Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Monisha Shah

After I added a date of birth to Monisha Shah, my edit was reverted and I was directed to WP:DOB. After reading it, I am confused by several things. The date of birth that I added was taken from the source already used. I changed the existing "1969" to "September 11, 1969", which is the date of birth given in the source. Since we are already using a reference that gives Monisha Shah's full birth date (see online version here), what is the rationale for not including the birth date as given by the source? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

It needs to be widely covered, not just found in a single source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the guideline. I'm trying to understand it. I have never seen another biographical page on Wikipedia that didn't have the full date of birth. I can't wrap my head around how someone can be notable enough to have a Wikipedia page but also not notable enough that we leave out their date of birth because of "identity theft"? Really? Anyone can simply Google "Monisha Shah birth date" if they want to know her birth date. Go ahead, try it. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 03:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Quite a few biographies on Wikipedia lack date of birth; see Category:Date of birth missing (living people). Schazjmd (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

By the way, Monisha Shah's birth date is on Wikidata. All one has to do to see it is click on the Wikidata link found on her page. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikidata has virtually no standards for reliable sourcing, and near zero enforcement of BLP concerns. That beast cares only about data and more data, right or wrong. A source can be literally any random URL (except perhaps some blacklisted sites), Tweet, or primary source. Many Wikidata statements have no references whatsoever (even when there is no reason to doubt them) because constructing and adding correctly-formatted references is a tedious labor-intensive task, and many other statements are sourced only to the respective Wikipedia article (in any language), creating a dangerous WP:CIRCULAR situation. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand how this can be possible. Don't all Wikipedia sites have to follow the same rules? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Not even slightly. The English language version of Wikipedia is significantly more stringent (rightly) on things like notability and sourcing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Given that this article was recreated despite being deleted due to a well attended AfD that was affirmed with a deletion review, I have nominated the article for deletion again, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monisha Shah (2nd nomination). Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I need to claim I have received a (non public) email from oversight on Ticket#2022032710000821 which I raised sent Sun, 27 Mar 2022 06:57:39 which has informed me: "They are completely correct; if there is a reliable source that provides a DOB, there is no *procedural* reason to remove it, only one based on discussion and consensus." Unfortunately I have read that email just now, some 30 hours later. On that basis I need to revert the full DOB on the article and stand back from the discussion in this point of time. As this claim is hearsay unless verified and the discussion on the DOB must go as it goes and if someone determines change the article until this discussion is concluded so be it. Under most circumstances I would not make this change while under discussion. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that email may be slightly incorrect. WP:DOB makes it clear that it must be widely covered, and simply passing verification is not enough for inclusion. Because of that, and what Lee Vilenski pointed out below, I have removed it again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I think this is all missing the point. The reference being used (who's who (UK)) is deemed unreliable WP:RSN. Shouldn't be sourcing anything, let alone something as important as a date of birth to it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I guess I wandered into a minefield, which I have discovered is very easy to do here. I am now being threatened and harassed on my talk page by Djm-leighpark and I see the page has been put up for deletion. What happens now? We leave the page with no birth date at all? "Monisha Shah" is not "John Smith" but there should be some way to distinguish this Monisha Shah from the others. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Is their birthdate really the only thing that differentiates these people? Our policy WP:BLP requires living people live to a higher level of sourcing, specifically that even slighly contentious info is sourced. Dates and places of birth are very much so. Unless you can find a good reliable source commenting on this, leave it blank, it's really not a big deal. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The source I used for the full birth date was the same source that had been being used for the birth year. Until this discussion, there was no argument about it being a reliable source. That was not the issue. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Over at the AfD it has been pointed out the Times has been publishing her Birthdate and age on an annual basis relating to her chairwomanship of Rose Bruford College. I don't have direct access to the publication and while I know someone who does I could be accused of a CANVAS if I contacted them at this point. Some ProQuest trawls have strongly indicated her day, month and age was published in the times on her birthday in 2017, 2018, 2019 & 2020 at least in the "Birthdays Today" section. For example "Birthdays today [Eire Region] The Times; London (UK) [London (UK)]. 11 Sep 20172 (page 21???) from where I can quote "... newsreader, Radio 4 (1965-69, 1978-2003), 74; Monisha Shah, chairwoman, Rose Bruford College of Theatre and Performance, 48; Sir.." That would surely count towards widely publicized and mean the full DOB could be re-instated. If it itsn't then appropriate Wikipedia:Revision deletion surely need to be organized, which happens to include this discussion. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC) I'm a bit slow here as someone has added it back in slightly over an hour ago. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

If it helps with coverage of age, Business India in its May 14–27, 2001 edition on page 160 said

Take the case of 30-year-old Monisha Shah who was BBC Worldwide's London-based territory manager for South Asia. In less than 16 months this Bandra girl has been promoted to director of BBC Worldwide India Pvt Ltd and her new responsibility is to handle non-news business activities across South Asia.

Uncle G (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

A lot of people not actually reading the policy here. WP:DOB says dates of birth must be widely covered or covered "by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public". The information in Who's Who comes directly from subjects, therefore it clearly qualifies under the second point. Frickeg (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The whole rule needs to reviewed and rewritten. I was surprised to see that an encyclopedia would leave out a biographical detail such as date of birth. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Full birthdates are really just trivial information. It doesn't tell us anything about who this person is, which is far more important. I would equate this to other statistical data such a height, eye color, and weight. Just not necessary for an encyclopedia. When it comes to birthdates, some people consider that private information, what with all the identity theft and stuff going on. We take the privacy and safety of our subjects very seriously, and if someone doesn't want their full birthdate published then we simply omit it. One source is not enough to tell us the subject is fine with us publishing it. You need to find many sources, and that way we can accurately infer that the subject wouldn't mind if we publish it too. I hope that helps explain. Zaereth (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with just about every point you have made here. Birth dates are a typical and expected piece of biographical information. The reason we are able to cite sources for birth dates is because they are so much a part of biographies. Birth dates allow us to understand what was going on in the world when a person was born, lived, and died. They are not trivial - they are vital to situating someone in history. "Identity theft" is a boogeyman and a red herring. You are "protecting" no one's privacy. Birth dates that one can find by simply Googling them (or in the source used for the birth year) are not secrets that can be protected. The assumption that someone "wouldn;t mind" because a birth date (or any other fact) is widely reported is just wildly wrong. This rule seems like it is well intentioned but poorly thought through. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

It's one that evolved over time due to the discussion and consensus of a large number of people. It's something that coincides well with the code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists. It doesn't matter the reason, if a person doesn't want their full birthdate published here out of privacy concerns, then we have a responsibility to respect their decisions. And, yes, we get a lot of subjects that come here to request their date be removed. We cannot assume that any of them are ok with it unless there is sufficient reason to make that inference. For example, any good, reliable source will redact someone's birthdate if they complain about it. If it's is widely published, then we can reasonably infer that they are aware and have never complained about it. Zaereth (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I feel like this one is probably due for reconsideration and clarification, though, to be fair - it's a very old and rather confusing guideline, and one that is very inconsistently followed across the encyclopedia. I strongly disagree with the idea that birth dates are trivial or equivalent to something like eye colour - knowing someone's age is pretty important (and something people refer to Wikipedia for a lot!) and without a date it is only ever an approximation; it is also standard to include across encyclopedias generally (Britannica, pretty much all biographical dictionaries, etc.). Of course we should not be digging in birth registers or including anything from unreliable sources, but I'm far from comfortable with the idea that this particular biographical detail should be treated differently from any other (e.g. place of birth). Anyway, this is all off topic since the point at issue here clearly falls under the guideline. Frickeg (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I guess then I should clarify what I mean by trivial. All trivia is important to someone, but to tell if some detail is trivial or not, I ask myself, would the story read just the same without it, or would removing it somehow alter the story and greatly diminish the general reader's understanding of the subject? That a capacitor stores energy is vital information. That they were used on the space shuttles is trivial, even though a fact. As an encyclopedia, that's what we do, is take a subject and summarize it, and to do that we need to cut through all the boring details and trivia and get to the nitty gritty. Now, if you're comparing us to Britannica or similar paper encyclopedias, then we have a whole different set of standards, as in you wouldn't even find this person there. Not even remotely notable enough.

Now don't get me wrong. Birthdates are great to have --when we can get them-- but the world is not going to end if we can't. The article will still read just the same. Narrowing it down to a birth year is usually good enough to tell one Steve Smith from the next. Zaereth (talk) 08:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

There's no real need for the exact birthdate, and while I've often used Year-month I'll probably switch to just year in future. An approximate year of birth is I find typically useful to fit a person to the time period they are operating in which can and generally how old they were when they did something. At least in UK date of births from the start of the century could have inaccuracies of a few days, and might be the date the birth was registered. The debate of the UK Who's who's is fascinating as we can't seem to dither whether its SPS or inaccurate. In some UK use cases there are public sources which are accurate (insofar as anything that can be accurate) but can't be used. The case in question here seems widely enough published not to be an issue. If it had have proven to be a privacy issue then it would surely have appropriate to request Wikipedia:Revision deletion? as diff's had not been used. Interesting. An update to WP:DOB might be useful though, and that Year of birth missing category (or whatever it is) is annoying. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the specifics. Too busy in real life now. I just saw a policy question that seemed simple enough to answer, so I'll let you all work out the specifics. I agree we need some kind of time frame, yet sometimes we can't even name a specific year. Sometimes you get conflicting sources, or people lie about their age all the time. There are times when all we can get is a range, and I think our very own Jimbo Wales had a situation like this. We can't go digging up birth certificates in some misguided quest of the truth. Sometimes you give what you can get, and if we can't, just leave it out.

I'd like to put in the Japanese swordsmithing article information about the soft-iron cores, in that they don't actually help prevent breakage anymore than the soft pearlite jacket already does. What it does do is dampen the recoil considerably, like a dead-blow hammer (little or no bounce back). Moreover it stops the thing from ringing like a bell, which feels like a jackhammer beating against your knuckles. It's similar to what happens if a bell maker doesn't get a good, homogenous cast. Knowing that from my own expertise doesn't cut the mustard, however. I would need to find it in an extremely reliable source first. Birthdays are really no different, except you need multiple sources.

As for your suggestion about clarifying the policy, that is probably a good idea, but this isn't really the place to do that. If you go to the policy talk page you can make your suggestions there, and who knows, you may even succeed and help eliminate some of the confusion. Zaereth (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Monisha Shah page on Hindi Wikipedia

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.

---

Djm-leighpark has created a page for Monisha Shah on Hindi Wikipedia (see मोनीषा शाह). They have used Shah's full birth date, despite saying in this discussion that "There's no real need for the exact birthdate, and while I've often used Year-month I'll probably switch to just year in future.". This seems inconsistent. As far as I can tell, none of the sources used contain her birth date (but one is a paid access, so I can't be sure). The Hindi version *appears* to be a word for word translation of the page that was here before it got deleted, except most of the sources have been removed. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I accept that is a word for word translation and the big issue which I need to to hold my hands up to is it is not back attributed yet (OK I've just added a sentence to the talk page), and that is one of the serious issues I have alluded to as a priority on other Wikipedias other than the English Wikipedia, I've actually focused on the other issue today but it won't be immediately obvious from any edit contributions. Given I call CWW out at times that can be argued I can get a slap on the wrist for that but the issue is back fixable. While I have edited low level on English Wikipedia for the past few days its mostly been short stuff though I've attempted to cite an article in the last hour, its late but its relatively easy going. Refer also to the discussion on my talk page at User talk:Djm-leighpark/Your interest in Monisha Shah. In short the rational for using the full date of birth was the effective conclusion of this article that full publication of the data of birth was permissible as it had been widely published, thus compliant with WP:DOB; whereas the comment I would switch from using Month-Year to Year was intended to apply to BLPs were there was no evidence of the DOB being widely published. I do have concerns the the full DOB was splattered on this discussion rather than diffs before the identification of evidence of wide publication which strictly may have required REVDELs. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark I don't understand much of what you are saying. To be honest, I generally have a great deal of trouble deciphering your replies and usually give up. I don't understand why you would create a page about Monisha Shah in the Hindi Wikipedia while there was a deletion discussion going on. Is she more notable if the words are translated to another language? You didn't add any Himdi sources. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to The Cloud of Unknowing. Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I am unable to see how that is helpful or productive. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 02:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark You used this article to source the sentence "Shah joined BBC Worldwide (BBCW - a commercial sales and distribution arm of the BBC) in 1999." (as translated back to English). I am not able to view the contents of that article. Are you able to view it? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark I am waiting for your response before taking this further. The same source was used on the page here so this isn't just about your Google-translated Hindi version. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we at English Wikipedia have absolutely no control or influence on what happens at Hindi Wikipedia. All the different language Wikipediae are completely separate entities, each with their own rules and way of doing things. I'm not necessarily in favor of that, but what else can we do? I doubt many of us here speak Hindi, so mostly people have to work these things out on the articles and policy pages of their respective sites. That said, the rules and formats of different writing styles is universal, and allows us to accurately evaluate sources and articles from other languages even with tools as crude as google translate. The core tenets of journalism and other forms of expository writing goes back to medieval times. This all really started with encyclopedic writing, which originated even farther back in the first century with Pliny the Elder, who is the father of the modern encyclopedia.

The problem, even in English Wikipedia, is convincing everybody else of this, and believe you me, it is something I struggle with every time I come to these forums. Good luck getting uniformity across all sites if we can't even forge it on one. (I mean it. Go for it, and the best of luck! Someone needs to fight the good fight, and maybe someday, once society as a whole has grown past the stage of a self-centered 5 year-old child, we will. But I foresee that as a long and arduous journey.) Zaereth (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not trying to influence all of Hindi Wikipedia, just the actions of one particular editor from right here on English Wikipedia. I feel like that might be an achievable goal. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, actually I wasn't talking to you, or, at least not to you in specific. You can tell by the way I indented. That was more of a general statement. In any debate on Wikipedia, or actually any debate in life in really, it is going to be nearly impossible to convince your opponent. People just have this odd human-tendency to dig in their heels and resist any attempt to get them to see a different viewpoint. We all at times lose sight of the forest for the few trees right in front of our face, and once someone is dug into their little hole it can be next to impossible to get them to rationally consider alternate possibilities. In any debate, the people you really need to convince is everybody else. All those hundreds of people who are reading this and not commenting ... yet. Those are who you should be talking to.

Now, it sounds to me --by your own admission just now-- that this isn't really about improving either encyclopedia. It sounds a lot more like you have a WP:AXE to grind, and that is going to come around to bite you if you're not careful. Just FYI. (I hear on Hindi Wikipedia they still cut off your hands for that :-) Zaereth (talk) 04:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Zaeretg, your *joke* "(I hear on Hindi Wikipedia they still cut off your hands for that :-)" is quite offensive and inappropriate. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 04:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

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.

Tom Devine

I am concerned with the promotional tone of Tom Devine, which is little more than a collection of awards and promotional phrases "oldest and most prestigious Professorial Chair in that field", "retirement celebration focused on a discussion of his career with former Prime Minister Gordon Brown in a sell out event in the University's McEwan Hall.Messages of congratulation were received from the Prime Minister of the UK and the First Minister of Scotland", "the nation's preeminent historian ...an academic tornado from early in his career", etc. Very little material about his actual work. Most of this material added by a succession of IPs, and gets re-added if I remove it. I added a "promotional tone" tag which was promptly removed without explanation by IP. Has previously been raised on this board Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive329#Tom Devine. Pinging @Textualism: and @Wallyfromdilbert: who were involved then. I rather suspect some COI editing is behind the IPs. DuncanHill (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Agree, the article was flagged a long time ago as reading more like a CV than an article about a living person. Suspect the anonymous IP editors have a COI or are the actual subject in question ~~~ Textualism (talk | contribs) 16:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• From a quick look, I'd have to agree with DuncanHill's assessment. A great deal of stuff about awards etc, and next to nothing about why he deserves them. I'm inclined to believe, based on their shear volume, that he quite likely does, and it would seem rather a disservice to our readers not to explain why. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• I've warned the latest IP that's been removing the "promotional tone" tag somewhat more sharply than you did, Duncan. Then I thought I'd remove some of the WP:NOTCV-violating material (especially the details about his father's education and career - honestly - and the cute specification of who his wife is, namely "Lady Devine"). But no, I have now acted as an admin at the page, by warning him about potential blocking, and by fully intending to block him if it comes to that, so I shouldn't edit it. The IPs are all the same /64 range, so can easily be blocked if the disruption continues. Better than semi, at least as an initial action. Bishonen | tålk 18:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC).

Indeed, AndyTheGrump. Here's a little content on a little bit of the subject's works, in a little brown box, from reviews of said work:

Hello Drmies. Another little brown box. We have an academic whose works aren't being discussed in the article at all by the looks of things but whose biography is full of unnecessary peacockery (c.f. Special:Diff/1030686643/1082338262) about awards and chairs (whose own articles are surely enough to tell one about them) and whose subject is talking (via OTRS) about "My CV" on the article talk page. That's just 2 reviews, Drmies. JSTOR has 3 pages of book review results. Uncle G (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

An IP claiming to be Devine has started a thread at WP:AN. [1] I've responded there, and linked this discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• I hear you, Uncle, but I really do not want to be doing any favors here, not even for the greater good--this is so blatant and careless. Professors, teachers, should know better. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
  • True. But I know that you're good for some puffery removal. Uncle G (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

That article was in a very sorry state indeed: peacockery, sourcing to autobiography, text just lifted wholesale from the sources, partial citations, hidden unsourced parts where the source only applied to the final sentence, false sourcing where the sources didn't support the content, and even outright false content in one instance. I've cleaned out all of the peacockery, with a little help from Cullen328 who has also done the introduction, marked the things that in fact did not have sources, and put the little brown box in. I leave the decision on removing the cleanup tag to DuncanHill, User:Textualism, et al.. I'll put some more in from the 1st page of JSTOR results in a little while; but that was almost 8 hours of my time cleaning up bad biography. Uncle G (talk) 07:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I have gone beyond the first page. I thought that you should probably know. Scotland owes me some articles. Uncle G (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

bis

There are a series of inaccuracies in my bio and gross imbalances in the reviews of my books.I request access asap to correct these errors.

Prof Emeritus Sir Tom Devine.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:1394:9C00:3C1A:3760:1D75:4D32 (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC) 

That isn't going to happen because (a) we have no way of knowing that you are Devine, and (b) we have policies regarding editing, which don't include individuals controlling the content of biographies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• The real Tom Devine wouldn't have done Special:Diff/926368662/953734739 erasing the name of xyr predecessor. Uncle G (talk) 01:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'd rate the chances of this IP actually being Devine about the same as it being Shergar. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
    • IMO for various reasons I won't go in to here, best not to speculate. To the original poster: regardless of who you are, you need to articulate specific problems with the article that we can look in to. Maybe find one or two specific sentences that you feel are the worst and a brief description of why. The article has already been worked on extensively by Uncle G an experienced editor and I think been looked at by others so there's not any obvious problems to us. As others have said, there's no guarantee we will be able to change anything since we have to go by our own guidelines and policies on what content we include, and do not change articles just because the subject of the article, or someone else, objects. Also normally here at BLPN, it doesn't matter whether you are who you say you are. precisely for the reason that it's irrelevant, there's either a problem with the article or there is. But in this case given your high profile and that you have been very active before, it's probably better if you WP:create an account and contact the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team with the specific purpose of verifying your identity if you are going to continue to identify as Tom Devine. Nil Einne (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
      • You're not caught up on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Tom Devine. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
        • I was aware of that thread it actually adds to my concerns about speculation. I didn't see clear articulation of problems with the article there either, and as I understand it, after some confusion it appears their identity wasn't verified in the older contact with the VRT. It was already suggested they should verify their identity there, IMO it's reaching the point where for various reasons they should either do it, or stop claiming to be Tom Devine. They can still talk about problems with the article without having to make such statements. Nil Einne (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
          • As I said at Special:Diff/1082995292 I am certain that these IP addresses are not the article subject. Claiming to be the article subject and trying to inject puffery into the article should indeed stop. foundation:Terms of Use/en#4. Refraining from Certain Activities are being violated. I hope that the person doing it sees sense and just stops. And Scotland does indeed owe me some articles. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Rampal

Should we be using his own sites for sources? See refs 13 and 46. Doug Weller talk 15:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it's fine as it's attributed and WP:ABOUTSELF. Rampal claims to be an incarnation of Kabir, whom he considers to be the supreme god. is fine sourced to himself and a secondary source, and everything cited to 13 is attributed with According to his official biography... Rampal states... I did clarify a little bit, to make it more clear in the last paragraph of the section where 13 is used. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

This was my gut reaction as well, although I will admit the heavy involvement of Swami Ramdevanand in the "official biography" leaves me with some qualms. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks all. Doug Weller talk 11:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Barry Smolin

A while back, I included some sexual harassment allegations in this article. Smolin is a mildly popular radio host and high school teacher, so I thought the first bit qualified the sexual harassment allegations for inclusion. Xxanthippe reverted the additions, but I reverted their revert and discussion never commenced. Since then, several editors pointed out to me that the inclusion (and the reversion) ignored the nuance of due weight given the profile of the subject, and therefore still fell somewhat afoul of BLP. I was still personally ambivalent for a while, so I left it alone. Revisiting this, I think it's pretty clear that the amount of detail I gave to it—while not intentionally larger than every other section—was far too much for a BLP. I've cut out most of the detail, but I'll leave it to this place to decide whether it should be included at all. So, late to the party, but at least I'm here. Thanks very much! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC) also see Alexander Hamilton High School (Los Angeles)#Misconduct

If you argue that he is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and it seems like he is, every detail of the allegation needs to be supported by multiple reliable sources. The mutual coverage dictates the depth of detail you should include. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Anybody can make allegations about anything against anybody. Wikipedia should not report allegations until they are proven by admission or by a court of law. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC).

While I absolutely agree that we should be careful and have a high bar for such information, an absolute ban would not work by my lights. Sometimes accusations receive so much attention in reliable sources that Wikipedia would be delinquent not to mention them. Michael Jackson would be one example for me, but there are others. Still, as I say, I agree with the spirit of your comment. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

In my view the event doesn't warrant mention at all, and certainly should not be tacked onto the lead. Remember Wikipedia isn't a place for everything, and not a newspaper. Newspapers state what happens today, regardless of long-term significance ("Joe Blow enjoys peanut butter sandwich at new deli"). Wikipedia articles should not mirror the myopic daily journalism tone of "as of X he has not responded". I don't yet see a long term significance for encyclopedic inclusion: The LA Times article says "He has not faced any criminal charges related to the allegations and it’s unclear if there was a police investigation." The CBS article says "accused". There appears to have been a 2 day spike of breaking news (WP:RSBREAKING), but 1 year later I find zero follow-up coverage to evaluate due wight and biographical relevance: did he lose his career? Was he exonerated? Convicted? If we can't answer the "so what" of a statement, it probably shouldn't be in an article, as it looks tacked on for the mere sake of pedantry at best. "Joe ate a peanut butter sandwich" might be a verifiable fact, but unless the follow-up is "Joe then died because of his peanut allergy", it shouldn't be in a biography. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Animalparty!. There have been no charges thus far. I have a feeling there won’t be anymore reporting on this. Thriley (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

well, hang on; the Marion Vree case at the same school received follow-up coverage—the lawsuit was settled out of court. And Vree isn't as notable as Smolin. It's entirely possible that there will be new coverage, it'll just take time, lawsuits take time. I'm not saying that's a reason to keep; we could always wait for said coverage to materialize. But it should be kept in mind that the story probably isn't over. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

(Redacted) Thriley (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

For transparency, I have redacted the above comment by Thriley on grounds of potential disclosure of personal information relating to Theleekycauldron — please do not reinstate this information. ~TNT (talk • she/her) 17:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I recall that information was on Leeky’s page until a few months ago. I think it is relevant to the discussion here. Thriley (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I just checked. I guess I just assumed that when I saw Hamilton and Smolin mentioned on their page. Thriley (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree with Animalparty. PUBLICFIGURE is pretty clear it is an exception for celebrities and people of similar public interest. In addition, the policy clearly states that there should be very wide and ongoing coverage of the event, to the extent that there is no point in trying to protect their right to be innocent until proven guilty thus we would be remiss in not covering it as well. That is the most important thing, because most people who become celebrities do so knowing full well they're giving up their standard rights to privacy, but sometimes even regular people are pulled into the spotlight and reach celebrity status for things like criminal acts alone. Examples would be the likes of Charles Manson or any of his gang, or Mary Kay Letourneau. Still, if you look at the sheer level of coverage they got, and how it was ongoing from start to completion, then we would be remiss in not covering them as well. None of that is the case here. This looks like an allegation that received only a smattering of coverage and was quickly forgotten by the media, due to low public interest, and as such we should not be covering it either. Zaereth (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I have to say that I am disturbed by how many attempts are made to make Wikipedia into an attack site. Users should take WP:BLP very seriously. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC).

sam rents

I added factual information based that is backed uo by multiple articles of very reputable sources but it still wants to revert my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conservative cheese ball (talk • contribs) 13:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

For context this is the edit in question [[2]].--65.92.163.109 (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Jamie-Lee O'Donnell

Jamie-Lee O'Donnell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

With the new series of Derry Girls airing, some more eyes on this article would be welcome so it doesn't continually fall to me to remove a claimed date of birth.

For some background see Talk:Jamie-Lee O'Donnell#Age. There's an age of 33 on 27 May 2020, 28 on 2 August 2019, "20-something" on 18 January 2018, 34 on 1 January 2022, 29 on 6 January 2022. So it's a complete mess, and per WP:BLPDOB we are supposed to follow If multiple independent reliable sources state differing years or dates of birth in conflict, the consensus is to include all birth dates/years for which a reliable source exists, clearly noting discrepancies. In this situation, editors must not include only one date/year which they consider "most likely", or include merely a single date from one of two or more reliable sources. Original research must not be used to extrapolate the date of birth. I personally prefer to take the path of slightly less resistance and leave it out completely, but others may disagree.

Despite all this we still get editors adding their preferred date of birth. Only last night I had to revert this attempt (from an editor with 32,000+ edits no less). Upcoming Season may look vaguely reliable at first glance, but since their Facebook page has 23 likes I'm incldined to see it's garbage. I have no idea who "MakDPostmodern" on Twitter is and don't much care, that an editor with 32,000+ edits thinks it's acceptable for referencing in a BLP boggles the mind. Dayto News (somewhat alarmingly, all content has vanished from their live website) only said 30-year-old Jamie-Lee in an article dated 7 April 2022, so of no use for an actual date of birth.

Absent a consensus to the contrary, I believe the best option is to exclude the age completely. FDW777 (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Anna Khachiyan

An IP editor has been insisting that Anna Khachiyan is not a writer, but a Twitter user. Assistance would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Two IP editors actually. Thriley (talk) 03:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I reverted to writer since at least there's something in the body about it although it's only a single screenplay. Other than being a very dumb description, there's zero mention of Twitter in the body. Frankly it's probably best to simply leave it at podcast co-host since that seems to be what she's notable for at least going by the current version of our article. Nil Einne (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Nina Elgo

Numerous, repeated libelous edits made under personal information. Appears to be the same person under two in addresses. Nina Elgo

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_F._Elgo&action=edit&section=5&editintro=Template%3ABLP_editintro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckriesen (talk • contribs) 18:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the vandalism and watchlisted the article. Thanks for the heads up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Favonian was kind enough to semi protect for three months, as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Lack (executive)

The page about Andrew Lack (executive), the former chairman of NBC News, is riddled with inaccuracies and bias. I’ll focus just on the statements about Ronan Farrow. FYI, I have declared COI as a consultant being paid by NBC News.

First, In the Career section, NBCUniversal (2015-2020) subsection, the third and fourth sentences read:

Farrow also reported that Lack had ordered Richard Greenberg to scuttle reporting on the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse cases because "it was an Andy decision."  Farrow later published his work in The New Yorker. 

The cited Variety story says Farrow had been told to stop reporting while his reporting was being reviewed by NBC News. It does not say Lack ordered Richard Greenberg to “scuttle reporting.” “Scuttled” would mean an order had been given to cease the reporting entirely, not that the matter was under review. Variety says Farrow didn’t “believe” NBC would run the story after the internal review. Farrow would not have to “believe” what might happen next had the matter been settled.

Furthermore, the language on Wikipedia accepts (a distorted version) of Farrow’s allegations as fact without balancing it with high-quality press coverage about NBC News' vehement refutation. New York Times ("[Farrow's allegations are] built on a series of distortions, confused timelines and outright inaccuracies.”) Washington Post (“...Farrow has distorted, exaggerated and flat-out lied in his account of NBC’s actions..”)

New York Times media reporter Ben Smith also reported that Farrow made the accusations about NBC News without proof. Smith also read Farrow's last NBC News script and confirmed it had no on-the-record sources. New York Times (“[Farrow] often omits the complicating facts and inconvenient details... At times, he does not always follow the typical journalistic imperatives of corroboration and rigorous disclosure, or he suggests conspiracies that are tantalizing but he cannot prove.”)

The actual events are more nuanced and require a more thorough review of press coverage than a single Variety story. If it is to be included, a balanced version might be:

Lack and other NBC News executives were accused by Ronan Farrow, in his book “Catch and Kill”, of slowing and eventually obstructing Farrow’s seven month investigation into Harvey Weinstein. NBC News denied Farrow’s allegations, saying Farrow’s reporting at NBC News was not ready for publication in large part because he did not have anyone on the record.  On October 10, 2017, The New Yorker ran a story by Farrow about Weinstein with seven named women accusing him of sexual misconduct. 

BC1278 (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

This looks like whitewashing to me, so this is declined forever. Quetstar (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you can't just decline forever. NPOV days we should be covering all significant viewpoints, Which the NBC refutations certainly are, and there is plenty of coverage of them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

For me, neutrality is paramount. And when it comes to controversial articles like this one, I belive that paid editors should stay away from them. Quetstar (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Quetstar: If you wish to reverse well-established Wikipedia policy that allows those with a declared conflict of interest to participate on Wikipedia, you should draft such a proposal. The BLPN noticeboard is not the place for such debates and distracts from the merits of the discussion. I will note that in cases like this -- involving potentially libelous statements on a BLP -- policy says a COI editor can simply remove the passage directly. I've brought it here so independent editors with an interest in BLP can discuss and decide. BC1278 (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Howard Doyle Berry

Yo, I've been libeled! Seriously, like I've libeled, had my name dragged through the mud! Th accusses me of like a murder! This so-called 'article' here Satan's Choice–Popeyes War like sayys 'Howard "Pigpen" Berry, a notorious Hitman of the Satan's Choice opened fire on the clubhouse of the Popeyes Motorcycle Club with a sawed-off Lee–Enfield .303 bolt action rifle with a ten-round clip, killing one member of the Popeyes motorcycle club and injuring two more'. Like yo, I like never killed anybody like ever! Like never like any like once in a while! Yeah, this is a lie about Pigpen! It doesn't even sayy who I like was supposed to have liked killled. Like if I like killled anybody, shouldn't it like name the guy I like killled? Just go to page 73 of Peter's book. He tells the truth. like here [3] He's the real deal. And he certainly does not say that I killed anybody, like what this so-called 'article' like says about me! Like this article lies about me and it like makes Peter sound like a liar because it is like quotes Peter's book and makes it sound like Peter sayys I killed somebody. What Peter actually says if you like go to his book is 'Kirby said he was in Montreal when Pigpen opened fire on the Popeyes clubhouse with a sawed-off .303 with a ten-round clip "It was like a cannon going on" Kirby said'. Like Peter does NOT sayy I likke killed or wounded anybody! Like I'm going to contact my lawyer about like suing you if you know what I mean!!!

Drop the last line, since we can discuss here or you can go to court, but not both. With that said, the source does seem to be taken out of context and the article is going further than the source material supports.Slywriter (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Emmanuel Faber

In the last few days, material has been added which I think is contentious and unsourced (whether without reference or where the reference does not actually support the contentious statement). I have twice attempted to remove it, and also tried to explain the problem on the talk page of the editor who added the material. That editor reinstated the contentious and unsourced material. I am no legal expert but I guess the material might also be defamatory and libelous. Someone please help. Mrmedley (talk) 09:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, that's problematic. I have put the article back to what I think is the last good version, and have partial blocked User:Primeditor from the article itself; they may still contribute on the talk page. Black Kite (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Polonca Frelih

• Polonca Frelih (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An anonymous user is constantly inserting unsupported pro-Kremlin accusation to this person. Please stop him changing this biography with unsubstatiated claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irrevocabile tempus (talk • contribs) 10:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Jami Floyd

New York journalist Jami Floyd has been the subject of allegations that some of the work she has published over the last ten years has used information that was unattributed. Coverage is here: Columbia Journalism Review. Current. The difference between publishing "unattributed information" and plagiarism is hazy to me. I guess publications are staying away from saying it absolutely for now. Floyd herself has posted on the article's talk page and is making suggestions. I am wary of using what she has proposed. I think these allegations should be thoroughly covered in several paragraphs so nothing is lost in the timeline. I don't normally get involved with issues like this and would appreciate assistance from those that do. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• The article has need of experienced BLP editors. I've started trimming WP:PROMO material cited to unreliable sources (IMDB, a copyvio YouTube video) but it's likely there's more to do. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• The section header was inappropriate. This is another part of the person's career, and doesn't belong outside of that, especially with wording that is at the core of the difference here. Just blamming news reportage in under new top-level headings, like "Controversies", "Legal troubles", and so forth, has been the cause of so much trouble over the years. (Much like "Trivia" and "In popular culture", in fact.)

  The text could do with some work here. The IP address has a point, but equally the IP address's suggested text seems one-sided. Although https://nypost.com/2022/04/04/wnycs-jami-floyd-accused-of-plagiarism-in-45-articles-dating-back-to-2010/ is another NYP piece, it seems that it's sourcing in the main to the CJR pieces, which include https://www.cjr.org/special_report/audrey_cooper_wnyc_public_radio_merger.php , and carefully using standard weaselling tactics such as "accused of", "allegedly", and "claimed" with its only other source. Current is also sourcing to the CJR in large part, with added material from the union. So the CJR pieces would seem to be the things to be reading here, not someone else's reporting of what the CJR reported.

  In that light, note that the CJR piece says two things which should not be conflated, the numbers of articles taken down, and the number of examples shown.

  Uncle G (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Libs of TikTok

This article, about a controversial Twitter account, contains some personal information about the manager of the account, statements about her intent ("to mock people") and a collection of her personal views, which are cleary there to discredit her. The whole page is loaded with recent controversy. It seems to be a thorny and charged issue, so I'm happy to leave this to more experienced editors. – St.nerol (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• I think that part of the problem with these sorts of articles is using "Controversy" in a section heading. It's one of those bad section headings like "Trivia" or "In popular culture". Bad structure leads to bad growth. "Trivia" and "In popular culture" leads to random mountains of largely unedifying factoids, as people think that that is what they should be adding. "Controversy" leads to more he-said/she-said stuff than simple facts. I've done a little restructuring, which I hope will help, but apart from strengthening a weak section start after moving stuff around I'm leaving the content and what the lead should say to others. Uncle G (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  • While I don't disagree with the general point, I think a bigger issue in this case is something akin to BLP1E. Our article was only created after the controversial Washington Post article and the only sources from before the Washington Post article are 2 about a week ago from the time of her suspension (one is the Federalist but seems to only be used for attributed opinions so I expect it's fine) and 1 from 2021 from PinkNews about something shared by the account and the resulting fall out from others. I had a very quick look at articles before 18 April using Google News and there's a bunch mostly from Fox News on her suspension. If I looked before April, most are either from unreliable sources like NY Post or the Federalist or other questionable sources like Distractify. And those that aren't look to just be brief mentions like the PinkNews one, about stuff the account shared or reposted or whatever I suspect with little or no commentary on the account itself. It's not strictly BLP1E since it arose from a Washington Post article on the account rather than an event per se, but it's a very similar principle where virtually the entirety of coverage is about that stuff. There was a Daily Dot article before the Washington Post one but it seems to have only been about a day before. The other thing is that the accounts raison d'etre seems to be to repost on Twitter of 280 character fame what it considers liberal craziness from Tik Tok so virtual everything it does is likely to generate controversy. This isn't like Slate Star Codex, or even Alex Jones or Cameron Slater where at least they tend write or talk a lot. Nil Einne (talk) 06:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

See also Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Libs_of_TikTok Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The reveal of he person behind the account is pretty much the central narrative. What the person posts on social media about (perceived) leftish outlandish happenings is almost secondary. ValarianB (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The way it was revealed is important and perhaps WP:BLPNAME matters, but if we keep the article then I suppose the name must stay, since it's by now widely disseminated and arguably it wasn't a single event since there have been multiple posts. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I think we should err on the side of removal. Remember that during the Trump administration there was a person who was reported to be a whistle blower inside the admin. If their name was even mentioned on Wikipedia the editor would be admonished and the name would be rev suppressed. As with this case, that name could be found in RSs. Unless the name is critical to understanding the event, and I'm not sure how it is, we shouldn't include it. I mean if the name were John/Jane Doe would it change the rest of the story or the controversy about how it was released? Springee (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Charles Lane

The Wikipedia biography about me Charles Lane (Journalist) is marred by negative information about me that is poorly sourced and inaccurate. Specifically, it asserts that I was fired from my job as Editor of the New Republic because my employer blamed me for the notorious Stephen Glass fabrication scandal. The only attribution for this is a busted link. The allegation is completely false as I know from personal experience. In addition, the controversies section is one-sided, out of date and clearly not written in good faith. After leaving this alone for many years, I have spent time this weekend attempting to correct the record but my edits keep reverting to the false and inflammatory information. Wikipedia should address this situation. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuzukaBlue (talk • contribs) 21:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Gonzalo Lira

Gonzalo Lira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is currently at AFD and looks like it is going to be kept. I am concerned about potential BLP issues in the article. Can someone else please review it? User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)