Jump to content

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 202: Line 202:


:Your interpretation of policy seems entirely reasonable - I've removed the material concerned. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 22:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
:Your interpretation of policy seems entirely reasonable - I've removed the material concerned. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 22:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

== Oldest Published Author ==

Henry T, Bradford DOB 13 October 1930 has had several books published and another is about to be released he may not be as popular or sold as many books as Mr Mcewan but he is considerably older [[Special:Contributions/124.169.219.55|124.169.219.55]] ([[User talk:124.169.219.55|talk]]) 05:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:51, 7 September 2022

    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:




    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    Hi: The page about Romesh Wadhwani is extremely outdated.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

    James David Manning

    Relies heavily on YouTube and to a lesser extent Rawstory.com, an unreliable source.[1] Doug Weller talk 11:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you point out which citations? The early one discussing his trip to Africa seems self-serving. I also have some concerns about using his church as a source. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I also have some concerns about the weight of this section[2] since there is a standalone article on the church itself. I'm not sure what Manning's role is at the church beyond pastor. The article does not mention if he is the head of the church. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    What a seriously terrible article. I'm not defending the pastor or his views, but it's Like Wikipedians can't sleep well unless a bad guy is thoroughly called out as such, with every controversial utterance preserved (so that people can see how bad he is). Has he literally done nothing but criticize and be criticized? It makes Fred Phelps' article look like something out of Highlights for Children. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I reduced what I can by removing items cited to weaker sources as WP:UNDUE and extraneous detail about the church that is not about Manning. I am sure that there is more basic bio stuff in the stronger sources, but I don't have time to read them to supplement. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Kim Petras

    The article on Kim Petras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) includes her birth name at the top of the early life section (pedantically, this word "néé" is also misused here). This seems to be a blatant violation of MOS:DEADNAME, since she was not notable under that name. Argument that she was the youngest person to receive reassignment surgery does not seem relevant since she identified as Kim at the time. Discussion on the talk page has gone nowhere, as the page has been repeatedly reverted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.60.4.170 (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The immediate issue has already been corrected by User:Beccaynr. Unfortunately other than more vigilance, it doesn't look like this is something we can easily deal with. Ironically although the article is unprotected, both recent additions of the name seem to have been by editors who are extended confirmed so short of an edit filter or full protection, there's nothing we can do to stop these additions before they happen. Nil Einne (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added a hidden comment which I hope will reduce such additions [3] although I admit I'm not that hopeful going by the two recent ones. Nil Einne (talk) 12:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Kim Myers contains a date of birth based on "California Birth Index, 1905–1995. Center for Health Statistics, California Department of Health Services, Sacramento, California."

    I removed both the date and the citation, citing WP:BLPPRIMARY, which says, ""Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, ..." Another editor reverted the removal with the edit summary, "No good reason to remove perfectly fine sources".

    I posted a message on that editor's talk page explaining my reasoning that California Birth Index is a public document and therefore should not be used to support a date of birth, according to WP:BLPPRIMARY. The editor reverted again, with the edit summary "It is a perfectly fine source as several otherpage for people use the californi birth index as well."

    I don't want to get into an edit war, so I would appreciate clarification. Should California Birth Index (or any state's birth index) be used as a citation for birth date, full name, or other data in an article about a living person? Eddie Blick (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Absolutely not. You are right about BLPPRIMARY. Such a source should never be used. This is a very blatant violation of BLP and should be reverted immediately, on sight. Such a revert usually doesn't count as 3RR per WP:BLP3RR, because that is a pretty blatant violation. Also check out WP:BLPPRIVACY. For many people, birthdates are private, and we can't go around snooping through birth records, court documents, tax records, etc., trying to ferret out that info. We need a reliable source, but even that is not enough. For birthdates we need to find it published in multiple RSs; enough so that we can reasonably infer that the subject won't mind if we publish it too. If this source is being used for other people, it would be nice if the editor would tell us which articles, so we can go remove those too. Zaereth (talk) 03:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going through and reverting some of their previous additions using the index. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I just reverted the editor again but it might be good to have a few more eyes watching this article. If this persists we may need an admin to intervene. Zaereth (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Opened a sockpuppet report since they seem to be evading scrutiny.[4] Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    NB: These types of records are used far too often on Wikipedia, for living or dead people, to assert birthdates, death dates, family members, marriages, etc., often violating both WP:PRIMARY (asserting facts that have never been secondarily published) and WP:BLPPRIMARY. Too many people want to play armchair biographer and use Ancestry.com to write the definitive biography of someone who reliable sources haven't touched. Showbusiness biographies seem to be especially rife with such misuses of primary sources, which is even more problematic because it's common for showbusiness folks (historic and modern) to conceal or misrepresent their age. I spend quite a bit of time looking at FamilySearch records, and inferred birth dates for a single person might differ based on ages reported on censuses, marriage licenses, passport applications, and death certificates. Picking and choosing which primary source is "most correct" violates WP:OR. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Morbidthoughts, Zaereth, and Animalparty. I appreciate your feedback on this topic. I'm glad to know that other editors feel as strongly about this topic as I do. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there are a lot of people who feel this way, which is why we have so much of policy dedicated to it. This comes up here a lot, and, unfortunately, a lot of people don't seem to look at the bigger picture to see some of the ramifications of their edits. There's a small percentage of the population who are obsessed with birthdates, which goes far beyond just an interest in astrology or numerology. My sister is one of those. She talks incessantly about birthdates as if they have some sort of magical meaning, although hers is the result of a brain injury. Not that everyone obsessed with BDs is brain damaged, but she wasn't like that before which does suggest that there are certain areas of the temporal lobe and hippocampal complex that can produce heightened emotional responses to them. When you look at it logically, though, then it's easy to realize that BDs just statistical data; not much different from height, weight, or eye color. It's nice info to have --when we can get it-- but in most cases it's not necessary to define the subject and the article will read just the same without it. Zaereth (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    a lot of Cobretti1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s edits are adding birth dates based on public records via ancestry.com. also [5] is a list of BLPs thats mention california birth index and [6] is one for the texus birth index.Serprinss (talk) please ping on reply. 08:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Incredible. It will get only worse as Wikipedia gets larger, and people who care leave in disgust. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Hunter Biden laptop controversy

    I would appreciate input at Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy#RfC about ownership of the laptop. TFD (talk) 03:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Self-written bio

    The article for Christie Neptune appears to be written by the artist herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.75.249.152 (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmmm, if so, she should obviously declare a COI, but the article itself strikes me as pretty reasonable with good sourcing. I'll take a bit of a closer look. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC) ETA: on second look, I confess I am perplexed; can you explain why you think this? The history is somewhat dominated by one user, but I see no reason to assume that is the article subject?[reply]
    It looks like it was written by Citrivescence, a long term editor with 200+ article creations. Doesn't appear to be an autobiography. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did write it and I am not Christie Neptune. Citrivescence (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Birth dates?

    Do we have a policy on listing birth dates for living people? Given how useful birth dates are for identity theft, I think we should only list the year. Example: [7] --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:DOB covers it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Very helpful. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The Page "Kathe Perez"'s References fail to uphold Verifiability (One of Wikipedia's Core Content Policies)

    References: 2. and 4. "http://www.speechlanguagepractice.org/" - has no relevance to the cited area as they lack any information regarding Kathe Perez besides a link to 1. and are the same link 3. "http://www.katheperez.com/" - no longer have relevance to the cited area as it now redirects to "https://www.evaf.app/pages/resources" 6. "http://www.asha.org/Members/ASHA-Makes-a-Difference" - leads to a Page Not Found 7. "http://forum.beginninglifeforums.com/index.php/mv/tree/7247/ba3e1065afa5921135efcfa69870ae1d/" - leads to a CAPTCHA that when completed causes a Fatal Error for the website 8. and 9. "https://books.google.com-books-about-professional/" - leads to a Site Not Found and are the same link


    I don't know how to edit references, so I will leave this here. Sorry in advance. Sorry if this messes anything up on the page. I don't exactly know what I'm doing. I hope this page gets more reliable sources. Lots of Love my fellow Trans people! <3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.41.81 (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The refs are an absolute mess that's for sure. I've fixed the Google books refs although there's no preview for me so the Google books links aren't very useful. Nil Einne (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Article claims Emma Byrne is romantically involved with Vicky Losada, but the source for this is dubious. The source article presumes the nature of their relationship based on a single Twitter post by Vicky Losada about Emma Byrne, a post that fails to imply beyond all reasonable doubt that the two are in a relationship.

    This entry looks like a personal CV/resume. It needs to be moderated as it has a cut and paste feel from a self-endorsing site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:BCA2:A400:8D5B:5A0D:1DAC:A466 (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Went full wiki-squirrel and did some wiki-butchering and reduced it to the best cuts, with no processed meat. It wasn't actually a copyright violation (which was surprising given the tone of it). The picture may also vanish, as it (unlike the article) does seem to be a copyright violation. Can be closed off and archived now as the issue raised has been resolved. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Herschel Walker

    The biographical entry for Herschel Walker is being edited to include quotations on political positions which detract from the editorial neutrality of the entry. Based on Wikipedia's guidance for [and neutrality|Quotations and Neutrality], these quotations inject the entry with clear political bias. The quotations are identified by the editor or editors as "gaffes" in the introduction to the Political Positions section, and the secondary source references support this categorization. It is not neutral to include gaffe quotes under this section, particularly since most of the quotes do not actually present a clear policy position for Herschel Walker, but are merely confusing statements that are being paraphrased by the editor. The purpose appears to be embarrassment and to present Walker in a negative light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenstorm85 (talkcontribs)

    This isn't a BLP issue as Mr. Walker said these things. This should be discussed on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I added much of that content, which consists of verified direct quotations instead of paraphrasing. Cullen328 (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Quotations, even if verifiable, if misused can violate WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:NPOV (WP:PROPORTION, WP:IMPARTIAL), e.g. by over-emphasizing negative or controversial material. "But it's true" by itself is often insufficient for inclusion, per WP:ONUS, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, etc. Wikipedia articles on politicians tend to be dumpster fires. Less kindling, less gasoline, and less quotes are probably better choices for any article. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The numerous, numerous reliable sources that have covered Mr. Walker's more bizarre and outlandish claims put to rest any boilerplate reactions of NPOV, Impartialness, etc... Zaathras (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Image-use in article about the specific image against image-subject's wishes

    Advice wanted at Talk:Lenna#Use of the image in the article. DMacks (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Destiny (streamer)

    Over at Talk:Destiny_(streamer)#Edit_war, there has been an ongoing discussion about whether it is appropriate to include allegations from transgender streamer Keffals that Destiny collaborated with the stalking forum Kiwi Farms to harass her. The sourcing for this claim is in my opinion not strong. Outside input would be appreciated, thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Conrad Black

    I've created an RFC to discuss whether "fraudster" (or something similar like "convicted criminal") should be used to label Black in the first sentence. It's my contention that we shouldn't use labels like this in the first sentence unless the person is primarily known for their crime(s). I'm bringing it up here as it would be nice to have some general consensus on how to handle applying a criminal label to a biography in the first sentence; I found Talk:Martha_Stewart#"Convicted"_in_lead_-_NPOV?, and assume there are other similar consensuses. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Kiwi Farms

    A link to Kiwi Farms's domain name has been removed from its article because that site endangers people's lives. However, it has been added to the talk page of the article anyway (Talk:Kiwi Farms), by a user who originally wanted it in the article, as a comment. It should be removed from there. PBZE (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This is currently the subject on an ongoing RfC Talk:Kiwi_Farms#RfC_on_linking_to_Kiwi_Farms, so it's probably best if editors post their opinion there. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We link to Stormfront in its article, where murders have been planned and called for, and that has been retained after a challenge. Sorry, not exactly getting how Kiwi Farms is any different, could you explain further, I might get it if you elaborate? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to know, because, to quote Pontificalibus on Talk:Stormfront (website), Wikipedia is not censored. To have an article about a website without linking to that site would be absurd. If you have anything to challenge this, I would like a discussion on it. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that regardless of the result of whether the URL should be included or not (I don't have a strong opinion on the matter) that the result should be consistent with whether or not the Stormfront URL is included. The concerns about including the urls for both articles as you say are basically identical. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Are they though? I haven't yet !voted but a I'm leaning towards excluding Kiwifarms but am unconvinced the same for Stormfront or any of the other sites people have named. My impression from what I've is that Stormfront, VDARE, The Right Stuff are all general hate sites of various kinds. They spread general hate speech like how all non whites should be inferior, should be killed etc. I'm assuming they sometimes attack specific individuals but I suspect these are highly notable individuals. I'm sure Obama is disturbed by some of the crap Stormfront has about him and especially his daughters but even the latter is likely more of a general concern and external concern. I'm sure these websites sometimes attack non notable and barely notable living people but it doesn't seem to be their focus. By comparison, a big part of Kiwifarms purpose seems to be to mock and attack living people most of who seem to be non notable and barely notable living people. Indeed they were originally started to attack one such person and even named themselves after it. Kiwifarms has been linked to suicides because of this. A skim through the Stormfront discussion mentions their use to organise hate crimes including murders (edit: just noticed this as also mentioned above) which is concerning but I don't consider in the same vein. Nil Einne (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having a link to this kiwi farms site does not add to or subtract from the danger of the content found there, let's not pretend that an incoming link from the Wikipedia actually matters one way or another. IMO the only time an outgoing link should be censored is if direct harm could come to the reader, e.g. malware at the URL, or something grossly obscene like Goatse. Zaathras (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      External links in Wikipedia infoboxes do matter, as they usually end up in the first page of search results and the Google knowledge panel. In that regard, there's a parallel discussion on Wikidata regarding whether the link should be removed from there as well. Funcrunch (talk) 03:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we to assume the people (or algorithms) who maintain Google knowledge panels have no agency of their own, cannot edit high profile searches as seen fit, and are at the sole mercy of Wikipedia/Wikidata? Clearly this is not true because entities with neither Wikipedia articles nor Wikidata items can have knowledge panels. And if they are mindlessly suckling the data teats of Wiki with no filters in place, shame on them. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your colorful hyperbole aside, according to the Google Knowledge Graph entry I previously linked to (and I did check the source on this), "There is no official documentation of how the Google Knowledge Graph is implemented." Funcrunch (talk) 06:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per the principle of WP:NOTCENSORED, we should not simply be removing links because the websites they go to are distasteful, when he have an article on said website. The activity of Kiwi Farms users may be harmful, but the website itself will not kill you. Harm being caused to you requires more than simply opening the website. Facebook and Twitter can be harmful too. I think the only instance where it would be appropriate to wholly remove a link is if it is to a website has malware upon being opened or something extreme like child porn (which both cause direct harm upon being opened, regardless of the user interaction with the users of the site). -Indy beetle (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Sasha Roseneil

    Hi,

    Can we change her current occupation from 'Executive Dean of Social & Historical Sciences Professor of Interdisciplinary Social Science' to 'Vice Chancellor of the University of Sussex' please?

    She came into post at the start of August 2022

    Many thanks, Charlie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie Littlejones (talkcontribs) 09:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    2022 pregnancy of a 10-year-old in Ohio

    Should the name of the suspect be listed at 2022 pregnancy of a 10-year-old in Ohio? I have asked to have it removed, but with no success. Please {{ping}} me when you respond. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jax 0677: I am assuming we are talking the suspect accused of raping her (there's a lot of possible victims in that story depending on angle). I would tend to agree that that suspect need not be named even though his name is widely available in many news reports, he's not a public figure and in terms of the narrative for this event, it just needs to be said the suspected rapist was caught and thus validated the story after some tried to whitewash it away. --Masem (t) 12:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked here and at WP:AN for the edits to be permanently removed, but to no avail. -- Jax 0677 (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Holy shit, that is the worst infobox I've seen on Wikipedia. Event type pregnancy, participants... Jesus Christ. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CIVIL Jax 0677 (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize to the infobox which I commented on, and to the 10 year old girl who was listed as a participant in her own rape. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any article talk page discussion about this. Am I missing it? I'd like to respond there. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The info is still in the page history. -- Jax 0677 (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Jax, Wikipedia:Requests for oversight may get you faster results than anything else you have tried. Include diffs with the request so they can find what diffs contain the offending information. --Jayron32 13:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd redact this here and now but I can't see where the suspect is named, so I'm not sure what to do, other than WP:G6 the entire article and just leave the last version. Actually, I think I've managed to redact the requested information, citing WP:BLP. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The birth date listed in the sidebar is incorrect. It is April 10, 1985, which is correct in the rest of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:6a40:3ecb:10b8:3138:8fbc:e653 (talk)

    Are there reliable sources that confirm her birthdate to put it in the article? If not, they should be removed per WP:DOB. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Brian Stafford (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


    Hi, noticeboard editors! I am Julia and I work at Diligent Corporation. Due to my COI, I posted a request for editor assistance at Talk:Brian_Stafford_(businessman)#BLP_concerns. I question whether recent edits to the Personal life section are problematic based on WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPPRIMARY. More info is available on the article Talk page. I appreciate your expertise in this matter. JHDiligent (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Your interpretation of policy seems entirely reasonable - I've removed the material concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Oldest Published Author

    Henry T, Bradford DOB 13 October 1930 has had several books published and another is about to be released he may not be as popular or sold as many books as Mr Mcewan but he is considerably older 124.169.219.55 (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]