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.

Emily Austin (journalist)

I just created Emily Austin (journalist). The Emily Austin page redirects to Emily Austin Perry. There are no other Emily Austins here. Is it possible for someone to cancel the current redirect and instead place one so Emily Austin (journalist) redirects to Emily Austin. Apologies if this isn't the right page to post this. MaskedSinger (talk) 04:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@MaskedSinger, I found this at WP:RFD: "f you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. For non-controversial cases, place a technical request; if a discussion is required, then start a requested move."

It seems non-controversial to me, so I'd try that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

thank you! MaskedSinger (talk) 11:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion is closed. Is it possible for someone to archive the discussion so it doesn't clog up the talk page. Thank you. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Sinéad O'Connor date of death

Sinéad O'Connor's death was reported today (https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66318626 and dozens of other sources) but reliable sources at this time are not listing today (or any other day) as the date of death (e.g. from that source we have her death was announced on Wednesday evening). Lots of good faith editors have attempted to helpfully add 26 July into the article as her date of death. There's some concern that several of us who have been removing the date as unsourced are close to 3RR (I've reverted death date additions twice, for instance, and @MIDI stated on the talk page that they wouldn't make more reverts). While the BLP exemption to 3RR may apply here I thought it was worth bringing it up on this noticeboard since I never feel super comfortable going over 3RR one way or the other and I figure people who monitor BLPN would be able to help. Thanks! Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 23:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC) (edited 23:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC))

It looks like the BBC is heavenly leaning on the information from the RTE published here. Why do you doubt the date? The Banner talk 00:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Because even the RTE source doesn't outright say that she died on 26 July, just that the death was announced on that date. Within that ambiguity it is possible that O'Connor died on the 26th, and it's also possible she died one or more days earlier. Without a source that says something like "O'Connor died on 26 July 2023" we cannot either. All we can verifiably say right now is that the death was announced on that day. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

This is correct; sorry that my original post was confusing. The BBC, RTE, and other sources don't list a specific date of death right now, only that the death was announced today. Once reliable sources are reporting a specific date of death it should be included. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Sideswipe9th. An article about a recently deceased person still has to comport with WP:BLP: WP:RS only; no WP:OR, no false attribution of sources. No citing to a date of death that isn't reliably published. These will come in time. JFHJr (㊟) 02:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I think @Dylnuge: and I are probably in agreement on this; it's not necessarily a case of "what do we write?" (as Sideswipe9th says, we just need to say "X's death was announced on 1 January" or whatever). Instead, we need to see how best to deal with the good faith edits of others – those who do assume that the date of announcement is the same as the date of occurrence and in doing so violate WP:V. I held off reverting ad infinitum, because in my mind this wasn't exempt under WP:3RRBLP#7 as I couldn't really describe this as particularly contentious. That's the $64,000 question I suppose – are reverts like this exempt?

This is far from the first time this has all happened, and plenty of times the date of death turns out to be totally different. My essay is WP:MABEL. MIDI (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe full page protection with the date removed? I guess pages often are protected without regard to the WP:RIGHTVERSION? —DIYeditor (talk) 08:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

At the moment, there's no consistency in the way this is represented in the various places within the article. The article text correctly says no date of death has been announced but the infobox has the 26th, sourced to the BBC report which gives no date. What do we do regarding the infobox in these cases? Remove the death date altogether? I assume so, because anything else is WP:OR. Additionally, the lede says 'July 2023' and the short description just '2023'! Neiltonks (talk) 08:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Do we even know she was alive any time this year? This month? Why say anything, just leave it blank until we know something firm. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The Times is stating "Sinéad O’Connor, musician, was born on December 8, 1966. She died of undisclosed causes on July 26, 2023, aged 56" in their obituary. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the BBC is saying she was found unresponsive at 11.18am and pronounced dead at the scene [1], so the actual DOD is probably going not going to be pinpointed until the coroner's report, unless the police say something in a statement. Black Kite (talk) 11:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Police did say there was nothing suspicious about her death. [2] Masem (t) 13:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, though I don't see that makes a difference to the DOD. There's nothing there to say she didn't die the previous day, or even earlier. We simply don't know. Black Kite (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

That does make several sources (The Times, The Guardian, BBC) stating her date of death as July 26 (and none contradicting it) so I think it makes sense to include it in the article now.

I am curious (independently of this article) if others think that "pronounced dead on Date" should or should not be treated the same as "died on Date" in the absence of any other information. My gut assumption would have been yes, since I suspect that's the date that winds up on a death certificate and so on unless there's strong contradicting evidence, but it's true that it's not quite the same. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 14:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Pronounced dead is distinct from clinical death. Being "pronounced dead at the scene", as per BBC's current front page means that O'Connor was declared legally dead at 11:18 BST on 26 July, shortly after being discovered, however that's not a confirmation of when she clinically died. As before, there's no confirmation of when she actually died, which could have happened any time prior to being discovered. As such I would still err on the side of caution for now and say that she died in July 2023. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Definitely agree it's different, just wasn't sure if there was a standard around what "date of death" means in a Wikipedia article if a legal date of death is known and a medical one is unknown. I would have thought that in lieu of a distinct medical date it's reasonable to use a legal date that's reported in reliable sources.

I don't feel super strongly here. I can see the argument for removing the date and agree with your preference for being cautious and going for eventual correctness over immediate reporting. I'm not sure this is feasible from an editing perspective though, especially since there are multiple sources now (The Times, The Guardian, NME, probably more) that say "died on 26 July" with no distinction between legal and medical death; that seems to meet WP:V, even if all those sources might later update their stories with a clarification on clinical time of death. And even if the consensus is for excluding the date, it'd be extremely difficult to maintain that (short of full protection, which would be harmful in other ways since there's lots of editing going on), though that's a poor argument for inclusion. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 16:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

We certainly use "best known" dates of death, very often. Most subjects are not internationally famous, and the best source you ever get on when they died is when they were "found dead". Subjects who are either very famous or who died of highly predictable causes (e.g. a long illness) have certain medical dates of death, but this isn't true for almost all biographical subjects who die unpredictably or of undisclosed causes. Vaticidalprophet 16:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I remember an unexpectedly contentious dispute I had about this with another editor several years ago. It was on a page for an individual who was found dead at her home, though relatives mentioned to the press that she was thought to have died a few days prior. I wanted to use "c. Discovered Date", but the other editor was very insistent that only the date the subject was found and thus legally declared dead should be given in the article. Eventually there was a compromise in which we used legal death in the IB and such but included a footnote about the circumstances. As you point out, it would stand to reason that at least some discrepancy between biological and legal death is bound to happen for virtually any death that happens outside a medical setting, and it seems rare for any subsequent medical findings to be publicly released. But I also agree that since O'Connor was so famous, this may be an exception and additional information could very likely become part of the public domain.

I think the article has handled this ambiguity well so far if it wants to wait for these findings, and has fully explained the situation in the article text. Though I have edited on an article which handled it in a different way (but it was not anyone's first choice). Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Honestly at this point I am far less concerned with whether the article says "26 July 2023" or "July 2023" or "2023" or "found dead 26 July 2023" than I am with the edit warring happening between people who disagree on it. It's no longer a "simple" unsourced BLP issue. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 03:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I was only looking at the article as published and was unaware how much edit warring there has been on the matter. Though I'm not too surprised to learn this: it seems like one of those deceptively small decisions that balloons into a much bigger dispute among editors, because there often turn out to be many possible ways to address it. I initially thought there was a consensus in favor of switching it to "July 2023" for now and just explaining further where necessary. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Thankfully the edit warring has slowed down or stopped and it seems "July 2023" has been settled on for the moment, probably because A) there's now an RS saying "unknown" ([3]), and it's easier to point to a source than to argue a negative, and B) the page traffic has dropped a bit, so there are probably less editors doing a "drive by" fix of the date. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Repeat unsourced edits of "forced" disappearance on BLP Fu Xiaotian

The BLP Fu Xiaotian has been the subject of an editor's repeat unsourced edits characterizing Fu's disappearance as "forced." BLP requires "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard."

The editor has not provided any RS (or in fact any source at all), and appears to say that they will not be doing so ("I'm not debating this."). There is no attempt to satisfy WP:ONUS. Nor does any currently cited source describe Fu's disappearance as "forced."

I have removed the unsourced claim of "forced" three times within a 24 hour period, and do not wish to exceed 3RR or engage further with this editor.

However, unsourced contentious material is currently in the article (currently in form of the category, "enforced disappearances in China"). It really ought to be removed immediately.

And so I raise the issue here. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the (so far) unsupported category. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The sources cited certainly don't seem sufficient to support an assertion of 'forced disappearance'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the page the primary issue being raised is that some editors feel that you are hounding them. Is that not context you think its important to include in your summary of the situation? You appear to have cherrypicked which part of the dispute to bring here in such a way as to maximize your chances of obtaining a favorable outcome. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

This is WP:BLPN. Let's stick to looking at the disputed article content here - which isn't supported by the source and thus violates WP:BLP policy. Any claims of 'hounding' belong on WP:ANI, if anywhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is BLPN... When you bring an issue here you are expected to provide adequate context... JArthur1984 has not done that. This doesn't actually appear to be a BLP dispute at all, it appears to be a dick measuring contest. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Don't be absurd. An unsupported assertion of 'forced disappearance' of a living person is a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

It is, but the context of the violation is being misrepresented. It does in fact appear to be a multipage dick measuring contest which none of the editors involved should have indulged in. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell two people who used to be seen in public all the time have not been seen in public for a while. There seems to be a connection between the two. One user wants to say "forced disappearance" on both articles, the other "disappearance from public view". It is completely normal that someone who works on one article works on the other, too. Maybe there is more to this "hounding", but we'd need to see some evidence. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

It might be normal, but JArthur1984 doesn't mention a second article at all. I stand by my assertion that the selective disclosure of context by the OP was misleading. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#User:JArthur1984_Hounding. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Love it, apparently we're having a "who can provide context in the least helpful way" contest. I declare them both winners/losers! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Correct. We're supposed to keep the discussion here restricted to the content disagreement. Presumably so the discussions don't spiral as they have here. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@JArthur1984 your exact words here were "I also do not want to debate". Please don't quote other people in a way which appears to make them look bad when you can be quoted in the exact same manner. AlanS^talk 15:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to have created confusion. When I replied to that editor I should have put "debate" in scare quotes -- i.e., I did not want to argue. You can tell from the rest of edit that you have linked that I have always remained open to discussing sources and policies. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Conversation about the hounding started here. There are LOTS of sources saying Fu disappeared. Is ANYONE here willing to say that she may have disappeared by her own choice? I accept that using the term "Forced disappearance" may be an inference in the sense that it's not the exact language in the sources, but I don't think any reasonable person would say that an "unwilling disappearance" is meaningfully different from a forced one. NickCT (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Which sources say "unwilling disappearance"? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

In what way do you imagine this person "disappeared"? Do you think she disappeared by her own volition? NickCT (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't use my imagination, I use sources. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I imagine the Stasi would have liked you. But then, that's unsourced.... NickCT (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, they were big on sources. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Touché NickCT (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate you've got a valid opinion. But you got called by a WP:HOUND's howl. So I'm not sure your revert was valid. NickCT (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from with the social context being the PRC but I agree with Random et all that we do actually need something which says forced disappearance or uses disappeared as a verb. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

That's fine. And that's a valid opion. I opened up an RfC on this topic at Qin Gang. The problem is that a WP:HOUND poisoned the waters by bringing the conversation here in the first place. NickCT (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you should take a step back, the personal conflict between you and JArthur1984 is IMO getting in the way of building wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

He actually wasn't hounding me. He was hounding a differnet editor. Anyway, the proper place for this conversation is ANI. NickCT (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Looking for sources myself, I did a quick skim of "Fu Xiaotian has disappeared" and everything I can find is "rumor" and innuendo - and should we even be mentioning "there is a rumor this person had an affair?" - wouldn't that in and of itself be something to be a bit cautious about even if "the rumor" is sourced? Denaar (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

All this talk of "hounding" is not something of great relevance to BLPN. If editors feel there is something there that warrants attention, please take it to ANI not here. JArthur1984 was right to bring concerns here if they were being ignored in the article and talk page. It was not forum shopping and it was not wrong to not bother to mention irrelevant stuff like the "hounding" allegations. If we do not have sourcing that mention this being an enforced disappearance then we do not use the category. Editor's deciding that this fits their own definition of a "enforced disappearance" is not sufficient. If there is no category that fits, that's fine. We do not need a category for everything about a person. From my experience "enforced disappearance" is often something that is only really talked about when the person has "missing" for quite a long time, significantly more than the time period that has elapsed here. As our article enforced disappearance mentions, it also often means the person has been murdered. That may be a reason why sources are not yet talking about Fu's fate as a "forced disappearance", I don't know, ultimately it's not for us to decide why sources are doing what they are doing, but summarise what they say. Nil Einne (talk) 03:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

re "deciding that this fits their own definition of a "enforced disappearance" is not sufficient" - I think this is really the core isse. This is a debate about semantics. We all agree this person mysteriously vanished after falling out of favor with the Party in China. The only question is whether that's fairly described as a "forced disappearance". NickCT (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree to nothing of the sort, since I am not in the position to make any such judgement with any degree of confidence, and I don't believe any other contributor in this discussion is either. Not that it makes the slightest difference, since we don't base content on our coming to agreement over statements not supported by reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Correlation is not causation. Wikipedia is not here to document your guess of what happened. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Two people have stopped appearing in public in a country where people sometimes stop appearing from public because of forced disappearance. And we have an authoritarian, secretive and uncooperative regime acting in a secretive and uncooperative way. It's similar to the Covid origin argument "why would the Chinese government act like this if they had nothing to hide?" Well, that's just what the Chinese government does. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

It is at best original research to interpret a reliable source as saying something it doesn't say. There's no room for speculation or interpretation based on country conditions. In this case, I think more facts will come out in time. It can take longer than some prefer. JFHJr (㊟) 19:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Seeking help correcting page re Stan Rose

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.

---

• Stan Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stan Rose (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm the subject of this page: Stan Rose

There are two notices, and I believe both have been resolved or are no longer relevant, but have no idea how to get the notices removed. 1) "reads like an advertisement" - I don't believe this is the case. It follows the guidelines and reads similar to other biologist/entrepreneurs; 2) "lack of references"- there are many references cited. Thanks for your help reviewing the page and hopefully removing the tags Srose39 (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

That article has zero independent, in-depth sources. It should be put up for deletion. MrOllie (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Each statement in the page is referenced with a link to a published article, either from well-established independent sources or the URLs of well documented entities. If one is missing it can be added - or the statement deleted Srose39 (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The references are a collection of company statements and press releases, many of which don't mention the article subject at all. The article doesn't show that it meets either WP:GNG or WP:NPEOPLE. If this is the best sourcing available we're going to have to delete the article. MrOllie (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I have reviewed WP:GNG and WP:NPEOPLE. Over the next few days, asap, I will be replacing references that do not comply with those standards, as well as any content that does not. Kindly allow time to make the necessary updates so that the article does not need to be deleted 2601:18E:C101:1340:5166:970D:BDA1:4846 (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Mr. Rose, it would be helpful if you logged in before each post or edit. Keeping only one account is also the best practice for an inexperienced editor. If you forget a password, it can be recovered instead of making a new account or editing logged out. Also, you should stop editing the article about you. See WP:COI and WP:AUTO. Otherwise, more time would not bring your autobiography up to standards required by WP:BLP. Several editors are looking for good sources on your behalf in the deletion discussion, and are coming up empty handed. JFHJr (㊟) 20:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with this. As I just posted in reply to -- Random person no 362478479, I am new to this. I appreciate you pointing out these issues (logging in, COI, not editing). I hope the new references are helpful, as I was simply trying to assist in bringing this article into compliance - but others should handle. Going forward I will make suggestions here if I think they may be helpful, and not directly edit. Srose39 (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Srose39 Based on your username I assume you are the subject of the article. If that is the case you should also read these: WP:Conflict of interest, WP:Autobiography, WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and make sure to declare your conflict of interest (see: WP:DISCLOSE on how to do it). -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance. I am new to editing. I happened to read the article (which I did not create) and wondered why it was tagged. The first thing I did was to note that I am the subject of the article (see top of this thread). I now see there is a process WP:Conflict of interest, which recommends noting the COI in the Edit Summary. I have tried in good faith to be transparent and helpful, but now understand that other editors should handle this. There is another good source I found that may be useful, but will leave that to others: https://www.newspapers.com/image/529144177/?terms=%22Stanley%20Rose%22%20CEO%20&match=1

The Capital Times,

22 Apr 2004, Thu · Page 56-57 Srose39 (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The article was created by Pioneer28, who in their total of 55 edits only edited Stan Rose and no other Wikipedia articles. Are you Pioneer28 or know the person who operated that account? DeCausa (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

no, I'm a scientist and 3 time CEO who is widely known in my field (DNA analysis and genomics), saw the article was tagged, and naively tried to help improve it to be compliant. I now understand that proper procedure would have been to suggest changes here and allow editors to consider them, and appreciate everyone's help Srose39 (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Mr. Rose both states and insinuates not to have created the article under the User:Pioneer28 account ( "I'm new to this (...) have never sought personal publicity"; "I am new to this"; "I did not create (this)"). But Pioneer28 submitted a closeup image of Mr. Rose for the article, stating it was Pioneer's own work in the copyright info. Mr. Rose later updated the closeup as his very first edit. Pioneer28's edits end on 25 March 2022. User:Srose39 started 29 July 2023. Both are WP:SPAs. The likelihood they don't know each other is zero. The likelihood this is a new or different user is also close to that. JFHJr (㊟) 23:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I understand everyone is trying to be helpful, but I'm not that other user. The old photo you're referring to has been widely circulating for many years, and used in PR pieces by various companies. I did/do not own it. The picture I provided July 29 is one I do own and is more current (taken in 2022) Srose39 (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Pioneer28 claimed the copyright to that close up photo of you. According to its metadata, it was taken on 22 December 2008, Pioneer28 created your article 3 weeks later and uploaded the photo on 30 January 2009. It's highly unlikely that Pioneer28 simply scraped it from published sources just a month after it was taken. It's just as improbable that they, without any connection to you, decided to devote the entirety of their Wikipedia editing to your article. DeCausa (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The current version of User:Pioneer28, as in the identity of the editor, is just a wikilink to a redirect to the subject's article. I'm not sure how this doesn't also claim Pioneer28's identity as the subject, all edits considered. I plan on watching this space after the article is deleted. This promotional project started in 2009. It's quite long term. JFHJr (㊟) 03:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand your rationale, but I'm not that user, and never ran a "promotional project." Apparently my naive efforts to be helpful were ineffective. If the editors feel an article describing my work as a scientist/entrepreneur doesn't belong on wikipedia, that's beyond my control. Thank you for an informative experience regarding the nature of this site and how it is administered. Srose39 (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2023 (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.

Warren Forest

I'm having trouble getting a grasp on WP:BLP. An IP editor removed a woman's name[4] from Warren Forest. I reverted it[5], not seeing a problem with having the name. They reverted back[6] citing a letter from a prosecutor's office. I now think maybe it should be removed? And if we remove hers, should we remove the names of all the victims? I posted on the Teahouse about it[7] and a user suggested I post here. Thanks. Closhund/talk/ 07:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:NPF, WP:BLPNAME are policy. This did not require a prosecutor letter to stop inclusion. If the alleged victims are still alive, they should not be named.Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I'll scrub the article. Thanks. Closhund/talk/ 07:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Curtis Campbell

There is an IP user 163.182.198.137 claiming to be Curtis Campbell, editing his own page. He seems to be blanking information he does not want made public, like his former last name. T3h 1337 b0y 19:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any source saying that these two Curtises are the same person. It may be considered WP:BLUESKY territory, since they've both been credited with writing the same work, but there is room under strict WP:BLP strictures to make this article soley about Campbell and references using that name. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there should be RS acknowledging that the two are the same person before we start treating them that way. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Stacey Plaskett

Just wanted to get some extra eyes on this, since accusations of associations with Jeffrey Epstein are very serious. This article has been receiving increased politically-motivated vandalism lately. Recently, an IP added a section called "Ties to Jeffrey Epstein," which read to me as slanted because of the key details it left out and the unnecessary details included. It's not the first time this topic was inserted, but it was previously reverted outright. I didn't think it should be removed wholesale since this is a real issue that has received mainstream so I made an attempt to rewrite it in a more factual style. I am still not sure it even deserves a whole section header.

In addition to the Epstein-related edits, there were two other recent additions from IPs of negative material: [8] and [9]. These are still live in the article, and should also be checked out for WP:RS/WP:UNDUE. Dominic·t 04:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Lee Fang and Business Insider are not appropriate sources for this type of contentious material. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have removed most of the content related to Jeffrey Epstein as it was only sourced to Lee Fang's Substack i.e. an SPS; and Business Insider which isn't a great source so should not be used for contentious matters concerning a living person. It's possible better sources are out there on this material but someone needs to find them before adding the content. Nil Einne (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! We're on the same page, I just was less bold. :) The part you left in was what I had added with a RS to balance it out. Dominic·t 19:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Jim Goetz

First thing, I should disclose that I represent Mr. Goetz. And while I recognize WP:BLPEDIT permits direct editing to remove unsourced information, we still prefer to bring questions to the community and avoid making COI edits.

The issue in question is the infobox, which lists a spouse and children. No source has been provided. Even if one can be found, WP:BLPPRIVACY indicates that the "standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified". I believe the circumstances here warrant its removal.

Other than these infobox listings, the article is otherwise entirely focused on his business endeavors. WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE suggests to include "only material relevant to the person's notability" when the person is not well-known, and indeed Mr. Goetz generally keeps a WP:LOWPROFILE. He has not held a leadership role at his VC firm for several years, and grants few interviews. In fact, a columnist for the Missoulian of the same name has many more Google News hits.

For these reasons, I'm requesting an uninvolved editor to consider removing the mention of spouse and children from the infobox. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the unsourced spouse and children from the infobox. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I really appreciate it, thanks very much. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

And thank you for coming here exactly how you did. Too few do. I've watchlisted the article as I'm sure some others here have and will do. Again, thank you! JFHJr (㊟) 04:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi again ScottishFinnishRadish and JFHJr. A few days after our discussion, another editor, Edwardx, edited the page for the first time to add information about Mr. Goetz's marital status and number of children, which of course I had made the case for removing. I reached out to see if they would reconsider, although they declined, stating the material was properly sourced and uncontroversial. I understand this view, although my interpretation of BLP policy is that when family members are not public figures and they have no relation to the subject's Notability, the subject's wishes for privacy on these details should be observed. As always, I will not directly edit the article, but I hope I can contribute usefully to the matter in this thread. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Mini Ladd

Can I ask someone to review whether this very serious allegation is properly-sourced and if so how we should treat it within bounds of WP:UNDUE etc. [10] Thanks. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 10:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

It's possible there is some merit to include mention of the Twitch ban, but definitely not anything like that. It looks like an IP has removed it along with their earlier even more problematic change. Nil Einne (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Sattai Duraimurugan

Can someone please take a look at the mess that is Sattai Duraimurugan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and figure out what the heck to do with it? It isn't at all obvious that the individual (an Indian YouTuber) meets Wikipedia notability criteria, and even if he does, we certainly don't need the edit-warring that is going on, or an article containing badly-sourced and poorly-written content about 'charges' that seem not to have resulted in convictions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I've created an Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sattai Duraimurugan - SUN EYE 1 16:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I have reinstated the text about the legal issues since he is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and the AfD needs to consider the basis of his notability; that he keeps getting in trouble due to his political speech. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Those were WP:ROUTINE coverage and I would have added that in my Afd rationale if that section was not removed. - SUN EYE 1 20:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the AfD, multiple RS reporting of prosecution of political speech is not routine. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Greensboro Massacre

@Stix1776 and I are looking for someone to weigh in on a BLP issue in the Greensboro Massacre article.

In the lead, it currently states: "Again, all of the defendants were acquitted by a jury that accepted their claims of self-defense, despite reports of 'vivid newsreel film to the contrary'." This is sourced from a contemporary opinion piece published in the New York Times. In my view, this violates BLP:CRIME by qualifying and casting doubt on the acquittal (suggesting that a crime had indeed taken place despite the lack of conviction) without enough sourcing (one line in a single op-ed).

Stix disagreed based on the article not being a biography and questioning if BLP applies, suggesting that removing names of some of the shooters would nullify the need to remove the qualifying of the acquittal, and that the sourcing is adequate.

Currently looking for someone to give input on these points. KiharaNoukan (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Without offering an opinion on the content: WP:BLP is clear that it applies to all material about living people anywhere on Wikipedia. Assuming the people in question are identifiable and alive, the fact that the article is not a biography and/or does not name them does not mean BLP policy does not apply. (Also note that per WP:BDP, we presume that people are living and thus BLP applies unless they were born more than 115 years ago or their death is reported in a reliable source). Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Caeciliusinhorto about when BLP applies. As a practical counterpoint, this case doesn't come close to the likes of the Death of Caylee Anthony, where the mother was acquitted and the article is impossible without naming her. But here, I think not naming possibly living people does resolve the problem. BLP still applies even when people are unnamed. In this case, keeping names out while retaining reliable sources seems fine to me, absent identifying prose (that also can be removed). We don't have to repeat every detail even from good sources, and BLP means we remove names of individual acquitted defendants from a massacre unless the accused were already notable (see: Robert Blake (actor)). JFHJr (㊟) 00:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to KiharaNoukan for tagging me. I feel like removing the names from the article might be ideal, as it's not really adding any relevant information to the article, since they're not famous.

Sorry to be skeptical about this originally. I've personally never seen BLP applied to historical non-biographies, and I wanted some advice from people that specialized in this matter. I do appreciate the opinions of editors who volunteer on this noticeboard regularly.Stix1776 (talk) 09:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

For the point on names, as it has been mentioned, BLP applies while people involved are unnamed. From what I understand on JFHJr's post, we can retain the source and other info from the sources that provide names. I understand that point, and the article does rely heavily on the same sources that provide the names. That being said, the naming of individuals occurs outside of the quote in focus, in separate sections, and the source utilized is not the same one that provides us with the names of individuals involved. This is a general question for noticeboard contributors: Let's say the article strips out all mention of names. Would inclusion of skepticism on whether an acquittal was in the right, sourced from a single op-ed's objections to it, be in line with BLP guidelines, and if so, should that belong in the lead of an article? KiharaNoukan (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll speak only to this case. See CNN, Black Past, and Politico who all make a point to report the "all-white jury". Yes, this casts aspersions on the process and result. Rightfully. BLP means we also don't name the (some of the) same defendants who lost or settled civil suits including wrongful death. JFHJr (㊟) 21:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@JFHJrI agree, there are plenty of good sources that talk about the all-white jury. I have no issue with it and it's been well-sourced. However, I am referring to "vivid newsreel film to the contrary," which is sourced from a single line in a single op-ed. I would be very surprised if that is enough to go past BLPCRIME threshold for inclusion. KiharaNoukan (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with mentioning the newsreel footage. It's reasonably sourced. There's no reason to think it's not reliable because it's an op-ed. There are already correctly aspersions on the process and resulting acquittal. This source doesn't support a stand-alone criticism of the trial, just one line within a well established all-white jury context. The newsreel doesn't make me question the acquittal any more than the jury itself. Withholding names is enough for BLP concerns in this article. JFHJr (㊟) 21:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I triple checked sources on this and I was able to find mention of footage from a news piece that might work better than the op ed: NYT (News)

"It has attracted national attention in the four and a half years since the shootings, in part because videotapes of the event made by television news crews appear to show Klansmen and Nazi members methodically firing at Communist demonstrators and others on a Greensboro public street."

However, with relevance to the trial, non opinion RS still do not describe the footage as "contrary" to the defendants' claims or their acquittal in their own voice, instead opting to present POV of prosecutors, jurors, and defense. Example: Above mentioned NYT and Washington Post.

@Stix1776 As a compromise would it work to mention the footage in the context of attracting national attention in the article in lieu of "despite vivid newsreel film to the contrary" in the context of acquittal? Possible inclusion: "The incident generated national attention after video from TV news crews appeared to show Klansmen and Nazi members 'methodically firing' at marchers." This would better reflect how the footage is described by publications that mention it. KiharaNoukan (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

No particular source is required to establish that the acquittal verdict was contrary to and despite newsreel coverage. It just is. It's nice that the op-ed used the word "contrary" though. See WP:BLUE/WP:PEDANTRY. There's less of a BLP issue saying "contrary" than describing particular and detailed actions of the accused in the video as you have proposed. JFHJr (㊟) 23:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

This is hardly a WP:PEDANTRY issue if multiple RS refuse to describe the footage in that manner, and instead opt to give weight to the opposing POV.

From the Washington Post article:

"Indeed, the evidence -- from dramatic videotapes of the shootout filmed by TV crews at the scene and testimony from 132 witnesses, including FBI acoustics experts -- clearly showed that both sides were firing 'at each other,' said Lackey. He felt the defendants acted in self-defense." KiharaNoukan (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

However, more cites in the article to these sources would be awesome! No reason to jettison the op-ed though... a contentious claim like this should have more than one reference anyway. JFHJr (㊟) 23:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

In regards to the op-ed should keep WP:RSEDITORIAL in mind: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Tristario (talk) 07:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@User:Stix1776: Thus spake the current live version: "Applicability of the policy BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts." Amen. JFHJr (㊟) 22:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Tony Hinchcliffe

Hi, an ip hopping editor is edit warring to add unreferenced material to this article here and here.The youtube video they have linked does not include any rebuttal by Hinchcliffe and the accusation of racism at Pang is just the editor's own opinion in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Eduardo Vítor Rodrigues

This page has been vandalised consecutively. It is even currently blocked due to excessive vandalism. According to Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people, the information in articles cannot be supported by tabloids. All the information in this article is supported by tabloids. Furthermore, the content on this page only concerns court cases. This content is biased and, once again, goes against the policy on biographies of living persons, more specifically against the principle of impartiality. The content should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almeida Luísa (talk • contribs) 16:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Per the discussion at the Teahouse, [11] this relates to a biography on the Portuguese Wikipedia, and thus is out-of-scope for discussion here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Garrett Camp

Page: Garrett Camp, an early co-founder of Uber that was only involved in the early days

Content: A section called "Complaints by Uber Workers"

History: This section has been removed three times by editors. It is restored each time by @Chisme: in September 2019[12][13], October 2019[14], November 2020[15], and now in July 2023[16]. The section was deleted most recently by @Tristario: in response to my prior BLPN post. You can see Tristario's explanation regarding WP:GUILT here.

Context: I work for Mr. Camp. Chrisme says I am whitewashing the page but I have not edited it. I have disclosed my connection, expressed my concerns at BLPN, and proposed a less promotional rewrite here that has not been approved yet. The rewrite does not include Chrisme's section about criticisms from Uber workers because that section was not on the page at the time. I am not aware of any other criticisms the draft would remove that would give rise to an accusation of whitewashing.John Pinette (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your disclosure and restraint. I haven't checked out your proposed version. But I did combine the undue complaint section into the wealth section, since that's the actual topic. Certainly, a stand-alone complaint section is not merited in this biography. JFHJr (㊟) 22:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Chisme If you are going to edit the articles of biographies of living people, you need to make sure that your edits comply with WP:BLP and the other policies of wikipedia. This is something that has been repeatedly removed by other users. Instead of accusing other users of whitewashing, you should consider the concerns they raise seriously.

In this case, issues with your edit include WP:WEIGHT, WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:GUILT. This clearly doesn't deserve its own section per WP:WEIGHT, but I also don't think this even belongs in the biography per WP:GUILT since it's actually more about complaints about the conduct of uber than Garrett himself, and it doesn't meet WP:PUBLICFIGURE since this "allegation or incident" hasn't been reported by multiple sources. Tristario (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Garrett was criticised probably because he was still on the board of directors at that time. Protestors even camped out at his mansion so they blame him along with the other execs.[17] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

That's a separate protest isn't it? And it's just a brief line about people protesting at the homes of Uber investors. And neither article says he was on the board of directors or even give any specific allegations about the conduct of Camp himself (besides buying the house). This doesn't seem like biographical information to me. Maybe we could have a brief line about people protesting the wealth disparity, although that still somes somewhat trivial to me Tristario (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:GUILT is not applicable under a plain reading of WP:GUILT. There's no crime here. There's no third party either. On the other hand, I support Tristario's notion that less prose about the topic is merited in this biography. JFHJr (㊟) 23:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:GUILT does not specify crime, it just uses the terms "negative information" and "conduct", and the third party is Uber. I think the general guidance it's giving is applicable here because we're including complaints about Uber and implying they specifically apply to the conduct of Camp, when the source doesn't actually make such a specific allegation about the conduct of Camp himself.

But maybe the right move here is to just have a brief line about people protesting the wealth disparity? Thoughts on that? Tristario (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The (2019) record-breaking home purchase does seem noteworthy to me in due weight. I added a second ref about it from Forbes. WP:GUILT is still about third parties, as in guilt by association. It doesn't apply at all. JFHJr (㊟) 00:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

If we're saying "Uber does this bad conduct" without actually having a source that specifies what Camp's involvement in that bad conduct was, or even that he's still actively involved in Uber, I think that's guilt by association, and I think including that in a biography is questionable, especially based on a single source. I do think your edits are an improvement though. I agree including the home purchase is noteworthy. Tristario (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

...And I've pared the criticism down to half a line. How's it look to you? JFHJr (㊟) 00:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that seems to be fine Tristario (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Naw, it's basically still the same protest about the disparity between the driver's pay versus the wealth of the investors and founders. He was the chairman of the board of directors at the time of the protests[18] so I have no hand-wringing concern about an undue perspective of whether he was really "responsible" for what they are protesting against. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Well having a source that specifies that is an improvement. I think I'm fine with what's currently in the article but I do think we need to be careful with things like this, for the reasons I explained above. Tristario (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Morbid and Tristario: BLP-wise, how does the current revision of the article look to you? I've taken a scalpel to some parts and sutures to others. I didn't talkpage any, but I left edit summaries. I found the page had further problems. I think if we can form a consensus on the article as far as sourcing and weight, we can move on to other stuff. JFHJr (㊟) 05:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I noticed the article did have a fair bit of low quality sourcing so it is in need of a cleanup. Per WP:RSP#VentureBeat, VentureBeat seems to be a reliable source, though, so you could add that back in Tristario (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Done. JFHJr (㊟) 06:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Garret Camp's PR man complains and asks to have news reports about a protest by Uber drivers in front of his house removed from Wikipedia. There is obviously a conflict of interest here on the part of Camp's PR man. He should recuse himself from contributing to this article, as he quite plainly has a personal agenda here. It seems a compromise has been reached wherein the purchase is included in the article with the words "drawing criticism from Uber drivers struggling for improved wages and working conditions." So be it. I still maintain we should be careful not to allow Wikipedia to be a free PR platform. You may note the Garret Camp article at present includes all kind of falderal detail about Camp: the "50 Best Websites" list, the"50 Must-Have iPad Apps" list, ranked number 6 in Fast Company's Most Innovative Companies, etc. etc. etc. We even learn which actor portrayed him in the movie "Super Pumped." It seems to me several PR men have worked over this article in the previous years. As editors of Wikipedia, we should try to maintain high standards. Chisme (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out another instance of undue weight in this biography. I've addressed your valid concern by removing the prose and the references, plus another that didn't even mention the subject. The biography should not slide into a collection of non-noteworthy corporate detail. If the details belong anywhere, it's on the article for the company. JFHJr (㊟) 19:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

...about your other concerns:

1) User:John Pinette did an excellent job of disclosing his conflict of interest, and sought attention in the correct way. He never touched the article; he made a proposal; he responded to feedback; he sought help here. I can't speak for any other editors on the article. Please remember to assume good faith when you disagree.

2) A criticism section in this non-public figure's WP:BLP presents undue WP:WEIGHT; consensus here is half a line is okay. It's just not a big part of this human being's life, encyclopedically speaking. Its prose should be congruently small.

3) As long as they were reliable sources, no news reports were removed. In fact, there are now two references supporting the criticism you support.

4) The actor ref is solid, and the show is apparently notable. So it's noteworthy here, one line looks fine. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 20:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

So, the above points aside, and just considering the current state of the article, would you join a consensus that the WP:BLP policy-related issues have been addressed? And if there are remaining issues, what are they? JFHJr (㊟) 22:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks JFHJr for vacuuming some of the fluff out of the article. I appreciate the time you took to examine it. I have no issues as long as the protest by Uber drivers remains in the article. Yes, PR man John Pinette disclosed his conflict of interest. I was aware of that. Ny point was, because Pinette has a conflict of interest, his edits and proposed edits should be viewed skeptically. Chisme (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand and thank you. Please note, I haven't put any time into JP's proposed edits or asked him for any consensus or feedback on the BLP edits for the same reason. If his proposals make it into the article, they'll still need to be BLP compliant. I think you can let go of JP. He's not a disruptive editor. JFHJr (㊟) 22:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

It's important that biographies of living people on wikipedia comply with WP:BLP, and if another user raises concerns, whether they have a conflict of interest or not, you should seriously consider those conerns. If you haven't already, I would recommend reading through WP:BLP Tristario (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Killing of Sanda Dia

Requesting more eyes on this article as an IP is trying to add names of accused, but with sourcing problems and giving out more info that appears to be in the public domain. CT55555(talk) 21:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

List of conservative artists

There are some serious BLP violations on List of conservative artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) that I'm not sure how to fully address on the article's talk page. A glaring one is the inclusion of names, identifying them as conservative, without proper sourcing and/or with notes containing subjective explanations. It's also strange to see at least two registered users that only created accounts in the last few weeks heavily editing that article, which raises suspicions about socking. Please advise. Thank you. KyleJoan^talk 02:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Wow, there's a whole bunch of things going on there, none of which is good: entries which probably could be sourced but are not (e.g. there are surely plenty of sources discussing Walt Disney's politics); entries where there are sources but they don't necessarily support the inclusion in this list (Morrissey is famous for saying politically controversial things, but is it meaningful to call him a conservative? The sources cited don't!); entries based on original research (Roger Daltrey is included based on a source describing him as critical of the EU; Jeremy Corbyn would be very surprised to learn that being critical of the EU is a conservative position!); entries which are just highly questionable on their own merits (Dwayne Johnson appears to be included purely on the basis that he gave an apparently entirely apolitical speech at the 2000 RNC; he also appeared at the DNC in the same year and has since endorsed Obama and Biden for the presidency, so even if he did once hold conservative views it's not at all clear to me that he still does).

I suspect the issues with this article all boil down to the inclusion criteria, or lack thereof. The current inclusion criteria suggested by the lead seem to me to be completely meaningless: "artists who held politically traditional beliefs [or] were associated with conservative politics" suggests that any artist who has ever held conservative beliefs or been associated with conservative politics is eligible for inclusion, which isn't super useful. People's political views change, as does what is considered "conservative". Possibly a meaningful list of conservative artists could be made if there were strict criteria on inclusion and it was actively maintained by editors aware of the dangers of it becoming "list of people some random wikipedia editor thinks have conservative views", but this article is not it. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Without any specific sources for each entry that explicitly demonstrates that the bulk of the media considered the person a conservative artist, this list fails BLP. There is probably some relevance of a topic "Conservatism in the artistic field" or something like that, and where a few well-known examples could be mentioned, but a full list is hugely subjective and shouldn't exist on WP Masem (t) 12:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Bi-State League

The article Bi-State League lists the league's presidents. The name of one such president is Jake Wells, listed as league president in 1936. The name in this article is a hyperlink to an article about Wells (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jake_Wells), but that Jake Wells died in 1927. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.238.66 (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for pointing it out. Schazjmd (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Shrawan Kumar (geneticist)

This is about the Wikipedia page, Shrawan Kumar (geneticist), that was submitted in November 2022. The comments made by DoubleGrazing on July 23rd have left me feeling very disappointed and disagreed with. It's possible that they didn't have the opportunity to evaluate each line of the article and the scientific merit of all the references provided in this article. However, I totally agree with first (TheChunky) Wiki editor’s comment or rejection of the article on January 5th as he pointed out some peacock terms in the article and he had no issues about references. I greatly appreciate his comment and the article has been completely revised in line with his suggestions and submitted in March 2023. Although at that time – many pre-internet era references link was missing. I took great effort in finding those very valuable research papers (references from 21 to 38) and link of each published papers are provided. Wikipedia readers now can access all those papers just by click of a button.

Coming back to the issues raised by current Wiki editor/reviewer that “there is far too much unsupported content’ which is not true. On the contrary, I provided way more references of every topic mentioned in this article. If someone is reading first paragraph about Kumar’s research interest such as molecular genetics, forensic science, biological anthropology, and population genetics – there is no reference provided in the beginning of that section. However, the reference of molecular genetics research work is provided in the same section below (reference number 8 through 19). The reference of Forensic Science research work is provided from references 21 through 28. The reference of biological anthropology and population genetics is provided from references 29 through 35. The BOR gene discovery reference is provided from 1 through 11 and 17, 18 and 19. The reference of PKD gene discovery is provided from 12 through 16. Reference of Kumar’s personal theater work (picture link in Wikimedia Common) is provided, line 6, in the section Education and Early Life. Reference of Kumar’s current work and career pathways – online PDF link is provided in line 15 of the first paragraph of the article. His work on the Onge population; the link is provided from references 36-38 and picture file is in Wikimedia Common – line 6 in the section education and early life. Reference of his current work is provided, available online, line 15 of the first section. NIH funding information is provided as reference number 39. The reference for serving in the editorial board of South Asian Anthropologist is provided (copy of the picture -in Wikimedia Common), line 9, in the section research and career section. The human chromosome workshop reference link is provided from 40 through 42. Also, if you review the history of editing of this article when this was submitted in November last year, several Wikipedia editors made very constructive comments and researched internet and added references about Kumar’s NIH funding source and his human genome project research work. I did not have those references.

The other concern this Wiki editor had is that “do not pile all the citations at the end as it does not make clear which source supports”. Again, if you review the subject and source all the references are for the same subject. For example, line 11 in section Education and early life eight references (number 21 through 28) are provided after the word Forensic science. If you click on each reference all are related to forensic and serology work; similarly, it is true on the next line seven references are linked after word population genetics and all research papers are of population genetics. I can understand the confusion as it is rare to find the geneticist who had interests and research publications on so many different aspects of genetics. I tried my best to provide as many references as possible I can get for each subject for the benefit of the Wikipedia readers and fixed the concerns related to first rejection – now again- this appears unending process, therefore this request.

In summary, many Wikipedia editors have already edited and added some missing content and references to this article, when submitted in November, 2022, making constructive contributions. I am grateful to them. Unfortunately, I don’t have any more references to add. This article is already supported by extensive references compare to many biographical articles I see in Wikipedia. In terms of notability, the discovery of genes is very impressive and great contribution to genetics which will be great for Wikipedia readers. Based on the facts, provided here, I request to Wikipedia administrators to examine the article and make the necessary editing/changes if needed and move it to an appropriate place. I would also like to inform that recently I noticed this biography is available in many other wiki pages such as Wikitia etc. I did not submit this article anywhere in the world except in Wikipedia. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.94.102.4 (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I took a look, and there are many problems with this draft. First, the tone is all wrong for an encyclopedia article. It appears to be written by the subject or by someone very close to the subject, because there are many things in there that only the subject could possibly know. Things like "...he showed a keen interest in acting...", "...he was interested in medicine...", or "...continued his zeal to do research...". People don't write that way about other people, because it implies an ability to read his mind. (See: Third-person omniscient) That's how people tend to write about themselves.

There is far too much technical jargon, especially in the lede. Private individuals like spouses, parents, and children should not be named. Then there is quite a lot of WP:Puffery. But the biggest problem is that nearly all the sources are his own research papers. These are WP:Primary sources, whereas Wikipedia is a tertiary source, so we rely on WP:Secondary sources for our information, which are things like newspapers, books, and magazines. The question is not one of how many papers he has written, but how much attention has his work received from others outside his specialized field in the scientific community. That's what we mean by independent sources, that is, sources which are reporting on him but are not connected to him in any way. Those are the kinds of sources we need to determine notability.

Notability is not determined by how many papers someone has written, but by how much they got noticed and picked up by the media in general. That's not to say that his accomplishments are not noteworthy, but notability requires that people outside his field took notice and decided to write about him. Those are the kinds of sources we need, and without them, it is highly unlikely this draft will ever pass muster and make it on to mainspace. I hope that helps explain, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The relevant draft is Draft:Shrawan Kumar (geneticist), for easier reference. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)