, as long as the drawings check out, are not drawn for humor or exaggeration, and give the reader a decent visualization, then they are fine. If nothing else, good placeholders until something better comes along. Zaereth (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just seem to recall an editor going on a tear awhile back removing numerous infoboxes pictures (drawn/painted, etc) from the bio's of Popes, from I believe the pre-Renaissance era, because of some policy issue. While this isn't a BLP issue, I wondered if the same image-policy might apply. Again, I'm just seeking feedback. Thank for the replies - wolf17:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with that particular case, but I could foresee some issues arising in cases where such a person is long dead and especially if no portraits were ever made of them at the time. As an analogy, unlike Captain Cook, Christopher Columbus never had his picture painted during his lifetime, so no one really knows what he looks like. Portraits of him were done long after his death, but those are strictly the product of the painters' imagination with no basis in fact. I could see the same problems arising from drawings of popes from 1000 years ago, but then again I'm not familiar with the case in question. Like most things on Wikipedia, these often need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. In this case, where we have real photos to compare with, I don't see any problem beyond the fact that a real pic of the highest quality would be preferable. Zaereth (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rob Monster
Rob Monster is going to be a hard article to get right, as people understandably have strong feelings about Mr Monster. It's not a good article for a BLP I would say, so I started vetting the refs. The first I vetted was a Huffpost article, since it was used 19 times. I noted that:
At Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, for reporting on political issues, Huffpost is tagged as "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply: The source is marginally reliable..."
And it's biased and has poor reporting standards. The first chart Google gives me has Huffpost (and its owner, Buzzfeed) as straddling the line between "skews liberal" and "hyper-partisan liberal"; for quality, the chart has them then in the "Unfair interpretations of the news" quadrant. There are other charts, look at them if you like.
And I mean after all the Huffpost article is titled The Bible-Thumping Tech CEO Who’s Proud Of Keeping Neo-Nazis Online. Which is certainly spin, as Bible-quoting -- sorry, thumping -- isn't a key part of Monster's game I think, nor is neo-Nazism in particular something he's proud of (he certainly didn't say it) as opposed hosting any and all right-wing (far-right if you prefer) sites like gun nuts etc. The body of the Huffpost article follows suit. It's an egregious hatchet job.
That's the first ref vetted, and of course I took it out and all fraught material solely ref'd by that (while explaining on the talk page), as BLP requires prompt action (dif). But there's been some opposition there, and my edit was rolled back, and the article's under discretionary sanctions, which I think means 1RR, so I've fouled out. There are other refs to be vetted so let's get to work. Advice, comments, etc.? Herostratus (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, the article doesn't say he's proud of neo-Nazism, it says he's proud of keeping them online. That's a key difference to those of us who are old enough to remember a little thing called National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie and a little group called the ACLU (I've met you, Hero, so I humbly propose you may be old enough to remember this, as I am), which assigned two Jewish lawyers to prosecute and win said case for the Neo-Nazis. Were the lawyers proud of the Neo-Nazis? Heck no. Sorry, let me rephrase. Hell no. But they were quite proud of letting them march. --GRuban (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right now I'm only concerned with the Huffpost article. I don't want to vet more if my edits are going to get rolled back. Next comes Vice and so forth. The ref's have been much improved and probably most of the article can be reffed to proper sources. I'm going one at a time, here.
"Bible-thumping" is a pejorative -- you can't use it, except with "[person with considerable standing] called him a 'bible-thumper'" (you have to have an exact quote) and even that is one person's opinion and is nasty, so I wouldn't recommend it, and let the reader decide for herself if he's a bible thumper.
He's proud of hosting sites banned from normal web hosters generally. They're all real right-wing and includes Nazis, but I don't think he cares about Nazis any more than any of the right-wing sites he hosts so why single that out except to inflame. AFAIK he's never mentioned Nazis at all. We want to be really careful extrapolating what the guy is proud of. There is a libertarian angle to what he's doing (I do have an opinion on whether or and that's just a cover, but so).
The ACLU has nothing to do with anything. This is not a political question it is a BLP question; everyone has a right to a fair trail, and to conservative treatment in the world's greatest encyclopedia. As I've said (and I think as a personal opinion this is not a BLP violation): I hate the guy. Let's leave the politics out of it. Herostratus (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As news outlets go, on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being TMZ and 10 being the NY Times, I would rate Huffington Post as a 2, bordering on 3; better than tabloids but worse than highly-partisan news-outlets like MSNBC, CNN, or Fox News. They write some pretty interesting stories from time to time, and many of them newsworthy, but they tend to do so --more often than not-- with quite of bit of persuasive writing mixed in. I mean, for a good example, see the headline you posted above. The same information could easily be given in a more neutral tone, but that's not what Huffington Post really strives for. It sells copies but makes it hard to take them too seriously. Zaereth (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we shouldn't call him a Bible-Thumper in our voice, but we can, with care and selectively, use the HuffPost article as a source. That's not the same thing as slavishly quoting every word of the article. --GRuban (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, most of it is sourced to other sources as well, and in fact, totally noncontroversial material was also tagged as CN in this drive to totally remove Huff post from the article (and it seems these kinds of statements are the only ones solely sourced to the Huff post). Nor do we say (as far as I can see) him " a Bible-Thumper".Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not commenting on this particular case, but in a general sense, I think it's helpful to try the shoe on the other foot. Just imagine, if you will, if Rush Limbaugh created his own "news" outlet (the Limbaugh Times), with all the grace and editorial oversight that Rush Limbaugh can provide. Would we consider that a reliable source for contentious claims in a BLP? If other, better sources give the same info, then why bother with low quality sources? Zaereth (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While we're here, can someone weigh in on Herostratus' opinion ([12], [13]) that we should remove citations to the Huffington Post article that are supporting non-contentious statements (date of birth, etc.), and either leave them uncited or with {{citation needed}} templates, because the title of the article shouldn't appear in the references? I'm unaware of any policy or guideline that instructs us not to use references that would otherwise be usable for non-contentious statements of fact because the title is objectionable to one editor, or that leaving the content in place and uncited is somehow preferable. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ignore me, this is what I get for going through my watchlist one page at a time. I see their whole edit was undone, and so the missing citations I'm mentioning have been restored. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to answer your question anyhow, if you don't mind, I think Hero answered that above: "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply. I think for BLP purposes we should strive for better, but for general or non-contentious info where BLP policy isn't as much of a concern, this is something to try to work out at RSN. It'd be nice to get the community to reach a consensus one way or another, but right now it looks to be in limbo, with a big "caution - handle with care" sign attached.
Typically, the way a newspaper would handle questionable sources is to simply say, "According to the Huffington Post...". That keeps their asses covered, but too much of that and we start to sound like a newspaper ourselves. Zaereth (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently thugs are threatening User:GorillaWarfare, a major editor on the article. Considering Mr Monster's clients, that's not surprising. That's all that matters right now. Mr Monster is indeed a ________, so who cares about him and his stupid article. I'm out, maybe the article should be put under special oversight or something. I no longer care what's in the article, it's not important, you guys figure it out or just close the thread. Herostratus (talk) 04:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thugs? That sounds pretty ominous. Not to mention highly concerning. I've always had great respect for GW and very much value her opinions, and if you need a body guard, let me know. I've had to deal with thugs before, and while I don't know much about gorilla warfare, when it comes to Viking warfare, why, that's what Zaereth's do best. But seriously (and this is something I usually only have an opportunity to say to people who get so stressed they seem on the verge of a breakdown), nothing on Wikipedia is worth your health and happiness. Zaereth (talk) 10:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I remained in touch with him after my Wikimedia days and had a few conversations over the years. I met him in person one time when I was visiting Southern California. As controversial a character that he was, he was an incredibly likeable individual.
His sister and I knew of each other because we were both in Berkeley and associated with theological schools. She got in touch with me after Matt died and invited me to the celebration of life, held in San Jose the following month, which I was sadly unable to attend.
I don't know what to do in an instance like this. There was no obituary or notice in the news when Matt died. He was mostly off the grid in his last couple years. When I met him in person he was driving for Uber and wasn't exactly living at the top of his game.
Nobody covered his death, not the porn media, not Fox News, not anyone who he was previously associated with. So I have no sources I can add. Just my personal attestation that he is, in fact, dead.
I don't know if we have any precedents for this sort of situation but if someone may guide me, please help
This a troubling issue with no easy answers. We've previously had this issue with Justin Berry (see this RSN discussion) who apparently disappeared in Mexico in 2018 and who has been reportedly declared dead, but there's no reliable sources covering it at all, which leaves us in limbo, Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is the sister interested in correcting the article? I would argue that if she publishes a web page with details about him and his death, that is clearly from her as his sister, it would be a sufficiently reliable source for the purpose, per WP:IAR if nothing else. --GRuban (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If Sanchez's sister is interesting in correcting the article, I'd suggest that she contact info-en-q@wikimedia.org with her request. If they can verify her identity, then that should (in my view at least) be sufficient to justify including the fact that Sanchez is dead. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We're supposed to get together for coffee. I'll pose the question to her at that point. I'm not sure if the accuracy of his Wikipedia article is of major concern to her, however, as much as it is to me, a rather inactive Wikipedian. Bastique☎ call me!02:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are some interesting solutions. There are a lot of people who never get an obituary in the news, for whatever reason. Perhaps they're shy, or just very private, or their family never gave it a moment's thought in their time of grief. Thus, more and more Wikipedia articles are bound to end up with dead subjects and no way to verify it ... that is, until they are at least 120. As always, I think we need some extremely reliable sources before we start declaring people dead, because we also have to look at the harm that can happen if we're wrong, or the victims of a hoax ourselves. Personally, I think it would be more upsetting to find out I'm dead on Wikipedia before it actually happens than to simply have an article that hasn't acknowledged my death for lack of good sources. I think a direct request from the family where someone can truly verify their identity is a possible option. Zaereth (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We do need published sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability is a Wikipedia policy, there aren't many of those. Making a direct request can't be enough to include information, we need to be able to cite a published source than our readers can then check. --GRuban (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know, and I'm right with you there. The problem with going from their own website or facebook page is those can also be easily faked, and there's no way of really knowing if they're telling the truth or just out for a little revenge or something. A combination of the two, however... I don't know enough about computers to really make an informed assessment. It doesn't negate the fact that the ideas you both presented are interesting and maybe worth developing more. Whatever the case, I think we have to be extremely careful, because having an article that simply hasn't acknowledged a person's death doesn't seem like such a big deal, but declaring someone dead before their time could be downright traumatic. Zaereth (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that occurs to me is that, many people may not even realize that obituaries are not automatic. Newspapers don't have a reporter on staff who investigates every death. Unless you're really famous, it generally up to the family to write and submit their own obits on behalf of their dearly departed. I'm not aware of any time limit on that. I'm sure a paper would be happy to publish it as long as several months after the event, if not more, as long as the given dates are correct. If it is important to the family, that would be my suggestion. (Our subjects often forget that the best way to update their articles is through reliable sources, which is always an option for them.) Zaereth (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I came across this article and already made some minor changes for the purpose of impartial tone(WP:IMPARTIAL). Since he is a quite well-known opinion-based critic about China in Youtube, I have the impression that this article might be too one-sided. That's why I am asking more people to review these pieces. The problem I have spotted is that biography relied heavily on interviews, which might not be reliable. And those media outlets who cited him mostly are from the countries that might have conflict of interest with China (VOA and some Taiwanese news etcs). Also, the section "Career after leaving China" needs more references.
On the Kristen Stewart article there's been repeated controversy about whether or not to include statements of her mother's heritage. At least two users contest adding this (one believes the cited ancestry is negligible and another believes information about the subject's mother should not be placed on the page.) The source of this is a YouTube copyright violation as seen in the diff here.
Personally I am of the view that controversial information about Jules Stewart should not crowd up Kristen's page. I'm hesitant to remove the information myself due to inexperience and possibly inciting more arguments. Should this page be further protected after the violating video is removed?
Cinematic Maniac (talk) 04:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure why there's controversy. Kristen Stewart went on The Howard Stern Show on November 5, 2019, which is one of the biggest radio shows in the United States, and discussed elements of her recent family background. The text in the article reflected what she stated (her mother was adopted by a Jewish couple in California, Norma and Ben Urman, in 1953; a DNA test showed that one of Kristen's biological maternal grandparents was Ashkenazi Jewish).
That's it. What she said hasn't been questioned or disputed in the media, and it's not an exceptional claim (primary sources also back it up as being accurate). What she said can also be literally heard and seen by anyone who'd like in the video linked. If that website is a copyright violation, then the link itself doesn't have to be included. This discussion isn't about the specific link, for me, at least (which has now been removed by Cinematic Maniac, anyway, along with the text). It's about the text and the fact that Stewart plainly stated it on a platform with an audience of millions. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 11:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Howard Stern Show is in no way a reliable source nor its interviews to be putting WP:UNDUE emphasis on. People can lie, and there's no fact checking in the interview. Further, WP:ABOUTSELF restricts claims about third parties. It's not a hard concept. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a comment Stern made, or something. Of course the subject of an article giving an interview on as public a forum as Stern's show would be a reliable source for the subject or their background. I'm not sure where "people can lie" comes from - you're saying a person stating a fact about their background in an interview can't be used as a reliable source about that person? That certainly is very extreme, and it isn't the standard on Wikipedia. Unless otherwise disputed in the media (i.e. Elizabeth Warren, Ward Churchill) such statements, unless exceptional, are presumed to be true. (and in this particular case, everything Stewart said is backed by primary sources anyway) All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This may not be completely acceptable to either side of this debate, but I would humbly suggest that the statement in question (or some version of it) be preceded by "According to Stewart, her mother ...". A video of Stewart saying something is a perfectly acceptable source that she said it. I don't think a brief statement by Stewart is a WP:UNDUE problem; the article is about her, what she does, what she thinks, and what she says. Many Wikipedia bios base the ethnic or national heritage of the person on what that person reports. What the person reports may not always be 100% verifiable, but if it's reliably sourced that they said, the words that they say cannot be disputed. Sundayclose (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If this were a newspaper, I would agree with you. As an encyclopedia, I think we need to let the newspapers and other secondary sources do that sort of investigative journalism. Otherwise it becomes sort of a Pandora's box where people can just cherrypick the quotes they like, look for those gotcha moments (or overtly self-serving moments), and other things that we shouldn't be doing ourselves. The problem with weight comes with the source itself, and we cannot really give much weight to an unreliable source regardless if it's "proof" that someone said something. Talk shows can be edited and narratives created out of soundbites from interviews that have no relation to what was really said. (Not saying that's the case here, but it's a staple of so-called reality TV., and many other things. It's a big reason we don't use youtube as an RS.)
Are you saying interviews can't be used as sources about a person? Interviews are the sources used for the background/personal life of most contemporary actors. Hard-hitting investigative journalism isn't often involved, nor required (and there's absolutely no "out of context" issue here, nor has anyone suggested one). And the Howard Stern show has an audience of millions of people, which makes it much more prominent than almost any interview or article published anywhere. What confuses me about this situation is why. What is the motivation? Stewart herself said it as clearly and publicly as possible, primary sources back it up (her mother's birth record, her adoptive grandparents' marriage record, etc., all cited on the article talk page), no one in the media is disputing it; it seems like the most cut-and-dry situation. So what's the point of all of this, exactly? Why was "people can lie" ever used in this discussion?
Apologies, but I come down on Zaereth's side here. It's WP:ABOUTSELF but draws in other people, and I am not that concerned about outright lying, but garbled recollections, repetition of spurious family legend, etc., are all theoretical possibilities. Do people approach an interview with Mr. Stern the same way they might with a major newspaper? I have my doubts (with no offense intended to Mr. Stern). All in all, it just doesn't seem worth it to me. As ever, if consensus is against me, I will not kvetch! Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not one of whether or not it is true. It's more of a question of who cares? That's what weight is all about. We have to summarize the sources, which means cutting out many of the boring details. Someone always cares about this detail or that, for whatever reason, it's important to them. But is it important enough to everybody else that we should include it? Our measure of that is a fairly mathematical one, where we simply weigh the sources against each other, and apportion everything accordingly. If no one in a RS thought it was worth covering, then it doesn't carry nearly as much weight as stuff RSs thought were more important. It's a big part of how we keep info like trivia out of articles on celebrities, and other things like OR.
So, why is this so important to you? If the adoptive parents are possibly still alive, we shouldn't be naming them unless they themselves are notable enough for their own article. Otherwise, why should this information be important to the general reader? In Wikipedia, the answer to that question is mostly a matter of weight. Zaereth (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In thinking about it, I think DNA is a good example of something an RS should really discuss. Ancestry tests are a great example of the commercialization of science run amok. For example, you breed two dogs, one black and the other tan. The pups rarely will come out a perfect mix of the two, like a dark brown or something. Rather, some may be black and some tan, and others bi-color, saddleback, or any mixture of the two. Some may come out white for some unknown reason. I took a DNA test, and mine came back mostly Scandinavian. My brother took the same test and found out he's mostly Irish. According to our lineage, we're both Welsh. The thing about DNA is that we know know so very little about it still to this day, and you go back just 20 generations and you have over a million great, great, great grandparents. Zaereth (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being adopted is a "family legend"? Adopted parents are noted all the time. Family members like parents and siblings are noted by name all the time. This isn't WP:otherstuffexists, it's WP:otherstuffcorrectlyexists. (ps, we don't actually have to name her grandparents, who are deceased, by the way; I don't think the specific names were the point of contention, anyway) I think much of this is an extreme interpretation of various policies. As for DNA, people who test out 24% Ashkenazi Jewish tend to have an Ashkenazi grandparent. In the early 1950s, when her mother was adopted, most Jewish couples adopted through Jewish adoption agencies that matched them with babies that were born to Jewish mothers (and sometimes fathers, as well). So, her mother was born and raised Jewish (almost certainly born to a Jewish mother, given the DNA test). Of course, I didn't put those particular details in the article, only what Stewart herself stated (which went unchallenged for nearly a year, by the way). Reporting what someone says - especially in a public outlet to millions of listeners - is certainly following WP:BLP. This is the BLP messageboard, after all, and I don't see how reporting what the subject of the article themselves stated is a violation of at least that policy, unless there's some kind of dispute between living persons over a set of facts, and we're choosing one side over the other, and there's nothing like this here. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain my objection, subject to consensus, of course. WP:ABOUTSELF specifically says no claims about third parties, which we have here. And "family legends" can be about many things; while I doubt the inherent nature of an adoption would be subject to such a "legend" (for lack of a better term), the circumstances thereof very frequently are, in my limited experience. The offhand nature of the remarks continues to give me pause, and I think the article is better off without this particular bit. Cheers, all, and Happy Holidays. Dumuzid (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't consider such close relatives as "third parties" on which they should not be trusted. I.e., when someone says, "my husband's name is so-and-so," "I have three children," "I have a brother named Steven," such statements tend to be used as sources (and should be) unless disputed or implausible. No commentary is made about the 'circumstances' of the adoption. In any case, Stewart's mother's family background is also Stewart's, by definition. I wouldn't consider the remarks offhand, either; they were plainly stated and in lucid detail. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An anonymous user has been repeatedly restoring (most recent diff linked) a "controversy" section consisting solely of a mention of drug use by the subject, as cited to dubious sources. I and at least two other users have been reverting this editor on the grounds of WP:BLPREMOVE. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 14:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is fully verified and sourced material with a clear video of the person in question using drugs, and so does not fulfil the grounds of being removed due to WP:BLPREMOVE - there is no reason why it can't be included on the article. The video in the source is definitive proof of what I added to the article, regardless of how 'reliable' one may claim the source to be. There is no reason to keep removing sourced and unbiased information from the article - it is counter-productive, and goes against the purpose of Wikipedia as an entity and institution to expand the knowledge of mankind. Don't remove sourced information just because you don't like what it says. 77.96.159.195 (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IP you seem confused about Wikipedia's purpose. While "Wikipedia as an entity and institution to expand the knowledge of mankind (sic)" may not be inaccurate, this does not mean we published anything and sundry. There are a lot of things which while obviously true, will never be on Wikipedia and for reasons that don't specifically have to do with be doubt over truth. For BLPs an important one is ultimately WP:UNDUE. Information has to be significant enough for us to cover. If other reliable secondary sources do not cover it then generally we do not either. Clearly no one else cares about it, so we don't either no matter how sure we are it is true. In this case, the Daily Mirror is a secondary source, but for BLPs cannot be considered reliable and so definitely does not establish the significance of this claim. If the Mirror and the video are your only sources, then this information will rightfull have to stay out. It does not matter how sure anyone is that it's true, that issue does actually arise even here for a variety of reasons but I'll put that aside since it doesn't matter. Nil Einne (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why this is here. The identical point about Carly Simon was raised on the article's talk page by this user five months ago, and was responded to by user: Binksternet.This is a case of WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPPRIMARY. If WhatsTheTruth thinks there are now sufficient reliable sources available to justify the change shouldn't this be on the article's talk page first? Meters (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many sources (mostly tabloids and unreliable blogs) have talked about the supposed real name and birth date of Francis Bourgeois (trainspotter) (not sharing here per BLP, but it can be easily Googled if you wish to know). The only sources that might be OK that reported this are The Tab, Manchester Evening News, and HITC, but I'm still wary of adding it unless Francis says so himself or a more reliable source comes out with it. There's also a few, also mostly unreliable, sources reporting that he is or was a music producer. There's been a lot of IP addresses attempting to add the real name/birthdate to the article, so this is why I'm asking. Thoughts? wizzito | say hello!12:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The DoB would need to be widely covered in reliable sources to be included, so if you have to dig and search to find a couple places it's covered in reliable sources it probably shouldn't be included. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Besides being a poor source for politics per WP:FOXNEWS, the cited article stops short of labeling Stone-Manning an eco-terrorist herself, so I'd say it's definitely inappropriate for a section titled "Individuals accused or convicted" of eco-terrorism. clpo13(talk)20:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The sources in Stone-Manning's article do not discuss the incident as a eco-terrorist accusation or conviction against her. The source used in the Eco terrorism article is Fox News, and it's not reliable for the claim. I haven't reviewed the list of "Individuals accused or convicted", but its title seems like a magnet for BLP violations. Firefangledfeathers20:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
John McDougall
I see that Wikipedia is proud of providing neutral information. Therefore the biography of John McDougall (nutritionist, physician, author, speaker, etc) should be seen as the shameful, prejudiced character assassination that it is. It's difficult to read such concentrated misinformation, but I remember some statements like: creator of fad diets, that cause malabsorption of minerals from too much fiber, cause flatulence, and there is no scientific evidence for his diet -- which is a simple low fat vegan diet. There is, of course, a wealth of scientific evidence from innumerable scientific studies to support a low fat vegan diet, and John McDougall has been an important pioneer in real nutrition research -- a glance at any one of his several books will settle the point. But the authors of this Wikipedia article seem only interested in attacking McDougall for their own personal reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.7.201.97 (talk) 13:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a bit odd to post here if your beef is with the description of the diet (not the description of the guy). If there truly is "a wealth of scientific evidence" relevant to this diet product, then bring the sources forth. The high-quality sources cited at the moment say it's just another fad diet, with some downsides (too much farting e.g.). Alexbrn (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that an independent wrestler has been editing Shark Boy's Wikipedia page to impersonate him. You can see in real time as the person updates things as he realized he missed something that would make it inaccurate, such as Shark Boy working in a company while the vandal was a child/age/championships/DOB. There also had been a brief reversion to the original name of the performer, before the same person changed it to different information about himself
The Dean Roll article from September seems to be the largely accurate one(barring a few procedural link updates and the bit about him appearing in 2019). I just didn't know where to exactly put this or how to properly revert the article, let alone point out that someone seems to be using Wikipedia to impersonate a minor celebrity, and possibly make money off their likeness as they are masked and their face isn't widely known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.139.53.227 (talk) 03:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a really strange case! I've reverted to this revision as essentially an emergency action -- this is a particularly severe sort of BLP vio (I don't think I've seen anything like it before -- anyone else?) and it needed to be dealt with pronto. That revision isn't in fantastic shape and is throwing up a few ref errors from the 2020 CS1 updates, but it credits the right guy, so it's an improvement. Vaticidalprophet03:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was created independently almost a decade ago and has since been added to by various editors. I wanted to tidy it up as it was a mess structurally, so I paid an editor to re-format it. The editor did not rewrite the page and there was never any issue with what it contained prior to this. But since reformatting it has been totally shredded by others editors who have applied warnings about its neutrality and that it contains a paid contribution.
How am I supposed to get rid of these warnings and ensure it adheres to Wiki's guidelines if I cannot pay someone to change it? I totally respect that it should be neutral and am very happy for it simply to contain facts. But if I can't remove these arbitrary warnings is there a way to just delete the page entirely? I feel this is most unfair as it has a direct impact on my career when potential employers search for details on me and find a messy page like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTypistTypes (talk • contribs) 13:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article about George Kurtz mentions two children by name. Since the children are minors, are not notable, add no value to the article, and are not covered themselves in any reliable high-quality secondary sources, could an editor:
Change the first sentence of the Personal life section to simply read as "Kurtz is married to his wife, Annamaria."
Remove the children number from the infobox
WP:BLPNAME notes that "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons" and the subject of this article would prefer that these non-notable minors are not mentioned in this article. I would make these two edits myself but I have a financial conflict of interest related to the subject of this article, which is why I am raising this for other editors to evaluate and implement as you see fit. Thanks, JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply: The source is marginally reliable..."
Courtesy link: John A. McDougall melecie t - 13:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
