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.

Takarafuji Daisuke

Takarafuji Daisuke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article Takarafuji Daisuke states that Takarafuji is a sandanme (4th) division wrestler. This is false, he is competing in the highest division, makuuchi, fighting in the 2022 Nagoia basho right now. 2a02:810b:48bf:edcc:14d7:4806:f7df:73d3 13:03, 20 July 2022

The lead should reflect the article body, and the latter does say he competes in the makuuchi division, so I adjusted the lead accordingly. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS, WP:FRINGEBLP, and WP:PARITY

There's been some discussion on Talk:Kevin Knuth about using a WP:SPS to provide criticism on a BLP subject. I'm interested in broader community input on using SPS in WP:FRINGEBLP, and if that violates WP:BLPSPS, or if it can be acceptable because of WP:PARITY. This isn't particularly tied into Kevin Knuth, but it does provide an apt example.

I'm of the mind that FRINGEBLP specifically says that BLPs on fringe-related subjects must adhere to the BLP policy, which specifically forbids the use of SPS. Taking PARITY into account, I can see some instances where SPS might be usable, but it should be the absolute minimum usage necessary to provide context and balance. I'm very interested in the views of the community on this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP policy seems clear enough on this, and WP:FRINGEBLP explicitly states that WP:BLP has to be adhered to. Having to resort to questionable sources for content regarding fringe beliefs is generally an indication that discussion of such beliefs doesn't belong in an article in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Even WP: PARITY says that we don't suspend BLP for fringe topics. Upholding BLP is taking PARITY into account. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, to start with, that article reads like a resume. The first source is a university profile; a primary source but ok. Source 3 is a simple profile from "The Conversation", which is not much different from the university profile. Sources 2, 4-11 are all papers he has written.

Now, the way this is written is: we are saying he has written papers on such and such a topic, and then using the papers he has written as evidence. There is nothing from secondary sources. No peer reviews. Nothing even about what he has written. Just that he has written. This is just OR.

Source 12 is the same thing. We're using the website he's an editor of to prove he the editor. Source 13 is SciProfiles, which is just a list of his published works, not much different from 1 and 3. The last three sources are the only secondary sources we have!

As for the blog in question. No, that should not be used. But in looking at the article as a whole, it all just reads like a resume --even the UFO section! "He is vice president of..." "He is a member of..." "He has been quoted in..." But it doesn't really tell us anything about the person, does it? It's all stuff a future employer might be interested in, but as the reader I want to know what he believes in. What was he quoted as saying. I want to know if this is a person or just a collection of job qualifications. As written, I would have to support the nomination for deletion. I really don't see much for independent notability. Zaereth (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Zaereth, scholars are governed by WP:NPROF (if they meet the criteria), and therefore do not have to have secondary sources discussing them. This bio is typical of all academic biographies on people who don't also meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

A big problem here is that there has historically been a WP:CRYBLP faction that advocates for special treatment in living person articles that removes WP:PARITY-based criticism but allows for all sorts of poor sourcing to support their fringe activities because WP:BLPSPS says that self-published sources by the subject are okay as an exception. Thus the BLP becomes a WP:COATrack for fringe theories. See the problem? Perhaps a way out is to remove all sources that do not stand up to the WP:FRIND standard. If we avoid all sources that are not reliable for fringe claims in BLPs, this would solve a lot of problems. jps (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

SPS by the subject of a BLP are only ok for uncontroversial factual claims (typically degrees, job titles, and dates), not for anything that involves an opinion (the fringe theories in question, or even the fact that the subject has promoted these opinions). For instance, the self-sourced "Education" section of the Knuth BLP is fine, but the description of what research topics he is known for in the "Academic career" section, sourced only to his own publications, is more problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I can agree with that. My particular opinion of articles like these is that they usually become pseudobiographies that are all about the particular fringe theory rather than the person who believes in them. This is often a big problem with the BLPs for scientists and professors and the like, because we very often have little in the way of actual biographical info on the person themselves. So Wikipedia articles often become a vehicle for them to push their theories, fringe or otherwise-- and other works in the guise of a biography. In an article about a person we need to know what that person believes in to be able to understand them, because that's a part of who they are. We shouldn't promote those beliefs, but at the same time, in a bio I see no reason to try and refute those beliefs either. If the article were about the fringe topic, then sure, but it's not. It's supposed to be a bio about the person, so all I need to know is what they believe.

Now this article is different because it really doesn't tell me anything about his beliefs, or anything else that would give me insight into him as a person. There's nothing being promoted and thus nothing to refute. Zaereth (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps a way out is to remove all sources that do not stand up to the WP:FRIND standard. If we avoid all sources that are not reliable for fringe claims in BLPs, this would solve a lot of problems. This is an inspired idea that I can completely get behind.

Either we note that the guy's a UFO proponent and move on, or we include details about his advocacy/beliefs, and treat those details according to WP:FRINGE, meaning WP:PARITY applies. Happy (Slap me) 21:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Knuth is best known for his advocacy of the notion that UFOs are most likely the work of aliens. His academic career is not the focus of RS coverage of him. His Newsweek opinion piece and The Conversation piece are cited in a number of media, usually with click-bait headlines about governments hiding evidence of aliens. His primary notability is in relation to his WP:FRINGE ideas and not his rather unremarkable academic career. If his bio survives, it shouldn’t be downplaying his ufology advocacy in favor of his non-notable academic works. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Then we use WP:FRINGE to guide how we write about his advocacy. The whole situations is remarkably simple, and I really don't understand the hand-wringing about this. There's no contradiction in the policy.

In this case, a well known skeptic commenting on Knuth's arguments isn't even addressing Knuth himself; he's addressing the arguments. As far as I can tell, BLP protections don't extend to arguments.

There's a world of difference between saying "X said something ridiculous" and "X is a ridiculous person". Happy (Slap me) 21:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

If we are writing about material in a BLP, it must comply with the sourcing requirements of BLP. We can't hide behind the excuse that when we write about some specific aspect of a living person, especially their beliefs, it is somehow not about the person. If we cannot provide neutral mainstream-POV sourcing for his beliefs, then per WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE we cannot cover those beliefs. If those beliefs are the only thing he is notable for, then we cannot cover him. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

when we write about some specific aspect of a living person, especially their beliefs, it is somehow not about the person. By that logic, English language is subject to BLP standards because it's about an aspect of [insert native English speaker of choice here].

We can't conflate every aspect that goes into defining a person with that person, unless we're going to subject the entire project to BLP standards. Knuth's beliefs aren't unique to him. They're shared by many others, and we even have an article on them. Happy (Slap me) 14:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

If we aren't talking about Knuth's individual beliefs it doesn't belong on Knuth's article. If we are talking about Knuth's individual beliefs then BLP applies. That others show similar beliefs and we can write a generalized article elsewhere does not mean we don't apply BLP to Knuth's individual beliefs. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

You are arguing now that a bio article cannot discuss beliefs a person shares with others. That covers religion, politics, etc.

What an amazing contortion of logic. Happy (Slap me) 21:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Take a look at a really good biography. Let's say ... Joe Biden, for example. Do you see how remarkably well-done it is? Now check out the section on his beliefs, titled "Political positions". Does it talk about a lot of other people's beliefs? Do we need to add Republican beliefs to make it "neutral", or other Democrat's beliefs to support them? No. It is just about the beliefs of the subject of the article. Why should this bio be any different? Zaereth (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I have never seen nor heard Knuth claim that all UAP are "aliens". That would clearly be preposterous. What he has said - quite clearly - is that the extraterrestrial hypothesis cannot be ruled out and should be considered as one possible explanation for some of the cases for which there is, as yet, no other feasible resolution. This approach is absolutely consistent with the scientific method. The Colavito quote in question blatantly misrepresents Knuth's words. This seems to be an effective tactic, since it'd appear that many now believe Colavito's misinterpretation of Knuth's statement represents the intent of the statement, despite that conclusion being absurd by any reasonable and objective reading of what Knuth actually said. Cosmoid (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

We aren't here to fight about whether Colavito is correct or not in his analysis (I happen to believe he is correct, but I'll leave that argument for another venue). The issue here is whether and how arguments from Knuth that are at least partial to allowing for the possibility of aliens being the result of UFO reports can be couched appropriately given that this position is so profoundly marginalized in the mainstream. It does the reader no good to pretend that this isn't the case. This is precisely why we have a WP:FRINGE guideline. It's because it's often the case that WP:PROFRINGE prose ends up being promoted if we aren't careful. jps (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

LuckyLouie stated "Knuth is best known for his advocacy of the notion that UFOs are most likely the work of aliens." This implies that Knuth believes that all UAP are the "alien" in origin - which is precisely the way that Colavito's comment, that provoked this discussion, misrepresented Knuth's position. The misrepresentation is clear. And that is why this is the place for that discussion. The offending comment was taken from the personal blog of someone with an agenda. As such, it should not have been included in the article. Cosmoid (talk) 01:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

By that argument, none of Knuth's commentary on UFO/UAPs which have, to the exclusion of none, all appeared in either self-published articles or articles in journals over which he has editorial control deserve inclusion. Removing that from the article makes the notability angle even harder to justify. jps (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Moreover, I'll add that I'd have accepted the less egregiously misrepresentative aspect of Colavito's criticism appearing in the article, for the sake of parity (even though I now see that violates rules on SPS). This is not about preventing factual critique of one notable aspect of Knuth's biography - it is about preventing the inclusion of deliberate misrepresentations of the subject of the biography, which were published by a critic on their personal blog. Cosmoid (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, there is no objective measure we can point to here to decide that you have successfully identified a "misrepresentation" here. I am fairly convinced that Colavito is not misrepresenting Knuth, but it is not the place of Wikipedia editors to make that determination one way or another. Otherwise we are doing original research. If you want to show that Colavito is misrepresenting Knuth, you'll have to find a source which indicates that. But this is rather beside the point. Deciding whether and how to include text and ideas in an article is subject largely to a question of relevance rather than the judgement of the editor that the rhetoric is sound, for example. jps (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Knuth actually stated "A scientist must consider all of the possible hypotheses that explain all of the data, and since little is known, the extraterrestrial hypothesis cannot yet be ruled out."

Those were his actual words. Please explain how anyone could reasonably arrive at the conclusion that Knuth was intending to convey that, as a scientist, he considers all UAP data indicates all UAP are "aliens". Good luck - because that is precisely not what he said. Cosmoid (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, this is beside the point. But briefly, the reason that Colavito correctly identifies Knuth as holding water for his predilection for a belief in aliens being the cause is because by his argument any extravagant hypothesis can't be ruled out. The fact that he focuses on the "I'm not saying it was aliens, but it was aliens" discussion is the basic name of the game and basically has always been that way. jps (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

No - that's the way you choose to interpret it, based on your biases. What Knuth actually stated - in so many words - is there for all to see. Knuth has never claimed that any UAP case was "aliens" as far as I have seen, never mind all UAP cases. He has stated that he's seen accounts and some evidential data that, in his view, merit investigation and that, in the small subset of UAP cases that appear to exhibit extraordinary capabilities and cannot be readily resolved, extraordinary solutions cannot be immediately ruled out. That is entirely reasonable and in concordance with scientific method.

Come on, be reasonable. The suggestion that Knuth would believe all UAP are "alien" in origin is utterly absurd. People like Colavito - and apparently yourself - may desire to put those words in his mouth. But, you're simply creating a straw man. By all means, criticise Knuth for what he actually said. But, it's extraordinarily disingenuous to infer that "he said this, but really he must have meant that" just so that you can fit him into a box of your own creation. Cosmoid (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

This may be the last time I respond to you since, again, this is not relevant to this discussion, but you aren't really dealing substantively with the point that the "U"-boosters entertain aliens because that's what interests them in spite of "U" taken at its most straightforward admitting literally any wild hypothesis. They rarely entertain, I don't know, huldufólk as a possible explanation, for example. Knuth sure doesn't. jps (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

To say Knuth isn’t pushing a fringe view is to ignore his many appearances on UFO conspiracy podcasts and the like. He’s even a featured speaker at events such as Phenomecon: Utah's Paranormal Conference "We Believe". - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

This chosen tactic of WP:PROFRINGE always perplexed me. They will, on the one hand, argue that they are being conservative in their proposals, but insist that they not be judged by the company they keep. "I don't agree with everything that is said at the woo-woo conference, but I think they deserve to be heard." We only have a limited amount of time in this mortal coil to entertain ideas. Why these ideas? They must find something they think is worth considering. The irony is that I do as well! It's just that I think agnotology is fascinating and they categorically reject the proposal that their pet idea falls under that umbrella! jps (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Appearances and even featured speaker status do not make someone notable. What has been written about him in reliable sources? I'm not talking about sources that simply quote him or use him for a soundbite. I mean, has any reliable sources taken enough notice to actually write about him?

Just to be clear, when people use the word "fringe" it is often done with a negative connotation, as if anything fringe is automatically something psychotic. When Alfred Wegener first proposed the theory of plate tectonics, he became the laughing stock of the scientific community. His theory was fringe at the time, but only because it hadn't been accepted yet, but now it's gospel. Ask any astronomer if they believe there is life somewhere out in the universe, and you'll get an almost unanimous "yes". With all the billions of stars surrounding trillions of galaxies, the odds are too great. Besides, it would give a great boost to the evolutionists to shove in the face of all those intelligent design-ers out there, and billions of dollars in space explorations is done in search of life. But you ask those same astronomers if we've been visited by spaceships, and most are likely to say the odds are greatly against it, although few would probably give you a direct no. I think Richard Feynman said it best:

Some years ago I had a conversation with a layman about flying saucers — because I am scientific I know all about flying saucers! I said "I don’t think there are flying saucers’. So my antagonist said, "Is it impossible that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it’s impossible?” “No”, I said, “I can’t prove it’s impossible. It’s just very unlikely”. At that he said, “You are very unscientific. If you can’t prove it impossible then how can you say that it’s unlikely?”

But that is the way that is scientific. It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible.

The problem is, these are all great opinions to have on the Flying Saucer article, where we can worry about parity and all those good things that any theory should really have. A biography about a person should be about the person. Take the J. J. Becher article, for example. This is what a biography should look like. Do we spend a lot of time promoting his phlogiston theory? Do we need to spend a lot of time debunking it? No. We save that for the phlogiston article and use the bio to describe the man.

And really, when you're talking about flying saucers and aliens, you're no longer in the realm of science but off into the realm of modern mythology. You may as well try to refute Jesus, Buddha, or Scientology. Those who believe will regardless of what you tell them, and those who don't, won't.

But this article is not about any of that. It's about a person, isn't it? This is yet another example of why I think we need much, much higher notability standards for BLP articles. We should never even create an article about a person unless we have enough biographical info to make a decent C or B-class article. That's what would save us a lot of these problems. Save stuff like this for the UFO articles and create a bio when secondary sources take an actual interest in the man himself. Zaereth (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly that we should make biographies only on people who have been discussed at great length in several SIRS. There really should never be a circumstance where a contemporary subject's death or criminal transgressions or other major events are not covered in multiple such venues. If we can only report on a small snippet of someone's life without relying on primary non-independent sources, that subject does not merit a standalone article because it can never hope to be neutral. JoelleJay (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• WP:BLPSPS cannot be used as done on Jess Phoenix. WP:PARITY does not enable someone to use SPS and personal blog posts to attack people personally. You can use that if the original source was not scientifically peer-reviewed to respond to it with equally unscientific, but still reliable, material. And BLP still applies, it is not suspended or in any way contradicted by the WP:COAT essay. Andre🚐 01:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Andrevan, theres nothing in WP:COAT that contradicts WP:BLPSPS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

If a person makes a fringe claim and that claim is included in their biography, then, per WP:BLPSPS that is allowed to be sourced directly to them. However, a similar SPS that criticized that claim would be removed. This means that the article becomes a coatrack. And I have seen this happen! The solution is either to (a) remove the fringe claim or (b) allow for the criticism. I see no alternative. I think (a) may be more palatable. jps (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The simple answer is to delete the fringe claim as well as the response to it, if the fringe claim was from an unreliable source to begin with. Maybe in some cases delete the whole article. I haven't looked at other examples other than Jess Phoenix so you can feel free to be more specific. Andre🚐 02:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with your idea of removing both. However, WP:BLPSPS indicates that the subject of the article can be used as a source for their own ideas and in the past was used on certain articles about global warming deniers. Tim Ball, Judith Curry, and Anthony Watts come immediately to mind as examples from the distant past. You might have to dig far back in the archives for how those arguments played out. jps (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Thats not what a WP:coatrack is, a coatrack is when you focus on tangential rather than directly related subjects, its not possible to use WP:SPS for WP:ABOUTSELF in a way thats tangential. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I've seen it done. jps (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it can be used as a source for statements about themselves like their own birthday. Not statements about external things like climate or the planet's warming. See the exception here, it's clearly spelled out: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves Andre🚐 02:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Its literally impossible to use a source for WP:ABOUTSELF and have it be tangential, SPS can only be used for "information about themselves" on the condition that "it does not involve claims about third parties;" so it does have to be about the subject of the article and therefore directly not tangentially related.Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I've seen the argument made, "This is just attesting to what the person believes. It's not attesting to the fact of the matter." The argument is that because it is their opinion, it's not a statement about external things. "John Doe believes the Earth is flat and argues extensively that gravity does not exist because he is able to fly.[cite to his blog]" That sort of statement has been argued to be okay because it's not asserting the fact, it's merely documenting what John Doe says was his opinion. Maybe we can say that sourcing a person's opinion to themselves is not okay if the opinion is somehow controversial. But that seems not to be quite where we are when it comes to WP:ABOUTSELF. jps (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

What the person believes is directly related, thats not tangential. It would be a WP:DUEWEIGHT issue and consensus may well be to not use the blog at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Exactly my point? I mean, what has happened here is that by changing the rhetorical syntax of the argument, it becomes "directly related". But the effect is that we now have a fringe theory being promoted as an opinion and our PAGs seem to be okay with that. jps (talk)

Your point is that you have fundamentally misunderstood and misapplied WP:coatrack which has nothing to do with the issue at hand? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Either you are being deliberately obtuse here in not understanding that covering a BLP subject's opinion can end up serving as a coatrack for that opinion, or you missed your own point. jps (talk) 11:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

OK, but nobody's making that argument now, right? And if they do, I will disagree with those people. Andre🚐 02:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate the support, and while I don't think it is happening right now, it's definitely something that will show up again at some point. That's why I think it would be nice if there was some policy statement that explained why it was the right thing to disagree. WP:ABOUTSELF gets almost there, but not quite. jps (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The exceptions for self-published sources aren't a free license to promote fringe theories - nor are they a carte blanche to use them to attack perceived peddlers of fringe theories either. Sources must be reliable - regardless. Self-published sources are sometimes reliable in certain contexts for certain limited information only. It's a very narrow exception, and consensus of editors will keep out the abuses. Andre🚐 02:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I am glad you have a faith in consensus of editors like that, but, as it is, I don't think it so cleanly gets resolved. jps (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Just don't use unreliable sources, for, or against fringe theories, and if you see them, remove them. Andre🚐 03:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I want to emphasize here that WP:BLPSPS makes an exception for sources that are by the subject of the BLP. What would normally not be "reliable" can and does get argued as being reliable. There isn't a clear explanation of this problem nor a satisfactory solution documented in the WP:PAGs right now. jps (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

If their opinion on a matter hasn't been covered in RS, it is not DUE and cannot be sourced to BLPSPS. That solves the issue entirely and is already supported by our P&Gs. JoelleJay (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I have seen instances where opinions were mentioned in RS in a somewhat off-handed way. "John Doe has famously supported the flat Earth![Impressive Newspaper of Record]" and then that gets used to launder the opinion into the article. jps (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

This reminds me of a big RfC we had[1] a while back about Michael Greger. The important outcome there I think was the consensus that

there indeed is a difference between commenting on someone's work and commenting on someone directly. Wikipedia uses a similar rule in discussions where users are required to comment on content and not the user writing it.

The nub of this issue is that editors sometimes mistakenly argue that a person's views, particularly scientific or science-adjacent views, somehow inherit the full protection of BLP as if those views were people. They don't, and fringe views need mainstream context wherever they appear, even in biographies, because NPOV (which is not negotiable) requires it. I wonder if we need to add something to BLP about saying this. Alexbrn (talk) 03:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

None of which refers to the content in this diff: [2] Andre🚐 03:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It might, it anybody claimed that a documentary enjoyed the protections of BLP. Documentaries do not inherit the BLP protections of the people who worked to make them. Alexbrn (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

No, the article is a BLP, it's a self-published attack blog post, so it was correct to remove it. The act of including this line on the person's article is the attack. She was affiliated with the production, but she is not the documentary. The criticism could potentially be on the documentary's article, but not cited to a self-published blog post. Andre🚐 04:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a common misunderstanding. The scope of BLP is "material about living persons" on any Wikipedia page (even here). A biography is typically a conflation of several notable topics, usually at least The Work of X and The Life of X but per WP:NOPAGE these are combined (sometimes for very large topics, they are separated). BLP applies to the material "about the living person"; it does not necessarily apply to their work/views/historical context/etc. This is the whole point of the RfC I linked ("there indeed is a difference between commenting on someone's work and commenting on someone directly". Alexbrn (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I think I'm not being clear. I agree that the work, and the person, are different. That is why it would be inappropriate to put a bunch of stuff, which frankly in this case is not even about its veracity: "worst, most incoherent, poorly written, and badly produced pseudohistory documentaries", about the documentary on a person's BLP. The person does not lose BLP protection from this undue opinion simply because it a fringe documentary - which, I mean, it sounds more like entertainment that vaguely masquerades as sciencey content. Saying that it's really bad, cited to some guy's blog with a BA in anthropology who has written a few self-published books, that has nothing to do with the case of the RFC you cited. Andre🚐 04:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

There may be an argument the material is undue, but if the criticism of the documentary may be admissible somewhere, with no BLP issue (as you acknowledge it might be) is is admissible on the biography page, with no BLP issue. The scope of BLP is explicitly "material about living persons", it is not "the entire HTML page which is a biography". Again, this relates back to the RfC I linked the upshot of which was that it admissible to use a blog to debunk scientific misinformation from somebody even it it's on their "biography" page. TL;DR - BLP applies to content, not to pages. Alexbrn (talk) 04:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The diff in question is not debunking anything, it's just trashing it. Andre🚐 04:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, I'm unfamiliar with the documentary but obviously the one guy quoted seems to think it's pretty bad. That's a conversation you involved editors can have between yourselves. My point is simply that criticism of a documentary cannot be excluded with a kind of BLP trump card; that's WP:CRYBLP stuff. Alexbrn (talk) 04:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

If the criticism were from a reliable source, not a self-published blog. Just because the documentary is about Atlantis stuff doesn't mean you get to add all the self-published blogs that said it was poorly written and badly produced, and claim that was equivalent to an expert scientific opinion debunking misinformation. That itself is a real twist of BLP vs reasonable critique of work. Andre🚐 04:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

What criticism is WP:DUE or WP:RS is another question (and not one I intend to get into). My point simply was that a documentary is not protected from adverse criticism by WP:BLP, and making mention of a documentary within a biography is not a way to protect it with some kind of magical BLP forcefield. Alexbrn (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you're the one who is confused, the scope of our BLP policy is "material about living persons" on any Wikipedia page but a page can also *be* a BLP (a biography of a living person), as the one here is. "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy... This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It's possible for a page to be a "pure" bio, yes. But it's more often the case that a BLP is a mixture. This was the issue at the centre of the big RfC I linked. Alexbrn (talk) 04:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

In this context what do you think? Is that an appropriate use of the source? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I have no view on that (I don't really "do" Atlantis). But this is BLPN so I was concerned about the policy aspect here. Alexbrn (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

If their opinion received coverage sufficient for not only DUE but also the stricter sourcing reqs for contentious content, then a general RS rebutting that opinion in general (e.g., "[opinion][ref], a view that is widely rejected by the scientific consensus on climate change[ref]") may be used as non-awkwardly as possible if leaving it unchallenged would violate FRINGE. And an RS that meets BLP standards may also be used with attribution to rebut that specific person's comment. However, IMO if a topic appears fringe but there aren't any sources generally or specifically discounting it, then either it's not actually fringe or it's such a minor perspective as to be UNDUE even with media repeating it. JoelleJay (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

While material about the living person requires "an RS that meets BLP standards", material about their work does not necessarily. This (again) is the whole point of that huge RfC I linked, which also commented that BLP policy as drafted (then and now) is amenable to multiple interpretations, but that it does not preclude the use of blogs in biographies ("if policy is meant to stop these sources [i.e. blog posts] from getting included, it should be fixed to avoid such ambiguity"). Alexbrn (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The exception is quite narrow for parity: countering unscientific sources with other unscientific sources. The exception for self-published blog posts is very narrow and applies to debunking claims by a known scientific expert. It isn't a general permission to use unreliable sources. RS still applies. Andre🚐 18:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to base policy interpretation on a 6-year-old RfC that took place on some guy's talk page... My position is that FRINGE claims just shouldn't be repeated if we don't have both exceptional sourcing for them and criticism of them in indisputably reliable sources. We're cautioned against using expert SPS for even clearly non-BLP content, I don't think it's a stretch to handle them much more cautiously when they're direct responses to statements by a BLP even if they're not passing value judgments specifically on the person. JoelleJay (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

In other words, you don't like the consensus so you'll agree with yourself. The RfC was on an Article talk page, drew participation in the normal way and from this very noticeboard.[3] It drew wide participation including from admins who helped write BLP (which is even older than 6 years). It confirmed BLP was unclear on this question, and it has not got any more clear in this respect since 2016. Editors cannot change unclear policy to clear policy through force of will: either the policy needs to be redrafted or we proceed by RfC. This 2016 is the most recent RfC on this question. Alexbrn (talk) 05:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not doubting the consensus from the RFC, but it doesn't apply in every case. It applies in a very narrow case. Andre🚐 05:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

That RfC that was advertised as a specific narrow BLPSPS question regarding a particular person. Even if it evolved into a broader query on the topic or received modest participation, we just cannot generalize consensus from policy discussions that were not initiated or advertised as general questions in a central location. Given that the result was apparently "this is ambiguous", BLP would seem to encourage defaulting to the most cautious interpretation until clarity is actually established. JoelleJay (talk) 06:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The conclusion was also that the specific argument some editors are trying to deploy, is not supported by policy. By all means start another RfC or propose a policy amendment; but don't argue that policy says something it does not. The "default" is to obey NPOV, Wikipedia's central pillar, when dealing with fringe views. That policy is not ambiguous. Alexbrn (talk) 06:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

jps argued at AfD that there were insufficient reliable sources for this article and I agree, although I did not participate in the AfD. But I don't think that means we can lower the bar for rs to include criticism, even if that makes the article less POV. It's better to reduce the article to a stub, try again for AfD and hope that rs appear in future. We could also try to merge the article into one whose topic is notable. There is nothing btw to prevent us from developing an article about the theories that Knuth and others promote. TFD (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Stubbifying is another way of saying "remove all mention", I guess. I think the problem comes when we host an article and the primary notability is the fringe promotion, as is the case here. The question then becomes what is an appropriate source for criticism. WP:FRIND seems to argue that if there is no criticism, then it does not belong. WP:BLPSPS seems to argue that if the criticism is all self-published, then there is no criticism. That would mean removing the fringe promotion entirely from biographies if that was the case. It would be nice if this were spelled out. jps (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we need to spell this out further. If there are indeed biographies that are fringe coatracks, you should trim them heavily and remove self-published source material. In situations where you do want to use the parity argument, it does exist to be used to counter fringe material. However it is not a free license to use self-published blogs to generally attack the credibility of anyone in the orbit of the fringe world. It's a narrow exception used to counter specific fringe claims. If a claim isn't there, it doesn't need to be countered. Andre🚐 17:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Billie Lynn Daniel

Hello, Someone created this Wikipedia page regarding my mother, Billie Lynn Daniel, and I'd like to correct (edit) several errors. First and foremost, Billie Lynn Daniel- though a notable NYC classical singer- is no longer living. She passed away in 2002. I'd like to create a new page that isn't under the restrictions of a "biography of LIVING persons".

Thank you, Andrea Frierson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scriptdiva (talk • contribs) 03:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Scriptdiva. Thanks for bringing up the issue. I edited the article to note her 2002 passing. Someone with more user rights than me can change the BLP edit notice. Please read and adhere to WP:COI; I don't think a new article needs to be created, but the policy has some content on how to do so. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not necessary to have more rights, anyone who can edit the page can effectively remove the edit notice Template:BLP editintro which was injected due to the presence of the Category:Living person tag [4]. Scriptdiva a particularly important part of COI in this case beyond the recommendation you avoid making edits directly and instead post on the talk page asking for changes is we still need reliable sources for any additions you wish to make. We cannot rely on your own personal knowledge of what is correct. If any of the existing information is not sourced we can remove it in any case and especially if you say it's wrong but it gets trickier if it is sourced. Nil Einne (talk) 07:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Chinelo Okparanta

I’m reporting an act of repeated vandalism to the biography page of author Chinelo Okparanta.

This is a repeat of vandalism that Wikipedia moderators previously dealt with in 2018. The page has previously been given protected status because of tampering in the form of a repeatedly added “controversies” section. You can see a note in the Talk section by editor Yunshui in 2018, stating that they are “in favor of leaving it out” because “the only sources provided so far have fallen woefully short of WP:RS” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chinelo_Okparanta).

It was recently added again, and I removed it in an edit today. The section in question is labeled ‘“Benji"/"Corrie" controversy.’ It claims that there were allegations of plagiarism against Okparanta, but provides no references for that claim. The only source cited is an interview with Okparanta regarding a story she published in the New Yorker. There is no mention of plagiarism or controversy in the source cited.

This clearly violates the following sections of Wikipedia rules around biographies of living persons:

“Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[b] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons)

The added section provides no evidence for the claim of “controversy,” the material is clearly an attempt at sensationalism, and harm to the living person has not been considered.

According to the guidelines on biographies of living persons, “All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.”

Since no citation exists to support the claim of a controversy, the section ‘“Benji"/"Corrie" controversy’ should be removed immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icykuiperbelt (talk • contribs) 14:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

You're correct in removing that material. The source says nothing about plagiarism, and we need very good sources to make such a claim. Having "parallels" is not uncommon, nor does that fall under the definition of plagiarism, or we wouldn't be able to do what we do at Wikipedia. If that were the case then West Side Story would be plagiarized from Shakespeare, and people like Weird Al wouldn't be able to do parodies. If this problem persists, then your best bet would be to report it at WP:ANI, or request page protection at WP:RFPP. Zaereth (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Aaron Parnas

I have protected this article due to an edit war. An editor asked me to remove a section of text, and I have done part of it per BLP because the claim doesn't appear to be supported by the cite and suggests impropriety. However I can't read the cite for the first part of the disputed paragraph, as it is inaccessible in Europe per GDPR. If anyone else would like to have a look and see if it is OK, it would be appreciated (actually, looking at the whole article might be good). Black Kite (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The source, CNN, I would rate about as reliable for for political news as Fox News is. The source is basically a "gotcha' article typical of political rhetoric. To break it down, it's basically "Trump says he doesn't know the subject, but the subject was seen at campaign rallies and attended golf tournaments that Trump was at, etc." It's only about the subject in as much as it's about calling Trump a liar. However, it does seem to support the cited sentence. I don't know what the point is we're trying to make with it, though, and the nature of the source makes me think we can do better. Zaereth (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

FYI: RFC about Mandy

Regarding inclusion of denials in BLPs, the essay WP:MANDY argues against inclusion if it would have been obvious that the person would deny. WP:BLP says denials generally should be included. This tension is the subject of an RFC now at the Mandy talk page. The proposal is to put a template atop the essay, making users aware of the tension between Mandy and policy. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Brett Weinstein & Heather Weinstein

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.

---

To Whom It May Concern,

I am completely disappointed in Wikipedia. It was one place that I thought we could all come to find truth.

The way that the biographies were changed on Brett Weinstein and Heather Weinstein is a complete farce. Regarding covid treatments, there are THOUSANDS of doctors who agree with Weinstein and for Wikipedia to choose a few Doctors to quote that fit what "they" believe or perhaps fit with whatever the person who "payed" them to write such slanderous things. These writers who do not write factual information should feel ashamed of themselves. It is really sad that no outlets can be trusted anymore. I hope that Wikipedia comes back to the Respected Encyclodedia that we knew we could rely on and trust, but for now the trust is gone.

The truth has come out about the Covid Shot (not a vaccination) and all the lies that have been told and there isn't anything that Wikipedia and any other news outlet can do to stop it. There have been so many covid shot deaths and injuries, how can Wikipeida close their eyes and deny that? Also, thousands of doctors agree that Ivermectin is part of a useful treatment for covid. Any critical thinker would agree that it would be extremely stange for thousands of doctors to say that ivermectin has helped their patients if it were not true. There is no money to be made by these doctors, in fact many of them have been bullied and threatened for it.

Just please do some critical thinking, follow the money and see who stands to make money. Hopefully, Wikipedia still has a chance to save their reputation as a trusted source.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Boyce (Critical Thinker) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.122.69.20 (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Blah blah blah, all I'm reading is some anti-science nonsense unsupported by diffs or evidence to the contrary with regard to the articles. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

also for anyone reading, some context since we do not in fact have an article about "Brett Weinstein" but Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying, which is more than adequately sourced. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:36, 9 August 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.

Grant Guilford

I'm currently topic-banned from editing BLPs so I shouldn't do anything directly, but Grant Guilford, which has previously been targeted by socks (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kardon6/Archive), has been updated substantially in recent months by relatively new editors. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Mohammad Fahad al-Qahtani

The long-term imprisoned human rights activist Mohammad Fahad al-Qahtani has a namesake, Mohammad Fahad al-Qahtani (businessman). The namesake happens to have died live on camera on 8 August and have had the "honour" (or misfortune) of his death video circulated on social networks. Several Wikipedians (some apparently new - redlinked talk pages) zealously edited the human rights activist's page without bothering to read the page and wonder how a long-term imprisoned human rights activist suddenly became a rich businessman able to travel internationally (to Cairo). I suggest that BLP people keep an eye on Mohammad Fahad al-Qahtani, the primary page - the human rights activist.

I have no opinion about whether the businessman is worth a named page or a Saudi businessman whose death was filmed and circulated widely on social networks WP:BLP1E type page. Boud (talk) 10:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a sentence about his personal life or early upbringing (if RSourced) so that people understand he has a father or grandfather with the same name. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Dominick Fernow

Dominick Fernow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a single-purpose account (using the pseudonym of the BLP subject who's article they're editing) repeatedly adding BLP-violating material to the Dominick Fernow article based on a self-published expose of sorts published on Substack. I've tried to explain why we can't accept such material in the article, but the editor, Rainforestspiritualenslavement, continues to restore the contentious accusations despite discussion on the article talk page and on their talk page. While this information could be added to the article in some form if supported by reliable sources, the way it is being presented is not BLP compliant and their last attempt at wedge to content into the article suffers from original research and WP:SYNTH. Additional input would be appreciated. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Another problem is that Rainforestspiritualenslavement is one of Fernkw's stage names. That is an unacceptable username. Cullen328 (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

This looks pretty straightforward to myself, as others have discussed on the page "policies protecting living individuals does not allow for inclusion of such poorly-sourced content" and "All articles about people on Wikipedia MUST be notable, then multiple, WP:Reliable sources will be found, could be used. Until then, self-published claims cannot be used here." it looks like an consistent attempt at vandalism to me.Connorcp (talk) 10:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

i changed my username. the contents of the self-published article have been verified and re-reported by a mainstream music publication here:

https://thequietus.com/articles/30216-dominick-fernow-vatican-shadow-questions-raised-around-collaborators

Some wiki editors claim that the addendum to that article, which reads:

"tQ acknowledges that it has extensively covered Dominick Fernow's work in the past and not sufficiently raised or researched the above-mentioned issues. Our ongoing series of articles on the far-right in music will be continued this year."

indicates that the Quietus hasn't fact-checked this information. That is clearly an incorrect reading. That line refers to the Quietus's *previous* failure to do due diligence. I don't see any other good faith way to read it.

Further, the reporting on Substack led to Fernow being dropped by his booking agency, having interviews removed from websites, and having music websites publish statements distancing themselves from him. None of this information can be listed on his Wikipedia entry? I am just a music fan who think others deserve to have wide access to this information. As you can see on the Talk page for his entry, multiple others are also concerned about this situation. Even if the initial Substack post isn't a valid source for Wikipedia, I think it's irresponsible to disallow any information about this situation whatsoever. Is it enough to note that Fernow has released numerous recordings with this guy?

Clandestine Blaze#Ties to National Socialist black metal

https://www.discogs.com/release/693792-Grunt-Prurient-Split-C-40

https://www.discogs.com/master/44913-Nicole-12-Prurient-Love-And-Romance

https://www.discogs.com/release/9513847-Sadio-2-Prurient-BDSM-Atlantic-Partnership Nodumbdumbs (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

FYI Ponyo, I haven't looked at this deeply, but The Quietus is a reliable source. Black Kite (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I agree, but it's being used in conjunction with a number of unreliable sources along with a mix of original research. As I noted in my opening post, my concerns aren't that coverage of the controversy cannot appear in the article, it's the poor sourcing and original research that is being used by Rainforestspiritualenslavement (now renamed to Nodumbdumbs). I'm hoping that regulars here can offer input on the article talk page as to how the controversy should be covered in line with WP:RS and WP:DUE. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite. So let's just break this down and go piece by piece. The Quietus does indeed look like a reliable source, and their article is very well-written. However, they are only reporting on a blog and didn't confirm jack, so the first sentence of the disputed text is misleading and editorializing at best. From then on it's pure OR. We have nothing but primary sources and Wikipedia acting as the secondary-source investigative journalism. It's even written in a present perspective like a newspaper would.

On to the second sentence. Yet another example of why we should never use Twitter as a source. The third sentence is using the Wayback Machine to show the article was deleted in an attempt to prove the second sentence. Sentence 4 is the note a website published as proof they published it. Then, for the finale, we have the last sentence that says a booking agency "quietly" removed him from their listings, and we're using the agency's listings as proof he's not there. I mean, not to be rude, but... seriously? As a whole, it's best just to remove it altogether. If we want to add content from the one good RS, then we need to make sure we refrain from editorializing and keep NPOV in mind. Zaereth (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you're saying The Quietus "didn't confirm jack"? I'm not seeing the basis for that.

In any case, thank you for explaining. Per @Ponyo, is there some way to allude to this issue at all? Again, multiple people have raised it on the talk page. I don't see why a tweet isn't a valid source either. It seems like you're saying the only way any of this could be mentioned is if the New York Times does a full investigative report. Nodumbdumbs (talk) 05:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure. Just read the story. Nowhere in there do they say they've confirmed anything, nor do they imply it. In fact they, they do just the opposite. They are very careful to attribute everything to the blog, multiple times throughout the article. This is a newspaper's way of saying, "we're not taking any credit for this and we're keeping our asses covered". But to make this point even clearer, they go through the unnecessary step of adding a disclaimer at the bottom, to double-cover their butts. That's part of how you can tell they're reliable. This is simply a report about the blog, not an independent report on the subject, and we can't say nor imply otherwise.

By the way, I wouldn't say there is no way it can be included, but we need very good sources to make such claims. This is a case where a blog or tweet has been picked up by a reliable source, which kinda/sorta opens the door. However, there are a lot more hurdles to get over, which are found in WP:NPOV, including WP:BALANCE and WP:WEIGHT. I have a difficult time seeing this getting past all of those hurdles without more sourcing and independent reporting. Zaereth (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Romesh Wadhwani

Hi: The page about Romesh Wadhwani is extremely outdated. Can someone please update it? I work at one of Romesh's companies so cannot do it directly but I am sharing a few notes:

Romesh is the chairman and founder of three companies not listed: SAIGroup https://saigroup.ai/ SymphonyAI https://www.symphonyai.com/ ConcertAI https://www.concertai.com/

He founded STG but does not have an active role at the company today (2022). He left in 2017 to found SymphonyAI.

Romesh was awarded a Padma Shri honor by the government of India in 2020. This is not listed https://www.cgisf.gov.in/event_detail/?eventid=180#:~:text=Romesh%20Wadhwani%20was%20awarded%20Padma,through%20large%20scale%20job%20creation.

Here is his listing in Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/profile/romesh-t-wadhwani/?sh=6a07162c6ada

Some recent external coverage of Romesh, so you don't have to rely on press releases etc.

Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/amyfeldman/2022/01/11/tech-billionaire-romesh-wadhwani-replaces-himself-as-ceo-as-he-considers-taking-symphonyai-public/?sh=2fc52e886d9d

Forbes: https://www.forbesindia.com/article/2022-billionaires/romesh-wadhwani-building-up-and-giving-away/75819/1

Yamelin

Yamelin tanto dos año hombres la zona se de gira familia gira familia GE han dos no es incorrecto oído su del febrero varios han dos no es su por dos favor yo el o junto hasta de de rey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.176.126.121 (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I assume this might have something to do with Yamelin Ramírez, though there have been no recent content disputes at that article. General Ization ^Talk 22:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not fluent in Spanish, but this comes off as gibberish or patent nonsense. It just reads like a random string of words sewn together. Zaereth (talk) 00:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Per Google Translate, “Yamelin so much two years men the area is on family tour family tour GE have two is not wrong heard her from February several have two is not her for two please I him or together even from the king”. Makes perfect sense to me! Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Controversies surrounding Ezra Miller

• Ezra Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Controversies surrounding Ezra Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not sure how I feel about D'SuperHero's decision to split this article. Seems like if the legal issues section was growing too long, the solution is to condense it, especially given that no issue listed has (yet) resulted in a conviction. Either way, the content could use some attention, especially the "Harassment allegations" and "Vermont farm incidents" sections. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 13:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

We should never split out a controversy page for a BLP. I don't think the Miller page, with this content, is too long, but if anything should be split off, the -ographies are far more neutral and lesser detail content that can be split. --Masem (t) 13:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Concur with this. Split the -ographies, if anything. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that a separate article for controversies is unwise. Would this best be discussed via a merger proposal or AfD? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Pure WP:RECENTISM that can be condensed considerably. Trim the insipid quotes, needless detail, and newsy tone from both articles ("Miller is due to be arraigned in court" is basically "tune in next week to Wikipedia News Network, where we bring you the scoop the moment after someone else does!"). --Animalparty! (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I am afraid Controversies surrounding Ezra Miller will grow out of control. Once it is split into this article, every little incident can be stuffed in the controversies article. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

That is also a significant concern, as it throws off due weight when the topic is specifically controversies. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@D'SuperHero: Given the ongoing discussion on talk, and the developing situation requiring regular discussion, you really should have checked in on talk and sought consensus before doing this. I agree with the consensus here that this didn't need to be split off. I suggest it be reverted. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The POV Fork page should be merged back into the parent article and D'SuperHero should be attacked with moist tuna for creating it. We should not have pages like that about BLP subjects. I'm going to suggest using the JzG's Robert Hooke test. How long is the article about someone who really made a difference in the world (ie Mr Hooke). How long is this article even if the POV fork is merged back into the parent article? If it's longer than Hooke's article it probably has too much detail. Springee (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi team, first I know that Ezra Miller's issue is the talk of the town. I didn't meant to defame them but to talk about it, the page justifies that they are indeed charged with numerous cases and its not a made up thing. Also it is not made for forum or any sort of news article. As such, there are other pages which includes details of Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi where in detail its written how, when and why he was killed. Similarly in short, I am not denying any facts but this page is prone to several criticisms (which can be seen clearly). SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 14:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• As this was a bold split, per BRD and in light of the emerging consensus here I have merged it back. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Salman Rushdie stabbing

The police have released the name of the person suspected of stabbing Rushdie, and that name has been included in the article Stabbing of Salman Rushdie. I removed it per WP:SUSPECT as he hasnt even been charged yet, though its since been restored. Should it be included prior to a. being charge, b. being convicted? nableezy - 04:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Yet another nothing article that's basically regurgitating a news story. Why do we even have WP:NOTNEWS when people are so determined to turn Wikipedia into yet another news site? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

If you have a problem with it, then AfD it. WP:NOTFORUM. Love of Corey (talk) 04:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I am puzzled why someone would be concerned that an assassination attempt of such a high-profile writer, that's clearly going to remain notable for a very long time. One might argue that it should only be a subsection of Salman Rushdie rather than a separate article - but I don't understand the argument that this isn't significant. Why User:RadioKAOS do you not think this would be enduring? Nfitz (talk) 05:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The assassination attempt of this well-known public figure was witnessed by hundreds of people, the assassin was restrained by people at the scene and arrested. There are photos. There is zero doubt on who this person was. The assassin has also been named by the police, who have said he will be charged. Who knows how long that will take in a sparsely populated rural county. The name has been published around the world. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Clearly WP:SUSPECT doesn't apply, and we need to apply WP:COMMONSENSE Nfitz (talk) 05:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed Andre🚐 05:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Support inclusion of name. It's a highly-publicised case, and the suspect's name has been published around the world. Clearly, way beyond the caveats of WP:SUSPECT. WWGB (talk) 06:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree, the name should be included. There is doubt here, he was tackled to the ground by spectators who stopped the murderous attack. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 07:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I also support the inclusion of his name. There were literally hundreds of witnesses, there is no doubt. Chuckstablers (talk) 07:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I deeply disagree with the frequent misuse of the WP:NOTNEWS shortcut by editors who do not bother to quote the actual policy language. It starts out by saying after all Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events but none of the editors who link to it ever quote that language that begins that policy section. There is literally nothing in this content that violates the actual policy language. It just "violates" the faulty reading of editors who oppose the first sentence of the policy language that they so blithely provide a shortcut link to, and nothing in the actual policy language that follows supports their idiosyncratic reading that is contrary to the clear meaning of how the policy is written. So, RadioKAOS, please quote the actual policy language that you think this content fails. Cullen328 (talk) 08:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I dont think this fails NOTNEWS, maybe a little early to spin out from Rushdie's bio, but certainly justifiable as it will grow quite a bit. But I do think WP:SUSPECT clearly applies here, and I dont understand why it is being waved off. Youre supposed to be more cautious with the people you dislike, not less. nableezy - 12:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The thing is, right now, the details of the event in the stabbing article are so short that the event can be properly covered in the Rushdie article. We have too many editors rushing to create new articles on breaking news events without considering if NEVENT will actually be met (enduring coverage over time). Certainly, the news here is notable to include somewhere, but whether it is a "significant current event" in the long-run is yet clear. Eg, effectively what Nableezy is saying above. Masem (t) 13:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you are going to clearly have a separate article long-term, and this isnt based on NEVENT but rather on CSPLIT. Unless he dies, in which case there would likely be an article on that death, this is still going to be a couple of paragraphs in his bio. But the coverage of it will span his, hopefully obviously, recovery, then charging and trial and verdict of the suspect, then possibly any changes the venue makes in terms of security. Like eventually the amount of coverage that we can include about this is going to take up too much space in his biography so that it will need to be split out. But I dont think thats a BLP issue, and I am still interested in views on whether naming, and giving the detail we do besides the name, the suspect is acceptable per WP:SUSPECT. nableezy - 13:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

On the naming: WP:SUSPECT 100% applies (the attacker being a non-notable individual until this), so right now, naming him is not appropriate. Just because the media has freely used the name, we have a higher responsibility to not include names of those yet charged of crimes. Once they are charged then the name inclusion is reasonable. Masem (t) 13:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:SUSPECT - "editors must seriously consider not including material". So, a strong caution but not a rigid prohibition. IMO a guy seen stabbing a high-profile individual who has lived under threat of death by religious extremists for *checks notes* thirty-four years, witnessed by hundreds of onlookers, is an exception. When one ties to assassinate a public figure, one tends to lose their low-profile status. Zaathras (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Zaathras. There's plenty of support here to include the name despite the SUSPECT rule-of-thumb. Direct eyewitness evidence should probably be an exception for something like that. Andre🚐 14:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The eyewitnesses knew the name of the individual? No, all they know is that someone attacked Rushdie, but not his name. Masem (t) 14:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, obviously, but now moot as he's been charged. nableezy - 15:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Eyewitnesses saw someone per RS who was identified as someone per RS. Or are you casting doubt on the reliability of the reliable news media and reliable press with journalistic oversight and editorial integrity? Or is that editorial oversight and journalistic integrity? Sorry, it's early, I'm at the auto mechanic, haven't had my coffee and didn't sleep much last night. But the point I think I'm making I think is valid. What are you doubting here, or are we just rules-lawyering? Andre🚐 14:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

My point is that just because the event was widely eyewitness, eyewitnesses aren't going to know a previously unknown person's name. They can witness the event but the eyewitnesses are not the RS for the name - in this case, that came from the police as reported through RSes, but they have yet to charge him because the investigation is still ongoing. Masem (t) 15:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

On the general point, so what? The whole point of WP:SUSPECT is to not include potentially defamatory material on somebody who is not a public figure. If the police ended up charging somebody else, we would have had BLP violations in the history. Our policy says to be cautious, especially with unknown people. This isnt a breaking news website, our goal is encyclopedic, yes up to date but still not on the level of breathlessly repeating everything we find on CNN as BREAKING NEWS, coverage. And accurate coverage. As he's been charged its moot in this point, but on the general topic I agree with Masem (obviously as I raised this) that an unknown person should not be named in our encyclopedia article as being suspected of a serious crime on the basis of news reports saying that. nableezy - 15:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it depends on the context, the crime, and the amount of doubt involved. If it's something complex or something that relies on conflicting testimonies, or what have you, of course. Someone was accused of insider trading? Totally. The crime itself has to be proven on a technical basis. Political and controversial stuff that has differences of opinion and interpretation? Yeah. But again SUSPECT is a content guideline that advises editors to seriously consider not including material that would implicate non-public figures in crimes. I don't think we should apply that rule as a bright line when it comes to an incident where everyone saw a guy attack someone, and reliable sources are reporting who that person is. Charge or no, I think this is acceptable if there's very little doubt, and it's a clear-cut case of an obvious suspect, like a shooting where someone was apprehended at the scene. Andre🚐 15:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, I think our BLP policy largely exists to protect the people we dislike the most from our tendencies, and I think that the policy prescribes caution and not a rush to include material that has not been proven true about living people. nableezy - 16:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• It's all moot now that charges have been laid, but this isn't the first recent assassination attempt where the suspect was on video, witnessed by hundreds, and held at the scene. But not one person at Assassination of Shinzo Abe suggested censoring the suspect's name before they were charged. Nfitz (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

ahem, though maybe AGF yourself and not call it censorship. nableezy - 16:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

WP operates at a high moral point in regards to BLP than most RSes, and given that it was only going to be a matter of time before charges came, and there is no deadline, waiting was the right answer. Masem (t) 17:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, our high BLP standards are a key feature not a bug. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

And yet, not one person spoke up to raise the identical issue at Assassination of Shinzo Abe. Why are we using a different standard here? The police arrested the suspect literally red-handed - with Sir Salman Rushdie's on their hands. They named him, and announced that they'd be charged. To try and enforce non-existent rules, and violate a primary pillar of Wikipedia is wrong. Nfitz (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Its not a non-existent rule, and again people did raise it at the Shinzo Abe article. The standard, site wide, is WP:SUSPECT. That people editing these articles often ignore that standard is a problem, but not the problem youre claiming it to be. What primary pillar is being violated though? nableezy - 03:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

There are literally no firm rules here. To claim otherwise is a WP:5P5 violation. Please stop violating the central tenets of Wikipedia. Nfitz (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I dont know if youre being purposely obtuse here or not, but I did not say "firm", but yes some of the rules we have, particularly about living people, are considerably more firm than you imagine. See for example WP:BLPRESTORE which requires consensus before restoring material removed as a BLP violation (a rule you broke for the record). Or the opening paragraphs of WP:BLP which says that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Pretty firm of a rule. Yes, our policies evolve over time, and that is what it means by "firm" (which is obvious if you get past the section title, try that maybe?), but our BLP policy is something you may not simply wave away because you feel like it. That editors have done so in other articles is a cause for concern, not celebration. nableezy - 12:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how noting that something was censored User:Nableezy, could be uncivil. How was there no censoring of the subject's name? Our policy is generally to censor names of suspects until there's more than just an arrest. Obviously most of the censorship under this policy is agreement by all of us here; but it's still censored. I feel that you are implying there's a negative connotation to the word censor, which I don't see. Nfitz (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there is a negative connotation to that word. Nobody tried to remove the name because it was somehow objectionable or prurient or whatever. Declining to include material is not "censoring" it. Whatever though, not exactly an important discussion. nableezy - 03:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a negative connotation - censorship is standard and regular practice of every government in the world - and so it should be. Declining to include material isn't censorship, at least in this case. But this case was never about declining to provide material. It was provided, and you censored it. There is no negative connotation to that act of censorship. This is an important discussion - you made a false claim about an AGF violation, which was highly improbable. This is in fact an AGF violation in itself. Nfitz (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree with nableezy that calling it censorship is exceedingly unhelpful. If we want to have a useful discussion about this, people need to stop using offensive words. Even if you don't mean it to be offensive, it is, especially on Wikipedia given WP:NOTCENSORED as well as the long legacy of censorship in the world generally perceived negatively by many Wikipedians. And there is no reason to use the word, it's trivial to describe what happened without using such an offensive word. If you continue to use the word when you've been asked not to, then we can only assume you have no desire to discuss the actual issues and are instead just here to throw out ad homiens you've been explicitly asked not to use, so IMO we can safely ignore anything you say. This is intended to be a collobrative project, not a place editors can demand the right to use offensive words just because they say it isn't offensive. Nil Einne (talk) 08:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Photo deleted from biographical page

Hello. This question is related to the biographical page for C.E. Poverman. I am wondering why his photo was taken off his page. Thank you.

Hedman1, This one:[5]? WP:F4. WP (and Commons) are very careful about copyright. Since the subject is alive, in short we can have a photo if the copyright holder, usually the photographer, uploads it themself (correctly). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

IP editor claiming to be article subject

An IP editor, claiming to be the subject of the article Ryan Creamer ([6][7]), has removed sourced prose because I do not want my mommy to go on my Wikipedia and see that I called our family 'very very religious' please let this part fade away lol and Don't need to do me dirty saying im a LONGTIME PORN CONSUMER. Everything removed by the IP is cited to an interview with the article subject.

I tend towards adding & citing everything I think might be relevant, and then working with any editors who'll want to remove chaff. I think these facts are both interesting and relevant, especially considering the bulk of the article's topic. I've never encountered anybody claiming to be the actual biographee and requesting edits for their personal reasons, and I'm disinclined to effectively censor the article contrary to the subject's own words, regardless of whether IP is the subject or not.

I would appreciate some input regarding (a) the propriety of the prose removed by the IP editor, and (b) what to do about an IP claiming to be Creamer themselves. I was referred here by the BLP noticeboard, I've not edited the article since the IP made their claims, and I've already added {{connected contributor}} to the talk page. Thanks. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The content in question is sourced to a podcast by a comedian. Nothing that comedians say about themselves while performing should be regarded as true, and such podcasts are pretty much the opposite of reliable sources. I would not recommend reverting. Cullen328 (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The podcast isn't by the comedian, but it's by Pornhub, interviewing the comedian. Are all comedian interviews considered unreliable performances, in that case (I haven't written about comedy-writers before)? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure of the status of Pornhub or the podcast in particular, but comedians by their very nature need to be treated with caution. Always best to wait for secondary sources--and I think that is especially so here, where the content does not strike me as being of vital importance. I would advise erring on the side of caution. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

10-4, thanks. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Giacomo_Benedetto

I am the subject of this article. At the end of the article (right at the end, below the references), somebody has added information about my family members, including the names and ages of my children and of my brother's children who are under 18. I believe this violates child protection norms in most jurisdictions. Could someone please delete this section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:7635:F701:20ED:617:C258:2532 (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Clicking on "History", I see the change was done on 30 April 2022 from IP address 2a00:23c6:7626:f201:ede1:bcdf:68c:4e3c. The change can be reversed by clicking "undo". 2A00:23C6:7635:F701:20ED:617:C258:2532 (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the unreferenced personal family information per the WP:BLP policy. Cullen328 (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks. Much appreciated. 2A00:23C6:7635:F701:21F1:C8FB:AED6:C3B (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Eyes on Michael Knighton, former director Manchester United F.C. please

There are recent news reports that Michael Knighton who attempted to buy Manchester United F.C. back in 1989 is preparing to mount a hostile takeover bid from the Glazers, (see Glazer ownership of Manchester United).

This has led to some recent additions to Knighton's article. It has also led to some articles in UK press on Knighton himself which may be better / more accessible than the ones used to create the article in the first place.

I think the article would benefit from objective, non-sports fans who are used to writing blps knocking the article into shape. It is also worth skimming through some of the talk page disputes from 2013. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Donald Templer

Sort of an odd, quasi-BLP issue here: Donald Templer has been declared dead on Wikipedia since 2016. However, the alleged death was first alluded to by an IP address with no source. Court documents ostensibly verifying the death were added shortly after, however in 2016 it would have violated WP:BLPPRIMARY (there is no evidence in the primary document that the person mentioned is the same as the article subject). I have yet to find a reliable source that supports this person is dead. Can anyone find a decent source? I realize the person has been associated with the race and intelligence controversy and white nationalism, but do we relax our standards for such persons? --Animalparty! (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree a clearcut BLPPRIMARY violation and I've removed it. Until and unless an acceptable reliable source emerges which mentions his death, we shouldn't mention it. It wouldn't exactly be the first time when we have decent reason to believe a subject may be dead, but are not reporting it due to the absence of reliable sources. Nil Einne (talk) 07:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Montana Levi Blanco

I am the living person in this biography article. I need help to resolve removing or changing the photo. It is unclear to me if this article was created in bad faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persimmonsss (talk • contribs) 04:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Greetings and welcome to Wikipedia. The image is a screengrab from a Creative Commons licensed YouTube video available here. If there's a timecode for a screengrab you'd prefer from that video, someone may be willing to swap it out. Alternatively, you can upload an image yourself, but it needs to be properly licensed (see: WP:IUP#COPYRIGHT). --Jahaza (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Ping to @MoviesandTelevisionFan, who uploaded the current version. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Btw, I see no reason to believe that the article was created in bad faith, though the choice of image is slightly on the amusing side. If you want to have an influence on the WP-article about you, please take the time to read the guidance at WP:COI. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Desmond is Amazing, child drag performer

Seeking more views on this content. Ping to Thespearthrower. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Arsham Parsi

The article on Arsham Parsi contains a section on a lawsuit which, as far as I can tell, only has one secondary source, the rest being court documents (questionable as per WP:BLPPRIMARY) and SPS. Given the paucity of reliable sources here, it seems to me that this section should be reduced quite a bit. Any advice? --2003:E5:173E:D5FB:4159:D1E7:ECFD:C3AF (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Under the personal life section of Tommy Dorfman's wikipedia page, Tommy Dorfman it includes an addition at the end of the section that deliberately misgenders Tommy.